I have some plugin's which are basically input and output type definitions. I have a generic controller which i can add to the mvc pipeline. All works fine.
but I'm having trouble setting the api version on this generic controller. I know you can set this based upon an attribute on top of the controller class. But since you can't have this dynamic (attribute) don't allow it, i have no way to set the version for each instance of the generic controller.
Currently i just compile the controller for each instance on runtime and register i using the roslyn compiler.
is there a way to set the api-version somewhere in the pipeline of registering controllers in the mvc pipeline and endup with different api versions endpoints.
This can be achieved by using the Conventions API. It was designed to support this exact type of scenario:
https://github.com/microsoft/aspnet-api-versioning/wiki/API-Version-Conventions
This will only work on closed-generics, but it shouldn't be too much work to make that happen. Here's a couple of basic examples:
// typed, closed generic
options.Conventions.Controller<GenericController<PlugIn1>>().HasApiVersion(1,0);
// untyped, closed generic
var controllerType = typeof(GenericController<>).MakeGenericType(new []{typeof(PlugIn1)});
options.Conventions.Controller(controllerType).HasApiVersion(1,0);
You can also author your own custom conventions a la IControllerConvention. This approach could be used to version all controllers that inherit from GenericController<>. Then you just need to add it to the conventions like this:
options.Conventions.Add(new PlugInControllerConvention());
Hopefully that's enough to get you started. Feel free to ask more questions.
Related
I have read the two other questions on SO regarding this and I wanted to know if there is a good solution for that now / best practice.
Long story short, we use an SDK which is written natively and we've wrapped it so that it works on Xamarin.Android and Xamarin.iOS. It has asynchronous callback methods. I need to call a method in the shared code when a callback is received in the Android project for instance.
There's a lot of info for doing the opposite - using DependencyService. How about in my scenario? Does anyone have experience with an app like this and what's the best approach to keep code clean and do this using MVVM?
The options I know are:
Using a static App instance - this is what we currently do.
MessagingCenter
Anything else?
Actually I've never seen anyone recommend usage of MessagingCenter for anything else than communication between ViewModels so I am not sure it is recommended here. Also, I need to know the sender object type so I need a reference to the class in the platform specific project.
I would recommend you to use messagingCenter to pass data or call method between shared project and platform project. You can just send a new object instead of the class in the platform specific project.
Also, have a look at using eventhandler as I mentioned in this answer may help someone who want to call from the shared project into the platform specific one.
BTW, I mean you can even pass an object as TSender if it is not necessary to use:
MessagingCenter.Send<Object>(new object(), "Hi");
MessagingCenter.Subscribe<Object>(new object(), "Hi", (sender) =>
{
// Do something whenever the "Hi" message is received
});
I would like to use Confirm Prompt but currently Confirm Prompt supports only few languages such as en-us, fr-fr etc. I would like to use Confirm Prompt for 2 different languages which are not supported by default. I know I can use fields as confirmChoices and choiceOptions to manually specify confirm choices but that would mean that I have to create 1 ConfirmPrompt for every language which is not included in Confirm Prompt by default.
The easiest way to add support for more languages, which are not included by default, would be to add them to defaultChoiceOptions map. But this map is declared as private static, hence it can not be modified.
So I am thinking about extending ConfirmPrompt class and overriding onPrompt and onRecognize method which will be exactly same as in ConfirmPrompt class but it will use myCustomDefaultChoiceOptions which will be non static and public field in my custom class => problem solved.
But this is hackish solution and I can not understand why this map is not public and non static in Bot Framework SDK.
Hence I am asking, is there any other solution (natively supported by framework) which allows me to add support for different languages in ConfirmPrompt?
This was actually a change pushed out a couple of months ago (by me). You'll need to update your packages.
choiceDefaults is private (and non-static, now), however, it can be updated by passing it into the constructor.
The easiest/best way to do this would be to build your PromptCultureModel for each language/locale/culture (so you can also use it easily with ChoicePrompt), then create the object with those PromptCultureModels that matches ChoiceDefaultsConfirmPrompt, and then pass that into the constructor.
You can see how I did this in it's test here.
Note: When you overwrite choiceDefaults, you lose all of the currently-supported languages. You can easily add them to your PromptCultureModel object via PromptCultureModels.getSupportedCultures().
Note: I've got a to-do to add some additional languages, but it's on the backlog since you can now add your own.
I'm new to Laravel & I wanted to know something about it's feature that calls Contracts.
(If my question not in place, let me know why, and don't just downvote it).
So from what I red in Laravel Documentation and say on Laracasts videos, I understood that contracts they are only interfaces for class implementation.
So what it's good for? That if I or someone else will implement those interfaces will all need to go by the interface and then I dont need to change my code at all?
Is that the reason why Laravel uses it's implementation as a contracts ?
Also I wanted to know, to achive the implementation I must bind the implementation to a contract?
Yes, I think your understanding is mostly correct. I will try to explain with an example. Let's say you have a PackageDeliveryServiceContract that has some methods like trackPackage, getShippingCost.
You create a FedexDeliveryService to adhere to the contract and implement those methods.
In your controller, you can just inject PackageDeliveryServiceContract and start using it right away. (are you familiar with laravel's dependency injection?).
Let's say later you decide you no longer want to ship with Fedex and use UPS instead. Then you can create UPSDeliveryService that also adheres to that contract.
Now, all you need to do is change your binding from FedexDeliveryService to UPSDeliveryService and you don't need to make any changes to your controller code.
Typically you will create the binding between contract and implementation inside a service provider such as app/Providers/AppServiceProvider.php
I have created a document-based app that uses Core Data. I created the mac version first, and now that it's working properly, I am moving on to create an iOS version of it.
I just can't get my head around how to maximize code reuse between the iOS/mac versions, with respect to the Core data bit, since they don't use the same classes.
My document class that handles saving and such is a subclass of NSPersistentDocument. My intention is that a well-designed model class should work in both environments, especially since I don't do all that much fancy stuff with regards to Core data.
Now, since NSPersistentDocument isn't available in iOS, I hit a wall. I tried to get around this by using #if TARGET_OS_MAC and TARGET_OS_IPHONE and in that manner make it a subclass of UIManagedDocument in the iOS version. That obviously would have been convenient, but I can't seem to make it work like that. And it's really looks quite messy, since there are a lot of other stuff that has to be conditionalized as well.
I also tried building the classes atop of NSDocument/UIDocument instead, implementing the Core data hooks myself, but it also looks quite messy, leaving me thinking it's not the right way to go.
The question:
To me, it seems like a good idea to reuse the same document class between the iOS/mac versions, but maybe I'm being naive.
What's the best way to do this?
Should I forget about the code sharing and create a separate document class for the iOS version that emulates all the methods present in the mac version?
Am I right that the code you're wanting to share is model-related? I suggest refactoring that code to a separate object, which both an NSDocument and UIDocument contain (as rickster suggested above).
I use a DocumentRoot Core Data entity with its own NSManagedObject subclass, but if there are no properties you want to manage using Core Data, you can just subclass NSObject.
This may sound strange, but NSDocument and UIDocument are actually controller classes. (To be specific, they're part of the model-controller.) Their jobs are to load the model, set up windows, and save the model. If you need to provide an interface for higher-level access to model objects, it could be in a document root or model helper class instead.
Similarly NSPersistentDocument's job is to configure the managed object context and the persistent store and handle loading and saving. It doesn't necessarily need to provide a complete interface for accessing the model.
(Bringing this over from my comment.)
In general, the situation where you have two classes which must inherit from different superclasses but which also want to share a lot of code is composition. Put the shared code in a separate class; your NSDocument and UIDocument subclasses can each keep an instance of that class, and message it whenever they need to invoke that shared code. (Though as #noa mentions, you might want to consider whether all of that code belongs in your document class to begin with.)
Of course, then you might end up writing a bunch of methods that read like:
- (id)doSomething {
return [sharedController doSomething]
}
That can get to be a pain... so you might want to look into Objective-C's message forwarding system.
I am writing an MVC 3 application and I am trying to implement my own custom membership provider (following the sample in Apress' Pro ASP.NET MVC 3 Framework).
I created my custom class, inherited from MembershipProvider and (using ReSharper) implemented all 27 of the methods with NotImplementedExceptions.
Now, I have overridden the ValidateUser method as the book states and it works fine, but I would like to make my provider more robust and implement the other methods (e.g. set MinRequiredPasswordLength and GetNumberOfUsersOnline).
Is there some sample code that I can use to start populating these methods that I can tweak to fit my own DB/Model schema?
I can certainly use trial and error to figure it out, but a base code sample would greatly help.
EDIT:
This question was just downvoted twice. If you are going to downvote, please post a comment as to why so that I can work on improving my questions.
EDIT 2:
For example, for the following method:
public override int GetNumberOfUsersOnline()
{
throw new System.NotImplementedException();
}
I can try to write code from scratch to look at some web log, determine the users login time and approximate if they are still on, but that will take a large amount of time for me to figure out. Since all this code is from the same interface that Microsoft wrote for the standard SqlMembershipProvider, isn't there code out there (even from MS) that contains this method? If so, I want take it, modify it so it uses my DB schema instead of the aspnetdb default schema. I would prefer to have some sort of base code to work from. I thought this would be a simple and fairly standard request, but perhaps not.
You can't use the default provider's code for your custom provider, that is why you are implementing a custom one, to tweak it according to your requirements, use your own db tables etc.
Take a look at my blog posts about custom membership, custom role providers and custom membership user. There is an example there of how you can use your own database to get/set membership information.
Here's a of sample implementation of custom MembershipProvider on MSDN.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6tc47t75.aspx