I'm at a loss as to how to use a resourcebundle in a blackberry app. I've made a class that extends ResourceBundle and overrides handleGetObject, but then when I say something like
ResourceBundle bundle = new EnglishBundle();
MenuItem example = new MenuItem(bundle, bundle.EXAMPLE, o, p);
addMenuItem(example);
I get null pointer exceptions. What am I doing wrong?
Let's say the resource bundle files that you have created are called Local.rrc and Local.rrh.
Your class will need to implement LocalResource. Yes that is just the name I chose above + Resource.
E.g.
public class FooScreen extends MainScreen implements LocalResource {
private static ResourceBundle _res = ResourceBundle.getBundle(BUNDLE_ID, BUNDLE_NAME);
...
System.out.println(_res.getString(SOMESTRING)); // where SOMESTRING exists in your resource file
The names of the files are clearly important here, assuming the above file default is for the English Strings, the Spanish file would need to be called Local_es.rrc. Creating this file would give you an es tab on your strings editing screen and will automatically use the correct set of strings based on the phones current language setting.
You could use a different constructor for MenuItem:
ResourceBundle bundle = new
ResourceBundle.getBundle(EnglishBundle.BUNDLE_NAME);
MenuItem example = new MenuItem(bundle, EnglishBundle.EXAMPLE, o, p);
addMenuItem(example);
Related
Should I get the following error:
class.dart:11:11: Error: The getter '_privateID' isn't defined for the class 'Y'.
- 'Y' is from 'class.dart'.
Try correcting the name to the name of an existing getter, or defining a getter or field named '_privateID'.
From the following code?
mixin.dart:
class Mixin {
static int _nextID = 0;
int publicID = _nextID++; // I only need one of these lines
int _privateID = _nextID++; // but this variable is inaccessible
}
class.dart:
import 'mixin.dart';
class X with Mixin {
void run() {
print(publicID); // no error here
}
}
class Y with Mixin {
void run() {
print(_privateID); // Error: _privateID not defined
}
}
void main() {
Y().run();
}
Or is this a bug? If it's not a bug, I'd like to understand why this behavior is reasonable.
When I instead define the mixin in the same file as the above classes, I get no error.
(Dart SDK 2.4.1.)
It is not a bug.
The private field is inherited, but you cannot access it because its name is private to a different library.
Dart's notion of "privacy" is library private names.
The name _privateID in the mixin.dart library introduces a library private name. This name is special in that it can only be written inside the same library.
If someone writes _privateID in a different library, it is a different name, one unique to that library instead.
It is as if private names includes the library URI of the library it is written in, so what you really declare is a name _privateID#mixin.dart.
When you try to read that field in class.dart, you write ._privateID, but because it is in a different library, what you really write is ._privateID#class.dart, a completely different name, and the classs does not have any declarations with that name.
So, if one class needs to access a private member of another class (or mixin, or anything), then the two needs to be declared in the same library, because otherwise they cannot even write the name of that variable.
That is why the code works if you write the mixin in the same library.
If you want to move the mixin to a separate file, but not necessarily a separate library, you can use a part file.
I'm translating a web application and things are generally going smoothly with wicket:message and properties files. But Wicket always wants to have a component for looking up strings.
How can I translate converters and renderers (i.e. implementations of IConverter and IChoiceRenderer) which don't have access to any Wicket component in their methods?
So far I found one way - Application.get().getResourceSettings().getLocalizer().getString(key, null) - but I have to make the strings "global", i.e. associated with the application class. That's not nice for separation and reuse. How can I do it better?
I think you should invent you own way how to achieve this. Here in my current project we registered our own IStringResourceLoader like this:
IStringResourceLoader stringResourceLoader = new OurOwnResourceLoaderImpl();
Application.get().getResourceSettings().getStringResourceLoaders().add(stringResourceLoader);
Then for example in IChoiceRenderer we just call Application.get().getLocalizer().getString("key", null).
Inside our IStringResourceLoader we are looking for bundles (property files) with some string pattern according our own conventions.
Or you can just register localization bundle (ie. properties file) distributed inside your library's jar in Application#init through org.apache.wicket.resource.loader.BundleStringResourceLoader.
Afaik there is no standard way to do that so it's up to you what path you choose.
Updated:
I found another solution how your library/extension can register it's own localization by itself so you needn't to touch Application#init or create your own IStringResourceLoaders.
There is preregistered string resource loader org.apache.wicket.resource.loader.InitializerStringResourceLoader (see wickets default IResourceSetting implementation ie. ResourceSetting and it's constructor) which uses wicket's Initializer mechanism - see IInitializer javadoc - basically you add wicket.properties file in your jar class root (ie. it is in default/none package) and inside file there is:
initializer=i.am.robot.MyInitilizer
then i.am.robot.MyInitilizer:
public class MyInitializer implements IInitializer {
/**
* #param application
* The application loading the component
*/
void init(Application application) {
// do whatever want
}
/**
* #param application
* The application loading the component
*/
void destroy(Application application) {
}
}
and now you create your localization bundles in same package and same name as IInitializer implementation (in our example MyInitializer)
I think I found another way...
I noticed that IStringResourceLoader also has a method String loadStringResource(Class<?> clazz, String key, Locale locale, String style); (and one more parameter for variation in newer Wicket versions) which does not require a component. clazz is supposed to be a component class, but... it doesn't actually have to be :)
I was able to implement my own class MyLocalizer extends Localizer with a new method
getString(String key, Class<?> cl, IModel<?> model, Locale locale, String defaultValue)
which works in a similar way to
getString(String key, Component component, IModel<?> model, String defaultValue)
but uses the class directly instead of a component. It still uses the same properties cache and resource loaders.
Then I wrote an abstract class MyConverter implements IConverter which has a MyLocalizer getLocalizer() and a few getString methods like the Component class. Basically it does getLocalizer().getString(key, getClass(), model, locale, defaultValue), so the properties can now be attached to the converter class.
Seems to work :)
If I understand your question...
You can use package based properties that means if you put your keys/values into a property file 'package.properties' in a package. Each localized resource of any subpackage under that package returns the value associated to the requested key until you override it in another property file.
The file name is 'package.properties' in Wicket prior to 1.6.x and 'wicket-package.properties' in Wicket 1.6+
See
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+6.0#MigrationtoWicket6.0-package.propertiesrenamedtowicket-package.properties
However it works just for componet, outside the componet (when component argument is null), it is possible to use:
WicketApplication.properties (the WebApplication class is WicketApplication.class, this property file is in the same package).
applicationGlobalProperty=My Global Localized Property
wicket-package.properties (package based, place it in the same package as the page)
localText=Localized text: A local component text based on wicket-package.properties
LocalizedPage.html (markup template)
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>Localized Page</title>
</head>
<body xmlns:wicket="http://wicket.apache.org">
<div>
<div>
<h2>Texts</h2>
<div>
<wicket:message key="localText"/> <br/>
<span wicket:id="localizedLabel"></span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
LocalizePage.java (code)
public class LocalizedPage extends WebPage {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
public LocalizedPage() {
super();
}
#Override
protected void onInitialize() {
super.onInitialize();
add(new Label("localizedLabel", new AbstractReadOnlyModel<String>() {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Override
public String getObject() {
return WicketApplication.get().getResourceSettings().getLocalizer().getString("applicationGlobalProperty", null);
}
}));
}
}
See the full example on https://repo.twinstone.org/projects/WISTF/repos/wicket-examples-6.x/browse
'm trying to create a reusable link class that extends Link. I have a webpage with about 7 menu items and I'm using inheritance for my application. I want to create a reusable link class to shorten the length of my code..
As of now the link creates and runs fine when I add(new Link....) as an anonymous class inside oninitialize().
The custom link class (which is an inner class of the base page) works fine when I hard code the instance of the new page to go to, and assign it to a "Page" reference, then pass it into setResponsePage();
The problem is, I'm passing trying to be able to pass object through the constructor generically. When I pass it through the constructor, and try to travel to the new page, I get a session has expired.
I've tried using generics for the class, and I've also tried just declaring a Page reference as a parameter value. Am I supposed to use some sort of Model? Or can someone provide an example of how to do this? I want to be able to use this custom link class to add new links for the 7 menu items, which each have there own class...
Code that works:
add(new Link("userPageLink")
{
public void onClick()
{
pageTitle = "User";
Page next = new UserPage();
setResponsePage(next);
}
});
Modified code that gives page expired upon click:
public class CustomLinkToNewPage extends Link
{
private String title;
private Page next;
public CustomLinkToNewPage(String id, String title, Page newPage)
{
super(id);
next = newPage;
this.title = title;
}
#Override
public void onClick()
{
SSAPage.pageTitle = title;
setResponsePage(next);
}
}
This might be due to the fact that in the first version you crate the Page object when the onClick method of the Link object is called and in the second version, the Page object is created on Page-construction (way earlier).
You might get the result if you pass the Pageclass of the responsepage instead on an instance.
Component features setters for these either with
public final <C extends IRequestablePage> void setResponsePage(java.lang.Class<C> cls, PageParameters parameters)
or without parameters.
public final <C extends IRequestablePage> void setResponsePage(java.lang.Class<C> cls)
See Javadoc for more information.
I ended up doing:
public class CustomLinkToNewPage<T extends SSAPage> extends Link
SSAPage is my base page that extends WebPage... So any object passed in to this class's constructor must extend SSAPage as well.
public CustomLinkToNewPage(String id, Class<T> name)
Then I passed in the .class reference to the object, and created a new instance of the object using reflection.. then set that instance to Page, and passed it to setResponsePage in my onClick. Worked nicely, as I couldn't figure out how to do Nicktar's way. So this an alternative in case anyone else runs into this issue.
I have a BlackBerry application that starts (App load) with a Registration screen when the App is first installed. Later, the App will load with the home screen. Registration screen only appears on first load. I am achieving this by storing a boolean value in PersistentStore. If the value exists, then Registration screen will not appear.
PersistentStoreHelper.persistentHashtable.put("flagged",Boolean.TRUE);
PersistentStoreHelper.persistentObject.commit();
UiApplication.getUiApplication().pushScreen(new MyScreen());
I am aware of the fact that in order to delete the Persistent Store on deleting/uninstalling the App, I have to make the Hashtable a subclass of my own and therefore I have declared the Hashtable in a separate class:
public class PersistentStoreHelper extends Hashtable implements Persistable{
public static PersistentObject persistentObject;
public static final long KEY = 0x9df9f961bc6d6daL;
public static Hashtable persistentHashtable;
}
However this has not helped and the boolean value of flag is not cleared from PersistentStore. Please advice.
EDIT: When I change the above PersistentStoreHelper class to
public static PersistentObject persistentObject =
PersistentStore.getPersistentObject(KEY);
and remove
PersistentStoreHelper.persistentObject =
PersistentStore.getPersistentObject(PersistentStoreHelper.KEY);
from class B where boolean value is being saved, I observe that the boolean value is removed every time the App is closed. This should not happen and the value should only be removed in case the App is deleted/uninstalled. Any pointers?
The way this works is that the BlackBerry OS looks at the objects you are storing in the PersistentStore. If it recognizes that those objects can only be used by your app, then it will delete them when you uninstall the app. However, if the classes of the stored objects are classes that are used by other apps, then your data will not be deleted.
You have declared your helper class like this:
public class PersistentStoreHelper extends Hashtable implements Persistable{
but the helper class is not what is being stored. Your helper class is just a helper, that stores other things for you. In your case, it is storing this:
public static Hashtable persistentHashtable;
but, that object is of type java.util.Hashtable, which is a class used by many apps. So, it won't be deleted when you uninstall your app. What you should do is something like this:
public class PersistentStoreHelper implements Persistable { // so inner class = Persistable
public static PersistentObject persistentObject;
public static final long KEY = 0x9df9f961bc6d6daL;
/**
* persistentHashtable is now an instance of a class that
* only exists in your app
*/
public static MyAppsHashtable persistentHashtable;
private class MyAppsHashtable extends Hashtable implements Persistable {
// don't need anything else ... the declaration does it all!
}
}
I can't see it here, but I'm assuming that somewhere you have this code:
persistentObject = PersistentStore.getPersistentObject(KEY);
and then when you want to save the data back to the store, you're doing something like this;
persistentHashtable.put("SomeKey", someNewData);
persistentObject.setContents(persistentHashtable);
persistentObject.commit();
just adding data to the persistentHashtable doesn't save it (permanently). Hopefully, you already had that part somewhere.
Note: if you make these changes, don't expect this line of code to work, the next time you run your app:
persistentHashtable = (MyAppsHashtable)persistentObject.getContents();
because the last version of your code did not use the MyAppsHashtable class, so the loaded data won't be of that type. This is one reason that it's important to get this right the first time. In general, I always wind up saving data in the PersistentStore that's contained in one top level Hashtable subclass, that implements Persistable. I may later change what goes in it, but I won't ever change the signature of that top-level storage object. Hopefully, you haven't released your app already.
Update: In response to your comment/question below:
if (PersistentStoreHelper.persistentObject.getContents() == null) {
PersistentStoreHelper.persistentHashtable = new MyAppsHashtable();
PersistentStoreHelper.persistentObject.setContents(PersistentStoreHelper.persist‌entHashtable);
} else {
PersistentStoreHelper.persistentHashtable =
(MyAppsHashtable)PersistentStoreHelper.persistentObject.getContents();
}
I have some code that looks like this (simplified):
public Reader newInstance(Catalog catalog) {
Mapper mapper = new Mapper(catalog);
return new Reader(mapper)
}
public main() {
// expensive operation
Catalog catalog = readCatalogFromDatabase();
Reader reader = Reader.newInstance(catalog);
// do stuff with reader
}
How can I redesign this so that I still create Catalog, but Guice creates Reader and Mapper? I tried using assisted injections, but since Catalog isn't a direct dependency of Reader, I can't figure out how to get a factory method that accepts a catalog object.
There are two ways to do this:
Have Guice bind your Catalog. This may mean passing the Catalog instance into your Module, but Modules can take any number of constructor arguments, so that's no problem. In your module this will look like:
bind(Catalog.class).toInstance(myVeryExpensiveCatalog);
If you really need to create a Reader based on an unknown or changeable instance of Catalog, then your hunch is right to use assisted injection. This is how I would make it look:
class Reader {
interface Factory {
Reader create(Catalog catalog);
}
#Inject Reader(#Assisted Catalog catalog, OtherDependency etc) {
this.catalog = catalog;
}
}
class YourModule extends AbstractModule {
#Override public void configure() {
install(new FactoryModuleBuilder().build(Reader.Factory.class));
}
}
Then you can just inject Reader.Factory and get your reader by calling readerFactory.create(catalog);. Note that create can be named anything, and the Factory can be in any location with any name--those are just the names and locations I prefer.
Now, in the AssistedInject documentation you'll see that they also call implement. You'll only need to do this if Reader is an interface, so Guice knows what kind of concrete class to build to satisfy create's return type.
Hope this helps!