I am trying to add a function to a JSONJavaObject and calling it from a control on an xpage.
so far I have:
json = (JsonJavaObject) JsonParser.fromJson(factory, colJson);
String func = "function () { alert('you clicked?'); }";
json.put("onClick", new JsonReference(func) );
In the first line I add key-value pairs from a column in a Notes view.
In the second line I define the function as a string.
In the last line I place the converted string as function in the jsonjava object.
I read about this in the following blog post:
http://camerongregor.com/2016/01/19/doublequoteavoidance/
In the next step I bind the function to e.g. a button control as followed:
<xp:button value="Label" id="button1">
<xp:eventHandler event="onclick" submit="false">
<xp:this.script><![CDATA[obj.onClick]]></xp:this.script>
</xp:eventHandler>
</xp:button>
obj is the respresentation of the JSONJava object in SSJS.
But without success. Anyone know how I can call the function in the object?
I hope I will make sense here, let me know if anything to clarify.
If you are simply trying to dynamically output the client side script of a button event, then you don't need to use JsonReference at all. You can just use a String.
In my blog article I might not have make it clear why I needed to use JsonReference. I was using it in the process of rendering a custom UIComponent, part of this process required generating a Json object client side. To do this I created the JsonJavaObject as you did and then asked it to be turned into a string with the 'toJson' method. My problem was that when I asked the whole object to become a string, every property of that object that was a String, would begin and end with a double quote. I needed to ensure that the properties which were intended to be functions did not begin and end with "". By using the JsonReference the JsonGenerator became aware of my intention not to include these double quotes.
In your case, it looks as though you are just trying to dynamically determine what happens with onClick. To do this you could simply use a String instead of the JsonReference. The inclusion of the 'function() {}' is unnecessary as this will be generated when the event handler is rendered at the end of the page.
For Example here would be the Json Java Object
JsonJavaObject obj = new JsonJavaObject();
String func = " alert('you clicked?'); ";
obj.put("onClick", func);
return obj;
And here would be the button:
<xp:button id="button1" value="Alert Me">
<xp:eventHandler event="onclick" submit="false"
script="#{javascript: myBean.myObject.get('onClick')}">
</xp:eventHandler>
</xp:button>
This should give you the end result of seeing 'you clicked?' alert.
You can also inspect how this has all been generated in the script block near the end of the page using 'view Source' or your favourite web browser developer tools:
function view__id1__id2_clientSide_onclick(thisEvent) {
alert('you clicked?');
}
XSP.addOnLoad(function() {
XSP.attachEvent("view:_id1:_id2", "view:_id1:button1", "onclick",
view__id1__id2_clientSide_onclick, false, 2);
});
Let me know if anything isn't clear, hope it helps!
Does obj.onClick already give you a handle to the function returned by the Java class? If it does then you should be able to call it using the call or apply methods that are available in JavaScript:
obj.onClick.call();
obj.onClick.apply();
More details about those two methods can be found here: What is the difference between call and apply?
Related
I'm currently working on an application built in Scala with Spray routing.
So for dealing with a JSON document sent over POST, it's pretty easy to access the variables within the body, as follows;
respondWithMediaType(`application/json`) {
entity(as[String]) { body =>
val msg = (parse(body) \ "msg").extract[String]
val url = (parse(body) \ "url").extractOpt[String]
However, I'm now trying to write an additional query with GET, and am having some issues accessing the parameters sent through with the query.
So, I'm opening with;
get {
respondWithMediaType(`application/json`) {
parameterSeq { params =>
var paramsList = params.toList
So, this works well enough in that I can access the GET params in a sequential order (just by accessing the index) - the problem is, unfortunately I don't think we can expect GET params to always be sent in the correct order.
The list itself prints out in the following format;
List((msg,this is a link to google), (url,http://google.com), (userid,13))
Is there any simple way to access these params? For example, something along the lines of;
var message = paramsList['msg']
println(message) //returns "this is a link to google"
Or am I going about this completely wrong?
Apologies if this is a stupid question - I've only switched over to Scala very recently, and am still getting both acquainted with that, and re-acquainted with Java.
What I usually do is use the parameters directive to parse the data out to a case class which contains all the relevant data:
case class MyParams(msg: String, url: String, userId: Int)
parameters(
"msg".as[String],
"url".as[String],
"userId".as[Int]
).as[MyParams] {
myParams =>
// Here you have the case class containing all the data, already parsed.
}
To build your routes you could use the parameters directives. I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, anyway you could use them as:
get {
parameters('msg) { (msg) =>
complete(s"The message is '$msg'")
}
}
Spray directives can be easily composed so you can use combine them in any way you want.
I hope that helps you.
Apologies if this is a bit of a weird one...
I have a program written in Java which utilises the ScriptEngine to process user provided JavaScript to extend my application. However, this specific question is related to general JavaScript as opposed to Java or it's ScriptEngine, but I am just explaining this to set the context.
I have a function which returns a string when called - let's call it a() as defined below:
var a = function() {
return "this is a";
};
When the user calls this function using a() it works fine and outputs "this is a". However, if the user forgets to include the parenthesis then it outputs my actual function definition - expecting this as I am no longer calling the function.
To catch this I have redefined the toString method of my Object to the following:
a.toString = function() {
return a();
};
This works fine when I use a in a string context as it calls the toString method implicitly, but if I attempt to pass it to a function then it doesn't call toString and I am left with a sun.org.mozilla.javascript.internal.InterpretedFunction.
I have looked at the other Function.prototype methods (i.e. apply, bind, constructor, etc) to try and override the method which is called as the function is passed to another function but none of them fitted the bill. I am basically looking for a way of converting a Function to a string type object whenever it is used without the parenthesis - i.e a === a(). For people who might ask why don't I define a as a string to start with, my function returns a string constructed from other information the user has provided.
Maybe the solution is to make my users write syntactically correct JavaScript, but my users are far from programmers. I could also add some form of pre-parsing which checks for missing parenthesis and adds them in dynamically before I execute it using the ScriptEngine. However, although both of these options will work, I am looking for an easier way.
Neither a.toString nor a.prototype.toString will allow you to forget the parenthesis. .toString allow you to do:
var a = function() {
return "this is a";
};
a.prototype.toString = function () {
return "something";
};
var A = new a;
alert(A + ''); // something
A.toString = function () {
return "something else";
};
alert(A + ''); // something else
You shouldn't want in your code both a() and a return the same thing, this looks like a very bad idea.
An option to get myObject.myVar return a custom dynamic string is defineGetter https://developer.mozilla.org/fr/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Objets_globaux/Object/defineGetter
I'm trying to unravel a Webservice work and replicating it's call, but I've been unable to do it.
In this website, if you input, for example, HY6210 a new window appears with data already filled in.
Using Firebug I was able to determine it was calling
this link,
but no matter what I do in terms of parameters, headers, and cookies, I always get either:
throw 'allowScriptTagRemoting is false.';
//#DWR-REPLY
if (window.dwr) dwr.engine._remoteHandleBatchException({ name:'java.lang.SecurityException', message:'Call IDs may only contain Java Identifiers' });
else if (window.parent.dwr) window.parent.dwr.engine._remoteHandleBatchException({ name:'java.lang.SecurityException', message:'Call IDs may only contain Java Identifiers' });
or
throw 'allowScriptTagRemoting is false.';
//#DWR-REPLY
if (window.dwr) dwr.engine._remoteHandleBatchException({name:'org.directwebremoting.extend.ServerException', message:'The specified call count is not a number' });
else if (window.parent.dwr) window.parent.dwr.engine._remoteHandleBatchException({ name:'org.directwebremoting.extend.ServerException', message:'The specified call count is not a number' });
Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?
Suppose, historyTracking is the class name and getStoppageV3 method then you pass device1 variable in JavaScript and then you forcefully convert this variabal in string then you use device1.toString().
Example:
historyTracking.getStoppageV3(device1.toString()
When I create a new ARB subscription the response comes back and I save the id it gives us. I tried it out and it gives us back "33".
Then when the silent post callback hits our method, the response has a different id, 15631016.
15631016 is correct in matching up with the one we see in the authorize.net online portal.
So, what is 33 and why doesn't it return the real ARB ID?
Here is the code that creates the new ARB and then gets the arbId:
net.authorize.arb.Transaction arbTransaction = createARBTransaction(startDate.getTime(), creditCard, member, splitOccurrences.intValue() - 1, splitUnit, useBillingAddress, billingAddress, recurringOrder.getTotalAmount().doubleValue(), recurringOrder);
net.authorize.arb.Result<?> arbResult = (net.authorize.arb.Result<?>) merchant.postTransaction(arbTransaction);
String arbId;
if (arbResult.isOk()) {
arbId = arbResult.getResultSubscriptionId();
}
If getResultSubscriptionId() is not the correct way to get the new ARB subscription ID, what is the correct method to use?
I went through the sample code and also their community and there isn't much to go on. The only thing I can think of trying is changing:
arbResult.getResultSubscriptionId();
to:
arbTransaction.getResultSubscriptionId();
I know that doesn't sound logical but it's the best I can some up with.
According to the source code, you are using the correct method.
If you trace the calls back into the code you'll see that the subscription id gets set by the following call in importResponseMessages() of net.authorize.arb.Result
getElementText(txn.getCurrentResponse().getDocumentElement(),AuthNetField.ELEMENT_SUBSCRIPTION_ID.getFieldName());
so if you call this on your arbResult variable, you might get closer. Note that txn should be replaced by your variable arbTransaction.
Alternatively, you can dig into the response itself to see why the Authorize.net APK isn't returning the correct subscription id.
xml = arbTransaction.getCurrentResponse().dump(true);
The true determines whether the XML tree is collapsed. xml should be a string containing your XML response from authorize.net
I'm looking for possibility to add anchor to url returned in controller:
public static Result open(String id) {
// here I want to add acnhor like #foo to the produced url
return redirect(routes.MyPage.show(id));
}
I found that it was possible in play 1 using addRef method, but I couldn't find any replacement of the method in play 2.
Of course I can use concatenation like:
public static Result open(String id) {
// here I want to add acnhor like #foo to the produced url
return redirect(routes.MyPage.show(id).url + "#foo");
}
But it seems ugly.
Thank you for any help! Have a good day!
Before trying to answer that question.
I should recommend you change whatever behavior you're currently setting.
Because, an URL fragment's purpose is client side only. Such fragment is never sent to the server, so that it's cumbersome to do the opposite.
However, here is the embryo of a (quite?) elegant solution that you could follow.
What I'll try to do is to leave the browser deal with the fragment, in order to keep potential behaviors (f.i. go to ID or even deal with history...).
To do so, you could add an implicit parameter to your main template which will define the fragment that the URL should have:
#(title: String)(content: Html)(urlFragment:Option[UrlFragment] = None)
As you can see I wrapped the parameter in an Option and default'ed it to None (in order to avoid AMAP pollution).
Also, it simply wraps a String but you could use String alone -- using a dedicated type will enforce the semantic. Here is the definition:
case class UrlFragment(hash:String)
Very simple.
Now here is how to tell the browser to deal with it. Right before the end of the head element, and the start of body, just add the following:
#urlFragment.map { f =>
<script>
$(function() {
//after everything is ready, so that other mechanism will be able to use the change hash event...
document.location.hash = "#Html(#f.hash)";
});
</script>
}
As you can see, using map (that is when the urlFragment is not None) we add a script block that will set the hash available in urlFragment.
This might be a start, however... Think about another solution for the whole scenario.
As of Play 2.4, it's possible to use Call.withFragment().
routes.Application.index.withFragment("some-id").absoluteURL(request)
This was added by PR #4152.