I am wondering what is the purpose of org.springframework.beans.factory.config.Scope.resolveContextualObject(String key) and org.springframework.beans.factory.config.Scope.getConversationId()?
From the javadoc:
Object resolveContextualObject(String key)
Resolve the contextual object for the given key, if any. E.g. the HttpServletRequest object for key "request".
String getConversationId()
Return the conversation ID for the current underlying scope, if any.
The exact meaning of the conversation ID depends on the underlying storage mechanism. In the case of session-scoped objects, the conversation ID would typically be equal to (or derived from) the session ID; in the case of a custom conversation that sits within the overall session, the specific ID for the current conversation would be appropriate.
This description doesn't tell me much.
Could you give me some examples which demonstrate how to make use of these methods?
My observation is that resolveContextualObject(String key) looks like a code smell, where where a Scope can expose some internal object.
Having:
public class MyCustomScope implements Scope {
private Pair<String, String> myPair;
#Override
public Object resolveContextualObject(String key) {
if ("myKey".equals(key)) return myPair;
return null;
}
// ...
}
#Configuration
public class RegisterMyScopeConfig {
#Bean
public BeanFactoryPostProcessor beanFactoryPostProcessor() {
return beanFactory -> beanFactory.registerScope(
"mycustomscope", new MyCustomScope());
}
}
Then you can:
#Scope("mycustomscope")
#Component
class MyComponent {
#Value("#{myKey.first}")
private String firstOfMyPair;
// or
#Value("#{myKey}")
private Pair<String,String> myPair;
}
Of course the way how you resolved object which matches key, might be fancier ;).
For example, in GenericScope it looks like that:
#Override
public Object resolveContextualObject(String key) {
Expression expression = parseExpression(key);
return expression.getValue(this.evaluationContext, this.beanFactory);
}
Related
I am new to the MVVM architecture in Android, and I have some days with a doubt that I consider basic, but that I can't solve.
I proceed to discuss my problem:
I have an Entity, CustomerView (this entity is created from a DatabaseView):
#DatabaseView("select ... ")
public class CustomerView {
public String cardCode;
public String cardName;
public String cardFName;
...
Then, I have a Dao class:
#Dao
public interface OCRD_DAO {
...
#Query("SELECT * from CustomerView where cardCode= :cardCode")
LiveData<CustomerView> getCustomerViewByCardCode(String cardCode);
...
}
The repository class, makes use of the DAO class:
public LiveData<CustomerView> getCustomer(String cardCode){
return mOcrdDao.getCustomerViewByCardCode(cardCode);
}
The CustomerSheetViewModel class:
public class CustomerSheetViewModel extends BaseObservable {
private Repository mRepository;
public LiveData<CustomerView> mCustomer;
private MutableLiveData<String> _cardName;
#Bindable
public MutableLiveData<String> getCardName(){
return this._cardName;
}
public MutableLiveData<String> setCardName(String value){
// Avoids infinite loops.
if (mCustomer.getValue().cardName != value) {
mCustomer.getValue().cardName = value;
// React to the change.
saveData();
// Notify observers of a new value.
notifyPropertyChanged(BR._cardName);
}
}
public CustomerSheetViewModel (Application application, String cardCode) {
mRepository = new Repository(application);
this.mCustomer = mRepository.getCustomer(cardCode);
//Init MutableLiveData????
this._cardName = this.mCustomer.getValue().cardName;
//Null Exception, because this.mCustomer.getValue() is null
}
}
At this point, my problem occurs: when I initialise the CustomerView object, it is of type LiveData. However, if I want to make use of 2-way binding, I need an object of type MutableLiveData. So, I think I should create the MutableLiveData object with the data extracted from the database (i.e. from the call to the repository). When I try this (e.g. getValue().cardName) a null exception is thrown, since LiveData is asynchronous.
Finally, I could make use of this property in the layout:
android:text="#={customerSheetViewModel.cardName}"
I really appreciate any help, as I can't find any reference to 2-way binding when the data comes from a database read.
Thanks in advance.
I have a method that fetches all the data and i am caching the result of that method but i am not able to evict the result.
#Component("cacheKeyGenerator")
public class CacheKeyGenerator implements KeyGenerator {
#Override
public Object generate(Object target, Method method, Object... params) {
final List<Object> key = new ArrayList<>();
key.add(method.getDeclaringClass().getName());
return key;
}
}
CachedMethod:-
#Override
#Cacheable(value="appCache",keyGenerator="cacheKeyGenerator")
public List<Contact> showAllContacts() {
return contactRepository.findAll();
}
#Override
#CachePut(value="appCache",key="#result.id")
public Contact addData(Contact contact) {
return contactRepository.save(contact);
}
Now when ever addData is called i want the data in the cache "appCache" with the key ="cacheKeyGenerator" to be evicted.So that the data returned by the method "showAllContacts()" is accurate.Can anyone please help!
The Entire code can be found at - https://github.com/iftekharkhan09/SpringCaching
Assuming you have a known constant cache key for showAllContacts then the solution should be to simply add #CacheEvict on addData passing in the cache name and key value:
#Override
#Caching(
put = {#CachePut(value="appCache", key="#result.id")},
evict = {#CacheEvict(cacheNames="appCache", key="someConstant")}
)
public Contact addData(Contact contact) {
return contactRepository.save(contact);
}
However because you use a key generator it is a bit more involved. Now given what your key generator does, you could instead pick a value for that cache key, making sure there can't be any collisions with the values from #result.id and use that value instead of a the key generator returned one.
I am using Spring version 4.3.3 and Jackson version 2.8.3. I am trying to filter out specific fields from an entity bean based on some custom logic that is determined at runtime. The #JsonFilter seems ideal for this type of functionality. The problem is that when I put it at the field or method level, my custom filter never gets invoked. If I put it at the class level, it gets invoked just fine. I don't want to use it at the class level though since then I would need to separately maintain the list of hardcoded field names that I want to apply the logic to. As of Jackson 2.3, the ability to put this annotation at the field level is supposed to exist.
Here is the most basic custom filter without any custom logic yet:
public class MyFilter extends SimpleBeanPropertyFilter {
#Override
protected boolean include(BeanPropertyWriter beanPropertyWriter) {
return true;
}
#Override
protected boolean include(PropertyWriter propertyWriter) {
return true;
}
}
Then I have the Jackson ObjectMapper configuration:
public class MyObjectMapper extends ObjectMapper {
public MyObjectMapper () {
SimpleFilterProvider filterProvider = new SimpleFilterProvider();
filterProvider.addFilter("myFilter", new MyFilter());
setFilterProvider(filterProvider);
}
}
Then finally I have my entity bean:
#Entity
public class Project implements Serializable {
private Long id;
private Long version;
#JsonFilter("myFilter") private String name;
#JsonFilter("myFilter") private String description;
// getters and setters
}
If I move the #JsonFilter annotation to the class level where #Entity is, the filter at least gets invoked, but when it is at the field level like in the example here, it never gets invoked.
I have the same need but after examining the unit tests I discovered that this is not the use-case covered by annotating a field.
Annotating a field invokes a filter on the value of the field not the instance containing the field. For example, imagine you have to classes, A and B, where A contains a field of type B.
class A {
#JsonFilter("myFilter") B foo;
}
Jackson applies "myFilter" to the fields in B not in A. Since your example contains fields of type String, which has no fields, Jackson never invokes your filter.
I have a need to exclude certain fields based on the caller's permissions. For example, an employee's profile may contain his taxpayer id, which is considered sensitive information and should only be serialized if the caller is a member of the Payrole department. Since I'm using Spring Security, I wish to integrate Jackson with the current security context.
public class EmployeeProfile {
private String givenName;
private String surname;
private String emailAddress;
#VisibleWhen("hasRole('PayroleSpecialist')")
private String taxpayerId;
}
The most obvious way to do this is to Jackson's filter mechanism but it has a few limitations:
Jackson does not support nested filters so adding an access filter prohibits using filters for any other purpose.
One cannot add Jackson annotations to existing, third-party classes.
Jackson filters are not designed to be generic. The intent is to write a custom filter for each class you wish to apply filtering. For example, I you need to filter classes A and B, then you have to write an AFilter and a BFilter.
For my use-case, the solution is to use a custom annotation introspector in conjunction with a chaining filter.
public class VisibilityAnnotationIntrospector extends JacksonAnnotationIntrospector {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Override
public Object findFilterId(Annotated a) {
Object result = super.findFilterId(a);
if (null != result) return result;
// By always returning a value, we cause Jackson to query the filter provider.
// A more sophisticated solution will introspect the annotated class and only
// return a value if the class contains annotated properties.
return a instanceof AnnotatedClass ? VisibilityFilterProvider.FILTER_ID : null;
}
}
This is basically a copy SimpleBeanProvider that replaces calls to include with calls to isVisible. I'll probably update this to use a Java 8 BiPredicate to make the solution more general but works for now.
This class also takes another filter as an argument and will delegate to it the final decision on whether to serialize the field if the field is visible.
public class AuthorizationFilter extends SimpleBeanPropertyFilter {
private final PropertyFilter antecedent;
public AuthorizationFilter() {
this(null);
}
public AuthorizationFilter(final PropertyFilter filter) {
this.antecedent = null != filter ? filter : serializeAll();
}
#Deprecated
#Override
public void serializeAsField(Object bean, JsonGenerator jgen, SerializerProvider provider, BeanPropertyWriter writer) throws Exception {
if (isVisible(bean, writer)) {
this.antecedent.serializeAsField(bean, jgen, provider, writer);
} else if (!jgen.canOmitFields()) { // since 2.3
writer.serializeAsOmittedField(bean, jgen, provider);
}
}
#Override
public void serializeAsField(Object pojo, JsonGenerator jgen, SerializerProvider provider, PropertyWriter writer) throws Exception {
if (isVisible(pojo, writer)) {
this.antecedent.serializeAsField(pojo, jgen, provider, writer);
} else if (!jgen.canOmitFields()) { // since 2.3
writer.serializeAsOmittedField(pojo, jgen, provider);
}
}
#Override
public void serializeAsElement(Object elementValue, JsonGenerator jgen, SerializerProvider provider, PropertyWriter writer) throws Exception {
if (isVisible(elementValue, writer)) {
this.antecedent.serializeAsElement(elementValue, jgen, provider, writer);
}
}
private static boolean isVisible(Object pojo, PropertyWriter writer) {
// Code to determine if the field should be serialized.
}
}
I then add a custom filter provider to each instance of ObjectMapper.
#SuppressWarnings("deprecation")
public class VisibilityFilterProvider extends SimpleFilterProvider {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
static final String FILTER_ID = "dummy-filter-id";
#Override
public BeanPropertyFilter findFilter(Object filterId) {
return super.findFilter(filterId);
}
#Override
public PropertyFilter findPropertyFilter(Object filterId, Object valueToFilter) {
if (FILTER_ID.equals(filterId)) {
// This implies that the class did not have an explict filter annotation.
return new AuthorizationFilter(null);
}
// The class has an explicit filter annotation so delegate to it.
final PropertyFilter antecedent = super.findPropertyFilter(filterId, valueToFilter);
return new VisibilityPropertyFilter(antecedent);
}
}
Finally, I have a Jackson module that automatically registers the custom annotaion introspector so I don't have to add it to each ObjectMapper instance manually.
public class FieldVisibilityModule extends SimpleModule {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
public FieldVisibilityModule() {
super(PackageVersion.VERSION);
}
#Override
public void setupModule(Module.SetupContext context) {
super.setupModule(context);
// Append after other introspectors (instead of before) since
// explicit annotations should have precedence
context.appendAnnotationIntrospector(new VisibilityAnnotationIntrospector());
}
}
There are more improvements that can be made and I still have more unit tests to write (e.g., handling arrays and collections) but this is the basic strategy I used.
You can try this approach for the same purpose:
#Entity
#Inheritance(
strategy = InheritanceType.SINGLE_TABLE
)
#DiscriminatorColumn(
discriminatorType = DiscriminatorType.STRING,
length = 2
)
#Table(
name = "project"
)
#JsonTypeInfo(
use = Id.CLASS,
include = As.PROPERTY,
property = "#class"
)
#JsonSubTypes({
#Type(
value = BasicProject.class,
name = "basicProject"
),
#Type(
value = AdvanceProject.class,
name = "advanceProject"
)})
public abstract class Project {
private Long id;
private Long version;
}
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("AD")
public class AdvanceProject extends Project {
private String name;
private String description;
}
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("BS")
public class BasicProject extends Project {
private String name;
}
I don't think you will make it work. I was trying and these are results of my investigation, maybe it will be helpful.
First of all, as #Faron noticed, the #JsonFilterannotation is applied for the class being annotated not a field.
Secondly, I see things this way. Let's imagine, somewhere in Jackson internals you are able to get the actual field. You can figure out if there is the annotation using Java Reflection API. You can even get the filter name. Then you get to the filter and pass the field value there. But it happens at runtime, how will you get the corresponding JsonSerializer of the field type if you decide to serialize the field? It is impossible because of type erasure.
The only alternative I see is to forget about dynamic logic. Then you can do the following things:
1) extend JacksonAnnotationIntrospector (almost the same as implement AnnotationIntrospector but no useless default code) overriding hasIgnoreMarker method. Take a look at this answer
2) criminal starts here. Kinda weird way taking into account your initial goal but still: extend BeanSerializerModifier and filter out fields there. An example can be found here. This way you can define serializer that actually doesn't serialize anything (again, I understand how strange it is but maybe one will find it helpful)
3) similar to the approach above: define useless serializer based on BeanDescription implementing ContextualSerializer's createContextual method. The example of this magic is here
Thanks to this really good blog, I was able to use #JsonView to filter out specific fields from an entity bean based on some custom logic that is determined at runtime.
Since the #JsonFilter does not apply for the fields within a class, I found this to be a cleaner workaround.
Here is the sample code:
#Data
#AllArgsConstructor
public class TestEntity {
private String a;
#JsonView(CustomViews.SecureAccess.class)
private Date b;
#JsonView(CustomViews.SecureAccess.class)
private Integer c;
private List<String> d;
}
public class CustomViews {
public static interface GeneralAccess {}
public static interface SecureAccess {}
public static class GeneralAccessClass implements GeneralAccess {}
public static class SecureAccessClass implements SecureAccess, GeneralAccess {}
public static Class getWriterView(final boolean hasSecureAccess) {
return hasSecureAccess
? SecureAccessClass.class
: GeneralAccessClass.class;
}
}
#Test
public void test() throws JsonProcessingException {
final boolean hasSecureAccess = false; // Custom logic resolved to a boolean value at runtime.
final TestEntity testEntity = new TestEntity("1", new Date(), 2, ImmutableList.of("3", "4", "5"));
final ObjectMapper objectMapper = new ObjectMapper().enable(MapperFeature.DEFAULT_VIEW_INCLUSION);
final String serializedValue = objectMapper
.writerWithView(CustomViews.getWriterView(hasSecureAccess))
.writeValueAsString(testEntity);
Assert.assertTrue(serializedValue.contains("a"));
Assert.assertFalse(serializedValue.contains("b"));
Assert.assertFalse(serializedValue.contains("c"));
Assert.assertTrue(serializedValue.contains("d"));
}
I am looking for transportation layer for gwt. I would like to create ajax request using generic method, f.e this is my DAO/service:
public class GenericDao<T extends GenericModel<T>> {
private Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass().getCanonicalName());
#Transient protected Class<T> entityClass;
public GenericDao() {
super();
}
public GenericDao(Class<? extends GenericModel<T>> clazz) {
this.entityClass = (Class<T>) clazz;
}
public T getBy(Long id) {
return JPA.em().find(entityClass, id);
}
public List<GenericModel<T>> get() {
logger.error("trying to get data from db");
return getList();
}
public List<GenericModel<T>> getList() {
return JPA.em().createQuery("FROM " + entityClass.getSimpleName()).getResultList();
}
public void save(GenericModel<T> entityClass) {
JPA.em().getTransaction().begin();
JPA.em().persist(entityClass);
JPA.em().getTransaction().commit();
}
public void update(T entityClass) {
JPA.em().getTransaction().begin();
JPA.em().merge(entityClass);
JPA.em().getTransaction().commit();
}
public void delete(T entityClass) {
JPA.em().getTransaction().begin();
JPA.em().remove(entityClass);
JPA.em().getTransaction().commit();
}
}
GenericModel/Entity:
#MappedSuperclass
public class GenericModel<T extends GenericModel<T>> implements Identifiable, Versionable {
#Transient
protected Class<T> entityClass;
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Long id;
#Version
private Integer version;
// setter & getter
#Override
public Long getId() {return id;}
public void setId(Long id) {this.id = id;}
#Override
public Integer getVersion() {return version;}
public void setVersion(Integer version) {this.version = version;}
// constructor
public GenericModel() {
Class<?> obtainedClass = getClass();
Type genericSuperclass = null;
for (;;) {
genericSuperclass = obtainedClass.getGenericSuperclass();
if (genericSuperclass instanceof ParameterizedType) {
break;
}
obtainedClass = obtainedClass.getSuperclass();
}
ParameterizedType genericSuperclass_ = (ParameterizedType) genericSuperclass;
try {
entityClass = ((Class) ((Class) genericSuperclass_
.getActualTypeArguments()[0]));
} catch (ClassCastException e) {
entityClass = guessEntityClassFromTypeParametersClassTypedArgument();
}
}
public GenericModel(Long id) {
this();
this.id = id;
}
}
I am looking for mechanism that will allow me to use this generic service for all models on client side (each db entity have id- so I would like to downloads using ajax all my Entities this way, so I should have only one generic method for that on client side).
I've already checked:
GWT-RPC
RequestFactory
RestyGWT
But none of them support this feature.
I've found here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/google-web-toolkit#googlegroups.com/msg100095.html
information that: gwt-jackson supports generics and polymorphism. Unfortunately I didn't found any working example that. Can someone help, give an example, approved that information?
All entities have id and version parameter. So I would like to have one metod on client side RF that will allow me to get from server(service/dao/whatever) that entity by id- like this: Request getBy(Long id); But unfortunatelly I can't make it work. I like the RF way, so I've tried it first. Generally I don't wonna repeat code for downloading entity/proxy by id.
For better understanding, please look also on:
RequestFactory client-side inheritance of typed class with generics
I'm confused as to why you think RPC can't handle generics - according to your link, it can, but RestyGWT cannot. Granted, none of your JPA references make any sense in GWT, but those would live in a DAO on the server, not in the entity/model class themselves, or at least not in the client version. If you had a RPC method that returned T where <T extends GenericModel<T>>, then you would have serializers for every possible GenericModel<?> subtype, and any/all that are gwt-compatible could be sent over the wire.
Edit from update to question:
Your GenericModel class uses features of Java that cannot work in GWT, such as reflection. This cannot be compiled to GWT, since the compiler relies on removing reflection information to minimize your compiled size - leaving in general reflection information means leaving in details about all classes and members, even ones that it can't statically prove are in use, since some reflection might make use of them.
If there is a way to phrase your model object in a way that just deals with the data at hand, focus on that. Otherwise consider a DTO which is just the data to send over the wire - I'm not sure how you would plan to use the entityClass field on the client, or why that would be important to read from the superclass's generics instead of just using getClass().
RequestFactory will have a hard time dealing with generics - unlike RPC (and possibly RestyGWT) it cannot handle polymorphism the way you want, but will instead only send the fields for the declared type, not any arbitrary subtype. RPC will actually send the instance if it is something that the client can handle.
I've Spring cache implemented as below
#Component
public class KPCacheExample {
private static final Logger LOG = LoggerFactory.getLogger(KPCacheExample.class);
#CachePut(value="kpCache")
public String saveCache(String userName, String password){
LOG.info("Called saveCache");
return userName;
}
#Cacheable(value="kpCache")
public String getCache(String userName, String password){
LOG.info("Called getCache");
return "kp";
}
}
And Java Config file
#Configuration
#ComponentScan(basePackages={"com.kp"})
public class GuavaCacheConfiguration {
#Bean
public CacheManager cacheManager() {
GuavaCacheManager guavaCacheManager = new GuavaCacheManager("kpCache");
guavaCacheManager.setCacheBuilder(CacheBuilder.newBuilder().expireAfterAccess(2000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS).removalListener(new KPRemovalListener()));
return guavaCacheManager;
}
}
By default the spring uses put method in the cache interface to update/put values in the cache. How can I force the spring to use putifabsent method to be invoked, such that I can get null value if cache is missed or in other wards first request to the method with unique username and password should return null and subsequent request to that username and password should return username.
Well, looking through Spring's Cache Abstraction source, there does not appear to be a configuration setting (switch) to default the #CachePut to use the "atomic" putIfAbsent operation.
You might be able to simulate the "putIfAbsent" using the unless (or condition) attribute(s) of the #CachePut annotation, something like (based on the Guava impl)...
#CachePut(value="Users", key="#user.name" unless="#root.caches[0].getIfPresent(#user.name) != null")
public User save(User user){
return userRepo.save(user);
}
Also note, I did not test this expression, and it would not be "atomic" or portable using a different Cache impl. The expression ("#root.caches[0].get(#user.name) != null") maybe more portable.
Giving up the "atomic" property may not be desirable so you could also extend the (Guava)CacheManager to return a "custom" Cache (based on GuavaCache) that overrides the put operation to delegate to "putIfAbsent" instead...
class CustomGuavaCache extends GuavaCache {
CustomGuavaCache(String name, com.google.common.cache.Cache<Object, Object> cache, boolean allowNullValues) {
super(name, cache, allowNullValues);
}
#Override
public void put(Object key, Object value) {
putIfAbsent(key, value);
}
}
See the GuavaCache class for more details.
Then...
class CustomGuavaCacheManager extends GuavaCacheManager {
#Override
protected Cache createGuavaCache(String name) {
return new CustomGuavaCache(name, createNativeGuavaCache(name), isAllowNullValues());
}
}
See GuavaCacheManager for further details, and specifically, have a look at line 93 and createGuavaCache(String name).
Hope this helps, or at least gives you some more ideas.