I am designing ASP.NET WEB API service with two interfaces. First interface is read-only and second one is admin interface (to be used with MVC app) with full CRUD support. Does anyone know where I can get more information on such setup, any tutorials, walk thought, sample design document?
Also does it worth splitting these into two interfaces or keep them in same? But problem is that in read-only I expose 2-3 properties for every object while for admin there are 10-15?
Similar setup for WCF or design spec will do.
If I understand what your wanting to do, may I suggest rather than having one URL, i.e. \dataStuff\dataView split off into another view, maybe \dataStuff\edit\ which only admin's have access to, can be done like so:
[Authorize(Roles = "Administrators")]
public ActionResult edit()
{
return View();
}
then next to each data element that your viewing add the following to ONLY admin's through use of User.IsInRole
#foreach (var item in Model.dataTable)
{
#*
write a value from the data table here
*#
#Html.ActionLink("edit", "edit").If(User.IsInRole("Administrators"))
<br/>
}
obviously you don't have to display your data like this, I'm just showing that you add to the end of each element of the database an edit ActionLink IF the user is admin.
This allows your admin to view data like a user and also have the added functionality they need. Code re-use is better than a single view which has two states, Admin and non Admin.
Sorry if this isn't the best explanation, fairly new to MVC
Seems like this concept is sometimes called CQRS.
Sample: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CQRS.html
Related
I'm looking at developing an application that will include a CMS. I'm a seasoned web forms developer but only really just moving into MVC.
I have a couple of questions that I hope some of you guys can answer:
First, my current web forms CMS allows users to create a page, and then "drop" any number of user controls onto that page they have created. The way I do this is to create an entry in the DB together with the path and then use the LoadControl method.
I can see I can do this with partial views, but partial views have no code behind. If I've potentially got 100 controls that people can drop onto a page, does this mean that the ViewBag in the controller needs to cater for all 100 controls just in case they are used on the view? For example, a web forms user control will contain logic: rptItems.DataSource = blah; rptItems.DataBind()
With MVC, I'm assuming that logic will be in the view controller and the view would access it by the ViewBag? I'm a little confused at how to do this.
Secondly, how would you handle deep routing?
EG:
Store/Products/Category is fine, but what about Store/Products/Category/Delivery/UK ? Would I need to set up a route in global.asax for each route I need? In web forms, I just called the ReWritePath method and handled the routing myself using regular expressions.
Thanks for the time to read this, and hopefully answer some of my queries
For your second question, (ie, "deep routing"), you can handle this within your controller instead of adding real routes. Each part of the url is available via the RouteData.Values collection inside of your controller action. So, your route may look like
~/Store/Products/Category/{*params}
Assuming typical route configuration, this would call the Category(...) action method on ~/areas/store/controllers/storeController, which could then grap delivery and uk from the RouteData.Values collection.
There are a lot of other approaches to this - storing routes in a database and using associated metadata to find the correct controller and method - but I think this is the simplest. Also, it may be obvious, but if you really only need two parameters beyond 'Category' in your example, you could just use
public ActionResult Category(string category, string region)
{
...
}
and a route:
~/store/{controller}/{action}/{category}/{region}/{*params}
Delivery and UK would be mapped to the the category and region parameters, respectively. Anything beyond uk would still be available via the RouteData.Values collection. This assumes that you don't have more specific routes, like
~/store/{controller}/{action}/{category}/{region}/{foo}/{bar}/{long_url}/{etc}
that would be a better match. ({*params} might conflict with the second route; you'll have to investigate to see if it's a problem.)
For your first question:
You can dynamically generate the view source and return it as a string from the controller, eliminating the need to pass a lot of stuff via ViewBag. If a virtual page from your CMS database requires inclusion of partial views, you would add the references to those components when generating the page. (This may or may not address your problem - if not, please provide more information.)
We're evaluating asp.net MVC and are looking for some more complicated examples over and above NerdDinner.
Specifically, in a more complex web app, I might have a navigation bar (including primary nav, a search box and a log-in status display), a main content area, a sub-content area (including related content) and a footer. In MVC a controller returns a ViewModel (not a View if I'm thinking that I want to de-couple my Controller from my View) - would my ViewModel have to have properties to cover each and every aspect of the "page" I am aiming to render as output?
If this is unclear, I may be able to re-word my question.
BTW - I know this site is built using MVC. I'm after downloadable examples.
Thanks in advance.
Take a look at CodeCampServer.
Edit: With reference to your query about view models, this isn't the perfect answer to it but thought I'd draw attention to AutoMapper (used by CodeCampServer) which can assist with auto mapping data between models and view models which is a real time saver. Also worth considering the concept of Input Builders (there's some available with MVCContrib and also some in ASP.NET MVC 2) which will also reduce the amount of data you have to pass into a view by encapsulating common functionality across the board.
There's a good video on the ASP.NET MVC 2 offering here: http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Glucose/Hanselminutes-on-9-ASPNET-MVC-2-Preview-1-with-Phil-Haack-and-Virtual-Scott/.
Here ya go:
<% Html.RenderAction<LayoutController>(c => c.SearchBox()); %>
<% Html.RenderAction<LayoutController>(c => c.NavBox(Model)); %>
Put these in your masterpages, or on specific views for sidebar widgets, and abstract their logic away from your controller/viewmodel you are working on. They can even read the current RouteData (url/action) and ControllerContext (parameters/models), cause you are dealing with ambient values in these objects - and executing a full ActionMethod request!
I blogged about this little known secret here. I also blogged about where this is located, which is the ASP.NET 1.0 MVC Futures assembly that is a seperate add-on from Microsoft.
Steve Sanderson actually gives gives examples of complex logic and application building in a book I have called Pro ASP.NET MVC (shameless plug, I know, but it's what you are looking for in your question), where he actually uses the RenderAction! I made the blog post, before I even read the book so I am glad we are on the same page.
Actually, there are dozens of extensions and functionality that was developed by the ASP.NET MVC team that was left out of the ASP.NET MVC 1.0 project - most of which makes complex projects much more managable. This is why more complex examples (list above in most people's answers) have to use some type of custom ViewEngine, or some big hoop jumping with base controllers and custom controllers. I've looked at almost all of the open source versions listed above.
But what it comes down to is not looking at a complex example, but instead knowing the ways to implement the complex logic that you desire - such as your Navigation bar when all you have is a ViewModel in a single controller to deal with. It gets tiring very quickly having to bind your navbar to each and every ViewModel.
So, an example of these is the Html.RenderAction() extension (as I started off with) that allows you to move that more complex/abstracted logic off of the viewmodel/controller (where it is NOT even your concern), and place it in its own controller action where it belongs.
This littler baby has saved MVC for me, especally on large scale enterprise projects I am currently working on.
You can pass your viewmodel into the RenderAction, or just render anything like a Footer or Header area - and let the logic be contained within those actions where you can just fire and forget (write the RenderAction, and forget about any concern of what it does for a header or footer).
You are welcome to take a look at good.codeplex.com
It has much of what you seek above but there is work to be done! However, after you've looked I'd be happy to field questions on it here or over on codeplex.
This is what mygoodpoints.org is currently running on.
would my ViewModel have to have
properties to cover each and every
aspect of the "page" I am aiming to
render as output?
Yes. There is another option with RenderAction, but apart from that a ViewModel in generall is often big and you have to find a good way to fill it. I admit this sounds like a trouble spot first.
AtomSite is a blog engine written using ASP.NET MVC
As far as I know, a Controller directly returns a View and can pass data to the View using either the ViewData or the Context.
The former is just a loose bag of various bits of data, whereas the latter is a specific type.
The ViewModel would be passed to the View as the Context (and the mark-up of the View would be strongly-typed to the type of ViewModel it expects).
That's my 2c worth :) Hope that helped-- sorry I could not include any downloadable examples.
To automatically pass data to all views, you can make your own controller class and use that:
Example
public class MyController : Controller
{
private User _CurrentUser;
public User CurrentUser
{
get
{
if (_CurrentUser == null)
_CurrentUser = (User)Session["CurrentUser"];
return _CurrentUser;
}
set
{
_CurrentUser = value;
Session["CurrentUser"] = _CurrentUser;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Use this override to pass data to all views automatically
/// </summary>
/// <param name="context"></param>
protected override void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context)
{
base.OnActionExecuted(context);
if (context.Result is ViewResult)
{
ViewData["CurrentUser"] = CurrentUser;
}
}
}
Let's say I have a Web application implemented like a set of wizard pages to edit a complex object. Until the user clicks on the "Finish" button, the object doesn't get saved to the back-end system (a requirement), so in the meantime I have to keep the whole information about the object in some kind of a session state.
Also, some of the wizard pages have to show combo and list boxes with potentially large number of items. These items are fetched from the back-end system using a Web service.
Coincidentally, the wizard allows the user to freely jump from one wizard page to any other (using tab links on top of the form), so it's not a simple "next, next... finish" thing.
Additional constraint: the Web application runs on a Web farm and the customer is weary of using server-side session state. In the best case they want to keep the size of the session state minimal (they had problems with this in the past).
So basically there are two problems here:
How/where to keep data entered by the user in the Wizard?
Whether to cache the combo/list items received from the back-end and if so, where?
Options I'm considering:
Storing the object in a WebForms-like ViewState (by serializing it into the HTML page). This would also include the combo box items. Obviously, there could be a problem with HTML pages becoming very large and thus Web application will be slow.
Storing it into server-side session state, regardless of the customer's wishes and without knowing how the performance will be affected until it is tested on the actual Web farm (late in the project).
I cannot decide between the two. Or is there another alternative?
Why cache at all? You could just have the tabbed pages where each page is a div or panel and just display the current div relating to your tab. That way you dont have to keep track and process all the inputs when the user submits the form.
Is it possible to store the wizard data in a temporary table in the database? When the user finishes the wizard the data is copied from the temporary table and deleted. The temporary table includes a timestamp to remove any old uncompleted data.
As Daisy said, it doesn't have to be cached. You could also use hidden form fields. Because these could map to the same object on each controller action, you could progressively build the object through successive pages.
//Here's a class we're going to use
public class Person
{
public int Age {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
public Person()
{
}
}
//Here's the controller
public Controller PersonCreator
{
public ActionResult CreatePerson()
{
//Posting from this page will go to SetPersonAge, as the name will be set in here.
return View();
}
public ActionResult SetPersonAge(Person person)
{
//This should now have the name and age of the person
return View(person);
}
}
//Here is your SetPersonAge, which contains the name in the model already:
<%= Html.Hidden("Name", Model.Name) %>
<%Html.TextBox("Age") %>
And that's pretty much it.
I can suggest a few more options
Having the entire wizard as a single page with the tabs showing and hiding content via javascript on the client-side. This may cause the the initial page to load slower though.
Caching the data at the server using the caching application block (or something similar). This will allow all the users to share a single instance of this data instead of duplicating across all sessions. Now that the data is lighter, you may be able to convince the customer to permit storing in the session.
There is a lot of resistance in the MVC community against using Sessions. Problems are that a lot of us developers are building login systems like a bank website. One could argue for hidden fields and that works for some situations but when we need to time a user out for security and compliance, then you have several options. Cookies are not reliable. Relying on Javascript timers are not reliable and are not 508 compliant as the goal should be to degrade gracefully. Thus for a Login, a Session is a good option. If you write the time to the client browser, to the server database or server file system, you still have to manage the time per user.
Thus use Sessions sparingly, but don't fear them. For the wizards, you technically can serialize hidden fields passing them around. I suspect the need and scope will become much greater and an authorization/authentication implementation with Sessions will be the crux of the application.
If you cannot use ajax (for validation & dropdowns and ability to convert wizard to tabbed page) and cannot use html5 (for dropdown caching and form state saving in local storage), then I think you are pretty out of available "best practices" and you have to resort to bad (or worse) one.
As MVC is opponent of WebForms regarding session usage, maybe you can use a workaround? For example, besides storing all these values in some temporary database records you need to clean up later, you could set up AppFabric extension for Windows Server and use it to store dropdown list items (and scope can be for all users, so if more users are using system at the same time you need only one call to web service to refresh cache), and also to temporary store your objects between steps. You can set your temporary objects in AppFabric to automatically expire so cleanup is not necessary. It can also be of help for speeding up other parts of your system if you extensively call another system over web services.
I've been dealing with the same issue and, while my requirements are a little simpler (keeping state for just a few strings), my solution may work for you. I'd also be interested in hearing others thoughts on this approach.
What I ended up doing is: in the controller I just dump the data I want into the Session property of the Controller and then pull it out next time I need it. Something like this for your situation:
//Here's the controller
public Controller PersonCreator
{
public ActionResult CreatePerson()
{
//get the age out of the session
int age = (int)(Session["age"]);
//do something with it...
return View();
}
public ActionResult SetPersonAge(Person person)
{
//put the age in the session
Session.Add("age", person.Age);
return View(person);
}
}
The thing I like about this is I don't have to put a bunch of hidden params around on my view pages.
The answer to this can be found in Steve Sanderson's ASP.NET MVC 2/3, and requires a reference to the MVC Futures assembly. This link to Google Books is exactly what he does.
In essence, you serialize the wizard data to the View. A hidden field is rendered storing all of the acquired information.
Your controller can work out what to do through the use of the OnActionExecuting and OnResultExecuted (to cater for redirects) to pass it to the next view.
Have a read - he explains it much more thoroughly than I can.
Take the example of wanting to have a "Latest news items" sidebar on every page of your ASP.NET MVC web site. I have a NewsItemController which is fine for pages dedicating their attention to NewsItems. What about having a news sidebar appear on the HomeController for the home page though? Or any other controller for that matter?
My first instinct is to put the logic for selecting top 5 NewsItems in a user control which is then called in the Master Page. That way every page gets a news sidebar without having to contaminate any of the other controllers with NewsItem logic. This then means putting logic in what I understood to be the presentation layer which would normally go in a Controller.
I can think of about half a dozen different ways to approach it but none of them seem 'right' in terms of separation of concerns and other related buzz-words.
I think you should consider putting it in your master page. Your controller can gather data (asynchronously, of course), store it in a nice ViewModel property for your view (or in TempData) and then you can call RenderPartial() in your master page to render the data.
The keeps everything "separate"
http://eduncan911.com/blog/html-renderaction-for-asp-net-mvc-1-0.aspx
This seems to address the question - even using the instance of a sidebar - but using a feature not included with MVC 1 by default.
http://blogs.intesoft.net/post/2009/02/renderaction-versus-renderpartial-aspnet-mvc.aspx
This also indicates the answer lies in RenderAction.
For anyone else interested, here's how I ended up doing it. Note you'll need to the MVC Futures assembly for RenderAction.
Basically you'd have something like this in your controller:
public class PostController
{
//...
public ActionResult SidebarBox()
{
// I use a repository pattern to get records
// Just replace it with whatever you use
return View(repoArticles.GetAllArticles().Take(5).ToList());
}
//...
}
Then create a partial view for SidebarBox with the content you want displayed, and in your Master Page (or wherever you want to display it) you'd use:
<% Html.RenderAction<PostController>(c => c.SidebarBox()); %>
Not so hard after all.
You can create a user control (.ascx) and then call RenderPartial().
Design a method in your controller with JsonResult as return type. Use it along with jQuery.
Use RenderAction() as suggested by elsewhere.
News section with ASP.NET MVC
My question may be obvious but I'd like to build a well-designed web application.
As for any administration area, the admin should be able to list/create/delete/modify users, articles, posts, etc...
I'd like to know what is the best way to design the application.
Should I create a controller for each one of those items (/Users/Create/id or /Posts/Delete/id), or create all of the action in my Administration Controller (/Administration/CreateUser/id or /Administration/DeletePost/id) ?
You should write a separate controller for each entity to keep a clean separation of concerns for your controller classes. If you only have one controller, then you will only have one Views directory with dozens of views, and your controller will contain dozens of methods, and that will soon become unmanageable.
The answer depends on how much functionality will be in the controllers. Just start of with one controller and if it gets too much split it into a few.
The great thing about MVC is where you put things in your controllers doesn't have to have any effect on the URLs. you can very easily map /Users/Create to e.g. UserAdminController class.
I would just build a new MVC website that handles the administration.
You have a more flexible solution as long as you've separated the data and the business logic in different assembly's. You could then publish your website to a subdomain, admin.yoursite.com for example. That way you don't have to mess with your routes and you can keep them in separate views which imho is the most elegant solution.
Pro's and Con's would be nice to hear.
I'm working on a project which will need the same administration site but haven't got that far yet so this question interests me a lot.
I'm currently using ASP.NET for a large client.
The approach I've adopted is to put the functionality of the action into another class.
Example
I am writing an administration section also. There will be one Administration controller (our admin section is small, if it was larger I would change the routing to allow more controllers, for now we are using the out of the box configuration). If I create an "EditUser" view. I will also create an "EditUserAction" class. All EditUser code will go into the class. I construct the EditUserAction class in the Administration controller class in the Edit User method. This removes all the action specific code out of the Controller class. This way all the action specific code is either in the action method or in the action class. Otherwise, the controller would quickly become overrun with code from various actions. The controller class would balloon to an unmanageable mess in short order.
Class examples
public class Administration: Controller
{
public ActionResult EditUser(string userId)
{
EditUserAction action = new EditUserAction();
}
}
public class EditUserAction
{
public void Save(User user)
{
//save code here
}
}
I hope this explanation is clear. If it's not let me know and I'll clarify.
To answer your question I am doing it the latter(/Administration/CreateUser/id or /Administration/DeletePost/id).
You could use DynamicData for this. It isn't MVC but it can be used together with it and it is really easy to setup and use.
Here is another way of asking my question.
A part of my Master Page:
<% if (!String.Equals(ViewContext.RequestContext.RouteData.GetRequiredString("controller"), "Administration")) { %>
<div>
<!-- Some Code -->
</div> <% } %>
As you can see, in my master page, I'd like to display some part of the page, depending on the user working on the administration area or not.
It works pretty well with only the Administration Controller (/Administration/CreateUser/id)... but it becomes a big mess when I use different controller as User or Article (/User/DeleteUser/id or /Article/Details/id).
I'd prefer to use one controller per entity, but I can't find a way to bond this approach with multiple controllers.
I suggest to use this solution.
But I changed definition to this:
public ThemedViewEngine()
{
base.MasterLocationFormats = new string[] {
"~/Views/{1}/{0}.master",
"~/Views/Shared/{0}.master",
"~/Themes/{2}/Views/{1}/{0}.master",
"~/Themes/{2}/Views/Shared/{0}.master",
"~/Themes/Default/Views/{1}/{0}.master",
"~/Themes/Default/Views/Shared/{0}.master"
};
base.ViewLocationFormats = new string[] {
"~/Views/{1}/{0}.aspx",
"~/Views/{1}/{0}.ascx",
"~/Views/Shared/{0}.aspx",
"~/Views/Shared/{0}.ascx",
"~/Themes/{2}/Views/{1}/{0}.aspx",
"~/Themes/{2}/Views/{1}/{0}.ascx",
"~/Themes/{2}/Views/Shared/{0}.aspx",
"~/Themes/{2}/Views/Shared/{0}.ascx",
"~/Themes/Default/Views/{1}/{0}.aspx",
"~/Themes/Default/Views/{1}/{0}.ascx",
"~/Themes/Default/Views/Shared/{0}.aspx",
"~/Themes/Default/Views/Shared/{0}.ascx"
};
base.PartialViewLocationFormats = new string[] {
"~/Views/{1}/{0}.aspx",
"~/Views/{1}/{0}.ascx",
"~/Views/Shared/{0}.aspx",
"~/Views/Shared/{0}.ascx",
"~/Themes/{2}/Views/{1}/{0}.aspx",
"~/Themes/{2}/Views/{1}/{0}.ascx",
"~/Themes/{2}/Views/Shared/{0}.aspx",
"~/Themes/{2}/Views/Shared/{0}.ascx",
"~/Themes/Default/Views/{1}/{0}.aspx",
"~/Themes/Default/Views/{1}/{0}.ascx",
"~/Themes/Default/Views/Shared/{0}.aspx",
"~/Themes/Default/Views/Shared/{0}.ascx"
};
}
Default theme is default so it is required to exists.
Structure of directory will be:
Content
Themes
Default
Content
Views
Home
Blog
Whatever should be skinned
OtherTheme
Content
Views
Home
Blog
Whatever should be skinned
Views
Articles
Posts
Users
Settings
Other Administration stuff
It depends on the scale size of your admin area,
I suggest you consider to do the following (or maybe document it a bit)
Consider how many entities you want to manage independently,
Consider how many actions each one will have,
Check that is there any dependency between your application and admin area (user access, for user friendly URLs )
then you can specify which approach can help you, Having one admin controller, admin actions in entity controllers, or defining a new Admin project in case of large functional applications.
*If the project scale is growing fast and soon it needs large scale, I would choose third one - having a new admin mvc project.
I hope it help you decide.