This is more of a design related question, and any help/pointers in the right direction is highly appreciated.
I am working on a ASP.NET Web API2 application, and have an Authorization filter and other Action filters. Within these filters, I need to access the Request object that comes as a part of the HttpPost request body.
I use the following code to read the request body content and deserialize into the desired object. It works fine.
//actionContext is HttpActionContext
var requestContent = actionContext.Request.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
var request = JsonSerializer.GetObject<BaseOTARequestModel>(requestContent.Result);
To serve a particular request, I am deserializing the request content twice (I have 2 filters). Once the request reaches the controller action, it is deserialized again by the Web API framework. I feel guilty that every request is deserialized 3 times, and have a feeling there is a better way to handle this.
How can I avoid deserializing the request multiple times in a request?
I took this on as a challenge and came up with this solution. Here's a base filter attribute class:
public abstract class BaseOTARequestFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
private HttpActionContext _actionContext;
protected BaseOTARequestModel RequestModel
{
get
{
if (_actionContext.Request.Properties.ContainsKey("RequestModel"))
{
return _actionContext.Request.Properties["RequestModel"] as BaseOTARequestModel;
}
return null;
}
set
{
_actionContext.Request.Properties["RequestModel"] = value;
}
}
public override void OnActionExecuting(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
_actionContext = actionContext;
if (RequestModel == null)
{
//actionContext is HttpActionContext
var requestContent = actionContext.Request.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
RequestModel = JsonSerializer.GetObject<BaseOTARequestModel>(requestContent.Result);
}
}
}
This base class handles your deserialization and uses the Request.Properties collection to store it. (OK, I know a Web API is stateless but this state only exists during the execution of the request so fine imho.)
Your various attributes should all inherit this base class and can use the derialized object as follows:
public override void OnActionExecuting(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
base.OnActionExecuting(actionContext);
var data = RequestModel;
// etc.
}
This may not be the most elegant solution, but I believe it works. Interested to hear the views of others.
I have a Web API controller that returns data to my client. The code looks like this:
[HttpGet]
[ActionName("Retrieve")]
public IEnumerable<Reference> Retrieve(int subjectId)
{
return _referenceService.Retrieve(subjectId);
}
Can someone tell me is it necessary to specify the ActionName?
Also should I return an IEnumerable, an IList or something else?
I believe if your ASP.NET routing is setup correctly you don't need to specify the ActionName, for example:
protected void Application_Start()
{
RouteTable.Routes.MapHttpRoute("0", "{controller}/{action}/{arg1}");
}
Will match /YourControllerName/Retrieve/132
What you return is based entirely on your media-type formatters, of which the default is XmlFormatter and JsonFormatter. These can be found in GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Formatters and will be chosen based on the Accept header provided by the client.
We, for example, use JSON.Net for our response formatting, configured by:
protected void Application_Start()
{
RouteTable.Routes.MapHttpRoute("0", "{controller}/{action}/{arg1}");
MediaTypeFormatterCollection formatters = GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Formatters;
formatters.Remove(formatters.XmlFormatter);
var jsonFormatter = GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Formatters.JsonFormatter.SerializerSettings;
jsonFormatter.Formatting = Formatting.Indented;
jsonFormatter.ContractResolver = new CamelCasePropertyNamesContractResolver();
}
This tells WebApi to disallow any XML formatting and only return JSON using the provided JSON.Net contract resolver. JSON.Net supports serializing IEnumerable.
I would, however, recommend returning a HttpResponseMessage instead. This allows you to set the status code as well (This still uses the media type formatter, it's just a cleaner wrapper). You can use this like so:
[HttpGet]
public HttpResponseMessage Retrieve(int subjectId)
{
var response _referenceService.Retrieve(subjectId);
return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, response);
}
You should return HttpStatusCode instead of data if have not requirement, like POST method should return OK or whatever.
or if want record like Get method should return type of record.
also you no need to add attribute on method like Get,Put,Delete etc because webapi automatically detect method according to action like if you are getting data then your method name should be start with Get like GetEmployee etc.
Where can I specify custom serialization/deserialization in an ASP.NET Web API?
The throughput of our application requires a fast serialization/deserialization of messages, hence we need to tightly control this part of the code to either use our home-brew or an OSS one out there.
I have checked various sources such as this that explains how to create a custom value provider, but I have yet to see an example that explains the process end to end.
Can anyone direct/show me the way to serialize the incoming/outgoing messages?
Also a diagram of the various injection points/event sinks in Web API similar to this one for WCF is appreciated!
The extension point you're looking for is the MediaTypeFormatter. It controls reading from the request body and writing to the response body. This might be the best resource for writing your own formatter:
http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/formats-and-model-binding/media-formatters
Here's code example in case link in the answer above dies
public class MerlinStringMediaTypeFormatter : MediaTypeFormatter
{
public MerlinStringMediaTypeFormatter()
{
SupportedMediaTypes.Add(new MediaTypeHeaderValue("text/plain"));
}
public override bool CanReadType(Type type)
{
return type == typeof (YourObject); //can it deserialize
}
public override bool CanWriteType(Type type)
{
return type == typeof (YourObject); //can it serialize
}
public override Task<object> ReadFromStreamAsync(
Type type,
Stream readStream,
HttpContent content,
IFormatterLogger formatterLogger)
{
//Here you put deserialization mechanism
return Task<object>.Factory.StartNew(() => content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);
}
public override Task WriteToStreamAsync(Type type, object value, Stream writeStream, HttpContent content, TransportContext transportContext)
{
//Here you would put serialization mechanism
return base.WriteToStreamAsync(type, value, writeStream, content, transportContext);
}
}
Then you need to register your formatter in Global.asax
protected void Application_Start()
{
config.Formatters.Add(new MerlinStringMediaTypeFormatter());
}
Hope this saves you some time.
I have some REST services using plain old IHttpHandlers. I'd like to generate cleaner URLs, so that I don't have the .ashx in the path. Is there a way to use ASP.NET routing to create routes that map to ashx handlers? I've seen these types of routes previously:
// Route to an aspx page
RouteTable.Routes.MapPageRoute("route-name",
"some/path/{arg}",
"~/Pages/SomePage.aspx");
// Route for a WCF service
RouteTable.Routes.Add(new ServiceRoute("Services/SomeService",
new WebServiceHostFactory(),
typeof(SomeService)));
Trying to use RouteTable.Routes.MapPageRoute() generates an error (that the handler does not derive from Page). System.Web.Routing.RouteBase only seems to have 2 derived classes: ServiceRoute for services, and DynamicDataRoute for MVC. I'm not sure what MapPageRoute() does (Reflector doesn't show the method body, it just shows "Performance critical to inline this type of method across NGen image boundaries").
I see that RouteBase is not sealed, and has a relatively simple interface:
public abstract RouteData GetRouteData(HttpContextBase httpContext);
public abstract VirtualPathData GetVirtualPath(RequestContext requestContext,
RouteValueDictionary values);
So perhaps I can make my own HttpHandlerRoute. I'll give that a shot, but if anyone knows of an existing or built-in way of mapping routes to IHttpHandlers, that would be great.
Ok, I've been figuring this out since I originally asked the question, and I finally have a solution that does just what I want. A bit of up front explanation is due, however. IHttpHandler is a very basic interface:
bool IsReusable { get; }
void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context)
There is no built in property for accessing the route data, and the route data also can't be found in the context or the request. A System.Web.UI.Page object has a RouteData property , ServiceRoutes do all the work of interpreting your UriTemplates and passing the values to the correct method internally, and ASP.NET MVC provides its own way of accessing the route data. Even if you had a RouteBase that (a) determined if the incoming url was a match for your route and (b) parsed the url to extract all of the individual values to be used from within your IHttpHandler, there's no easy way to pass that route data to your IHttpHandler. If you want to keep your IHttpHandler "pure", so to speak, it takes responsibility for dealing with the url, and how to extract any values from it. The RouteBase implementation in this case is only used to determine if your IHttpHandler should be used at all.
One problem remains, however. Once the RouteBase determines that the incoming url is a match for your route, it passes off to an IRouteHandler, which creates the instances of the IHttpHandler you want to handle your request. But, once you're in your IHttpHandler, the value of context.Request.CurrentExecutionFilePath is misleading. It's the url that came from the client, minus the query string. So it's not the path to your .ashx file. And, any parts of your route that are constant (such as the name of the method) will be part of that execution file path value. This can be a problem if you use UriTemplates within your IHttpHandler to determine which specific method within your IHttpHandler should handing the request.
Example: If you had a .ashx handler at /myApp/services/myHelloWorldHandler.ashx
And you had this route that mapped to the handler: "services/hello/{name}"
And you navigated to this url, trying to call the SayHello(string name) method of your handler:
http://localhost/myApp/services/hello/SayHello/Sam
Then your CurrentExecutionFilePath would be: /myApp/services/hello/Sam. It includes parts of the route url, which is a problem. You want the execution file path to match your route url. The below implementations of RouteBase and IRouteHandler deal with this problem.
Before I paste the 2 classes, here's a very simple usage example. Note that these implementations of RouteBase and IRouteHandler will actually work for IHttpHandlers that don't even have a .ashx file, which is pretty convenient.
// A "headless" IHttpHandler route (no .ashx file required)
RouteTable.Routes.Add(new GenericHandlerRoute<HeadlessService>("services/headless"));
That will cause all incoming urls that match the "services/headless" route to be handed off to a new instance of the HeadlessService IHttpHandler (HeadlessService is just an example in this case. It would be whatever IHttpHandler implementation you wanted to pass off to).
Ok, so here are the routing class implementations, comments and all:
/// <summary>
/// For info on subclassing RouteBase, check Pro Asp.NET MVC Framework, page 252.
/// Google books link: http://books.google.com/books?id=tD3FfFcnJxYC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=.net+RouteBase&source=bl&ots=IQhFwmGOVw&sig=0TgcFFgWyFRVpXgfGY1dIUc0VX4&hl=en&ei=z61UTMKwF4aWsgPHs7XbAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=.net%20RouteBase&f=false
///
/// It explains how the asp.net runtime will call GetRouteData() for every route in the route table.
/// GetRouteData() is used for inbound url matching, and should return null for a negative match (the current requests url doesn't match the route).
/// If it does match, it returns a RouteData object describing the handler that should be used for that request, along with any data values (stored in RouteData.Values) that
/// that handler might be interested in.
///
/// The book also explains that GetVirtualPath() (used for outbound url generation) is called for each route in the route table, but that is not my experience,
/// as mine used to simply throw a NotImplementedException, and that never caused a problem for me. In my case, I don't need to do outbound url generation,
/// so I don't have to worry about it in any case.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T"></typeparam>
public class GenericHandlerRoute<T> : RouteBase where T : IHttpHandler, new()
{
public string RouteUrl { get; set; }
public GenericHandlerRoute(string routeUrl)
{
RouteUrl = routeUrl;
}
public override RouteData GetRouteData(HttpContextBase httpContext)
{
// See if the current request matches this route's url
string baseUrl = httpContext.Request.CurrentExecutionFilePath;
int ix = baseUrl.IndexOf(RouteUrl);
if (ix == -1)
// Doesn't match this route. Returning null indicates to the asp.net runtime that this route doesn't apply for the current request.
return null;
baseUrl = baseUrl.Substring(0, ix + RouteUrl.Length);
// This is kind of a hack. There's no way to access the route data (or even the route url) from an IHttpHandler (which has a very basic interface).
// We need to store the "base" url somewhere, including parts of the route url that are constant, like maybe the name of a method, etc.
// For instance, if the route url "myService/myMethod/{myArg}", and the request url were "http://localhost/myApp/myService/myMethod/argValue",
// the "current execution path" would include the "myServer/myMethod" as part of the url, which is incorrect (and it will prevent your UriTemplates from matching).
// Since at this point in the exectuion, we know the route url, we can calculate the true base url (excluding all parts of the route url).
// This means that any IHttpHandlers that use this routing mechanism will have to look for the "__baseUrl" item in the HttpContext.Current.Items bag.
// TODO: Another way to solve this would be to create a subclass of IHttpHandler that has a BaseUrl property that can be set, and only let this route handler
// work with instances of the subclass. Perhaps I can just have RestHttpHandler have that property. My reticence is that it would be nice to have a generic
// route handler that works for any "plain ol" IHttpHandler (even though in this case, you have to use the "global" base url that's stored in HttpContext.Current.Items...)
// Oh well. At least this works for now.
httpContext.Items["__baseUrl"] = baseUrl;
GenericHandlerRouteHandler<T> routeHandler = new GenericHandlerRouteHandler<T>();
RouteData rdata = new RouteData(this, routeHandler);
return rdata;
}
public override VirtualPathData GetVirtualPath(RequestContext requestContext, RouteValueDictionary values)
{
// This route entry doesn't generate outbound Urls.
return null;
}
}
public class GenericHandlerRouteHandler<T> : IRouteHandler where T : IHttpHandler, new()
{
public IHttpHandler GetHttpHandler(RequestContext requestContext)
{
return new T();
}
}
I know this answer has been quite long winded, but it was not an easy problem to solve. The core logic was easy enough, the trick was to somehow make your IHttpHandler aware of the "base url", so that it could properly determine what parts of the url belong to the route, and what parts are actual arguments for the service call.
These classes will be used in my upcoming C# REST library, RestCake. I hope that my path down the routing rabbit hole will help anyone else who decides to RouteBase, and do cool stuff with IHttpHandlers.
I actually like Joel's solution better, as it doesn't require you to know the type of handler while you're trying to setup your routes. I'd upvote it, but alas, I haven't the reputation required.
I actually found a solution which I feel is better than both mentioned. The original source code I derived my example from can be found linked here http://weblogs.asp.net/leftslipper/archive/2009/10/07/introducing-smartyroute-a-smarty-ier-way-to-do-routing-in-asp-net-applications.aspx.
This is less code, type agnostic, and fast.
public class HttpHandlerRoute : IRouteHandler {
private String _VirtualPath = null;
public HttpHandlerRoute(String virtualPath) {
_VirtualPath = virtualPath;
}
public IHttpHandler GetHttpHandler(RequestContext requestContext) {
IHttpHandler httpHandler = (IHttpHandler)BuildManager.CreateInstanceFromVirtualPath(_VirtualPath, typeof(IHttpHandler));
return httpHandler;
}
}
And a rough example of use
String handlerPath = "~/UploadHandler.ashx";
RouteTable.Routes.Add(new Route("files/upload", new HttpHandlerRoute(handlerPath)));
EDIT: I just edited this code because I had some issues with the old one. If you're using the old version please update.
This thread is a bit old but I just re-wrote some of the code here to do the same thing but on a more elegant way, using an extension method.
I'm using this on ASP.net Webforms, and I like to have the ashx files on a folder and being able to call them either using routing or a normal request.
So I pretty much grabbed shellscape's code and made an extension method that does the trick. At the end I felt that I should also support passing the IHttpHandler object instead of its Url, so I wrote and overload of the MapHttpHandlerRoute method for that.
namespace System.Web.Routing
{
public class HttpHandlerRoute<T> : IRouteHandler where T: IHttpHandler
{
private String _virtualPath = null;
public HttpHandlerRoute(String virtualPath)
{
_virtualPath = virtualPath;
}
public HttpHandlerRoute() { }
public IHttpHandler GetHttpHandler(RequestContext requestContext)
{
return Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
}
}
public class HttpHandlerRoute : IRouteHandler
{
private String _virtualPath = null;
public HttpHandlerRoute(String virtualPath)
{
_virtualPath = virtualPath;
}
public IHttpHandler GetHttpHandler(RequestContext requestContext)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(_virtualPath))
{
return (IHttpHandler)System.Web.Compilation.BuildManager.CreateInstanceFromVirtualPath(_virtualPath, typeof(IHttpHandler));
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("HttpHandlerRoute threw an error because the virtual path to the HttpHandler is null or empty.");
}
}
}
public static class RoutingExtension
{
public static void MapHttpHandlerRoute(this RouteCollection routes, string routeName, string routeUrl, string physicalFile, RouteValueDictionary defaults = null, RouteValueDictionary constraints = null)
{
var route = new Route(routeUrl, defaults, constraints, new HttpHandlerRoute(physicalFile));
routes.Add(routeName, route);
}
public static void MapHttpHandlerRoute<T>(this RouteCollection routes, string routeName, string routeUrl, RouteValueDictionary defaults = null, RouteValueDictionary constraints = null) where T : IHttpHandler
{
var route = new Route(routeUrl, defaults, constraints, new HttpHandlerRoute<T>());
routes.Add(routeName, route);
}
}
}
I'm putting it inside the same namespace of all the native routing objects so it will be automatically available.
So to use this you just have to call:
// using the handler url
routes.MapHttpHandlerRoute("DoSomething", "Handlers/DoSomething", "~/DoSomething.ashx");
Or
// using the type of the handler
routes.MapHttpHandlerRoute<MyHttpHanler>("DoSomething", "Handlers/DoSomething");
Enjoy,
Alex
Yeah, I noticed that, too. Perhaps there is a built-in ASP.NET way to do this, but the trick for me was to create a new class derived from IRouteHandler:
using System;
using System.IO;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Text.RegularExpressions;
using System.Web;
using System.Web.Routing;
namespace MyNamespace
{
class GenericHandlerRouteHandler : IRouteHandler
{
private string _virtualPath;
private Type _handlerType;
private static object s_lock = new object();
public GenericHandlerRouteHandler(string virtualPath)
{
_virtualPath = virtualPath;
}
#region IRouteHandler Members
public System.Web.IHttpHandler GetHttpHandler(RequestContext requestContext)
{
ResolveHandler();
IHttpHandler handler = (IHttpHandler)Activator.CreateInstance(_handlerType);
return handler;
}
#endregion
private void ResolveHandler()
{
if (_handlerType != null)
return;
lock (s_lock)
{
// determine physical path of ashx
string path = _virtualPath.Replace("~/", HttpRuntime.AppDomainAppPath);
if (!File.Exists(path))
throw new FileNotFoundException("Generic handler " + _virtualPath + " could not be found.");
// parse the class name out of the .ashx file
// unescaped reg-ex: (?<=Class=")[a-zA-Z\.]*
string className;
Regex regex = new Regex("(?<=Class=\")[a-zA-Z\\.]*");
using (var sr = new StreamReader(path))
{
string str = sr.ReadToEnd();
Match match = regex.Match(str);
if (match == null)
throw new InvalidDataException("Could not determine class name for generic handler " + _virtualPath);
className = match.Value;
}
// get the class type from the name
Assembly[] asms = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies();
foreach (Assembly asm in asms)
{
_handlerType = asm.GetType(className);
if (_handlerType != null)
break;
}
if (_handlerType == null)
throw new InvalidDataException("Could not find type " + className + " in any loaded assemblies.");
}
}
}
}
To create a route for an .ashx:
IRouteHandler routeHandler = new GenericHandlerRouteHandler("~/somehandler.ashx");
Route route = new Route("myroute", null, null, null, routeHandler);
RouteTable.Routes.Add(route);
The code above may need to be enhanced to work with your route arguments, but it's starting point. Comments welcome.
All of these answers are very good. I love the simplicity of Mr. Meacham's GenericHandlerRouteHandler<T> class. It is a great idea to eliminate an unnecessary reference to a virtual path if you know the specific HttpHandler class. The GenericHandlerRoute<T> class is not needed, however. The existing Route class which derives from RouteBase already handles all of the complexity of route matching, parameters, etc., so we can just use it along with GenericHandlerRouteHandler<T>.
Below is a combined version with a real-life usage example that includes route parameters.
First are the route handlers. There are two included, here -- both with the same class name, but one that is generic and uses type information to create an instance of the specific HttpHandler as in Mr. Meacham's usage, and one that uses a virtual path and BuildManager to create an instance of the appropriate HttpHandler as in shellscape's usage. The good news is that .NET allows both to live side by side just fine, so we can just use whichever we want and can switch between them as we wish.
using System.Web;
using System.Web.Compilation;
using System.Web.Routing;
public class HttpHandlerRouteHandler<T> : IRouteHandler where T : IHttpHandler, new() {
public HttpHandlerRouteHandler() { }
public IHttpHandler GetHttpHandler(RequestContext requestContext) {
return new T();
}
}
public class HttpHandlerRouteHandler : IRouteHandler {
private string _VirtualPath;
public HttpHandlerRouteHandler(string virtualPath) {
this._VirtualPath = virtualPath;
}
public IHttpHandler GetHttpHandler(RequestContext requestContext) {
return (IHttpHandler) BuildManager.CreateInstanceFromVirtualPath(this._VirtualPath, typeof(IHttpHandler));
}
}
Let's assume that we created an HttpHandler that streams documents to users from a resource outside our virtual folder, maybe even from a database, and that we want to fool the user's browser into believing that we are directly serving a specific file rather than simply providing a download (i.e., allow the browser's plug-ins to handle the file rather than forcing the user to save the file). The HttpHandler may expect a document id with which to locate the document to provide, and may expect a file name to provide to the browser -- one that may differ from the file name used on the server.
The following shows the registration of the route used to accomplish this with a DocumentHandler HttpHandler:
routes.Add("Document", new Route("document/{documentId}/{*fileName}", new HttpHandlerRouteHandler<DocumentHandler>()));
I used {*fileName} rather than just {fileName} to allow the fileName parameter to act as an optional catch-all parameter.
To create a URL for a file served by this HttpHandler, we can add the following static method to a class where such a method would be appropriate, such as in the HttpHandler class, itself:
public static string GetFileUrl(int documentId, string fileName) {
string mimeType = null;
try { mimeType = MimeMap.GetMimeType(Path.GetExtension(fileName)); }
catch { }
RouteValueDictionary documentRouteParameters = new RouteValueDictionary { { "documentId", documentId.ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture) }
, { "fileName", DocumentHandler.IsPassThruMimeType(mimeType) ? fileName : string.Empty } };
return RouteTable.Routes.GetVirtualPath(null, "Document", documentRouteParameters).VirtualPath;
}
I omitted the definitions of MimeMap and and IsPassThruMimeType to keep this example simple. But these are intended to determine whether or not specific file types should provide their file names directly in the URL, or rather in a Content-Disposition HTTP header. Some file extensions could be blocked by IIS or URL Scan, or could cause code to execute that might cause problems for users -- especially if the source of the file is another user who is malicious. You could replace this logic with some other filtering logic, or omit such logic entirely if you are not exposed to this type of risk.
Since in this particular example the file name may be omitted from the URL, then, obviously, we must retrieve the file name from somewhere. In this particular example, the file name can be retrieved by performing a look-up using document id, and including a file name in the URL is intended solely to improve the user's experience. So, the DocumentHandler HttpHandler can determine if a file name was provided in the URL, and if it was not, then it can simply add a Content-Disposition HTTP header to the response.
Staying on topic, the important part of the above code block is the usage of RouteTable.Routes.GetVirtualPath() and the routing parameters to generate a URL from the Route object that we created during the route registration process.
Here's a watered-down version of the DocumentHandler HttpHandler class (much omitted for the sake of clarity). You can see that this class uses route parameters to retrieve the document id and the file name when it can; otherwise, it will attempt to retrieve the document id from a query string parameter (i.e., assuming that routing was not used).
public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) {
try {
context.Response.Clear();
// Get the requested document ID from routing data, if routed. Otherwise, use the query string.
bool isRouted = false;
int? documentId = null;
string fileName = null;
RequestContext requestContext = context.Request.RequestContext;
if (requestContext != null && requestContext.RouteData != null) {
documentId = Utility.ParseInt32(requestContext.RouteData.Values["documentId"] as string);
fileName = Utility.Trim(requestContext.RouteData.Values["fileName"] as string);
isRouted = documentId.HasValue;
}
// Try the query string if no documentId obtained from route parameters.
if (!isRouted) {
documentId = Utility.ParseInt32(context.Request.QueryString["id"]);
fileName = null;
}
if (!documentId.HasValue) { // Bad request
// Response logic for bad request omitted for sake of simplicity
return;
}
DocumentDetails documentInfo = ... // Details of loading this information omitted
if (context.Response.IsClientConnected) {
string fileExtension = string.Empty;
try { fileExtension = Path.GetExtension(fileName ?? documentInfo.FileName); } // Use file name provided in URL, if provided, to get the extension.
catch { }
// Transmit the file to the client.
FileInfo file = new FileInfo(documentInfo.StoragePath);
using (FileStream fileStream = file.OpenRead()) {
// If the file size exceeds the threshold specified in the system settings, then we will send the file to the client in chunks.
bool mustChunk = fileStream.Length > Math.Max(SystemSettings.Default.MaxBufferedDownloadSize * 1024, DocumentHandler.SecondaryBufferSize);
// WARNING! Do not ever set the following property to false!
// Doing so causes each chunk sent by IIS to be of the same size,
// even if a chunk you are writing, such as the final chunk, may
// be shorter than the rest, causing extra bytes to be written to
// the stream.
context.Response.BufferOutput = true;
context.Response.ContentType = MimeMap.GetMimeType(fileExtension);
context.Response.AddHeader("Content-Length", fileStream.Length.ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture));
if ( !isRouted
|| string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(fileName)
|| string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(fileExtension)) { // If routed and a file name was provided in the route, then the URL will appear to point directly to a file, and no file name header is needed; otherwise, add the header.
context.Response.AddHeader("Content-Disposition", string.Format("attachment; filename={0}", HttpUtility.UrlEncode(documentInfo.FileName)));
}
int bufferSize = DocumentHandler.SecondaryBufferSize;
byte[] buffer = new byte[bufferSize];
int bytesRead = 0;
while ((bytesRead = fileStream.Read(buffer, 0, bufferSize)) > 0 && context.Response.IsClientConnected) {
context.Response.OutputStream.Write(buffer, 0, bytesRead);
if (mustChunk) {
context.Response.Flush();
}
}
}
}
}
catch (Exception e) {
// Error handling omitted from this example.
}
}
This example uses some additional custom classes, such as a Utility class to simplify some trivial tasks. But hopefully you can weed through that. The only really important part in this class with regard to the current topic, of course, is the retrieval of the route parameters from context.Request.RequestContext.RouteData. But I've seen several posts elsewhere asking how to stream large files using an HttpHandler without chewing up server memory, so it seemed like a good idea to combine examples.
ASP.NET MVC 2.0 will now, by default, throw an exception when an action attempts to return JSON in response to a GET request. I know this can be overridden on a method by method basis by using JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet, but is it possible to set on a controller or higher basis (possibly the web.config)?
Update: Per Levi's comment, this is what I ended up using-
protected override JsonResult Json(object data, string contentType, System.Text.Encoding contentEncoding)
{
return Json(data, contentType, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet);
}
This, like other MVC-specific settings, is not settable via Web.config. But you have two options:
Override the Controller.Json(object, string, Encoding) overload to call Json(object, string, Encoding, JsonRequestBehavior), passing JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet as the last argument. If you want this to apply to all controllers, then do this inside an abstract base controller class, then have all your controllers subclass that abstract class.
Make an extension method MyJson(this Controller, ...) which creates a JsonResult and sets the appropriate properties, then call it from your controller via this.MyJson(...).
There's another option. Use Action Filters.
Create a new ActionFilterAttribute, apply it to your controller or a specific action (depending on your needs). This should suffice:
public class JsonRequestBehaviorAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
private JsonRequestBehavior Behavior { get; set; }
public JsonRequestBehaviorAttribute()
{
Behavior = JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet;
}
public override void OnResultExecuting(ResultExecutingContext filterContext)
{
var result = filterContext.Result as JsonResult;
if (result != null)
{
result.JsonRequestBehavior = Behavior;
}
}
}
Then apply it like this:
[JsonRequestBehavior]
public class Upload2Controller : Controller
MVC 2 block Json for GET requests for security reasons. If you want to override that behavior, check out the overload for Json that accepts a JsonRequestBehavior parameter.
public ActionResult Index()
{
return Json(data, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet)
}
I also got this error when I first use MVC 2.0 using my old code in MVC 1.0. I use fiddler to identify the cause of the error. See the steps on how to troubleshoot it using Fidder -
http://www.rodcerrada.com/post/2011/07/11/jQuery-getJSON()-does-not-tirgger-the-callback-in-ASPNET-MVC-2.aspx
Is this is the security issue MVC2 was trying to address?
http://haacked.com/archive/2009/06/25/json-hijacking.aspx
If so, it seems like the vulnerability is only an issue if you are trying to do a json call to an outside website. If your MVC2 app is only making json calls to your own website (to fill jqgrids for example), shouldn't you be able to safely override the Json call in your base controller to always allow get?
Just change JSON code from :
$.getJson("methodname/" + ID, null, function (data, textStatus)
to:
$.post("methodname/" + ID, null, function (data, textStatus)