Do you see any way to know when ANY model’s property has been modified through a binding?
I would need something generic because it would be applied to all the forms of the application. This means I cannot just have a 'property’Changed() observable callback for every properties of the models. I’m thinking along the ways of overriding the properties setters created by the binding engine so they can call a single defined callback but I feel like there could be a better way.
I created a aurelia-plugin for this kind of scenario (and more).
Its not exactly what your asking for, but can help you a lot.
because the plugin will create a single property called isDirty that you can observe and fire your code accordingly.
https://github.com/avrahamcool/aleph1-aurelia-utilities
look at the Dirty Tracking a model: section
your model class need to extends the baseClass provided by the plugin.
now you can decorate any properties of your model with the
#dirtyTrack() decorator.
for babel users: the assignment in the declaration will set the
default value for the property. for TS users: you should call the
decorator with a parameter #dirtyTrack(7) someInt: number;
this will set up a isDirty variable in your model. this property will
be automatically updated to with every change to your tracked
properties.
at any point, you can call saveChanges() on your model, to commit the
current changes. or discardChanges() to revert back to the last saved
point. you can call serialize() to get a pojo object from your model,
or deserialize(pojo) to populate your model from a pojo object.
Ok, I ended up just using the binding engine to watch all properties changes. This allowed me to implement my isDirty checks without modifying the existing models...
So the final code looks like this:
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(obj).forEach(p => {
this.subscriptions.push(this.binding.propertyObserver(obj, p)
.subscribe(() => this.updateDirty()));
});
my updateDirty() method is called after every property change and no change was necessary to the model.
If anyone can come up with a better solution, I'm still interested but this fits my needs for the time being.
Related
I have a single table inheritance mechanism and a controller method that creates objects based on a text type.
From my controller:
tile = Object.const_get(tile_data[:type]).new(params_from_tile(tile_data))
tile.save
inside my model base class I have several before create hooks:
before_create :set_handle, :upload
It appears none of my hooks are firing, does it have something to do with my use of Object.const_get to create my objects?
Edit: I've managed to work around this by not using Object.const_get().new now I'm just invoking my Tile.new directly, and there does not appear to be any negative repercussions, so yeah.
Theoretically, there is no difference how you access the class, both of these would behave exactly same:
Tile.new(params_from_tile(tile_data))
and
Object.const_get("Tile").new(params_from_tile(tile_data))
Your seeing bad behaviour may have to do with some other small thing missing.
May be tile_data[:type] in your example pointing to something else, did you make sure Tile record gets saved without callback. Can you try with Object.const_get("Tile") and see what happens.
I've changed this to invoke the baseclass directly:
Tile.new(params_from_tile(tile_data))
And now my hooks are being called as expected, so I'm not sure why this behaves this way, and would appreciate a better answer from someone who knows, but it appears that the answer is that using Object.const_get().new to create an object skips all hooks. On a side note, Invoking create on the baseclass with just a type attribute will still cause subclass hooks to fire, So thats nice.
I have problems to check if a persistent property in grails has an specific annotation for fields that belong to superclass ... ane then get it's name and value.
I am getting the persistence properties as:
GrailsDomainClassProperty[] persistentProperties = new DefaultGrailsDomainClass(entityClass).getPersistentProperties();
That works great ... but later i found that getDeclaredFields only retrieves the actual class fields (not superclass) and things starts to look not very Groovy.
Is there a prefered Groovy way to do this?
No, you should use this code for all super classes. The same will be for children classes.
I have a scenario where I have a property that is data-bound using polymer.dart, but it does not have its own backing field. Instead it is dynamically evaluated at run-time by logic which is dependent on a lot of other internal conditions. So when other logic dictates I want to tell the data-binding to update the value. In C#/XAML the NotifyPropertyChange does not require you to pass in old and new value so it is easy to solve this. But in polymer.dart we do need to pass old and new value always, which is not possible for a dynamically evaluated property (or at least not preferable for performance reasons). How would we handle this in polymer.dart?
Here is a pseudo example. The question is what I should put in the ??? fields?
class MyBoundClass extends Observable {
void run() {
... logic, sets values in several internal non-observable objects...
notifyPropertyChange(#status, ???, ???);
}
String get status {
result = ... logic, evaluates values from several internal non-observable objects...
return result;
}
}
I guess one solution would be to simply introduce another backing field in MyBoundClass. But what I really want is just to update the binding and I don't see why it required to pass the old value. It seems to me that if you just want to update the binding, the old value is not relevant?
Passing null as old value should do.
Suppose I want my class to do things on attribute access. I can of course do that in setters and getters:
class Foo {
set bar (v) {
// do stuff
}
}
However, if I want to attach the same behavior to multiple attributes, I'd have to explicitly define the same setters and getters for every one of them. (The use case I have in mind is an observable, i.e. a class that knows when its attributes are being changed).
What I'd like to do is something like:
class Foo {
var bar = new AttributeWithAccessBehavior();
}
Python does this with descriptors - what is the closest thing in Dart?
AFAIK there isn't anything with getter/setter syntax that you can reuse.
You could assign a function to a field, that you can access using call notation (), but you have to be careful to call the function instead of overriding the field assignment.
A similar but more powerful alternative are classes that can emulate functions (see https://www.dartlang.org/articles/emulating-functions/)
A class that has a call method can be used like a method.
This is similar to assigned functions mentioned above but in addition you can store state information.
If you implement actual getter/setter you can of course delegate to whatever you want, but that is obviously not what you are looking for.
For the use case you mentioned, there is the observe package.
I have no idea how exactly it solves the problem, but it works quite well.
[Bindable]
/**
* Display output of video device.
*/
public var videoLocal : Video;
Anyone knows?
[Bindable] is a one of several meta tags that you can use in flex ActionScript code. It can be applied to properties, or methods that are marked in any scope. It cannot be used with static class members.
The key to using the [Bindable] meta tag is understanding what is going on under the hood when you use it. Essentially using data binding is a type of shorthand for adding event listeners and dispatching events.
There are two basic forms of the [Bindable] tag. The first is just [Bindable] followed by a var/property declaration. The Second is [Bindable(event="eventname")] followed by either a var/property declaration, a function/method declaration or one half of a getter/setter declaration.
I'll explain the longer notation first since the other builds on the same concept but with even more shorthand.
When you use [Bindable(event="eventname")] you are essentially telling the compiler that this var/property/function/method (call this the instance member) is 'available' to be used as the source for data binding. You are also telling it that when the value of the instance member has been invalidated/changed and it needs to be re-read that the "eventname" event will be dispatched.
In this longer form this all you are doing. You the developer are responsible for actually dispatching the "eventname" event whenever the value needs to be updated in the binding subscribers.
The real efficiency of using data binding comes on the subscribing side. The typical notation you will see in MXML is value="{instance.propertyName}" When you use the notation { } you are telling the compiler to do the following:
Create an event listener that listens to the event named in the bindable meta tag
In that event listener re-read the instance.propertyName and update this value
If you use the shorter form [Bindable], and you add the tag before a property/var, the compiler fills in the blanks and adds some additional functionality to make the property bindable. Essentially you are telling the compiler "add the events and methods you need to make this property bindable"
Now the way to think of what the compiler will do under the hood is this.
make a private version of your var
create an "event" to trigger the binding
create a getter function with scope and name of your original var that returns the private verson of the var when called.
create a setter function with scope and name of your original var that sets the private version of the var when called AND dispatches the triggering event.
In essence the compiler will do much of the work for you.
[Bindable]
public var xyz
is equivalent to
private var _xyz:String;
[Bindable(event="updateXYZValue")]
public function get xyz():String{
return _xyz;
}
public function set xyz(newxyz:String):void{
_xyz = newxyz;
dispatchEvent(new Event("updateXYZValue"));
}
The only functional differences in these is that in the first instance;
you do not know the name of the event that will be dispatched to trigger the binding
there is no way to update the underlying value without triggering the data binding
This second example also demonstrates one special case of the [Bindable] meta tag. This is that when you are applying it to a getter/setter pair defined for the same variable name you need only apply it to one or the other, it will apply to both. Typically you should set it on the getter.
You can use either notation on a function/method however if you do not specify an event the binding will never be triggered so if you are trying to bind to a function you should alway specify an event. It is also possible to specify more than one triggering event by stacking the tag. eg.
[Bindable(event="metaDataChanged")]
[Bindable(event="metaObjectUpdated")]
public function readMyMetaData():MetaDataObject{
var myMetaDataObject:MetaDataObject;
.
.
.
return myMetaDataObject;
}
This would presume that somewhere else you your class you will dispatch this metaDataChanged event or the metaObjectUpdated event when you want trigger the binding.
Also note that with this notation you can tie the binding of any instance member to any event that the instance will dispatch. Even inherited events that you yourself do not generate such as FrameEnter, OnChange, etc...
Data bindings can also be setup and destroyed during runtime. If you are interested in this take a look at the mx.binding.utils classes.
It is used in Databinding with Flex, you can read more about it here
http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/help.html?content=databinding_2.html
Creating properties to use as the source for data binding
When you create a property that you
want to use as the source of a data
binding expression, Flex can
automatically copy the value of the
source property to any destination
property when the source property
changes. To signal to Flex to perform
the copy, you must use the [Bindable]
data tag to register the property with
Flex.
As an addition to what Justin said, you can actually use two ways data binding in Flex with the # character. Here's an example:
<s:TextInput id="txt1" text="#{txt2.text}" />
For a working example with source code enabled you can check out this article I wrote a while back:
Two-ways data binding in Flex