Imagine that when I receive a request from a browser, with that request I have to save this object to ddbb, send an email to some people with the information of the request and post this request to an forum. I have been thinking about three posibilities:
With decorator pattern. I could use this but in this case I dont have a main object to decorate to and the decorators have to return different things so this pattern doesnt work for me
With a list of classes(each one has one functionality, send and email, save to ddbb...) that implement one interface and I iterate this list calling their methods but once again the classes have to return different things so this pattern doesnt work for me
Other pattern useful for this case?
Thanks
Related
I've to list, in specific folders or collections, objects expired also to anonymous users.
You know, portal_catalog returns only brains not expired. It's a useful behavior but not in this case...
To force the Catalog to return also expired contents, we've to pass a specific parameter: show_inactive.
Browsing the folder_listing (&family) code I noticed that it's possible to pass, via request, optionals parameters (contentFilter) to the query/getFolderContents. It's a nice feature to customize the query avoiding the creation of very similar listing templates.
I suppose it's necessary to create a marker interface to mark context (folders or collection) where I want to list also expired contents. For ex. IListExpired.
I imagine to ways:
1) to make a subscriber that intercepts before_traverse and , in the handler, a test to verify if the context implements the IListExpired. In positive case I made a
request.set('folderListing', {'show_inactive':True})
2) to make a viewlet for the IListExpired that in the call set
request.set('folderListing', {'show_inactive':True})
What's the best way? I suppose the first one could be an unnecessary overhead.
Vito
AFAIK, these are two separate thing: folderListing uses a method available to all CMF-based Folderish content types; show_inactive is an option of the Plone catalog, so you're not going to make it work as you're planning.
I think you should override these views and rewrite the listing using a catalog call.
you better use a browser layer for you package to do so or, a marker interface as you're planning.
I followed this tutorial http://www.tugberkugurlu.com/archive/api-key-authorization-through-query-string-in-asp-net-web-api-authorizationfilterattribute
to create custom Authorization filter.
I have CarController with my custom Authorize Attribute:
[ApiKeyAuth("apiKey", typeof(ApiKeyAuthorizer))]
I send two parameters in the url .. host/Car/4?username=xxx&pass=xxx
It works basically fine, however I want to allow only car owners to see information about their cars.
E.g. user ABC can see only host/Car/5 and user DEF can see host/Car/6 and host/Car/10
how can I solve this scenario?
How can I access the id of the car used in query (host/Car/ID) in my ApiKeyAuthorizer.
Greetings
If you look at his code, https://github.com/tugberkugurlu/ASPNETWebAPISamples/tree/master/TugberkUg.Web.Http/src/samples and https://github.com/tugberkugurlu/ASPNETWebAPISamples/tree/master/TugberkUg.Web.Http/src/TugberkUg.Web.Http, I think you'll find that he's pulling the data directly from the query string. It should simply be a matter of extending that method to pull in the id parameter. You might also want to look at the RequestContentKeyValueModel on the HttpActionContext parameter passed into the OnAuthorization method. The documentation is sketchy and I haven't played with it yet, but that seems like a likely candidate to me. However, the route data is available indirectly through the HttpRequestMessage via an extension method, specifically:
message.GetRouteData();
I am creating a mobile app that will connect to a zendamf implementation to retrive certain information to store and display to the user.
There are multiple php classes on the gateway to handle things like users, Orders, Products etc.
Therefore I would have a package called remotehandler with classes under it, remotehandler.orders remotehandler.product, remotehandler.users. Which would mean for each class I could do the following:
instead of creating a connection for each type of call I want to make lots of times I was thinking that it might be better to create a wrapper class for each call family I.E
Users
createUser - calls a php function to create the user
DeleteUser
UpdateUser
after some searching I came accross this post
http://flexdevtips.blogspot.com/2009/05/using-flex-and-amfphp-without-services.html
which shows how to deal with netconnection in code. but it is written if you are planning on making a single call.
Does anyone have any ideas or example on how I could turn this in to a class that would allow me to specific different source(php class functions).
Thanks
JaChNo
Simply expose a property on your Class (let's call it source) as a getter/setter pair that, when set, changes the source of the RemoteObject.
However, I find it is better to have a different Service Class for each return type I expect, because I can then mock the service and just drop in the mock when I am working on things that don't require a live connection to the database (such as skinning).
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 =)
In asp.net MVC I have a search action in my controller and I am trying to decide If I should pass the query to my repository as a string
public ActionResult Search(string query)
{
return View(_repository.ListPeople(query));
}
or as individual parameters:
public ActionResult Search(string FirstName, string LastName, System.Nullable<byte> Education)
{
return View(_repository.ListPeople(FirstName, LastName, Education));
}
A lot of examples I have seen online use the query string method, but to me it doesn't feel as "safe", even though it's a little easier to deal with when you have a bunch of parameters to pass in. Is there a general consensus as to the better way to do this?
I would favour model binding. That way if you decide to add extra search options you have no changes to make apart from the model class.
Info here and here
Personally, I prefer to not have the repository take on the responsibility of parsing a query string. Looking at it from a separation of concerns point of view, I feel that the repository should remain implementation-agnostic. Having to create query strings for unit testing, for example, is more cumbersome than calling the method directly with parameters.
That being said, I also prefer to have controllers interface with well-defined services, as well, as it helps to keep the controllers lighter, in my experience. I try to let the service act as a gateway to the repository, although there is no requirement to do so. There are two things that I will pass into a repository (or more likely, service), depending upon what the purpose of the call is - either a set of parameters, like you give in your second example, or as a constructed domain object, if applicable.
I would most definitely suggest going with the second route. There's no need to couple your controller with your repository. Let your repository be in charge of getting data, it shouldn't have to do any kind of parsing of a query string. That's not its job. Let the controller deal with that.