In the excellent mvvmcross-library I can use RIO binding to prevent unreadable code:
public INC<String>Title = new NC<String>();
Then I can read and write values using Title.Value. Makes the models much more readable.
Normally, this property would be written as:
private string _title;
public string Title
{
get { return _title; }
set
{
_title = value;
RaisePropertyChanged("Title");
}
}
But when I want to use sqlite-net, these fields cannot be streamed to the database because they are not basic types with a getter and setter.
I can think of a few options how to get around that:
Make a new simple object that is similar to the model, but only with
the direct db-fields. And create a simple import-export static
method on the model. This also could prevent struggling with complex
model-code that never needs to relate to the actual database.
Make sqlite-net understand reading NC-fields. I read into the code of the mapper, but it looks like this is going to be a lot of work because it relies on the getter-setter. I did not find a way to insert custom mapping to a type, that could be generic.
Remove RIO and just put in all the code myself instead of relying on RIO.
Maybe someone has some advice?
Thanks Stuart. It was exactly my thought, so I did implement it that way: my (DB) Models do not contain RIO. Only my viewmodels do, and they reference a Model that is DB-compatible.
So, for posterity the following tips:
- Do not use RIO in your models that need to be database-backed.
- Reference models in your viewmodels. In the binding you can use the . (dot) to reference this model.
This keeps them nicely separated. This gives you also another advantage: if you need to reuse a model (because the same object might be displayed twice on the screen), but under different circumstances, it is much easier to handle this situaties to find this already instantiated model.
Related
I'm an architect from a strong JavaScript background, but I did some .NET and Java in the past.
However, I wanted to put a hand on ActionScript3, which I was promised that is very related to JavaScript.
As a startup project I took on myself to try port to ActionScript3 one of my favorite assertion utils - should.js - that makes your test codes really pleasant to read.
Updated: 2013-02-19
I saw I confuse with my abstract speaking, so I replaced some of the post with the concrete question in mind.
Here's the full picture:
Consider the following JavaScript code:
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, 'should'
, { set: function(){}
, get:
function(){
return new Assertion(Object(this).valueOf());
}
, configurable: true
, enumerable : false
}
);
That is part of the implementation of the JavaScript module Should. The other part is a definition of a the class Assertion, that is constructed with a value, and implements a wide and nice set of assertion methods, against that value. Methods like like
var o = Assertion(actualValue)
o.equals(expectedValue1)
o.moreThan(expectedValue2)
o.contains(expectedValue3)
and aliases to keep english grammer
var o = Assertion(actualValue)
o.equal(expectedValue1)
o.contain(expectedValue3)
and aliases for the lazy sharpshooters, like
o.eql(expectedValue)
o.gt(expectedValue) //greater then
o.gte(...) //greater then or equal
//and so on...
and some connectors that just return this, (which is the instance of Assertion constructed with the test value) like
o.be
o.and
What does it give you?
A test code that looks like this:
var person = getPerson();
Should.exist(person); //that's a static call, and that's easy
//but these are a member calls:
person.should.have("name","age","address","friends");
person.name.should.equal("John");
person.age
.should
.be.number()
.and.be.between(20,30);
person.address
.should
.be.string().and
.startWith("\d").and
.endWith(" st.")
//or even
.and.match(/^[0-9]{1,9}\s+[A-Z][a-z0-9 ]* st\.$/);
person.friends
.should
.be.array().and
.be.between(3,5).and
.containOnlyType(String);
Isn't that wonderful? it's plain English!
You could argue about aesthetics of indentation, where to put the and, and if they are at all necessary, but besides that - anybody can read or write it:
Once you took the 'should' attribute that exists on every object but does not spoil map iterations - you can go on chaining whatever you have to claim regarding the value you started from.
It could have more nifty iteration tools, reflection utilities, be augmented with test functions relevant for your object model, and so on and so forth, but lets just get over the first step :)
But for that, you need every object in the system to feature a non-enumerable smart property called should that in it's getter function returns an Assertion object constructed with the this as the tested value.
(you ain't seen nothing yet - wait to see the beautiful rejection messages it gives! Yummie!!
So yea - I would happily sacrifice the option to call an attribute "should"... and will happily give up intelisense as well - at least as long as it's plain English)
So, in comments, bfavaretto gave us the first step - we know how to prevent enumeration of an attribute - great & thanks!!
Now, can we make it a getter-attribute who's function can access the this?
When I'm done I'm going to put it in some public repo licensed under MIT, for all of us to have fun with :)
Help anybody?
You example is actually 90% correct - but define it like actionscript, not like javascript!
You can still define prototypes in AS3 and they will still work just like prototypes in AS2. The only difference in AS3 is the compiler. AVM2 for some reason does not cast prototypes to native classes (although I didn't test custom classes).
The Prototype Trick: Cast the class as an object.
Eg: if you create:
Array.prototype.random = function():void{}
Then create the object:
var myProtoArray:Array = new Array;
2 things will happen:
myProtoArray.random() //ERROR - this will fail, AVM2 did not map the prototype to Array
but
Object(myProtoArray).random() //WORKS
random() was cast to the Object class, then mapped to Array - I have no idea why!
Hope this helps, cheers.
I confess I'm not keenly familiar with how Javascript works, but if I'm understanding defineProperties purpose correctly, it is a runtime dictation of not just what a property should be, but also the associated namespace to which it belongs (or at least what AS3 considers a namespace).
Class properties are either predefined & only modifiable via custom get() set() functions, or dynamic. Once compiled, their namespace cannot be changed (to my knowledge), so any non-private property is implicitly enumerable, and modifiable whether or not you've written getter/setters (ie: foo.a = value). According to Adobe...
Properties that you create are enumerable, but built-in properties are
generally not enumerable.
That said, you can get a complete list of properties from a class by using describeType. Quite an exhaustive amount of info can be gleaned this way, and I suspect should suit your needs if you wanted to port Mozilla's recreated defineProperties example. Below is an example printing out only property values.
function showProps(obj:*):void {
var desc:XML= describeType(obj);
// public vars
for each (var n:XML in desc.variable){
trace(n.#name + ": " + obj[n.#name]);
}
// getters
for each (n in desc.accessor){
try {
trace(n.#name + ": " + obj[n.#name]);
} catch (error:Error) {
trace("Unable to read write-only property.");
}
}
}
I hope this helps, but I'm certain I don't fully understand what you're trying to accomplish. If you could elaborate, that'd be appreciated.
Ok, guys, thanks for all the help, 22+
I'll give a summary for the people that are interested in the original question, and after that - I'll show you the outcome of my efforts.
The challange was made of two parts:
1 - prevent the augmented (=added on runtime) property from being enumerated
To the first part - thanks to #bfavaretto, commented on the question level - Object.setPropertyIsEnumerable - did the trick great.
2 - make the augmented property operate a getter function with access to the this so it can use it on the constructor of the returned value.
About this second part - Basically - I could not find a way to augment (=add) a property getter to a prototype, and have it operate on instances that enjoy it's API through the inheritance tree.
Anyway, within these limits - here's the outcome:
https://github.com/osher/should.as
Not exact porting because of the platform differences,
and I still have some methods to catch up with the original should.js (like the HTTP testing methods)
but close enough.
The main difference is that instead
var o:Object =
{ name : "Radagast"
, color: "Brown"
}
o.should.have.properties("name","color")
.and.have.property("name","Radagast");
o.name.should.not.equal("Palandoo");
o.color.should.equal("Brown");
you have to go
o.should().have.properties("name","color")
and.have.property("name","Radagast");
o.name.should().not.equal("Palandoo");
o.color.should().equal("Brown");
(the brackets - no getter possible - so the should attribute is a method, and you have to invoke it yourself)
Now if you get stuck and need help from the intellisense, you have to do this:
var should:tdd.Should = o.color.should();
should. <ctrl+space>
which kind'a takes the sting out, but for a peek in the intelisense - it helps
Important
One more thing - you have to force the static constructor of Should as soon in execution as you can,
for example, I do it here:
[Suite]
[RunWith("org.flexunit.runners.Suite")]
public class my_awsome_test_suite
{
//forces the static constructor of tdd.Should
import tdd.Should;
private static var s:Should = new Should();
public var c1:testCase1;
public var c2:testCase2;
public var c3:testCase3;
public var c4:testCase4;
}
I'll probably add some propper README.md later, and more awsome member functions to tdd.Should
Have fun
I'm currently trying to find a "definitive" solution (meaning : finding a solution that seems efficient a complying with OOP precepts) to a recurring problem I've been experiencing for some time : the problem of shared data in different parts of my code.
Take note that I'm not using any MVC framework anywhere here. I'm just refering to my data class as a Model and to the display class as a View (because its the proper names and have nothing to do with the MVC pattern, people made views & models way before the MVC pattern was "created").
Here's my problem :
Whenever I make an application that uses some quite expanded data (for example a game), I try to separate logic (movements, collisions, etc...) and display in two classes. But then, I stumble upon the problem : how to "bind" the data stored in my logic class with the corresponding display objects in my view class, without duplicating data, references, or other things between the different classes ?
Lets take a basic example :
I have a MyLogicClass, holding a Vector of "EntityData" objects (each with position, sizes, various states, everything to handle the logic of my items)
And I have a MyViewClass, creating and displaying Sprites for each EntityData that are in the MyLogicClass, and make them move after them being updated in the game loop.
The first thing that would come to my mind would be to store inside each data element its corresponding view, thus allowing me to loop throught my Vector to update the items logic then update the views accordingly. But that forces me to hold a MyLogicClass reference inside the MyViewClass, to be sure that I can target the entities data, forcing me to couple the two classes (things that I would prefer not to do).
On the other hand, there's the solution of each Entity having an ID, both in my data model (MyLogicClass's EntityData objects having an ID parameter) and in my View class (Sprites holding a reference to its original entity data ID). But when I want to target a specific entity that forces me to loop for it in my data model, then loop for it again to find the related Sprite in my View. This solution allows me to have loose coupling between my data and my view, but looping through hundreds of elements twice every frame (can happen !) really sounds not performance optimized for me.
I may be giving the whole problem a lot more importance that it should deserve, but I've been stumbling upon that more than one time, and I'd love to have some other views than mine about that.
Do you guys have any advice / solution for such an issue ?
Are there some other data formats / hierarchy that I may not be aware of for such case ?
What I've done is 'link' them together using events and event listeners. I have my "model parts" throw specific events that the "display parts" catch and render/update.
I've found this does let me structure some of my tests by writing testing code that would listener for certain events and error checks it that way. My code is still separated and testable on it's own: I can test my "model" by triggering and making sure the right events with the right values are being thrown. Like-wise, I can write some testing code to throw preset events that can be caught by the "display" to see if it has any issues.
Then once it is all working, I just reuse those same event listeners and link to 'each other'.
Later my "controller" (user input) would manipulate the "model" parts, which would cause events to be thrown to the "display" thus be rendered/updated.
I don't know if this is "correct" or not in terms of following the mvc pattern nor do I really have any formal knowledge on these sorts of things. I'd be interested in someone else's more knowledgeable opinion as well.
I think maybe you have over thought the problem. I do this sometimes.
Your view class has to have some type of link to the model obviously and an event is a great way to do it. Something bare bones here to give you an idea.
// Model class
package
{
class MyModel extends EventDispatcher
{
// you can make them public but that would
// be against some oop practices. so private it is
private var m_position:Vector2D;
MyModel(){}
// one way of doing getters/getters
// example: theModel.SetPosition(something);
public function GetPosition():Vector2D { return m_position; }
public function SetPosition(value:Vector2D):void
{
m_position = value;
ModelChanged();
}
// the other way
// sample: theModel.position = something;
public function get position():Vector2D {return m_position; }
public function set position(value:Vector2D):void
{
m_position = value;
ModelChanged();
}
private function ModelChanged():void
{
dispatchEvent(new Event(Event.CHANGE));
}
}
}
// now for our view.
package
{
class MyView extends Sprite // or whatever
{
private var model:MyModel;
MyView(model:MyModel)
{
this.model = model;
model.addEventListener(Event.CHANGE, handleModelChanged);
// fire off an event to set the initial position.
handleModelChanged(NULL);
}
private function handleModelChanged(evt:Event):void
{
x = model.position.x;
y = model.position.y;
// etc etc etc.
}
}
}
Anyhow you don't need the setters if your going to have the logic in the model file also obviously if nothing outside of the model needs to change it no reason for setters. But you do need the getters.
This decouples the model from the view and you can write any view any way you want and all you have to provide is a handler for when the model has changed. Just expose whatever data your views will need with getters.
You now only have to loop through the models and if one changes it will fire off an event and the views that are listening in will update.
hope I didn't miss anything and that explains what you were wanting.
Edit: I forgot to add, you don't have to have "ModelChanged()" all over the place if your using something like an update function. Just update and when your finished fire off the event.
I was wondering, why do static Create methods exist?
For instance, why use this code:
System.Xml.XmlReader reader = System.Xml.XmlReader.Create(inputUri);
over this code:
System.Xml.XmlReader reader = new System.Xml.XmlReader(inputUri);
I cannot find the rationale for using one over the other, and can't find any relation between classes who use this construct over the other.
Can anyone shed some light on this?
XmlReader is an abstract class. You cannot instantiate it.
Providing a Create method is an instance of the factory pattern. Depending on the specified arguments a different implementation of XmlReader is chosen and returned. For example, there are validating and non-validating XmlReader implementations in the .NET framework.
A more general answer...
The reason people like these kinds of methods, known as "static factory methods", is because you can give them a name (as opposed to constructors). So if you need three different constructors, you can instead create static factory methods which have names relevant to their use.
Another reason is that a factory method doesn't really need to create new objects - it can return the same one over and over if need be.
Because it can actually create and object of derived type that you have no access to or return an abstract class (as dtb answered). This is factory method pattern.
A constructor can only be used to create instances of one specific class, while a static Create method can create an instance of different classes depending on the input.
In the case of the XmlReader class the Create method will return an XmlDictionaryReader, XmlTextReader, XmlValidatingReader or XmlNodeReader, depending on which overload you use and what parameters you send to it.
This pattern allows the XmlReader class to provide you with instances of derived classes tailored to the parameters you passed to Create. Note in particular the overloads that accept an XmlReaderSettings object. A different XmlReader subclass can be returned to you depending on your settings.
A better example is WebRequest.Create(url). Depending on the URL you pass, you may receive an HttpWebRequest, an FtpWebRequest, etc.
Because you don't have to commit to the exact class of object you get. Constructors can only construct objects from exactly one class.
Because you can give the method a meaningful name, e.g. BigInt.probablePrime(). Constructors can only have the same name as the class.
Because you can have more than one factory method for the same parameter type combination, e.g. Point.fromPolarCoords(int, int) and Point.fromCartesianCoords(int, int), but there can be only one constructor Point(int, int).
(A much more detailed answer is given in Bloch's 'Effective Java'.)
Sometimes they exist as a form of self-documentation. I have a db access component that I can instantiate either with a connection string or the name of the connection in the config file. Both of these methods take strings as a parameter so they cannot be differentiated by arguments alone. So I created a FromConnectionString(string) factory method and a FromConnectionName(string) factory method. This nuance would entirely be lost by a new Foo(bool, string) line.
The idea is that this way they can change the implementation of XmlReader and not break any user code (e.g. they can change the actual type that is returned from the Create method).
I personally don't like this approach, because it creates an inverse relationship in the XmlReader class hierarchy. Maybe they thought that the Factory pattern is an overkill?
To encapsulate object creation.
I have question regarding the use of function parameters.
In the past I have always written my code such that all information needed by a function is passed in as a parameter. I.e. global parameters are not used.
However through looking over other peoples code, functions without parameters seem to be the norm. I should note that these are for private functions of a class and that the values that would have been passed in as paramaters are in fact private member variables for that class.
This leads to neater looking code and im starting to lean towards this for private functions but would like other peoples views.
E.g.
Start();
Process();
Stop();
is neater and more readable than:
ParamD = Start(paramA, ParamB, ParamC);
Process(ParamA, ParamD);
Stop(ParamC);
It does break encapsulation from a method point of view but not from a class point of view.
There's nothing wrong in principle with having functions access object fields, but the particular example you give scares me, because the price of simplifying your function calls is that you're obfuscating the life cycle of your data.
To translate your args example into fields, you'd have something like:
void Start() {
// read FieldA, FieldB, and FieldC
// set the value of FieldD
}
void Process() {
// read FieldA and do something
// read FieldD and do something
}
void Stop() {
// read the value of FieldC
}
Start() sets FieldD by side effect. This means that it's probably not valid to call Process() until after you've called Start(). But the code doesn't tell you that. You only find out by searching to see where FieldD is initialized. This is asking for bugs.
My rule of thumb is that functions should only access an object field if it's always safe to access that field. Best if it's a field that's initialized at construction time, but a field that stores a reference to a collaborator object or something, which could change over time, is okay too.
But if it's not valid to call one function except after another function has produced some output, that output should be passed in, not stored in the state. If you treat each function as independent, and avoid side effects, your code will be more maintainable and easier to understand.
As you mentioned, there's a trade-off between them. There's no hard rule for always preferring one to another. Minimizing the scope of variables will keep their side effect local, the code more modular and reusable and debugging easier. However, it can be an overkill in some cases. If you keep your classes small (which you should do) then the shared variable would generally make sense. However, there can be other issues such as thread safety that might affect your choice.
Not passing the object's own member attributes as parameters to its methods is the normal practice: effectively when you call myobject.someMethod() you are implicitly passing the whole object (with all its attributes) as a parameter to the method code.
I generally agree with both of Mehrdad and Mufasa's comments. There's no hard and fast rule for what is best. You should use the approach that suits the specific scenarios you work on bearing in mind:
readability of code
cleanliness of code (can get messy if you pass a million and one parameters into a method - especially if they are class level variables. Alternative is to encapsulate parameters into groups, and create e.g. a struct to whole multiple values, in one object)
testability of code. This is important in my opinion. I have occassionally refactored code to add parameters to a method purely for the purpose of improving testability as it can allow for better unit testing
This is something you need to measure on a case by case basis.
For example ask yourself if you were to use parameter in a private method is it ever going to be reasonable to pass a value that is anything other than that of a specific property in the object? If not then you may as well access the property/field directly in the method.
OTH you may ask yourself does this method mutate the state of the object? If not then perhaps it may be better as a Static and have all its required values passed as parameters.
There are all sorts of considerations, the upper most has to be "What is most understandable to other developers".
In an object-oriented language it is common to pass in dependencies (classes that this class will communicate with) and configuration values in the constructor and only the values to actually be operated on in the function call.
This can actually be more readable. Consider code where you have a service that generates and publishes an invoice. There can be a variety of ways to do the publication - via a web-service that sends it to some sort of centralized server, or via an email sent to someone in the warehouse, or maybe just by sending it to the default printer. However, it is usually simpler for the method calling Publish() to not know the specifics of how the publication is happening - it just needs to know that the publication went off without a hitch. This allows you to think of less things at a time and concentrate on the problem better. Then you are simply making use of an interface to a service (in C#):
// Notice the consuming class needs only know what it does, not how it does it
public interface IInvoicePublisher {
pubic void Publish(Invoice anInvoice);
}
This could be implemented in a variety of ways, for example:
public class DefaultPrinterInvoicePublisher
DefaultPrinterInvoicePublisher _printer;
public DefaultPrinterInvoicePublisher(DefaultPrinterFacade printer) {
_printer = printer
}
public void Publish(Invoice anInvoice) {
printableObject = //Generate crystal report, or something else that can be printed
_printer.Print(printableObject);
}
The code that uses it would then take an IInvoicePublisher as a constructor parameter too so that functionality is available to be used throughout.
Generally, it's better to use parameters. Greatly increases the ability to use patterns like dependency injection and test-driven design.
If it is an internal only method though, that's not as important.
I don't pass the object's state to the private methods because the method can access the state just like that.
I pass parameters to a private method when the private method is invoked from a public method and the public method gets a parameter which it then sends to the private method.
Public DoTask( string jobid, object T)
{
DoTask1(jobid, t);
DoTask2(jobid, t);
}
private DoTask1( string jobid, object T)
{
}
private DoTask2( string jobid, object T)
{
}
I wonder if you think that there is a need to refactor this class.( regarding separation of concern)
publi class CSVLIstMapping<T>
{
void ReadMappingFromAttirbutes();
void GetDataFromList();
}
ReadMappingFromAttributes - Reads the mapping from the type T and stores it in the class. Has a name of the list to use and a number of csvMappingColumns which contains the name of the property to set the value in and the name of csvcolumns.
GetObjectsFromList - uses a CVSListreader ( which is passed in via the constructor) to get the data from all row's as KeyValuePair ( Key = csvcolumnName , value = actually value) and after that it uses the mappinginformation( listname and csvMappingColumns ) to set the data in the object.
I cant decide if this class has 2 concerns or one. First I felt that it had two and started to refactor out the conversion from rows to object to another object. But after this it felt awkward to use the functionality, as I first had to create a mappingretriver, and after that I had to retrive the rows and pass it in together with the mapping to the "mapper" to convert the objects from the rows
/w
Sounds like two concerns to me: parsing and mapping/binding. I'd separate them. CSV parsing should be a well-defined problem. And you should care about more than mere mapping. What about validation? If you parse a date string, don't you want to make sure that it's valid before you bind it to an object attribute? I think you should.
Rule of thumb: if it's awkward, it's wrong.
I have to say I'm finding it hard to understand what you've written there, but I think it's likely that you need to refactor the class: the names seem unclear, any method called GetFoo() should really not be returning void, and it may be possible that the whole ReadMappingFromAttribute should just be constructor logic.