As far as I know put is idempotent, i.e., applying this method multiple times will be the same as apply it one time. Please consider the following piece of code:
public class ValuesController : ApiController
{
private static List<string> _list = new List<string>();
public void Put([FromBody]string value)
{
_list.Add(value);
}
}
Clearly as you can see from this example, Put method is not being idempotent here and applying it multiple times will result in _list having multiple values. Additionally I could implement other idempotent methods like get or delete in the similar manner. How come put method is always idempotent then?
PUT should be idempotent. If your implementation of PUT is not idempotent, then it's in violation of the HTTP specification.
However, that doesn't mean that you are prevented from writing non-conforming implementations.
Technically this is no longer HTTP
Related
Im designing a small library and sometimes i write a couple lines and it just doesn't feel right, so i'd like to get the opinions/advices of an experimented java programmer.
Ive got a listener which handle 3 differents events and in one of my class I implement the methods that will actually fire the events
So what i did at first was something like this:
protected final void fireOperationStarted(){
OperationEvent event = new OperationEvent(this);
for (OperationListener listener : listeners) {
listener.operationStarted(event);
}
}
protected final void fireOperationEnded(){
OperationEvent event = new OperationEvent(this);
for (OperationListener listener : listeners) {
listener.operationEnded(event);
}
//omitted the 3rd method on purpose
but this code felt wrong because if someone want to implement their own event, they will basically need access to the whole listener arraylist (CopyOnWriteArraylist) and write the logic again and again.
So what i opted for is a Fireable interface with a single method "fire". And this is what i've done:
protected final void fireOperationStarted(){
fireOperation(new Fireable(){
#Override
public void fire(OperationListener listener, OperationEvent event) {
listener.operationStarted(event);
}
});
}
protected final void fireOperationEnded(){
fireOperation(new Fireable(){
#Override
public void fire(OperationListener listener, OperationEvent event) {
listener.operationEnded(event);
}
});
}
protected void fireOperation(Fireable fireable){
OperationEvent event = new OperationEvent(this);
for (OperationListener listener : listeners) {
fireable.fire(listener, event);
}
}
I'd like to get your opinions, I personally think its better than the first implementation even there is still a lot of boilerplate code. Maybe there is a better way to do this ? I've looked in the java.awt.events package source code to see how they were dealing with multiple events and how they fire them, but it seem way too complicated for my needs.
One thing that i was wondering also is about the lambda expression in Java 8, if i use them without importing any Java 8 packages and i compile, will it work on the JRE7 ?
Could be great to use the JDK8 to make my codes cleaner eventually.
Thanks for your help !
I think your first example is better. listeners has got to be an instance field, and so readily available to everybody.
(You might have only one method in OperationListener and use a value in OperationEvent to determine which action is involved. Then your methods could all pass the proper event to one method that calls the one listener method.)
Your second idea is interesting, but for use inside one instance of one class, I think it's overkill.
There's all different kinds of ways to store listeners. If you're not adding and removing them too fast, ArrayList is good. If there's any chance of adding and removing them on different threads and you're calling the listeners frequently, CopyOnWriteArrayList is much better.
Don't worry too much about "boilerplate". Java tends to go with wordy-but-simple as regards low level code. The two for loops in your first example call out to be combined somehow, but it's not worth worrying about until you've got a lot more of them.
Lambdas will reduce your lines of code (if you use simple ones; my C# lambdas all end up running 20 lines or more; might as well be anonymous classes!), but they'll add plenty of pages to the language manual. However, lambdas aren't there till JRE 8.
I will explain with an example. My GWT project has a Company module, which lets a user add, edit, delete, select and list companies.
Of these, the add, edit and delete operations lands back the user on the CompanyList page.
Thus, having three different events - CompanyAddedEvent, CompanyUpdatedEvent and CompanyDeletedEvent, and their respective event handlers - seems overkill to me, as there is absolutely not difference in their function.
Is it OK to let a single event manage the three operations?
One alternative I think is to use some event like CompanyListInvokedEvent. However, somewhere I think its not appropriate, is the event actually is not the list being invoked, but a company being added/updated/deleted.
If it had been only a single module, I would have get the task done with three separate events. But other 10 such modules are facing this dilemma. It means 10x3 = 30 event classes along with their 30 respective handlers. The number is large enough for me to reconsider.
What would be a good solution to this?
UPDATE -
#ColinAlworth's answer made me realize that I could easily use Generics instead of my stupid solution. The following code represents an event EntityUpdatedEvent, which would be raised whenever an entity is updated.
Event handler class -
public class EntityUpdatedEvent<T> extends GwtEvent<EntityUpdatedEventHandler<T>>{
private Type<EntityUpdatedEventHandler<T>> type;
private final String statusMessage;
public EntityUpdatedEvent(Type<EntityUpdatedEventHandler<T>> type, String statusMessage) {
this.statusMessage = statusMessage;
this.type = type;
}
public String getStatusMessage() {
return this.statusMessage;
}
#Override
public com.google.gwt.event.shared.GwtEvent.Type<EntityUpdatedEventHandler<T>> getAssociatedType() {
return this.type;
}
#Override
protected void dispatch(EntityUpdatedEventHandler<T> handler) {
handler.onEventRaised(this);
}
}
Event handler interface -
public interface EntityUpdatedEventHandler<T> extends EventHandler {
void onEventRaised(EntityUpdatedEvent<T> event);
}
Adding the handler to event bus -
eventBus.addHandler(CompanyEventHandlerTypes.CompanyUpdated, new EntityUpdatedEventHandler<Company>() {
#Override
public void onEventRaised(EntityUpdatedEvent<Company> event) {
History.newItem(CompanyToken.CompanyList.name());
Presenter presenter = new CompanyListPresenter(serviceBundle, eventBus, new CompanyListView(), event.getStatusMessage());
presenter.go(container);
}
});
Likewise, I have two other Added and Deleted generic events, thus eliminating entire redundancy from my event-related codebase.
Are there any suggestions on this solution?
P.S. > This discussion provides more insight on this problem.
To answer this question, let me first pose another way of thinking about this same kind of problem - instead of events, we'll just use methods.
In my tiered application, two modules communicate via an interface (notice that these methods are all void, so they are rather like events - the caller doesn't expect an answer back):
package com.acme.project;
public interface CompanyServiceInteface {
public void addCompany(CompanyDto company) throws AcmeBusinessLogicException;
public void updateCompany(CompanyDto company) throws AcmeBusinessLogicException;
public void deleteCompany(CompanyDto company) throws AcmeBusinessLogicException;
}
This seems like overkill to me - why not just reduce the size of this API to one method, and add an enum argument to simplify this. This way, when I build an alternative implementation or need to mock this in my unit tests, I just have one method to build instead of three. This gets to be clearly overkill when I make the rest of my application - why not just ObjectServiceInterface.modify(Object someDto, OperationEnum invocation); to work for all 10 modules?
One answer is that you might want want to drastically modify the implementation of one but not the others - now that you've reduced this to just one method, all of this belongs inside that switch case. Another is that once simplified in this way, the inclination often to further simplify - perhaps to combine create and update into just one method. Once this is done, all callsites must make sure to fulfill all possible details of that method's contract instead of just the one specific one.
If the receivers of those events are simple and will remain so, there may be no good reason to not just have a single ModelModifiedEvent that clearly is generic enough for all possible use cases - perhaps just wrapping the ID to request that all client modules refresh their view of that object. If a future use case arises where only one kind of event is important, now the event must change, as must all sites that cause the event to be created so that they properly populate this new field.
Java shops typically don't use Java because it is the prettiest language, or because it is the easiest language to write or find developers for, but because it is relatively easy to maintain and refactor. When designing an API, it is important to consider future needs, but also to think about what it will take to modify the current API - your IDE almost certainly has a shortcut key to find all invocations of a particular method or constructor, allowing you to easily find all places where that is used and update them. So consider what other use cases you expect, and how easily the rest of the codebase can be udpated.
Finally, don't forget about generics - for my example above, I would probably make a DtoServiceInterface to simplify matters, so that I just declare the one interface with three methods, and implement it and refer to it as needed. In the same way, you can make one set of three GwtEvent types (with *Handler interfaces and possibly Has*Handlers as well), but keep them generic for all possible types. Consider com.google.gwt.event.logical.shared.SelectionEvent<T> as an example here - in your case you would probably want to make the model object type a parameter so that handlers can check which type of event they are dealing with (remember that generics are erased in Java), or source from one EventBus for each model type.
I'm really appreciating the power of AutoFixture coupled with XUnit's theories. I've recently adopted the use of encapsulating customizations and providing them to my tests via an attribute.
On certain occasions, I need a one-off scenario to run my test with. When I use an AutoDomainDataAttribute, like above, can I ask for an IFixture and expect to get the same instance created by the attribute?
In my scenario, I'm using MultipleCustomization by default for collections, etc. However, in this one case, I want only a single item sent to my SUT's constructor. So, I've defined my test method like so:
[Theory, AutoDomainData]
public void SomeTest(IFixture fixture) {
fixture.RepeatCount = 1;
var sut = fixture.CreateAnonymous<Product>();
...
}
Unfortunately, I'm getting an exception when creating the anonymous Product. Other tests work just fine, if I ask for a Product as a method parameter with those attributes. It's only an issue in this particular case, where I'm hoping that the fixture parameter is the same one created by my AutoDomainDataAttribute.
Product's constructor expects an IEnumerable that normally gets populate with 3 items, due to the customizations I have in-place via AutoDomainData. Currently, my DomainCustomization is a CompositeCustomization made up of MultipleCustomization and AutMoqCustomization, in that order.
The exception is: "InvalidCastException: Unable to cast object of type 'Castle.Proxies.ObjectProxy' to type 'Product'."
If you need the same Fixture instance as the one active in the attribute, you can inject the Fixture into itself in a Customization, like this:
public class InjectFixtureIntoItself : ICustomization
{
public void Customize(IFixture fixture)
{
fixture.Inject(fixture);
}
}
Just remember to add this to your CompositeCustomization before AutoMoqCustomization, since IFixture is an interface, and if AutoMoqCustomization comes first, you'll get a Mock instance instead - AFAICT, that's what's currently happening with the dynamic Castle proxy.
However, if you really need a Fixture instance, why not just write a regular, imperative test method:
[Fact]
public void SomeTest()
{
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new DomainCustomization());
fixture.RepeatCount = 1;
var sut = fixture.CreateAnonymous<Product>();
// ...
}
That seems to me to be much easier... I occasionally do this myself too...
Still, I wonder if you couldn't phrase your API or test case in a different way to make the whole issue go away. I very rarely find that I have to manipulate the RepeatCount property these days, so I wonder why you would want to do that?
That's probably the subject of a separate Stack Overflow question, though...
I am trying to implement this Command Pattern on my .NET MVC 3 application, specifically for saving edits to a Thing. I am undecided on how to proceed. Before I get to the actual question, here is the simplified code:
public class ThingController
{
private readonly ICommandHandler<EditThingCommand> handler;
public ThingController(ICommandHandler<EditThingCommand> handler)
{
this.handler = handler;
}
public ActionMethod EditThing(int id)
{
...build EditThingViewModel and return with View...
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionMethod EditThing(int id, EditThingViewModel vm)
{
var command = new EditThingCommand
{
...not sure yet...
};
this.handler.Handle(command);
...redirect somewhere...
}
}
My EditThingViewModel is wholly disconnected from my domain, which consists of POCO classes. It seems like my EditThingCommand should look like this:
public class EditThingCommand
{
Thing ModifiedThing;
}
However, building ModifiedThing would then still be happening in my controller. That's the majority of the work in this case. By the time ModifiedThing is built (and the "old" timestamp applied to it for optimistic concurrency checking), all that's left is for command to call Update on my data context.
Clearly there is value in being able to easily decorate it with other commands, but I'd also like to be able to move the construction of ModifiedThing outside of my controller. (Perhaps this question is really just about that.) EditThingCommand is in my domain and doesn't have a reference to EditThingViewModel, so it can't go there. Does it make sense to have another command in my presentation layer for mapping my viewmodel to my poco entity?
I created an EditThingPostCommand outside of my domain, which takes the EditThingViewModel as a parameter. The EditThingPostCommandHandler is responsible for creating the EditThingCommand and calling its handler.
It works, but I'm not going to assume that's the best answer to my question. Arguably most of what the EditThingPostCommandHandler is doing could be done in a custom AutoMapper configuration, which would still serve the purpose of cleaning up the controller action method.
After several months of using this pattern on other projects, it is apparent to me that the commands on this particular project were simply too general and therefore too complex, requiring too much setup. It would have been better to create, for example, an EditThingTitleCommand and a MoveThingPiecesCommand and so on, and call them from their own ActionMethods.
In other words, when using the command pattern, don't just use the commands as replacements for typical CRUD operations. With more specificity comes more benefit.
Where is the proper place to perform validation given the following scenario/code below:
In MethodA only: since this is the public method which is meant to be used by external assemblies?
In MethodA and B since both these can be accessed outside the class?
Or Methods A, B and C since method C may be used by another internal method (but it might not efficient since the programmer can see the code for MethodC already and therefore should be able to know the valid parameters to pass)?
Thanks for any input.
public class A
{
public void MethodA(param)
{
MethodB(param);
}
internal void MethodB(param)
{
MethodC(param);
}
private void MethodC(param)
{
}
}
Parameter validation should always be performed regardless of the caller's location (inside or outside of the assembly). Defensive programming, one can say.
MethodC; that way the parameter always gets checked, even if someone comes along later and adds a call to MethodC from within class A, or they make MethodC public. Any exception should be bubbled up to where it can be best dealt with.
There isn't a 'proper' place, except to adhere to DRY principles and avoid copying the validation code to several places. I'd normally suggest that you delay validation to the latest possible stage, as then if the parameter is never used you don't need to spend time validating it though. This also gives the validation some locality to the place it is used, and you never need to think 'oh, has this parameter been validated yet?' as the validation is right there.
Given that a more likely senario would involve each method having different parameters and also probably some
if (P1 == 1) { MethodA(P2) } else { MethodB(P2) }
type logic in hte longer term it makes more sense to validate each parameter at the point of entry, escpecially as you may want different error handling depending on where hte method was called.
If the validation logic for a given parameter start to get complex ( i.e. more than five lines of code) then consider a private method to validate that parameter.