I am implementing URI in OpenRasta for a resource in configuration file. This perticular resource is a child entity of multiple resources.
Parent and child is having one to many relation. All Parent Entities are having an int value via enum type in code.
Now I want to implement my URI like this :
{ParentEntityName}/{ParentId}/{ChildName}/{ChildId}
How can I implement this?? Do I need to make saperate configuration for each parent entity or there is a dynamic way?
You can just have a handler that takes all this and retrieve the entity that way.
ResourceSpace.Has.ResourcesOfType<Childresource>()
.AtUri("{ParentEntityName}/{ParentId}/{ChildName}/{ChildId}")
.HandledBy<Handler>()
and
class Handler {
public ChildResource Get(string parentEntityName, int parentId, string childName, int childId) { /*...*/ }
}
Now that said, if the child has an identifier on the server you can probably make things easier on yourself by just mapping the URI with an id.
Related
I am attempting to create Web API controller in F# which returns objects from Entity Framework. SharpObject and SharpContext are my object and DbContext respectively defined in a c# project.
/// Retrieves values.
[<RoutePrefix("api2/values")>]
type ValuesController() =
inherit ApiController()
let values = [| "value1"; "value2" |]
/// Gets all values.
[<Route("")>]
member x.Get() : IEnumerable<SharpObject> =
use context = new SharpContext()
context.SharpObjects.ToList() :> IEnumerable<SharpObject>
Here is SharpObject with the SerializableAttribute.
[Serializable]
public class SharpObject
{
[Key]
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Description { get; set; }
}
The error that I am getting is this:
The type System.Data.Entity.DynamicProxies.SharpObject_3A697B5C46C0BF76858FEAFC93BFED36DD8D4CA2CEACBB178D2D3C38BB2D2052 was not expected. Use the XmlInclude or SoapInclude attribute to specify types that are not known statically.
When I de-compile this using ILSpy, it looks like this:
[Route("")]
public IEnumerable<SharpObject> Get()
{
SharpContext context = new SharpContext();
IEnumerable<SharpObject> result;
try
{
result = (IEnumerable<SharpObject>)context.SharpObjects.ToList<SharpObject>();
}
finally
{
IDisposable disposable = context as IDisposable;
if (disposable != null)
{
disposable.Dispose();
}
}
return result;
}
What is the best way to get my list to show through in f#?
This happens because the object that you get from EF is not, in fact, of type SharpObject, but rather of that scarily named type, which inherits from SharpObject. This type is called "proxy" and is dynamically generated by EF in order to provide certain services (such as lazy loading, see below).
Because your action is declared as returning IEnumerable<SharpObject>, the default WebAPI's XML serializer expects to find object of that type, and so rightly complains upon finding an object of different type.
One temporary, bandaid-style fix that you can try is to remove the virtual keywords from your entity (why do you have them there, anyway?). It is the presence of the virtual keywords that causes EF to generate the proxy type. Absent virtual, no proxy will be generated, thus making the XML serializer happy.
This, however, will not work once you extend your model to include navigation properties with lazy loading. Those properties, you must make virtual, otherwise lazy loading won't work.
So the correct fix is not to use the same type for both DB-facing DTO and client-facing DTO. Use different types.
Using the same type for these two purposes may seem "convenient" at first, but this road quickly leads to numerous problems. One of small technical problems you have already discovered. But even absent those, conceptually, you almost never, ever want to just serve up your DB records directly to the untrusted user. Some of possible consequences include security holes, badly factored UI code, badly factored database structure, performance problems, and so on.
Bad idea. Don't do it.
P.S. This doesn't actually have anything to do with F#.
first of all here is my situation. I am programming an intranet application using ASP.NET MVC 3 with Entity Framework 4.1. My application has been developed using the "Unit of Work" and "Repository" design patterns.
How ever in my opinion it should go the way that my application has an unit of work that provides a central access to all the repositories which further provide access to the entities.
Lets say I have a entity called "ProductApprovalDocument" with the properties "id", "creationDate" and "approvalDecission" stored in the database. Now I want the user to be able to access a PDF file of the document thats shortly described by the entity. Because the files are stored in a central directory on a file server using the URL format "[fileServerDirectoryPath]/[ProductApprovalDocument.id].pdf", I do not want to save an extra property for that filepath on the database. What I would like to do, is give the entity an extra property called "filepath" that automatically constructs the path with the given information and returns it.
Now the Problem:
I use an interface called FileService to abstract file access from the rest of the application. Now in my case I would have to access the UnitOfWork object out of the entity model, to retrieve the current FileService implementetion and get the preconfigured filepath. I think that's the totaly wrong way because to me an entity model should only be used as a data container not more or less.
Now the Question:
How do I handle such a situation. I would not like to always set the filepath property through the controller because ist more or less static and therefore could be done somehow automatic by the model.
Edit (final solution):
Thanks to the answer of Andre Loker I gained another point of view to my problem.
What was the central target I wanted to reach?
I wanted the user to gain access to a file stored on a fileserver.
Do I have to provide every displayed entity with the total filepath?
No! Think about the principle of MVC! User actions get processed by the controller just in time. You don't have to provide information untill it really get's used.
So the solution is just to render all data as usual but instead of displaying a static html link to the files, you have to include an ActionLink to the Controller which calculates the filepath on the fly and automatically redirects the user to the file.
In the View do this:
#Html.ActionLink(Model.ID.ToString(), "ShowProductApprovalDocumentFile", "ProductApprovalDocument", new { ProductApprovalDocumentID = Model.ID }, null)
instead of this:
#Model.ID
And add an corresponding Action to the controller:
public ActionResult ShowProductApprovalDocumentFile(int ProductApprovalDocumentID )
{
return Redirect(_unitOfWork.FileService.GetFilePathForProductApprovalDocument(ProductApprovalDocumentID));
}
Thanks to the guys that took the time to give me an answer and special thanks to Andre who lead me to the satisfying answer! :)
If I understand the property correctly, there are several options:
1) Make the FilePath property use a service locator to find the FileService:
public string FilePath {
get {
FileService fileService = DependencyResolver.Current.GetService<FileService>();
return fileService.GetFilePathForDocument(this);
}
}
While I'm not a hugh fan of static service locators as they make testing more difficult, this could be a viable option. To make it more easily testable you can make the file service locator injectable:
private static readonly Func<FileService> defaultFileServiceLocator = ()=>DependencyResolver.Current.GetService<FileService>():
private Func<FileService> fileServiceLocator = defaultFileServiceLocator;
public Func<FileService> FileServiceLocator {
get { return fileServiceLocator; }
set { fileServiceLocator = value ?? defaultFileServiceLocator; }
}
And then use this in FilePath
public string FilePath {
get {
FileService fileService = fileServiceLocator();
return fileService.GetFilePathForDocument(this);
}
}
This way you can inject your own file service locator during testing.
2) Explicitly require the FileService when retrieving the file path. Instead of a FilePath property you'd have:
public string GetFilePath(FileService service){
service.GetFilePathForDocument(this);
}
The problem with this is of course that now the caller of GetFilePath needs to have a FileService. This isn't much of a problem for controllers, because if you use an IoC you can inject a FileService into the controller constructor. This approach is the cleaner one as it doesn't depend on service locators, but as you see it is slightly more inconvenient for the caller.
3) Inject the FileService into the document class itself.
Instead of using a file service locator you'd inject the file service itself when you construct your ProductApprovalDocument. With this approach you can use a simple FilePath property again. The main problem is that this often doesn't play too well with ORMs, as they often construct the objects using a default constructor and you'd have to somehow hook into the object construction process to inject the dependencies. Also, I'm not a big fan of injection services into domain objects.
4) You set the FilePath from outside the entity. As you said this should be done somewhat automatically as you don't want to do it manually every time. This would require some layer through which all entities need to pass which sets up the FilePath property.
5) Don't make FilePath a property of ProductApprovalDocument at all. This would be a reasonable choice, too. ProductApprovalDocument doesn't know anything about its FilePath, so why should it be a property? Its the FileService that calculates the value. You can still have a distinct view model version of ProductApprovalDocument which does have a FilePath property. You'd set the property when you create your view model:
var model = new ProductApprovalDocumentViewModel();
mapper.Map(realDocument, model); // map common properties with AutoMapper or so
model.FilePath = fileService.GetFilePathForDocument(realDocument);
However, if ProductApprovalDocument needs to do something with its FilePath (why would it?) this approach doesn't work anymore.
Personally I'd go with solution 5, 2 or 1 in that order of precedence, where applicable.
Whilst I would be hesitant to rely on being able to calculate the filepath and I would prefer to store it as part of the entity (in case it ever needs to change for some reason), in your situation if I was adamant I wanted to do it the way you've said, I think I would extend the FileService/ViewModel to have a Filepath property which was derived in the fashion you have stated.
e.g. if I wanted to create a download link I'd do this in the ViewModel
public string FilePath
{
get
{
return String.Format(#"thehardcodedbit{0}.pdf",ID);
}
}
EDIT: If you have an Entity generated by EF4.x then it will have been generated as a partial class so you could always extend it like this (I have done this sort of thing and it works okay):
Say the generated entity looks like this:
Namespace Da_Wolf.Model.Entities.File
{
public partial class UploadedFile
{....}
}
Then you could create a partial class like this:
Namespace Da_Wolf.Model.Entities.File
{
public partial class UploadedFile
{
public string FilePath
{
get
{
return String.Format(#"thehardcodedbit{0}.pdf",ID);
}
}
}
}
Now you have the property you desire available everywhere without adding anything to the ViewModels.
I'm using EF 4.2 and originally I had rolled my own repository classes for each entity set. As I investigated further I realised that DbContext and IDbSet implemented the unit of work and repository pattern I required.
This works great, but I would also like some "helper" methods to return particular entities using commonly requested properties, other than the primary key.
For example to select an employee by email and account status rather than the Id primary key. My original user repository had an overload for this.
My question is where should I add this helper method? I see myself as having a few options:
Add a domain logic service type class with this method which uses dbContext, and is consumed by other domain logic classes and methods.
Extend the DbContext class to have an additional method.
Replace the IDbSet with a custom repository.
Wrap the dbContext in additional Repository classes for each entity set, and add a method to the user specific one.
There seem to be pros and cons for each, but I'm leaning more towards 1 or 2. Any thoughts?
You can use custom extension method and reuse it:
public static IQueryable<Employee> Find(this IQueryable<Employee> query,
string email, string status)
{
return query.Where(e => e.Email == email && e.Status == status);
}
Now you will use it simply like:
var employee = context.Employees.Find(email, status).FirstOrDefault();
In my ASP.NET MVC project, my actions typically call a Service layer to get data. I use the same dozen or so POCOs for all my models. I also plan on using the Service layer in console applications and maybe expose a web api at some point.
To make my database operations more efficient, my service layer only hydrates the properties in the model that are relevant to the particular method (which at this point is mostly driven by the needs of my controller actions).
So for example I might have a class Order with properties Id, Name, Description, Amount, Items. For a given service call I might only need to populate Id, Name, Items. A consumer of that service won't necessarily know that Amount is 0 only because it didn't populate the property.
Similarly, the consumer won't know whether Items is empty b/c there actually aren't any items, or whether this particular service method just doesn't populate that property.
And for a third example, say one of my views displays an ItemCount. I don't want to fully populate my Items collection, I just need an additional property on my "model". I don't want to add this property to my POCO that other service methods will be using because it's not going to be populated anywhere else.
So the natural solution is to make a POCO designed specifically for that method with only those 3 properties. That way the consumer can know that all properties will be populated with its real values. The downside to this is that I'll end writing tons of similarly shaped models.
Any advice on which method works best?
You could use Nullable Types to indicate the missing properties with a null.
For example:
class Order {
public int Id {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
public string Description {get;set;}
public decimal? Amount {get;set;}
public List<Item> Items {get;set;}
}
And then if Items == null, it wasn't set. If it's an empty new List<Item>(), it's set but empty. Same for Amount. If Amount.HasValue == false, it wasn't set. If Amount.Value is 0.0d, it's set and the item is free.
Why don't you use LINQ projection?
One service method does something like:
return DbContext.Orders.Select(o => new { Id = o.Id, Name = o.Name, Description = o.Description });
while the other service method does something like:
return DbContext.Orders.Select(o => o);
I'm not sure how your application is architected, but this may be a way around creating 100's of POCO's.
Hope this helps! Good luck.
You could pass in a selector Func that returns dynamic:
public IEnumerable<dynamic> GetOrders(Func<Order, dynamic> selector) { ... }
I'm not sure how you are accessing data, but the following shows how this would work using a List<T>:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var service = new Service();
var orderNames = service.GetOrders(o => new { o.Name });
foreach (var name in orderNames)
Console.WriteLine(name.Name);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class Service
{
private List<Order> _orders = new List<Order>
{
new Order { Id = 1, Name = "foo", Description = "test order 1", Amount = 1.23m },
new Order { Id = 2, Name = "bar", Description = "test order 1", Amount = 3.45m },
new Order { Id = 3, Name = "baz", Description = "test order 1", Amount = 5.67m }
};
public IEnumerable<dynamic> GetOrders(Func<Order, dynamic> selector)
{
return _orders.Select(selector);
}
}
public class Order
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public decimal Amount { get; set; }
}
The use of nullable values is a good solution, however it has the downside you have no way to matk required fields. That is you cannot use a required attribute on any property. So if there is field that is obligatory in some views you have no way to represent it.
If you don't need required fileds validation this is ok. Otherwise, you need a way to represent which fileds are actually used, and then to write a custom validation provider.
A simple way to do this is to use a "Mask" class with the same property names of the original class, but with all fields boolean: a true values means the field is in use.
I used a similar solution in a system where the properties to be shown are configured in a configuration files...so it was the unique option for me since I had no possibility to represent all combination of properties. HOWEVER, I used the "Mask" class also in the View, so I was able to do all the job with just one View..with a lot of ifs.
Now if your 150 service methods and probably about 150 Views...are all different, then maybe it is simpler to use also several classes ...that is in the worst case 150 classes..the extra work to write them is negligible if compared to the effort of preparing 150 different Views.
However this doesnt mean you need 150 POCO classes. You might use an unique POCO class that is copied into an adequate class just into the presentation Layer. The advantage of this approach is that you can put different validation attributes on the various classes and you don't need to write a custom Validation provider.
Return the entire POCO with nullable types as mentioned by #sbolm. You can then create a ViewModel per MVC page view that receives a model with the specific properties it needs. This will take more performance (insignificant) and code, but it keeps your service layer clean, and keeps your views "dumb" in that they are only given what they need and have no direct relation to the service layer.
I.e. (example class from #sbolm)
class Order {
public int Id {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
public string Description {get;set;}
public decimal? Amount {get;set;}
public List<Item> Items {get;set;}
}
// MVC View only needs to know the name and description, manually "map" the POCO properties into this view model and send it to the view
class OrderViewModel {
public string Name {get;set;}
public string Description {get;set;}
}
I would suggest that instead of modifying the models or creating wrapper models, you have to name the service methods such that they are self-explanatory and reveals the consumer what they returns.
The problem with the nullable approach is it makes the user to feel that the property is not required or mandatory and they try inserting instances of those types without setting those properties. Is it won't be bad having nullables every-where?
It won't be a good approach to change the domain models since all you want is just to populate some of the properties instead of that you create service with names and descriptions that are self-explanatory.
Take the Order class itself as the example, say one service method returns the Order with all the items and the other one returns only the details of the Order but not the items. Then obviously you may have to create two service methods GetOrderItems and GetOrderDetail, this sounds so simple, yes it is! but notice the service method names itself tells the client what it is going to return. In the GetOrderDetail you can return an empty items or null (but here I suggest a null) that doesn't matter much.
So for new cases you don't need to frequently change the models but all you got to do is add or remove the service methods and that's fine. Since you are creating a service you can create a strong documentation that says what method does what.
I would not performance optimize this to much unless you realy get performance problems.
I would only distinguish between returning a flat object and an object with a more complete object graph.
I would have methods returning flat objects called something like GetOrder, GetProduct.
If more complete object graphs are requested they would be called : GetOrderWithDetails.
Do you use the POCO classes for the typed views? If yes: try to make new classes that serve as dedicated ViewModels. These ViewModels would contain POCO classes. This will help you keeping the POCO classes clean.
To expand on the nullable idea, you could use the fluentvalidation library to still have validation on the types dependent on whether they are null or not. This would allow you to have a field be required as long as it was not null or any other validation scheme you can think of. Example from my own code as I had a similar requirement:
Imports FluentValidation
Public Class ParamViewModelValidator
Inherits AbstractValidator(Of ParamViewModel)
Public Sub New()
RuleFor(Function(x) x.TextBoxInput).NotEmpty.[When](Function(x) Not (IsNothing(x.TextBoxInput)))
RuleFor(Function(x) x.DropdownListInput).NotEmpty.[When](Function(x) Not (IsNothing(x.DropdownListInput)))
End Sub
End Class
With my understading, the nature of a Action is that properties can be pushed w/ request parameter values. And, one wonderful feature is that Struts2 allows you to directly populate parameter values against Class type property ;)
Assuming there exists a Action and property class as below,
class Action extends ActionSupport {
User user;
#Action(value="hello" {#result=(.......)})
public void execute() {
........
}
.....
public void setUser(User user) {
this.user = user;
}
public User getUser() {
return this.user;
}
}
class User {
String name;
.....
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return this.name;
}
}
you could populate User class property by doing like this.
http://...../hello.action?user.name=John or via jsp page
Then, I realize that there are actually people make an Action property as a Interface type. My question is what is the reason behind this. If there is a sample code demonstrating it will be great.
Thanks in advance!
Sorry, but your question does not make much sense.
To clarify:
"Properties": in Java a "property" of a class is something that is accesible via getter/setters method (setXXX() / getXXX() => property XXX), tipically (but not necessarily) corresponds to a private field.
In Struts2 you have an Action object and typically (not necessarily, not always) the properties are populated (set) from the request (via the "Parameters" interceptor), and later in the view stage read from the JSP (or whatever) page.
So, in your example, for the request http://...../hello.action?user.name=John , Struts2 would try to find in your action (...actually in your value stack) a property "user" which has a property "name", and try to set it (if the types are convertible). That is, he would try to call something like yourAction.getUser().setName("John") . Struts2 does not know -does not care- what type are the properties "User" or "Name", even if they are real fields or not. (They are expected to behaviour as "beans", though: i.e. they should have a default constructor).
Why and when you should code interfaces instead of concrete classes is something that is explained in any Java book, it's just a standard good practice and there are tons of pages about it. It has nothing to do with Struts2. In this context, for an Action, one is tipically only interested in doing so for some "service" fields, objects that are typically long-lived (perhaps singletons), are not instantiated by the action itself (nor by the request!). So, those interfaces are NOT the properties we are considering here, they ( usually ) are not exposed publically and usually are not populated nor read from the client.