Search Results

Search found 33012 results on 1321 pages for 'method injection'.

Page 19/1321 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • In Ruby, why is a method invocation not able to be treated as a unit when "do" and "end" is used?

    - by Jian Lin
    The following question is related to the question "Ruby Print Inject Do Syntax". My question is, can we insist on using do and end and make it work with puts or p? This works: a = [1,2,3,4] b = a.inject do |sum, x| sum + x end puts b # prints out 10 so, is it correct to say, inject is an instance method of the Array object, and this instance method takes a block of code, and then returns a number. If so, then it should be no different from calling a function or method and getting back a return value: b = foo(3) puts b or b = circle.getRadius() puts b In the above two cases, we can directly say puts foo(3) puts circle.getRadius() so, there is no way to make it work directly by using the following 2 ways: a = [1,2,3,4] puts a.inject do |sum, x| sum + x end but it gives ch01q2.rb:7:in `inject': no block given (LocalJumpError) from ch01q2.rb:4:in `each' from ch01q2.rb:4:in `inject' from ch01q2.rb:4 grouping the method call using ( ) doesn't work either: a = [1,2,3,4] puts (a.inject do |sum, x| sum + x end) and this gives: ch01q3.rb:4: syntax error, unexpected kDO_BLOCK, expecting ')' puts (a.inject do |sum, x| ^ ch01q3.rb:4: syntax error, unexpected '|', expecting '=' puts (a.inject do |sum, x| ^ ch01q3.rb:6: syntax error, unexpected kEND, expecting $end end) ^ finally, the following version works: a = [1,2,3,4] puts a.inject { |sum, x| sum + x } but why doesn't the grouping of the method invocation using ( ) work in the earlier example? What if a programmer insist that he uses do and end, can it be made to work?

    Read the article

  • Call instance method with objc_msgSend

    - by user772349
    I'm trying to use the objc_msgSend method to call some method dynamically. Say I want call some method in Class B from Class A and there are two methods in class B like: - (void) instanceTestWithStr1:(NSString *)str1 str2:(NSString *)str1; + (void) methodTestWithStr1:(NSString *)str1 str2:(NSString *)str1; And I can call the class method like this in Class A successfully: objc_msgSend(objc_getClass("ClassB"), sel_registerName("methodTestWithStr1:str2:"), @"111", @"222"); And I can call the instance method like this in Class A successfully as well: objc_msgSend([[objc_getClass("ClassB") alloc] init], sel_registerName("instanceTestWithStr1:str2:"), @"111", @"222"); But the thing is to get a instance of Class B I have to call "initWithXXXXX:XXXXXX:XXXXXX" instead of "init" so that to pass some necessary parameters to class B to do the init stuff. So I stored a instance of ClassB in class A as variable: self.classBInstance = [[ClassB alloc] initWithXXXXX:XXXXXX:XXXXXX]; And then I call the method like this (successfully): The problem is, I want to call a method by simply applying the classname and the method sel like "ClassName" and "SEL" and then call it dynamically: If it's a class method. then call it like: objc_msgSend(objc_getClass("ClassName"), sel_registerName("SEL")); If it's a instance method, find the existing class instance variable in the calling class then: objc_msgSend([self.classInstance, sel_registerName("SEL")); So I want to know if there is any way to: Check if a class has a given method (I found "responseToSelector" will be the one) Check if a given method in class method or instance method (maybe can use responseToSelector as well) Check if a class has a instance variable of a given class So I can call a instance method like: objc_msgSend(objc_getClassInstance(self, "ClassB"), sel_registerName("SEL"));

    Read the article

  • Why not lump all service classes into a Factory method (instead of injecting interfaces)?

    - by Andrew
    We are building an ASP.NET project, and encapsulating all of our business logic in service classes. Some is in the domain objects, but generally those are rather anemic (due to the ORM we are using, that won't change). To better enable unit testing, we define interfaces for each service and utilize D.I.. E.g. here are a couple of the interfaces: IEmployeeService IDepartmentService IOrderService ... All of the methods in these services are basically groups of tasks, and the classes contain no private member variables (other than references to the dependent services). Before we worried about Unit Testing, we'd just declare all these classes as static and have them call each other directly. Now we'll set up the class like this if the service depends on other services: public EmployeeService : IEmployeeService { private readonly IOrderService _orderSvc; private readonly IDepartmentService _deptSvc; private readonly IEmployeeRepository _empRep; public EmployeeService(IOrderService orderSvc , IDepartmentService deptSvc , IEmployeeRepository empRep) { _orderSvc = orderSvc; _deptSvc = deptSvc; _empRep = empRep; } //methods down here } This really isn't usually a problem, but I wonder why not set up a factory class that we pass around instead? i.e. public ServiceFactory { virtual IEmployeeService GetEmployeeService(); virtual IDepartmentService GetDepartmentService(); virtual IOrderService GetOrderService(); } Then instead of calling: _orderSvc.CalcOrderTotal(orderId) we'd call _svcFactory.GetOrderService.CalcOrderTotal(orderid) What's the downfall of this method? It's still testable, it still allows us to use D.I. (and handle external dependencies like database contexts and e-mail senders via D.I. within and outside the factory), and it eliminates a lot of D.I. setup and consolidates dependencies more. Thanks for your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • Unit testing an MVC action method with a Cache dependency?

    - by Steve
    I’m relatively new to testing and MVC and came across a sticking point today. I’m attempting to test an action method that has a dependency on HttpContext.Current.Cache and wanted to know the best practice for achieving the “low coupling” to allow for easy testing. Here's what I've got so far... public class CacheHandler : ICacheHandler { public IList<Section3ListItem> StateList { get { return (List<Section3ListItem>)HttpContext.Current.Cache["StateList"]; } set { HttpContext.Current.Cache["StateList"] = value; } } ... I then access it like such... I'm using Castle for my IoC. public class ProfileController : ControllerBase { private readonly ISection3Repository _repository; private readonly ICacheHandler _cache; public ProfileController(ISection3Repository repository, ICacheHandler cacheHandler) { _repository = repository; _cache = cacheHandler; } [UserIdFilter] public ActionResult PersonalInfo(Guid userId) { if (_cache.StateList == null) _cache.StateList = _repository.GetLookupValues((int)ELookupKey.States).ToList(); ... Then in my unit tests I am able to mock up ICacheHandler. Would this be considered a 'best practice' and does anyone have any suggestions for other approaches? Thanks in advance. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Connect ViewModel and View using Unity

    - by brainbox
    In this post i want to describe the approach of connecting View and ViewModel which I'm using in my last project.The main idea is to do it during resolve inside of unity container. It can be achived using InjectionFactory introduced in Unity 2.0 public static class MVVMUnityExtensions{    public static void RegisterView<TView, TViewModel>(this IUnityContainer container) where TView : FrameworkElement    {        container.RegisterView<TView, TView, TViewModel>();    }    public static void RegisterView<TViewFrom, TViewTo, TViewModel>(this IUnityContainer container)        where TViewTo : FrameworkElement, TViewFrom    {        container.RegisterType<TViewFrom>(new InjectionFactory(            c =>            {                var model = c.Resolve<TViewModel>();                var view = Activator.CreateInstance<TViewTo>();                view.DataContext = model;                return view;            }         ));    }}}And here is the sample how it could be used:var unityContainer = new UnityContainer();unityContainer.RegisterView<IFooView, FooView, FooViewModel>();IFooView view = unityContainer.Resolve<IFooView>(); // view with injected viewmodel in its datacontextPlease tell me your prefered way to connect viewmodel and view.

    Read the article

  • UPK and the Oracle Unified Method can be used to deploy Oracle-Based Business Solutions

    - by Emily Chorba
    Originally developed to support Oracle's acquisition strategy, the Oracle Unified Method (OUM) defines a common implementation language across all of Oracle's products and technologies. OUM is a flexible, scalable, and evolving body of knowledge that combines existing best practices and field experience with an industry standard framework that includes the latest thinking around agile implementation and cloud computing.    Strong, proven methods are essential to ensuring successful enterprise IT projects both within Oracle and for our customers and partners. OUM provides a collection of repeatable processes that are the basis for agile implementations of Oracle enterprise business solutions. OUM also provides a structure for tracking progress and managing cost and risks. OUM is applicable to any size or type of IT project. While OUM is a plan-based method—including overview material, task and artifact descriptions, and templates—the method is intended to be tailored to support the appropriate level of ceremony (or agility) required for each project. Guidance is provided for identifying the minimum subset of tasks, tailoring the approach, executing iterative and incremental planning, and applying agile techniques, including support for managing projects using Scrum. Supplemental guidance provides specific support for Oracle products, such as UPK. OUM is available to Oracle employees, partners, and customers. Internal Use at Oracle: Employees can download OUM from MyDesktop. OUM Partner Program: OUM is available free of charge to Oracle PartnerNetwork (OPN) Diamond, Platinum, and Gold partners as a benefit of membership. These partners may download OUM from the Oracle Unified Method Knowledge Zone on OPN. OUM Customer Program: The OUM Customer Program allows customers to obtain copies of the method for their internal use by contracting with Oracle for a services engagement of two weeks or longer. Customers who have a signed contract with Oracle and meet the engagement qualification criteria as published on Customer tab of the OUM Website, are permitted to download the current release of OUM for their perpetual use. They may obtain subsequent releases published during a renewable, three-year access period To learn more about OUM, visit OUM Blog OUM on LinkedIn OUM on Twitter Emily Chorba, Principle Product Manager, Oracle User Productivity Kit

    Read the article

  • No input method choice appear on iBus

    - by phanect
    I've installed iBus and ibus-mozc, and an input method engine of Japanese from the repository, and attempted to enable mozc from Preference > "Input Method" tab > "Select Input Method" combo box. However, there is no choice to select, so I couldn't enable mozc. I also tried ibus-anthy, another legacy Japanese input method, but the situation was the same and I couldn't use anthy. Same problem is also occuring in openSUSE 12.1, so I don't think this is distribution-specific problem. In addition, this trouble also happened when I installed ibus-pynin, so this is not Japanese-specific. Any idea to find the cause of this trouble?

    Read the article

  • Default Parameters vs Method Overloading

    - by João Angelo
    With default parameters introduced in C# 4.0 one might be tempted to abandon the old approach of providing method overloads to simulate default parameters. However, you must take in consideration that both techniques are not interchangeable since they show different behaviors in certain scenarios. For me the most relevant difference is that default parameters are a compile time feature while method overloading is a runtime feature. To illustrate these concepts let’s take a look at a complete, although a bit long, example. What you need to retain from the example is that static method Foo uses method overloading while static method Bar uses C# 4.0 default parameters. static void CreateCallerAssembly(string name) { // Caller class - Invokes Example.Foo() and Example.Bar() string callerCode = String.Concat( "using System;", "public class Caller", "{", " public void Print()", " {", " Console.WriteLine(Example.Foo());", " Console.WriteLine(Example.Bar());", " }", "}"); var parameters = new CompilerParameters(new[] { "system.dll", "Common.dll" }, name); new CSharpCodeProvider().CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, callerCode); } static void Main() { // Example class - Foo uses overloading while Bar uses C# 4.0 default parameters string exampleCode = String.Concat( "using System;", "public class Example", "{{", " public static string Foo() {{ return Foo(\"{0}\"); }}", " public static string Foo(string key) {{ return \"FOO-\" + key; }}", " public static string Bar(string key = \"{0}\") {{ return \"BAR-\" + key; }}", "}}"); var compiler = new CSharpCodeProvider(); var parameters = new CompilerParameters(new[] { "system.dll" }, "Common.dll"); // Build Common.dll with default value of "V1" compiler.CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, String.Format(exampleCode, "V1")); // Caller1 built against Common.dll that uses a default of "V1" CreateCallerAssembly("Caller1.dll"); // Rebuild Common.dll with default value of "V2" compiler.CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, String.Format(exampleCode, "V2")); // Caller2 built against Common.dll that uses a default of "V2" CreateCallerAssembly("Caller2.dll"); dynamic caller1 = Assembly.LoadFrom("Caller1.dll").CreateInstance("Caller"); dynamic caller2 = Assembly.LoadFrom("Caller2.dll").CreateInstance("Caller"); Console.WriteLine("Caller1.dll:"); caller1.Print(); Console.WriteLine("Caller2.dll:"); caller2.Print(); } And if you run this code you will get the following output: // Caller1.dll: // FOO-V2 // BAR-V1 // Caller2.dll: // FOO-V2 // BAR-V2 You see that even though Caller1.dll runs against the current Common.dll assembly where method Bar defines a default value of “V2″ the output show us the default value defined at the time Caller1.dll compiled against the first version of Common.dll. This happens because the compiler will copy the current default value to each method call, much in the same way a constant value (const keyword) is copied to a calling assembly and changes to it’s value will only be reflected if you rebuild the calling assembly again. The use of default parameters is also discouraged by Microsoft in public API’s as stated in (CA1026: Default parameters should not be used) code analysis rule.

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture and MEF composition location

    - by Leonardo
    Introduction My software (a bunch of webapi's) consist of 4 projects: Core, FrontWebApi, Library and Administration. Library is a code library project that consists of only interfaces and enumerators. All my classes in other projects inherit from at least one interface, and this interface is in the library. Generally speaking, my interfaces define either Entities, Repositories or Controllers. This project references no other project or any special dlls... just the regular .Net stuff... Core is a class-library project where concrete implementation of Entities and Repositories. In some cases i have more than 1 implementation for a Repository (ex: one for azure table storage and one for regular Sql). This project handles the intelligence (business rules mostly) and persistence, and it references only the Library. FrontWebApi is a ASP.NET MVC 4 WebApi project that implements the controllers interfaces to handle web-requests (from a mobile native app)... It references the Core and the Library. Administration is a code-library project that represents a "optional-module", meaning: if it is present, it provides extra-features (such as Access Control Lists) to the application, but if its not, no problem. Administration is also only referencing the Library and implementing concrete classes of a few interfaces such as "IAccessControlEntry"... I intend to make this available with a "setup" that will create any required database table or anything like that. But it is important to notice that the Core has no reference to this project... Development Now, in order to have a decoupled code I decide to use IoC and because this is a small project, I decided to do it using MEF, specially because of its advertised "composition" capabilities. I arranged all the imports/exports and constructors and everything, but something is quite not perfect in my "mental-visualisation": Main Question Where should I "Compose" the objects? I mean: Technically, the only place where real implementation access is required is in the Repositories, because in order to retrieve data from wherever, entities instances will be necessary, and in all other places. The repositories could also provide a public "GetCleanInstanceOf()" right? Then all other places will be just fine working with the interfaces instead of concrete classes... Secondary Question Should "Administration" implement the concrete object for "IAccessControlGeneralRepository" or the Core should?

    Read the article

  • Method flags as arguments or as member variables?

    - by Martin
    I think the title "Method flags as arguments or as member variables?" may be suboptimal, but as I'm missing any better terminology atm., here goes: I'm currently trying to get my head around the problem of whether flags for a given class (private) method should be passed as function arguments or via member variable and/or whether there is some pattern or name that covers this aspect and/or whether this hints at some other design problems. By example (language could be C++, Java, C#, doesn't really matter IMHO): class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff(FlagType calcSelect) { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (calcSelect == typeA) { ... } else if (calcSelect == typeX) { ... } else if ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker(FlagType calcSelect) { ... DoInternalStuff(calcSelect); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... InternalStuffInvoker(typeA); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(typeX); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } What we see above is that the method InternalStuffInvoker takes an argument that is not used inside this function at all but is only forwarded to the other private method DoInternalStuff. (Where DoInternalStuffwill be used privately at other places in this class, e.g. in the DoThatStuff (public) method.) An alternative solution would be to add a member variable that carries this information: class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff() { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (m_calcSelect == typeA) { ... } ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker() { ... DoInternalStuff(); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeA; InternalStuffInvoker(); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeX; ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } Especially for deep call chains where the selector-flag for the inner method is selected outside, using a member variable can make the intermediate functions cleaner, as they don't need to carry a pass-through parameter. On the other hand, this member variable isn't really representing any object state (as it's neither set nor available outside), but is really a hidden additional argument for the "inner" private method. What are the pros and cons of each approach?

    Read the article

  • Why the R# Method Group Refactoring is Evil

    - by Liam McLennan
    The refactoring I’m talking about is recommended by resharper when it sees a lambda that consists entirely of a method call that is passed the object that is the parameter to the lambda. Here is an example: public class IWishIWasAScriptingLanguage { public void SoIWouldntNeedAllThisJunk() { (new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 4}).Select(n => IsEven(n)); } private bool IsEven(int number) { return number%2 == 0; } } When resharper gets to n => IsEven(n) it underlines the lambda with a green squiggly telling me that the code can be replaced with a method group. If I apply the refactoring the code becomes: public class IWishIWasAScriptingLanguage { public void SoIWouldntNeedAllThisJunk() { (new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 4}).Select(IsEven); } private bool IsEven(int number) { return number%2 == 0; } } The method group syntax implies that the lambda’s parameter is the same as the IsEven method’s parameter. So a readable, explicit syntax has been replaced with an obfuscated, implicit syntax. That is why the method group refactoring is evil.

    Read the article

  • Representing complex object dependencies

    - by max
    I have several classes with a reasonably complex (but acyclic) dependency graph. All the dependencies are of the form: class X instance contains an attribute of class Y. All such attributes are set during initialization and never changed again. Each class' constructor has just a couple parameters, and each object knows the proper parameters to pass to the constructors of the objects it contains. class Outer is at the top of the dependency hierarchy, i.e., no class depends on it. Currently, the UI layer only creates an Outer instance; the parameters for Outer constructor are derived from the user input. Of course, Outer in the process of initialization, creates the objects it needs, which in turn create the objects they need, and so on. The new development is that the a user who knows the dependency graph may want to reach deep into it, and set the values of some of the arguments passed to constructors of the inner classes (essentially overriding the values used currently). How should I change the design to support this? I could keep the current approach where all the inner classes are created by the classes that need them. In this case, the information about "user overrides" would need to be passed to Outer class' constructor in some complex user_overrides structure. Perhaps user_overrides could be the full logical representation of the dependency graph, with the overrides attached to the appropriate edges. Outer class would pass user_overrides to every object it creates, and they would do the same. Each object, before initializing lower level objects, will find its location in that graph and check if the user requested an override to any of the constructor arguments. Alternatively, I could rewrite all the objects' constructors to take as parameters the full objects they require. Thus, the creation of all the inner objects would be moved outside the whole hierarchy, into a new controller layer that lies between Outer and UI layer. The controller layer would essentially traverse the dependency graph from the bottom, creating all the objects as it goes. The controller layer would have to ask the higher-level objects for parameter values for the lower-level objects whenever the relevant parameter isn't provided by the user. Neither approach looks terribly simple. Is there any other approach? Has this problem come up enough in the past to have a pattern that I can read about? I'm using Python, but I don't think it matters much at the design level.

    Read the article

  • Java's Object.wait method with nanoseconds: Is this a joke or am I missing something

    - by Krumia
    I was checking out the Java API source code (Java 8) just out of curiosity. And I found this in java/lang/Object.java. There are three methods named wait: public final native void wait(long timeout): This is the core of all wait methods, which has a native implementation. public final void wait(): Just calls wait(0). And then there is public final void wait(long timeout, int nanos). The JavaDoc for the particular method tells me that, This method is similar to the wait method of one argument, but it allows finer control over the amount of time to wait for a notification before giving up. The amount of real time, measured in nanoseconds, is given by: 1000000*timeout+nanos But this is how the methods achieves "finer control over the amount of time to wait": if (nanos >= 500000 || (nanos != 0 && timeout == 0)) { timeout++; } wait(timeout); So this method basically does a crude rounding up of nanoseconds to milliseconds. Not to mention that anything below 500000ns/0.5ms will be ignored. Is this piece of code bad/unnecessary code, or am I missing some unseen virtue of declaring this method, and it's no argument cousin as the way they are?

    Read the article

  • Factory for arrays of objects in python

    - by Vorac
    Ok, the title might be a little misleading. I have a Window class that draws widgets inside itself in the constructor. The widgets are all of the same type. So I pass a list of dictionaries, which contain the parameters for each widget. This works quite nicely, but I am worried that the interface to callers is obfuscated. That is, in order to use Window, one has to study the class, construct a correct list of dictionaries, and then call the constructor with only one parameter - widgets_params. Is this good or bad design? What alternatives does the python syntax provide?

    Read the article

  • Pooling (Singleton) Objects Against Connection Pools

    - by kolossus
    Given the following scenario A canned enterprise application that maintains its own connection pool A homegrown client application to the enterprise app. This app is built using Spring framework, with the DAO pattern While I may have a simplistic view of this, I think the following line of thinking is sound: Having a fixed pool of DAO objects, holding on to connection objects from the pool. Clearly, the pool should be capable of scaling up (or down depending on need) and the connection objects must outnumber the DAOs by a healthy margin. Good Instantiating brand new DAOs for every request to access the enterprise app; each DAO will attempt to grab a connection from the pool and release it when it's done. Bad Since these are service objects, there will be no (mutable) state held by the objects (reduced risk of concurrency issues) I also think that with #1, there should be little to no resource contention, while in #2, there'll almost always be a DAO waiting to be serviced. Is my thinking correct and what could go wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to dynamically override a method in an object

    - by Ace Takwas
    If this is possible, how can I change what a method does after I might have created an instance of that class and wish to keep the reference to that object but override a public method in it's class' definition? Here's my code: package time_applet; public class TimerGroup implements Runnable{ private Timer hour, min, sec; private Thread hourThread, minThread, secThread; public TimerGroup(){ hour = new HourTimer(); min = new MinuteTimer(); sec = new SecondTimer(); } public void run(){ hourThread.start(); minThread.start(); secThread.start(); } /*Please pay close attention to this method*/ private Timer activateHourTimer(int start_time){ hour = new HourTimer(start_time){ public void run(){ while (true){ if(min.changed)//min.getTime() == 0) changeTime(); } } }; hourThread = new Thread(hour); return hour; } private Timer activateMinuteTimer(int start_time){ min = new MinuteTimer(start_time){ public void run(){ while (true){ if(sec.changed)//sec.getTime() == 0) changeTime(); } } }; minThread = new Thread(min); return min; } private Timer activateSecondTimer(int start_time){ sec = new SecondTimer(start_time); secThread = new Thread(sec); return sec; } public Timer addTimer(Timer timer){ if (timer instanceof HourTimer){ hour = timer; return activateHourTimer(timer.getTime()); } else if (timer instanceof MinuteTimer){ min = timer; return activateMinuteTimer(timer.getTime()); } else{ sec = timer; return activateSecondTimer(timer.getTime()); } } } So for example in the method activateHourTimer(), I would like to override the run() method of the hour object without having to create a new object. How do I go about that?

    Read the article

  • Fixing a spelling mistake in a method name

    - by One Two Three
    One of the methods that I commonly use in our codebase is misspelled (and it predated me). This really irritates me not simply because it is mispelled but more importantly it makes me ALWAYS get the method name wrong the first time I type it (and then I have to remember "Oh, right, it should be mispelled to this...") I'm making a few changes around the original method. Should I take the opportunity to just rename the freaking method?

    Read the article

  • fixing spelling mistake in method name

    - by One Two Three
    One of the methods that I commonly use in our codebase is misspelled (and it predated me). This really irritates me not simply because it is mispelled but more importantly it makes me ALWAYS get the method name wrong the first time I type it (and then I have to remember "Oh, right, it should be mispelled to this...") I'm making a few changes around the original method. Should I take the opportunity to just rename the freaking method?

    Read the article

  • What are the best practices to use NHiberante sessions in asp.net (mvc/web api) ?

    - by mrt181
    I have the following setup in my project: public class WebApiApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication { public static ISessionFactory SessionFactory { get; private set; } public WebApiApplication() { this.BeginRequest += delegate { var session = SessionFactory.OpenSession(); CurrentSessionContext.Bind(session); }; this.EndRequest += delegate { var session = SessionFactory.GetCurrentSession(); if (session == null) { return; } session = CurrentSessionContext.Unbind(SessionFactory); session.Dispose(); }; } protected void Application_Start() { AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas(); FilterConfig.RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilters.Filters); RouteConfig.RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes); BundleConfig.RegisterBundles(BundleTable.Bundles); var assembly = Assembly.GetCallingAssembly(); SessionFactory = new NHibernateHelper(assembly, Server.MapPath("/")).SessionFactory; } } public class PositionsController : ApiController { private readonly ISession session; public PositionsController() { this.session = WebApiApplication.SessionFactory.GetCurrentSession(); } public IEnumerable<Position> Get() { var result = this.session.Query<Position>().Cacheable().ToList(); if (!result.Any()) { throw new HttpResponseException(new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NotFound)); } return result; } public HttpResponseMessage Post(PositionDataTransfer dto) { //TODO: Map dto to model IEnumerable<Position> positions = null; using (var transaction = this.session.BeginTransaction()) { this.session.SaveOrUpdate(positions); try { transaction.Commit(); } catch (StaleObjectStateException) { if (transaction != null && transaction.IsActive) { transaction.Rollback(); } } } var response = this.Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, dto); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(this.Request.RequestUri.AbsoluteUri + "/" + dto.Name); return response; } public void Put(int id, string value) { //TODO: Implement PUT throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void Delete(int id) { //TODO: Implement DELETE throw new NotImplementedException(); } } I am not sure if this is the recommended way to insert the session into the controller. I was thinking about using DI but i am not sure how to inject the session that is opened and binded in the BeginRequest delegate into the Controllers constructor to get this public PositionsController(ISession session) { this.session = session; } Question: What is the recommended way to use NHiberante sessions in asp.net mvc/web api ?

    Read the article

  • Multiple Zend application code organisation

    - by user966936
    For the past year I have been working on a series of applications all based on the Zend framework and centered on a complex business logic that all applications must have access to even if they don't use all (easier than having multiple library folders for each application as they are all linked together with a common center). Without going into much detail about what the project is specifically about, I am looking for some input (as I am working on the project alone) on how I have "grouped" my code. I have tried to split it all up in such a way that it removes dependencies as much as possible. I'm trying to keep it as decoupled as I logically can, so in 12 months time when my time is up anyone else coming in can have no problem extending on what I have produced. Example structure: applicationStorage\ (contains all applications and associated data) applicationStorage\Applications\ (contains the applications themselves) applicationStorage\Applications\external\ (application grouping folder) (contains all external customer access applications) applicationStorage\Applications\external\site\ (main external customer access application) applicationStorage\Applications\external\site\Modules\ applicationStorage\Applications\external\site\Config\ applicationStorage\Applications\external\site\Layouts\ applicationStorage\Applications\external\site\ZendExtended\ (contains extended Zend classes specific to this application example: ZendExtended_Controller_Action extends zend_controller_Action ) applicationStorage\Applications\external\mobile\ (mobile external customer access application different workflow limited capabilities compared to full site version) applicationStorage\Applications\internal\ (application grouping folder) (contains all internal company applications) applicationStorage\Applications\internal\site\ (main internal application) applicationStorage\Applications\internal\mobile\ (mobile access has different flow and limited abilities compared to main site version) applicationStorage\Tests\ (contains PHP unit tests) applicationStorage\Library\ applicationStorage\Library\Service\ (contains all business logic, services and servicelocator; these are completely decoupled from Zend framework and rely on models' interfaces) applicationStorage\Library\Zend\ (Zend framework) applicationStorage\Library\Models\ (doesn't know services but is linked to Zend framework for DB operations; contains model interfaces and model datamappers for all business objects; examples include Iorder/IorderMapper, Iworksheet/IWorksheetMapper, Icustomer/IcustomerMapper) (Note: the Modules, Config, Layouts and ZendExtended folders are duplicated in each application folder; but i have omitted them as they are not required for my purposes.) For the library this contains all "universal" code. The Zend framework is at the heart of all applications, but I wanted my business logic to be Zend-framework-independent. All model and mapper interfaces have no public references to Zend_Db but actually wrap around it in private. So my hope is that in the future I will be able to rewrite the mappers and dbtables (containing a Models_DbTable_Abstract that extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract) in order to decouple my business logic from the Zend framework if I want to move my business logic (services) to a non-Zend framework environment (maybe some other PHP framework). Using a serviceLocator and registering the required services within the bootstrap of each application, I can use different versions of the same service depending on the request and which application is being accessed. Example: all external applications will have a service_auth_External implementing service_auth_Interface registered. Same with internal aplications with Service_Auth_Internal implementing service_auth_Interface Service_Locator::getService('Auth'). I'm concerned I may be missing some possible problems with this. One I'm half-thinking about is a config.ini file for all externals, then a separate application config.ini overriding or adding to the global external config.ini. If anyone has any suggestions I would be greatly appreciative. I have used contextswitching for AJAX functions within the individual applications, but there is a big chance both external and internal will get web services created for them. Again, these will be separated due to authorization and different available services. \applicationstorage\Applications\internal\webservice \applicationstorage\Applications\external\webservice

    Read the article

  • Pass structure as an argument in c# method

    - by MegaMind
    I want to know if it is possible to pass a Structure as a parameter in c# method and if possible, is it a good practice to do so? I have a c# method which is taking six arguments, i really hate that. I could create a carrier class for that and pass it as an argument, but i want to know if structure could do the job. I want to mention here that few arguments to that method are of ref type and few are of value type.

    Read the article

  • SQL Injection Protection for dynamic queries

    - by jbugeja
    The typical controls against SQL injection flaws are to use bind variables (cfqueryparam tag), validation of string data and to turn to stored procedures for the actual SQL layer. This is all fine and I agree, however what if the site is a legacy one and it features a lot of dynamic queries. Then, rewriting all the queries is a herculean task and it requires an extensive period of regression and performance testing. I was thinking of using a dynamic SQL filter and calling it prior to calling cfquery for the actual execution. I found one filter in CFLib.org (http://www.cflib.org/udf/sqlSafe): <cfscript> /** * Cleans string of potential sql injection. * * @param string String to modify. (Required) * @return Returns a string. * @author Bryan Murphy ([email protected]) * @version 1, May 26, 2005 */ function metaguardSQLSafe(string) { var sqlList = "-- ,'"; var replacementList = "#chr(38)##chr(35)##chr(52)##chr(53)##chr(59)##chr(38)##chr(35)##chr(52)##chr(53)##chr(59)# , #chr(38)##chr(35)##chr(51)##chr(57)##chr(59)#"; return trim(replaceList( string , sqlList , replacementList )); } </cfscript> This seems to be quite a simple filter and I would like to know if there are ways to improve it or to come up with a better solution?

    Read the article

  • presentModalViewController does not want to work when called from a protocol method

    - by johnbdh
    I have a subview that when double tapped a protocol method on the subview's parent view controller is called like this... - (void)touchesEnded:(NSSet *)touches withEvent:(UIEvent *)event { UITouch *theTouch = [touches anyObject]; if (theTouch.tapCount == 1) { } else if (theTouch.tapCount == 2) { if ([self.delegate respondsToSelector:@selector(editEvent:)]) { [self.delegate editEvent:dictionary]; } } } Here is the protocol method with the dictionary consuming code removed... - (void)editEvent:(NSDictionary){ EventEditViewController *eventEditViewController = [[EventEditViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"EventEditViewController" bundle:nil]; eventEditViewController.delegate = self; navigationController = [[UINavigationController alloc] initWithRootViewController:eventEditViewController]; [self presentModalViewController:navigationController animated:YES]; [eventEditViewController release]; } The protocol method is called and runs without any errors but the modal view does not present itself. I temporarily copied the protocol method's code to an IBAction method for one of the parent's view button's to isolate it from the subview. When I tap this button the modal view works fine. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? Why does it work when executed from a button on the parent view, and not from a protocol method called from a subview. Here is what I have tried so far to work around the problem... Restarted xCode and the simulator Ran on the device (iTouch) Presenting eventEditViewController instead of navigationController Using Push instead of presentModal. delaying the call to the protocol with performSelector directly to the protocol, to another method in the subview which calls the protocol method, from the protocol method to another method with the presentModal calls. Using a timer. I have it currently setup so that the protocol method calls a known working method that presents a different view. Before calling presentModalViewController it pops a UIAlertView which works every time, but the modal view refuses to display when called via the protocol method. I'm stumped. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I am calling the protocol method from a UIView class instead of a UIViewController class. Maybe I need to create a UIViewController for the subView?? Thanks, John

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >