The addtileasync method on the BandClient opens a modal dialog asking permission to install the tile on the Microsoft Band. But in an mvvm application like Template10 the dialog is not presented and the tile is not added. How would this method be implemented given an mvvm implementation?
I ran into the same problem...I'm using Caliburn Micro without Template10, but I believe the overall architecture is similar. As best as I can determine, that popup is implemented by assuming that Window.Current is a Frame which it tries to grab, navigate to the auth dialog and then navigate back after the user approves. I tried several approaches and the one that currently works for me (although a complete kludge that I'm not thrilled with) is to inject a Frame as you mention above. However, before doing so, I copy my ShellView into a public property on App so that I can go back to it after adding the tile. My code looks basically like this:
When I need to add the Tile (on a Setting View):
((App)Application.Current).ShellHolder = Window.Current.Content;
Frame rootFrame = Window.Current.Content as Frame;
if (rootFrame == null)
{
rootFrame = new Frame();
Window.Current.Content = rootFrame;
}
rootFrame.Navigate(typeof(BandAddTileView));
Window.Current.Activate();
Then, in the BandTileView when it's logic is wrapped up, I call something like this:
private void ResetShell(BandTileResult result) {
var app = (App)Application.Current;
if (app == null) return;
app.TileResult = result;
Window.Current.Content = (UIElement)app.ShellHolder;
Window.Current.Activate();
}
I then have some logic in when ShellView comes back in play that navigates back to the Settings View and deals with the BandTileResult.
Like I said, it's a kludge and not entirely elegant but it seems to working OK and with a little styling on the BandAddTileView it presents a pretty good user experience for the app user.
Any feedback from the band dev team would definitely be welcome on a better MVVM approach!
Related
I have a .NET console application that I want to start on the server of an ASP.NET MVC application. It produces output continuously for a certain time and I want to intercept this output and show it to the client in his browser window.
From another console application, I can do it like this:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Process process = new Process();
process.StartInfo.FileName = "RandomOutputCreator.exe";
process.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = false;
process.StartInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = true;
process.OutputDataReceived += (sender, e) =>
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Data);
};
process.Start();
process.BeginOutputReadLine();
Console.ReadKey();
}
The problem is that in the MVC application, I can't push the data I read to the client, but rather rely on requests to the controller to get my data.
Something like WebSockets could maybe help me here, but I'm new to this kind of thing and wonder if there might be a "built-in" way to accomplish this.
Then there's the Web API thing. Could this be of use perhaps, since it seems to go well with MVC?
(Since I do not know what a fitting technology might be, please excuse the lack of tags and feel free to fill some in that you think fit).
This topic typically reminds me of a tutorial I followed in order to allow real-time communication from my browser to an ASP.NET application.
In summary : What you're looking for are indeed WebSocket, and there is no standard built-in functions to handle that. But, in order to help you doing some stuff, you still have the library signalR!
Here's the link to the referenced tutorial : http://www.asp.net/signalr/overview/getting-started/real-time-web-applications-with-signalr
You can try "print" console output in a separate frame (see iframe HTML tag).
You should set one of your actions as a source (URL) of the frame. You'll need to configure the IIS to run this action without execution time limit.
Next, your action should run an external program, intercept its output, and write it to HTTP output (see ContentResult).
I have a small project that does exactly that: https://github.com/vtortola/WebSocketListener/wiki/WebSocketListener-Terminal-Server
Give it a look, it may give you some ideas.
Created a workflow with basic as below.
Created a calss library, used ProgId, set comvisible true and registerd the assembly in the Tridion server.
This is the way i have tested:
Created a component
Finished the activity from the work list.
Navigated to the "Global Work list" and finished the Reviewer activity by myself by choosing the "Back to Author" step and clicked the "Finish" button.
The item is not moved to the author. but when i finish the activity again from the global work list, the item moved to author.
It seems that my code is not performing the activity because i tried removed the below VB script code and tried with the default automatic script code.
' Script for Automatic Activity Content Manager Workflow
FinishActivity "Automatic Activity Finished"
It behaves the same as above. so i decided my code is not worked. Can any one please help on this?
Below is the VBScript I used in the script box of "Back to Author":
Option Explicit
Dim workflowHandler
Set workflowHandler = CreateObject("CoreComponentWorkflow.WorkflowHandler");
If Not workflowHandler Is Nothing Then
Call workflowHandler.MoveBackToActivity(Cstr(CurrentWorkItem.ID, "Create or Edit Component")
End If
Set workflowHandler = Nothing
Below is the C# Code:
public void MoveBackToActivity(string workitemid, string strActivitytoMove)
{
try
{
Session session = new Session();
WorkItem workitem = new WorkItem(new TcmUri("workitemid"), session);
ActivityInstance currentactivity = workitem.Activity as ActivityInstance;
ProcessInstance procInstance = currentactivity.Process as ProcessInstance;
IEnumerable<ActivityInstance> ieActivities = procInstance.Activities
.Select (s => s)
.Where (w => w.Title.IndexOf(strActivitytoMove) !=-1)
.OrderByDescending(w =>w.StartDate);
if (ieActivities != null && ieActivities.Count<ActivityInstance>() > 0)
{
ActivityInstance targetactivity = ieActivities.ElementAt(0);
User lastperformuser = targetactivity.Performers.ElementAt(targetactivity.Performers.Count<User>() - 1);
ActivityFinish finish = new ActivityFinish(targetactivity.FinishMessage, lastperformuser, workitem.Session);
currentactivity.Finish(finish);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
Be aware that you are using an API that is NOT supported in Automatic Activities. The only processes where you are allowed to use TOM.NET are Event System handlers and Template Building Blocks as documented here.
Automatic Workflow Activities - if not developed with VBScript - must use the CoreService interface.
The good news is that I know for a fact this works - plenty of people got it to work in many implementations. The bad news (for you) is that the error is in your code. Have you tried debugging/step-by-step through your code yet? You can attach to to the workflow process (cm_wf_svc.exe) and figure out what's wrong with the code much faster than we can.
Here's a really simple snippet to finish an activity with CoreService:
ActivityFinishData activityFinish = new ActivityFinishData
{
Message = "Automatically Finished from Expiration Workflow Extension"
};
ActivityInstanceData activityInstance =
(ActivityInstanceData)processInstance.Activities[0];
client.FinishActivity(activityInstance.Id, activityFinish, readOptions);
BTW - If you intended to use TOM.NET anyway, why did you bother asking which API to use?
Following the Nuno's answer, yes you should change the code to use TOM or Core Services. TOM .Net is not supported because it is using a different thread apartment than the underlying technology we use for workflow (COM).
About the issue I have checked that you are calling the activity like this.
Call workflowHandler.MoveBackToActivity(Cstr(CurrentWorkItem.ID, "Create or Edit Component")
It looks like the activity name is not matching. there are some strange characters between "Edit" and "Component"
I hope this helps.
Automatic activities are executed by the Workflow agent service. An Assigned state may indicate that it's just not being picked up by the service. Is your service running correctly, and are things like queue notifications set up properly?
I am developing an application in GWT as my Bachelor's Thesis and I am fairly new to this. I have researched asynchronous callbacks on the internet. What I want to do is this: I want to handle the login of a user and display different data if they are an admin or a plain user.
My call looks like this:
serverCall.isAdmin(new AsyncCallback<Boolean>() {
public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {
//display error
}
public void onSuccess(Boolean admin) {
if (!admin){
//do something
}
else{
//do something else
}
}
});
Now, the code examples I have seen handle the data in the //do something// part directly. We discussed this with the person who is supervising me and I had the idea that I could fire an event upon success and when this event is fired load the page accordingly. Is this a good idea? Or should I stick with loading everything in the inner function? What confuses me about async callbacks is the fact that I can only use final variables inside the onSuccess function so I would rather not handle things in there - insight would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Since the inner-class/ anonymous function it is generated at runtime it needs a static memory reference to the variables it accesses. Putting final to a variable makes its memory address static, putting it to a safe memory region. The same happens if you reference a class field.
Its just standard java why you can only use Final variables inside an inner-class. Here is a great discussion discussing this topic.
When I use the AsyncCallback I do exactly what you suggested, I fire an event though GWT's EventBus. This allows several different parts of my application to respond when a user does log in.
So I'm trying to build a tool that will allow me and other users to all open the same .swf, and then I as the Admin user am able to interact with mine while they all see my mouse movements and button clicks etc on theirs.
I'm using BlazeDS to manage this and I'm getting data sent back and forth etc - no difficulties there. The issue I'm running into is this:
In an "Admin" instance, I click a button. I capture that X and Y, then tell Blaze to tell my clients to dispatch a Click event at that X and Y. On my client side, I get that data and dispatch a Click event at that X and Y - but the click is actually caught at the stage level. The click on my client side takes place UNDER all of my buttons and other content - so the whole thing fails.
Does this make sense? Is there a way to tell it to start the click event at the top?
If you are unable to architect the loaded swf's to use a better architecture you could try something a little more hackish to get buttons working.
Have a look at the methods getObjectsUnderPoint and areInaccessibleObjectsUnderPoint of the DisplayObjectContainer. Combined with hasEventListener you should be able to emulate what you want.
Here is some untested pseudo-code:
function detectClick(pt:Point):void
{
var objsUnderPoint:Array = containerStage.getObjectsUnderPoint(pt);
var clickable:Array = [];
for each(dispObj:DisplayObject in objsUnderPoint)
{
if(dispObj.hasEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK))
{
clickable.push(dispObj);
}
}
if(clickable.length)
{
// sort on depth here
// that might be tricky since you'll be looking at grandchildren
// and not just children but it is doable.
var topMostClickable:DisplayObject = ???
topMostClickable.dispatchEvent(new MouseEvent(MouseEvent.CLICK, true, false));
}
}
areInaccessibleObjectsUnderPoint is important if you think their might be security restrictions (e.g. cross-domain issues) so you can debug if things go wrong.
Also note that you may want to (or need to) fill in more details of the MouseEvent (like the proper target, localX, localyY etc.)
Sounds like you need to set focus to the top most component of the x and y positions before dispatching the click event.
That said, I wonder what the use case is for something like this; as opposed to using a screen sharing tool such as Connect.
This seems like a poor way to implement what you are trying to do. If you "click" in the admin tool you are probably actually triggering some event. Why not trigger that event instead of sending the mouse click?
I'd just keep a map of actions and then when something happens in the Admin interface send the key to the action.
e.g.
In the admin:
myButton.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, handleClickButton);
function handleClickButton(event:MouseEvent):void
{
doSomeAction();
sendTriggerToClient(MyActions.SOME_TRIGGER);
}
In the client:
var actionMap:Object = {};
actionMap[MyActions.SOME_TRIGGER] = doSomeAction;
function receiveTriggerFromAdmin(trigger:String):void
{
var responseFunc:Function = actionMap[trigger];
responseFunc();
}
I hope that pseudo-code makes sense. Just abstract what happens as a result of a click into a separate function (doSomeAction) and then have the admin send a message before calling that function. In the client wait for any trigger that comes through and map it to the same function.
I have ASP.net application that is basically a data entry screen for a physical inspection process. The users want to be able to have multiple browser windows open and enter data from multiple inspections concurrently. At first I was using cookie based sessions, and obviously this blew up.
I switched to using cookie-less sessions, which stores the session in the URL and in testing this seemed to resolve the problem. Each browser window/tab had a different session ID, and data entered in one did not clobber data entered in the other.
However my users are more efficient at breaking things than I expected and it seems that they're still managing to get the same session between browsers sometimes. I think that they're copying/pasting the address from one tab to the other in order to open the application, but I haven't been able to verify this yet (they're at another location so I can't easily ask them).
Other than telling them don't copy and paste, or convince them to only enter one at a time, how can I prevent this situation from occurring?
Think of using ViewState instead of Session, since ViewState renders state information to the client (HTML page). I'm not sure if you'll ever be able to gain detailed control over the browser's session behaviour, because the session ID is maintained by the browser the way the manufacturer did it. So ViewState is more predicable, not only but also for future browser versions.
this is a very good question that i have also thought long and hard about.
Store your main web page in an iframe. Have javascript to check if your web page is still in the parent iframe. If not, then they have opened multiple browser windows.
You need to make sure your entire app is iframe friendly.
I am unsure why you wish to restrict a session to handle only one inspection process, and then force multiple sessions in order for users to work simultaneously on multiple inspections. That feels like a rather awkward style of isolation.
The web application (and pages) ought to be able to handle multiple inspection processes within a single user session.
Whatever data that is being held in Session variables should not be plainly exposed for singular handling. They ought to be stored in collections that readily identify which set of data belongs to which inspection process. Every page submission back to the web server ought to carry an identifier which inspection process it pertains to, so that the correct session set can be matched and pulled for use.
pseudo code concept
var inspectionID = this.inspectionLabel.Text;
var inspectionSets = (Hashtable)Session["inspections"];
var inspection = (Inspection)inspectionSets[inspectionID];
Must the users be logged in with different accounts to access different physical inspections? It seems to me that as long as the PhysicalInspectionID is part of the URL, then there should be no problem in editing multiple physical inspections at the same time.
E.g.,
http://inspections.mydomain.com/edit/23
Of course, if they copy the URL, they will get a duplicate of the other window, but this will teach them not to do that. Instead, they open another window and browse to the proper inspection (or add a new one) via the UI.
This is what I use in ASP.NET MVC to forbid authenticated users to open multiple tabs:
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
#if(Request.IsAuthenticated)
{
<text>
if (window.name != 'singleWindow') {
window.location.href = "Content/ErrorPages/SingleTab.htm";
}
</text>
}
else
{
<text>
window.name = "singleWindow";
</text>
}
</script>
Basically, this sets the window name first time when the user visits the login page. After logging in, for each subsequent page load the window name is tested.
Two problems:
does not wok if JavaScript disabled
if by mistake the user closes the original tab and then pastes some other link to my website in the address bar, the user will always receive the error page. To give the user a chance to recover, I have included "Log out" link in the SingleTab.htm page, so the user can destroy his session cookie and start a new session.
A solution to that problem can be implemented by the following:
public static class CommonHelper
{
public static bool SiteGuard
{
get
{
if(HttpContext.Current.Session["SiteGuard"] == null)
return true;
return (bool)HttpContext.Current.Session["SiteGuard"];
}
set
{
HttpContext.Current.Session["SiteGuard"] = value;
}
}
}
public partial class TestPage : System.Web.UI.Page
{
protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if(!Page.IsPostBack)
{
bool go = false;
for(int i = 0; i < 50; i++) // wait for the service to work (5 secs max)
{
if(CommonHelper.SiteGuard)
{
go = true;
break;
}
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
if(!go)
Response.Redirect("Login.aspx");
SiteGuard = false; // from now on, nobody can visit your site
}
// Now as long as Page.IsPostBack is true you are in a good shape
}
}
Add an asmx web service (or any other type of services you think is suitable) to your root project and add the following method to it:
[WebMethod(EnableSession = true)]
public void FreeSiteGuard()
{
HttpContext.Current.Session["SiteGuard"] = null;
}
In the master page, or on every page add the following javascript:
<script type="text/javascript">
window.onbeforeunload = function (e) {
e = e || window.event;
if (e) {
// Invoke web service
YourProject.YourWebServiceName.FreeSiteGuard();
}
};
</script>
Note that your site response time gets affected by the speed of the web service.
Create a new sessionId when the request has no referer.
That solves the copy-paste url problem.
Store the sessionId in the url like you did.