Search Results

Search found 32302 results on 1293 pages for 'model view viewmodel'.

Page 7/1293 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • DRY vs Security and Maintainability with MVC and View Models

    - by Mystere Man
    I like to strive for DRY, and obviously it's not always possible. However, I have to scratch my head over a concept that seems pretty common in MVC, that of the "View Model". The View Model is designed to only pass the minimum amount of information to the view, for both security, maintainability, and testing concerns. I get that. It makes sense. However, from a DRY perspective, a View Model is simply duplicating data you already have. The View Model may be temporary, and used only as a DTO, but you're basically maintaing two different versions of the same model which seems to violate the DRY principal. Do View Models violate DRY? Are they a necessary evil? Do they do more good than bad?

    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 modelModel 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

  • Should a model binder populate all of the model?

    - by Richard
    Should a model binder populate all of the model, or only the bits that are being posted? For example, I am adding a product in my system and on the form i want the user to select which sites the new product will appear on. Therefore, in my model I want to populate a collection called "AllAvailableSites" to render the checkboxes for the user to choose from. I also need to populate the model with any chosen sites on a post in case the form does not validate, and I need to represent the form showing the initial selections. It would seem that I should let the model binder set the chosen sites on the model, and (once in the controller method) I set the "AllAvailableSites" on the model. Does that sound right? It seems more efficient to set everything in the model binder but someone is suggesting it is not quite right. I am grateful for any advice; I have to say that all the MVC model binding help online seems to cite really simple examples, nothing complicated. Do I really need a GET and a POST version of a method? Can't they just take the same view model? Then I check in my model binder if it is a GET/POST, and populate all the model accordingly.

    Read the article

  • MVVM- View Model-View Model Communications

    - by user275561
    How do I go about having two view models communicate with one another using MVVM Light. I know how to use the messenger class and register etc.. Here is my Scenario A Settings View ---> a Settings View Model . . . A MainPage View ---> A MainPage ViewModel If something changes in the Settings View it will Message back to the Settings View Model. So then I want the Settings View Model to communicate to the MainPage View Model about what changed. THe MainPage ViewModel will then tell the View.

    Read the article

  • Why is my Workspace switcher view skewed

    - by Lee
    I have been using Workspace switcher in Ubuntu just fine but recently have encountered this problem. The windows in the switcher don't fill the screen. I must have pressed some combination of buttons somehow but can't find any information anywhere in regards to resizing them. As you can see in the screen shot it looks like a perspective view or something. http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k553/lmt337/Screenshotfrom2012-07-04103519.png I should also add I have a dual monitor setup and nvidia graphics. The switcher still works but the fact the screens dont fit my actual screens is driving me nuts. Thanks in advance for any help.

    Read the article

  • how to push one view to another view?

    - by MD
    In my application there are two view.First view na dsecond view. In my second view there is one time for 60 sec.When i go first view to second view then timr is start.when i back to first view thne timer is running in background.when timer is over then one popup is generated.When i click on pop up(ok button) then i want to go in second view.Acctully pop is in second view. How to solve this problem

    Read the article

  • How to create a link to Nintex Start Workflow Page in the document set home page

    - by ybbest
    In this blog post, I’d like to show you how to create a link to start Nintex Workflow Page in the document set home page. 1. Firstly, you need to upload the latest version of jQuery to the style library of your team site. 2. Then, upload a text file to the style library for writing your own html and JavaScript 3. In the document set home page, insert a new content editor web part and link the text file you just upload. 4. Update the text file with the following content, you can download this file here. <script type="text/javascript" src="/Style%20Library/jquery-1.9.0.min.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/_layouts/sp.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function() { listItemId=getParameterByName("ID"); setTheWorkflowLink("YBBESTDocumentLibrary"); }); function buildWorkflowLink(webRelativeUrl,listId,itemId) { var workflowLink =webRelativeUrl+"_layouts/NintexWorkflow/StartWorkflow.aspx?list="+listId+"&ID="+itemId+"&WorkflowName=Start Approval"; return workflowLink; } function getParameterByName(name) { name = name.replace(/[\[]/, "\\\[").replace(/[\]]/, "\\\]"); var regexS = "[\\?&]" + name + "=([^&#]*)"; var regex = new RegExp(regexS); var results = regex.exec(window.location.search); if(results == null){ return ""; } else{ return decodeURIComponent(results[1].replace(/\+/g, " ")); } } function setTheWorkflowLink(listName) { var SPContext = new SP.ClientContext.get_current(); web = SPContext.get_web(); list = web.get_lists().getByTitle(listName); SPContext.load(web,"ServerRelativeUrl"); SPContext.load(list, 'Title', 'Id'); SPContext.executeQueryAsync(setTheWorkflowLink_Success, setTheWorkflowLink_Fail); } function setTheWorkflowLink_Success(sender, args) { var listId = list.get_id(); var listTitle = list.get_title(); var webRelativeUrl = web.get_serverRelativeUrl(); var startWorkflowLink=buildWorkflowLink(webRelativeUrl,listId,listItemId) $("a#submitLink").attr('href',startWorkflowLink); } function setTheWorkflowLink_Fail(sender, args) { alert("There is a problem setting up the submit exam approval link"); } </script> <a href="" target="_blank" id="submitLink"><span style="font-size:14pt">Start the approval process.</span></a> 5. Save your changes and go to the document set Item, you will see the link is on the home page now. Notes: 1. You can create a link to start the workflow using the following build dynamic string configuration: {Common:WebUrl}/_layouts/NintexWorkflow/StartWorkflow.aspx?list={Common:ListID}&ID={ItemProperty:ID}&WorkflowName=workflowname. With this link you will still need to click the start button, this is standard SharePoint behaviour and cannot be altered. References: http://connect.nintex.com/forums/27143/ShowThread.aspx How to use html and JavaScript in Content Editor web part in SharePoint2010

    Read the article

  • Class-Level Model Validation with EF Code First and ASP.NET MVC 3

    - by ScottGu
    Earlier this week the data team released the CTP5 build of the new Entity Framework Code-First library.  In my blog post a few days ago I talked about a few of the improvements introduced with the new CTP5 build.  Automatic support for enforcing DataAnnotation validation attributes on models was one of the improvements I discussed.  It provides a pretty easy way to enable property-level validation logic within your model layer. You can apply validation attributes like [Required], [Range], and [RegularExpression] – all of which are built-into .NET 4 – to your model classes in order to enforce that the model properties are valid before they are persisted to a database.  You can also create your own custom validation attributes (like this cool [CreditCard] validator) and have them be automatically enforced by EF Code First as well.  This provides a really easy way to validate property values on your models.  I showed some code samples of this in action in my previous post. Class-Level Model Validation using IValidatableObject DataAnnotation attributes provides an easy way to validate individual property values on your model classes.  Several people have asked - “Does EF Code First also support a way to implement class-level validation methods on model objects, for validation rules than need to span multiple property values?”  It does – and one easy way you can enable this is by implementing the IValidatableObject interface on your model classes. IValidatableObject.Validate() Method Below is an example of using the IValidatableObject interface (which is built-into .NET 4 within the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace) to implement two custom validation rules on a Product model class.  The two rules ensure that: New units can’t be ordered if the Product is in a discontinued state New units can’t be ordered if there are already more than 100 units in stock We will enforce these business rules by implementing the IValidatableObject interface on our Product class, and by implementing its Validate() method like so: The IValidatableObject.Validate() method can apply validation rules that span across multiple properties, and can yield back multiple validation errors. Each ValidationResult returned can supply both an error message as well as an optional list of property names that caused the violation (which is useful when displaying error messages within UI). Automatic Validation Enforcement EF Code-First (starting with CTP5) now automatically invokes the Validate() method when a model object that implements the IValidatableObject interface is saved.  You do not need to write any code to cause this to happen – this support is now enabled by default. This new support means that the below code – which violates one of our above business rules – will automatically throw an exception (and abort the transaction) when we call the “SaveChanges()” method on our Northwind DbContext: In addition to reactively handling validation exceptions, EF Code First also allows you to proactively check for validation errors.  Starting with CTP5, you can call the “GetValidationErrors()” method on the DbContext base class to retrieve a list of validation errors within the model objects you are working with.  GetValidationErrors() will return a list of all validation errors – regardless of whether they are generated via DataAnnotation attributes or by an IValidatableObject.Validate() implementation.  Below is an example of proactively using the GetValidationErrors() method to check (and handle) errors before trying to call SaveChanges(): ASP.NET MVC 3 and IValidatableObject ASP.NET MVC 2 included support for automatically honoring and enforcing DataAnnotation attributes on model objects that are used with ASP.NET MVC’s model binding infrastructure.  ASP.NET MVC 3 goes further and also honors the IValidatableObject interface.  This combined support for model validation makes it easy to display appropriate error messages within forms when validation errors occur.  To see this in action, let’s consider a simple Create form that allows users to create a new Product: We can implement the above Create functionality using a ProductsController class that has two “Create” action methods like below: The first Create() method implements a version of the /Products/Create URL that handles HTTP-GET requests - and displays the HTML form to fill-out.  The second Create() method implements a version of the /Products/Create URL that handles HTTP-POST requests - and which takes the posted form data, ensures that is is valid, and if it is valid saves it in the database.  If there are validation issues it redisplays the form with the posted values.  The razor view template of our “Create” view (which renders the form) looks like below: One of the nice things about the above Controller + View implementation is that we did not write any validation logic within it.  The validation logic and business rules are instead implemented entirely within our model layer, and the ProductsController simply checks whether it is valid (by calling the ModelState.IsValid helper method) to determine whether to try and save the changes or redisplay the form with errors. The Html.ValidationMessageFor() helper method calls within our view simply display the error messages our Product model’s DataAnnotations and IValidatableObject.Validate() method returned.  We can see the above scenario in action by filling out invalid data within the form and attempting to submit it: Notice above how when we hit the “Create” button we got an error message.  This was because we ticked the “Discontinued” checkbox while also entering a value for the UnitsOnOrder (and so violated one of our business rules).  You might ask – how did ASP.NET MVC know to highlight and display the error message next to the UnitsOnOrder textbox?  It did this because ASP.NET MVC 3 now honors the IValidatableObject interface when performing model binding, and will retrieve the error messages from validation failures with it. The business rule within our Product model class indicated that the “UnitsOnOrder” property should be highlighted when the business rule we hit was violated: Our Html.ValidationMessageFor() helper method knew to display the business rule error message (next to the UnitsOnOrder edit box) because of the above property name hint we supplied: Keeping things DRY ASP.NET MVC and EF Code First enables you to keep your validation and business rules in one place (within your model layer), and avoid having it creep into your Controllers and Views.  Keeping the validation logic in the model layer helps ensure that you do not duplicate validation/business logic as you add more Controllers and Views to your application.  It allows you to quickly change your business rules/validation logic in one single place (within your model layer) – and have all controllers/views across your application immediately reflect it.  This help keep your application code clean and easily maintainable, and makes it much easier to evolve and update your application in the future. Summary EF Code First (starting with CTP5) now has built-in support for both DataAnnotations and the IValidatableObject interface.  This allows you to easily add validation and business rules to your models, and have EF automatically ensure that they are enforced anytime someone tries to persist changes of them to a database.  ASP.NET MVC 3 also now supports both DataAnnotations and IValidatableObject as well, which makes it even easier to use them with your EF Code First model layer – and then have the controllers/views within your web layer automatically honor and support them as well.  This makes it easy to build clean and highly maintainable applications. You don’t have to use DataAnnotations or IValidatableObject to perform your validation/business logic.  You can always roll your own custom validation architecture and/or use other more advanced validation frameworks/patterns if you want.  But for a lot of applications this built-in support will probably be sufficient – and provide a highly productive way to build solutions. Hope this helps, Scott P.S. In addition to blogging, I am also now using Twitter for quick updates and to share links. Follow me at: twitter.com/scottgu

    Read the article

  • MVC 2 Entity Framework View Model Insert

    - by cannibalcorpse
    This is driving me crazy. Hopefully my question makes sense... I'm using MVC 2 and Entity Framework 1 and am trying to insert a new record with two navigation properties. I have a SQL table, Categories, that has a lookup table CategoryTypes and another self-referencing lookup CategoryParent. EF makes two nav properties on my Category model, one called Parent and another called CategoryType, both instances of their respective models. On my view that creates the new Category, I have two dropdowns, one for the CategoryType and another for the ParentCategory. When I try and insert the new Category WITHOUT the ParentCategory, which allows nulls, everything is fine. As soon as I add the ParentCategory, the insert fails, and oddly (or so I think) complains about the CategoryType in the form of this error: 0 related 'CategoryTypes' were found. 1 'CategoryTypes' is expected. When I step through, I can verifiy that both ID properties coming in on the action method parameter are correct. I can also verify that when I go to the db to get the CategoryType and ParentCategory with the ID's, the records are being pulled fine. Yet it fails on SaveChanges(). All that I can see is that my CategoryParent dropdownlistfor in my view, is somehow causing the insert to bomb. Please see my comments in my httpPost Create action method. My view model looks like this: public class EditModel { public Category MainCategory { get; set; } public IEnumerable<CategoryType> CategoryTypesList { get; set; } public IEnumerable<Category> ParentCategoriesList { get; set; } } My Create action methods look like this: // GET: /Categories/Create public ActionResult Create() { return View(new EditModel() { CategoryTypesList = _db.CategoryTypeSet.ToList(), ParentCategoriesList = _db.CategorySet.ToList() }); } // POST: /Categories/Create [HttpPost] public ActionResult Create(Category mainCategory) { if (!ModelState.IsValid) return View(new EditModel() { MainCategory = mainCategory, CategoryTypesList = _db.CategoryTypeSet.ToList(), ParentCategoriesList = _db.CategorySet.ToList() }); mainCategory.CategoryType = _db.CategoryTypeSet.First(ct => ct.Id == mainCategory.CategoryType.Id); // This db call DOES get the correct Category, but fails on _db.SaveChanges(). // Oddly the error is related to CategoryTypes and not Category. // Entities in 'DbEntities.CategorySet' participate in the 'FK_Categories_CategoryTypes' relationship. // 0 related 'CategoryTypes' were found. 1 'CategoryTypes' is expected. //mainCategory.Parent = _db.CategorySet.First(c => c.Id == mainCategory.Parent.Id); // If I just use the literal ID of the same Category, // AND comment out the CategoryParent dropdownlistfor in the view, all is fine. mainCategory.Parent = _db.CategorySet.First(c => c.Id == 2); _db.AddToCategorySet(mainCategory); _db.SaveChanges(); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } Here is my Create form on the view : <% using (Html.BeginForm()) {%> <%= Html.ValidationSummary(true) %> <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.Parent.Id) %> <%= Html.DropDownListFor(model => model.MainCategory.Parent.Id, new SelectList(Model.ParentCategoriesList, "Id", "Name")) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.Parent.Id) %> </div> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.CategoryType.Id) %> <%= Html.DropDownListFor(model => model.MainCategory.CategoryType.Id, new SelectList(Model.CategoryTypesList, "Id", "Name"))%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.CategoryType.Id)%> </div> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.Name) %> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.MainCategory.Name)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.Name)%> </div> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.Description)%> <%= Html.TextAreaFor(model => model.MainCategory.Description)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.Description)%> </div> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.SeoName)%> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.MainCategory.SeoName, new { @class = "large" })%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.SeoName)%> </div> <div> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.MainCategory.HasHomepage)%> <%= Html.CheckBoxFor(model => model.MainCategory.HasHomepage)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.MainCategory.HasHomepage)%> </div> <p><input type="submit" value="Create" /></p> </fieldset> <% } %> Maybe I've just been staying up too late playing with MVC 2? :) Please let me know if I'm not being clear enough.

    Read the article

  • In MVC framworks (such as Ruby on Rails), does usually Model spell as singular and controller and vi

    - by Jian Lin
    I usually see Ruby on Rails books using script/generate model Story name:string link:string which is a singular Story, while when it is controller script/generate controller Stories index then the Story now is Stories, which is plural. Is this a standard on Ruby on Rails? Is it true in other MVC frameworks too, like CakePHP, Symfony, Django, or TurboGears? I see that in the book Rails Space, the controller is also called User, which is the same as the model name, and it is the only exception I see. Update: also, when scaffold is done on Ruby on Rails, then automatically, the model is singular and the controller and view are both plural.

    Read the article

  • problem with reload data from table view after come back from another view

    - by user129677
    I have a problem in my application. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Basically it is from view A to view B, and then come back from view B. In the view A, it has dynamic data loaded in from the database, and display on the table view. In this page, it also has the edit button, not on the navigation bar. When user tabs the edit button, it goes to the view B, which shows the pick view. And user can make any changes in here. Once that is done, user tabs the back button on the navigation bar, it saves the changes into the NSUserDefaults, goes back to the view A by pop the view B. When coming back to the view A, it should get the new data from the UIUserDefaults, and it did. I user NSLog to print out to the console and it shows the correct data. Also it should invoke the viewWillAppear: method to get the new data for the table view, but it didn't. It even did not call the tableView:numberOfRowsInSection: method. I place a NSLog statement inside this method but didn't print out in the console. as the result, the view A still has the old data. the only way to get the new data in the view A is to stop and start the application. both view A and view B are the subclass of UIViewController, with UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. here is my code in the view A : - (void)viewWillAppear:(BOOL)animated { NSLog(@"enter in Schedule2ViewController ..."); // load in data from database, and store into NSArray object //[self.theTableView reloadData]; [self.theTableView setNeedsDisplay]; //[self.theTableView setNeedsLayout]; } in here, the "theTableView" is a UITableView variable. And I try all three cases of "reloadData", "setNeedsDisplay", and "setNeedsLayout", but didn't seem to work. in the view B, here is the method corresponding to the back button on the navigation bar. - (void)viewDidLoad { UIBarButtonItem *saveButton = [[UIBarButtonItem alloc] initWithBarButtonSystemItem:UIBarButtonSystemItemSave target:self action:@selector(savePreference)]; self.navigationItem.leftBarButtonItem = saveButton; [saveButton release]; } - (IBAction) savePreference { NSLog(@"save preference."); // save data into the NSUSerDefaults [self.navigationController popViewControllerAnimated:YES]; } Am I doing in the right way? Or is there anything that I missed? Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • Passing variables from Model to Model in codeigniter

    - by Craig Ward
    Hi, I need to pass a variable to model, that model needs to send another back and use that variable to query a different model. EG: I have a product_ID which I send to the product model, From that I find out the supplier_ID. I want to grab that supplier_ID to the supplier model to get the supplier name. How do you implement this in codeigniter?

    Read the article

  • In MVC framworks (such as Ruby on Rails), do usually Model spell as singular and controller and view

    - by Jian Lin
    I usually see Ruby on Rails books using script/generate model Story name:string link:string which is a singular Story, while when it is controller script/generate controller Stories index then the Story now is Stories, which is plural. Is this a standard on Ruby on Rails? Is it true in other MVC frameworks too, like CakePHP, Symfony, Django, or TurboGears? I see that in the book Rails Space, the controller is also called User, which is the same as the model name, and it is the only exception I see.

    Read the article

  • Dynamic Views based on view models

    - by Joe
    I have an asp.net mvc 2 app. I need to display the same page to each user. But each user has different rights to the data. IE some can see but not edit some data, some cannot edit nor see the data. Ideally data that cannot be seen nor edited is whitespace on the view. For security reasons I want my viewmodels to be sparse as possible. By that I mean if a field cannot be seen nor edited , that field should not be on the viewmodel. Obviously I can write view for each view model but that seems wasteful. So here is my idea/wishlist Can I decorate the viewmodel with attributes and hook into a pre render event of the html helpers and tell it to do &nbsp; instead??? Can I have the html helpers output &nbsp; for entries not found on the viewmodel?? or can I easily convert a view built into code then programaticlly build the markup and then put into the render engine to be processed and viewd as html on client side??

    Read the article

  • MVC 3, View Model for user registration process. Password validation not working properly

    - by sec_goat
    I am trying to create a user registration page using MVC 3, so that I can better understand the process of how it works, what's going on behind the scenes etc. I am running into some issues when trying to use [Compare] to check to see that the user entered the same password twice. I tried adding the ComparePassword field to my user model first, and found that would not work the way I wanted as I did not have the field in the database, so the obvious answer was to create a View Model using the same information including the ComparePassword field. So I now have created a User model and a RegistrationViewModel, however it appears that the [Compare] on the password is not returning anything, for instance no matter what I put in the two boxes, when I click create it gives no error, which seems to me to mean it was successfully validated. I am not sure what I am doing or not doing to make this work properly. I have tried updating the jQuery.Validate to the newest version as there were some bugs reported in older version, this has not helped my efforts. Below is a wall of code, that is what I am working with. } public class RegistrationViewModel { [Required] [StringLength(15, MinimumLength = 3)] [Display(Name = "User Name")] [RegularExpression(@"(\S)+", ErrorMessage = " White Space is not allowed in User Names")] [ScaffoldColumn(false)] public String Username { get; set; } [Required] [StringLength(15, MinimumLength = 3)] [Display(Name = "First Name")] public String firstName { get; set; } [Required] [StringLength(15, MinimumLength = 3)] [Display(Name = "Last Name")] public String lastName { get; set; } [Required] [Display(Name = "Email")] public String email { get; set; } [Required] [Display(Name = "Password")] [DataType(DataType.Password)] public String password { get; set; } [Required] [DataType(DataType.Password)] [Display(Name = "Re-enter Password")] [Compare("Password", ErrorMessage = "Passwords do not match.")] public String comparePassword { get; set; } }

    Read the article

  • JQuery pass model to controller

    - by slandau
    I want to pass the mvc page model back to my controller within a Javascript Object. How would I do that? var urlString = "<%= System.Web.VirtualPathUtility.ToAbsolute("~/mvc/Indications.cfc/ExportToExcel")%>"; var jsonNickname = { model: Model, viewName: "<%= VirtualPathUtility.ToAbsolute("~/Views/Indications/TermSheetViews/Swap/CashFlows.aspx")%>", fileName: 'Cashflows.xls' } $.ajax({ type: "POST", url: urlString, data: jsonNickname, async: false, success: function (data) { $('#termSheetPrinted').append(data); } }); So where it says model: Model, I want the Model to be the actual page model that I declare at the top of the page: Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<Chatham.Web.Models.Indications.SwapModel>" How can I do that?

    Read the article

  • How should I architect my Model and Data Access layer objects in my website?

    - by Robin Winslow
    I've been tasked with designing Data layer for a website at work, and I am very interested in architecture of code for the best flexibility, maintainability and readability. I am generally acutely aware of the value in completely separating out my actual Models from the Data Access layer, so that the Models are completely naive when it comes to Data Access. And in this case it's particularly useful to do this as the Models may be built from the Database or may be built from a Soap web service. So it seems to me to make sense to have Factories in my data access layer which create Model objects. So here's what I have so far (in my made-up pseudocode): class DataAccess.ProductsFromXml extends DataAccess.ProductFactory {} class DataAccess.ProductsFromDatabase extends DataAccess.ProductFactory {} These then get used in the controller in a fashion similar to the following: var xmlProductCreator = DataAccess.ProductsFromXml(xmlDataProvider); var databaseProductCreator = DataAccess.ProductsFromXml(xmlDataProvider); // Returns array of Product model objects var XmlProducts = databaseProductCreator.Products(); // Returns array of Product model objects var DbProducts = xmlProductCreator.Products(); So my question is, is this a good structure for my Data Access layer? Is it a good idea to use a Factory for building my Model objects from the data? Do you think I've misunderstood something? And are there any general patterns I should read up on for how to write my data access objects to create my Model objects?

    Read the article

  • How do you formulate the Domain Model in Domain Driven Design properly (Bounded Contexts, Domains)?

    - by lko
    Say you have a few applications which deal with a few different Core Domains. The examples are made up and it's hard to put a real example with meaningful data together (concisely). In Domain Driven Design (DDD) when you start looking at Bounded Contexts and Domains/Sub Domains, it says that a Bounded Context is a "phase" in a lifecycle. An example of Context here would be within an ecommerce system. Although you could model this as a single system, it would also warrant splitting into separate Contexts. Each of these areas within the application have their own Ubiquitous Language, their own Model, and a way to talk to other Bounded Contexts to obtain the information they need. The Core, Sub, and Generic Domains are the area of expertise and can be numerous in complex applications. Say there is a long process dealing with an Entity for example a Book in a core domain. Now looking at the Bounded Contexts there can be a number of phases in the books life-cycle. Say outline, creation, correction, publish, sale phases. Now imagine a second core domain, perhaps a store domain. The publisher has its own branch of stores to sell books. The store can have a number of Bounded Contexts (life-cycle phases) for example a "Stock" or "Inventory" context. In the first domain there is probably a Book database table with basically just an ID to track the different book Entities in the different life-cycles. Now suppose you have 10+ supporting domains e.g. Users, Catalogs, Inventory, .. (hard to think of relevant examples). For example a DomainModel for the Book Outline phase, the Creation phase, Correction phase, Publish phase, Sale phase. Then for the Store core domain it probably has a number of life-cycle phases. public class BookId : Entity { public long Id { get; set; } } In the creation phase (Bounded Context) the book could be a simple class. public class Book : BookId { public string Title { get; set; } public List<string> Chapters { get; set; } //... } Whereas in the publish phase (Bounded Context) it would have all the text, release date etc. public class Book : BookId { public DateTime ReleaseDate { get; set; } //... } The immediate benefit I can see in separating by "life-cycle phase" is that it's a great way to separate business logic so there aren't mammoth all-encompassing Entities nor Domain Services. A problem I have is figuring out how to concretely define the rules to the physical layout of the Domain Model. A. Does the Domain Model get "modeled" so there are as many bounded contexts (separate projects etc.) as there are life-cycle phases across the core domains in a complex application? Edit: Answer to A. Yes, according to the answer by Alexey Zimarev there should be an entire "Domain" for each bounded context. B. Is the Domain Model typically arranged by Bounded Contexts (or Domains, or both)? Edit: Answer to B. Each Bounded Context should have its own complete "Domain" (Service/Entities/VO's/Repositories) C. Does it mean there can easily be 10's of "segregated" Domain Models and multiple projects can use it (the Entities/Value Objects)? Edit: Answer to C. There is a complete "Domain" for each Bounded Context and the Domain Model (Entity/VO layer/project) isn't "used" by the other Bounded Contexts directly, only via chosen paths (i.e. via Domain Events). The part that I am trying to figure out is how the Domain Model is actually implemented once you start to figure out your Bounded Contexts and Core/Sub Domains, particularly in complex applications. The goal is to establish the definitions which can help to separate Entities between the Bounded Contexts and Domains.

    Read the article

  • What is a good strategy for binding view objects to model objects in C++?

    - by B.J.
    Imagine I have a rich data model that is represented by a hierarchy of objects. I also have a view hierarchy with views that can extract required data from model objects and display the data (and allow the user to manipulate the data). Actually, there could be multiple view hierarchies that can represent and manipulate the model (e.g. an overview-detail view and a direct manipulation view). My current approach for this is for the controller layer to store a reference to the underlying model object in the View object. The view object can then get the current data from the model for display, and can send the model object messages to update the data. View objects are effectively observers of the model objects and the model objects broadcast notifications when properties change. This approach allows all the views to update simultaneously when any view changes the model. Implemented carefully, this all works. However, it does require a lot of work to ensure that no view or model objects hold any stale references to model objects. The user can delete model objects or sub-hierarchies of the model at any time. Ensuring that all the view objects that hold references to the model objects that have been deleted is time-consuming and difficult. It feels like the approach I have been taking is not especially clean; while I don't want to have to have explicit code in the controller layer for mediating the communication between the views and the model, it seems like there must be a better (implicit) approach for establishing bindings between the view and the model and between related model objects. In particular, I am looking for an approach (in C++) that understands two key points: There is a many to one relationship between view and model objects If the underlying model object is destroyed, all the dependent view objects must be cleaned up so that no stale references exist While shared_ptr and weak_ptr can be used to manage the lifetimes of the underlying model objects and allows for weak references from the view to the model, they don't provide for notification of the destruction of the underlying object (they do in the sense that the use of a stale weak_ptr allows for notification), but I need an approach that notifies the dependent objects that their weak reference is going away. Can anyone suggest a good strategy to manage this?

    Read the article

  • Best practices concerning view model and model updates with a subset of the fields

    - by Martin
    By picking MVC for developing our new site, I find myself in the midst of "best practices" being developed around me in apparent real time. Two weeks ago, NerdDinner was my guide but with the development of MVC 2, even it seems outdated. It's an thrilling experience and I feel privileged to be in close contact with intelligent programmers daily. Right now I've stumbled upon an issue I can't seem to get a straight answer on - from all the blogs anyway - and I'd like to get some insight from the community. It's about Editing (read: Edit action). The bulk of material out there, tutorials and blogs, deal with creating and view the model. So while this question may not spell out a question, I hope to get some discussion going, contributing to my decision about the path of development I'm to take. My model represents a user with several fields like name, address and email. All the names, in fact, on field each for first name, last name and middle name. The Details view displays all these fields but you can change only one set of fields at a time, for instance, your names. The user expands a form while the other fields are still visible above and below. So the form that is posted back contains a subset of the fields representing the model. While this is appealing to us and our layout concerns, for various reasons, it is to be shunned by serious MVC-developers. I've been reading about some patterns and best practices and it seems that this is not in key with the paradigm of viewmodel == view. Or have I got it wrong? Anyway, NerdDinner dictates using FormCollection och UpdateModel. All the null fields are happily ignored. Since then, the MVC-community has abandoned this approach to such a degree that a bug in MVC 2 was not discovered. UpdateModel does not work without a complete model in your formcollection. The view model pattern receiving most praise seems to be Dedicated view model that contains a custom view model entity and is the only one that my design issue could be made compatible with. It entails a tedious amount of mapping, albeit lightened by the use of AutoMapper and the ideas of Jimmy Bogard, that may or may not be worthwhile. He also proposes a 1:1 relationship between view and view model. In keeping with these design paradigms, I am to create a view and associated view for each of my expanding sets of fields. The view models would each be nearly identical, differing only in the fields which are read-only, the views also containing much repeated markup. This seems absurd to me. In future I may want to be able to display two, more or all sets of fields open simultaneously. I will most attentively read the discussion I hope to spark. Many thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to structure classes in the filesystem?

    - by da_b0uncer
    I have a few (view) classes. Table, Tree, PagingColumn, SelectionColumn, SparkLineColumn, TimeColumn. currently they're flat under app/view like this: app/view/Table app/view/Tree app/view/PagingColumn ... I thought about restructuring it, because the Trees and Tables use the columns, but there are some columns, which only work in a tree, some who work in trees and tables and in the future there are probably some who only work in tables, I don't know. My first idea was like this: app/view/Table app/view/Tree app/view/column/PagingColumn app/view/column/SelectionColumn app/view/column/SparkLineColumn app/view/column/TimeColumn But since the SelectionColumn is explicitly for trees, I have the fear that future developers could get the idea of missuse them. But how to restructure it probably? Like this: app/view/table/panel/Table app/view/tree/panel/Tree app/view/tree/column/PagingColumn app/view/tree/column/SelectionColumn app/view/column/SparkLineColumn app/view/column/TimeColumn Or like this: app/view/Table app/view/Tree app/view/column/SparkLineColumn app/view/column/TimeColumn app/view/column/tree/PagingColumn app/view/column/tree/SelectionColumn

    Read the article

  • MVVM pattern and nested view models - communication and lookup lists

    - by LostInWPF
    I am using Prism for a new application that I am creating. There are several lookup lists that will be used in several places in the application. Therefore it makes sense to define it once and use that everywhere I need that functionality. My current solution is to use typed data templates to render the controls inside a content control. <DataTemplate DataType={x:Type ListOfCountriesViewModel}> <ComboBox ItemsSource={Binding Countries} SelectedItem="{Binding SelectedCountry"/> </DataTemplate> <DataTemplate DataType={x:Type ListOfRegionsViewModel}> <ComboBox ItemsSource={Binding Countries} SelectedItem={Binding SelectedRegion} /> </DataTemplate> public class ParentViewModel { SelectedCountry get; set; SelectedRegion get; set; ListOfCountriesViewModel CountriesVM; ListOfRegionsViewModel RgnsVM; } Then in my window I have 2 content controls and the rest of the controls <ContentControl Content="{Binding CountriesVM}"></ContentControl> <ContentControl Content="{Binding RgnsVM}"></ContentControl> <Rest of controls on view> At the moment I have this working and the SelectedItems for the combo boxes are publising events via EventAggregator from the child view models which are then subscribed to in the parent view model. I am not sure that this is the best way to go as I can imagine I would end up with a lot of events very quickly and it will become unwieldy. Also if I was to use the same view model on another window it will publish the event and this parent viewmodel is subscribed to it which could have unintended consequences. My questions are :- Is this the best way to put lookup lists in a view which can be re-used across screens? How do I make it so that the combobox which is bound to the child viewmodel sets the relevant property on the parent viewmodel without using events / mediator. e.g in this case SelectedCountry for example? Any alternative implementation proposals for what I am trying to do? I have a feeling I am missing something obvious and there is so much info it is hard to know what is right so any help would be most gratefully received.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >