In Glimmer.js, what is the best way to reset a tracked property to an initial value without using the constructor?
Note: Cannot use the constructor because it is only called once on initial page render and never called again on subsequent page clicks.
There are two parts to this answer, but the common theme between them is that they emphasize switching from an imperative style (explicitly setting values in a lifecycle hook) to a declarative style (using true one-way data flow and/or using decorators to clearly indicate where you’re doing some kind of transformation of local state based on arguments).
Are you sure you need to do that? A lot of times people think they do and they should actually just restructure their data flow. For example, much of the time in Ember Classic, people reached for a pattern of "forking" data using hooks like didInsertElement or didReceiveAttrs. In Glimmer components (whether in Ember Octane or in standalone Glimmer.js), it's idiomatic instead to simply manage your updates in the owner of the data: really doing data-down-actions-up.
Occasionally, it does actually make sense to create local copies of tracked data in a component—for example, when you want to have a clean separation between data coming from your API and the way you handle data in a form (because user interfaces are API boundaries!). In those scenarios, the #localCopy and #trackedReset decorators from tracked-toolbox are great solutions.
#localCopy does roughly what its name suggests. It creates a local copy of data passed in via arguments, which you can change locally via actions, but which also switches back to the argument if the argument value changes.
#trackedReset creates some local state which resets when an argument updates. Unlike #localCopy, the state is not a copy of the argument, it just needs to reset when the argument updates.
With either of these approaches, you end up with a much more “declarative” data flow than in the old Ember Classic approach: “forking” the data is done via decorators (approach 2), and much of the time you don’t end up forking it at all because you just push the changes back up to the owner of the original data (1).
Related
for a project, I am trying to create a web-app that, among other things, allows training of machine learning agents using python libraries such as Dedupe or TensorFlow. In cases such as Dedupe, I need to provide an interface for active learning, which I currently realize through jquery based ajax calls to a view that takes and sends the necessary training data.
The problem is that I need this agent object to stay alive throughout multiple view calls and be accessible by each individual call. I have tried realizing this via the built-in cache system using Memcached, but the serialization does not seem to keep all the info intact, and while I am technically able to restore the object from the cache, this appears to break the training algorithm.
Essentially, I want to keep the object alive within the application itself (rather than an external memory store) and be able to access it from another view, but I am at a bit of a loss of how to realize this.
If someone knows the proper technique to achieve this, I would be very grateful.
Thanks in advance!
To follow up with this question, I have since realized that the behavior shown seemed to have been an effect of trying to use the result of a method call from the object loaded from cache directly in the return properties of a view. Specifically, my code looked as follows:
#model is the object loaded from cache
#this returns the wrong object (same object as on an earlier call)
return JsonResponse({"pairs": model.uncertain_pairs()})
and was changed to the following
#model is the object loaded from cache
#this returns the correct object (calls and returns the model.uncertain_pairs() method properly)
uncertain = model.uncertain_pairs()
return JsonResponse({"pairs": uncertain})
I am unsure if this specifically happens due to an implementation from Dedupe or Django side or due to Python, but this has undoubtedly fixed the issue.
To return back to the question, Django does seem to be able to properly (de-)serialize objects and their properties in cache, as long as the cache is set up properly (see Apparent bug storing large keys in django memcached which I also had to deal with)
A repository pattern is there to abstract away the actual data source and I do see a lot of benefits in that, but a repository should not use IQueryable to prevent leaking DB information and it should always return domain objects, not DTO's or POCO's, and it is this last thing I have trouble with getting my head around.
If a repository pattern always has to return a domain object, doesn't that mean it fetches way too much data most of the times? Lets say it returns an employee domain object with forty properties and in the service and view layers consuming that object only five of those properties are actually used.
It means the database has fetched a lot of unnecessary data a pumped that across the network. Doing that with one object is hardly noticeable, but if millions of records are pushed across that way and a lot of of the data is thrown away every time, is that not considered bad behavior?
Yes, when adding or editing or deleting the object, you will use the entire object, but reading the entire object and pushing it to another layer which uses only a fraction of it is not utilizing the underline database and network in the most optimal way. What am I missing here?
There's nothing preventing you from having a separate read model (which could a separately stored projection of the domain or a query-time projection) and separating out the command and query concerns - CQRS.
If you then put something like GraphQL in front of your read side then the consumer can decide exactly what data they want from the full model down to individual field/property level.
Your commands still interact with the full domain model as before (except where it's a performance no-brainer to use set based operations).
I´m trying to perform some actions in the pipeline "httpRequestBegin" only when necessary.
My processor is executed after Sitecore resolves the user (processor type="Sitecore.Pipelines.HttpRequest.UserResolver, Sitecore.Kernel" ), as i´m resolving the user too if Sitecore is not able to resolve it first.
Later, i want to add some rendering in the pipeline "insertRenderings", only if actions in the previous pipeline were executed (If i resolved the user, show a message), so i´m trying to save some "flag" in the first step, to check in the second.
My question is, where can I store that flag? I´m trying to find some kind of "per request" cache...
So far, I've tried:
The session: Wrong, it's too early, session doesn't exists yet.
Items (HttpContext.Current.Items): It doesn't work either, my item is not there on the seconds step.
So far i'm using the application cache (HttpContext.Current.Cache) with some unique key, but I don´t like this solution.
Anybody body knows a better approach to share this "flag"?
You could add a flag to the request header and then check it's existence in the latter pipelines, e.g.
// in HttpRequest pipeline
HttpContext.Current.Request.Headers.Add("CustomUserResolve", "true");
// in InsertRenderings pipeline
var customUserResolve = HttpContext.Current.Request.Headers["CustomUserResolve"];
if (Sitecore.MainUtil.GetBool(customUserResolve, false))
{
// custom logic goes here
}
This feels a little dirty, I think adding to Request.QueryString or Request.Params would been nicer but those are readonly. However, if you only need this for a one time deal (i.e. only the first time it is resolved) then it will work since in the next request the Headers are back to default without your custom header added.
HttpContext.Current.Cache or HttpRuntime.Cache could be the fastest solution here. Though this approach would not preserve data when the AppPool gets recycled.
If you add only a few keys to the cache and then maintain them, this solution might work for you. If each request puts an entry into the cache, it may eventually overflow the memory used by worker process in a long run.
As alternative to this you may try to use Sitecore.Context.ClientData property. It uses ClientDataStore that employs a database (look for clientDataStore section in the web.config file) to store data. These entries can survive the AppPool recycle.
Though if you use them a lot, it may become a bottleneck under the load when you need to write to and/or read from the entries.
If you do know that there could be a lot of entries created for sharing purposes, I'd create a scheduled task to clean up the data store from obsolete entries.
I know this is a very old question, but I just want post solution I worked around
Below will hold data per http request basis.
HttpContext.Current.Items["ModuleInfo"] = "Custom Module Info"
we can store data to httpcontext in one sitecore pipeline and retrieve in another...
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/146455/When-Can-We-Use-HttpContext-Current-Items-to-Store
I'm running my applications on CF 9. I created a CFC to concentrate my cookie handling instead of all the tags strewn about. It is simple. It has two attributes (name, value), and has 5 methods (setCookie, deleteCookie, verifyCookie, clearAllCookies, and init).
Since I wanted this method to be available throughout the application, I put this code in the onApplicationStart method of my application.cfc file:
application.oCookie = createObject("com.mycookie").init();
When I need to set a cookie in any code file I just call it like so:
application.oCookie.name="testCookieName";
application.oCookie.value="testCookieValue";
application.oCookie.setCookie();
My question is: Do I need to put a lock on this code each time I do this? If two separate users were to be on pages accessing this code at the same exact instant, can I end up with mixed up cookie values being set?
To make your oCookie thread-safe, it has to be a singleton (with no state) that only acts as a thin layer to the <cfcookie> or the cookie scope.
Therefore you should design your com.mycookie so that it accepts application.oCookie.setCookie(name, value) instead. And make sure you var-scope everything and don't store anything in the variables scope of mycookie.
And I don't think you need to use cflock.
If you haven't already, you may want to checkout WireBox.
We have Unit of Work implemented in EntityFramework, so when we use ObjectContext and make any changes to the Entity it is tracked and then on SaveChanges it is all reflected in underlying database.
But what if I want to track changes for my custom class, so every modifications are tracked down and sent through webservice call ?
I have webservice which provides me some data, that data is displayed in datagrid and then may be modified. I want to track all the changes down and then be able to send back through webservice the data only that have been modified. Is there any solution for that like EntityFramework or POCO or whatever ? Or I have to implement my own Unit of Work pattern for it ?
Change tracking works only when entity is attached to the context. There is special type of entities called Self tracking entities which is able to track changes on the client side when exposed with web service but these classes are still your primary entities (not custom objects) and they apply their tracked state directly to the context.
What you describe has nothing to do with unit-of-work pattern. You are looking for change set pattern which is able to pass only differences back to the service. Implementation of such classes is completely up to you. .NET doesn't provide them. .NET offers two implementations of change set pattern
mentioned Self tracking entities for EF
DataSet and related classes
Both these implementations transfer by default all data (moreover at least DataSets have by default both old and new state in the message). Both data sets and STEs share same limitations - they are very badly interoperable.
Change tracking at the property level should not be left to the client of a WCF call, for a variety of reasons. If you use a DTO (Data-Transfer Object) pattern, you should be able to keep your individual objects small enough to avoid having any significant overhead from sending the entire changed object across the wire. Then, on the server side, you load the current version of the object out of your database, set the values provided by the DTO, and let Entity Framework track the changed properties.
public SavePerson(Person person)
{
using(var context = _contextFactory.Get())
{
var persistentPerson = context.People.Single(p => p.PersonId == person.PersonId);
persistendPerson.FirstName = person.FirstName;
/// etc. (This could be done with a tool like AutoMapper)
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
If you're changing multiple objects on the client side, and you want to keep track of which ones the user has changed, you could have the client be responsible for keeping track of the objects that get changed and send only those objects to the web service in bulk. There, you can apply the same pattern and wait to SaveChanges until all of the objects have been updated.
Hopefully this helps.