Is there a quick way to map an ISomething to Something without doing so explicitly for every map?
So, instead of writing many of these:
container.RegisterType<ISomethinmg, Somethinmg>();
container.RegisterType<ISomethinmgElse, SomethinmgElse>();
Can I skip the registration, and just map them proper at runtime?
Related
I'm looking for solution of my problem.
I wonder if i can do something like this:
App\Product\Domain\ProductSaver: '#App\Product\Infrastructure\Saver\ProductJsonSaver'
But i want to use it too:
App\Product\Domain\ProductSaver: '#App\Product\Infrastructure\Saver\ProductORMSaver'
Depends of which User Interface call it.
For example if i call /product/save/database endpoint i want to use ProductORMSaver and if i call /product/save/file endpoint i want to use ProductJsonSaver. Is it possible? I found solution which rely on parameter name but i want to avoid it.
i'm working in .net core
adding automapper in startup like
services.AddAutoMapper(AutomapperHelper.GetProfileTypes());
is it possibile to inject/add some services/objects inside automapper profiles inside CreateMap() ?!
and use it or pass to mapped objects, inside mapping profiles ...
i would not like to use opt.Items during .Map()
P.S. i was loosing time looking ConstructServicesUsing() but it looks like designed for creating relovers and type converter
TL;DR
Is PinView.prototype = _.extend(PinView.prototype, google.maps.OverlayView.prototype) the "proper" way to have a Backbone View inherit from another "class"?
Long read
We're redoing our site using Backbone and are working on including some mapping functionality.
I've got a Backbone view that handles placing <div>s onto specific points within the browser window; this seems like a natural thing to extend in order have Google's Map API place them on geographical coordinates.
According to the Google API, in order to generate a custom overlay you create a new object and set the prototype for that object to a new instance of google.maps.OverlayView. You then implement three functions on top of that object so that the object responds to:
onAdd
draw
onRemove
Where onAdd is responsible for generating the HTML and then applying it on top of the Map. This subsequently calls draw which positions the element correctly according to the LatLng pairs and bounds you've provided. onRemove gets called when you want to get rid of your layer.
So I've modified my View to include these three methods (which just call render and unrender and are bound to my collection). And then to make "the magic happen" I'm doing:
PinView.prototype = _.extend(PinView.prototype, google.maps.OverlayView.prototype)
Does this look right? I can post the code for the View and the Model on which it's based, but honestly, they're irrelevant to this example -- the code works and I'm able to place custom divs generated through Backbone model, view and controller components on the map without a issue, what I'm asking I guess (and maybe this question is more apropos for programmers.se, so let me know and I'll move it).
This seems to be the easiest way to make my PinView both a Backbone View and a Google Maps OverlayView, but I'm not 100% comfortable with prototypal inheritance to know if I'm doing something "wrong" or breaking something somewhere down the road.
Nice idea! I'm usually a bit sceptical about weather or not you're 'correct' when things work so if you haven't run into a showstopper and the overlays shows up and does what the're supposed to do I'd say you are.
One thing to check out closer, though:
This isn't (and can't) be "real" multiple inheritance - that concept isn't really relevant in a prototype based language: one implementation of a method will inevitable "win" and overwrite the other implementation, at least when using _.extend()
This means that if there are members or methods with the same names in Backbone.View and google.maps.OverlayView the one last in your _.extend() call will be the one that takes over. But when I inspect them using Chrome's Developer Tools I didn't see any obvious collision of this kind.
So my recommendation: continue using this, just test a lot. I'd love to see an example of this technique some time.
Ah! So I've been doing the above, but it's never felt right.
Then I found this discussion on a Backbone group which leads me to the following:
var MyView = (function(){
var view = function(){
Backbone.View.apply(this, arguments);
};
view.extend = Backbone.View.extend;
_.extend(view.prototype, Backbone.View.prototype, google.maps.OverlayView.prototype, [other prototypes...], { [VIEW DEFINITION] });
return view;
}());
This way if we need to override any of the definitions in a class we're extending from, we can since it's earlier in the _.extend chain (later definitions overwrite earlier definitions).
I'm working on 'extending' extend to keep track of the "parent" object's references that would be overridden and providing a method to call them still (like Python's super call). I haven't decided if this should be done through monkey-patching, an intercepter pattern (via underscore's _.tap() method or something else, but I think it'll add a lot of flexibility.
This would allow you to define an initialize view in your "parent" class which could be called by doing something like _.super('ParentClass', 'initialize'); at the end of the "child" class's initialize routine...
Do anyone knows about the class which has the common function which we generally use while developing web application. I have no idea what you may call it, it may be the utility class or common function class. Just for reference, this class can have some common function like:
Generate Random number
Get the file path
Get the concatinated string
To check the string null or empty
Find controls
The idea is to have the collection of function which we generally use while developing asp.net application.
No idea what you are really asking, but there already are ready-made methods for the tasks you write in various library classes:
Random.Next() or RNGCryptoServiceProvider.GetBytes()
Path.GetDirectoryName()
String.Concat() or simply x + y
String.IsNullOrEmpty()
Control.FindControl()
Gotta love the intarwebs - An endless stream of people eager to criticize your style while completely failing to address the obvious "toy" question. ;)
Chris, you want to inherit all your individual page classes from a common base class, which itself inherits from Page. That will let you put all your shared functionality in a single place, without needing to duplicate it in every page.
In your example it looks like utility class - it is set of static functions.
But I think that you should group it in few different classes rather than put all methods in one class - you shouldn't mix UI functions(6) with string functions(3,4), IO functions (2) and math(1).
As Mormegil said - those functions exists in framework, but if you want to create your own implementations then I think that for part of your function the best solution is to create extension method.
I am building a site in which we are making moderate use of email templates. As in, HTML templates which we pass tokens into like {UserName}, {Email}, {NameFirst}, etc.
I am struggling with where to store these, as far as best practice goes. I'll first show the approach I took, and I'd be really excited to hear some expert perspective as a far as alternate approaches.
I created HTML templates in a folder called /Templates/.
I call a static method in my service layer, which takes in the following arguments:
UserName
UserID
Email
TemplatePath ("~/Templates")
Email Subject
Within the service layer I have my static method SendUserEmail() which makes use of a Template class - which takes a path, loads it as a string, and has a AddToken() Method.
Within my static SendUserEmail(), I build the token list off of the method signature, and send the email.
This makes for a quite long method call in my actual usage, especially since I am calling from the web.config the "TemplatePath", and "Email Subject". I could create a utility that has a shorter method call than the ConfigurationManager.AppSettings, but my concern is more that I don't usually see method signatures this long and I feel like it's because I'm doing something wrong.
This technique works great for the emails I have now, which at the most are using the first 3 tokens. However in the future I will have more tokens to pass in, and I'm just wondering what approach to take.
Do I create methods specific to the email needing to be sent? ie. SendNewUserRegistration(), SendMarketingMaterial(), and each has a different signature for the parameters?
I am using ASP.NET Membership, which contains probably the extend of all the fields I'll ever need. There are three main objects, aspnet_User, aspnet_Mebership and aspnet_profile. If it was all contained in one object, I would have just passed that in. Is there performance concerns with passing in all 3, to get all the fields I need? That is versus just passing in aspnet_User.UserID, aspnet_User.Email, etc?
I could see passing in a dictionary with the token entries, but I'm just wondering if that is too much to ask the calling page?
Is there a way to stick these in a config file of it's own called Templates.config, which has tags like -
<Templates>
<EmailTemplate Name="New User Registration">
<Tokens>
<UserName>
<UserID>
<Email>
</Tokens>
<Message Subject="Hi welcome...">
Hi {UserName}...
</Message>
</EmailTemplate>
</Templates>
I guess the main reason I'm asking, is because I'm having a hard time determining where the responsibility should be as far as determining what template to use, and how to pass in parameters. Is it OK if the calling page has to build the dictionary of TokenName, TokenValue? Or should the method take each in as a defined parameter? This looks out of place in the web.config, because I have 2 entries for and , and it feels like it should look more nested.
Thank you. Any techniques or suggestions of an objective approach I can use to ask whether my approach is OK.
First of all I would like to suggest you to use NVelocity as a template engine. As for main problem I think you can create an abstract class MailMessage and derive each one for every needed message (with unique template). So you will use this like following:
MailMessage message = new UserRegistrationMessage(tokens);
//some code that sends this message
Going this way you force each concrete XXXMessage class to be responsible for storing a template and filling it with the given tokens. How to deal with tokens? The simpliest way is to create a dictionary before passing it to the message, so each concrete message class will know how to deal with passed dictionary and what tokens it should contain, but you also need to remember what tokens it should contain. Another way (I like it more) is to create a general abstract type TokenSet and a derived one for every needed unique set of tokens. For example you can create a UserMessageTokenSet : TokenSet and several properties in it:
UserNameToken
SomeUserProfileDataToken
etc. So using this way you will always know, what data you should set for each token set and
UserRegistrationMessage will know what to take from this tokenSet.
There are a lot of ways to go. If you will describe you task better I think I will try suggest you something more concrete. But general idea is listed above. Hope it helps =)