I am trying to create the HTTPClient for building a framework using Apache HTTPClient in Java for REST webservices.
Here I found that we can create the client using the below two ways. I want to know the difference between them.
1.HTTPCLientBuilder.create().build()
2.HTTPClients.custom().build()
The answer is on SO, just a bit hidden. Reposting euphoria99's answer from this question:
HttpClient (interface)
implemented by:
CloseableHttpClient - ThreadSafe.
DefaultHttpClient - ThreadSafe BUT deprecated, use HttpClientBuilder instead.
HttpClientBuilder - NOT ThreadSafe, BUT creates ThreadSafe CloseableHttpClient.
Use to create CUSTOM CloseableHttpClient.
HttpClients - NOT ThreadSafe, BUT creates ThreadSafe CloseableHttpClient.
Use to create DEFAULT or MINIMAL CloseableHttpClient.
So when you write .custom() and then don't set any custom things, there is, aparently, no differnce
If you look at the source of HttpClients you will see:
/**
* Creates builder object for construction of custom
* {#link CloseableHttpClient} instances.
*/
public static HttpClientBuilder custom() {
return HttpClientBuilder.create();
}
So, to answer the question, the only difference is one extra call in the stack as one uses the other.
Talking in general:
HttpClients has predetermined "configurations" for creating HttpClient instances.
HttpClientBuilder is for building new HttpClient instances that you can customize during the building process and it is used by HttpClients in some of its methods.
Related
I know we can implement IWantCustomInitialization to configure NServicebus with other IoC continers lets say Castle.Windsor for instance, but I found this is obsoleted. in new version alternatively I used INeedInitialization, but it also didn't solve my issue because the container was specified before "INeedInitialization.Customize" invocation, So
at last I implemented IConfigureThisEndpoint as my final solution.
To sum up my question; when to use "INeedInitialization" and "IConfigureThisEndpoint"?
Best Regards
Both give you access to do basically the same things. The big difference is that IConfigureThisEndpoint is once per endpoint, so you use that to configure truly endpoint-specific things. INeedInitialization can have many implementations, and all of them get executed. So you can package up multiple INeedInitialization behaviors in a Conventions assembly and use them throughout your solution to carry out tasks common to multiple (or all) endpoints.
This has been changed a bit over time and v5 of NServiceBus introduce a different API. For context you can read through the following bug comments. What the intent is:
IConfigureThisEndpoint - for configuring the Endpoint. Can only have 1 per instance.
INeedInitialization - for configuring a component used by the Endpoint. Can have multiple implementations of this per instance.
An example of when to use IConfigureThisEndpoint (see full example)
public class EndpointConfig : IConfigureThisEndpoint, AsA_Server, UsingTransport<MsmqTransport>
{
public void Customize(BusConfiguration configuration)
{
configuration.UsePersistence<NHibernatePersistence>();
}
}
An example of when to use INeedInitialization (see full example)
class ResponderInstaller : INeedInitialization
{
public void Init()
{
Configure.Instance.Configurer.ConfigureComponent<CustomHttpResponder>(DependencyLifecycle.InstancePerCall);
}
}
I've been running into endless problems attempting to use Windsor with Web API and injecting HttpRequestMessage into downstream dependencies of a controller. Since I've tried all the matching answers on Stackoverflow, I'd like to ask the question in a different way:
In Castle Windsor, how can I resolve a component instance while supplying a value for a downstream dependency? That is, the supplied value is required by a component that is required by the component being resolved.
For context, I'm trying to inject HttpRequestMessage so that I can use it to resolve the request context (primarily to resolve an absolute URL).
Edit I'd also like to point out that I don't currently have a dependency on Web Host / System.Web and I'd rather not change that.
A proper approach is to
Create IMyDesiredRouteParameterProvider
Implement it. Get the current request inside it and get the url
Register it and inject it in the desired dependent class via constructor.
I made myself such an implementation and I can say that this way it works fine. You can make Web.Infrastructure assembly and put the implementation there. Or put both the interface and the implementation there if you are going to reference it from another web module.
using System;
using System.Web;
namespace RouteParameterProvider
{
interface IMyRouteParameterProvider
{
string GetRouteParameter();
}
public class ControllerActionMethodRouteParameterProvider : IMyRouteParameterProvider
{
public string GetRouteParameter()
{
string Parameter = HttpContext.Current.Request.RequestContext.RouteData.Values["controller"] as string;
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(Parameter))
{
throw new InvalidOperationException();
}
return Parameter;
}
}
}
You can get every possible thing that the Request Context contains from :
HttpContext.Current.Request.RequestContext
And it will be better if you rethink your design decision :
I need HttpRequestMessage to be regstered prior to creating each
instance of SomethingController so that it will be available down at
the LinkGenerator layer.
Containers are to be initialized at runtime and then used to resolve.
I need HttpRequestMessage to be regstered prior to creating each
instance of SomethingController so that it will be available down at
the LinkGenerator layer.
It sounds like you want to register an item with the container at runtime, post-startup. In general, this is not a good practice--registration should be a discrete event that happens when the app is fired up, and the container's state should not be changed during runtime.
Dependency Injection is about resolving service components, not runtime state--state is generally passed via methods (method injection). In this case it sounds like your LinkGenerator component needs access to the ambient state of the request.
I'm not that familiar with HttpRequestMessage, but this answer seems to show that it is possible to retreive it from HttpContext.Current. You could make this a method on your LinkGenerator class, or wrap this call in a separate component that gets injected into LinkGenerator (HttpRequestMessageProvider?). The latter would be my preferred method, as it allows LinkGenerator to be more testable.
Given the lack of a clean way of doing this and Web API not providing information as to the hosted endpoint beyond per-request context objects, I ended up injecting the base url from configuration.
Is this library by Mark Seemann the answer? In the description he writes explicitly :
This approach enables the use of Dependency Injection (DI) because the
request can be injected into the services which require it.
Then gives an example :
// Inside an ApiController
var uri = this.Url.GetLink(a=> a.GetById(1337));
By which you can then pass the URL down the road in the service that you have injected in the controller.
UPDATE :
Mark Seemann wrote about the same exact problem here:
"Because HttpRequestMessage provides the context you may need to
compose dependency graphs, the best extensibility point is the
extensibility point which provides an HttpRequestMessage every time a
graph should be composed. This extensibility point is the
IHttpControllerActivator interface:..."
This way you can pass request context information to a component deep in the object graph by getting from the HttpRequestMessage and passing it to the DI container.
Just take a look at the interface of IHttpControllerActivator.
The WEB API framework gets the IHttpControllerActivator through DependencyResolver. You probably already replaced it by your CastleWindsorDependencyResolver. Now you have to implement and register your HttpControllerActivator and register it.
When the WEB API framework gets IHttpControllerActivator from DependencyResolver (your Castle Windsor DR) and calls IHttpControllerActivator.Create() it will pass you the HttpRequestMessage. You can get your info from there and pass it to the your CastleDR before you call Resolve(typeof(MyController)) which will resolve the whole object graph - that means you will have MyHttpContextInfo to inject in your XYZComponent deep in the resolution stack.
This way tou are passing the arguments in the last possible moment but it is still possible. In Castle Windsor I make such passing of arguments though CreationContext.AdditionalArguments["myArgument"];.
Background
Okay I'm one of those guys who NEVER asks questions and who can usually find what I need from existing questions or forums....but alas I have spent the last few days trying to figure this one out and have come up with very little existing information.
I am using Flash Builder 4.6 for PHP Premium to build a Flex application that uses the PHP Zend Frameworks's AMF capabilities to map classes from PHP to Flex and to use them as objects to send back and forth instead of using XML or JSON. Right now I am doing it all on a single local machine for ease.
Issue
I am not having trouble mapping my own custom PHP classes into ActionScript/Flex classes but I cannot for the life of me manage to map a DateTime PHP class into an ActionScript Date class. I have read elsewhere that it automatically maps DateTime objects to Date objects but I have never gotten it to work.
Strangely though, I can get it to work if I replace all instances of, in my case, valueObjects.DateTime (the auto-generated ActionScript class) to Date in the _Super_Foo.as class that has the DateTime property. This basically forces Flex to interpret the data of that property as a Date. However, since all the _Super_XXX.as files are files that autogenerated by Flex, it gets rewritten any time I refresh or edit ANY PHP service that Flex is linking to in Flash Builder.
Remarks
I could of course do this the quick and dirty way by keeping the variable as a string (it's coming from MySQL in a DateTime field) and then just create some functions to convert it to a Date object on the client side but I need a more permanent and stable solution.
Example:
<?php
class Foo {
public $id; // int
public $name; // string
public $date; // DateTime
public $bar; // custom object
}
?>
should go to --->
package {
class Foo {
public var id:int;
public var name:String;
public var date:Date; // native class
public var bar:Bar;
}
}
but I am getting
package {
class Foo {
public var id:int;
public var name:String;
public var date:DateTime; // custom class
public var bar:Bar;
}
}
I have tried things such as the following:
in the gateway.php file
$server->setClassMap("Date", "DateTime");
using the Zend_Date object instead
$foo->date = new Zend_Date($blah);
and after trying to map it as well explicitly
$server->setClassMap("Date", "Zend_Date");
the change I currently have working in the _Super_Foo.as file (which gets written over frequently)
private var _internal_date : valueObjects.DateTime; // custom object
to
private var _internal_date : Date; // native object
I just need it to do this automatically like I have read it should.
Well I have to admit, that I usually use BlazeDS on Java and not Zend, but I have had similar problems in transfering Calendar objects (I wanted to prevent loosing the timezone data). For This BlazeDS supported so-called PropertyProxys, which are components that allow to takeover the serialization/deserialization process for certain types.
I would assume that ZEND would support a similar thing. So another option would actually be to make Zend zupport the full Flex type. I have searched a little and it seems that the entire terminology is different in Zend, but I think this stackoverflow article should explain it a little: Zend AMF custom dispatcher
Chris
In my experience, Zend Framework has taught me that it offers many features but many times they don't work exactly how you'd expect. For example:
Recently I was working with a bug in "digitalus-cms" (A blog-like framework built on top of ZF) that it couldn't post new articles with a hyphen in their title name. I tracked it down to Zend_Form_Element::filterName. It uses a regular expression that matches any character that falls into the category of: [^a-zA-Z0-9_\x7f-\xff] then removes it. This ends up removing hyphens from the names of form elements which wound up being the cause of the bug.
If Zend_Amf or Zend_Date doesn't work the way you want it to, find a workaround such as passing a unix timestamp number around so everything works the way it should. Then afterwards, you can write a class to extend off one of Zend's classes. Zend Framework is meant to be extended upon, that's the way the framework was built so you can fix issues like these on your own to get the framework to behave how you want it to. That's the whole point of wrappers. Go ahead, create some of your own wrapper classes and toss in some methods to interact with ZF so you can fine-tune everything.
As far as finding the cause of your issue, all I can tell you is keep on debugging and isolating code so you know what you are passing flex, and how flex responses to that. After you play around with it enough, I'm sure you'll find the culprit.
AmfPHP automatically maps it. http://www.silexlabs.org/amfphp/
I'm using PHPStorm v3 and have some code which connects to a certain SOAP service. (via a simple PHP SoapClient) No problems whatsoever. But the PHPStorm inspector cant find the methods available of the WSDL and thus cant recognize the used methods:
$this->soap = new SoapClient('somewsdl url');
$issues = $this->soap->getIssuesFromJqlSearch($this->auth,
'ticketId = '.$ticket->getId().'
AND impId ~ "'.$currentImplementation->getIdentifier().'"', 1);
Everything works but the method 'getIssuesFromJqlSearch' which is provided by the external WSDL is highlighted with the mentioning of an undefined method... How can i 'tell' PHPStorm what should/could be used (or explain how to parse the WSDL?)
You can suppress the inspection for this statement from the Alt+Enter, right arrow menu:
This is not perfect, since it does not parse the WSDL and you have to do it manually, but works fine after the initial setup.
Create a class extending the native SoapClient and use annotations to add virtual methods:
/**
* #method mixed getIssuesFromJqlSearch
**/
class VendorSpecific extends \SoapClient {}
Or you could generate such client yourself, implementing all the methods as a proxy to self::__soapCall(). See my SoapClient generator for reference. The upside is that it can parse the WSDL, though not perfectly.
I've got a bit of a problem. I'm working in the Castle Windsor IOC Container. Now what i wanted to do is just mess about with some AOP principles and what i specifically want to do is based on a method name perform some logging. I have been looking at Interceptors and at the moment i am using the IInterceptor interface implemented as a class to perform this logging using aspects. The issue is if i want to perform the logging on a specific method then it gets messy as i need to put in some logic into my implemented aspect to check the method name etc...
I have read that you can do all of this using Dynamic Proxies and the IInterceptorSelector interface and the IProxyGenerationHook interface. I have seen a few examples of this done on the net but i am quite confused how this all fits into the Windsor container. I mean i am using the windsor container which in my code is actually a ref to the IWindsorContainer interface to create all my objects. All my configuration is done in code rather than XML.
Firstly does anyone know of a way to perform method specific AOP in the windsor container besides the way i am currently doing it.
Secondly how do i use the Dynamic Proxy in the windsor container ?
Below i have added the code where i am creating my proxy and registering my class with
the interceptors
ProxyGenerator _generator = new ProxyGenerator(new PersistentProxyBuilder());
IInterceptorSelector _selector = new CheckLoggingSelector();
var loggingAspect = new LoggingAspect();
var options = new ProxyGenerationOptions(new LoggingProxyGenerationHook())
{ Selector = _selector };
var proxy = _generator.CreateClassProxy(typeof(TestClass), options, loggingAspect);
TestClass testProxy = proxy as TestClass;
windsorContainer.Register(
Component.For<LoggingAspect>(),
Component.For<CheckLoggingAspect>(),
Component.For<ExceptionCatchAspect>(),
Component.For<ITestClass>()
.ImplementedBy<TestClass>()
.Named("ATestClass")
.Parameters(Parameter.ForKey("Name").Eq("Testing"))
.Proxy.MixIns(testProxy));
The Test Class is below:
public class TestClass : ITestClass
{
public TestClass()
{
}
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
public void Checkin()
{
Name = "Checked In";
}
}
as for the interceptors they are very simple and just enter a method if the name starts with Check.
Now when i resolve my TestClass from the container i get an error.
{"This is a DynamicProxy2 error: Mixin type TestClassProxy implements IProxyTargetAccessor which is a DynamicProxy infrastructure interface and you should never implement it yourself. Are you trying to mix in an existing proxy?"}
I know i'm using the proxy in the wrong way but as i haven't seen any concrete example in how to use a proxy with the windsor container it's kind of confusing.
I mean if i want to use the LoggingProxyGenerationHook which just tell the interceptors to first for methods that start with the word "check" then is this the correct way to do it or am i completely on the wrong path. I just went down the proxy way as it seems very powerfull and i would like to understand how to use these proxies for future programming efforts.
By using .Interceptors() you already are using Dynamic Proxy. When component has specified interceptors Windsor will create proxy for it, and use these interceptors for it. You can also use method .SelectedWith and .Proxy property to set other options you already know from DynamicProxy.
I just added a website about Windsor AOP to documentation wiki. There's not much there yet, but I (and Mauricio ;) ) will put there all the information you need. Take a look, and let us know if everything is clear, and if something is missing.