This is more a cosmetic issue, rather than an actual "problem".
I've got a solution in which I am converting a lot of PageMethods into WebService calls instead. Some of the PageMethods created a page overhead of several hundred kilobytes, so I thought I'd extract them into their own WebServices, thus reducing the page overhead and enabling client side caching of the JavaScript proxies.
However, the project is structured with a lot of namespaces eg. CompanyName.Website.Services.MyService.ServiceMethod
This translates literally into JavaScript in the same namespaces.
In most cases I find this quite nice, but when I have around 20 methods in a service, it becomes quite tedious, always writing the same namespaces.
I did a bit of research, and found that I could write my own alias like so
var MyAlias = function() { CompanyName.Website.Service.MyService; }
Doing that, however, makes Visual Studio 2010 unable to provide intellisense. It works as expected, but I don't get to use the sweet, sweet intellisense I've come to love so much :)
So, my question is this: Are there any ways I can provide an alias for the generated proxy (like I can with custom types)?
I've tried using the attribute [System.Web.Script.Services.GenerateScriptType(typeof(MyService), ScriptTypeId = "MyServiceAlias")]
It does create some sort of alias, but I couldn't really figure out what impact it would have. Furthermore I don't think that's supposed to be used for static types like the WebService class is.
My requirements are, that I can shorten the generated proxy namespaces while keeping the original in the WebServices, but still get to use intellisense.
Thanks in advance...
Related
I'm not an ASP.NET programmer, but, as it happens in life, I had to do some minor projects using it. Now came another one in which I have to implement some custom solutions and I haven't figured it out yet - I need some tip or maybe a piece of advice like "don't go that way" ;)
Previously it was simple - there was a table in DB, there was an adequate model and a view that worked with it - worked like charm. Now it's a little bit more complicated.
The "site" is going to contain, shortly and generally speaking, a survey - but a fully configurable one, unfortunately. In another product there's gonna be a configuration manager that will allow user to define pages, block types, questions, steps and so on and will generate an XML.
For the time being, in accordance with the specification, in the site's database I'm going to have only one table which will contain just a key and the XML generated by the configurator (and maybe some additional, not important information). Now - I need to parse this XML and build the site containing pages and other elements corresponding to it.
And that WOULD not be a problem, but I don't really know how to work that way using asp.net + mvc and can't find any piece of advice that would help me anyhow. Should I create an object that would somehow fake being a model and allow me to work for example on a dataset generated from XML? Or just create a model of the mentioned table and work with the XML directly on the view (I don't like even such an idea itself)? Or - having to do something like that - just give up on MVC and use only "clear" ASP.NET? Or maybe something else?
I'll be very grateful for any help.
And I hope I described what I need understandably ;)
If the XML documents have a schema defined then you can easily generate a class that matches the document using the xsd.exe tool. The document can then be deserialized into an instance of that class using existing functionality in the .Net framework. Just google .Net Xml serialization :-)
Now, if you don't have a schema you could create one if you are sure that you know the format of the Xml. Alternatively you could create a class that matches the format you expect to get and then parse the Xml manually. This last option is much more work, so I wouldn't recommend it.
In any case, the class you end up with should contain all the data you need from the Xml document and can then be used as the Model in your MVC page. As long as you can use the standard Xml deserialization technique then this should be quite easy and painless.
This question has been asked in a similar but not identical fashion (and not resolved to my satisfaction) previously on Stack Overflow and elsewhere.
Coming from a linux-world, I want to use ASP.NET MVC but avoid identical but differently-cased routes from resolving to the same page. I do not want to force all routes to be 100% lowercase.
e.g. I want /Home/Something to be a valid route and /Home/somethingElse to also be a valid route, but not /Home/something or /home/somethingelse, given two functions called Something and somethingElse in the HomeController.
I can't find any way of doing this from within the RegisterRoutes function, but maybe I'm missing something obvious? I can answer this easily enough by adding code to each Controller function, but I'm obviously trying to avoid doing that.
Optimally, the solution would involve catching all permutations of a particular route, then 301 redirecting any that do not exactly match the case of the controller's function.
I was unable to find any way of doing this after extensive searching. Basically, case-sensitivity and IIS/ASP.NET apparently do not go together.
We're now using a bit of a kludge to solve this. The code has been opensourced (MIT license) on github: NeoSmart Web Toolkit, in particular, this file containing the SEO redirect code.
Using it is easy enough: each GET method in the controller classes needs to add just this one line at the start:
Seo.SeoRedirect(this);
The SEO rewrite class automatically uses C# 5.0's Caller Info attributes to do the heavy lifting, making the code above strictly copy-and-paste.
Ideally, I would love to find a way to turn that line of code into an attribute. For instance, prefixing the controller methods with [CaseSensitive] would automatically have the same effect as writing in that line, but alas, I do not (yet) know how to do this.
I also can't find any way of figuring this out with the Routing class/structures. That's some opaque code!
I have an application that is multilingual. I'm using the out-of-the-box .Net features for this. Each language has its own file in the App_GlobalResources (see iamge below)
In the code behind what is better?
GetGlobalResourceObject("LocalizedText", "ErrorOccured")
Resources.LocalizedText.ErrorOccured
The 2nd one uses less code and it's type safe, it will return an error during compile time and not run time.
alt text http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5562/langl.gif
These are the advantages of each approach:
Advantages of GetGlobalResourceObject (and GetLocalResourceObject):
You can specify a particular culture instead of using the CurrentCulture.
You can use a late-bound expression (i.e. a string) to decide which resource to load. This is useful if you can't know ahead of time which resource you will need to load.
It works with any resource provider type. For example, it works not only with the built-in default RESX-based provider but it'll work the same against a database-based provider.
Advantages of strongly-typed RESX types:
You get compile-time errors if you access a resource that doesn't exist.
You get Intellisense while working on the project.
So, as with many "which is best" questions, the answer is: It depends! Choose the one that has advantages that will benefit your particular scenarios the most.
So use the second one, if you know up-front what the resource file and key will be.
The GetGlobalResourceObject() method is useful if you don't know what the resource file or (more likely) the key will be at compile time.
I am currently trying to use the "Invocation tags" of Mate to call my web services and delegate the WS-responses to my fault/result handlers.
I want to use the generated proxies, provided by the Flex Builder, and not the plain <WebService> or <WebServiceInvoker> tags.
I actually failed using several techniques:
<WebServiceInvoker> does not work with the generated proxies.
<AsyncMethodInvoker> needs some complicated successType that I could not get to work with the WS-calls. And defining the events seems redundant to me. I want it simple and easy to read, the code will be touched by other people than me!
<MethodInvoker> can't use instances, and it also can't handle the proxies' AsyncToken
<DelegateInvoker> Looked fine at first. It calls the service but doesn't fire valid result events (infinite busy cursor). Even though i can successfully bind to the XYZ_lastResult of the WS-proxies, and a WS-call results in getting valid data from the WS-backend, the <faultHandlers> and <resulthandlers> are not executed. There is some solution for the DelegateInvoker that changes code in the generated proxies, which i definately do not want to do!
So here is my question: Is there a simple(!) way of using default Flexbuilder generated proxies with the Mate Invocation tags?
It appears that your request is not that uncommon to Mate. Check out this couple of threads in their forum:
http://mate.asfusion.com/forums/topic.php?id=424
http://mate.asfusion.com/forums/topic.php?id=421
The solution is to modify some bits of the auto-generated code... which in a way ruins the whole point of using code generation.
I'm implementing some objects which will have about an equal amount of richness on both the client-side and server side.
In this particular case, I'll be building a (hopefully) little class library to deal with search tokens. So as a pseudo-code example, I'll want to be able to do the equivalent of the following in both Javascript and on the server (C# in my case).
s = new SearchTokenList();
s.Add(new SearchToken(field, value, negation));
What design strategies will help avoid creating a big ball of mud for a library which must span C# and Javascript?
Update: Looking for more of strategies than mechanics. But I'll take any guidance I can get from those who have previously done similar things.
Take a look at Script# by Nikhil Kothari, might help you out. It is a C# to JavaScript compiler.
I think you should check out my C# to JavaScript compiler out at http://jsc.sourceforge.net/
Unlike Script# my jsc compiler works on MSIL level.
WPF Example: AvalonExampleGallery
Contact me if you have any specific questions.
If performance is not critical, you could load the data in JSON or XML and pass it back to server-side and do the processing. I think WCF can generate JavaScript interface out of the box. See .NET by Example: Calling a WCF service from Javascript.
You should be able to run some Javascript code on your .NET server using Microsoft's JScript.NET -- compile it with /target:library and make sure it's CLS-compliant and that you declare that fact with
[assembly:System.CLSCompliant(true)]
or other variants of CLS compliance declarations. Once you've gotten this to work, you could run (a bit of) JS code on both the server (calling it from C#) and the client (calling it from other JS) and more easily ensure equal functionality on both sides.