Sorry, this maybe a basic question. What are the difference between JNA direct mapping and interface mapping?
Is my interpretation correct:
Direct mapping: use the library object directly (like static main in Java)
Interface mapping: create an instance of the library object.
Thanks in advance!
Direct mapping directly binds your Java methods (declared with the native modifier) to native code which attempts to use the call stack as-is. Direct mapping is most effective if you restrict your function arguments and return values to primitive types (the Pointer type may be considered primitive).
The interface mapping uses a Proxy and dynamically translates Java function signatures into a generic native entry point with a list of arguments which must subsequently be translated into native primitives. It's more flexible w/r/t translating Java types to and from native, but can be much slower due to the runtime translation of arguments.
Related
I've read about the great capabilities of Type Providers, such as static-typing when querying JSON documents, so I can imagine that I can create what I have in my mind at the moment, with this technology.
Let's say I want to allow a consumer of my TypeProvider-library Foo a way to create a type Bar, which will have the following pre-condition for each of their methods: check the mutable state of a boolean disposed field, if it's true, throw an ObjectDisposedException.
Would this be possible? How could one define such an implementation of this high-level type creator?
A couple of years back Keith Battocchi published a project called ILBuilder. Among other things ILBuilder contains a method type provider in ILBuilder.fs that provides methods for types in mscorlib, e.g.
MethodProvider.Methods.System.Console.``WriteLine : string*obj->unit`
It is possible you could use this as a starting point for a type provider that wraps classes from another assembly and provides methods.
Another option might be to consider Ross McKinlay's Mixin Type Provider that (ab)uses F#'s Type Provider mechanism to provide meta-programming capabilities.
Yet another option might be to use PostSharp, Fody etc. to do IL weaving, or code generation via reflection to build proxy classes.
That said probably the lowest friction solution would be to create a function that checks for disposal and manually add it to each member.
What does external mean in Dart? For example: external DateTime._now();
I'm new to Dart, I can't find documentation for external, so can you give an example to help explain？
9.4 External Functions
An external function is a function whose body is provided separately from its
declaration. An external function may be a top-level function (17), a method
The body of the function is defined somewhere else.
As far as I know this is used to fix different implementations for Dart VM in the browser and Dart VM on the Server.
When we make an external function inside a class like toString()
external String toString();
means this method is abstract and the child of the parent class will add the function body, that's because in Dart we only can make an abstract class.
Summary:
external function = abstract function in not abstract classes
I don't think external keyword is meant to be used to mark methods as abstract, even if that's possible
It's enough to leave a method with no implementation to set it abstract, inside an abstract class
It's the equivalent of declare in TypeScript, and extern in C#, those are used for interoperability with other runtimes, which means you're telling the compiler "Don't worry about this method's implementation, I promise it will exist at runtime", the runtime may be in C or Javascript or whatever
In case, if you are wondering why or where should I even use external keyword, here is a one more example for Flutter.
class MyStruct extends Struct {
#Int32()
external int a;
#Float()
external double b;
external Pointer<Void> c;
}
Sometimes, but not often when you play with native libraries, in this case with Struct to access native struct's field in memory. Under Struct We must declare all fields as external because it will be external fields from dart:ffi (C / C++).
So, external is more than just way to declare "abstract method".
9.4 External Functions
An external function is a function whose
body is provided separately from its
declaration.
What this does mean is that you define the function, but without implementation. It's exactly how you define the abstract method, but the only difference is that with external you don't implement the method in dart but in C or something else.
Something like String class it can be considered as external functions except that the String class it marked with #pragma('vm:entry-point') which make the entire class use native code.
See the following example to understand:
This dart's side.
https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/blob/main/sdk/lib/core/string.dart#L711
This the implementation in C++.
https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/blob/main/runtime/lib/string.cc#L467-#L472
In my opinion it is an equivalent of Java native keyword. For example, since current time milliseconds is implemented differently on Android, iOS, Linux etc, DateTime.now().millisecondsSinceEpoch will be linked to different implementations at runtime. So it is not initially known how this method will look like. For this reason it is marked as external meaning it is platform dependent.
I have an error stated above,, how can i call a function from another class, I'm using xamarin in mono for android,,.. is there anyone who is expert in using mono for android.,,?
This happens probably because you are trying to convert Java code to C#.
Xamarin has a nice article about this. Take a look at API design, especially section 4.5. Here is an excerpt from that article.
Non-static nested classes, also called inner classes, are significantly different. They contain an implicit reference to an instance of their enclosing type and cannot contain static members (among other differences outside the scope of this overview).
So, you should pass a reference of CentrixMOS.SongsActivity to CentrixMOS.SongsActivity.importDeals then access the members of it.
Do F# type providers work by using the DLR under the hood? That is to say, do they work in the way that the dynamic keyword in C# does? How is this related to expando objects?
How does codegen fit in?
Type providers are plugin to the compilation process. Internally a type provider may use DLR or anything but when the compiler ask it for a type it needs to return a type that is statically resolved at compile time. Think of it like rather than a human creating a type (class in C#) you have a assembly (type provider) which the compiler can ask to create a new type at compile time.
Ex: In case of SQL type provider the type representing the tables will be generated at compile time and put in the assembly as static types.
Type providers solve similar problem as the dynamic keyword in C# - both of them were designed to make it easier to access data that have some structure that is not described in your programming langauge and so you need to somehow infer it later.
The dynamic keyword just lets you access any member (i.e. data filed) or method at compile time and then decides how to handle the operation at runtime. If you're using it to access .NET object, then it will use DLR, but if you're accessing some other object (like JSON data) then it will perform some simple dictionary lookup.
F# type providers are quite different - they infer the structure at compile time and pass it to the F# compiler. The compiler will then check all your code. The type provider also decides how the access to a field or method should be compiled. Typically, it will either replace it with an ordinary .NET type (so it will be compiled as normal .NET invocation) or it will replace the object with some dictionary lookup. A type provider may use DLR under the cover, but I don't think it is very common case.
I've not been able to find a robust, general op_Dynamic implementation: can anyone point me to one? So far searches have only turned up toys or specific purpose implementations, but I'd like to have one on hand which, say, compares in robustness to C#'s default static dynamic implementation (i.e. handle lots / all cases, cache reflection calls) (it's been a while since I've looked at C#'s static dynamic, so forgive me if my assertions about it's abilities are false).
Thanks!
There is a module FSharp.Interop.Dynamic, on nuget that should robustly handle the dynamic operator using the dlr.
It has several advantages over a lot of the snippets out there.
Performance it uses Dynamitey for the dlr call which implements caching and is a .NET Standard Library
Handles methods that return void, you'll get a binding exception if you don't discard results of those.
The dlr handles the case of calling a delegate return by a function automatically, this will also allow you to do the same with an FSharpFunc
Adds an !? prefix operator to handle invoking directly dynamic objects and functions you don't have the type at runtime.
It's open source, Apache license, you can look at the implementation and it includes unit test example cases.
You can never get fully general implementation of the ? operator. The operator can be implemented differently for various types where it may need to do something special depending on the type:
For Dictionary<T, R>, you'd want it to use the lookup function of the dictionary
For the SQL objects in my article you referenced, you want it to use specific SQL API
For unknown .NET objects, you want it to use .NET Reflection
If you're looking for an implementation that uses Reflection, then you can use one I implemented in F# binding for MonoDevelop (available on GitHub). It is reasonably complete and handles property access, method calls as well as static members. (The rest of the linked file uses it heavily to call internal members of F# compiler). It uses Reflection directly, so it is quite slow, but it is quite feature-complete.
Another alternative would be to implement the operator on top of .NET 4.0 Dynamic Language Runtime (so that it would use the same underlying API as dynamic in C# 4). I don't think there is an implementation of this somewhere out there, but here is a simple example how you can get it:
#r "Microsoft.CSharp.dll"
open System
open System.Runtime.CompilerServices
open Microsoft.CSharp.RuntimeBinder
let (?) (inst:obj) name (arg:'T) : 'R =
// Create site (representing dynamic operation for converting result to 'R
let convertSite =
CallSite<Func<CallSite, Object, 'R>>.Create //'
(Binder.Convert(CSharpBinderFlags.None, typeof<'R>, null)) //'
// Create site for the method call with single argument of type 'T
let callSite =
CallSite<Func<CallSite, Object, 'T, Object>>.Create //'
(Binder.InvokeMember
( CSharpBinderFlags.None, name, null, null,
[| CSharpArgumentInfo.Create(CSharpArgumentInfoFlags.None, null);
CSharpArgumentInfo.Create(CSharpArgumentInfoFlags.None, null) |]))
// Run the method and perform conversion
convertSite.Target.Invoke
(convertSite, callSite.Target.Invoke(callSite, inst, arg))
let o = box (new Random())
let a : int = o?Next(10)
This works only for instance method calls with single argument (You can find out how to do this by looking at code generated by C# compiler for dynamic invocations). I guess if you mixed the completeness (from the first one) with the approach to use DLR (in the second one), you'd get the most robust implementation you can get.
EDIT: I also posted the code to F# Snippets. Here is the version using DLR: http://fssnip.net/2U and here is the version from F# plugin (using .NET Reflection): http://fssnip.net/2V