I am working on a project where we rewrite the interfacing of an existing application, porting everything to swagger/openAPI.
Right now, each feature has its own yml file right now, which is a standalone spec. But there are some drawbacks:
duplicated content in the yml files (e.g. models which could be shared accross files)
duplicated program code (which is generated from those yml files).
having to process each yml file individually when using tools.
Ideally we would like to have a seperate folder for each service, with the models and service description for that specific service close together, but separated from the other services. Of course there are also shared models, which we then want in a different folder (e.g. "/shared-models"). And finally we want all those files to be included by 1 main yml root file.
So, we have been looking at splitting/importing files with a $ref attribute. But it is tricky to come up with a full-scale file and folder structure, because the spec seems to allow usage of $ref on some places, but not all places. You can't just split and structure files any way you like. So, we will probably need some kind of trade-off.
I was especially wondering how other companies do this setup. (e.g. an example of a setup that uses an enterprise level structure of swagger files, would be excellent.) We like to keep things simple and whenever possible according to standards or popular conventions.
(For clarity: my question is not: "how to use $ref")
Related
I am working on multilingual site developed in asp.net MVC. Currently we are managing the translation task using resource (resx) file and everything is working fine.
Now as per client requirement, they want to integrate our resource file to a TMS "phrase" through a webhook. So in future, if they create any new key or modifying the existing resource file. Its automatically reflects in application resx file and it should automatically reflects on dev/test/prod environment.
As I tried to update the resource file on API call, its get modified and changes are reflected on application.
But when we modified the resx file under app_GlobalResources folder then it restarts the whole application. so this is one of drawback to use this approach. Also when we deploy our changes then it makes the dll of app_globalreources. Post deployment, unable to add new or make changes in existing translation.
Can any one suggest a best approach, which we should consider to fulfill above requirement.
Edit:-
Can we use json instead of resx file in existing application.
A common way to do translations is through database instead resource files. You save the same information in your database: language, key (the resource name) and value (the translated text).
With this focus, you must develop a way to do translations (the typical CRUD operations) and some layer to get any key in each language.
Talk with your client and check how important is this feature. I worked in a project like this some time ago and, at the end, we never do translations in this way. We add more functionality, made changes, translations and, when iteration finished, we move to production everything. Maybe not your case but it's a pity work on something that later hasn't use.
Normally, when you read about localization resources (RESW) for a universal application you are asked to create a single resource file for each language with Resource.resw name or in a most advanced scenario they advice to create two or three like Errors.resw, Messages.resw and that's about it. We have completely different approach (let's don't argue upon this, for us it proved to be good). We have a separate RESW file matching a CS file where we have resources which needs to be localized. We mimic the same folder structure in the Resource(language)\ folders as we have in the source code. The whole pattern came from Windows Phone Silverlight application and worked perfect with RESX. I have concerns regarding this in universal app. The problem is that even though a RESW file is located deep in the directory structure like
Res\it\Controls\Browser\MusicDetails.resw
it is referred as if it is located in the language root at Res\it. For example to get this resource in the code the code would look like this
resourceLoader = ResourceLoader.GetForCurrentView(currentAssemblyName + "/MusicDetails");
resourceLoader.GetString("Title");
Getting back to windows phone silverlight app the path in a similar case looks like "\Controls\Browser\MusicDetails.resw" and it is definitely not an issue for the RESX resources.
Is there something we are missing or it is a hard RESW limitation and all RESW files no matter where they are located in the directory structure are treated as if they are at the root of the language directory? I foresee a problem if in the future we have exactly the same RESW name in different directory branches. How to work around this?
I think is not possible to do that, I tried to do something like you before with Windows 8.1 and it was not possible now with UWP is the same we need follow the guidelines here
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/xaml/hh965328.aspx
I did this steps and it works like a charm.
UWP apps have restrictions they are not like traditional apps (Win32 apps)
I can use:
#+INCLUDE:
to include an org file in another org file, which allows me to assemble, say, a website from various org files. I'm exporting from the C-c C-e exporter in org-mode 7.5.
I could maintain a quite complex publication this way. This modular approach is quite common in, e.g. LaTeX and Texinfo publications.
However, links to images no longer work from the #+INCLUDEd org files. What seems to be happening is that the path to the images is taken as being from the org file that I am exporting from, rather than the actual org file that references the image.
The only ways I can see to resolve this are to:
use a flat file structure; or
make the image path from the referencing file (which I might not know in advance) rather than itself.
Neither of these is really sustainable.
How do I tell org to use the correct image path from its own relevant org file rather than the parent org file?
From what I know of the exporter, INCLUDE files are inserted into the document before export. Therefore the content is part of the document before it starts following paths to reach any links to files (images).
After a bit of testing you likely will need to use absolute file paths. Since you move between Windows and Linux your best bet would be to use a consistent scheme on both starting from your home directory.
Like that you can make the Org link:
[[~/path/to/image.jpg]], which will work on both systems (assuming you have set %HOME% on Windows).
Option 1 is potentially an alternative (although I agree it wouldn't be ideal at all), whereas the second option would have obvious pitfalls if you INCLUDE the file in more than one future document.
For years I've put my application data files in c:\MyCompany\MyDataFileFolder\App where 'App' is my application name. I made this choice in the early days of Wild-West-Windows when Microsoft seemed to keep changing its own mind (My Documents, Documents, Program Data etc). As I've learnt more about how to do things correctly, and as Windows has now 'settled down' and is more picky about permissions I'd like to move my files. Users have got used to where they are though, and what I'd really like to do is to implement something like Windows does with 'special folders' where there are several synonymous names, thus in my legacy folder I'd like to put something in (or change a folder to) an alias for the real location which will now be something descended from Program Data. This way, the files are in a good place with the correct permissions and if we run a utility expecting or modifying files in the 'old' place this gets changed transparently to the 'new' place (thus a simple shortcut wont work).
Is this possible? Is there are recognised technique for this? I'm using Delphi XE2.
What you are looking for is either a Symbolic Link or a Reparse Point.
I would like to create a simple file repository in Ruby on Rails. Users have their accounts, and after one logs in they can upload a file or download files previously uploaded.
The issue here is the security. Files should be safe and not available to anyone but the owners.
Where, in which folder, should I store the files, to make them as safe as possible?
Does it make sense, to rename the uploaded files, store the names in a database and restore them when needed? This might help avoid name conflicts, though I'm not sure if it's a good idea.
Should the files be stored all in one folder, or should they be somewhat divided?
rename the files, for one reason, because you have no way to know if today's file "test" is supposed to replace last week's "test" or not (perhaps the user had them in different directories)
give each user their own directory, this prevents performance problems and makes it easy to migrate, archive, or delete a single user
put metadata in the database and files in the file system
look out for code injection via file name
This is an interesting question. Depending on the level of security you want to apply I would recommend the following:
Choose a folder that is only accessible by your app server (if you chose to store in the FS)
I would always recommend to rename the files to a random generated hash (or incremntally generated name like used in URL shorteners, see the open source implementation of rubyurl). However, I wouldn't store them in a database because filesystems are built for handling files, so let it do the job. You should store the meta data in the database to be able to set the right file name when the user downloads the file.
You should partition the files among multiple folders. This gives you multiple advantages. First, filesystems are not built to handle millions of files in a single folder. If you have operations that try to get all files from a folder this takes significantly more time. If you obfuscate the original file name you could create one directory for each letter in the filename and would get a fairly good distributed number of files per directory.
One last thing to consider is the possible collision of file names. A user should not be able to guess a filename from another user. So you might need some additional checks here.
Depending on the level of security you want to achieve you can apply more and more patterns.
Just don't save the files in the public folder and create a controller that will send the files.
How you want to organise from that point on is your choice. You could make a sub folder per user. There is no need to rename from a security point of view, but do try to cleanup the filename, spaces and non ascii characters make things harder.
For simple cases (where you don't want to distribute the file store):
Store the files in the tmp directory. DON'T store them in public. Then only expose these files via a route and controller where you do the authentication/authorisation checks.
I don't see any reason to rename the files; you can separate them out into sub directories based on the user ID. But if you want to allow the uploading of files with the same name then you may need to generate a unique hash or something for each file's name.
See above. You can partition them any way you see fit. But I would definitely recommend partitioning them and not lumping them in one directory.