I am new to ASP.Net MVC. I have a couple of controllers and models. They all use a set of static functions and constants which I call common code.
In my MVC project I have folders for Controller, models and view etc,
Where is all the common code supposed to be put ?
Is is OK to create a Common folder and create new class for my static functions and same for global constants ?
If you reuse this common code often across solutions, you might want to consider compiling it into its own class library and simply referencing the assembly.
Another thing you'll want to consider is the nature of the common functions. Are they truly just helper functions (like manipulating strings and stuff like that) or do they make more sense mixed into your business layers?
Basic rule is to keep it organized be consistent. There's no right or wrong way to structure your application...only hundreds of thousands of opinions.
Exactly you can create Helper folder when you set your extension methods or another common utility.
But for constants suggest you to create Ressource File
Remarks : All text , warning or info messages, put theses elements in ressource and don't write in code, for gloabalization need(It's my case on project)
Related
I'm creating a template for our server-side codegen implementation, but I ran into an issue for a feature request...
The developers who are going to use the generated base want the following pattern (the generator is based on the dotnetcore):
Controllers
v{apiVersion}
{endpoint}ApiController : Controller, I{endpoint}Api
Interfaces
v{apiVersion}
I{endpoint}Api
I{endpoint}DataProvider
DataProviders
-v{apiVersion}
-{endpoint}DataProvider : I{endpoint}DataProvider
Both interfaces are the same, describing the endpoints. The DataProvider implementation will allow us to use DI to hot-swap the actual data provider/business logic layer during runtime.
The generated ApiControllers will refer to the IDataProviders, and use the actual implementation (the currently active one, that is). For that we're going to use dotnetcore's built-in dependency injection system.
However I can't seem to find a way to have the operations generator output to three different folders, based on the template. It will all end up jumbled in a single folder, and I will need to manually move them.
Is there a way to solve these requirements, or should I solve it all the time manually?
We are starting to develop a new asp.net mvc 5 application that should be multilingual.
I found a very nice tutorial how to get this working. The only thing I wonder about this tutorial is, that the author suggests to create a separate project inside the solution for the resources.
Now my question: Is this recommended?
I usually create a folder called Resources inside my MVC project. Although if you wish to reference your resources from other projects, you may wish to create them inside a separate project.
I then sub-folder based on my controller names and change the 'Custom Tool' property to 'PublicResXFileCodeGenerator'.
When I use the resource strings in my Views, it looks like:
<title>#Resources.Home.Index.PageTitle</title>
Personally, I prefer to use a folder rather than a project, as this forces me to not generate UI strings in my application layers and forces me to find better ways to solve problems where I might end up generating strings in my business logic that might end up in the UI.
We have resource files in projects where they are most relevant.
We have a component that handles the translation of resources on different levels
( also for Winforms and WPF...)
and we group resource files according to functional importance,
bussiness level messages in a project for the Bussiness layer,
a project for common translations used by our standard code.
A .NET ResourceManager can handle one resource file, so our manager keeps a list of ResourceManagers.
At runtime you just try them all ( or work with logical category names to speed up the lookup)...
Maybe there's something obvious that I'm missing or maybe not. Suppose I have a class that is just a representation with getters/setters and no logic. I'm going to use these structures for serialization/deserialization mostly. Suppose I use that object in many, many applications. Suppose I have dozens of these objects. What's my best approach to sharing these objects?
I understand that I can compile an object into a DLL and reference that DLL. But if I have dozens of these objects, do I compile them all separately so I can use just what I need or do I make and maintain a monster DLL with all of these objects in it. Both of those approaches seem bad. I don't want to create a class library for every single class (that's stupid) and throwing them into a giant package just seems like a bad idea.
Am I missing something simple? Doesn't java have a convention where one can create jar files of one to many classes? Does .Net do something like that?
You need a happy middle ground.
You should be grouping related objects into individual namespaces.
You can then compile each namespace into a seperate DLL. That way, whoever is using the libraries only needs to reference a single DLL per group of functionality.
You can have a master assembly containing all objects. Then also create separate assemblies for the different applications where you only add the ones you use as links.
You would then use Project->Add Existing Item, and then on the Add-button click the down-arrow and select "Add As Link" when you add the classes you want.
We're currently migrating our ASP Intranet to .NET and we started to develop this Intranet in one ASP.NET website. This, however, raised some problems regarding Visual Studio (performance, compile-time, ...).
Because our Intranet basically exists of modules, we want to seperate our project in subprojects in Visual Studio (each module is a subproject).
This raises also some problems because the modules have references to each other.
Module X uses Module Y and vice versa... (circular dependencies).
What's the best way to develop such an Intranet?
I'll will give an example because it's difficult to explain.
We have a module to maintain our employees. Each employee has different documents (a contract, documents created by the employee, ...).
All documents inside our Intranet our maintained by a document module.
The employee-module needs to reference the document-module.
What if in the future I need to reference the employee-module in the document-module?
What's the best way to solve this?
It sounds to me like you have two problems.
First you need to break the business orientated functionality of the system down into cohesive parts; in terms of Object Orientated design there's a few principles which you should be using to guide your thinking:
Common Reuse Principle
Common Closure Principle
The idea is that things which are closely related, to the extent that 'if one needs to be changed, they all are likely to need to be changed'.
Single Responsibility Principle
Don't try to have a component do to much.
I think you also need to look at you dependency structure more closely - as soon as you start getting circular references it's probably a sign that you haven't broken the various "things" apart correctly. Maybe you need to understand the problem domain more? It's a common problem - well, not so much a problem as simply a part of designing complex systems.
Once you get this sorted out it will make the second part much easier: system architecture and design.
Luckily there's already a lot of existing material on plugins, try searching by tag, e.g:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/plugins+.net
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/plugins+architecture
Edit:
Assets is defined in a different module than employees. But the Assets-class defines a property 'AssignedTo' which is of the type 'Employee'. I've been breaking my head how to disconnect these two
There two parts to this, and you might want to look at using both:
Using a Common Layer containing simple data structures that all parts of the system can share.
Using Interfaces.
Common Layer / POCO's
POCO stands for "Plain Old CLR Objects", the idea is that POCO's are a simple data structures that you can use for exchanging information between layers - or in your case between modules that need to remain loosely Coupled. POCO's don't contain any business logic. Treat them like you'd treat the String or DateTime types.
So rather than referencing each other, the Asset and Employee classes reference the POCO's.
The idea is to define these in a common assembly that the rest of your application / modules can reference. The assembly which defines these needs to be devoid of unwanted dependencies - which should be easy enough.
Interfaces
This is pretty much the same, but instead of referring to a concrete object (like a POCO) you refer to an interface. These interfaces would be defined in a similar fashion to the POCO's described above (common assembly, no dependencies).
You'd then use a Factory to go and load up the concrete object at runtime. This is basically Dependency Inversion.
So rather than referencing each other, the Asset and Employee classes reference the interfaces, and concrete implementations are instantiated at runtime.
This article might be of assistance for both of the options above: An Introduction to Dependency Inversion
Edit:
I've got the following method GetAsset( int assetID ); In this method, the property asset.AssignedTo (type IAssignable) is filled in. How can I assign this properly?
This depends on where the logic sits, and how you want to architect things.
If you have a Business Logic (BL) Layer - which is mainly a comprehensive Domain Model (DM) (of which both Asset and Employee were members), then it's likely Assets and Members would know about each other, and when you did a call to populate the Asset you'd probably get the appropriate Employee data as well. In this case the BL / DM is asking for the data - not isolated Asset and Member classes.
In this case your "modules" would be another layer that was built on top of the BL / DM described above.
I variation on this is that inside GetAsset() you only get asset data, and atsome point after that you get the employee data separately. No matter how loosely you couple things there is going to have to be some point at which you define the connection between Asset and Employee, even if it's just in data.
This suggests some sort of Register Pattern, a place where "connections" are defined, and anytime you deal with a type which is 'IAssignable' you know you need to check the register for any possible assignments.
I would look into creating interfaces for your plug-ins that way you will be able to add new modules, and as long as they follow the interface specifications your projects will be able to call them without explicitly knowing anything about them.
We use this to create plug-ins for our application. Each plugin in encapsulated in user control that implements a specific interface, then we add new modules whenever we want, and because they are user controls we can store the path to the control in the database, and use load control to load them, and we use the interface to manipulate them, the page that loads them doesn't need to know anything about what they do.
I keep hearing about the DRY Principle and how it is so important in ASP.NET MVC, but when I do research on Google I don't seem to quite understand exactly how it applies to MVC.
From what I've read its not really the copy & paste code smell, which I thought it was, but it is more than that.
Can any of you give some insight into how I might use the DRY Principle in my ASP.NET MVC application?
DRY just means "Don't Repeat Yourself". Make sure that when you write code, you only write it one time. If you find yourself writing similar functionality in all of your Controller classes, make a base controller class that has the functionality and then inherit from it, or move the functionality into another class and call it from there instead of repeating it in all the controllers.
use filter attributes to manage aspects (authentication, navigation, breadcrumbs, etc)
use a layer supertype controller (apply common controller-level filters to it, see mvccontrib for an example)
write custom actionresults (like in mvccontrib - for example we made one called logoutresult that just does a FormsAuthentication.Logout()
use a convention for view names
most importantly - keep you controller actions dumb, look for reuse opportunities in services
Don't Repeat Yourself. It can apply to many different aspects of programming. The most basic level of this is prevent code smell. I haven't used ASP.NET so I can't get specific to it and MVC's.
In C++ Templating prevets multiple copies of the same function.
In C void * pointers can be used in a similar fashion, but with great care.
Inheriting from another function allows function allows other functions to use the same code base without having to copy the code.
Normalizing data in a database minimizes redundant data. Also adhereing to the DRY principle.
When you go over a "thought" in a project. Ask yourself.
Have I already wrote this code?
Will this code be useful elsewhere.
Can I save coding by building off of a previous class/function.
DRY is not specific to any one technology. Just make sure you look at your classes from a functionality standpoint (not even from a copy/paste coder view) and see where the duplication occurs. This process will probably not happen in one sitting, and you will only notice duplication after reviewing your code several months later when adding a new feature. If you have unit tests, you should have no fear in removing that duplication.
One advantage of MVC as related to not repeating yourself is that your controller can do tasks common to all pages in the one class. For example, validating against certain types of malicious requests or validating authentication can be centralized.
DRY should not only be applied to code, but to information in general. Are you repeating things in your build system? Do you have data which should be moved to a common configuration file, etc.
Well, the most common example that I can give about DRY and UI is using things like MasterPages and UserControls.
MasterPages ensure that you have written all the static HTML only once.
UserControls ensure reusability of code. Example, you will have a lot of forms doing basic stuff like CRUD. Now, ideally we want all users to see different pages for Create and Update though the forms fields in both will almost be the same. What we can do is combine all the common controls and put them into a control that can be reused over both the pages. This ensures that we are never retyping (or copy-pasting) the same code.
DRY is especially important in MVC because of the increase in the sheer number of files to accomplish the same task.
There seems to be a misconception that everything in a domain model has to be copied up as a special view model. You can have domain models be domain models but view models be something that know nothing of domain specifics and be more generic. For example:
Domain Model classes: Account, Asset, PurchaseOrder
View Model: List, Table, Tuple, SearchFormBackingModel:Checked options, Outputoptions, etc. The view itself might be much more view implementation specific.
The Tuple/Dictonary/Map might map to Account, Asset and PurchaseOrder single instances but a Table might be useful for a collection of them etc. You still have MVC but you have session data, not ready for transaction yet in a view model without necessarily having it violate the rules of your domain model which is where the rules should go. They will be less anemic and anti-pattern that way. You can pass these rules up front and use them there or just in back or both depending on how the system reads from clients etc.