If I can add routes in global.ascx or similar file then why do we need custom router i.e. the routes over individual WebApi methods. When it's needed? What is the benefit?
[System.Web.Http.HttpPost]
[Route("api/AndroidOperations/AddManualAppointment")]
public object AddManualAppointment(AddManualBookingViewModel AddManualBookingVM)
{
BookingsRepository BookingRep= new BookingsRepository();
int ReturnRowsCount = BookingRep.InsertManualCustomerAppointments(AddManualBookingVM, out ReturnStatus, out ReturnMessage, out ReturnBookingID);
return new {ReturnMessage= ReturnMessage, ReturnStatus= ReturnStatus};
}
Attribute Routing is a more flexible solution than Convention Routing, if only because it allows you quite a bit more flexibility and places the routes next to the actions that will actually use them.
Consider choosing traditional routes when:
You want centralized configuration of all your routes.
You use custom constraint objects.
You have an existing working application you don’t want to change.
Consider choosing attribute routes when:
You want to keep your routes together with your action’s code.
You are creating a new application or making signifi cant changes to an existing one.
Attribute routing nicely keeps everything about your controllers together, including both the URLs they use and the actions that run. However there are certainly benefits to using both in tandem, particularly in situations when you know how some routes will look but aren't sure about others.
Note: Attribute Routing is more specific and overrides Convention Routing. Be sure attribute routing should be defined first to convention based routing.
To find out more see docs and Attribute Routing vs Convention Routing
Related
So there are several parts to this question.
The 2 example endpoints (in simplest form):
user/{id}/profile
movie/{id}/info
I expect to create 2 controllers (UserController & MovieController).
How do I implement a view area before controller name?
Both of these are what I would consider a view. Therefore I would like to append a "view" in the url before the controller, as both controllers ONLY supply views. I later expect to also have a user controller in a different place that does NOT return views.
However, ALL my endpoints should start with /api/.
i.e. I want this:
api/view/user/{id}/profile
api/view/movie/{id}/info
But how do I register an area (/view/) while using "custom routing" (i.e.: httpConfiguration.MapHttpAttributeRoutes())? Any examples of this I couldn't find?
Where should I put versioning?
The client is an app, and will require versioning, so that we can make changes to the methods without breaking old versions of the app.
We are unsure where it would be best to place the versioning, and how the placement affects the development of new versions (if it does so at all?).
Possibilities:
1. api/v1/view/user/{id}/profile
2. api/view/v1/user/{id}/profile
3. api/view/user/{id}/profile/v1
version the whole API. This would upgrade the whole API to a new version, even if we only required a single method/endpoint to make an app-breaking change.
Are there any advantages to this that I am not seeing?
version the area. Same as above, just slightly fewer controllers affected.
version the method. Seems like the simplest, as only the single changed method is affected. But the url is very ugly.
Does anyone have an example of versioning in an MVC or Web Api structure that doesn't upgrade the whole API, but still keeps a somewhat nice structure in their URLs?
I ended up using https://github.com/Microsoft/aspnet-api-versioning as suggested by NightOwl888.
1.
Made my 2 controllers extend another controller with a const field that defined the routeprefix that they should share:
protected const string RoutePrefix = "api/view/v{version:apiVersion}";
...
[RoutePrefix(RoutePrefix + "/user")]
2.
The placement of the /v1/ doesn't matter with this Library. And allowed for either updating the controller or individuals methods, as seen fit per case basis.
I have been developing with Spring MVC in a Servlet environment for quite some time, mostly on Spring 3.1.x and 3.2.x, but recently moved jobs to a company that uses a mixture of Portlets and Servlets using Spring 3.0.6.
Fist, there seems to be two versions of DefaultAnnotationHandlerMapping, one for Portlets and one for Servlets. My limited knowledge of Portlets makes me believe they are just an extention of Servlets, so I can vaguely understand the need to have two separate HandlerMappings, one to handle generic Servlets, the other to handle specifics to Portlest. What is throwing me is how they each seems to behave differently with regaurds to how they handle the #RequestMapping annotations, and how my new employer has chosen to set things up.
In my past, I have had one DispatchHandler for the entire application. I know you can have multiple DispatchHandlers, but I never saw the benefit past segregation of sub-context XMLs. Anyhow, in the past I would have a DispatchHandler mapped to "/", and then each Controller set a mapping on top using #RequestMapping("/someUrl") and then another #RequestMapping on each handler method further extending the URL mapping. So, from a browser I would get something like:
http://somehost.com/myWar/myController/myMethod
where the first "/myWar" is mapped to the WAR deployment, the next "/" is mapped to the DispatchServlet, "/myController" is the Controller's mapping, and anything after is matched to some method using a combination of URL signature, request method, parameters, etc.
Now lets evaluate what I am seeing at my new firm. First, each Controller gets its own DispatchServlet, so there is like 20-30 DispatchServlets defined, all with different base URIs mapped, some with the same base Application Context XML, some with different ones, all using the same Application Context from the ContextLoaderListener. Each of the subsequent DispatchServlet's path is the same as the #RequestMapping on their "mapped" Controller, so in the above example DispatchServlet would have the path "/myController" and the Controller would have #RequestMapping("/myController"). On top of that, at the Controller's method level, the value specified on #RequestMapping seems to totally ignore any additional pathing applied to it.
So, for instance, if I have a Controller with #RequestMapping("/myController"), followed by a method with #RequestMapping("/edit"), hitting the URL http://somehost.com/myWar/myContoller/edit gives me a 404. However, if I change the method-level #RequestMapping to #RequestMapping(parameter="actionMethod=edit"), and the URL to http://somehost.com/myWar/myController?actionMethod=edit, it maps just fine and I get my page. Further, if I change my method-level #RequestMapping to #RequestMapping(value="/edit",params="actionMethod=view") neither http://somehost.com/myWar/myController?actionMethod=edit nor http://somehost.com/myWar/myController/edit?actionMethod=edit work at all. The problem is that now to get to anything besides the default mapping at the method level requires me to take on "?actionMethod=edit", instead of simply extending the URI with the added paths. Also, it prevents me from using a RESTful approach, since now I can't define something like #RequestMapping("/somePath/{id}").
I have so much confussion in my brain, like why is the DispatchServlet mapping in the web.xml overlapping the Controllers #RequestMapping, and why is the #RequestMapping at the Controller's method level not working when I set the value property to a valid URI mapping, but works fine when I set some parameter mapping?
Oh, and sorry for the long posting. I just want to get a better understanding of what is happening here so I can either deal with it with an intellegent approach, or go back to my new group and say "this should be changed, and this is why". I can extend this lengthy question with some simplified code examples if that helps.
I am creating a custom route by subclassing RouteBase. I have a dependency in there that I'd like to wire up with IoC. The method GetRouteData just takes HttpContext, but I want to add in my unit of work as well....somehow.
I am using StructureMap, but info on how you would do this with any IoC framework would be helpful.
Well, here is our solution. Many little details may be omitted but overall idea is here. This answer may be a kind of offtop to original question but it describes the general solution to the problem.
I'll try to explain the part that is responsible for plain custom HTML-pages that are created by users at runtime and therefore can't have their own Controller/Action. So the routes should be either somehow built at runtime or be "catch-all" with custom IRouteConstraint.
First of all, lets state some facts and requirements.
We have some data and some metadata about our pages stored in DB;
We don't want to generate a (hypothetically) whole million of routes for all of existing pages beforehand (i.e. on Application startup) because something can change during application and we don't want to tackle with pushing the changes to global RouteCollection;
So we do it this way:
1. PageController
Yes, special controller that is responsible for all our content pages. And there is the only action that is Display(int id) (actually we have a special ViewModel as param but I used an int id for simplicity.
The page with all its data is resolved by ID inside that Display() method. The method itself returns either ViewResult (strongly typed after PageViewModel) or NotFoundResult in case when page is not found.
2. Custom IRouteConstraint
We have to somewhere define if the URL user actually requested refers to one of our custom pages. For this we have a special IsPageConstraint that implements IRouteConstraint interface. In the Match() method of our constraint we just call our PageRepository to check whether there is a page that match our requested URL. We have our PageRepository injected by StructureMap. If we find the page then we add that "id" parameter (with the value) to the RouteData dictionary and it is automatically bound to PageController.Display(int id) by DefaultModelBinder.
But we need a RouteData parameter to check. Where we get that? Here comes...
3. Route mapping with "catch-all" parameter
Important note: this route is defined in the very end of route mappings list because it is very general, not specific. We check all our explicitly defined routes first and then check for a Page (that is easily changeable if needed).
We simply map our route like this:
routes.MapRoute("ContentPages",
"{*pagePath}",
new { controller = "Page", action = "Display" }
new { pagePath = new DependencyRouteConstraint<IsPageConstraint>() });
Stop! What is that DependencyRouteConstraint thing appeared in mapping? Well, thats what does the trick.
4. DependencyRouteConstraint<TConstraint> class
This is just another generic implementation of IRouteConstraint which takes the "real" IRouteConstraint (IsPageConstraint) and resolves it (the given TConstraint) only when Match() method called. It uses dependency injection so our IsPageConstraint instance has all actual dependencies injected!
Our DependencyRouteConstraint then just calls the dependentConstraint.Match() providing all the parameters thus just delegating actual "matching" to the "real" IRouteConstraint.
Note: this class actually has the dependency on ServiceLocator.
Summary
That way we have:
Our Route clear and clean;
The only class that has a dependency on Service Locator is DependencyRouteConstraint;
Any custom IRouteConstraint uses dependency injection whenever needed;
???
PROFIT!
Hope this helps.
So, the problem is:
Route must be defined beforehand, during Application startup
Route's responsibility is to map the incoming URL pattern to the right Controller/Action to perform some task on request. And visa versa - to generate links using that mapping data. Period. Everything else is "Single Responsibility Principle" violation which actually led to your problem.
But UoW dependencies (like NHibernate ISession, or EF ObjectContext) must be resolved at runtime.
And that is why I don't see the children of RouteBase class as a good place for some DB work dependency. It makes everything closely coupled and non-scalable. It is actually impossible to perform Dependency Injection.
From now (I guess there is some kind of already working system) you actually have just one more or less viable option that is:
To use Service Locator pattern: resolve your UoW instance right inside the GetRouteData method (use CommonServiceLocator backed by StructureMap IContainer). That is simple but not really nice thing because this way you get the dependency on static Service Locator itself in your Route.
With CSL you have to just call inside GetRouteData:
var uow = ServiceLocator.Current.GetService<IUnitOfWork>();
or with just StructureMap (without CSL facade):
var uow = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IUnitOfWork>();
and you're done. Quick and dirty. And the keyword is "dirty" actually :)
Sure, there is much more flexible solution but it needs a few architectural changes. If you provide more details on exactly what data you get in your routes I can try to explain how we solved our Pages routing problem (using DI and custom IRouteConstraint).
How would you tackle this problem:
I have data in my data store. Each item has information about:
URL = an arbitrary number of first route segments that will be used with requests
some item type = display will be related to this type (read on)
title = used for example in navigation around my application
etc.
Since each item can have an arbitrary number of segments, I created a custom route, that allows me to handle these kind of requests without using the default route and having a single greedy route parameter.
Item type will actually define in what way should content of a particular item be displayed to the client. I was thinking of creating just as many controllers to not have too much code in a single controller action.
So how would you do this in ASP.NET MVC or what would you suggest would be the most feasible way of doing this?
Edit: A few more details
My items are stored in a database. Since they can have very different types (not inheritable) I thought of creating just as many controllers. But questions arise:
How should I create these controllers on each request since they are related to some dynamic data? I could create my own Controller factory or Route handler or possibly some other extension points as well, but which one would be best?
I want to use MVC basic functionality of using things like Html.ActionLink(action, controller, linkText) or make my own extension like Html.ActionLink(itemType, linkText) to make it even more flexible, so Action link should create correct routes based on Route data (because that's what's going on in the background - it goes through routes top down and see which one returns a resulting URL).
I was thinking of having a configuration of relation between itemType and route values (controller, action, defaults). Defaults setting may be tricky since defaults should be deserialized from a configuration string into an object (that may as well be complex). So I thought of maybe even having a configurable relation between itemType and class type that implements a certain interface like written in the example below.
My routes can be changed (or some new ones added) in the data store. But new types should not be added. Configuration would provide these scenarios, because they would link types with route defaults.
Example:
Interface definition:
public interface IRouteDefaults
{
object GetRouteDefaults();
}
Interface implementation example:
public class DefaultType : IRouteDefaults
{
public object GetRouteDefaults()
{
return new {
controller = "Default",
action = "Show",
itemComplex = new Person {
Name = "John Doe",
IsAdmin = true
}
}
}
Configuration example:
<customRoutes>
<route name="Cars" type="TypeEnum.Car" defaults="MyApp.Routing.Defaults.Car, MyApp.Routing" />
<route name="Fruits" type="TypeEnum.Fruit" defaults="MyApp.Routing.Defaults.Fruit, MyApp.Routing" />
<route name="Shoes" type="TypeEnum.Shoe" defaults="MyApp.Routing.Defaults.Shoe, MyApp.Routing" />
...
<route name="Others" type="TypeEnum.Other" defaults="MyApp.Routing.Defaults.DefaultType, MyApp.Routing" />
</customRoutes>
To address performance hit I can cache my items and work with in-memory data and avoid accessing the database on each request. These items tend to not change too often. I could cache them for like 60 minutes without degrading application experience.
There is no significant performance issue if you define a complex routing dictionary, or just have one generic routing entry and handle all the cases yourself. Code is code
Even if your data types are not inheritable, most likely you have common display patterns. e.g.
List of titles and summary text
item display, with title, image, description
etc
If you can breakdown your site into a finite number of display patterns, then you only need to make those finite controllers and views
You them provide a services layer which is selected by the routing parameter than uses a data transfer object (DTO) pattern to take the case data and move it into the standard data structure for the view
The general concept you mention is not at all uncommon and there are a few things to consider:
The moment I hear about URL routing taking a dependency on data coming from a database, the first thing I think about is performance. One way to alleviate potentialy performance concerns is to use the built in Route class and have a very generic pattern, such as "somethingStatic/{*everythingElse}". This way if the URL doesn't start with "somethingStatic" it will immediately fail to match and routing will continue to the next route. Then you'll get all the interesting data as the catch-all "everythingElse" parameter.
You can then associate this route with a custom route handler that derives from MvcRouteHandler and overrides GetHttpHandler to go to the database, make sense of the "everythingElse" value, and perhaps dynamically determine which controller and action should be used to handle this request. You can get/set the routing values by accessing requestContext.RouteData.Values.
Whether to use one controller and one action or many of one or many of each is a discussion unto itself. The question boils down to how many different types of data do you have? Are they mostly similar (they're all books, but some are hardcover and some are softcover)? Completely different (some are cars, some are books, and some are houses)? The answer to this should be the same answer you'd have if this were a computer programming class and you had to decide from an OOP perspective whether they all have a base class and their own derives types, or whether they could be easily represented by one common type. If they're all different types then I'd recommend different controllers - especially if each requires a distinct set of actions. For example, for a house you might want to see an inspection report. But for a book you might want to preview the first five pages and read a book review. These items have nothing in common: The actions for one would never be used for the other.
The problem described in #3 can also occur in reverse, though: What if you have 1,000 different object types? Do you want 1,000 different controllers? Without having any more information, I'd say for this scenario 1,000 controllers is a bit too much.
Hopefully these thoughts help guide you to the right solution. If you can provide more information about some of the specific scenarios you have (such as what kind of objects these are and what actions can apply to them) then the answer can be refined as well.
I'm looking for some advice on storing views in a data-store (database, file, other) and display them based on routing data, all using ASP.NET MVC 2 and ASP.NET Routing.
For example, I'd like to be able to display different views based on the following route data:
/{country}/
/{country}/{area}
But in the same vein I'd like to display:
/{planet}/
/{planet}/{satellite}
All are based on strings, and the data isn't fixed. So based on the number of segments maybe, use that as the selection criteria into the data-store...additionally, I may not know the segments up front, so they'd all be dynamic.
I'm was hoping we could get a few different methods together here, as kind of a reference for all - I'm sure some methods won't suite everyone...
So, how would you do it?
Branislav Abadjimarinov suggested a Controller Factory which could be used to do the look-up and display the page dynamically. I like this idea, what do you think?
There is no way for MVC to understand from this url's which route to choose. You have to make the routes more specific. For example:
/planet/{planet}/{satelite}
/country/{country}/{area}
You also have the option to define your own controller factory. The controller factory decides which controller to instantiate based on the route. So you can put some custom logic in it like - check if the {planet} parameter exist and if yes instantiate Planet controller else instantiate Countries controller.
This Post could be really helpful for you.
Remember you always can add a new routing rule : )
Just like this