Is it possible to get an instance of java.lang.reflect.Method by using the new method reference feature of Java 8?
That way I would have a compile time check and refactoring would be also easier. Also, I wouldn't need to catch the exceptions (which shouldn't been thrown after all).
Short answer: No.
You will get a lambda of that method, not a java.lang.reflect.Method. You do not know the name of the method. Just as you can not have a reference to a "property" of a java bean.
You can have a reference to the getter or setter but that is also a lambda and you do not know the actual name.
In any case you'd have to provide the name as a String and that can't be checked by the compiler. I also tried this but failed. It simply can't be done unless you write something that checks the javacode/bytecode. But there are tools that do that.
Maybe the Criteria API could be used for that, but it depends on the requirements.
http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/tutorial/doc/gjitv.html
There you'd have a SingularAttribute or similar field on a "metamodel" and then the regular java compiler can check the (generic) type of it.
Related
As described in this document(https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/reference/java/com/google/protobuf/Message.Builder.html#buildPartial--) Like MessageLite.Builder.build(), but does not throw an exception if the message is missing required fields. Instead, a partial message is returned
I guess that's a legacy API from proto2? since required keyword is removed in proto3, but they're not marking this API as deprecated, then in which case we should use this?
This allows to easily supply class instance to the unit test environment. Allowing to avoid complex mocking/class construction.
In object-oriented languages like C++ you don't have to call the base constructor. I don't understand why I need to do it in a psuedo object-oriented language like javascript. My base constructor has virtual elements that need to be setup before I call it. Constructors worked fine in ES5, why ruin them with this restriction. This error is garbage, it should be removed.
In C++ the compiler creates code to call the base constructor for you before your derived class constructor is called. Your C++ derived class definition can specify which base constructor to call and what to pass it (if there is a choice).
That's how the C++ specification is written. See short explanation here.
Javascript ES6 classes do not work the exact same way. You have to insert a place in your code where the base constructor is called with super(...) and you can specify or compute the parameters to pass to the base constructor.
In both C++ and Javascript, you can't access your own instance methods or properties before the base constructor has been called.
FYI, Java is even more restrictive than Javascript. You must put a call to super() or this() as the first statement of your constructor. Javascript at least lets you put logic that doesn't use this before calling the constructor.
In your Javascript, you can't stop this error without rewriting your code to work a different way. It's not an error you can disable.
There are valid OOP reasons (whether you agree with them or not) to not allow references to an object until all base classes have been fully initialized. Or, you can go back to the pre-ES6 way of initializing objects where there are no controls on how you do things and you can do whatever you want.
If you show us your code and explain what you're trying to do, we can likely suggest a different design that solves your problem and does not have this issue.
I'm writing a function that iterates over the methods on a given struct and binds the methods to handlers. I would like to skip over internal methods if possible. I'm not sure if this is possible to do so explicitly - I reviewed the documentation for the reflect package and I didn't see a means to detect if a given Value is an internal method. I know I can get the method's name, and then check if it starts with a lowercase character but I'm not sure if there's a kosher way to accomplish this. It's also possible that the internal / public boundary really only exists at compile time anyways, so there really isn't even a way of knowing this beyond the method's name. In either case I'd like to know for sure. Thanks!
The reflect package will not give you unexported methods via Type.Method. Pretty much, if you can see it via reflect, it is already exported.
See https://play.golang.org/p/61qQYO38P0
I want to get a variable's class type in freemarker, used var.class.simpleName;
but if var is a Map, freemarker will process class as a key to find value in var.
it throw exception. how can I do this ? thanks for any suggestion.
First I have to ask why do you need that, because FreeMarker templates aren't supposed to know even if var is Map at all. Maybe your data-model is not what the template needs.
Anyway, for now, I would write a custom TemplateMethodModelEx for this purpose, something that you can use like ${classOf(var)}. Inside the TemplateMethodModelEx implementation you will receive a TemplateModel as the argument value, and then you can check if it's an AdapterTemplateModel, and if so you can get back the original object and get its class. (If it's not a AdapterTemplateModel, then it perhaps isn't even a wrapped Java object, so it doesn't make sense to ask what the class of the original object is.) However, the DefaultObjectWrapper with incompatibleImprovements set to less than 2.3.22 doesn't give AdapterTemplateModel to wrapped Map-s... so in 2.3.21 you will still have to use BeansWrapper, but you can at least set simpleMapWrapper to true.
In 2.3.22 it will be actually possible to write ${var?api.class}... you might use the nightly build. Though it only supposed to solve the problem where you can't access business methods because the primary type of the business class is Map.
I have been trying to use BLToolkit to activate an Oracle stored procedure which takes a User Defined Type as an argument as an output parameter and changes it.
I have managed to do this on a primitive type, and and also by manually calling SetSpCommamd however I would like to use the abstract class generation method but can't seem to get it to work.
I'm pretty sure the code I wrote is correct (works for the primitive). When debugging I found the SetSpCommamd called by the generated code gets wierd parameters instead of the ones I provided as opposed to when I call the method manually (the it gets the exact parameters I'd like). I wish I could see the code generated by the reflection emit to see what's wrong there.
Can anyone please help me figure out why this is not working?
Found the problem (Potentially a bug in BLToolkit).
BLToolkit does not pass the UDT Class as is to the procedure (instead it tries to flatten it or something and pass the insides of the object). I Changed the object to a Struct instead of a Class and that fixed it.
Later on I also changed it back to class and made a patch in the 'IsScaler()' method in BLToolkits code.
I will report this as a Bug I hope they fix it.