I've been reading the camel documentation and looking for samples regarding CamelProxy and #Produce, trying to figure if it possible to produce payloads for multiple routes from the same proxy.
To get a better grasp of the concept, let's suppose we have the following interface:
public interface UserServiceTransport {
void save(User user);
User load(String userId);
}
Would it be possible have a proxy injected in a POJO, and calling one the 2 methods would kick-start the appropriate route?
Perhaps I've missed or misunderstood something from the docs... I'm trying to reuse some legacy code in a new application, and all the samples I've seen so far either have interfaces with 1 method or more overloaded methods, eg:
public class UserService {
#Produce(uri = "direct:save_user")
protected UserServiceTransport transport;
public void save(User user) {
transport.save(user)
}
}
Unfortunately this is not helpful in my case because I'd have to create many interfaces and classes.
Alternatively, is there any other way I can call a few routes from a POJO?
Related
I try to do something strange may be. My vision:
I need a standard architecture with controllers, services and other layers.
I need clients for my controllers that I can distrubute separate.
And I wrote something like this:
module-api
module-impl
Module-api contains only OpenFeign clients like:
#FeignClient(path = TopLevelClient.ROOT_PATH)
public interface TopLevelClient implements CommonInterfaceForClient<EntityDto> {
String ROOT_PATH = "/entity";
#GetMapping
ResponseEntity<EntityDto> getAll();
}
Module-impl contains controllers and other logic like:
#RestController
#RequestMapping(TopLevelClient.ROOT_PATH)
public class TopLevelController implements TopLevelClient {
String ROOT_PATH = "/entity";
#Override
#GetMapping
ResponseEntity<List<EntityDto>> getAll() {...}
}
And of course I have a some strange common parametrized interace like this:
CommonInterfaceForClient
Okay, that's all right. But it's ok only for an one level REST path. I mean
/entity/{id}
But I need to request sub level:
/entitiy/{id}/sub-entity/{subId}
And I can image how I have to do this. I can't implements two interfaces at once cause first interface parametrized with an other DTO. I can't use method for calculate a mapping path cause a value must be a constant.
I mean I want to do something like this:
#FeignClient(path = SubLevelClient.ROOT_PATH)
public class SubLevelClient implements ... {
String ROOT_PATH = "/entity/{entityId}/sub-entity";
#GetMapping
ResponseEntity<List<SubEntityDto>> getAll(#PathVariable long entityId);
}
May be you can tell me something useful or may be something from the best practice?
I just want to take few common interfaces, services and controllers/clients for common actions but I want to write with one's own hands. Or may be it's a stupid idea and you can tell me a turnkey solution.
This is one of those topics I don't even know how to search in google (tried already, most of the results were for C#), so here I go:
I'm messing around with our huge application, trying to get to work a brand new DAO/Entity/Service/DTO.. euh...thing. I've been left more or less on my own, and, again, more or less, I'm getting to understand some of the hows and maybe one or two of the whys.
The thing is that I got all, the way "up", from the DB to the Service:
I got a DAO class which executes a query stored on an Entity class. After executing it, it returns the Entity with the values.
The service receives the Entity and, somehow, transforms the Entity to a DTO and returns it to whenever is needed.
My problem is with the "somehow" thing the code goes like this:
DTOClass dto = ClassTransformerFromEntityToDTO.INSTANCE.apply(entityQueryResult);
I went into ClassTransformerFromEntityToDTO and found this:
public enum ClassTransfomerFromEntityToDTO implements Function<EntityClass,DTO Class> ) {
INSTANCE;
#Override
public DTOClass apply(EntityClass entityInstance) {
/*Code to transform the Entity to DTO and the return*/
}
}
The class that this... thing, implements, is this:
package com. google .common . base;
import com. google .common . annotations. GwtCompatible ;
import javax. annotation .Nullable ;
#GwtCompatible
public abstract interface Function <F , T >
{
#Nullable
public abstract T apply (#Nullable F paramF) ;
public abstract boolean equals (#Nullable Object paramObject) ;
}
I'm in the classic "everyone who where at the beginning of the project fled", and no one knows why is this or what is this (The wisest one told me that maybe it had something to do with Spring), so, I have two main questions (which can be more or less answered in the same side):
1) What's this? What's the point of using an enum with a function to make a conversion?
2) What's the point of this? Why can I just make a class with a single function and forget about this wizardry?
not sure there's much to answer here... And I'm adding an answer to illustrate my thoughts with some code I've seen, but that you have is horrible. I've actually seem similar stuff. My guess is that that codes actually precedes Spring. It's used as some sort of Singleton.
I have seen code like this, which is worse:
public interface DTO {
find(Object args)
}
public class ConcreteDTO1 implements DTO {
...
}
public class ConcreteDTO2 implements DTO {
...
}
public enum DTOType {
CONCRETE_DTO1(new ConcreteDTO1(someArgs)),
CONCRETE_DTO2(new ConcreteDTO2(someOtherArgs))
private DTO dto;
public DTOType(DTO dto) {
this.dto = dto;
}
public DTO dto() {
return dto;
}
}
and then the DTOs are basically accessed through the Enum Type:
DTOType.CONCRETE_DTO1.dto().find(args);
So everyone trying to get hold of a DTO accesses it through the enum. With Spring, you don't need any of that. The IoC container is meant to avoid this kind of nonsense, that's why my guess is that it precedes Spring, from some ancient version of the app when Spring was not there. But it could be that someone was wired to do such things regardless of whether Spring was already in the app or not.
For that kind of stuff you're trying to do, you're better of with the Visitor pattern. Here's an example from a different answer: passing different type of objects dynamically on same method
It's me. From the future.
Turns out that this construct is a propossed Singleton Implementation, at least on "Effective Java 2nd edition".
So, yeah, Ulise's guess was well oriented.
I am working on GWT project with JDK7. It has two entryPoints (two clients) that are located in separate packages of the project. Clients share some code that is located in /common package, which is universal and accessible to both by having the following line in their respective xml-build files:
<source path='ui/common' />
Both clients have their own specific implementations of the Callback class which serves their running environments and performs various actions in case of failure or success. I have the following abstract class that implements AsyncCallback interface and then gets extended by its respective client.
public abstract class AbstractCallback<T> implements AsyncCallback<T> {
public void handleSuccess( T result ) {}
...
}
Here are the client's classes:
public class Client1Callback<T> extends AbstractCallback<T> {...}
and
public class Client2Callback<T> extends AbstractCallback<T> {...}
In the common package, that also contains these callback classes, I am working on implementing the service layer that serves both clients. Clients use the same back-end services, just handle the results differently. Based on the type of the client I want to build a corresponding instance of AbstractCallback child without duplicating anonymous class creation for each call. I am going to have many declarations that will look like the following:
AsyncCallback<MyVO> nextCallback = isClient1 ?
new Client1Callback<MyVO>("ABC") {
public void handleSuccess(MyVO result) {
doThatSameAction(result);
}
}
:
new Client2Callback<MyVO>("DEF") {
public void handleSuccess(MyVO result) {
doThatSameAction(result);
}
};
That will result in a very verbose code.
The intent (in pseudo-code) is to have the below instead:
AsyncCallback<MyVO> nextCallback = new CallbackTypeResolver.ACallback<MyVO>(clientType, "ABC"){
public void handleSuccess(MyVO result) {
doThatSameAction(result);
}
};
I was playing with the factory pattern to get the right child instance, but quickly realized that I am not able to override handleSuccess() method after the instance is created.
I think the solution may come from one of the two sources:
Different GWT way of dealing with custom Callback implementations, lets call it alternative existent solution.
Java generics/types juggling magic
I can miss something obvious, and would appreciate any advice.
I've read some articles here and on Oracle about types erasure for generics, so I understand that my question may have no direct answer.
Refactor out the handleSuccess behavior into its own class.
The handleSuccess behavior is a separate concern from what else is going on in the AsyncCallback classes; therefore, separate it out into a more useful form. See Why should I prefer composition over inheritance?
Essentially, by doing this refactoring, you are transforming an overridden method into injected behavior that you have more control over. Specifically, you would have instead:
public interface SuccessHandler<T> {
public void handleSuccess(T result);
}
Your callback would look something like this:
public abstract class AbstractCallback<T> implements AsyncCallback<T> {
private final SuccessHandler<T> handler; // Inject this in the constructor
// etc.
// not abstract anymore
public void handleSuccess( T result ) {
handler.handleSuccess(result);
}
}
Then your pseudocode callback creation statement would be something like:
AsyncCallback<MyVO> nextCallback = new CallbackTypeResolver.ACallback<MyVO>(
clientType,
"ABC",
new SuccessHandler<MyVO>() {
public void handleSuccess(MyVO result) {
doThatSameMethod(result);
}
});
The implementations of SuccessHandler don't have to be anonymous, they can be top level classes or even inner classes based on your needs. There's a lot more power you can do once you're using this injection based framework, including creating these handlers with automatically injected dependencies using Gin and Guice Providers. (Gin is a project that integrates Guice, a dependency injection framework, with GWT).
I am writing a web service and one of the operation in service is getShortURL(String longURL). In this method I first check whether longURL exists in database, if yes, return it otherwise create a shortURL, insert it in database and return to client.
My confusion is how to organize and name my classes. Apart from the web service class, right now I have 3 classes:
URLData: It just has URL attributes and getters and setters.
MongoDB: It connects to database(right now connection attributes are hard-coded in it), inserts in database, and retrieves raw string from database.
MongoDBUtil: This class has again insert(URLData) method, it calls MongoDB.insert() to insert into database. Also has retrieveURLData which in turn calls MongoDB equivalent method to do the actual job.
Web service method sets URLData setters and calls MongoDBUtil.retrieve or insert.
I am thinking that URLData class should be named URLDataBusinessObject and along with setters and getters it can have insert, update and delete methods.
MongoDBUtil can be renamed to UrlDAO and it can have different kinds of retrieve methods.
MongoDB is more kinda Select query class, not sure how to design and name it.
Please advise
URLData is fine. Don't bloat your class name with long irrelevant words. If you want to make clear that this is a business object, create a package like com.yourcompany.yourproject.bo for example, then put your URLData class in there.
Yes, UrlDAO is more specific than MongoDBUtil. You can create a com.yourcompany.yourproject.dao package for it.
Looks fine for me. However if you use some kind of framework (e.g. Spring) you don't have to create your own class to hold the database connection configurations.
I suggest you google for some tutorial on the topic, you will learn both how to use the technology and how to name/orginize your classes.
This question might be suited more for http://programmers.stackexchange.com.
Nevertheless: yes, I would change the naming.
1) URLDataBusinessObject No, never. You're adding 14 characters to a classname without adding any value. URLData was just fine.
2) You should change the naming of your DAO classes to be non-DB specific, unless you explicitly have an architecture aiming at multiple databases and the DB-specific classes perform DB-specific tasks.
I'm assuming this isn't the case and thus you should give it a more general name.
Persistence can be just fine, DAO as well, anything that shows the intended usage without going into specifics is eligible.
3) MongoDBUtil is your interface to the persistence layer, it's not a utility class in heart and soul. What's the purpose of this class? If all you do is chain the method call to MongoDB you might as well drop it and go straight to the latter.
To create a simple layered design build interfaces for all the persistence specific operations and interfaces for all the domain objects. Then code against those rather than their concrete implementations. That way it's easy to swap out a mongo persistence layer for a different one, functionality is organised so that others can easily understand it and can also test against interfaces rather than concrete implementations. You'd have something like:
URLData interface
URLDataDTO class (used in the business layer)
Persistence interface
MongoPersistence class (used in the persistence layer)
My current project does something similar and also works with Mongo. The persistence layer interface has methods like "void put(URLData)". When called the Mongo implementation constructs a new MongoURLData from the URLData passed in, extracts the DBObject then persists it. Methods like "URLData get(String id);" work the other way around. The Mongolayer queries the database and creates new URLDataDTO objects from Mongo DBObjects. The web service is then responsible for serialising/deserialising DTO objects that are sent to or received from client applications.
My Mongo Domain objects all inherit from something this:
public abstract class MongoDO<T extends Object> {
DBObject dbobject = null;
public MongoDO(T dto) {
this.dbobject = new BasicDBObject();
};
public MongoDO(DBObject obj) {
this.setDBObject(obj);
};
public abstract T toDTO() throws StorageException;
public DBObject getDBObject() {
return dbobject;
}
public void setDBObject(DBObject obj) {
this.dbobject = obj;
}
public ObjectId getIdObject() {
return (ObjectId) this.getDBObject().get("_id");
}
public void setIdObject(ObjectId id) {
this.getDBObject().put("_id", id);
}
protected String getField(String field) {
if (dbobject.containsField(field) && dbobject.get(field) !=null) {
return dbobject.get(field).toString();
} else
return null;
}
protected void setField(String field, String value) {
dbobject.put(field, value);
}
}
An example Mongo implementation would be:
public class MongoURLData extends MongoDO<URLData> implements URLData {
private static final String FIELD_SHORT_URL = "surl";
public String getShortUrl() {
return getField(FIELD_SHORT_URL);
}
public void setShortUrl(String shortUrl) {
setField(FIELD_SHORT_URL, shortUrl);
}
public URLData toDTO(){
URLDataDTO dto = new URLDataDTO();
dto.setShortURL(getShortURL);
return dto;
}
}
Based on the Spring Data Document documentation, I have provided a custom implementation of a repository method. The custom method's name refers to a property which doesn't exist in the domain object:
#Document
public class User {
String username;
}
public interface UserRepositoryCustom {
public User findByNonExistentProperty(String arg);
}
public class UserRepositoryCustomImpl implements UserRepositoryCustom {
#Override
public User findByNonExistentProperty(String arg) {
return /*perform query*/;
}
}
public interface UserRepository
extends CrudRepository<?, ?>, UserRepositoryCustom {
public User findByUsername(String username);
}
However, perhaps because of the method name I've chosen (findByNonExistentPropertyName), Spring Data attempts to parse the method name, and create a query from it. When it can't find the nonExistentProperty in User, an exception is thrown.
Possible resolutions:
Have I made a mistake in how I provide the implementation of the custom method?
Is there a way to instruct Spring to not attempt to generate a query based on this method's name?
Do I just have to avoid using any of the prefixes that Spring Data recognizes?
None of the above.
Thank you!
Your implementation class has to be named UserRepositoryImpl (if you stick to the default configuration) as we try to look it up based on the Spring Data repository interface's name being found. The reason we start with that one is that we cannot reliably know which of the interfaces you extend is the one with the custom implementation. Given a scenario like this
public interface UserRepository extends CrudRepository<User, BigInteger>,
QueryDslPredicateExecutor<User>, UserRepositoryCustom { … }
we would have to somehow hard code the interfaces not to check for custom implementation classes to prevent accidental pick-ups.
So what we generally suggest is coming up with a naming convention of let's say the Custom suffix for the interface containing the methods to be implemented manually. You can then set up the repository infrastructure to pick up implementation classes using CustomImpl as suffix by using the repository-impl-postfix attribute of the repositories element:
<mongo:repositories base-package="com.acme"
repository-impl-postfix="CustomImpl" />
There's more information on that in the reference documentation but it seems you have at least briefly checked that. :)