Search Results

Search found 9536 results on 382 pages for 'aspnet mvc'.

Page 172/382 | < Previous Page | 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179  | Next Page >

  • Calling a model from a controller from the 404 route [migrated]

    - by IrishRob
    Got a problem here where I can’t seem to load a method from a model after the page has been redirected after encountering a 404. Model name: Category_Model Method name: get_category_menu() In my routes, I’ve updated the 404 over-ride to: $route[‘404_override’] = ‘whoops’; I’ve also got my controller Whoops that reads… <?php class Whoops extends CI_Controller { function index() { $this->load->model('Category_Model'); $data['Categories'] = $this->Category_Model->get_category_menu(); $data['main_content'] = $this->load->view('messages/whoops', null, true); $this->load->view('includes/template', $data); } } So when I navigate to a page that doesn’t exist, I get the following error… Message: Undefined property: Whoops::$Category_Model Filename: controllers/whoops.php I’ve hard coded the loading of the model into the controller here, even though I have it in my autoload, but no luck. Everything else with the site so far works, just this 404 problem. Any pointers would be great, kinda new to CI so go easy on me. Cheers.

    Read the article

  • In PHP, what are the different design patterns to implement OO controllers as opposed to procedural controllers?

    - by Ryan
    For example, it's very straightforward to have an index.php controller be a procedural script like so: <?php //include classes and functions //get some data from the database //and/or process a form submission //render HTML using your template system ?> Then I can just navigate to http://mysite.com/index.php and the above procedural script is essentially acting as a simple controller. Here the controller mechanism is a basic procedural script. How then do you make controllers classes instead of procedural scripts? Must the controller class always be tied to the routing mechanism?

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice to develop a visual component in Flex Hero?

    - by gavri
    What is the best practice to develop a visual component in Flex Hero? I do it like this: I consider a component has 2 "parts", the declarative part (the visual sub-components) which I define in the skin (just mxml) and the code part (event handlers...) which I define in an action script class. I load the skin in the ctor of the action script class. I also define skin parts, states, and I bind event handlers in the partAdded function. I am having an argument about this; that I should define the component purely in an .mxml, with listeners in the script tag, and maybe attach a skin (but the skin should be loose - maybe for reuse :-?) I come from .NET and maybe I am biased with the code behind pattern, and I am wondering from your experience and Adobe's intent, what is the best practice to usually implement a visual component?

    Read the article

  • Strategies for avoiding SQL in your Controllers... or how many methods should I have in my Models?

    - by Keith Palmer
    So a situation I run into reasonably often is one where my models start to either: Grow into monsters with tons and tons of methods OR Allow you to pass pieces of SQL to them, so that they are flexible enough to not require a million different methods For example, say we have a "widget" model. We start with some basic methods: get($id) insert($record) update($id, $record) delete($id) getList() // get a list of Widgets That's all fine and dandy, but then we need some reporting: listCreatedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listPurchasedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listOfPending() And then the reporting starts to get complex: listPendingCreatedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listForCustomer($customer_id) listPendingCreatedBetweenForCustomer($customer_id, $start_date, $end_date) You can see where this is growing... eventually we have so many specific query requirements that I either need to implement tons and tons of methods, or some sort of "query" object that I can pass to a single -query(query $query) method... ... or just bite the bullet, and start doing something like this: list = MyModel-query(" start_date X AND end_date < Y AND pending = 1 AND customer_id = Z ") There's a certain appeal to just having one method like that instead of 50 million other more specific methods... but it feels "wrong" sometimes to stuff a pile of what's basically SQL into the controller. Is there a "right" way to handle situations like this? Does it seem acceptable to be stuffing queries like that into a generic -query() method? Are there better strategies?

    Read the article

  • Updating query results

    - by Francisco Garcia
    Within a DDD and CQRS context, a query result is displayed as table rows. Whenever new rows are inserted or deleted, their positions must be calculated by comparing the previous query result with the most recent one. This is needed to visualize with an animation new or deleted rows. The model of my view contains an array of the displayed query results. But I need a place to compare its contents against the latest query. Right now I consider my model view part of my application layer, but the comparison of two query result sets seems something that must be done within the domain layer. Which component should cache a query result and which one compare them? Are view models (and their cached contents) supposed to be in the application layer?

    Read the article

  • Tell a user whether they have already viewed an item in a list. How?

    - by user2738308
    It is pretty common for a web application to display a list of items and for each item in the list to indicate to the current user whether they have already viewed the associated item. An approach that I have taken in the past is to store HasViewed objects that contain the Id of a viewed item and the Id of the User who has viewed that item. When it comes time to display a list of items this requires querying for the items, and separately querying for the HasViewed objects, and then combining the results into a set of objects constructed solely for the purpose of displaying them in the view. Each e.g li then uses the e.g. has_viewed property of the objects constructed above. I would like to know whether others take a different approach and can recommend alternative ways to achieve this functionality.

    Read the article

  • PyQt application architecture

    - by L. De Leo
    I'm trying to give a sound structure to a PyQt application that implements a card game. So far I have the following classes: Ui_Game: this describes the ui of course and is responsible of reacting to the events emitted by my CardWidget instances MainController: this is responsible for managing the whole application: setup and all the subsequent states of the application (like starting a new hand, displaying the notification of state changes on the ui or ending the game) GameEngine: this is a set of classes that implement the whole game logic Now, the way I concretely coded this in Python is the following: class CardWidget(QtGui.QLabel): def __init__(self, filename, *args, **kwargs): QtGui.QLabel.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs) self.setPixmap(QtGui.QPixmap(':/res/res/' + filename)) def mouseReleaseEvent(self, ev): self.emit(QtCore.SIGNAL('card_clicked'), self) class Ui_Game(QtGui.QWidget): def __init__(self, window, *args, **kwargs): QtGui.QWidget.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs) self.setupUi(window) self.controller = None def place_card(self, card): cards_on_table = self.played_cards.count() + 1 print cards_on_table if cards_on_table <= 2: self.played_cards.addWidget(card) if cards_on_table == 2: self.controller.play_hand() class MainController(object): def __init__(self): self.app = QtGui.QApplication(sys.argv) self.window = QtGui.QMainWindow() self.ui = Ui_Game(self.window) self.ui.controller = self self.game_setup() Is there a better way other than injecting the controller into the Ui_Game class in the Ui_Game.controller? Or am I totally off-road?

    Read the article

  • What's the correct approach for passing data from several models into a service?

    - by Doug Chamberlain
    I have an AccountModel and a page where the user can upload a file. What I would like to have happen is when the user uploads the file. The PageController does something like the following. this is a quick attempt just written in the question to illustrate my question. public class PageController : Controller { private Service service; public ActionResult Upload(HttpPostedFileBase f){ service.savefile(f,_AccountModel_whatever.currentlyloggedinuser.taxid) } } public class Service { // abunch of validation and error checking to make sure the file is good to store } Wouldn't this approach be in bad practice? Since I'm making my controller dependent on the existence of th AccountModel? This will become a HUGE program over the next few years, and I really want to maximize the quality of the framework now.

    Read the article

  • How to build a good service layer in ASP.NET?

    - by Swippen
    I have looked through some questions, technologies for building a good service layer but I have some questions regarding this that I need help with. First some information of what I have for requirements. We currently have a number of web applications that talk to each other in a spiderweb looking way (all talking to each other in a confusing way via webservices and database data). We want to change this so that all applications go through a service layer where we can work more with cache and encapsulate common functionality and more. We want this layer to also have a Web API so that 3rd party clients can consume information from the service. The problem I see is that if we build the service layer with say MVC4 Web API don't we need to communicate between the application using the webAPI meaning we have to construct URLs and consume JSON/Xml. That does not sound too effective. I assume a better method would be working with entities and WCF to communicate between the application but then we might loose the Web API magic? So the question is if there is a way to consume a service layer as both a Web API (JSON/XML) and as a more backend service layer with entities. If we are forced to use 2 different service layers we might have to duplicate some functionality and other bad things. Hope the question is clear enough and please ask if you need any more information.

    Read the article

  • is a factory pattern to prevent multuple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquly define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the oens that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methdos, so these objects all act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approch which accepts a Builder object and construct the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquly defines the type of object (this is node A nto node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows it's state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overiding of serlization methods to make it work (ensure when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in it's place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know rather an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to it's own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state taht is different then my memory; to tell my memory when it's own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despit their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • Is there a factory pattern to prevent multiple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquely define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the others that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methods, so all these objects act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approach which accepts a Builder object and constructs the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquely defines the type of object (this is node A to node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows its state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overriding of serialization methods to make it work (ensure that when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in its place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know whether an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to its own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state that is different than my memory; to tell my memory when its own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despite their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect that I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • Is sending data to a server via a script tag an outdated paradigm?

    - by KingOfHypocrites
    I inherited some old javascript code for a website tracker that submits data to the server using a script url: var src = "http://domain.zzz/log/method?value1=x&value2=x" var e = document.createElement('script'); e.src = src; I guess the idea was that cross domain requests didn't haven't to be enabled perhaps. Also it was written back in 2005. I'm not sure how well XmlHttpRequests were supported at the time. Anyone could stick this on their website and send data to our server for logging and it ideally would work in most any browser with javascript. The main limitation is all the server can do is send back javascript code and each request has to wait for a response from the server (in the form of a generic acknowledgement javascript method call) to know it was received, then it sends the next. I can't find anyone doing this online or any metrics as to whether this faster or more secure than XmlHttpRequests. I don't know if this is just an old way of doing things or it's still the best way to send data to the server when you are mostly trying to send data one way and you need the best performance possible. So in summary is sending data via a script tag an outdated paradigm? Should I abandon in favor of using XmlHttpRequsts?

    Read the article

  • Is passing the Model around in this way considered bad practice?

    - by Theomax
    If I have a view called, for example, ViewDetails that displays user information in labels and has a Model called ViewDetailsModel and if I want to allow the user to click a button to edit some of these details, is it considered bad practice is I pass the entire Model in the markup to a controller method which then assigns the values for another model, using the values stored in the Model that was passed in as a parameter to that action method? If so, should there instead be a service method that gets the data required for the edit view? For example: In the ViewDetails view, the user clicks the edit button which calls an action method in the controller (and passes in the Model object). The action method then uses the data in the Model object to populate another model which will be used for the EditDetails view that will be returned.

    Read the article

  • How should I implement the repository pattern for complex object models?

    - by Eric Falsken
    Our data model has almost 200 classes that can be separated out into about a dozen functional areas. It would have been nice to use domains, but the separation isn't that clean and we can't change it. We're redesigning our DAL to use Entity Framework and most of the recommendations that I've seen suggest using a Repository pattern. However, none of the samples really deal with complex object models. Some implementations that I've found suggest the use of a repository-per-entity. This seems ridiculous and un-maintainable for large, complex models. Is it really necessary to create a UnitOfWork for each operation, and a Repository for each entity? I could end up with thousands of classes. I know this is unreasonable, but I've found very little guidance implementing Repository, Unit Of Work, and Entity Framework over complex models and realistic business applications.

    Read the article

  • Storing images in file system and returning URLs or virtually resizing and returning byte arrays?

    - by ismaelf
    I need to create a REST web service to manage user submitted images and displaying them all in a website. There are multiple websites that are going to use this service to manage and display images. The requirements are to have 5 pre-defined image sizes available. The 2 options I see are the following: The web service will create the 5 images, store them in the file system and and store the URL's in the database when the user submits the image. When the image is requested, the web service will return an array of URLs. I see this option to be a little hard on the hard drive. The estimates are 10,000 users per site, and lets say, 100 sites. The heavy processing will be done when the user submits the image and each image is going to be pulled from the File System. The web service will store just the image that the user submits in the file system and it's URL in the database. When the user request images, the web service will get the info from the DB, load the image on memory, create its 5 instances and return an object with 5 image arrays (I will probably cache the arrays). This option is harder on the processor and memory. The heavy processing will be done when the images get requested. A plus I see for option 2 is that it will give me the option to rewrite the URL of the image and make them site dependent (prettier) than having a image repository for all websites. But this is not a big deal. What do you think of these options? Do you have any other suggestions?

    Read the article

  • What would be the market life of a JVM based software framework?

    - by Nav
    I saw how Struts 1 lasted from 2000 to 2013. I hear that people are moving from Struts 2 to Spring. But for a project that may need to be maintained for a decade or two, would it be advisable to opt for a framework or directly code with servlets and jquery? Can a system architecture really be designed keeping in mind a particular framework? What really is the market life of a framework? Do the creators of the framework create it with the assumption that it would become obsolete in a decade?

    Read the article

  • Generic Handler vs Direct Reference

    - by JNF
    In a project where I'm working on the data access layer I'm trying to make a decision how to send data and objects to the next layer (and programmer). Is it better to tell him to reference my dll, OR should I build a generic handler and let him take the objects from there (i.e. json format) If I understand correctly, In case of 2. he would have to handle the objects on his own, whereas in case 1. he will have the entities I've built. Note: It is very probable that other people would need to take the same data, though, we're not up to that yet. Same question here - should I make it into a webservice, or have them access the handler?

    Read the article

  • Are session aware Models a bad thing?

    - by kevtufc
    I'm thinking specifically in Rails here, but I suspect this is a wider question. In a Rails web application I'm using data from the session in models in order that the models know who is logged in. I use this in a method which filters out some data from the database depending on a very simple permissions system. The thing is: using sessions in models in Rails requires a bit of a workaround. It works, but I've a feeling that it's something that I shouldn't be doing and I'm worried there's a big gotcha I'm missing. I suppose the Right Thing To Do would be to return all the data and filter out the not-wanted bits in the controller before passing that to the view, but doing it in the model seems to avoid quite a bit of code duplication and so feels "cleaner." Can anyone tell me why or shouldn't do this? Or that it's not a problem?

    Read the article

  • Downloading stream using FileStreamResult

    - by user1400915
    I have a Action in controller as public ActionResult Download() { return File(downloadStream, "application/octet-stream", fileName); } If I want to use FilePathresult as: public FilePathResult Download() { return File(downloadStream, "application/octet-stream", fileName); } can I call the Download() on click of a button like this @Html.ActionLink("FileDownload", "Download", new { file = item.FileName, GuID = item.DocumentGuID }) /text).Width(10);

    Read the article

  • Windows 8 Native App in Asp.net MVC?

    - by xiao
    I was not sure if this should be here or stackoverflow. I am looking at developing some windows 8 apps. I come from a web background and was really intrigued that you make them with html and javascript. I started to think though why can't you use asp.net mvc to build a windows 8 application. My question is can you somehow use asp.net mvc to build a native windows 8 application or are you suck with javascript and html?

    Read the article

  • Troubleshooting intermittantly long 'page loading' problem

    - by justSteve
    Working off IIS 7 with an asp.net mvc app. Most page accesses are lightening quick. Sometimes the browser reports 'page loading' for an exceptionally long time. We are still in the development/testing mode so it's not a network/bandwidth issue. Happens in both IE and FF. No explicit error conditions in the server logs. If i could reproduce it i could run firebug/fiddler to give more info. As it is, it's a little too infrequent to simply leave both those running hoping for the condition to fire - unless/until that's the only option to get better info. I have a hunch this is client-side jquery/ajax related but only a hunch - don't have enough background in either jQuery or MVC to really know what can go wrong. Any initial troubleshooting suggestions welcome. thx

    Read the article

  • Does my OS will support these tools ?

    - by Zerotoinfinite
    I am currently using Windows Server 2003 and I want to install Windows XP [SP1 or SP2 or SP3] or may be VISTA. I have may application which I can run on Windows Server 2003 and I am curious to know If I could run the same on XP or Vista. Please help me deciding whether I change my OS or not, here is the List of software and app I want to work on: Visual Studio 2008/2010 SQL Server 2008 ASP.NET MVC and Entity Framework WPF application P.S. : I can create all my application [except WPF] with Windows Server 2003. I have a idea that I can install VS 2008 on XP but not exactly sure about MVC framework and other latest technology stuff.

    Read the article

  • Custom Model Binding of IEnumerable Properties in ASP.Net MVC 2

    - by Doug Lampe
    MVC 2 provides a GREAT feature for dealing with enumerable types.  Let's say you have an object with a parent/child relationship and you want to allow users to modify multiple children at the same time.  You can simply use the following syntax for any indexed enumerables (arrays, generic lists, etc.) and then your values will bind to your enumerable model properties. 1: <% using (Html.BeginForm("TestModelParameter", "Home")) 2: { %> 3: < table > 4: < tr >< th >ID</th><th>Name</th><th>Description</th></tr> 5: <% for (int i = 0; i < Model.Items.Count; i++) 6: { %> 7: < tr > 8: < td > 9: <%= i %> 10: </ td > 11: < td > 12: <%= Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.Items[i].Name) %> 13: </ td > 14: < td > 15: <%= Model.Items[i].Description %> 16: </ td > 17: </ tr > 18: <% } %> 19: </ table > 20: < input type ="submit" /> 21: <% } %> Then just update your model either by passing it into your action method as a parameter or explicitly with UpdateModel/TryUpdateModel. 1: public ActionResult TestTryUpdate() 2: { 3: ContainerModel model = new ContainerModel(); 4: TryUpdateModel(model); 5:   6: return View("Test", model); 7: } 8:   9: public ActionResult TestModelParameter(ContainerModel model) 10: { 11: return View("Test", model); 12: } Simple right?  Well, not quite.  The problem is the DefaultModelBinder and how it sets properties.  In this case our model has a property that is a generic list (Items).  The first bad thing the model binder does is create a new instance of the list.  This can be fixed by making the property truly read-only by removing the set accessor.  However this won't help because this behaviour continues.  As the model binder iterates through the items to "set" their values, it creates new instances of them as well.  This means you lose any information not passed via the UI to your controller so in the examplel above the "Description" property would be blank for each item after the form posts. One solution for this is custom model binding.  I have put together a solution which allows you to retain the structure of your model.  Model binding is a somewhat advanced concept so you may need to do some additional research to really understand what is going on here, but the code is fairly simple.  First we will create a binder for the parent object which will retain the state of the parent as well as some information on which children have already been bound. 1: public class ContainerModelBinder : DefaultModelBinder 2: { 3: /// <summary> 4: /// Gets an instance of the model to be used to bind child objects. 5: /// </summary> 6: public ContainerModel Model { get; private set; } 7:   8: /// <summary> 9: /// Gets a list which will be used to track which items have been bound. 10: /// </summary> 11: public List<ItemModel> BoundItems { get; private set; } 12:   13: public ContainerModelBinder() 14: { 15: BoundItems = new List<ItemModel>(); 16: } 17:   18: protected override object CreateModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, Type modelType) 19: { 20: // Set the Model property so child binders can find children. 21: Model = base.CreateModel(controllerContext, bindingContext, modelType) as ContainerModel; 22:   23: return Model; 24: } 25: } Next we will create the child binder and have it point to the parent binder to get instances of the child objects.  Note that this only works if there is only one property of type ItemModel in the parent class since the property to find the item in the parent is hard coded. 1: public class ItemModelBinder : DefaultModelBinder 2: { 3: /// <summary> 4: /// Gets the parent binder so we can find objects in the parent's collection 5: /// </summary> 6: public ContainerModelBinder ParentBinder { get; private set; } 7: 8: public ItemModelBinder(ContainerModelBinder containerModelBinder) 9: { 10: ParentBinder = containerModelBinder; 11: } 12:   13: protected override object CreateModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, Type modelType) 14: { 15: // Find the item in the parent collection and add it to the bound items list. 16: ItemModel item = ParentBinder.Model.Items.FirstOrDefault(i => !ParentBinder.BoundItems.Contains(i)); 17: ParentBinder.BoundItems.Add(item); 18: 19: return item; 20: } 21: } Finally, we will register these binders in Global.asax.cs so they will be used to bind the classes. 1: protected void Application_Start() 2: { 3: AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas(); 4:   5: ContainerModelBinder containerModelBinder = new ContainerModelBinder(); 6: ModelBinders.Binders.Add(typeof(ContainerModel), containerModelBinder); 7: ModelBinders.Binders.Add(typeof(ItemModel), new ItemModelBinder(containerModelBinder)); 8:   9: RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes); 10: } I'm sure some of my fellow geeks will comment that this could be done more efficiently by simply rewriting some of the methods of the default model binder to get the same desired behavior.  I like my method shown here because it extends the binder class instead of modifying it so it minimizes the potential for unforseen problems. In a future post (if I ever get around to it) I will explore creating a generic version of these binders.

    Read the article

  • MVC Implementation PHP Zend PDF generation

    - by zod
    Am using Zend framework and PHP Am going to generate a PDF using Zend . So the View is PDF.There is no PHTML. But if i dont use PHTML in view , is it a perfect MVC? if i want to be a perfect MVC shall i do the db retrieval and variable declaration and assigning in controller and use view and use all pdf functions in view phtml file will it make a perfect MVC? What is the advantage of MVC in this case? :-) can i do the include of zend pdf in phtml file or controller php file? what is the difference ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179  | Next Page >