plz tell me can we extend Uiapplication and application class in blackberry.?
if yes then how?
You would just have separate classes extending them. It's your
public static void main(String[] args)
method that is going to determine behavior: you would look at the argument coming in and decide whether to launch the UiApplication or Application.
Create a second project in the workspace, and in properties set it up as an "alternate entry point for " and then you can specify the arguments given to main.
Generally you'd make the 'base' project start the Application (a service I'm assuming - e.g. automatic startup, system module) and then you'd set the alternate entry point to pass "GUI" or some other token to main, and you'd create your UiApplication instance instead.
Related
This article on Serilog minimum level overrides states:
The first argument of Override is a source context prefix, which is normally matched against the namespace-qualified type name of the class associated with the logger.
For this so-called "normal" behavior, wouldn't I need to manually set the .ForContext<>() differently for each class my logger is called from? In other words, how are namespace-specific minimum log levels supposed to work without a specific convention of how .ForContext is set?
If that makes sense, then how can I set ForContext automatically without calling it with a different argument everywhere?
For this so-called "normal" behavior, wouldn't I need to manually set
the .ForContext<>() differently for each class my logger is called
from?
Yes, you would. A common way of doing it is by using the Log.ForContext<T>() on each class, in a member variable that gets shared across the different methods of your class (so that all logs get written with the same context). e.g.
public class SomeService
{
private readonly ILogger _log = Log.ForContext<SomeService>();
// ...
}
public class SomeRepository
{
private readonly ILogger _log = Log.ForContext<SomeRepository>();
// ...
}
If you are using an IoC container such as Autofac, you can have the .ForContext<>() call happen automatically when classes are resolved by the IoC container (by using constructor injection, for example).
If you are using Autofac specifically, you could use AutofacSerilogIntegration that takes care of that. There might be similar implementations for other IoC containers (or you'd have to implement your own).
If you are using Microsoft's Generic Host, then you'll need to configure it to use a custom ServiceProviderFactory which will be responsible for creating the instances and making the call to .ForContext<>()... An easy route is to integrate Autofac with Microsoft's Generic Host and then leverage the AutofacSerilogIntegration I mentioned above.
I am new to dependency injection pattern. I love the idea, but struggle to apply it to my case. I have a singleton object, let’s call it X, which I need often in many parts of my program, in many different classes, sometimes deep in the call stack. Usually I would implement this as a globally available singleton. How is this implemented within the DI pattern, specifically with .NET Core DI container? I understand I need to register X with the DI container as a singleton, but how then I get access to it? DI will instantiate classes with constructors which will take reference to X, that’s great – but I need X deep within the call hierarchy, within my own objects which .NET Core or DI container know nothing about, in objects that were created using new rather than instantiated by the DI container.
I guess my question is – how does global singleton pattern aligns/implemented by/replaced by/avoided with the DI pattern?
Well, "new is glue" (Link). That means if you have new'ed an instance, it is glued to your implementation. You cannot easily exchange it with a different implementation, for example a mock for testing. Like gluing together Lego bricks.
I you want to use proper dependency injection (using a container/framework or not) you need to structure your program in a way that you don't glue your components together, but instead inject them.
Every class is basically at hierarchy level 1 then. You need an instance of your logger? You inject it. You need an instance of a class that needs a logger? You inject it. You want to test your logging mechanism? Easy, you just inject something that conforms to your logger interface that logs into a list and the at the end of your test you can check your list and see if all the required logs are there. That is something you can automate (in contrast to using your normal logging mechanism and checking the logfiles by hand).
That means in the end, you don't really have a hierarchy, because every class you have just gets their dependencies injected and it will be the container/framework or your controlling code that determines what that means for the order of instantiation of objects.
As far as design patterns go, allow me an observation: even now, you don't need a singleton. Right now in your program, it would work if you had a plain global variable. But I guess you read that global variables are "bad". And design patterns are "good". And since you need a global variable and singleton delivers a global variable, why use the "bad", when you can use the "good" right? Well, the problem is, even with a singleton, the global variable is bad. It's a drawback of the pattern, a toad you have to swallow for the singleton logic to work. In your case, you don't need the singleton logic, but you like the taste of toads. So you created a singleton. Don't do that with design patterns. Read them very carefully and make sure you use them for the intended purpose, not because you like their side-effects or because it feels good to use a design pattern.
Just an idea and maybe I need your thought:
public static class DependencyResolver
{
public static Func<IServiceProvider> GetServiceProvider;
}
Then in Startup:
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
DependencyResolver.GetServiceProvider = () => { return serviceProvider; };
}
And now in any deed class:
DependencyResolver.GetServiceProvider().GetService<IService>();
Here's a simplified example of how this would work without a singleton.
This example assumes that your project is built in the following way:
the entry point is main
main creates an instance of class GuiCreator, then calls the method createAndRunGUI()
everything else is handled by that method
So your simplified code looks like this:
// main
// ... (boilerplate)
container = new Container();
gui = new GuiCreator(container.getDatabase(), container.getLogger(), container.getOtherDependency());
gui.createAndRunGUI();
// ... (boilerplate)
// GuiCreator
public class GuiCreator {
private IDatabase db;
private ILogger log;
private IOtherDependency other;
public GuiCreator(IDatabase newdb, ILogger newlog, IOtherDependency newother) {
db = newdb;
log = newlog;
other = newother;
}
public void createAndRunGUI() {
// do stuff
}
}
The Container class is where you actually define which implementations will be used, while the GuiCreator contructor takes interfaces as arguments. Now let's say the implementation of ILogger you choose has itself a dependency, defined by an interface its contructor takes as argument. The Container knows this and resolves it accordingly by instantiating the Logger as new LoggerImplementation(getLoggerDependency());. This goes on for the entire dependency chain.
So in essence:
All classes keep instances of interfaces they depend upon as members.
These members are set in the respective constructor.
The entire dependency chain is thus resolved when the first object is instantiated. Note that there might/should be some lazy loading involved here.
The only places where the container's methods are accessed to create instances are in main and inside the container itself:
Any class used in main receives its dependencies from main's container instance.
Any class not used in main, but rather used only as a dependency, is instantiated by the container and receives its dependencies from within there.
Any class used neither in main nor indirectly as a dependency somewhere below the classes used in main will obviously never be instantiated.
Thus, no class actually needs a reference to the container. In fact, no class needs to know there even is a container in your project. All they know is which interfaces they personally need.
The Container can either be provided by some third party library/framework or you can code it yourself. Typically, it will use some configuration file to determine which implementations are actually supposed to be used for the various interfaces. Third party containers will usually perform some sort of code analysis supported by annotations to "autowire" implementations, so if you go with a ready-made tool, make sure you read up on how that part works because it will generally make your life easier down the road.
I see defaut template use ServiceProvder.GetService<ApplicationDbCotnext>() to initialize a DbContext,
But when you inside a Static Method, I have no idea how to get a DbContext, because there is no ServiceProvider.
Is there a way to get the ServiceProvider ?
Well, first of all, this has nothing to do with asp.net-core per se. This has more to do with how Dependency Injection works. You have to ask yourself why your method is static. Is that really necessary?
If you can't get rid of your static method, you might as well go all the way and introduce another anti-pattern, the Service Locator Pattern. In short: In the Startup class you put a reference to the ServiceProvider in a static property (call it for instance "ServiceProviderSingleton") of a static class (for instance "ServiceProviderProvider"). This way you can just call "ServiceProviderProvider.ServiceProviderSingleton.GetService()".
Again, i suggest giving your overal design a critical look. But if this is what you need/want then I hope it helped.
If we have a look at Microsoft's static methods (extension) - they seem not to use logging there - just throw appropriate Exception, for example in UseMvc method (for StartUp class):
https://github.com/aspnet/Mvc/blob/760c8f38678118734399c58c2dac981ea6e47046/src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Core/Builder/MvcApplicationBuilderExtensions.cs
My application is almost complete and I needed to change the package names. So I refactored the names and after I renamed the package that contained the MAIN class, this warning is getting displayed - " No definition found for exported static routine: .main(String[])".
On googling, I found that this is because compiler didn't find any entry points for the application and that's why the application is not getting loaded in to the simulator/device.
Can anybody please help me on this ?
Thanks in advance !!
As the error message implies, you must have a method with the signature:
public static void main(String[] args) {
}
defined in one of your classes. It doesn't matter which but it is common to define it in the class that extends Application or UiApplication since this method creates the Application or UiApplication object and enters the event dispatcher. You must have had such a method at some point if you ever ran the application on the simulator or device.
There's something I just don't get about guice: According to what I've read so far, I'm supposed to use the Injector only in my bootstrapping class (in a standalone application this would typically be in the main() method), like in the example below (taken from the guice documentation):
public static void main(String[] args) {
/*
* Guice.createInjector() takes your Modules, and returns a new Injector
* instance. Most applications will call this method exactly once, in their
* main() method.
*/
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new BillingModule());
/*
* Now that we've got the injector, we can build objects.
*/
RealBillingService billingService = injector.getInstance(RealBillingService.class);
...
}
But what if not all Objects I ever need can be created during startup? Maybe I want to respond to some user interaction when the application is running? Don't I have to keep my injector around somewhere (e.g. as a static variable) and then call injector.getInstance(SomeInterface.class) when I need to create a new object?
Of course spreading calls to Injector.getInstance() all over the place seems not to be desirable.
What am I getting wrong here?
Yes, you basically only should use the Injector to create get the instance for the root-object. The rest of the application shouldn't touch the Guice-Container. As you've noticed, you still need to create some objects when required. There are different approaches for doing that, each suitable for different needs.
Inject a Provider
Provider is a interface from Guice. It allows you to request a new instance of a object. That object will be created using Guice. For example.
class MyService{
private Provider<Transaction> transactionProvider;
public MainGui(Provider<Transaction> transactionProvider){
this.transactionProvider = transactionProvider;
}
public void actionStarted(){
Transaction transaction = transactionProvider.get();
}
Build a Factory
Often you need some kind of factory. This factory uses some injected services and some parameters and creates a new object for you. Then you use this factory for new instances. Then you inject that factory and use it. There also help for this with the AssistedInject-extension
I think with these two possibilities you rarely need to use the Guice-Injector itself. However sometimes is still appropriate to use the injector itself. Then you can inject the Injector to a component.
To extend on the answer Gamlor posted, you need to also differentiate between the object types you are using.
For services, injection is the correct solution, however, don't try to always make data objects (which are generally the leafs in your object graph) injectable. There may be situations where that is the correct solution, but injecting a Provider<List> is probably not a good idea. A colleague of mine ended up do that, it made the code base very confusing after a while. We just finished cleaning it all out and the Guice modules are much more specific now.
In the abstract, I think the general idea is that if responding to user events is part of the capabilities of your application, then, well...
BillingService billingService = injector.getInstance(BillingService.class);
billingService.respondToUserEvent( event );
I guess that might be a little abstract, but the basic idea is that you get from Guice your top-level application class. Judging from your question, I guess that maybe BillingService isn't your top-level class?