As Flutter has no reflection (due to tree shaking) I need to find a way to create Objects of a specific Type at runtime and I would strongly prefere to do it without code generation. So I think the best way to register a Type to be created like this would be the following:
class Test with Bindable {
static Test create() {
return new Test();
}
}
registerTest() {
registerType<Test>("test", Test.create);
}
void registerType<T extends Bindable>(String s, T Function() create) {}
Any other ideas?
Related
I was trying to write an abstract JsonSerializable class in order to have something like this:
abstract class JsonSerializable<T>{
T fromMap(Map<String,dynamic> map);
Map<String,dynamic> toMap();
T fromJsonString(String jsonString){
return fromMap(json.decode(jsonString));
}
String toJsonString(){
return json.encode(toMap());
}
}
My first problem was that fromMap and fromJsonString cannot be used as constructors, so I figured that could do something like this:
class Foo extends JsonSerializable<Foo>{
Foo();
factory Foo.fromMap(Map<String,dynamic> map){
return fromMap(map);
}
#override
Foo fromMap(Map<String, dynamic> map) {
// TODO: implement fromMap
return null;
}
#override
Map<String, dynamic> toMap() {
// TODO: implement toMap
return null;
}
}
Now, the code above causes the Dart analyzer to complain since I'm trying to access an instance method form a factory constructor.
So I thought I could just implement those methods without inheriting and overriding them (I know, it's a dirty solution), but still this won't provide me something that could just tell "hey this kind of class has this method".
Am I completely missing the point in this?
Is there a clean solution which does not involve code generation plugins, which apparently do not support generics?
My API responses have all this structure:
{
"key1":"value1",
"otherStuffKey":["blah", "blah"],
"data": <the object I want to generalize>
}
I need generics because I'd like to parse the object serialized as data value into different classes which have the same behavior.
PS: The toMap and toJsonString methods are useless if I'm going to parse the response, but they would be pretty useful to complete the circle and allow the use of this JsonSerializable for serializing requests too.
I am using Ninject version 3 in an MVVM-type scenario in a .NET WPF application. In a particular instance I am using a class to act as coordinator between the view and its view model, meaning the coordinator class is created first and the view and view model (along with other needed services) are injected into it.
I have bindings for the services, but I have not created explicit bindings for the view/view model classes, instead relying on Ninject's implicit self-binding since these are concrete types and not interfaces.
A conceptual version of this scenario in a console app is shown below:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
StandardKernel kernel = new StandardKernel();
kernel.Bind<IViewService>().To<ViewService>();
//kernel.Bind<View>().ToSelf();
//kernel.Bind<ViewModel>().ToSelf();
ViewCoordinator viewCoordinator = kernel.Get<ViewCoordinator>();
}
}
public class View
{
}
public class ViewModel
{
}
public interface IViewService
{
}
public class ViewService : IViewService
{
}
public class ViewCoordinator
{
public ViewCoordinator()
{
}
public ViewCoordinator(View view, ViewModel viewModel, IViewService viewService)
{
}
}
If you run this code as-is, the kernel.Get<> call will instantiate the ViewCoordinator class using the parameterless constructor instead of the one with the dependencies. However, if you remove the parameterless constructor, Ninject will successfully instantiate the class with the other constructor. This is surprising since Ninject will typically use the constructor with the most arguments that it can satisfy.
Clearly it can satisfy them all thanks to implicit self-binding. But if it doesn't have an explicit binding for one of the arguments it seems to first look for alternate constructors it can use before checking to see if it can use implicit self-binding. If you uncomment the explicit Bind<>().ToSelf() lines, the ViewController class will instantiate correctly even if the parameterless constructor is present.
I don't really want to have to add explicit self-bindings for all the views and view models that may need this (even though I know that burden can be lessened by using convention-based registration). Is this behavior by design? Is there any way to tell Ninject to check for implicit self-binding before checking for other usable constructors?
UPDATE
Based on cvbarros' answer I was able to get this to work by doing my own implementation of IConstructorScorer. Here's the changes I made to the existing code to get it to work:
using Ninject.Selection.Heuristics;
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
StandardKernel kernel = new StandardKernel();
kernel.Components.RemoveAll<IConstructorScorer>();
kernel.Components.Add<IConstructorScorer, MyConstructorScorer>();
kernel.Bind<IViewService>().To<ViewService>();
ViewCoordinator viewCoordinator = kernel.Get<ViewCoordinator>();
}
}
using System.Collections;
using System.Linq;
using Ninject.Activation;
using Ninject.Planning.Targets;
using Ninject.Selection.Heuristics;
public class MyConstructorScorer : StandardConstructorScorer
{
protected override bool BindingExists(IContext context, ITarget target)
{
bool bindingExists = base.BindingExists(context, target);
if (!(bindingExists))
{
Type targetType = this.GetTargetType(target);
bindingExists = (
!targetType.IsInterface
&& !targetType.IsAbstract
&& !targetType.IsValueType
&& targetType != typeof(string)
&& !targetType.ContainsGenericParameters
);
}
return bindingExists;
}
private Type GetTargetType(ITarget target)
{
var targetType = target.Type;
if (targetType.IsArray)
{
targetType = targetType.GetElementType();
}
if (targetType.IsGenericType && targetType.GetInterfaces().Any(type => type == typeof(IEnumerable)))
{
targetType = targetType.GetGenericArguments()[0];
}
return targetType;
}
}
The new scorer just sees if a BindingExists call failed by overriding the BindingExists method and if so it checks to see if the type is implicitly self-bindable. If it is, it returns true which indicates to Ninject that there is a valid binding for that type.
The code making this check is copied from the SelfBindingResolver class in the Ninject source code. The GetTargetType code had to be copied from the StandardConstructorScorer since it's declared there as private instead of protected.
My application is now working correctly and so far I haven't seen any negative side effects from making this change. Although if anyone knows of any problems this could cause I would welcome further input.
By default, Ninject will use the constructor with most bindings available if and only if those bindings are defined (in your case they are implicit). Self-bindable types do not weight when selecting which constructor to use.
You can mark which constructor you want to use by applying the [Inject] attribute to it, this will ensure that constructor is selected.
If you don't want that, you can examine StandardConstructorScorer to see if that will fit your needs. If not, you can replace the IConstructorScorer component of the Kernel with your own implementation.
I would like to use the nested Generics, like
class Class<List<T>> {
...
}
But always Dart Editor gives me alerts. How should I avoid these alerts?
Well, Dart Editor is right. This code doesn't make any sense. Without further information on what you are trying to do (don't hesitate to update your question), I am assuming you actually mean one of those:
class MyClass<T> {
List<T> listField;
// other stuff
}
Or maybe the list itself should be generic?
void main() {
MyClass<SomeCustomListClass<String>> instance = new MyClass();
}
class MyClass<T extends List<String>> {
T listField;
// ...
}
Or maybe everything has to be generic:
void main() {
MyClass<String, SomeCustomListClass<String>> instance = new MyClass();
}
class MyClass<TElement, TList extends List<TElement>> {
TList listField;
TElement _firstListElement;
// whatever that could be used for
}
We're currently looking at translating our JavaScript project to TypeScript. Our application relies heavily on custom developed jQuery UI widgets.
In our current code base, we're using a deep copy mechanism to inherit from widget definitions allowing us, for example, to declare a generic TableWidget as well as an OrdersTableWidget which defines more specific functions.
Therefore, I'd like to define my widget definitions as TypeScript classes and then bind an instance of these classes to jQuery.
For example
class MyWidget {
options: WidgetOptions;
_init(){
// general initialization
}
}
class MySecondWidget extends MyWidget {
_init(){
super._init();
// specific initialization
}
}
And then
$.widget("MyNameSpace.MyWidget", new MyWidget());
$.widget("MyNameSpace.MySeWidget", new MyWidget());
Furthermore, I'd like to denote my custom widgets as implementations of jQuery UI's Widget definition
class MyWidget implements Widget {
options: WidgetOptions;
_init(){
// general initialization
}
}
so I'm able to use the following syntax in TypeScript:
$(selector).MyWidget(options);
I know I have to work with the definition file (from DefinitelyTyped), however I have not yet found a reliable source explaining me how I should write custom jQuery UI Widgets in TypeScript. Has anyone got experience with this?
Any help greatly appreciated, as always!
I'm not sure you can write a class that implements the Widget interface, due to the lack of overloaded constructors. You could create a variable that is typed by the Widget interface.
A standard jQuery plugin would be represent in almost pure JavaScript and wouldn't use modules or classes as it ends up being wrapped up as part of jQuery, which itself isn't a module or class.
Here is an empty plugin called plugin that looks like any standard jQuery plugin, but you can see it takes advantage of the TypeScript type system and extends the JQuery interface to allow it to be called.
/// <reference path="jquery.d.ts" />
interface JQuery {
plugin(): JQuery;
plugin(settings: Object): JQuery;
}
(function ($) {
function DoSomething(someParamater: string) : void {
}
$.fn.plugin = function (settings) {
var config = {
settingA: "Example",
settingB: 5
};
if (settings) {
$.extend(config, settings);
}
return this.each(function () {
});
};
})(jQuery);
This would be called in the normal way.
$('#id').plugin();
So really, my answer is - you can't really do what you want because you are adding to the declared interfaces for jQuery rather than exposing them as modules. You could wrap the usage in a module, like an adaptor that abstracts the jQuery aspect away from the use in your TypeScript, or you can call your classes from inside the plugin, but the plugin or widget doesn't really fit into a module or class.
It might help to have a base class in typescript from which other widget classes may derive.
Its only purpose is to provide the base class semantic so you can access the base class'es members without having to resort to weak typing.
The trick is to remove all the members at runtime (in the constructor) -- otherwise you run into problems with the inheritance provided by the widget factory. For example, the option method would override the widget's original method which is not desired: we just want to be able to call it (in a statically typed way).
class WidgetBase {
public element:JQuery;
constructor() {
// remove all members, they are only needed at compile time.
var myPrototype = (<Function>WidgetBase).prototype;
$.each(myPrototype, (propertyName, value)=>{
delete myPrototype[propertyName];
});
}
/**
* Calles the base implementation of a method when called from a derived method.
* #private
*/
public _super(arg1?:any, arg2?:any, arg3?:any, arg4?:any) {
}
/**
* #private
*/
public _superApply(arguments) {
}
/**
* Gets or sets the value of the widget option associated with the specified optionName.
*/
public option(optionName:string, value?:any):any {
}
// ... further methods from http://api.jqueryui.com/jQuery.widget/
}
Then you can implement your own widget like this:
class SmartWidget extends WidgetBase {
constructor(){
super();
}
public _create() {
var mySmartOption = this.option('smart'); // compiles because of base class
this.beSmart(mySmartOption);
}
public _setOption(key:string, value:any) {
if (key === 'smart') {
this.beSmart(value);
}
this._super(key, value); // compiles because of base class
}
private beSmart(smartOne:any){
// ...
}
}
// register
jQuery.widget("myLib.smartWidget", new SmartWidget());
// assuming you are using https://github.com/borisyankov/DefinitelyTyped
declare interface JQuery{
smartWidget();
smartWidget(options:any);
smartWidget(methodName:string, param1?:any, param2?:any, param3?:any, param4?:any);
}
And finally, you can use your widget:
$(".selector").smartWidget({smart:"you"});
In Dart, is it possible for a function to have a prototype associated with it?
Example Javascript code:
doStuff.prototype.isDefined = true; //is there anything like Javascript's function prototypes in Dart?
function doStuff(){
console.log("The function doStuff was called!");
}
Is it possible to do the equivalent of this in Dart (i.e., create a list of properties for each function?)
Two things to address here:
First, Dart doesn't have prototypes or prototypal inheritance, and instead uses classical inheritance. Rather than a prototype, objects have a class, and instead of a prototype chain, objects have superclasses.
Second, for your specific case, I think we'd have to see more of what you need to do to figure out the idiomatic way to do it in Dart. It should soon be possible to emulate functions with objects so that you can invoke an object and still have state and other methods associated with it.
See this article for more: http://www.dartlang.org/articles/emulating-functions/
When that capability lands you'll be able to do this:
class DoStuff {
bool isDefined = true;
call() => print("The function doStuff was called!");
}
var doStuff = new DoStuff();
main() => doStuff();
Which works if you have a fixed set of metadata about your function that you need to keep track of. It's slightly different from JavaScript because each instance of the function in Dart will have its own state for isDefined. I'm not sure if it's possible or easy to get multiple instances of the function in JavasScript, but you might need to make isDefined static so that the value is shared across all instances.
Dart does not allow you to add or remove member variables from an instance of a class at runtime. Rewriting your example in Dart it might look something like this:
class doStuff {
bool isDefined;
doStuff() {
isDefined = true;
}
void stuff() {
print('The function stuff was called!');
}
}
main() {
new doStuff().stuff();
}
If you wanted to add a property bag to a class in Dart you would write:
class PropertyObject {
Map<String, Dynamic> properties;
PropertyObject() {
properties = new Map<String, Dynamic>();
}
Dynamic operator[](String K) => properties[K];
void operator[]=(String K, Dynamic V) => properties[K] = V;
}
main() {
PropertyObject bag = new PropertyObject();
bag['foo'] = 'world';
print('Hello ${bag['foo']}');
}
Note that you can't access map properties using the '.' operator.