I've created a test plugin as a science project to try and determine if 2 of the same event are called at the same time, which will be executed first.
public class TestPlugin extends JavaPlugin implements Listener {
public void onEnable() {
Bukkit.getPluginManager().registerEvents(this, this);
}
#EventHandler(priority = EventPriority.HIGHEST)
public void event1(PlayerInteractEvent e) {
System.out.println("event 1");
}
#EventHandler(priority = EventPriority.HIGHEST)
public void event2(PlayerInteractEvent e) {
System.out.println("event 2");
}
}
the output that the plugin produced are
[17:01:51 INFO]: event 2
[17:01:51 INFO]: event 1
if event1 is listed first in the class file, why is it that event2 is fired first?
This is very hard to determine. Since registerEvents leads to the function createRegisteredListeners of https://github.com/Bukkit/Bukkit/blob/master/src/main/java/org/bukkit/plugin/java/JavaPluginLoader.java
In there they use a HashSet to store the Methods of your Listener-class. So it is the pseudo random hash they give each method to store it that determines which event gets registered first.
I'm not sure but I guess that each and every time you register the events it's kind of random which gets registered first. This is why you should use different eventPriorities in order to determine which is called first.
If you really want to get deeper you have to tear apart the function createRegisteredListeners of the github-link I posted earlier in this reply. But I guess it woll never be totally certain because of the HashSet used in line 235 of the JavaPluginLoader.java:
methods = new HashSet<Method>(publicMethods.length, Float.MAX_VALUE);
As Methods are added to the set it never is certain in which position in the RAM they end up.
I hope I could help you with this post even though it doesn't really answer your original question.
Related
This seems to be a problem that comes up a lot. I've been coming up with the same solution nearly every time but was curious if people have a better method of accomplishing this.
I have one class that is a list of instances of another class. The state of the parent class is dependent upon state of ALL the children
As an example. Say I have the following classes
class Box
{
int _objectId= <insert_unique_id>;
int _itemCount = 0;
public void AddItem()
{
_itemCount = Max(_itemCount + 1, 5);
}
public int GetId()
{
return _objectId;
}
public bool IsFull()
{
return _itemCount == 5
}
}
class BiggerBox
{
Map<int, Box> _boxes;
public void AddToBox(int id)
{
_boxes[id].AddItem();
}
public bool IsFull()
{
foreach(var box in _boxes.Values)
if(!box.IsFull())
return false;
return true;
}
}
All additions to a "Box" are done via the BiggerBox.AddToBox call. What I would like to do is be able to determine box.IsFull() without iterating over every single item every time we add an element.
Typically i accomplish this by keeping a SET or a separate collection of what items are full.
Curious, has anyone come up to an ingenious solution to this or is the simple answer that there is no other way?
There are two things you need to do in order to accomplish what you want:
Be able to control every entrypoint to your collection
React to changes to the objects in the collection
For instance, if the objects in the collection are mutable (meaning, they can change after being added to your collection) you need your main object to react to that change.
As you say, you could create a separate set of the objects that are full, but if the objects can change afterwards, when they change you either need to take them out of that set, or add them to it.
This means that in order for you to optimize this, you need some way to observe the changes to the underlying objects, for instance if they implement INotifyPropertyChanged or similar.
If the objects cannot change after being added to your main object, or you don't really care if they do, you just need to control every entrypoint, meaning that you basically need to add the necessary checks to your AddItem method.
For your particular types I would implement an event on the Box class so that when it is full, it fires the event. Your BiggerBox class would then hook into this event in order to observe when an underlying box becomes full.
You can upkeep the number of complete (or non-complete) boxes in BiggerBox class, and update it in all the functions.
E.g., in AddToBox it could be:
bool wasFull = _boxes[id].IsFull;
_boxes[id].AddItem();
if (!wasFull && _boxes[id].IsFull) // After this update box has become full.
completeBoxes += 1;
It is also possible to implement this upkeep procedure in other hypothetical functions (like RemoveFromBox, AddBox, RemoveBox, etc.)
I have combed through SO, and have found many questions on the topic of my problem but do not answer it.
I am setting up an MVC, I have set up things correctly to best of my knowledge but I cannot get the Controller to show in my view. I am working on an assignment that essentially is a program for a Video Rental Store.
First, In a class called RentalStoreGUI, I set up my panels and everything looks good when I run.
RentalStoreEngine model = new RentalStoreEngine();
JList<DVD> list = new JList<DVD>();
list.setModel(model);
list.setSelectionMode(ListSelectionModel.SINGLE_SELECTION);
list.setVisible(true);
list.setSelectedIndex(0);
jScrollPane = new JScrollPane(list);
add(jScrollPane, BorderLayout.CENTER);
add(buttonPanel, BorderLayout.SOUTH);
As you can see I set my model for the list based on another class called RentalStoreEngine() and it implements AbstractListModel. The Abstract List model is functioning when I do class specific testing and all of the necessary methods are implemented. Here is an example of my add method from that class:
public void add(DVD d){
if (d != null){
rentals.add(d);//rentals is an arrayList<DVD> instantiated earlier
fireIntervalAdded(this, rentals.size() - 1, rentals.size() - 1);
}
}
Here is the actionPerformed method, it runs DVD_Dialog which simply gets some input from the user and creates a new DVD object from that.
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent event) {
if(event.getSource() == rentDVD){
DVD_Dialog = new RentDVDDialog(this, null);
DVD_Dialog.clear();
DVD_Dialog.setVisible(true);
dvd = new DVD(DVD_Dialog.getTitleText(),DVD_Dialog.getRenterText(),
DVD_Dialog.getRentedOnText(), DVD_Dialog.getDueBackText());
if(DVD_Dialog.closeStatus() == true){
model.add(dvd);
}
}
Eclipse gives me no errors, until I run it. I then receive a nullPointerException at the line model.add(dvd); Based on all my research the list.setModel(model) and the fireIntervalAdded method line should update the Jlist on its own. But it does not. And as I said, class specific testing for both the GUI and the Model are producing the desired results, but when it comes to integrating them I am at a loss.
I've only began with DDD and currently trying to grasp the ways to do different things with it. I'm trying to design it using asynchronous events (no event-sourcing yet) with CQRS. Currently I'm stuck with validation of commands. I've read this question: Validation in a Domain Driven Design , however, none of the answers seem to cover complex validation across different aggregate roots.
Let's say I have these aggregate roots:
Client - contains list of enabled services, each service can have a value-object list of discounts and their validity.
DiscountOrder - an order to enable more discounts on some of the services of given client, contains order items with discount configuration.
BillCycle - each period when bills are generated is described by own billcycle.
Here's the usecase:
Discount order can be submitted. Each new discount period in discount order should not overlap with any of BillCycles. No two discounts of same type can be active at the same time on one service.
Basically, using Hibernate in CRUD style, this would look something similar to (java code, but question is language-agnostic):
public class DiscountProcessor {
...
#Transactional
public void processOrder(long orderId) {
DiscOrder order = orderDao.get(orderId);
BillCycle[] cycles = billCycleDao.getAll();
for (OrderItem item : order.getItems()) {
//Validate billcycle overlapping
for (BillCycle cycle : cycles) {
if (periodsOverlap(cycle.getPeriod(), item.getPeriod())) {
throw new PeriodsOverlapWithBillCycle(...);
}
}
//Validate discount overlapping
for (Discount d : item.getForService().getDiscounts()) {
if (d.getType() == item.getType() && periodsOverlap(d.getPeriod(), item.getPeriod())) {
throw new PeriodsOverlapWithOtherItems(...);
}
}
//Maybe some other validations in future or stuff
...
}
createDiscountsForOrder(order);
}
}
Now here are my thoughts on implementation:
Basically, the order can be in three states: "DRAFT", "VALIDATED" and "INVALID". "DRAFT" state can contain any kind of invalid data, "VALIDATED" state should only contain valid data, "INVALID" should contain invalid data.
Therefore, there should be a method which tries to switch the state of the order, let's call it order.validate(...). The method will perform validations required for shift of state (DRAFT -> VALIDATED or DRAFT -> INVALID) and if successful - change the state and transmit a OrderValidated or OrderInvalidated events.
Now, what I'm struggling with, is the signature of said order.validate(...) method. To validate the order, it requires several other aggregates, namely BillCycle and Client. I can see these solutions:
Put those aggregates directly into the validate method, like
order.validateWith(client, cycles) or order.validate(new
OrderValidationData(client, cycles)). However, this seems a bit
hackish.
Extract the required information from client and cycle
into some kind of intermediate validation data object. Something like
order.validate(new OrderValidationData(client.getDiscountInfos(),
getListOfPeriods(cycles)).
Do validation in a separate service
method which can do whatever it wants with whatever aggregates it
wants (basically similar to CRUD example above). However, this seems
far from DDD, as method order.validate() will become a dummy state
setter, and calling this method will make it possible to bring an
order unintuitively into an corrupted state (status = "valid" but
contains invalid data because nobody bothered to call validation
service).
What is the proper way to do it, and could it be that my whole thought process is wrong?
Thanks in advance.
What about introducing a delegate object to manipulate Order, Client, BillCycle?
class OrderingService {
#Injected private ClientRepository clientRepository;
#Injected private BillingRepository billRepository;
Specification<Order> validSpec() {
return new ValidOrderSpec(clientRepository, billRepository);
}
}
class ValidOrderSpec implements Specification<Order> {
#Override public boolean isSatisfied(Order order) {
Client client = clientRepository.findBy(order.getClientId());
BillCycle[] billCycles = billRepository.findAll();
// validate here
}
}
class Order {
void validate(ValidOrderSpecification<Order> spec) {
if (spec.isSatisfiedBy(this) {
validated();
} else {
invalidated();
}
}
}
The pros and cons of your three solutions, from my perspective:
order.validateWith(client, cycles)
It is easy to test the validation with order.
#file: OrderUnitTest
#Test public void should_change_to_valid_when_xxxx() {
Client client = new ClientFixture()...build()
BillCycle[] cycles = new BillCycleFixture()...build()
Order order = new OrderFixture()...build();
subject.validateWith(client, cycles);
assertThat(order.getStatus(), is(VALID));
}
so far so good, but there seems to be some duplicate test code for DiscountOrderProcess.
#file: DiscountProcessor
#Test public void should_change_to_valid_when_xxxx() {
Client client = new ClientFixture()...build()
BillCycle[] cycles = new BillCycleFixture()...build()
Order order = new OrderFixture()...build()
DiscountProcessor subject = ...
given(clientRepository).findBy(client.getId()).thenReturn(client);
given(cycleRepository).findAll().thenReturn(cycles);
given(orderRepository).findBy(order.getId()).thenReturn(order);
subject.processOrder(order.getId());
assertThat(order.getStatus(), is(VALID));
}
#or in mock style
#Test public void should_change_to_valid_when_xxxx() {
Client client = mock(Client.class)
BillCycle[] cycles = array(mock(BillCycle.class))
Order order = mock(Order.class)
DiscountProcessor subject = ...
given(clientRepository).findBy(client.getId()).thenReturn(client);
given(cycleRepository).findAll().thenReturn(cycles);
given(orderRepository).findBy(order.getId()).thenReturn(order);
given(client).....
given(cycle1)....
subject.processOrder(order.getId());
verify(order).validated();
}
order.validate(new OrderValidationData(client.getDiscountInfos(),
getListOfPeriods(cycles))
Same as the above one, you still need to prepare data for both OrderUnitTest and discountOrderProcessUnitTest. But I think this one is better as order is not tightly coupled with Client and BillCycle.
order.validate()
Similar to my idea if you keep validation in the domain layer. Sometimes it is just not any entity's responsibility, consider domain service or specification object.
#file: OrderUnitTest
#Test public void should_change_to_valid_when_xxxx() {
Client client = new ClientFixture()...build()
BillCycle[] cycles = new BillCycleFixture()...build()
Order order = new OrderFixture()...build();
Specification<Order> spec = new ValidOrderSpec(clientRepository, cycleRepository);
given(clientRepository).findBy(client.getId()).thenReturn(client);
given(cycleRepository).findAll().thenReturn(cycles);
subject.validate(spec);
assertThat(order.getStatus(), is(VALID));
}
#file: DiscountProcessor
#Test public void should_change_to_valid_when_xxxx() {
Order order = new OrderFixture()...build()
Specification<Order> spec = mock(ValidOrderSpec.class);
DiscountProcessor subject = ...
given(orderingService).validSpec().thenReturn(spec);
given(spec).isSatisfiedBy(order).thenReturn(true);
given(orderRepository).findBy(order.getId()).thenReturn(order);
subject.processOrder(order.getId());
assertThat(order.getStatus(), is(VALID));
}
Do the 3 possible states reflect your domain or is that just extrapolation ? I'm asking because your sample code doesn't seem to change Order state but throw an exception when it's invalid.
If it's acceptable for the order to stay DRAFT for a short period of time after being submitted, you could have DiscountOrder emit a DiscountOrderSubmitted domain event. A handler catches the event and (delegates to a Domain service that) examines if the submit is legit or not. It would then issue a ChangeOrderState command to make the order either VALIDATED or INVALID.
You could even suppose that the change is legit by default and have processOrder() directly take it to VALIDATED, until proven otherwise by a subsequent INVALID counter-order given by the validation service.
This is not much different from your third solution or Hippoom's one though, except every step of the process is made explicit with its own domain event. I guess that with your current aggregate design you're doomed to have a third party orchestrator (as un-DDD and transaction script-esque as it may sound) that controls the process, since the DiscountOrder aggregate doesn't have native access to all information to tell if a given transformation is valid or not.
I get this error when opening one specific form. The rest is working fine and I have no clue why this one isn't.
Error: An attempt has been made to Attach or Add an entity that is not new, perhaps having been loaded from another DataContext. This is not supported.
I get the error at _oDBConnection when I try to save. When I watch _oDBConnection while running through the code, it does not exist. Even when I open the main-window it does not exist. So this form is where the DataContext is built for the very first time.
Every class inherits from clsBase where the DataContext is built.
My collegue is the professional one who built it all. I am just expanding and using it (learned it by doing it). But now I'm stuck and he is on holiday. So keep it simple :-)
What can it be?
clsPermanency
namespace Reservation
{
class clsPermanency : clsBase
{
private tblPermanency _oPermanency;
public tblPermanency PermanencyData
{
get { return _oPermanency; }
set { _oPermanency = value; }
}
public clsPermanency()
: base()
{
_oPermanency = new tblPermanency();
}
public clsPermanency(int iID)
: this()
{
_oPermanency = (from oPermanencyData in _oDBConnection.tblPermanencies
where oPermanencyData.ID == iID
select oPermanencyData).First();
if (_oPermanency == null)
throw new Exception("Permanentie niet gevonden");
}
public void save()
{
if (_oPermanency.ID == 0)
{
_oDBConnection.tblPermanencies.InsertOnSubmit(_oPermanency);
}
_oDBConnection.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
clsBase
public class clsBase
{
protected DBReservationDataContext _oDBConnection;
protected int _iID;
public int ID
{
get { return _iID; }
}
public DBReservationDataContext DBConnection
{
get { return _oDBConnection; }
}
public clsBase()
{
_oDBConnection = new DBReservationDataContext();
}
}
Not a direct answer, but this is really bad design, sorry.
Issues:
One context instance per class instance. Pretty incredible. How are you going to manage units of work and transactions? And what about memory consumption and performance?
Indirection: every entity instance (prefixed o) is wrapped in a cls class. What a hassle to make classes cooperate, if necessary, or to access their properties.
DRY: far from it. Does each clsBase derivative have the same methods as clsPermanency?
Constructors: you always have to call the base constructor. The constructor with int iID always causes a redundant new object to be created, which will certainly be a noticeable performance hit when dealing with larger numbers. A minor change in constructor logic may cause the sequence of constructor invocations to change. (Nested and inherited constructors are always tricky).
Exception handling: you need a try-catch everywhere where classes are created. (BTW: First() will throw its own exception if the record is not there).
Finally, not a real issue, but class and variable name prefixes are sooo 19xx.
What to do?
I don't think you can change your colleague's design in his absence. But I'd really talk to him about it in due time. Just study some linq-to-sql examples out there to pick up some regular patterns.
The exception indicates that somewhere between fetching the _oPermanency instance (in the Id-d constructor) and saving it a new _oDBConnection is created. The code as shown does not reveal how this could happen, but I assume there is more code than this. When you debug and check GetHashCode() of _oDBConnection instances you should be able to find where it happens.
I have an ICEfaces web app which contains a component with a property linked to a backing bean variable. In theory, variable value is programmatically modified, and the component sees the change and updates its appearance/properties accordingly.
However, it seems that the change in variable isn't "noticed" by the component until the end of the JSF cycle (which, from my basic understanding, is the render response phase).
The problem is, I have a long file-copy operation to perform, and I would like the the inputText component to show a periodic status update. However, since the component is only updated at the render response phase, it doesn't show any output until the Java methods have finished executing, and it shows it all changes accumulated at once.
I have tried using FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().renderResponse() and other functions, such as PushRenderer.render(String ID) to force XmlHttpRequest to initialize early, but no matter what, the appearance of the component does not change until the Java code finishes executing.
One possible solution that comes to mind is to have an invisible button somewhere that is automatically "pressed" by the bean when step 1 of the long operation completes, and by clicking it, it calls step 2, and so on and so forth. It seems like it would work, but I don't want to spend time hacking together such an inelegant solution when I would hope that there is a more elegant solution built into JSF/ICEfaces.
Am I missing something, or is resorting to ugly hacks the only way to achieve the desired behavior?
Multithreading was the missing link, in conjunction with PushRenderer and PortableRenderer (see http://wiki.icesoft.org/display/ICE/Ajax+Push+-+APIs).
I now have three threads in my backing bean- one for executing the long operation, one for polling the status, and one "main" thread for spawning the new threads and returning UI control to the client browser.
Once the main thread kicks off both execution and polling threads, it terminates and it completes the original HTTP request. My PortableRenderer is declared as PortableRender portableRenderer; and in my init() method (called by the class constructor) contains:
PushRenderer.addCurrentSession("fullFormGroup");
portableRenderer = PushRenderer.getPortableRenderer();
For the threading part, I used implements Runnable on my class, and for handling multiple threads in a single class, I followed this StackOverflow post: How to deal with multiple threads in one class?
Here's some source code. I can't reveal the explicit source code I've used, but this is a boiled-down version that doesn't reveal any confidential information. I haven't tested it, and I wrote it in gedit so it might have a syntax error or two, but it should at least get you started in the right direction.
public void init()
{
// This method is called by the constructor.
// It doesn't matter where you define the PortableRenderer, as long as it's before it's used.
PushRenderer.addCurrentSession("fullFormGroup");
portableRenderer = PushRenderer.getPortableRenderer();
}
public void someBeanMethod(ActionEvent evt)
{
// This is a backing bean method called by some UI event (e.g. clicking a button)
// Since it is part of a JSF/HTTP request, you cannot call portableRenderer.render
copyExecuting = true;
// Create a status thread and start it
Thread statusThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
// message and progress are both linked to components, which change on a portableRenderer.render("fullFormGroup") call
message = "Copying...";
// initiates render. Note that this cannot be called from a thread which is already part of an HTTP request
portableRenderer.render("fullFormGroup");
do {
progress = getProgress();
portableRenderer.render("fullFormGroup"); // render the updated progress
Thread.sleep(5000); // sleep for a while until it's time to poll again
} while (copyExecuting);
progress = getProgress();
message = "Finished!";
portableRenderer.render("fullFormGroup"); // push a render one last time
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Child interrupted.");
}
});
statusThread.start();
// create a thread which initiates script and triggers the termination of statusThread
Thread copyThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
File someBigFile = new File("/tmp/foobar/large_file.tar.gz");
scriptResult = copyFile(someBigFile); // this will take a long time, which is why we spawn a new thread
copyExecuting = false; // this will caue the statusThread's do..while loop to terminate
}
});
copyThread.start();
}
I suggest looking at our Showcase Demo:
http://icefaces-showcase.icesoft.org/showcase.jsf?grp=aceMenu&exp=progressBarBean
Under the list of Progress Bar examples is one called Push. It uses Ajax Push (a feature provided with ICEfaces) to do what I think you want.
There is also a tutorial on this page called Easy Ajax Push that walks you through a simple example of using Ajax Push.
http://www.icesoft.org/community/tutorials-samples.jsf