Search Results

Search found 24898 results on 996 pages for 'javascript injection'.

Page 2/996 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Has Javascript developed beyond what it was originally designed to do?

    - by Elliot Bonneville
    I've been talking with a friend about the purpose of Javascript, when and how it should be used, etc. He quoted that: JavaScript was designed to add interactivity to HTML pages [...] JavaScript gives HTML designers a programming tool HTML authors are normally not programmers, but JavaScript is a scripting language with a very simple syntax! Almost anyone can put small "snippets" of code into their HTML pages JavaScript can react to events A JavaScript can be set to execute when something happens, like when a page has finished loading or when a user clicks on an HTML element JavaScript can read and write HTML elements A JavaScript can read and change the content of an HTML element JavaScript can be used to validate data A JavaScript can be used to validate form data before it is submitted to a server. This saves the server from extra processing JavaScript can be used to detect the visitor's browser - A JavaScript can be used to detect the visitor's browser, and - depending on the browser - load another page specifically designed for that browser. JavaScript can be used to create cookies - A JavaScript can be used to store and retrieve information on the visitor's computer. However, it seems like Javascript's getting used to do a lot more than these days. My friend also advocates against using Javascript's OOP functionality, claiming that "you shouldn't be processing data, merely validating." Is Javascript really limited to validating data and making flashy graphics on a web page? He goes on to claim "you shouldn't be attempting to access databases through javascript" and also says " in general you don't want to be doing your heavy lifting in javascript". I can't say I agree with his opinion, but I'd like to get some more input on this. So, my question: Has Javascript evolved from the definition above to something more powerful, has the way we use it changed, or am I just plain wrong? While I realize this is a subjective question, I can't find any more information on it, so a few links would be good, if nothing else. I'm not looking for a debate, just an answer.

    Read the article

  • Is there a javascript library that contains a rich set of very high level commonly used functions?

    - by bobo
    I find that many high level functions are missing in most well-known javascript libraries such as jquery, YUI...etc. Taking string manipulation as an example, startsWith, endsWith, contains, lTrim, rTrim, trim, isNullOrEmpty...etc. These function are actually very common ones. I would like to know if there exists a javascript library/ plugin of a javascript library that fills these gaps (including but not limited to string manipulation)? It would be great if the library does not override the prototype.

    Read the article

  • Gradual approaches to dependency injection

    - by JW01
    I'm working on making my classes unit-testable, using dependency injection. But some of these classes have a lot of clients, and I'm not ready to refactor all of them to start passing in the dependencies yet. So I'm trying to do it gradually; keeping the default dependencies for now, but allowing them to be overridden for testing. One approach I'm conisdering is just moving all the "new" calls into their own methods, e.g.: public MyObject createMyObject(args) { return new MyObject(args); } Then in my unit tests, I can just subclass this class, and override the create functions, so they create fake objects instead. Is this a good approach? Are there any disadvantages? More generally, is it okay to have hard-coded dependencies, as long as you can replace them for testing? I know the preferred approach is to explicitly require them in the constructor, and I'd like to get there eventually. But I'm wondering if this is a good first step.

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection Confusion

    - by James
    I think I have a decent grasp of what Dependency Inversion principle (DIP) is, my confusion is more around dependency injection. My understanding is the whole point of DI is to decouple parts of an application, to allow changes in one part without effecting another, assuming the interface does not change. For examples sake, we have this public class MyClass(IMyInterface interface) { public MyClass { interface.DoSomething(); } } public interface IMyInterface { void DoSomething(); } How is this var iocContainer = new UnityContainer(); iocContainer.Resolve<MyClass>(); better practice than doing this //if multiple implementations are possible, could use a factory here. IMyInterface interface = new InterfaceImplementation(); var myClass = new MyClass(interface); It may be I am missing a very important point, but I am failing to see what is gained. I am aware that using an IOC container I can easily handle an objects life cycle, which is a +1 but I don't think that is core to what IOC is about.

    Read the article

  • Where should I put bindings for dependency injection?

    - by Mike G
    I'm new to dependency injection and though I've really liked it so far, I'm not sure where bindings should go. I'm using Guice in Java, so some of what I say might be specific to just Guice. As I see it, there's two options: Accompanying the class(s) its needed for. Then, just write install(OtherClassModule.class) in whatever other modules want to be able to use said class. As I see it, the advantage of this is that classes that want to use it (or manage classes that want to use it) don't need to know any of the implementation detail. The issue I see is that what if two classes want to use two different versions of the same class? There's a lot of customization possible because of DI and this seems to restrict it a lot. Implemented in the module of the class(s) its needed for. It's the flip of what I said above. Now you have customization, but not encapsulation. Is there a third option? Am I misunderstanding something obvious? What's the best practice?

    Read the article

  • Acceptable placement of the composition root using dependency injection and inversion of control containers

    - by Lumirris
    I've read in several sources including Mark Seemann's 'Ploeh' blog about how the appropriate placement of the composition root of an IoC container is as close as possible to the entry point of an application. In the .NET world, these applications seem to be commonly thought of as Web projects, WPF projects, console applications, things with a typical UI (read: not library projects). Is it really going against this sage advice to place the composition root at the entry point of a library project, when it represents the logical entry point of a group of library projects, and the client of a project group such as this is someone else's work, whose author can't or won't add the composition root to their project (a UI project or yet another library project, even)? I'm familiar with Ninject as an IoC container implementation, but I imagine many others work the same way in that they can scan for a module containing all the necessary binding configurations. This means I could put a binding module in its own library project to compile with my main library project's output, and if the client wanted to change the configuration (an unlikely scenario in my case), they could drop in a replacement dll to replace the library with the binding module. This seems to avoid the most common clients having to deal with dependency injection and composition roots at all, and would make for the cleanest API for the library project group. Yet this seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom on the issue. Is it just that most of the advice out there makes the assumption that the developer has some coordination with the development of the UI project(s) as well, rather than my case, in which I'm just developing libraries for others to use?

    Read the article

  • Desktop application, dependency injection

    - by liori
    I am thinking of applying a real dependency injection library to my toy C#/GTK# desktop application. I chose NInject, but I think this is irrelevant to my question. There is a database object, a main window and several utility window classes. It's clear that I can inject the database into every window object, so here DI is useful. But does it make sense to inject utility window classes into other window classes? Example: I have classes such as: class MainWindow {…} class AddItemWindow {…} class AddAttachmentWindow {…} class BrowseItemsWindow {…} class QueryBuilderWindow {…} class QueryBrowserWindow {…} class PreferencesWindow {…} … Each of the utility classes can be opened from MainWindow. Some utility windows can also be opened from other utility windows. Generally, there might be a really complex graph of who can open whom. So each of those classes might need quite a lot of other window classes injected. I'm worried that such usage will go against the suggestion not to inject too many classes at once and become a code smell. Should I use some kind of a service locator object here?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection and method signatures

    - by sunwukung
    I've been using YADIF (yet another dependency injection framework) in a PHP/Zend app I'm working on to handle dependencies. This has achieved some notable benefits in terms of testing and decoupling classes. However,one thing that strikes me is that despite the sleight of hand performed when using this technique, the method names impart a degree of coupling. Probably not the best example -but these methods are distinct from ... say the PEAR Mailer. The method names themselves are a (subtle) form of coupling //example public function __construct($dic){ $this->dic = $dic; } public function example(){ //this line in itself indicates the YADIF origin of the DIC $Mail= $dic->getComponent('mail'); $Mail->setBodyText($body); $Mail->setFrom($from); $Mail->setSubject($subject); } I could write a series of proxies/wrappers to hide these methods and thus promote decoupling from , but this seems a bit excessive. You have to balance purity with pragmatism... How far would you go to hide the dependencies in your classes?

    Read the article

  • How do I convert some ugly inline javascript into a function?

    - by Taylor
    I've got a form with various inputs that by default have no value. When a user changes one or more of the inputs all values including the blank ones are used in the URL GET string when submitted. So to clean it up I've got some javascript that removes the inputs before submission. It works well enough but I was wondering how to put this in a js function or tidy it up. Seems a bit messy to have it all clumped in to an onclick. Plus i'm going to be adding more so there will be quite a few. Here's the relevant code. There are 3 seperate lines for 3 seperate inputs. The first part of the line has a value that refers to the inputs ID ("mf","cf","bf","pf") and the second part of the line refers to the parent div ("dmf","dcf", etc). The first part is an example of the input structure... echo "<div id='dmf'><select id='mf' name='mFilter'>"; This part is the submit and js... echo "<input type='submit' value='Apply' onclick='javascript: if (document.getElementById(\"mf\").value==\"\") { document.getElementById(\"dmf\").innerHTML=\"\"; } if (document.getElementById(\"cf\").value==\"\") { document.getElementById(\"dcf\").innerHTML=\"\"; } if (document.getElementById(\"bf\").value==\"\") { document.getElementById(\"dbf\").innerHTML=\"\"; } if (document.getElementById(\"pf\").value==\"\") { document.getElementById(\"dpf\").innerHTML=\"\"; } ' />"; I have pretty much zero javascript knowledge so help turning this in to a neater function or similar would be much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Constructor Injection and when to use a Service Locator

    - by Simon
    I'm struggling to understand parts of StructureMap's usage. In particular, in the documentation a statement is made regarding a common anti-pattern, the use of StructureMap as a Service Locator only instead of constructor injection (code samples straight from Structuremap documentation): public ShippingScreenPresenter() { _service = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IShippingService>(); _repository = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IRepository>(); } instead of: public ShippingScreenPresenter(IShippingService service, IRepository repository) { _service = service; _repository = repository; } This is fine for a very short object graph, but when dealing with objects many levels deep, does this imply that you should pass down all the dependencies required by the deeper objects right from the top? Surely this breaks encapsulation and exposes too much information about the implementation of deeper objects. Let's say I'm using the Active Record pattern, so my record needs access to a data repository to be able to save and load itself. If this record is loaded inside an object, does that object call ObjectFactory.CreateInstance() and pass it into the active record's constructor? What if that object is inside another object. Does it take the IRepository in as its own parameter from further up? That would expose to the parent object the fact that we're access the data repository at this point, something the outer object probably shouldn't know. public class OuterClass { public OuterClass(IRepository repository) { // Why should I know that ThingThatNeedsRecord needs a repository? // that smells like exposed implementation to me, especially since // ThingThatNeedsRecord doesn't use the repo itself, but passes it // to the record. // Also where do I create repository? Have to instantiate it somewhere // up the chain of objects ThingThatNeedsRecord thing = new ThingThatNeedsRecord(repository); thing.GetAnswer("question"); } } public class ThingThatNeedsRecord { public ThingThatNeedsRecord(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public string GetAnswer(string someParam) { // create activeRecord(s) and process, returning some result // part of which contains: ActiveRecord record = new ActiveRecord(repository, key); } private IRepository repository; } public class ActiveRecord { public ActiveRecord(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public ActiveRecord(IRepository repository, int primaryKey); { this.repositry = repository; Load(primaryKey); } public void Save(); private void Load(int primaryKey) { this.primaryKey = primaryKey; // access the database via the repository and set someData } private IRepository repository; private int primaryKey; private string someData; } Any thoughts would be appreciated. Simon

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection with n-tier Entity Framework solution

    - by Matthew
    I am currently designing an n-tier solution which is using Entity Framework 5 (.net 4) as its data access strategy, but am concerned about how to incorporate dependency injection to make it testable / flexible. My current solution layout is as follows (my solution is called Alcatraz): Alcatraz.WebUI: An asp.net webform project, the front end user interface, references projects Alcatraz.Business and Alcatraz.Data.Models. Alcatraz.Business: A class library project, contains the business logic, references projects Alcatraz.Data.Access, Alcatraz.Data.Models Alcatraz.Data.Access: A class library project, houses AlcatrazModel.edmx and AlcatrazEntities DbContext, references projects Alcatraz.Data.Models. Alcatraz.Data.Models: A class library project, contains POCOs for the Alcatraz model, no references. My vision for how this solution would work is the web-ui would instantiate a repository within the business library, this repository would have a dependency (through the constructor) of a connection string (not an AlcatrazEntities instance). The web-ui would know the database connection strings, but not that it was an entity framework connection string. In the Business project: public class InmateRepository : IInmateRepository { private string _connectionString; public InmateRepository(string connectionString) { if (connectionString == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("connectionString"); } EntityConnectionStringBuilder connectionBuilder = new EntityConnectionStringBuilder(); connectionBuilder.Metadata = "res://*/AlcatrazModel.csdl|res://*/AlcatrazModel.ssdl|res://*/AlcatrazModel.msl"; connectionBuilder.Provider = "System.Data.SqlClient"; connectionBuilder.ProviderConnectionString = connectionString; _connectionString = connectionBuilder.ToString(); } public IQueryable<Inmate> GetAllInmates() { AlcatrazEntities ents = new AlcatrazEntities(_connectionString); return ents.Inmates; } } In the Web UI: IInmateRepository inmateRepo = new InmateRepository(@"data source=MATTHEW-PC\SQLEXPRESS;initial catalog=Alcatraz;integrated security=True;"); List<Inmate> deathRowInmates = inmateRepo.GetAllInmates().Where(i => i.OnDeathRow).ToList(); I have a few related questions about this design. 1) Does this design even make sense in terms of Entity Frameworks capabilities? I heard that Entity framework uses the Unit-of-work pattern already, am I just adding another layer of abstract unnecessarily? 2) I don't want my web-ui to directly communicate with Entity Framework (or even reference it for that matter), I want all database access to go through the business layer as in the future I will have multiple projects using the same business layer (web service, windows application, etc.) and I want to have it easy to maintain / update by having the business logic in one central area. Is this an appropriate way to achieve this? 3) Should the Business layer even contain repositories, or should that be contained within the Access layer? If where they are is alright, is passing a connection string a good dependency to assume? Thanks for taking the time to read!

    Read the article

  • How to handle "circular dependency" in dependency injection

    - by Roel
    The title says "Circular Dependency", but it is not the correct wording, because to me the design seems solid. However, consider the following scenario, where the blue parts are given from external partner, and orange is my own implementation. Also assume there is more then one ConcreteMain, but I want to use a specific one. (In reality, each class has some more dependencies, but I tried to simplify it here) I would like to instanciate all of this with Depency Injection (Unity), but I obviously get a StackOverflowException on the following code, because Runner tries to instantiate ConcreteMain, and ConcreteMain needs a Runner. IUnityContainer ioc = new UnityContainer(); ioc.RegisterType<IMain, ConcreteMain>() .RegisterType<IMainCallback, Runner>(); var runner = ioc.Resolve<Runner>(); How can I avouid this? Is there any way to structure this so that I can use it with DI? The scenario I'm doing now is setting everything up manually, but that puts a hard dependency on ConcreteMain in the class which instantiates it. This is what i'm trying to avoid (with Unity registrations in configuration). All source code below (very simplified example!); public class Program { public static void Main(string[] args) { IUnityContainer ioc = new UnityContainer(); ioc.RegisterType<IMain, ConcreteMain>() .RegisterType<IMainCallback, Runner>(); var runner = ioc.Resolve<Runner>(); Console.WriteLine("invoking runner..."); runner.DoSomethingAwesome(); Console.ReadLine(); } } public class Runner : IMainCallback { private readonly IMain mainServer; public Runner(IMain mainServer) { this.mainServer = mainServer; } public void DoSomethingAwesome() { Console.WriteLine("trying to do something awesome"); mainServer.DoSomething(); } public void SomethingIsDone(object something) { Console.WriteLine("hey look, something is finally done."); } } public interface IMain { void DoSomething(); } public interface IMainCallback { void SomethingIsDone(object something); } public abstract class AbstractMain : IMain { protected readonly IMainCallback callback; protected AbstractMain(IMainCallback callback) { this.callback = callback; } public abstract void DoSomething(); } public class ConcreteMain : AbstractMain { public ConcreteMain(IMainCallback callback) : base(callback){} public override void DoSomething() { Console.WriteLine("starting to do something..."); var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>{ Thread.Sleep(5000);/*very long running task*/ }); task.ContinueWith(t => callback.SomethingIsDone(true)); } }

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection: How to sell it

    - by Mel
    Let it be known that I am a big fan of dependency injection (DI) and automated testing. I could talk all day about it. Background Recently, our team just got this big project that is to built from scratch. It is a strategic application with complex business requirements. Of course, I wanted it to be nice and clean, which for me meant: maintainable and testable. So I wanted to use DI. Resistance The problem was in our team, DI is taboo. It has been brought up a few times, but the gods do not approve. But that did not discourage me. My Move This may sound weird but third-party libraries are usually not approved by our architect team (think: "thou shalt not speak of Unity, Ninject, NHibernate, Moq or NUnit, lest I cut your finger"). So instead of using an established DI container, I wrote an extremely simple container. It basically wired up all your dependencies on startup, injects any dependencies (constructor/property) and disposed any disposable objects at the end of the web request. It was extremely lightweight and just did what we needed. And then I asked them to review it. The Response Well, to make it short. I was met with heavy resistance. The main argument was, "We don't need to add this layer of complexity to an already complex project". Also, "It's not like we will be plugging in different implementations of components". And "We want to keep it simple, if possible just stuff everything into one assembly. DI is an uneeded complexity with no benefit". Finally, My Question How would you handle my situation? I am not good in presenting my ideas, and I would like to know how people would present their argument. Of course, I am assuming that like me, you prefer to use DI. If you don't agree, please do say why so I can see the other side of the coin. It would be really interesting to see the point of view of someone who disagrees. Update Thank you for everyone's answers. It really puts things into perspective. It's nice enough to have another set of eyes to give you feedback, fifteen is really awesome! This are really great answers and helped me see the issue from different sides, but I can only choose one answer, so I will just pick the top voted one. Thanks everyone for taking the time to answer. I have decided that it is probably not the best time to implement DI, and we are not ready for it. Instead, I will concentrate my efforts on making the design testable and attempt to present automated unit testing. I am aware that writing tests is additional overhead and if ever it is decided that the additional overhead is not worth it, personally I would still see it as a win situation since the design is still testable. And if ever testing or DI is a choice in future, the design can easily handle it.

    Read the article

  • Pluralsight Meet the Author Podcast on Structuring JavaScript Code

    - by dwahlin
    I had the opportunity to talk with Fritz Onion from Pluralsight about one of my recent courses titled Structuring JavaScript Code for one of their Meet the Author podcasts. We talked about why JavaScript patterns are important for building more re-useable and maintainable apps, pros and cons of different patterns, and how to go about picking a pattern as a project is started. The course provides a solid walk-through of converting what I call “Function Spaghetti Code” into more modular code that’s easier to maintain, more re-useable, and less susceptible to naming conflicts. Patterns covered in the course include the Prototype Pattern, Revealing Module Pattern, and Revealing Prototype Pattern along with several other tips and techniques that can be used. Meet the Author:  Dan Wahlin on Structuring JavaScript Code   The transcript from the podcast is shown below: [Fritz]  Hello, this is Fritz Onion with another Pluralsight author interview. Today we’re talking with Dan Wahlin about his new course, Structuring JavaScript Code. Hi, Dan, it’s good to have you with us today. [Dan]  Thanks for having me, Fritz. [Fritz]  So, Dan, your new course, which came out in December of 2011 called Structuring JavaScript Code, goes into several patterns of usage in JavaScript as well as ways of organizing your code and what struck me about it was all the different techniques you described for encapsulating your code. I was wondering if you could give us just a little insight into what your motivation was for creating this course and sort of why you decided to write it and record it. [Dan]  Sure. So, I got started with JavaScript back in the mid 90s. In fact, back in the days when browsers that most people haven’t heard of were out and we had JavaScript but it wasn’t great. I was on a project in the late 90s that was heavy, heavy JavaScript and we pretty much did what I call in the course function spaghetti code where you just have function after function, there’s no rhyme or reason to how those functions are structured, they just kind of flow and it’s a little bit hard to do maintenance on it, you really don’t get a lot of reuse as far as from an object perspective. And so coming from an object-oriented background in JAVA and C#, I wanted to put something together that highlighted kind of the new way if you will of writing JavaScript because most people start out just writing functions and there’s nothing with that, it works, but it’s definitely not a real reusable solution. So the course is really all about how to move from just kind of function after function after function to the world of more encapsulated code and more reusable and hopefully better maintenance in the process. [Fritz]  So I am sure a lot of people have had similar experiences with their JavaScript code and will be looking forward to seeing what types of patterns you’ve put forth. Now, a couple I noticed in your course one is you start off with the prototype pattern. Do you want to describe sort of what problem that solves and how you go about using it within JavaScript? [Dan]  Sure. So, the patterns that are covered such as the prototype pattern and the revealing module pattern just as two examples, you know, show these kind of three things that I harp on throughout the course of encapsulation, better maintenance, reuse, those types of things. The prototype pattern specifically though has a couple kind of pros over some of the other patterns and that is the ability to extend your code without touching source code and what I mean by that is let’s say you’re writing a library that you know either other teammates or other people just out there on the Internet in general are going to be using. With the prototype pattern, you can actually write your code in such a way that we’re leveraging the JavaScript property and by doing that now you can extend my code that I wrote without touching my source code script or you can even override my code and perform some new functionality. Again, without touching my code.  And so you get kind of the benefit of the almost like inheritance or overriding in object oriented languages with this prototype pattern and it makes it kind of attractive that way definitely from a maintenance standpoint because, you know, you don’t want to modify a script I wrote because I might roll out version 2 and now you’d have to track where you change things and it gets a little tricky. So with this you just override those pieces or extend them and get that functionality and that’s kind of some of the benefits that that pattern offers out of the box. [Fritz]  And then the revealing module pattern, how does that differ from the prototype pattern and what problem does that solve differently? [Dan]  Yeah, so the prototype pattern and there’s another one that’s kind of really closely lined with revealing module pattern called the revealing prototype pattern and it also uses the prototype key word but it’s very similar to the one you just asked about the revealing module pattern. [Fritz]  Okay. [Dan]  This is a really popular one out there. In fact, we did a project for Microsoft that was very, very heavy JavaScript. It was an HMTL5 jQuery type app and we use this pattern for most of the structure if you will for the JavaScript code and what it does in a nutshell is allows you to get that encapsulation so you have really a single function wrapper that wraps all your other child functions but it gives you the ability to do public versus private members and this is kind of a sort of debate out there on the web. Some people feel that all JavaScript code should just be directly accessible and others kind of like to be able to hide their, truly their private stuff and a lot of people do that. You just put an underscore in front of your field or your variable name or your function name and that kind of is the defacto way to say hey, this is private. With the revealing module pattern you can do the equivalent of what objective oriented languages do and actually have private members that you literally can’t get to as an external consumer of the JavaScript code and then you can expose only those members that you want to be public. Now, you don’t get the benefit though of the prototype feature, which is I can’t easily extend the revealing module pattern type code if you don’t like something I’m doing, chances are you’re probably going to have to tweak my code to fix that because we’re not leveraging prototyping but in situations where you’re writing apps that are very specific to a given target app, you know, it’s not a library, it’s not going to be used in other apps all over the place, it’s a pattern I actually like a lot, it’s very simple to get going and then if you do like that public/private feature, it’s available to you. [Fritz]  Yeah, that’s interesting. So it’s almost, you can either go private by convention just by using a standard naming convention or you can actually enforce it by using the prototype pattern. [Dan]  Yeah, that’s exactly right. [Fritz]  So one of the things that I know I run across in JavaScript and I’m curious to get your take on is we do have all these different techniques of encapsulation and each one is really quite different when you’re using closures versus simply, you know, referencing member variables and adding them to your objects that the syntax changes with each pattern and the usage changes. So what would you recommend for people starting out in a brand new JavaScript project? Should they all sort of decide beforehand on what patterns they’re going to stick to or do you change it based on what part of the library you’re working on? I know that’s one of the points of confusion in this space. [Dan]  Yeah, it’s a great question. In fact, I just had a company ask me about that. So which one do I pick and, of course, there’s not one answer fits all. [Fritz]  Right. [Dan]  So it really depends what you just said is absolutely in my opinion correct, which is I think as a, especially if you’re on a team or even if you’re just an individual a team of one, you should go through and pick out which pattern for this particular project you think is best. Now if it were me, here’s kind of the way I think of it. If I were writing a let’s say base library that several web apps are going to use or even one, but I know that there’s going to be some pieces that I’m not really sure on right now as I’m writing I and I know people might want to hook in that and have some better extension points, then I would look at either the prototype pattern or the revealing prototype. Now, really just a real quick summation between the two the revealing prototype also gives you that public/private stuff like the revealing module pattern does whereas the prototype pattern does not but both of the prototype patterns do give you the benefit of that extension or that hook capability. So, if I were writing a library that I need people to override things or I’m not even sure what I need them to override, I want them to have that option, I’d probably pick a prototype, one of the prototype patterns. If I’m writing some code that is very unique to the app and it’s kind of a one off for this app which is what I think a lot of people are kind of in that mode as writing custom apps for customers, then my personal preference is the revealing module pattern you could always go with the module pattern as well which is very close but I think the revealing module patterns a little bit cleaner and we go through that in the course and explain kind of the syntax there and the differences. [Fritz]  Great, that makes a lot of sense. [Fritz]  I appreciate you taking the time, Dan, and I hope everyone takes a chance to look at your course and sort of make these decisions for themselves in their next JavaScript project. Dan’s course is, Structuring JavaScript Code and it’s available now in the Pluralsight Library. So, thank you very much, Dan. [Dan]  Thanks for having me again.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET JavaScript Routing for ASP.NET MVC–Constraints

    - by zowens
    If you haven’t had a look at my previous post about ASP.NET routing, go ahead and check it out before you read this post: http://weblogs.asp.net/zowens/archive/2010/12/20/asp-net-mvc-javascript-routing.aspx And the code is here: https://github.com/zowens/ASP.NET-MVC-JavaScript-Routing   Anyways, this post is about routing constraints. A routing constraint is essentially a way for the routing engine to filter out route patterns based on the day from the URL. For example, if I have a route where all the parameters are required, I could use a constraint on the required parameters to say that the parameter is non-empty. Here’s what the constraint would look like: Notice that this is a class that inherits from IRouteConstraint, which is an interface provided by System.Web.Routing. The match method returns true if the value is a match (and can be further processed by the routing rules) or false if it does not match (and the route will be matched further along the route collection). Because routing constraints are so essential to the route matching process, it was important that they be part of my JavaScript routing engine. But the problem is that we need to somehow represent the constraint in JavaScript. I made a design decision early on that you MUST put this constraint into JavaScript to match a route. I didn’t want to have server interaction for the URL generation, like I’ve seen in so many applications. While this is easy to maintain, it causes maintenance issues in my opinion. So the way constraints work in JavaScript is that the constraint as an object type definition is set on the route manager. When a route is created, a new instance of the constraint is created with the specific parameter. In its current form the constraint function MUST return a function that takes the route data and will return true or false. You will see the NotEmpty constraint in a bit. Another piece to the puzzle is that you can have the JavaScript exist as a string in your application that is pulled in when the routing JavaScript code is generated. There is a simple interface, IJavaScriptAddition, that I have added that will be used to output custom JavaScript. Let’s put it all together. Here is the NotEmpty constraint. There’s a few things at work here. The constraint is called “notEmpty” in JavaScript. When you add the constraint to a parameter in your C# code, the route manager generator will look for the JsConstraint attribute to look for the name of the constraint type name and fallback to the class name. For example, if I didn’t apply the “JsConstraint” attribute, the constraint would be called “NotEmpty”. The JavaScript code essentially adds a function to the “constraintTypeDefs” object on the “notEmpty” property (this is how constraints are added to routes). The function returns another function that will be invoked with routing data. Here’s how you would use the NotEmpty constraint in C# and it will work with the JavaScript routing generator. The only catch to using route constraints currently is that the following is not supported: The constraint will work in C# but is not supported by my JavaScript routing engine. (I take pull requests so if you’d like this… go ahead and implement it).   I just wanted to take this post to explain a little bit about the background on constraints. I am looking at expanding the current functionality, but for now this is a good start. Thanks for all the support with the JavaScript router. Keep the feedback coming!

    Read the article

  • Repeated calls with random Javascript append to the URL

    - by cjk
    I keep getting calls to my server where there is random Javascript appended on the end of lots of the calls, e.g.: /UI/Includes/JavaScript/).length)&&e.error( /UI/Includes/JavaScript/,C,!1),a.addEventListener( /UI/Includes/JavaScript/),l=b.createDocumentFragment(),m=b.documentElement,n=m.firstChild,o=b.createElement( /UI/Includes/JavaScript/&&a.getAttributeNode( /UI/Includes/JavaScript/&&a.firstChild.getAttribute( /UI/Includes/JavaScript/).replace(bd, /UI/Includes/JavaScript/)),a.getElementsByTagName( The user agent is always this: Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.1;+SV1;+.NET+CLR+2.0.50727) I have jQuery, Modernizr and other JS and originally thought that some browser was messing up it's JS calls, however this particular IP address hasn't requested any images so I'm wondering if it is some kind of attack. Is this a common occurence?

    Read the article

  • Is functional intellisense and code browsing more beneficial than the use of dependency injection containers

    - by Gavin Howden
    This question is really based on PHP, but could be valid for other dynamically typed, interpreted languages and specifically the methods of generating code insight and object browsing in development environments. We use PHPStorm, and find intellisense invaluable, but it is provided by some limited static analysis and parsing of doc comments. Obviously this does not lend well to obtaining dependencies through a container, as the IDE has no idea of the type returned, so the developer loses out on a plethora of (in the case of our framework anyway) rich documentation provided through the doc comments. So we start to see stuff like this: $widget = $dic->YieldInstance('WidgetA', $arg1, $arg2, $arg3, $arg4...)); /** * @var $widget WidgetA */ So that code insight works. In effect the comments are tightly bound, but worse they come out of sync when code is modified but not the comments: $widget = $dic->YieldInstance('WidgetB', $arg1, $arg2, $arg3, $arg4...)); /** * @var $widget WidgetA */ Obviously the comment could be improved by referencing a Widget interface, but then we might as well use a factory and avoid the requirement for the extra typing hints in the comments, and dic complexity / boiler plating. Which is more important to the average developer, code insight / intellisense or 'nirvana' decouplement?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection/IoC container practices when writing frameworks

    - by Dave Hillier
    I've used various IoC containers (Castle.Windsor, Autofac, MEF, etc) for .Net in a number of projects. I have found they tend to encourage a number of bad practices. Are there any established practices for IoC container use, particularly when providing a platform/framework? My aim as a framework writer is to make code as simple and as easy to use as possible. I'd rather write one line of code to construct an object than ten or even just two. For example, a couple of code smells that I've noticed and don't have good suggestions to: Large number of parameters (5) for constructors. Creating services tends to be complex; all of the dependencies are injected via the constructor - despite the fact that the components are rarely optional (except for maybe in testing). Lack of private and internal classes; this one may be a specific limitation of using C# and Silverlight, but I'm interested in how it is solved. It's difficult to tell what a frameworks interface is if all the classes are public; it allows me access to private parts that I probably shouldnt touch. Coupling the object lifecycle to the IoC container. It is often difficult to manually construct the dependencies required to create objects. Object lifecycle is too often managed by the IoC framework. I've seen projects where most classes are registered as Singletons. You get a lack of explicit control and are also forced to manage the internals (it relates to the above point, all classes are public and you have to inject them). For example, .Net framework has many static methods. such as, DateTime.UtcNow. Many times I have seen this wrapped and injected as a construction parameter. Depending on concrete implementation makes my code hard to test. Injecting a dependency makes my code hard to use - particularly if the class has many parameters. How do I provide both a testable interface, as well as one that is easy to use? What are the best practices?

    Read the article

  • Customizing configuration with Dependency Injection

    - by mathieu
    I'm designing a small application infrastructure library, aiming to simplify development of ASP.NET MVC based applications. Main goal is to enforce convention over configuration. Hovewer, I still want to make some parts "configurable" by developpers. I'm leaning towards the following design: public interface IConfiguration { SomeType SomeValue; } // this one won't get registered in container protected class DefaultConfiguration : IConfiguration { public SomeType SomeValue { get { return SomeType.Default; } } } // declared inside 3rd party library, will get registered in container protected class CustomConfiguration : IConfiguration { public SomeType SomeValue { get { return SomeType.Custom; } } } And the "service" class : public class Service { private IConfiguration conf = new DefaultConfiguration(); // optional dependency, if found, will be set to CustomConfiguration by DI container public IConfiguration Conf { get { return conf; } set { conf = value; } } public void Configure() { DoSomethingWith( Conf ); } } There, the "configuration" part is clearly a dependency of the service class, but it this an "overuse" of DI ?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: Only for single-instance objects?

    - by HappyDeveloper
    What if I want to also decouple my application, from classes like Product or User? (which usually have more than one instance) Take a look at this example: class Controller { public function someAction() { $product_1 = new Product(); $product_2 = new Product(); // do something with the products } } Is it right to say that Controller now depends on Product? I was thinking that we could decouple them too (as we would with single-instance objects like Database) In this example, however ugly, they are decoupled: class Controller { public function someAction(ProductInterface $new_product) { $product_1 = clone $new_product; $product_2 = clone $new_product; // do something with the products } } Has anyone done something like this before? Is it excessive?

    Read the article

  • JSP Model 2 Architecture and Dependency Injection

    - by Robert
    If I'm writing a web application that uses the model 2 architecture, is it possible to use the Google Guice framework (or really any IoC container)? The reason I ask this question is because everything I've researched about DI, IoC, et cetera always uses Spring, Hibernate or some other framework/container in their examples. I'm just using Java classes, controllers, and JSP's to build this application and I can't find any good documentation about the subject.

    Read the article

  • What should be tested in Javascript?

    - by Nathan Hoad
    At work, we've just started on a heavily Javascript based application (actually using Coffeescript, but still), of which I've been implementing an automated test system using JsTestDriver and fabric. We've never written something with this much Javascript, so up until now we've never done any Javascript testing. I'm unsure what exactly we should be testing in our unit tests. We've written JQuery plugins for various things, so it's quite obvious that they should be verified for correctness as much as possible with JsTestDriver, but everyone else in my team seems to think that we should be testing the page level Javascript as well. I don't think we should be testing page level Javascript as unit tests, but instead using a system like Selenium to verify everything works as expected. My main reasoning for this is that at the moment, page level Javascript tests are guaranteed to fail through JsTestDriver, because they're trying to access elements on the DOM that can't possibly exist. So, what should be unit tested in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • Why not use JavaScript but libraries instead?

    - by shareef
    I read this article Unobtrusive JavaScript with jQuery and I noticed these points in the slide page 11 some companies strip JavaScript at the firewall some run the NoScript Firefox extension to protect themselves from common XSS and CSRF attacks many mobile devices ignore JavaScript entirely screen readers do execute JavaScript but accessibility issues mean you may not want them to I did not understand the fourth point. What does it mean? I need your comment and responses on these points. Is not using JavaScript and switching to libraries like jQuery worth it?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >