I wonder whether there is a workaround for using the standard XmlSiteMapProvider within a non asp.net application, like WinForm/Console or, in my case, VS Unit Test one.
The following code fails, because it cannot create a path to the .sitemap file inside a private GetConfigDocument method.
XmlSiteMapProvider provider = new XmlSiteMapProvider();
NameValueCollection providerAttributes = new NameValueCollection();
providerAttributes.Add("siteMapFile", "Web.sitemap");
provider.Initialize("XmlSiteMapReader", providerAttributes);
provider.BuildSiteMap();
I feel the right solution is to write another provider.
I do not see why not. It is just a provider that implements an interface. You may not need many of the features, but you can access the API for what it provides you. Your WinForms screens can simply use the Urls for identification so that you can determine your place in the hierarchy.
What you may have to do is create a custom implementation of the provider because it will use the HttpContext to get the Url of the current web request to identify current placement while you will need to get that value differently. That is what could be tricky because your WinForm application could be displaying multiple windows at time. If you know there is only one window showing at a time you could use a static value which is set prior to accessing the SiteMap API.
Now you have to question the value of using an API if you have to do all of the work. There may not be enough benefit to make it worthwhile.
Related
#WebInitParam is an annotation that goes at class level.
It defines initialization parameters for the servlet.
I would like to know, what is the difference between doing this and using static variables, and why do it the #WebInitParam way rather than using statics?
What does defining k/v pairs as #WebInitParams allow you to do that you couldn't do if you declared static variables instead?
I have looked and all I can find is a million people saying how to define #WebInitParams. Well yes that's the easy bit. It's what I can do with that that is really what is of interest.
Thanks very much.
From a "raison d'etre" perspective, the annotation exists as a better design and architecture alternative to just peppering a class with static fields. #WebInitParam is a self-documenting approach to the initialization parameters a servlet or filter class needs, available via web.xml as well. It serves this purpose for the end developers as well as the JavaEE platform as a whole.
Think about it this way: in a vanilla project, you have the option of hardcoding a bunch of parameters in the class as static fields, or defining the same parameters in a property file. Which would you pick? Under what circumstances?
From a purely functional angle, apart from the function of using the annotation to override defaults set in web.xml, one other major reason is that you will sometimes need to get a hold of those initialization parameters from another component in your application. Using the annotation essentially increases the visibility of the parameter. In JSF for example, the API allows you to retrieve FacesServlet initialization parameters with:
//get all the parameters
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getInitParameterMap()
//get a specific parameter
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getInitParameter("aParameter");
In JSF-2.3 , it gets even more convenient with the following CDI-enabled injection:
#InitParameterMap Map<String,String> servletParameterMap;
Bear in mind that because it's CDI, it means this facility is available throughout the JavaEE platform, not just in web applications/JSF.
It's going to be a hassle to retrieve init parameters if the only mechanism available is a static field in the servlet class - you'll need to obtain an instance of the filter or servlet to get the static fields in it.
Separately, one could make the argument that maybe one should favour context-params over servlet-params because then, you get even more flexibility that isn't tied to any given servlet. That's a separate matter entirely :)
So there are several parts to this question.
The 2 example endpoints (in simplest form):
user/{id}/profile
movie/{id}/info
I expect to create 2 controllers (UserController & MovieController).
How do I implement a view area before controller name?
Both of these are what I would consider a view. Therefore I would like to append a "view" in the url before the controller, as both controllers ONLY supply views. I later expect to also have a user controller in a different place that does NOT return views.
However, ALL my endpoints should start with /api/.
i.e. I want this:
api/view/user/{id}/profile
api/view/movie/{id}/info
But how do I register an area (/view/) while using "custom routing" (i.e.: httpConfiguration.MapHttpAttributeRoutes())? Any examples of this I couldn't find?
Where should I put versioning?
The client is an app, and will require versioning, so that we can make changes to the methods without breaking old versions of the app.
We are unsure where it would be best to place the versioning, and how the placement affects the development of new versions (if it does so at all?).
Possibilities:
1. api/v1/view/user/{id}/profile
2. api/view/v1/user/{id}/profile
3. api/view/user/{id}/profile/v1
version the whole API. This would upgrade the whole API to a new version, even if we only required a single method/endpoint to make an app-breaking change.
Are there any advantages to this that I am not seeing?
version the area. Same as above, just slightly fewer controllers affected.
version the method. Seems like the simplest, as only the single changed method is affected. But the url is very ugly.
Does anyone have an example of versioning in an MVC or Web Api structure that doesn't upgrade the whole API, but still keeps a somewhat nice structure in their URLs?
I ended up using https://github.com/Microsoft/aspnet-api-versioning as suggested by NightOwl888.
1.
Made my 2 controllers extend another controller with a const field that defined the routeprefix that they should share:
protected const string RoutePrefix = "api/view/v{version:apiVersion}";
...
[RoutePrefix(RoutePrefix + "/user")]
2.
The placement of the /v1/ doesn't matter with this Library. And allowed for either updating the controller or individuals methods, as seen fit per case basis.
I am working on struts 2.0 . I am designing a web application.
I am using Jasper Report in my application. I want to access the *.jrxml files in my action class. I don't want to give hard coded path to the files. So to get the path dynamically I googled it and got the solution that I can get the path using getRealPath() method. But I found two implementation of doing this:
Using HttpSession to get object of ServletContext and using the getRealPath() method of the ServletContext object.
Like this:
HttpSession session = request.getSession();
String realPath = session.getServletContext().getRealPath("/");
The second approach to do it directly using the static method getServletContext() of ServletActionContext. And then we can get the real path of the application using the getRealPath() method.
Like this:
String realPath = ServletActionContext.getServletContext().getRealPath("/");
Please tell me, is there any difference between the above two and also please tell me whether there is any other way to get the path?
Neither is "better", really, and I'd argue that neither is particularly good, either.
I might try getting the context path in an initialization servlet and stick it into the application context, then make your action(s) ApplicationAware and retrieve the value from the map.
This has the added benefit of aiding testability and removing the static references in the action.
That said, I see zero reason to go through the extra mechanics of your first approach: it adds a lot of noise for no perceivable benefit; I'm not even sure why it wuld be considered.
I'd also be a little wary of tying your actions to a path like this unless there's a real need, what's the specific use? In general you shouldn't need to access intra-app resources by their path.
The Nlog has some ASP.NET logging features (see the list of layout renderers), for example
${aspnet-request}
For log form item, I need to know name of item.
${aspnet-request:form=myVariable}
But how to log all from items, which hames in unknown?
For example
${aspnet-request:form}
I'd write my own LayoutRenderer, myself (in fact, just did something nearly identical, recently) - one of the best parts about NLog is how extensible the framework is. Depending on how you're doing configuration will determine how you reference/load your custom layoutrenderer, but the sky is really the limit in terms of what you can do.
Off the top of my head, you could take one of two approaches with a custom renderer: wrap/extend the existing asp request renderer and just proxy all calls, or get a hook to the request object the same way the nlog one does (which is tricky; it calls out to grab the COM instance, if memory serves).
The approach I took was to embed the NameValueCollection in the outgoing LogEventInfo object itself (in the properties dictionary), then use a custom layout renderer to extract that collection and render it.
I'm in the middle of switching from Flex Builder 3 to Flash Builder 4, and one of the problems I have run into is that support for web services in 4 is substantially different. In both IDE's I am able to import a WSDL for my web service and it will generate the appropriate client classes for communicating with the service. The generated code in each is different.
In my Flex3 code I was able to access the endpointURI property of the mx.rpc.soap.AbstractWebService, but in the Flex4 code that is generated, the new class extends com.adobe.fiber.services.wrapper.WebServiceWrapper which does not have the endpointURI property.
My project has mulitple game servers and the player picks which server they want to play on. In the past if the player wanted server 1, I would set the endpoint URI to http://game1.server.com/service.asmx, and like wise if they wanted server 2 I would set the endpoint to http://game2.server.com/service.asmx.
What am I looking for to accomplish this in Flash Builder 4?
Short Answer:
var s:ClassThatExtendsWebServiceWrapper = new ClassThatExtendsWebServiceWrapper;
s.serviceControl.endpointURI = 'http://service.com/service.asmx';
Long Answer:
Well I finally found a solution. Adobe seems to have made this much harder than it should have been.
Web Service classes that are generated by Flash Builder 4 extend the com.adobe.fiber.services.wrapper.WebServiceWrapper. WebServiceWrapper has a property called serviceControl that can be used to control the service. The problem is that not all the members of serviceControl are accessible at the application code level. Lets assume that I have a web service called GameService. When I use the data tool to connect to the web service by providing a WSDL, Flash Builder will create two classes for me automcatically.
internal class _Super_GameService extends
com.adobe.fiber.services.wrapper.WebServiceWrapper
{ ... }
public class GameService extends _Super_GameService
{}
_Super_GameService contains all the automatically generated code to make calls to the web service. GameService contains no code itself, but unlike _Super_GameService, it is public. The idea here is that any enhancements that we need to make can be made to GameService, then later on if we need to update, _Super_GameService can be regenerated, but out changes to GameService will not be overwritten by the code generation tool.
Now this leads us to usage of these generated classes. Typically all I should have to do is create an instance of GameService and call a method on it. In this example DoSomethingAwesome is a method available on the web service.
var gs:GameService = new GameService();
var token:AsyncToken = gs.DoSomethingAwesome();
Now this will call the service using the URI of the service specified in the WSDL file. In my situation I wanted GameService to connect to a different URI. This should have been simple, but things fell apart.
My first problem was that viewing the documentation on WebServiceWrapper (http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/com/adobe/fiber/services/wrapper/WebServiceWrapper.html) did not render properly in Firefox. So when I was reading the documentation I wasn't getting the full picture. This really needs to be fixed by Adobe.
Viewing the documentation in another browser helped me find out about the serviceControl property of WebServiceWrapper. serviceControl is declared as a mx.rpc.soap.AbstractWebService. AbstractWebService does have an endpointURI property which makes the following code valid.
var gs:GameService = new GameService();
gs.serviceControl.endpointURI = 'http://game1.service.com/GameService.asmx';
The other problem I had is that for some reason the endpointURI property of serviceControl does not appear in the Intellisense context menu. So since I didn't see serviceControl in the online documentation at first, and I didn't see endpointURI in intellisense, I didn't realize the property was there to be set.
If you look at the source for AbstractWebserivce, (http://opensource.adobe.com/svn/opensource/flex/sdk/trunk/frameworks/projects/rpc/src/mx/rpc/soap/AbstractWebService.as) there doesn't seem to be an Exclude tag to explain why endpointURI does not appear in the Intellisense context menu. So I don't know what is going on there.
You should be able to override the endpointURI on the WebService. But I'm not sure where to do that with the generated code since I use <s:WebService/>.
This is the only way I could get it to work, in the generated stub for your service:
import com.adobe.fiber.core.model_internal;
Also:
/**
* Override super.init() to provide any initialization customization if needed.
*/
protected override function preInitializeService():void
{
_needWSDLLoad = false; // to prevent loading the default WSDL
super.preInitializeService();
// Initialization customization goes here
wsdl = "http://localhost/yourservice?wsdl";
_needWSDLLoad = true;
model_internal::loadWSDLIfNecessary();