I need to bind together two ListProperties:
ObservableList<Data<Number, Number>> chartDataList = FXCollections.observableArrayList();
ListProperty<Data<Number, Number>> chartDataProperty = new SimpleListProperty<>(this, "chartData", chartDataList);
ObservableList<Point2D> observableData = FXCollections.observableArrayList();
ListProperty<Point2D> dataProperty = new SimpleListProperty<>(this, "Data", observableData);
chartDataList will be used to display a LineChart, while the other (data) will be used in the rest of my program. chartDataProperty is not really needed (but for binding), because LineChart uses just chartDataList.
Note: binding needs to be bidirectional because I have means to manually drag the points on the LineChart using mouse.
I didn't find a direct way to handle this; only conversion seems to be to/from String (or ListProperty<String>). I could use that, with man-in-the-middle ListProperty<String>, but it looks very inefficient.
Otherwise I need to resort to ChangeListner usage, manually handling all possible cases.
Please tell me I have some better choice.
Related
Unable to understand how "Operations on a stream produce a result, but do not modify its underlying data source" with reference to java 8 streams.
shapes.stream()
.filter(s -> s.getColor() == BLUE)
.forEach(s -> s.setColor(RED));
As per my understanding, forEach is setting the color of object from shapes then how does the top statement hold true?
The value s isn't being altered in this example, however no deep copy is taken, and there is nothing to stop you altering the object referenced.
Are able to can alter an object via a reference in any context in Java and there isn't anything to prevent it. You can only prevent shallow values being altered.
NOTE: Just because you are able to do this doesn't mean it's a good idea. Altering an object inside a lambda is likely to be dangerous as functional programming models assume you are not altering the data being process (always creating new object instead)
If you are going to alter an object, I suggest you use a loop (non functional style) to minimise confusion.
An example of where using a lambda to alter an object has dire consequences is the following.
map.computeIfAbsent(key, k -> {
map.computeIfAbsent(key, k -> 1);
return 2;
});
The behaviour is not deterministic, can result in both key/values being added and for ConcurrentHashMap, this will never return.
As mentioned Here
Most importantly, a stream isn’t a data structure.
You can often create a stream from collections to apply a number of functions on a data structure, but a stream itself is not a data structure. That’s so important, I mentioned it twice! A stream can be composed of multiple functions that create a pipeline that data that flows through. This data cannot be mutated. That is to say the original data structure doesn’t change. However the data can be transformed and later stored in another data structure or perhaps consumed by another operation.
AND as per Java docs
This is possible only if we can prevent interference with the data
source during the execution of a stream pipeline.
And the reason is :
Modifying a stream's data source during execution of a stream pipeline
can cause exceptions, incorrect answers, or nonconformant behavior.
That's all theory, live examples are always good.
So here we go :
Assume we have a List<String> (say :names) and stream of this names.stream(). We can apply .filter(), .reduce(), .map() etc but we can never change the source. Meaning if you try to modify the source (names) you will get an java.util.ConcurrentModificationException .
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<String> names = new ArrayList<>();
names.add("Joe");
names.add("Phoebe");
names.add("Rose");
names.stream().map((obj)->{
names.add("Monika"); //modifying the source of stream, i.e. ConcurrentModificationException
/**
* If we comment the above line, we are modifying the data(doing upper case)
* However the original list still holds the lower-case names(source of stream never changes)
*/
return obj.toUpperCase();
}).forEach(System.out::println);
}
I hope that would help!
I understood the part do not modify its underlying data source - as it will not add/remove elements to the source; I think you are safe since you alter an element, you do not remove it.
You ca read comments from Tagir and Brian Goetz here, where they do agree that this is sort of fine.
The more idiomatic way to do what you want, would be a replace all for example:
shapes.replaceAll(x -> {
if(x.getColor() == BLUE){
x.setColor(RED);
}
return x;
})
We're in the process of moving to DTM implementation. We have several variables that are being defined on page. I understand I can make these variables available in DTM through data elements. Can I simply set up a data elem
So set data elements
%prop1% = s.prop1
%prop2% = s.prop2
etc
And then under global rules set
s.prop1 = %s.prop1%
s.prop2 = %s.prop2%
etc
for every single evar, sprop, event, product so they populate whenever they are set on a particular page. Good idea or terrible idea? It seems like a pretty bulky approach which raises some alarm bells. Another option would be to write something that pushes everything to the datalayer, but that seems like essentially the same approach with a redundant step when they can be grabbed directly.
Basically I want DTM to access any and all variables that are currently being set with on-page code, and my understanding is that in order to do that they must be stored in a data element first. Does anyone have any insight into this?
I use this spec for setting up data layers: Data Layer Standard
We create data elements for each key that we use from the standard data layer. For example, page name is stored here
digitalData.page.pageInfo.pageName
We create a data element and standardize the names to this format "page.pageInfo.pageName"
Within each variable field, you access it with the %page.pageInfo.pageName% notation. Also, within javascript of rule tags, you can use this:
_satellite.getVar('page.pageInfo.pageName')
It's a bit unwieldy at times but it allows you to separate the development of the data layer and tag manager tags completely.
One thing to note, make sure your data layer is complete and loaded before you call the satellite library.
If you are moving from a legacy s_code implementation to DTM, it is a good best practice to remove all existing "on page" code (including the reference to the s_code file) and create a "data layer" that contains the data from the eVars and props on the page. Then DTM can reference the object on the page and you can create data elements that map to variables.
Here's an example of a data layer:
<script type="text/javascript">
DDO = {} // Data Layer Object Created
DDO.specVersion = "1.0";
DDO.pageData = {
"pageName":"My Page Name",
"pageSiteSection":"Home",
"pageType":"Section Front",
"pageHier":"DTM Test|Home|Section Front"
},
DDO.siteData = {
"siteCountry":"us",
"siteRegion":"unknown",
"siteLanguage":"en",
"siteFormat":"Desktop"
}
</script>
The next step would be to create data elements that directly reference the values in the object. For example, if I wanted to create a data element that mapped to the page name element in my data layer I would do the following in DTM:
Create a new data element called "pageName"
Select the type as "JS Object"
In the path field I will reference the path to the page name in my data layer example above - DDO.pageData.pageName
Save the data element
Now this data element can be referenced in any variable field within any rule by simply typing a '%'. DTM will find any existing data elements and you can select them.
I also wrote about a simple script you can add to your implementation to help with your data layer validation.Validate your DTM Data Layer with this simple script
Hope this helps.
I have the below code in my web site.
I want to track each anchor tag using DTM. I know how to track single element. Since here we have a bunch of different elements, can anyone help how to track them using DTM? I don't want to create separate rule for each element. In a single rule how can we track these elements.
Here is an example of what you can do.
For Element Tag or Selector put "a.at-share-btn" (no quotes). This will target all the relevant links first. We can look for this too in the next step, but "pre-qualifying" it with this will improve performance so that the rule is not evaluated against every single a click.
Then, under Rule Conditions, add a Criteria of type Data > Custom.
In the Custom box, add the following:
var shareType = this.getAttribute('class').match(/\bat-svc-([a-z_-]+)/i);
if (shareType&&shareType[1]) {
_satellite.setVar('shareType',shareType[1]);
return true;
}
return false;
This code looks for the class (e.g. "at-svc-facebook") and puts the last part of it (e.g. "facebook") into a data element named shareType.
Then, you can reference it using %shareType% in any of the DTM fields. Note: because this data element is made on-the-fly, it will not show up in the auto-complete when you type it out in a field.
Alternatively, in custom code boxes (e.g. if you are needing to reference it in a javascript/3rd party tag box), you can use _satellite.getVar('shareType')
Good day!
I've a legacy application where data access layer consists of classes where queries are done using SqlConnection/SqlCommand and results are passed to upper layers wrapped in untyped DataSets/DataTable.
Now I'm working on integrating this application into newer one where written in ASP.NET MVC 2 where LINQ2SQL is used for data access. I don't want to rewrite fancy logic of generating complex queries that are passed to SqlConnection/SqlCommand in LINQ2SQL (and don't have permission to do this), but I'd like to have result of these queries as strong-typed objects collection instead of untyped DataSets/DataTable.
The basic idea is to wrap old data access code in a nice-looking from ASP.NET MVC "Model".
What is the fast\easy way of doing this?
Additionally to the answer below here is a nice solution based on AutoMapper: http://elegantcode.com/2009/10/16/mapping-from-idatareaderidatarecord-with-automapper/
An approach that you could take is using the DataReader and transfer. So for every object you want to work with define the class in a data transfer object folder (or however your project is structured) then in you data access layer have something along the lines of the below.
We used something very similar to this in a project with a highly normalized database but in the code we did not need that normalization so we used procedures to put the data into more usable objects. If you need to be able to save these objects as well you will need handle translating the objects into database commands.
What is the fast\easy way of doing
this?
Depending on the number of classes etc this is could not be the fastest approach but it will allow you to use the objects very similarly to the Linq objects and depending on the type of collections used (IList, IEnumerable etc) you will be able to use the extension methods on those types of collections.
public IList<NewClass> LoadNewClasses(string abc)
{
List<NewClass> newClasses = new List<NewClass>();
using (DbCommand command = /* Get the command */)
{
// Add parameters
command.Parameters["#Abc"].Value = abc;
// Could also put the DataReader in a using block
IDataReader reader = /* Get Data Reader*/;
while (reader.Read())
{
NewClass newClass = new NewClass();
newClass.Id = (byte)reader["Id"];
newClass.Name = (string)reader["Name"];
newClasses.Add(newClass);
}
reader.Close();
}
return newClasses;
}
I'm working on an application at the moment in ASP.NET MVC which has a number of look-up tables, all of the form
LookUp {
Id
Text
}
As you can see, this just maps the Id to a textual value. These are used for things such as Colours. I now have a number of these, currently 6 and probably soon to be more.
I'm trying to put together an API that can be used via AJAX to allow the user to add/list/remove values from these lookup tables, so for example I could have something like:
http://example.com/Attributes/Colours/[List/Add/Delete]
My current problem is that clearly, regardless of which lookup table I'm using, everything else happens exactly the same. So really there should be no repetition of code whatsoever.
I currently have a custom route which points to an 'AttributeController', which figures out the attribute/look-up table in question based upon the URL (ie http://example.com/Attributes/Colours/List would want the 'Colours' table). I pass the attribute (Colours - a string) and the operation (List/Add/Delete), as well as any other parameters required (say "Red" if I want to add red to the list) back to my repository where the actual work is performed.
Things start getting messy here, as at the moment I've resorted to doing a switch/case on the attribute string, which can then grab the Linq-to-Sql entity corresponding to the particular lookup table. I find this pretty dirty though as I find myself having to write the same operations on each of the look-up entities, ugh!
What I'd really like to do is have some sort of mapping, which I could simply pass in the attribute name and get out some form of generic lookup object, which I could perform the desired operations on without having to care about type.
Is there some way to do this to my Linq-To-Sql entities? I've tried making them implement a basic interface (IAttribute), which simply specifies the Id/Text properties, however doing things like this fails:
System.Data.Linq.Table<IAttribute> table = GetAttribute("Colours");
As I cannot convert System.Data.Linq.Table<Colour> to System.Data.Linq.Table<IAttribute>.
Is there a way to make these look-up tables 'generic'?
Apologies that this is a bit of a brain-dump. There's surely imformation missing here, so just let me know if you'd like any further details. Cheers!
You have 2 options.
Use Expression Trees to dynamically create your lambda expression
Use Dynamic LINQ as detailed on Scott Gu's blog
I've looked at both options and have successfully implemented Expression Trees as my preferred approach.
Here's an example function that i created: (NOT TESTED)
private static bool ValueExists<T>(String Value) where T : class
{
ParameterExpression pe = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "p");
Expression value = Expression.Equal(Expression.Property(pe, "ColumnName"), Expression.Constant(Value));
Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, bool>>(value, pe);
return MyDataContext.GetTable<T>().Where(predicate).Count() > 0;
}
Instead of using a switch statement, you can use a lookup dictionary. This is psuedocode-ish, but this is one way to get your table in question. You'll have to manually maintain the dictionary, but it should be much easier than a switch.
It looks like the DataContext.GetTable() method could be the answer to your problem. You can get a table if you know the type of the linq entity that you want to operate upon.
Dictionary<string, Type> lookupDict = new Dictionary<string, Type>
{
"Colour", typeof(MatchingLinqEntity)
...
}
Type entityType = lookupDict[AttributeFromRouteValue];
YourDataContext db = new YourDataContext();
var entityTable = db.GetTable(entityType);
var entity = entityTable.Single(x => x.Id == IdFromRouteValue);
// or whatever operations you need
db.SubmitChanges()
The Suteki Shop project has some very slick work in it. You could look into their implementation of IRepository<T> and IRepositoryResolver for a generic repository pattern. This really works well with an IoC container, but you could create them manually with reflection if the performance is acceptable. I'd use this route if you have or can add an IoC container to the project. You need to make sure your IoC container supports open generics if you go this route, but I'm pretty sure all the major players do.