I am using the SqlProfileProvider class in one of my projects and I would like to be able to search for profiles on an arbitrary profile property (e.g. Birthday).
The only search method that I have seen is the ProfileManager.FindByUserName.
Has anyone implemented that? Or do I have to iterate over the list of profiles (very inefficient) and filter?
If you're going to only use the provider mechanisms, your only option is to iterate over the profiles.
However, you can certainly role your own method to search on other properties. Instead of calling ProfileManager.FindByBirthday, you'll just call your method directly off of your custom class.
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 would like to customize at runtime the attributes that MVC sees on a view model property. As far as I know, MVC relies internally on type descriptors to enumerate the attributes. Is there a way to hook a type descriptor somewhere to return a custom list of attributes for a property?
Is there a way to hook a type descriptor somewhere to return a custom
list of attributes for a property?
It depends. If you want to override the Data Annotations used by the metadata provider then you could write your own custom ModelMetadataProvider and replace the default one (DataAnnotationsModelMetadataProvider). This allows you to have a custom metadata provider for a given type and return this information at runtime.
If on the other hand you are doing validation, then you are a bit out of luck. For more flexibility I would recommend you using FluentValidation.NET instead of data annotations.
I have an existing web application that uses EF and POCO objects. I want to improve the client experience by exposing some of my objects through WCF(JSON). I have this working fine but where I am unsure is how to handle derived objects(not sure if that is the correct term) or IEnumerable anonymous objects if you will.
Let's say I have 3 tables structured like so:
Templates
ID
Template
Groups
ID
Group
Instances
ID
TemplateID
GroupID
This is obviously a one-to-many type relationship. I have my navigation properties setup correctly and getting strongly typed object properties works great. However, how do I send serialized anonymous type object(s) over the wire. Like an object that sends all instances that are equal to groupid=1 and include the names of the template and the object.
Am I missing something or do I have to create another class object for WCF that would look like this:
WCF Object
InstanceID
TemplateID
TemplateName
GroupID
GroupName
I guess I could alter my tables to account for this but that seems wrong too. I know that IEnumerable objects can't be serialized and I know that throw away objects are probably not the way to go either. I want to do this the right way but I am not sure how to go about it.
Your suggestions are appreciated.
Regards
Based on what you're doing, I'd suggest looking at OData with WCF Data Services. You state that you want to be able to send all instances where the groupid=1 - OData is great at this type of filtering.
If you're want to stick with your current approach and not use OData, then my first question is why are you sending back anonymous types at all? You can do what you are seeking (all instances with a groupid=1) without sending back an anonymous type. In your select clause you just create new instances of your concrete objects rather than newing up anonymous types. If your query is really just filtering and not executing any meaningful projection with the selct to anonymous type, then I don't see any reason to send back your anonymous type at all.
We know that authorization's stuff is a cross cutting concern, and we do anything we could to avoid merge business logic in our views.
But I still not find an elegant way to filter UI components (e.g. widgets, form elements, tables, etc) using the current user roles without contaminate the view with business logic. same applies for model binding.
Example
Form: Product Creation
Fields:
Name
Price
Discount
Roles:
Role Administrator
Is allowed to see and modify the Name field
Is allowed to see and modify the Price field
Is allowed to see and modify the Discount
Role Administrator assistant
Is allowed to see and modify the Name
Is allowed to see and modify the Price
Fields shown in each role are different, also model binding needs to ignore the discount field for 'Administrator assistant' role.
How would you do it?
On way I could think to do this is create your own versions of the input extension methods. For example instead of TextBox you could create TextBoxRoles and define it like this:
public static MvcHtmlString TextBoxRoles(
this HtmlHelper htmlHelper,
string name,
string RolesEdit,
string RolesView
)
Then in code it would look like this:
<%= Html.TextBoxRoles("Price", "Administrator","Administrator,Assistant") %>
Then your implementation of TextBoxRoles would check the roles of the current user via User.IsInRole() to determine what should appear on the page.
Of course you would have to do this for every input extension method you use.
Since you already have both the current user and access to the authorization provider in your controllers this is an ideal responsibility for them. Using a naive implementation you might pass a collection of widgets to your view after you filtered which widgets the current user has access to. In the case of your form field, things might get hairy when you consider client side validation.
The binding part would be the most straight forward of all, having a custom binder for these special cases will do the trick specially well since it will have access to the controller context and you can grab the current user from there and bind the values according to your role definitions.
What about something like LinFu, an AOP framework? If it's crosscutting, then declare it is so and treat it as such.
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 =)