Here is my knowing about ASP.NET SPA:
have to use Upshot to talk to the server;
have to use DbDataController to provide Web APIs;
have to use Entity Framework Code first...
so, many concerns come out:
have to provide metadata for the upshot to work, this will obviously expose the structure of your database;
can i use Entity Framework Database First instead of Code First? You may ask why. Because Code First don't provide you the ability to customize your database(index customization, stored procedure...etc.);
A problem i met: when i add a "TestUpshot.edmx" file(generated from database 'northwind') to the MySpaApp.Models folder(trying to test whether i can use the edmx classes in the MyDbDataController class, and generate proper metadata in the client side), and run the application, there is an exception:"System.ArgumentException: Could not find the conceptual model type for MySpaApp.Models.Categories."...
Need help here, thanks in advance.
Dean
I may be missing something, but there is no requirement to use any of the technologies you've listed.
An SPA is just a pattern. You can use whatever you need to achieve that. There may be benefits with choosing certain technologies, ie templates, tutorials, etc.
Doesn't really answer your question, but should lead you to experiment with what you've got.
SPA is actually a way to conceptualize your client application. SPA comes the closest to the fat client - data server concept from the current web approaches. Definitely this will be the ruling concept within a couple of years.
Your concerns can be addressed using JayData at http://jaydata.codeplex.com that provides advanced, high level data access for JavaScript against any kind of EntityFramework back-ends (db, model or code first). Check out this video that presents the whole cycle from importing your EDMX from SQL (this could eighter be model first definition as well) to inserting a new product item in the Products table from JavaScript.
Related
I m new to Umbraco, I have watched Umbraco.tv videos and want to use Umbraco in a project as a cms for managing and editing content. I am highly thankful for your guidance, time and for your thoughts on 3 questions:
How a Umbraco based data driven proejct should be architecutured ? For custom database tables do you use a separate database or same Umbraco database ?
How you work with custom data (non content) ? Do you make everything a document type, even if it is data which you are not going to create content of, for example a simple form submitted data ?
For DAL what technology or ORM you use ? Does Umbraco provide any API for saving simple data which is not a content or document type ?
Thank you so much once again.
1 The architecture question is important but it also has be considered against how complex the project needs to be.
I would usually recommend a separate database for non-Umbraco data since this keeps everything nicely independent and manageable especially as projects grow. It also means that CMS-specific data (i.e. content) can be kept separately from none-CMS data, e.g. user registrations.
However, if the project is small and isn't likely to grow, keep it simple. Use the same database and piggy back off Umbraco's implementation of the Petapoco ORM. For example:
ApplicationContext.DatabaseContext.Database.Save(new Thing());
Or
var item = ApplicationContext.DatabaseContext.Database.Single(thingId);
2 For custom data, again it's a matter of need, maintainability and simplicity. Only use document types for what needs to be and can be stored in the CMS. My personal rule is that if it isn't content or organises content then it doesn't belong in the CMS. For example news and news categories obviously belong in the CMS. However, the comments made on an article have no reason to in the CMS.
3 With regards to DAL, as I have said, Umbraco has an implementation of Petapoco that can be used out of the box. If the project is basic enough, just use that. There is little point in using anything else unless you need some separation and/or some additional grunt in which case I would recommend using NHibernate or EF.
In addition to the points above,
Use NuGet;
Use the MVC mode of Umbraco, as it will provide you with substantially more flexibility. Check out the Hybrid Framework as it provides a very good start point for a robust and flexible project architecture;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PtzyrEFG7I.
You always need a doctype in Umbraco, even if a page doesn't offer any WYSIWYG type editability
I would recommend using a Service Oriented Architecture, and the .dlls you drop into Umbraco can call the service. You can then deploy this service and have full control over how you do data access. Choose whatever method you want. Most modern sites use an ORM and it doesn't matter which, although nHIbernate and Entity Framework are the favourites. Don't be frightened to mix and match a more direct form of data access though as it can give you more control, especially in situations where performance optimisation of large queries is important.
If you're not familiar with adding custom .NET functionality into Umbraco, Trying out adding .NET user controls into Umbraco will give you a good start, and to help you to understand how you can utilise your own .dlls in Umbraco:
http://umbraco.com/help-and-support/video-tutorials/introduction-to-umbraco/developer-introduction/using-net-user-controls.aspx
Anything custom I put in the same database as my Umbraco installation, but everything in custom tables. I don't touch the Umbraco tabes, I would not want to affect my future version updates.
Form submitted data I store in my own custom tables, I avoid creating content nodes with those, it's often tricky and doesn't give me the flexebility I often need. What I do instead is create an "Admin" document type, that is behind login (hard coded access, but easy to hook up to Umbraco users / members if wanted) and use my own custom UI to display my stored custom data.
I use PetaPoto (http://www.toptensoftware.com/petapoco/), it's a micro ORM that is added through a single file (installation is so easy then), using the same db connection string. Then I create custom models as I need and with with parts of the MVC. I normally stay away from route hijacking and rather use Surface Controllers and ajax calls for almost everything.
Hope this helps!
You can use the database containing the Umbraco tables for tables not used in Umbraco. If there are no hosting problems for you using multiple databases then you can simply link to a second database in the web.config - this would be safer than using the default Umbraco database as Umbraco packages often add database tables & there could be naming conflicts.
Viewing non-Umbraco data (eg from a database) is best done by adding macros that access the data using standard .Net patterns (eg razor scripts, .Net User Controls) & then in Umbraco you add in a reference to the macro in the template (view). You can use multiple templates (views) for any document type; so if you have a document type called 'forms' that contains no data you can use the 'allowed templates' checkboxes to say which view(s) are valid for this document type. When you add a content item you must specify a doc type at the start, but the template (view) can be changed at any time.
If you are storing data any .Net ORM will work with Umbraco (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_object-relational_mapping_software#.NET) I've used Linq to Sql, Subsonic & Dapper before now - but there are lots of options.
Take a look at my example using umbraco within Onion Architecture
https://github.com/afroukh/OnionCMS
I am using 3rd party API to get and manipulate data used for my asp.net mvc application. Since I am beginner in MVC, from my standpoint I believe that use of models component of MVC pattern in such cases is not really needed. Only need to use models in this case would be if I would like to additionally manipulate data pulled from API.
Could someone please clarify if I am missing sometime in my theory.
I'm with you on your theory. It might seem a bit overkill to create a set of classes when retrieving data form a 3rd party application. In the beginning it may seem like a lot of unnecessary work.
However, my personal opinion is to always map classes in the MVC application. My reason for doing this is to keep as clear as possible separation of concern in my applications. If you need a similar application in the future or you are changing back-end for some reason, the MVC/front-end application will be as independent as possible.
It is also nice to keep a clear separation of concern if you are working with other developers and if the application will be used for an extended period of time. Also imagine if you would like to do some manipulation of the data, like you say in your own words.
To summarise, I think it is good practice to always keep a model class in your MVC application.
This may sound like a dumb question on the surface, but why does the Hot Towel SPA Template include Breeze at all?
I've been spending the last few days learning Hot Towel and its dependencies, and as far as I can tell, nothing in the template actually uses Breeze. Perhaps that is going to change with some future release?
Sure, Breeze is a good library. But it's bound to CRUD methodology and requires you design your ApiControllers a particular way. (Metadata, SaveChanges, etc.) see here
It also guides you to Entity Framework. While this is more of a soft-dependency, since Breeze also shows a sample without it, it still guides you down a similar pattern of implementation using a modified repository pattern.
If you are using a NoSQL datastore, or CQRS patterns instead of CRUD, then Breeze becomes very difficult to use. There are alternative libraries for data access that work well in this style, such as AmplifyJS.
But the rest of Hot Towel is excellent! I especially like Durandal. So the question begs, if the template isn't actually doing any data access - why include any data access component at all? It would be better to ship it without Breeze, and if the end-user wants to use Breeze, or Amplify, or whatever - then so be it. The rest of Hot Towel would continue to shine as a great SPA implementation.
Matt - Good question. Since I created it I guess I should answer :)
When I built the template I had a focus on providing enough to get folks going with the right tools, and just enough starter code to guide the way. I did not want anyone ripping out code. I'm not a fan of templates that start you down a path and make you remove tons of files and code and change direction. Those are samples.
Samples are good. In fact, samples can be excellent (like the other templates, which I feel are more like samples). Those serve another purpose: to show how you can do things.
Back to the Hot Towel template ...if I include code that uses Breeze, I would be tempted to add a datacontext.js and a model.js on the client. They would contain data access code and code to extend the models on the client. Then I would be tempted to add a controller, some server side models, an ORM and a database. Once there, I'd want to use the data in multiple screens, which leads me to more Knockout and caching with Breeze. Then I might be tempted to add editing, which would lead to change tracking. Soon I have a full blown app. Or more conservatively, I have a sample again. While these approaches would provide more guidance on how to put these together, they would not help you "get started" with a template where you can just start building and adding your own code. If I stop short of some of these features, it's still walking down a road that requires you to change how I did it.
As it stands today, HotTowel is pretty darn close to a template in the truest sense. You create a new project and you are off and adding your own code.
You could argue (and you may be) that Breeze shouldn't be in there since I don't use it in the template. Nor do I use moment.js, BTW. However, I argue that they are both excellent libraries that I would not want to build a CRUD based SPA without them. Breeze is flexible, as you suggest, so you don't have to walk a specific path.
The best way to understand the value of Breeze is to build an app that has its features but without Breeze. Then you can see how much code that takes and how involved it is. For one such example, see my intermediate level SPA course at Pluralsight where I do exactly this: http://jpapa.me/spaps
So you ask "why Breeze?" ... because I strongly recommend it for building a SPA.
Thanks for asking and good luck !
Thanks for asking the question.
John, as author of HT, has offered an answer. I, as a principal of the Breeze project, am inclined to agree with him :)
HotTowel generates a foundation for you to build upon. It is not the building itself.
It is a foundation intended for a specific kind of application, a CRUD application based on a specific set of cooperating JavaScript and ASP.NET technologies. Breeze is a contributor ... but not the only one. Knockout, with its MVVM design and 2-way data binding, is particularly well-suited to the data-entry tasks typical of CRUD apps.
Of course there are other kinds of SPAs. There's an important class of apps that mostly present information and accept little user input. Such apps don't benefit as much from data binding and the people who write them can get pretty hostile about data binding in general and KO in particular.
My point is that HT targets a particular class of application ... one that happens to be immensely successful at least when measured by sustained popularity. It delivers the goods for people who build those apps. It may not be the right starting place for other kinds of apps.
It is true that the easy road to Breeze runs through Web API, EF, and a relational database. Take those away, and you may writing more code on the server (and a little more on the client). That may be the perfect trade-off for you.
The authors of Breeze would like to make that path easier. I don't think BreezeJS makes it harder. I don't understand your statement "Breeze becomes very difficult to use." Have you tried it?
Your client can communicate with any HTTP resource in any manner you chose. It is pretty easy to use existing Web API controllers (albeit easier with Breeze Web API controllers). You can use amplify.js if you prefer (btw, you can tell Breeze to make AJAX calls with amplify). You don't even have to use the Breeze EntityManager to query and save data if you don't want to.
The rest of BreezeJS may still have value for you. There remains plenty of work to do after you've figured out how you'll retrieve and store data and whether you prefer Entity-ChangeSet style or Command/Query style.
You'll have to find answers to these questions:
How will you shape the raw JSON data into bindable objects?
How will you hold on to these objects and share them across multiple screens without making redundant round-trips to the server?
How will you navigate from one object to a related object as you do when binding an Address to a combobox of StatesAndProvinces?
How will you track changes?
How will you validate them?
How will you store some or all of the data in local storage when the app "tombstones"?
Breeze can help with these chores even if you don't want it to query and save for you.
And if you're answer remains "I'll do all of that myself, thank you" ... well, removing Breeze from your HotTowel project is as easy as:
Uninstall-Package breeze.webapi
In my pet project I want to have a user system with the following requirements:
It needs to work with Db4o as a persistance model
I want to use DI (by means of Turbine) to deliver the needed dependencies to my user model
It needs to be easy to plug in to asp.net-mvc
It needs to be testable without much hassle
It needs to support anonymous users much like SO does
I want Authentication and Authorization separated (the first can live without the second)
It needs to be safe
I'm aware I'm putting a few technologies before functionalities here, but as it is a pet project and I want to learn some new stuff I think it is reasonable to include them as requirements.
Halfway in rolling my own I realized I am probably suffering some NIH syndrome.
As I don't really like how needlessly complex the existing user framework in asp.net is, it is actually mostly only all the more complicated stuff regarding security that's now giving me some doubts.
Would it be defendable to go on and roll my own? If not how would you go about fulfilling all the above requirements with the existing IPrinciple based framework?
It sounds to me like what you want to do is roll your own Custom .NET Membership Provider.
It will allow you to use the built-in ASP.NET Authentication/Authorization attributes on your Controller Actions while giving you complete control over the implementation inside the provider (which will allow you to code it to meet the requirements stated above).
Direct from MSDN...
Implementing a Membership Provider
I think you recognize where the thin parts in your consideration are: namely in that you've included how to do what you're doing as motive in why you're doing it and the NIH (funny: I'd never seen that before) issue.
Putting those aside, your provider is something that you could potentially reuse and it may simplify some of your future efforts. It should also serve to familiarize you further with the issue. As long as you understand the ASP.NET framework so you can work with it too if you need to (and aren't specialized such that you don't know what you're doing if you're not using your tool) then I believe you've already crafted your defense.
As DOK mentioned, be cautious that you're not rolling your own here to avoid a larger task at hand in whatever your other functionality is. Don't let this be a distraction: it should be something your application really needs. If it's not, then I'd lean towards focusing on your software's core mission instead.
If you go ahead and create your own custom solution, you will have a better idea of how difficult it is and what features you want. This will help you to evaluate off-the-shelf solutions for future projects.
OTOH, spending time developing functionality that is already readily available means you won't be spending that time working on the major functionality of your project. Unless authentication and authorization are a major component of your project, you might consider investing your time, and expanding your knowledge, in another area.
I too am working on a pet Project using ASP.net MVC and db4o and did the same thing, so you're at least not alone in going down that route :). One of the biggest reasons for me to start playing around with db4o as persistence layer is that especially authorization on field level (i.e I'm allowed to see Person A's first name but not Person B's first name) is though to achieve if you're forced into complex SQL statements and an anemic domain model.
Since I had complex authorization needs that needed to be persisted (and synchronized) in both db4o and Solr indexes I started working on rolling out my own, but only because I knew up front it was one of the key features of my pet project that I wanted 100% control over.
Now I might still use the .Net Membership provider for authentication but not (solely) for authorization of objects but only after i POC'd my authorization needs using my own.
I need to write a forum application for a friend's web site. I want to write it in C# 3.0 against the ASP.NET MVC framework, with SQL Server database.
So, I've two questions:
Should I use Linq to SQL or the Entity Framework as a database abstraction?
Should I use the ASP.NET Membership API or add Users table and implement it myself?
Thanks.
There are lots of examples around internet which is using ling with ASP.NET MVC. But may be you can add your list NHibernate. If you do not want to add i suggest Entity Framework. Using ORM's is a plus.
I always chose write my own membership management layer. If you are a person like (write your own code and be happy when you are making changes in future.) write your own membership layer. If you are looking for a quick solution ASP.NET Membership API is a good choice.
Entity Framework definitely -- see below.
ASP.net Membership API -- easy to maintain.
Reason:
Entity Framework vs LINQ to SQL
1) How about both? Just create an abstraction and you could just use either. My recommendation is to use the repository pattern.
2) The membership provider has its strengths and weaknesses. For some projects, it was far too complex for my needs. However, it is great if you need to get something running in a short amount of time.
I won't answer the first question since i'm a fan of nhibernate
for the second question adding a users table and implement membership yourself i don't think you will be able to do it at least the right way (lot of people tried to make their own membership api but they messed up !)
1) Totally depends on how complex things are going to get. If you want a quick DAL that more or less mirrors your tables in a 1:1 fashion, go for L2S (or SubSonic if you want something more mature and supported). If you are going for more of an n-tier type thing where your tables and domain model are completely different, go for an OR/M like Entity Framework (or NHibernate if you want something that is pretty much better in every way)
2) ASP.net Membership is extremely complex, and there are bits of it that are fairly poorly engineered. However, it depends on how much experience you have with these things. If you enough to know how to take steps to avoid session fixation attacks, just roll your own because chances are it will be better then the canned solution. If you have no idea what that is, take the time to learn the default one.
Something to think about, SubSonic 3 is a pretty powerful data access generation tool. From what I understand, it basically wraps Linq to Sql inside of some very useful wrappers and makes using Linq a little more intutive. You can have a pretty powerful application built up in no time flat when using SubSonic. One little issue though, if you're using a shared hosting (say GoDaddy) you'll run into a medium trust issue. In that case you can always fall back to Linq To Sql without making many changes to your code base.
As for Aspnet_Membership. Just for the amount of tools it provides, I'd reccomend using it.
Good luck, and hope this helps.