i want to handle any download request coming from Webview. how it is possible ? the documentation https://developer.blackberry.com/native/reference/cascades/bb__cascades__webresourcerequestfilter.html and https://developer.blackberry.com/native/reference/cascades/bb__cascades__webdownloadrequest.html are describing the parameters but couldn't figure out how to do it.
Your question is not clear on what you don't understand. Remember this is not a training forum, the idea is that you should try things, review the documentation and then ask specific questions to get the best out of a forum.
Moreover it is not clear whether you are trying to handle the download request at the Server, or capture the request before the download attempt leaves the BB.
I'm going to assume you want to display a web page on the BlackBerry but make sure that any resource requests that the page generates, are filtered by your program, so that you can supply the data (assuming you have it).
I implemented something like this a while ago and remember that it was not simple to figure out what was going on, but I played with it a bit and it all made sense.
I don't remember using WebDownloadRequest and can't really see how it helps in this case.
The key is WebResourceRequestFilter. You create your own WebResourceRequestFilter making sure you implement the required methods. Then you use WebPage::setNetworkResourceRequestFilter(WebResourceRequestFilter*) to make sure the webpage will ask your WebResourceRequestFilter for its resources. The first method the web page invokes is filterResourceRequest(), and the return from this invocation determines which other methods in your WebResourceRequestFilter, the Webage will invoke.
I suggest you implement a WebResourceRequestFilter, put some debugging in filterResourceRequest(), but always return FilterAction Accept, which means the web page will use its normal processing to obtain the resources. Then try various other FilterAction return values and see what happens...
I'm using reactive extensions (well, trying, learning) in a windows store app. I have a series of async operations that will eventually navigate to an authorization web page for RTM. Given the reading I've done, I would expect to write something like the following:
var result = rtm
.GetFrob()
.Select(s => rtm.GetAuthenticationUrl(s))
.ObserveOnDispatcher()
.Do(uri => AuthWebView.Navigate(new Uri(uri)))
.First();
However, I can't seem to find a method ObserveOnDispatcher, and further there is no Scheduler.Dispatcher property either, leading me to think on a Windows Store application there is something deeper gong on with the main UI thread and how you reference it.
GetFrob, btw, creates an IObservable sequence using Observable.FromAsync (if that helps with this).
BTW, if I remove that line, I fail in the call to the Navigate as posting it from the wrong thread. So, what is the proper thing to do here to make sure I'm back on the correct thread?
BTW, Excuse the ".Do" operation here, I know it isn't "nice", however, I'm still experimenting in throw-away code.
Many thanks in advance!
Argh. Apparently I just am not good enough at search. :(
Turns out that adding the nuget package Rx-Xaml includes the proper assemblies for the scheduler, etc. Details can be found on the main Rx blog. Of course, my app is back to hanging now, but that may be due to something else dumb on my part.
Some one please help me how to post a new discussion in linkedin group using PHP.
I would appreciated if some one comes with an example.
Thanks for all replies.
Cute programmer :)
You can access the Groups API using PHP via the latest version of the Simple-LinkedIn library here:
http://code.google.com/p/simple-linkedinphp/
The release notes, covering the additions of the Groups-specific methods. TO answer your question using the library, you'd do something along the lines of the following:
$response = $OBJ_linkedin->createPost(<groupid>, <title>, <summary>);
if($response['success'] === TRUE) {
// success
} else {
// failure
}
Short answer, you can't.
Long answer, even after 2 years of promising Linked-in still have not produced a suitable API for groups management, despite myself (I'm an LI group manager) and many others who own and/or manage groups on LI repeatedly asking.
now... to look at it from the other point of view:
You don't really need an API to post, after all it is just a html we server, however even with LI you can't do anything without a user login, and that means oauth code to log you in, creation of account, getting a login token and then providing that and a ton more information, as well as the semantics of the discussion.
In short it's not going to be a simple post, even with groups that are open, and for such a simple task it's going to require you a lot of work.
However, if your adamant, then I would start by installing tools like fiddler & wire-shark, then analysing a manual session on LI and observing the process of logging in, creating posts etc ... end to end, so you understand what's sent where. Once you've done that, it's then just a question of reproducing that in PHP
If your wanting this to write an automated spamming tool by the way, I really wouldn't bother, because the second it gets seen, it will get shut-down and prevented from being used by LI management.
UPDATE:
Looking at the links provided by the OP it appears there is a groups API now, and I have to say it's something that LI remain very quiet about when asked by group owners (Hence the large amount of screen scraping I've done before now)
Moving on, and looking at the sample link you provided:
http://api.linkedin.com/v1/groups/12345/posts:(title,summary,creator)?order=recency
I don't know the API yet (Some investigation is required) but, one thing that sticks out is it looks like you
A) Need an account
B) Need to an API key (Presumably so LI can track your usage)
C) Need to have performed some kind of OAuth authentication and logged in before you can use it.
As things stand, I would recommend that you do what I'm about to and read through all the docs. :-)
We've both learned something new here.
So, I need some input refactoring an asp.net (c#) application that is basically a framework for creating dynamic forms (any forms). From a high level point of view, there is a table that has the forms, and then there is a table that has all the form fields, where it is one to many between the two. There is a validation table, where each field can have multiple types of validation, and it is a one to many from the form fields table to the validation table.
So the issue is that this application has been sold as the be-all-end-all customizable solution to all the clients. So, the idea is whatever form they want, we can build it jsut using DB configurations. The thing is, that is not always possible, because there is complex relationship between the fields, and complex relationship between the forms themselves. Also, there is only once codebase, and this is for multiple clients - all of whom host it on their own. There is very specific logic for each of the clients, and they are ALL in the same codebase, with no real separation. Sometimes it was too difficult to make it generic, so there are instances where it has hard coded logic (as in if formID = XXX then do _). You can also have nested forms, as in, one set of fields on its own within each form.
So usually, when one client requests a change, we make the change and deploy it to that client - but then another client requests a different change, and we make the change and deploy it for THAT client, but the change from the earlier client breaks it, and its a headache trying to debug, because EVERYTHING is dynamic. There is no way we can rollback the earlier change, because then the other client would be screwed.
Its not done in a real 3-tier architecture - its a web site with references to a DB class, and a class library. There is business logic in the web site itself, in the class library, and the database stored procs (Validation is done in the stored procs).
I've been put in charge of re-organizing the whole thing, and these are my thoughts/questions:
I think this is a bad model in general, because one of the things I heard one of the developers say is that anytime any client makes a change, we should deploy to everybody - but that is not realistic, if we have say 20 clients - there will need to be regression testing on EVERYTHING, since we don't know the impact...
There are about 100 forms in total, and their is some similarity in them (not much). But I think the idea that a dynamic engine can solve ALL form requests was not realistic as well. Clients come up with the most weird requests. For example, they have this engine doing a regular data entry form AND a search form.
There is a lot of preserving state between pages, and it is all done using session variables, which is ok, except that it is not really tracked, and so sessions from the same user keep getting overwritten, and I think sessions should be got rid of.
Should I really just rewrite the whole thing? This app is about 3 years old, and there has been lots of testing and things done, and serious business logic implemented, so I hate to get rid of all that (joel's advice). But its really a mess of a sphagetti code, and everything takes forever to do, and things break all the time because of minor changes.
I've been reading Martin Fowlers "Refactoring" and Michael Feathers "working effectively with legacy code" - and they are good, but I feel they were written for an application that was 'slightly' better architected, where it is still a 3-tiered architecture, and there is 'some' resemblance of logic..
Thoughts/input anyone?
Oh, and "Help!"
My current project sounds like almost exactly the same product you're describing. Fortunately, I learned most of my hardest lessons on a former product, and so I was able to start my current project with a clean slate. You should probably read through my answer to this question, which describes my experiences, and the lessons I learned.
The main thing to focus on is the idea that you are building a product. If you can't find a way to implement a particular feature using your current product feature set, you need to spend some additional time thinking about how you could turn this custom one-off feature into a configurable feature that can benefit all (or at least many) of your clients.
So:
If you're referring to the model of being able to create a fully customizable form that makes client-specific code almost unnecessary, that model is perfectly valid and I have a maintainable working product with real, paying clients that can prove it. Regression testing is performed on specific features and configuration combinations, rather than a specific client implementation. The key pieces that make this possible are:
An administrative interface that is effective at disallowing problematic combinations of configuration options.
A rules engine that allows certain actions in the system to invoke customizable triggers and cause other actions to happen.
An Integration framework that allows data to be pulled from a variety of sources and pushed to a variety of sources in a configurable manner.
The option to inject custom code as a plugin when absolutely necessary.
Yes, clients come up with weird requests. It's usually worthwhile to suggest alternative solutions that will still solve the client's problem while still allowing your product to be robust and configurable for other clients. Sometimes you just have to push back. Other times you'll have to do what they say, but use wise architectural practices to minimize the impact this could have on other client code.
Minimize use of the session to track state. Each page should have enough information on it to track the current page's state. Information that needs to persist even if the user clicks "Back" and starts doing something else should be stored in a database. I have found it useful, however, to keep a sort of breadcrumb tree on the session, to track how users got to a specific place and where to take them back to when they finish. But the ID of the node they're actually on currently needs to be persisted on a page-by-page basis, and sent back with each request, so weird things don't happen when the user is browsing to different pages in different tabs.
Use incremental refactoring. You may end up re-writing the whole thing twice by the time you're done, or you may never really "finish" the refactoring. But in the meantime, everything will still work, and you'll have new features every so often. As a rule, rewriting the whole thing will take you several times as long as you think it will, so don't try to take the whole thing in a single bite.
I have a number of similar apps for building dynamic forms that I support.
There's a whole lot of things you could/could not do & you're right to think hard before throwing away 3 years of testing/development.
My input for you to consider is to implement a plug-in architecture on top of what you're got. Any custom code for a form goes in the plug-in & the name of this plug-in is stored with the form. When you generate a form, the correct plug-in is called to enhance the base functionality. that way you get to move all the custom code out of the existing library. It should also mean less breaking changes, each plug-in only affects the form it's attached to.
From that point it'll be easy to refactor the core engine as it's common functionality across all clients & forms.
Since your application seems to have become a big ball of mud, a complete (or an almost complete rewrite) might make sense.
You should also take into account new technologies like document-oriented databases (couchDB, MongoDB)
Most of the form definitions could probably fit pretty well in document-oriented databases. For exemple:
To define a customer form, you could use a document that looks like:
{Type:"FormDefinition",
EntityType: "Customer",
Fields: [
{FieldName:"CustomerName",
FieldType:"String",
Validations:[
{ValidationType:"Required"},
{ValidationType:"StringLength", Minimum:15, Maximum:50},
]},
...
{FieldName:"CustomerType",
FieldType:"Dropdown",
PossibleValues: ["Standard", "Valued", "Gold"],
DefaultValue: ["Standard"]
Validations:[
{ValidationType:"Required"},
{
ValidationType:"Custom",
ValidationClass:"MySystem.CustomerName.CustomValidations.CustomerStatus"
}
]},
...
]
};
With this kind of document to define your forms, you could easily add forms and validations which are customer specific.
You could easily add subforms using a fieldtype of SubForm or whatever.
You could define FieldTypes for all common types of fields like e-mail, phone numbers, address, etc.
namespace System.CustomerName.CustomValidations {
class CustomerStatus: IValidator {
private FormContext form;
private List<ValidationErrors> validationErrors;
CustomerStatus(FormContext fc) {
this.validationErrors = new List<ValidationErrors>();
this.form = fc;
}
public List<ValidationErrors> Validate() {
if (this.formContext.Fields["CustomerType"] == "Gold" && Int.Parse(this.form.Fields["OrderCount"]) < 10) {
this.validationErrors.Add(new ValidationError("A gold customer must have at least 10 orders"))
}
if (this.formContext.Fields["CustomerType"] == "Valued" && Int.Parse(this.form.Fields["OrderCount"]) < 5) {
this.validationErrors.Add(new ValidationError("A valued customer must have at least 5 orders"))
}
return this.validationErrors;
}
}
}
A record of a document with that definition could look like this:
{Type:"Record",
EntityType: "Customer",
Fields: [
{FieldName:"CustomerName", Value:"ABC Corp.",
{FieldName:"CustomerType", Value:"Gold",
...
]
};
Sure, this solution is a lot of work, but if/when realized it could be really easy to create/update/customize forms.
This is a common but (IMO) somewhat naive design approach. "Instead of solving the customer's problem, let's build a tool to let them solve their own problems!". But the reality is, that generally customers want YOU to solve their ACTUAL problems. So build things that solve their problems.
If you can architect it in a way that allows you to reuse some parts for different customers, fine. But that is generally what the frameworks have done for you already - work out the common features that applications need and make them available in neat packages.
I've been using this site for quite a while, usually being able to sort out my questions by browsing through the questions and following tags. However, I've recently come across a question that is rather hard to lookup amongst the great number of questions asked - a question I hope some of you might be able to share your opinion on.
As my problem is a bit hard to fit into a single line, going in the title, I'll try to give a bit more details on the problem I've encountered. So, as the title says I need to filter, or limit, some of the response data my standard ASP.NET Soap-based Web service returns on invoking various web methods. The web service is used to return data used by other systems (a data repository more or less), where the client today is able to specify a few parameters on how the data should be filtered and in return a full-set of data back.
Well, easy enough I thought, just put additional filtering options on the existing web methods which needs a bit more filtered applied, make adjustments on the server-side and we are all set to go - well, unfortunately it turned out to be a bit more tricky then this.
The problem I am facing is that I'm working on a web service running in a production environment, which needs to be extended in such that additional filters can be applied to existing web method being invoked w/o affecting the calls already being made by other systems used by the customer using their client stubs. This is where I am a bit troubled, since I can't seem to find a "right solution" on extending the current web service.
Today, the filter is send as a custom data structure which holds information on which data should filtered, but I am not sure if I can simply just add more information to this data structure w/o breaking code at the clients? One of my co-workers suggested that I could implement a solution where I would extend the web.config on the server-side to hold a section with details on which data should be excluded (filtered out), but I don't find this to be a viable solution long-sighted - and I don't trust customers with such an option since this is likely to go wrong at some point. So the solution I am looking for is a way that I can apply a "second filter" to the data I am requesting from the client so instead of getting a full-set of data back it should only give a fraction, it implemented in such that the filter can be easily modified and it must not affect the current client calls.
Any suggestions on how I should approach this problem?
Thanks!
Kind regards,
E.
A pretty common practice is to create another instance of the application OR use part of the url to signify the version of the endpoint they are connecting to, perhaps the virtual directory is the date. That way old calls will go to the old API and new calls will come in on the new API.
http://api.example.com/dostuff
vs
http://api.example.com/6-7-2011/dostuff