I'm writing a messaging system to queue actions for my program to execute. I need to be able to pass various objects by the messages. I currently have a Msg object that accepts (Action enum, Data<?>...object). The Data object is intended to be a wrapper for any object I might pass.
Currently the Data object uses this code, with generics:
public class Data<T> {
private T data;
public Data(T data){
this.data = data;
}
public T getData(){
return data;
}
}
The Msg object takes Data<?>... type, so Msg has a Data<?>[] field.
If getData() is called on a Data<?> object, it returns the Object type. Obviously not ideal.
I need to be able to pass, say, Image objects as well as String objects. I'm certain there's a better way of passing arbitrary data.
The reason you're having trouble is that you're trying to get the static typing system of Java to do something that it can't. Once you convert from a Data<T> to a Data<?>, whatever T was is effectively lost. There's no clean way to get it back.
The quickest way to get it to work (from what you have right now) is to start throwing casts everywhere, like this:
Data<?> d = new Data("Hello");
String contents = (String)d.getData();
This is kind of a terrible idea, so let's go back to the drawing board.
If (ideally), you have all of the types you could ever need ahead of time (i.e. every Data is either a String or an Image or an Integer), then you can pretty easily (though it's a bit tedious) define a Sum type (aka a union if you're coming from C) of the different types of data you'll have to handle. As a class invariant, we assume that exactly one of the fields is non-null, and the rest are null. For this example I'll assume it can be either a String, an Image, or an Integer, but it's fairly simple to add or remove types from Data as necessary.
public class Data {
private Image imgData;
private String stringData;
private Integer intData;
public Data(Image img) {
this.imgData = img;
}
public Data(String stringData) {
this.stringData = stringData;
}
public Data(Integer intData) {
this.intData = intData;
}
public boolean isImage() {
return imageData != null;
}
public boolean isInteger() {
return intData != null;
}
public boolean isString() {
return stringData != null;
}
public Image asImage() {
if(! isImage()) throw new RuntimeException();
return imgData;
}
public Image asString() {
if(! isString()) throw new RuntimeException();
return stringData;
}
public Image asInt() {
if(! isInt()) throw new RuntimeException();
return intData;
}
}
One necessary side effect is that we cannot wrap null without causing exceptional behavior. Is this is desired, it isn't too difficult to modify the class to allow for it.
With this Data class, it's pretty easy to do if-else logic to parse it.
Data d = ....... //Get a data from somewhere
if(d.isImage()) {
Image img = d.asImage();
//...
} else if (d.isString()) {
String string = d.asString();
//...
} else if (d.isInteger()) {
Integer i = d.asInt();
//...
} else {
throw new RuntimeException("Illegal data " + d + " received");
}
If you call getData().getClass() you will get the class or type that was passed, which doesn't seem to me to be the same as an Object. You might not know what you are getting, but you can either find out or define a common interface for everything you might pass. You could for example, call toString() or getClass() on anything passed. Your question is that you are passing any conceivable object, so my question is what are you going to do with it? If you are going to serialize it into a database you don't need know anything about what type it is, otherwise you can test it or call a common interface.
public class PlayData {
class Msg {
private List<Data<?>> message = new ArrayList<Data<?>>();
public void addData(Data<?> datum) { message.add(datum); }
public void printTypes() { for ( Data<?> datum: message ) { System.out.println(datum.getData().getClass()); } }
}
class Data<T> {
private T value;
public Data(T value) { this.value = value; }
public T getData() { return value; }
}
class Listener {
public void receive(Msg msg) { msg.printTypes(); }
}
class Sender {
private Listener listener;
public Sender(Listener listener) { this.listener = listener; }
public void send(Msg msg) { listener.receive(msg); }
}
class MyPacket {
int i;
public MyPacket(int i) { this.i = i; }
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { new PlayData().run(); }
public void run() throws Exception {
Sender sender = new Sender(new Listener());
Msg msg = new Msg();
msg.addData(new Data<String>("testing") );
msg.addData(new Data<MyPacket>(new MyPacket(42)) );
sender.send(msg);
}
}
Related
I'm trying to write a callback system in Java that works similar to that of Javascripts, what I'm doing is I'm sending information across the network that has a "callback id" attached to it. When the client receives this data back from the server, it should locate the callback for that id form a collection and call it with the retrieved data.
Here's the current system I've written up while trying to achieve this:
public class NetworkCallback {
private int id;
private Callable callback;
public NetworkCallback(Callable callback) {
this.callback = callback;
}
public NetworkCallback setId(int id) {
this.id = id;
return this;
}
public int getId() {
return id;
}
public boolean execute(JSONObject data) {
try {
callback.call(); // data?
return true;
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
return false;
}
}
}
These were stored in a special container a created that would retain index, it's basically just an array with some helper classes. When the client gets information back it will search for the callback and then execute it.
void onMessageReceived(byte[] data) {
JSONObject json = JSONHelper.fromByteArray(data);
int callbackId = json.getInt("cbid");
if(callbackId != 0) {
callbacks.fetch(callbackId).execute(json);
}
}
The issue with this I noticed before even attempting to run the code, pondered for awhile, and ran out of things to think about. The callable class doesn't accept parameters. So, for example, say I wanted to pass a method as a callback like the following:
psuedo
method(param JSONObject data) {
print data
}
Granted this method isn't going to be the same every time it's called, so it will be created on the fly. An example in javascript of what I'm trying to achieve can be found below:
Javascript example of what I want
(function caller() {
called(function(data) {
console.log("Data: " + data);
});
})();
function called(callback) {
callback(Math.random());
}
You will want to use a Consumer for this. A consumer basically is an object on which you can call accept(data), which executes the callback.
An example:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Consumer consumer = new Consumer() {
#Override
public void accept(Object o) {
System.out.println(o.toString());
}
};
new Test().doSomething("Test", consumer);
}
public void doSomething(Object data, Consumer<Object> cb) {
cb.accept(data);
}
}
This prints "Test" in the console.
In my program, the user needs to input what type of players the game will have. The players are "human", "good" (for a good AI), "bad" (for a bad AI) and "random" (for a random AI). Each of these players have their own class that extend one abstract class called PlayerType.
My struggle is mapping a String to the object so I can A) create a new object using the String as sort of a key and B) get the related String from an object of its subclass
Ultimately, I just want the implicit String to only appear once in the code so I can change it later if needed without refactoring.
I've tried using just a plain HashMap, but that seems clunky with searching the keys via the values. Also, I'm guessing that I'll have to use the getInstance() method of Class, which is a little less clunky, which is okay if it's the only way.
What I would do is create an enum which essentially functions as a factory for the given type.
public enum PlayerTypes {
GOOD {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new GoodPlayer();
}
},
BAD {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new BadPlayer();
}
},
RANDOM {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new RandomPlayer();
}
};
protected abstract PlayerType newPlayer();
public static PlayerType create(String input) {
for(PlayerTypes player : PlayerTypes.values()) {
if(player.name().equalsIgnoreCase(input)) {
return player.newPlayer();
}
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid player type [" + input + "]");
}
)
Because then you can just call it like so:
String input = getInput();
PlayerTypes.create(input);
Of course, you'll get an IllegalArgumentException which you should probably handle by trying to get the input again.
EDIT: Apparently in this particular case, you can replace that loop with just merely
return PlayerTypes.valueOf(input).newPlayer();
And it'll do the same thing. I tend to match for additional constructor parameters in the enum, so I didn't think of using valueOf(), but it's definitely cleaner.
EDIT2: Only way to get that information back is to define an abstract method in your PlayerType class that returns the PlayerTypes enum for that given type.
public class PlayerType {
public abstract PlayerTypes getType();
}
public class GoodPlayer extends PlayerType {
#Override
public PlayerTypes getType() {
return PlayerTypes.GOOD;
}
}
I like the answer provided by Epic but I don't find maps to be clunky. So it's possible to keep a map and get the constructor call directly.
Map<String, Supplier<PlayerType> map = new HashMap<>();
map.put("human", Human::new);
Human h = map.get("human").get();
The two main options I can think of:
Using Class.newInstance(), as you mentioned (not sure if you had this exact way in mind):
// Set up your map
Map<String, Class> classes = new HashMap<String, Class>();
classes.put("int", Integer.class);
classes.put("string", String.class);
// Get your data
Object s = classes.get("string").newInstance();
You could use Class.getDeclaredConstructor.newInstance if you want to use a constructor with arguments (example).
Another option is using switch:
Object getObject(String identifier) {
switch (identifier) {
case "string": return new String();
case "int": return new Integer(4);
}
return null; // or throw an exception or return a default object
}
One potential solution:
public class ForFunFactory {
private ForFunFactory() {
}
public static AThing getTheAppropriateThing(final String thingIdentifier) {
switch (thingIdentifier) {
case ThingImplApple.id:
return new ThingImplApple();
case ThingImplBanana.id:
return new ThingImplBanana();
default:
throw new RuntimeException("AThing with identifier "
+ thingIdentifier + " not found.");
}
}
}
public interface AThing {
void doStuff();
}
class ThingImplApple implements AThing {
static final String id = "Apple";
#Override
public void doStuff() {
System.out.println("I'm an Apple.");
}
}
class ThingImplBanana implements AThing {
static final String id = "Banana";
#Override
public void doStuff() {
System.out.println("I'm a Banana.");
}
}
Error is obviously after the remote procedure/method has been executed. It's most likely that the remote service is sending back the incorrect data or so I think. I have tried increasing the readQuote in Web.Config, that didn't help.
Response Class
When this property (MultiSMSPostedList) is set, the value is NULL. As soon as the code comes out of get, the exception is thrown.
/// <remarks/>
[System.CodeDom.Compiler.GeneratedCodeAttribute("System.Xml", "2.0.50727.5485")]
[System.SerializableAttribute()]
//[System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepThroughAttribute()]
[System.ComponentModel.DesignerCategoryAttribute("code")]
[System.Xml.Serialization.SoapTypeAttribute(Namespace="urn")]
public partial class MessagingServices_SendMultiSMSResult : object, System.ComponentModel.INotifyPropertyChanged {
private int sMSCountField;
private MessagingServices_SendMultiSMS_SendSuccess[] multiSMSPostedListField;
private MessagingServices_SendMultiSMS_SendFailed[] multiSMSRejectedListField;
/// <remarks/>
public int SMSCount {
get {
return this.sMSCountField;
}
set {
this.sMSCountField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("SMSCount");
}
}
/// <remarks/>
[System.Xml.Serialization.SoapElementAttribute(IsNullable=true)]
public MessagingServices_SendMultiSMS_SendSuccess[] MultiSMSPostedList {
get {
return this.multiSMSPostedListField;
}
set {
this.multiSMSPostedListField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("MultiSMSPostedList");
}
}
/// <remarks/>
[System.Xml.Serialization.SoapElementAttribute(IsNullable=true)]
public MessagingServices_SendMultiSMS_SendFailed[] MultiSMSRejectedList {
get {
return this.multiSMSRejectedListField;
}
set {
this.multiSMSRejectedListField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("MultiSMSRejectedList");
}
}
public event System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected void RaisePropertyChanged(string propertyName) {
System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventHandler propertyChanged = this.PropertyChanged;
if ((propertyChanged != null)) {
propertyChanged(this, new System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
}
}
Exception
The exception text is below, it clear that exception is caused when system tries to convert variable to array.
http://justpaste.it/sms-exception
More information
Further digging shows that the remote service is returning the correct number of values, if not the format.
This property MultiSMSPostedList makes call to below class based on the number of values passed to the original procedure/method. (i.e. if I pass two phone numbers and two text messages, the properties inside MessagingServices_SendMultiSMS_SendSuccess are initialized twice, indicating remote server returned an array)
Property class
public partial class MessagingServices_SendMultiSMS_SendSuccess : object, System.ComponentModel.INotifyPropertyChanged {
private string gRecipientNameField;
private string gRecipientMSISDNwithCCField;
private int gOutMsgIDField;
/// <remarks/>
[System.Xml.Serialization.SoapElementAttribute(IsNullable=true)]
public string gRecipientName {
get {
return this.gRecipientNameField;
}
set {
this.gRecipientNameField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("gRecipientName");
}
}
/// <remarks/>
[System.Xml.Serialization.SoapElementAttribute(IsNullable=true)]
public string gRecipientMSISDNwithCC {
get {
return this.gRecipientMSISDNwithCCField;
}
set {
this.gRecipientMSISDNwithCCField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("gRecipientMSISDNwithCC");
}
}
/// <remarks/>
public int gOutMsgID {
get {
return this.gOutMsgIDField;
}
set {
this.gOutMsgIDField = value;
this.RaisePropertyChanged("gOutMsgID");
}
}
public event System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected void RaisePropertyChanged(string propertyName) {
System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventHandler propertyChanged = this.PropertyChanged;
if ((propertyChanged != null)) {
propertyChanged(this, new System.ComponentModel.PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
}
}
I am sure, visual studio is not able to generate the class correctly based on the WSDL data, I may need to make some changes to reference.cs file. I am not an expert on the subject, so not really sure what and where should I make the change?
Could be useful
Remote service is java based, axis web service.
MORE INFO: Changes made to reference.cs
I made below changes to Response Class and it's working without any exception. Since it's a variable instead of array, I get only first response and all the other response values are lost.
private MessagingServices_SendMultiSMS_SendSuccess[] multiSMSPostedListField;
private MessagingServices_SendMultiSMS_SendFailed[] multiSMSRejectedListField;
I am not sure where exactly in the reference.cs I can find the location, where remote call is made/ends, may be making some changes there could help. Any suggestions?
I'm using RxVertx which is a sort of RxJava along with Java8 and I have a compilation error.
Here is my code:
public rx.Observable<Game> findGame(long templateId, GameModelType game_model, GameStateType state) {
return context.findGame(templateId, state)
.flatMap(new Func1<RxMessage<byte[]>, rx.Observable<Game>>() {
#Override
public Observable<Game> call(RxMessage<byte[]> gameRawReply) {
Game game = null;
switch(game_model) {
case SINGLE: {
ebs.subscribe(new Action1<RxMessage<byte[]>>() {
#Override
public void call(RxMessage<byte[]> t1) {
if(!singleGame.contains(0) {
game = new Game(); // ERROR is at this line
singleGames.put(0, game);
} else {
game = singleGames.get(0); // ERROR is at this line
}
}
});
}
}
return rx.Observable.from(game);
}
});
}
The compilation error is:
"Local variable game defined in an enclosing scope must be final or effectively final"
I cannot define 'game' as final since I do allocation\set and return it at the end of the function.
How can I make this code compile??
Thanks.
I have a Holder class that I use for situations like this.
/**
* Make a final one of these to hold non-final things in.
*
* #param <T>
*/
public class Holder<T> {
private T held = null;
public Holder() {
}
public Holder(T it) {
held = it;
}
public void hold(T it) {
held = it;
}
public T held() {
return held;
}
public boolean isEmpty() {
return held == null;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return String.valueOf(held);
}
}
You can then do stuff like:
final Holder<Game> theGame = new Holder<>();
...
theGame.hold(myGame);
...
{
// Access the game through the `final Holder`
theGame.held() ....
Since you need to not modify the reference of the object you can wrap the Game in something else.
The quickest (but ugly) fix is to use an array of size 1, then set the content of the array later. This works because the the array is effectively final, what is contained in the array doesn't have to be.
#Override
public Observable<Game> call(RxMessage<byte[]> gameRawReply) {
Game[] game = new Game[1];
switch(game_model) {
case SINGLE: {
ebs.subscribe(new Action1<RxMessage<byte[]>>() {
#Override
public void call(RxMessage<byte[]> t1) {
if(!singleGame.contains(0) {
game[0] = new Game();
singleGames.put(0, game[0]);
} else {
game[0] = singleGames.get(0);
}
}
});
}
}
return rx.Observable.from(game[0]);
}
Another similar option is to make a new class that has a Game field and you then set that field later.
Cyclops has Mutable, and LazyImmutable objects for handling this use case. Mutable is fully mutable, and LazyImmutable is set once.
Mutable<Game> game = Mutable.of(null);
public void call(RxMessage<byte[]> t1) {
if(!singleGame.contains(0) {
game.mutate(g -> new Game());
singleGames.put(0, game.get());
} else {
game[0] = game.mutate(g->singleGames.get(0));
}
}
LazyImmutable can be used to set a value, lazily, once :
LazyImmutable<Game> game = LazyImmutable.def();
public void call(RxMessage<byte[]> t1) {
//new Game() is only ever called once
Game g = game.computeIfAbsent(()->new Game());
}
You cant. At least not directly. U can use a wrapper class however: just define a class "GameContainer" with game as its property and foward a final reference to this container instead.
#dkatzel's suggestion is a good one, but there's another option: extract everything about retrieving/creating the Game into a helper method, and then declare final Game game = getOrCreateGame();. I think that's cleaner than the final array approach, though the final array approach will certainly work.
Although the other approaches look acceptable, I'd like to mention that you can't be sure subscribing to ebs will be synchronous and you may end up always returning null from the inner function. Since you depend on another Observable, you could just simply compose it through:
public rx.Observable<Game> findGame(
long templateId,
GameModelType game_model,
GameStateType state) {
return context.findGame(templateId, state)
.flatMap(gameRawReply -> {
switch(game_model) {
case SINGLE: {
return ebs.map(t1 -> {
Game game;
if (!singleGame.contains(0) {
game = new Game();
singleGames.put(0, game);
} else {
game = singleGames.get(0);
}
return game;
});
}
}
return rx.Observable.just(null);
});
}
I am trying to incorporate a data cache for one of my GWT widgets.
I have a datasource interface/class which retrieves some data from my backend via RequestBuilder and JSON. Because I display the widget multiple times I only want to retrieve the data once.
So I tried to come with an app cache. The naive approach is to use a HashMap in a singleton object to store the data. However I also want to make use of HTML5's localStorage/sessionStorage if supported.
HTML5 localStorage only supports String values. So I have to convert my object into JSON and store as a string. However somehow I can't come up with a nice clean way of doing this. here is what I have so far.
I define a interface with two functions: fetchStatsList() fetches the list of stats that can be displayed in the widget and fetchStatsData() fetches the actual data.
public interface DataSource {
public void fetchStatsData(Stat stat,FetchStatsDataCallback callback);
public void fetchStatsList(FetchStatsListCallback callback);
}
The Stat class is a simple Javascript Overlay class (JavaScriptObject) with some getters (getName(), etc)
I have a normal non-cachable implementation RequestBuilderDataSource of my DataSource which looks like the following:
public class RequestBuilderDataSource implements DataSource {
#Override
public void fetchStatsList(final FetchStatsListCallback callback) {
// create RequestBuilderRequest, retrieve response and parse JSON
callback.onFetchStatsList(stats);
}
#Override
public void fetchStatsData(List<Stat> stats,final FetchStatsDataCallback callback) {
String url = getStatUrl(stats);
//create RequestBuilderRquest, retrieve response and parse JSON
callback.onFetchStats(dataTable); //dataTable is of type DataTable
}
}
I left out most of the code for the RequestBuilder as it is quite straightforward.
This works out of the box however the list of stats and also the data is retrieved everytime even tough the data is shared among each widget instance.
For supporting caching I add a Cache interface and two Cache implementations (one for HTML5 localStorage and one for HashMap):
public interface Cache {
void put(Object key, Object value);
Object get(Object key);
void remove(Object key);
void clear();
}
I add a new class RequestBuilderCacheDataSource which extends the RequestBuilderDataSource and takes a Cache instance in its constructor.
public class RequestBuilderCacheDataSource extends RequestBuilderDataSource {
private final Cache cache;
publlic RequestBuilderCacheDataSource(final Cache cache) {
this.cache = cache;
}
#Override
public void fetchStatsList(final FetchStatsListCallback callback) {
Object value = cache.get("list");
if (value != null) {
callback.fetchStatsList((List<Stat>)value);
}
else {
super.fetchStatsList(stats,new FetchStatsListCallback() {
#Override
public void onFetchStatsList(List<Stat>stats) {
cache.put("list",stats);
callback.onFetchStatsList(stats);
}
});
super.fetchStatsList(callback);
}
}
#Override
public void fetchStatsData(List<Stat> stats,final FetchStatsDataCallback callback) {
String url = getStatUrl(stats);
Object value = cache.get(url);
if (value != null) {
callback.onFetchStatsData((DataTable)value);
}
else {
super.fetchStatsData(stats,new FetchStatsDataCallback() {
#Override
public void onFetchStatsData(DataTable dataTable) {
cache.put(url,dataTable);
callback.onFetchStatsData(dataTable);
}
});
}
}
}
Basically the new class will lookup the value in the Cache and if it is not found it will call the fetch function in the parent class and intercept the callback to put it into the cache and then call the actual callback.
So in order to support both HTML5 localstorage and normal JS HashMap storage I created two implementations of my Cache interface:
JS HashMap storage:
public class DefaultcacheImpl implements Cache {
private HashMap<Object, Object> map;
public DefaultCacheImpl() {
this.map = new HashMap<Object, Object>();
}
#Override
public void put(Object key, Object value) {
if (key == null) {
throw new NullPointerException("key is null");
}
if (value == null) {
throw new NullPointerException("value is null");
}
map.put(key, value);
}
#Override
public Object get(Object key) {
// Check for null as Cache should not store null values / keys
if (key == null) {
throw new NullPointerException("key is null");
}
return map.get(key);
}
#Override
public void remove(Object key) {
map.remove(key);
}
#Override
public void clear() {
map.clear();
}
}
HTML5 localStorage:
public class LocalStorageImpl implements Cache{
public static enum TYPE {LOCAL,SESSION}
private TYPE type;
private Storage cacheStorage = null;
public LocalStorageImpl(TYPE type) throws Exception {
this.type = type;
if (type == TYPE.LOCAL) {
cacheStorage = Storage.getLocalStorageIfSupported();
}
else {
cacheStorage = Storage.getSessionStorageIfSupported();
}
if (cacheStorage == null) {
throw new Exception("LocalStorage not supported");
}
}
#Override
public void put(Object key, Object value) {
//Convert Object (could be any arbitrary object) into JSON
String jsonData = null;
if (value instanceof List) { // in case it is a list of Stat objects
JSONArray array = new JSONArray();
int index = 0;
for (Object val:(List)value) {
array.set(index,new JSONObject((JavaScriptObject)val));
index = index +1;
}
jsonData = array.toString();
}
else // in case it is a DataTable
{
jsonData = new JSONObject((JavaScriptObject) value).toString();
}
cacheStorage.setItem(key.toString(), jsonData);
}
#Override
public Object get(Object key) {
if (key == null) {
throw new NullPointerException("key is null");
}
String jsonDataString = cacheStorage.getItem(key.toString());
if (jsonDataString == null) {
return null;
}
Object data = null;
Object jsonData = JsonUtils.safeEval(jsonDataString);
if (!key.equals("list"))
data = DataTable.create((JavaScriptObject)data);
else if (jsonData instanceof JsArray){
JsArray<GenomeStat> jsonStats = (JsArray<GenomeStat>)jsonData;
List<GenomeStat> stats = new ArrayList<GenomeStat>();
for (int i = 0;i<jsonStats.length();i++) {
stats.add(jsonStats.get(i));
}
data = (Object)stats;
}
return data;
}
#Override
public void remove(Object key) {
cacheStorage.removeItem(key.toString());
}
#Override
public void clear() {
cacheStorage.clear();
}
public TYPE getType() {
return type;
}
}
The post got a little bit long but hopefully clarifies what I try to reach. It boils down to two questions:
Feedback on the design/architecture of this approach (for example subclassing RequestBilderDataSource for cache function, etc). Can this be improved (this is probably more related to general design than specifically GWT).
With the DefaultCacheImpl it is really easy to store and retrieve any arbitrary objects. How can I achieve the same thing with localStorage where I have to convert and parse JSON? I am using a DataTable which requires to call the DataTable.create(JavaScriptObject jso) function to work. How can I solve this without to many if/else and instance of checks?
My first thoughts: make it two layers of cache, not two different caches. Start with the in-memory map, so no serialization/deserialization is needed for reading a given object out, and so that changing an object in one place changes it in all. Then rely on the local storage to keep data around for the next page load, avoiding the need for pulling data down from the server.
I'd tend to say skip session storage, since that doesn't last long, but it does have its benefits.
For storing/reading data, I'd encourage checking out AutoBeans instead of using JSOs. This way you could support any type of data (that can be stored as an autobean) and could pass in a Class param into the fetcher to specify what kind of data you will read from the server/cache, and decode the json to a bean in the same way. As an added bonus, autobeans are easier to define - no JSNI required. A method could look something like this (note that In DataSource and its impl, the signature is different).
public <T> void fetch(Class<T> type, List<Stat> stats, Callback<T, Throwable> callback);
That said, what is DataTable.create? If it is already a JSO, you can just cast to DataTable as you (probably) normally do when reading from the RequestBuilder data.
I would also encourage not returning a JSON array directly from the server, but wrapping it in an object, as a best practice to protect your users' data from being read by other sites. (Okay, on re-reading the issues, objects aren't great either). Rather than discussing it here, check out JSON security best practices?
So, all of that said, first define the data (not really sure how this data is intended to work, so just making up as I go)
public interface DataTable {
String getTableName();
void setTableName(String tableName);
}
public interface Stat {// not really clear on what this is supposed to offer
String getKey();
void setKey(String key);
String getValue();
String setValue(String value);
}
public interface TableCollection {
List<DataTable> getTables();
void setTables(List<DataTable> tables);
int getRemaining();//useful for not sending all if you have too much?
}
For autobeans, we define a factory that can create any of our data when given a Class instance and some data. Each of these methods can be used as a sort of constructor to create a new instance on the client, and the factory can be passed to AutoBeanCodex to decode data.
interface DataABF extends AutoBeanFactory {
AutoBean<DataTable> dataTable();
AutoBean<Stat> stat();
AutoBean<TableCollection> tableCollection();
}
Delegate all work of String<=>Object to AutoBeanCodex, but you probably want some simple wrapper around it to make it easy to call from both the html5 cache and from the RequestBuilder results. Quick example here:
public class AutoBeanSerializer {
private final AutoBeanFactory factory;
public AutoBeanSerializer(AutoBeanFactory factory) {
this.factory = factory;
}
public String <T> encodeData(T data) {
//first, get the autobean mapped to the data
//probably throw something if we can't find it
AutoBean<T> autoBean = AutoBeanUtils.getAutoBean(data);
//then, encode it
//no factory or type needed here since the AutoBean has those details
return AutoBeanCodex.encode(autoBean);
}
public <T> T decodeData(Class<T> dataType, String json) {
AutoBean<T> bean = AutoBeanCodex.decode(factory, dataType, json);
//unwrap the bean, and return the actual data
return bean.as();
}
}