what is the alternative Interface for TelemetryClient() in Microsoft.ApplicationInsights? Looks TelemetryClient() is obsolute now.
Related
I need an io.Writer for a function. I don't know how to get one from a file...
I know interface are implicit so it complicated the search...
Look at the os.File documentation: it has a func (*File) Write method, which means it is a Writer.
You can use the command guru to list all types implementing an interface.
Notably, the implements query:
The implements query shows interfaces that are implemented by the selected type and, if the selected type is itself an interface, the set of concrete types that implement it.
An implements query on a value reports the same information about the expression’s type.
An implements query on a method shows the set of abstract or concrete methods that are related to it
If I don't know there exists an interface or method in Java and I have to write one by my own.
How can I avoid this? (It takes much more time to write a method by myself.) How can I find a method which I even don't know the name of it?
Q: Are you worried that you might create an interface or method with a duplicate name?
If so, the answer is to use "packages"
EXAMPLE:
package com.mypackage;
interface myInterface {
public void myMethod ();
}
Here is a good tutorial:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/package/packages.html
Where should I write phpDoc? Upon interface in interface file or upon class that implements the interface?
I am a bit sad that I can't write return types and types of params before param in methods. In PHP I have to do that in phpDoc, but where should I write this?
I would write the docblock in the interface. If there is something specific for some class, you could write docblock for it.
You can specify argument types, see http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.typehinting.php
I'm learning MVP patter. In some examples, I saw this! Any one could demonstrate why programmers use this name convention?
Usually I is there to indicate an Interface. Without the I is it a class. Personally I am not a fan of this. I think it is more common in dot net. I havent seen it too much in Java
Reasons why I dislike:
IDEs now show icons that indicate whether a class is an interface or not.
If I want to change the interface to an abstract class I then have to rename the class
It hurts readability.
'I' stands for interface. It's a common naming convention to distinguish interfaces from classes / structures.
Interfaces are not classes - they define behaviour and classes provide implementation.
Read this article on MSDN for more info: Choosing Between Classes and Interfaces
An interface defines the signatures for a set of members that
implementers must provide. Interfaces cannot provide implementation
details for the members. For example, the ICollection interface
defines members related to working with collections. Every class that
implements the interface must supply the implementation details for
theses members. Classes can implement multiple interfaces.
It is an artifact from age when Hungarian notation was thought to be a good idea. It lets the user know that the name is for an interface.
Also, it is an extremely stupid practice.
Name of the interface should reflect what sort of contract between classes it signifies. It should not tell you to which class it has been tied to.
It should be class PDF extends Document implements Printable because it lets you know that class implements print() method for some reason (in a real world it would be actually a bad API design, but this is an example) instead of class PDF extends Document implements IDocument .. because this tell you nothing.
In Spring MVC, one can define interceptors that can perform work before and after a particular controller is invoked. This can be used, for example, to do logging, authentication etc.
The programmer who wishes to write a custom interceptor is supposed to implement the HandlerInterceptor interface. To aid this task, the HandlerInterceptorAdaptor abstract base class has been provided, which provides default implementations of all the methods specified in the interface. So, if just wants to do some pre processing, one can just extend HandlerInterceptorAdaptor and #Override public boolean preHandle(...), and not worry about implementing the postHandle function.
My doubt concerns the name. From what I understand of the Adapter pattern, it adapts syntactic impedance mismatches between interfaces.
Is that so? If yes, should the class providing the boilerplate implementations be called HandlerInterceptorDefaultImpl, or something along those lines?
Is there a different nomenclature/pattern for what is happening here?
Is the fact that we need a boilerplate class a code smell, and could be removed by refactoring the HandlerInterceptor interface into two: HandlerPreInterceptor and HandlerPostInterceptor? Or is that overkill?
From GOF book about the Adapter pattern:
Adapters vary in the amount of work they do to adapt Adaptee to the Target Interface. There is a spectrum of possible work, from simple interface conversion-for example,changing the names of operations-to supporting an entirely different set of operations. The amount of work Adapter does depends on how similar the Target interface is to Adaptee's.
The boilerplate class that you are referring to is called skeletal implementation class. This is mentioned in Effective Java by Joshua Bloch. From the book:
You can combine the virtues of interfaces and abstract classes by providing an abstract skeletal implementation class to go with each nontrivial interface that you export. The interface still defines the type, but the skeletal implementation takes all of the work out of implementing it.
By convention, skeletal implementations are called AbstractInterface, where Interface is the name of the interface they implement. For example, the Collections Framework provides a skeletal implementation to go along with each main collection interface: AbstractCollection, AbstractSet, AbstractList, and
AbstractMap. Arguably it would have made sense to call them SkeletalCollection, SkeletalSet, SkeletalList, and SkeletalMap, but the Abstract convention is now firmly established.