following the tutorial at
http://platform.netbeans.org/tutorials/nbm-quick-start.html#lookup
"Right-click the "TextFilter" module, choose Properties, and use the "API Versioning" tab so specify that the package containing the interface should be available throughout the application: " (org.demo.textfilter is set to public)
the problem is, this public package is not automatically imported by another class in another module with dependency on the TextFilter module. Whenever the dependencies are added, shouldn't the dependent classes/modules automatically import the dependencies ?
Your question is a bit hard to interpret, so I will tell you what I think you are asking and then provide an answer....
I assume that you have a couple netbeans module projects: TextFilter and MyModule.
Initially, MyModule depends on TextFilter.
There is a third module, let's call it Filter... that has a public, exported class org.filter.BaseClass.
You have made TextFilter dependent on Filter, so you can use the org.filter.BaseClass in the TextFilter module.
You are now attempting to use org.filter.BaseClass in MyModule and that is not working.
Module dependency defines the visibility of classes. That visibility does not span modules.
If you want MyModule to be able to use org.filter.BaseClass, you need to explicitly define the dependency between the module Filter and MyModule.
Related
So SimpleInjector now has a packaging nuget that you can use to isolate different aspects of root composition.
Say I have a configurable composition root in a library that is reused by multiple projects in an application. For example, in an Azure solution I might have a Web role and a Worker role which share a large set of the same dependencies for the most part, but with slightly different configuration options depending on the consumer. When I compose the root, I can pass in a plain old RootCompositionSettings object with properties that tell SimpleInjector how to register dependencies.
However, I am not sure how (or if) I can pass these settings to an IPackage instance. Is it possible to pass custom settings to a SimpleInjector package, and if so, how?
I see that the standard practices for registering packages is to invoke either
container.RegisterPackages(); // scans all loaded assemblies for IPackage
// or
container.RegisterPackages(IEnumerable<Assembly>) // specific assemblies only
...so how can we pass parameters into the packaging instance(s)? Is there some way to do it via the container?
The trick here is to pass the information on with the container to the package. You can do this by using the container's Items dictionary, that is much like ASP.NET's HttpContext.Items collection. This can be done as follows:
using SimpleInjector.Advanced;
container.SetItem(typeof(RootCompositionSettings), settings);
container.RegisterPackages();
Now inside your packages, you can do the following:
var settings =
(RootCompositionSettings)container.GetItem(typeof(RootCompositionSettings));
Please note that:
SetItem and GetItem are extension methods that are located in the SimpleInjector.Advanced namespace. Those methods allow you to access the (internal) Items dictionary.
You can pass in any key you like. Passing in typeof(RootCompositionSettings) is just convenient in this case, but not required.
If you need to call the settings in more places, it might be useful to create a more specific extension method that allows you to access the setting instance, but that's up to you.
Another option is to not use the IPackage interface and the SimpleInjector.Packaging library at all. In most cases it doesn't really add anything and you could simply define a public static method in the assembly that does the same as a package does. For instance:
public static class BusinessLayerBootstrapper
{
public static void Bootstrap(Container container, ScopedLifestyle scopedLifestyle,
RootCompositionSettings settings)
{
// Here the same logic as what you would write in your package.
}
}
Most applications are not that dynamic that you need to load assemblies dynamically and the startup project usually has a hard reference to all the other assemblies. In that case it is perfectly sane to simply call a static method.
And even if you have the requirement of dynamically loading assemblies and allowing them to register their stuff in the container, it's quite trivial to build your own IPackage abstraction instead:\
// Your own IPackage interface
public interface IPackage
{
void RegisterServices(Container container, RootCompositionSettings settings);
}
// Your own extension method
public static void RegisterPackages(this Container container,
RootCompositionSettings settings)
{
var packages =
from assembly in AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies()
from type in assembly.GetExportedTypes()
where typeof(IPackage).IsAssignableFrom(type)
where !type.IsAbstract
select (IPackage)Activator.CreateInstance(type);
packages.ToList().ForEach(p => p.RegisterServices(container, settings));
}
In fact, except for some extra validations and filtering out dynamic assemblies, the SimpleInjector.Packaging project is not much more than this.
I'm having some trouble extending classes in MXML, I will attempt to explain here, but I have also uploaded a Sample Flash Builder Project.
Consider that I have 2 classes:
game.implementation.base.view.MainView
game.implementation.ipad.view.MainView
note that they have slightly different package names (one is for ipad).
The idea is that the ipad package's classes will extend the classes of the base package.
Doing as described above produces an error:
Ambiguous reference to MainView. [Generated code (use -keep to save):
Path:
D:\FlexTests\Tests\bin-debug\generated\game\implementation\ipad\view\MainView-generated.as,
Line: 95, Column: 62]
I have reviewed the generated code, the offending function is:
_watcherSetupUtil.setup(this,
function(propertyName:String):* { return target[propertyName]; },
function(propertyName:String):* { return /** HERE **/ MainView[propertyName]; },
bindings,
watchers);
I have narrowed the problem down, I think it is caused by:
Extending class having the same name
Extending class using bindings in the MXML
Is there a way to fix this without doing either of the above?
I would prefer not to rename the classes, and obviously removing the bindings is not an option.
Yes it's a bug in the compiler, I found an old bug issue and cloned it:
FLEX-33580: CLONE - Ambiguous reference when using data binding in inherited class with the same name as base class in a different package
This only occurs when the:
(a) Extending class has the same name as base class, but is in a different package .
(b) Extending class makes use of data binding.
The workaround is to rename one of the classes.
I'm trying to create and instance of an object by reference the class object of the class using
getDefinitionByName()
the problem is that if I don't create at least one instance of the class before when try to use getDefinitionByName() it say
ReferenceError: Error #1065: Variable XXXXXX is not defined.
how can I include the class in the binary without using and instance first??, also I had tried to juts leave in the import but still don't include the class, it could be a compiler param I can pass??
I'm using Flex SDK 4.6 thanks!!!!!
As described in the documentation:
-includes class Links one or more classes to the resulting application SWF file, whether or not those classes are required at compile time
There is a bunch of compiler options which allow you to include classes, but they aren't very scalable / require some manual labour. For example, there's -includes option, but you must know what symbols to include. There's -include-libraries, but again, you'd have to compile a SWC library with the classes you need. -include-namespace - you'd need to write the namespace definition, listing all classes that you want to include.
Since I imagine that the task in the end will get automated one way or another, it would make more sense to just generate an AS file of the following format:
package your.app {
import fully.qualified.class.Name;Name; // it is enough to just mention it
. . .
}
And then include only this this class.
Well I think I found the solution, just add to the compiler the argument -includes like thised
-includes com.example.Myclass
that will include the class object in the binary even though u haven't used and after tried to load it with getDefinitionByName()
hopes this help to someone else, also here is a complete list of arguments for the compiler
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/flex/using/WS2db454920e96a9e51e63e3d11c0bf69084-7a92.html
im using Adobe® Flash® Builder™ 4.6,the problem also exist in previous versions.
for some reason ,i am using
cls = applicationDomain.getDefinition(name) as Class;
to get the object's constructor and then create the instance of my modules class.thus make compile ignore my module classes ,because they are not related from my main class.how to force else classes also compiled into my swf or swc file? i didn't find where i can adjust my compile option.
by now i use this way to solve my problem,at the very beginning of the program entry.
if(1+1==3){
//never be run but do make classes merge into swf files.
new MyModule();
}
i have hundreds of modules like this one,i do hope i can find a way to solve this problem permanently
You can try with this
package
{
public class IncludeClasses
{
import com.abc.db.Database;Database;
import com.abc.logs.RemoteLogTarget; RemoteLogTarget;
import com.abc.logs.LocalLogTarget; LocalLogTarget;
import com.abc.exception.GlobalExceptionHandler; GlobalExceptionHandler;
import com.abc.utils.NetConnectionMonitor;NetConnectionMonitor;
}
}
You need to use the class to get it to compile in the swf.
Not the best method but
private var someVar:someClass;
Using the "new" keyword will cause the run-time to allocate memory for the object so you don't want to use that.
This whole loading modules and compiling classes has a code smell to it.
You would be better off having your classes in the modules implement an interface.
You need at least one strict reference to your class to appear within the project. I use a static variable of type Array to stuff all of the classes I need, and never really reference that array, if I can.
private static var dummy:Array=[OneClass, AnotherClass, Class01, Etc];
You can also do this by setting your compiler flag.
About the application compiler options
See:
include-libraries library [...]
Include only classes that are inheritance dependencies of classes that
are included with the include-classes compiler option.
The default value is false.
This is an advanced option. You might use this compiler option if you
are creating a custom RSL and want to externalize as many classes as
possible. For example:
compc -include-classes mx.collections.ListCollectionView
-include-inheritance-dependencies-only=true
-source-path . -output lcv2 -directory
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.