The best solution for background application logic? - html

I have 2 different types components. They both only use and contain an HTML5-canvas element, but need to show different types of data on a chart:
Component A (Only ever 1 of these)
Component B (0 to 4 of these)
Both components need the dateTime of the first data-entry from the two data-sets, but the dateTime of the last entry comes from their own respective data-sets.
Component A needs its first entry date from Component B.
Currently I do it like this:
Component B has the method that finds the date-limits from its own dataset. Using an Observer-pattern & Subjects, I broadcasts the returned dates through a service and into Component A.
The problem with this though, is that coupling suddenly becomes pretty tight. I can't initialize component A first, because it needs B to do its calculation first. Both components ideally should initialize and show/share their data simultaneously, and continue to do so. (E.g. If a user scrolls in one chart it should scroll all other components too, and so on.)
This is why I wanted an extra layer added on top of these components. A controller if you will.
I can't figure out what's best though:
A shared service that can take external data as input?
A container component? (Transclusion)
Another component, Component C, that A & B are children of?
As I'm still new to Angular 2, it's hard to tell which approach is best for future maintenance/development?
I'm being drawn towards creating another normal component as a parent, and have this component send and receive data to/from its children (A & B) as necessary.
I'm also uncertain as to what's "best practice" and if you can just use a component like an empty 'logic shell'. I've tried reading here and there, and I've found a lot, but I can't seem to get an exact answer to my question. It'll take time before I can comprehend all this knowledge and answer it myself, so I'm hoping someone could give me a helping nudge, thanks.
PS: I should add that my angular application will be a child-component in larger application, and will get its data from some other parent comp.

Why don't you put your logic into services?
You can also set up service hierarchies by injecting sub-services into a parent service.
If your logic is not UI / interaction related, you should put it into reusable services. If your logic is UI related, you could set up a parent component acting as a mediator between A and B (acting on their respective input/output parameters)
Whatever you do, it is a good idea to keep concerns separate.
Both A and B should not need to care about other components needing their output. Angular has Input/Output parameters for that.
Don't put some generic datetime calculation stuff into components. Make it reusable through services.
Keep coupling loose by introducing interfaces and injections.
Update:
Services should only use injectable constructor parameters, so you should pass your input using methods (or setters, but that is less expressive).
To pass arbitrary JSON objects, you could utilize any parameters. However if your json follows a certain structure, you could define an interface.
public doStuff(input: any): any { }
or
interface IMyDataContract {
dateField: string;
}
public doStuff(input: IMyDataContract): any { }

Related

What is the difference between LSP and OCP?

I have been trying to break down the differences between the Open Closed Principal and Liskov's Substitution Principal. And the best and most common examples of either use the exact same problem. Finding the Area of a shape class.
They use slightly different means, but effectively solve the same problem with the same solution.
As these are both parts of SOLID, I'm really trying to find a reason to support why both are called out.
I'm looking for an explanation that doesn't work for both.
Thanks.
LSP:
Consumers target an abstraction (e.g. interface) and should not need to know which concrete implementation stands behind the interface. For example, a client (e.g. a DocumentProcessor class) holds a dependency on IDocumentStore. If in V1, you gave it a SqlSeverDocumentStore instance, and then in V2 you gave it a FileSystemDocumentStore, the client (DocumentProcessor) should work without modification. This can be achieved by making sure the contract of IDocumentStore is well defined and that DocumentProcessor, SqlSeverDocumentStore and FileSystemDocumentStore abide by this contract.
The contract means much more than an interface. Having two classes implement the same interface does not mean they abide by the same contract (although they should).
For example, does both implementations support saving documents which are smaller or equal to 20MB? Or does one of them support documents that are at most 10MB? If it is part of the contract that an implementation should support 20MB documents, then all implementations should support this.
OCP:
We should avoid modifying a unit of composition (e.g. a class or a function) after we release it. One way to achieve this is to make the units parameterized. For example, if you have a function (say, ProcessImages) that reads images from the file system, compresses them and then sends them to some web service, you can parameterize this function to accept other functions that are responsible for (1) reading images, (2) compressing them, (3) sending them.
E.g. (in C#):
public static void ProcessImages(
Func<Image[]> getImages,
Func<Image, CompressedImage> compressImage,
Action<CompressedImage> sendImage)
{
//... Orchestrate the operation here
}
And, in the Composition Root:
Action processImages = () => ProcessImages(ReadImages, CompressImage, SendImage);
Where ReadImages, CompressImage, SendImage are themselves functions.
This way, if you want to change how the images are compressed, you will not modify the ProcessImages function. Instead you will create a new compression function (say CompressImageInADifferentWay) and then compose the ProcessImages function in the Composition Root like this:
Action processImages =
() => ProcessImages(ReadImages, CompressImageInADifferentWay, SendImage);
If you apply the OCP in a perfect way, only the Composition Root itself will change.
LSP allows us to achieve OCP. For example, because CompressImage and CompressImageInADifferentWay abide by some contract that ProcessImages knows about, we can replace CompressImage with CompressImageInADifferentWay without modifying ProcessImages.

Custom JSON renderer in AEM/Sling

I've been playing around with this for a while now, and I think, I've - almost - cracked it, but I am still not fully satisfied with my solution.
So, what I want to do, is having a piece of content, a list of items, which would have two views: The standard HTML one, so people can view and edit it; and then a JSON endpoint for other services to consume.
First I thought it's a simple matter of creating two JSP scripts to render the content:
/apps/my-stuff/components/list-page/html.jsp
/apps/my-stuff/components/list-page/json.jsp
However the Apache Sling DefaultServlet seems to be rather ignorant of the json.jsp script.
As a second attempt, I created another script, in /apps/foundation/components/primary/cq/Page/json.jsp which will be actually called, and renders the page, as I expected. However there are a couple of worries/questions regarding this:
First of all, why is this being honoured by the system, and not the one in the more specific place?
The documentation states, that to find the appropriate renderer, first sling:resourceType will be inspected, then sling:resourceSuperType and then, only as a fallback will jcr:PrimaryType checked. However I think this is rather: jcr:PrimaryType, then the DefaultServlet, and then all the other things.
Most worryingly however, I have to admit, this is rather generic, so it'll break all the contnet with jcr:PrmaryType = Page, so that could have some side-effects.
A solution could be creating a new type: ListPage extends Page; and then create a renderer for that in /apps/foundation.... However I have this bad feeling, that might introduce other problems.
So my question is two fold: What is the proper way of doing this, and/or what am I missing from the way the URL -> script resolution is working in AEM/Sling. (Because it seems to be slightly different that described here and here.)
(Obviously I am trying to keep the default JSON renderer for other pages, as that might be needed for other things in the page. I am not even sure, changing this one page won't break the UI for this particular page...)
However the Apache Sling DefaultServlet seems to be rather ignorant of the json.jsp script.
Have you tried renaming your JSP like so: "list-page.json.jsp"?
If you're using AEM 6.3, you should look at Sling model Exporters. They allow you to automatically register a servlet against your Sling Model (that you can create to model your list content). That servlet can generate a JSON representation of the model for you using Jackson.
If you're not using AEM 6.3, I would suggest you create a servlet registered against your resource type and use an additional selector.
#SlingServlet(
selectors = "json",
resourceType = "my-stuff/components/list-page",
methods = "GET")
More information on Sling Servlets can be found here.

om.next: how to have multiple components that use the reconciler

I'm new to om.next (and to clojurescript), and I have the following question. I can only get the root component to be invoked with the reconciler (i.e. have its query method invoked); every other component seems to need to be invoked with props and with om/factory. I think I'm missing something.
I am attempting to create a todo list app (100 points for originality!), with a filter to show completed/incomplete/all items. If my TodoList component is the root component, I can invoke it with query: [:todos] with no problem. I'd like to have a different root component, and also have a Filter component that goes through the reconciler.
Possible options I can see:
have multiple om/add-root! calls (this prevents us from having nested components that use the reconciler, and is not the pattern that I see in tutorials)
wrap everything in a global component and pass state down through props. But the examples make read a multimethod, which doesn't jive with this approach.
Is this possible? Thank you!
If you haven't already please take a look at Components, Identity & Normalization · omcljs/om Wiki · GitHub. This tutorial shows how to organize a multi-component application under a single root - and it should also make clear how read, mutate, Ident, IQuery, etc. are being used by each individual component to coordinate interaction with the one-and-only app state via the reconciler. The app-state is basically the application's database - using nested data structures inside a single Map.
React applications typically only have a single root component - if there are multiple roots they are typically organized by routes, i.e. one root per route (see also Top-level React Components — Medium).
Also: Om/Next: The Reconciler — Medium
The concept behind Om Next (and others such as reframe) is that there is one source of truth - your app state. With Om Next the UI of your application is made up of one (upside down) component tree. During rendering your app state is loaded into your Root component by Om Next interpreting its static query. This app state is received as 'props'. It is your job to pick these props apart and hand 'sub props' down the rest of the tree. You do this in the render method of each of your components.
So your second option is the way to go. reads are related to keywords that are in your static component queries. If you make sure that your state is in default db format, then in fact every read can be implemented the same way, making use of db->tree. Having a global component and making every read a multimethod are unrelated concepts, and thus not incompatible. In fact having both is quite idiomatic.
There are ToDo application examples already that you may wish to look at for reference: here and here.
One thing to note is that your Root component query will use joins to include the other components, so your query [:todos] does not look right to me. Something like [{:todos (om/get-query TodoList)}] would be better :-)

Associating an Object with other Objects and Properties of those Objects

I am looking for some help with designing some functionality in my application. I already have something similar designed but this problem is a little different.
Background:
In my application we have different Modules. Data in each module can be associated to other modules. Each Module is represented by an Object in our application.
Module 1 can be associated with Module 2 and Module 3. Currently I use a factory to provide the proper DAO for getting and saving this data.
It looks something like this:
class Module1Factory {
public static Module1BridgeDAO createModule1BridgeDAO(int moduleid) {
switch (moduleId)
{
case Module.Module2Id: return new Module1_Module2DAO();
case Module.Module3Id: return new Module1_Module3DAO();
default: return null;
}
}
}
Module1_Module2 and Module1_Module3 implement the same BridgeModule interface. In the database I have a Table for every module (Module1, Module2, Module3). I also have a bridge table for each module (they are many to many) Module1_Module2, Module1_Module3 etc.
The DAO basically handles all code needed to manage the association and retrieve its own instance data for the calling module. Now when we add new modules that associate with Module1 we simply implement the ModuleBridge interface and provide the common functionality.
New Development
We are adding a new module that will have the ability to be associated with other Modules as well as specific properties of that module. The module is basically providing the user the ability to add their custom forms to our other modules. That way they can collect additional information along with what we provide.
I want to start associating my Form module with other modules and their properties. Ie if Module1 has a property Category, I want to associate an instance From data with that property.
There are many Forms. If a users creates an instance of Module2, they may always want to also have certain form(s) attached to that Module2 instance. If they create an instance of Module2 and select Category 1, then I may want additional Form(s) created.
I prototyped something like this:
Form
FormLayout (contains the labels and gui controls)
FormModule (associates a form with all instances of a module)
Form Instance (create an instance of a form to be filled out)
As I thought about it I was thinking about making a new FormModule table/class/dao for each Module and Property that I add. So I might have:
FormModule1
FormModule1Property1
FormModule1Property2
FormModule1Property3
FormModule1Property4
FormModule2
FormModule3
FormModule3Property1
Then as I did previously, I would use a factory to get the proper DAO for dealing with all of these. I would hand it an array of ids representing different modules and properties and it would return all of the DAOs that I need to call getForms(). Which in turn would return all of the forms for that particular bridge.
Some points
This will be for a new module so I dont need to expand on the factory code I provided. I just wanted to show an example of what I have done in the past.
The new module can be associated with: Other Modules (ie globally for any instance of that module data), Other module properties (ie only if the Module instance has a certian value in one of its properties)
I want to make it easy for developers to add associations with other modules and properties easily
Can any one suggest any design patterns or strategy's for achieving this?
If anything is unclear please let me know.
Thank you,
Al
You can use springs Dependency Injection feature. This would help you achieve the flexibility of instantiating the objects using an xml configuration file.
So, my suggestion would be go with the Springs.

Model view controller

I have a tree control in my GUI (with naturally lots of GUI/platform specific functions to handle the nodes).
I have a data model with its own complex set of nodes, children, properties etc..
I want the tree to display a representation of the model, be able to send messages to the nodes inside the model and be told to redraw itself when the model changes.
But I don't want the GUI code to need to know the details of the model's data types and I don't want to pollute the model by linking it to the GUI classes.
I can't get my head around how the controller is supposed to do this and what functions it should provide?
(this is in C++ but that shouldn't matter)
GUI "controls" don't quite fit neatly into a model-view-controller pattern because they typically have their own internal model rather than accepting a reference to one. If the control is structured that way, you'll need an adapter class that "data-binds" the control's internal model to the underlying data model.
This can accomplish something similar to what model-view-controller would, except that the adapter class plays the role both of a view hookup component (updating the GUI from the data model) and a controller (interpreting GUI events into model actions).
Qt provides a group of classes for model-view programming. You can hook a tree view to a filesystem model, for example, and neither directly know anything about each other (except a pointer to the model in the view).
Your requirements are:
Tree displays representation of model
Nodes in tree can send messages to nodes inside model
Tree redraws itself based on model changes
I don't know exactly what kind of data you're working with here, but a hierarchical model is a fairly simple thing. I'll take it as a given you know how to iterate hierarchical data and populate a tree view.
Your controller should have member function(s) for sending messages to the model. The parameters should be a model element and the message you want to send. This way, the UI is completely unaware of how the message gets to the element, but can get the messages through.
The last requirement is more tricky, and depends on a few things (e.g., the lifetime of the controller, application architecture, etc.) I'm going to assume the controller lives as long as the tree view does. If that's the case, then your controller should provide a way to set a callback on model changes. Then, when the controller changes the model, it can callback to the UI without being aware of the UI.
i think your troubles start with an unfortunate choice of words. the 'control' thingies doesn't have anything to do with the 'controller' in MVC. that's why some GUI libraries use other names (widgets is a common one).
your 'tree control' is the view, not the controller. it should be tied to the GUI, both for display, and to get GUI events and turn them into 'tree events'.
the controller gets those 'tree events' and does the necessary modifications to the model. that's where you couple the 'action' with the 'response'.
First Solution: You can implement a "Subject observer" pattern between model and view, with model as the subject and view as the observer. Whenever there is a change in the state of model, it can fire a event to all the observers those are registered, they can update themselves.
Second Solution: Introduce a controller, which registers with model as observer. Upon receiving a event for update from Model, it can update the view. Even you can decouple view from controller using one more subject observer pattern between controller and view
Third Solution: Use MVP pattern. Model view Presenter. This pattern used whenever there is no much computation in controller i.e., job of the controller is just to update its corresponding view. Here controller becomes Presenter.
You need a controller that sits outside the display widget but has the state of the tree (in MFc there are CTreeView/CTreeCtrl classes - there is a similiar separation in Qt) the tree controller handles all the data storage and calls redraws on the tree widget.
Changes in the tree widget get sent to the tree controller - so this controller needs to know about the gui functions.
The model will need set/get functions for all the relevant parameters for the nodes. But these can return simple types so aren't dependent on the gui.
Updating the view form the model requires sending a message, if you don't want the model to know about your gui messaging the best you can do is register a callback function (a void pointer to a function) from the tree controller - and call this to do an update.
This update function can then query the model for the changes.