stateless | A simple library for creating state machines in C # code

If this is a local environment, you don't need to configure Spring, instead you modify angular configuration.

Create a file proxy.conf.json in your project's src/ folder.

Add the following content to the new proxy file:

Recomposition happens when either the parameter values change or a mutable state variable within the composable function is updated.

A stateless function, sometimes referred to as an "immutable" function, is one where no data is stored in the function. This means that if you call the function repeatedly, it would be the same as if you had called it for the first time. The function retains no memory of any variables each time it is called.

Hoisting the state of a composable means that the state variables are kept outside of the composable and the values of those state variables are passed into the composable as normal parameters. This allows you to reuse the composable. This is especially important if you are creating a library of composables that you want to reuse from one project to another. Users of the library can be assured that there are no state dependencies that the composable requires. If you want a truely stateless composable, you would avoid doing things like passing in viewmodels. A viewmodel is very much dependent on the app in which it resides and will have code in it that is very specific to the app. A stateless composable has no dependencies on the app and therefore can be reused elsewhere.

That doesn't mean that you can't use viewmodels in your composables. Initially Google was against this when Compose first came out but realized that it was very awkward for developers. If a developer had no reason to make a reusable composable outside of the screen that it appears on, hoisting the state for every composable becomes a pain resulting in unnecessary boilerplate code. So the general rule is that if your composable is not going to be reused elsewhere and you need access to viewmodel data, you can either pass in the viewmodel as a parameter or access it within the composable through other means.

Aside from viewmodels, you may still want to make a composable stateful even when it needs to be reused. A good example of this is if you are using a TextField. As you are typing in text, you want the text to appear. Without using a state variable to retain the typed characters, you won't see the TextField update. For this reason, using a local state variable to store the entered characters is acceptable. While this doesn't make the composable stateless, it is still something you need to implement. However, even in this example, you can still make it stateless by passing the typed characters back up to the hoisted function and storing it in a viewmodel state variable that in turn triggers the hoisted function to recompose the composable and pass in the text that the TextField needs. But this is rather convoluted and a big round trip just to get characters shown in the TextField and therefore isn't recommended. You might want to do it though if you have a very complex TextField composable and you need to process the characters in your viewmodel as they are being typed - such as might be the case for doing a suggestion lookup for a url.

So even if your composable is stateless but your viewmodel has a mutable state variable that the hoisted function is observing, if the mutable state of that variable changes, the hoisted function will recompose. But whether the composable that the hoisted composable is calling gets recomposed depends on whether the parameter values to that composable change. If they change, a recomposition will occur.

First off, this is a pretty hard problem to solve. Obviously, you need some way to pass data into a function outside of its arguments. However, pretty any method of doing that via a static could easily result in race conditions or worse, depending on what the c library does and how the library is used. The other option is to JIT some glue code that calls your closure. At first glance, that seems even worse, but libffi abstracts most of that away. A wrapper using the libffi crate would like this:

It seems to me that your only option is the following:

I used PageView in my Flutter portfolio website. I noticed that I couldn't swipe to change pages. Later I came to know that this could be done by my Mac's trackpad gestures. Since the PageView was horizontal, I had to horizontally swipe two fingers on my trackpad. You can try that.

Congratulation, you found drools bug DROOLS-6542 - fixed in 7.60.0.Final
There is a workaround - remove mvel dialect for the rule "Invalidate visa application with invalid passport".

BTW, I'd like to propose you drools testing library which may save you great amount of time to mind complicated rules and simplify writing test scenarios. Here is how test may look like.

There is this general confusion around token-based auth, so let's try to clear some of it up.

First, JWTs are not just "encoded" by the server, they are "signed" (which more precisely is message authentication usually). The purpose is that such a token can not be altered or changed by the client, any field (claim) in the token can be trusted to be as the issuer created it, otherwise validation will fail.

This yields two important takeaways:

• validating tokens is important (obviously) in any implementation
• the contents (claims) of a JWT are not encrypted, ie. it's not a secret and can be viewed by the client

Such a token can be used to maintain a session without server-side state, if it contains some kind of an identity for the subject (user, like a user id or email address), and an expiry.

Another important takeaway though:

• Logout (immediate session invalidation) is not possible in a stateless way, which is a drawback. To be able to log out as in invalidate an existing session, the server must store and check revoked tokens, which is necessarily a stateful operation.

Also a JWT token is typically stored in a way that it's accessible for client-side code (javascript), so things like who the user is and when the token will expire can be read by the client app. It need not be so, yet most implementations do this, eg. store it in localstorage. This makes these tokens susceptible to XSS attacks, meaning that any successful XSS will be able to get the token.

For the reasons discussed so far, JWT authentication is inherently less secure than a plain old session, and should only be used if there is a need. Many times when token auth is used, it is not actually necessary, just fancy.

Sometimes such a token is stored in a httpOnly cookie, but in that case the token cannot be sent to multiple origins (one benefit of localStorage) and a plain old session id could also have been used, and would actually be more secure.

Ok, so what are refresh tokens. As you correctly stated, limiting the lifetime of an access token is useful to limit the validity of a compromised token. So a refresh token can be used to get a new access token when the old one expired. The key is where these are stored.

A key takeaway:

• If a refresh token is stored the same way as the access token, it usually doesn't make any sense. This is a common mistake in implementations.

In a better architecture, the following can happen:

• There are (both logically and "physically" as much as it makes sense in today's cloud world) at least two separate components: the identity provider (IdP, or "login service"), and the resource server (eg. an API).
• When a user logs in, they actually create a session with the IdP. In this case either a plain old session id (acting as refresh token) or an actual JWT refresh token is set up for the IdP origin (domain name).
• An access token is then created when needed for the resource server origin, using the existing session with the identity provider.
• Now even if there is a total compromise of the resource server, like in case of successful XSS, the refresh token belongs to a completely separate origin, so cannot be accessed by the attacker. Even if it's the same origin, but the refresh token is in a httpOnly cookie, that helps, because the attacker then needs to be able to perform repeated XSS against a victim user to receive new access tokens.

There can be implementation variants of this, but the point is the above, separation of access to the two tokens.

A one-to-one mapping of refresh tokens to access tokens as you described would I think be unusual and also unnecessary, but one session per user is in fact sometimes a requirement (especially in financial applications where you want to have a very clear audit trail of what a user did). But this is not much related to the things discussed above.

Also as stated above, proper logout (session invalidation) is not possible in a stateless way. Fortunately, very few applications actually need to be truly stateless on the server-side.

Much simpler using tagging, but changing your data structure:

Manage trigger event with other state not winner object itself.