I am looking for a way to separate the repetitive html codes from web pages, and for this I am planning to use the macro functionality. The problem here is for every macro I need to put this macro in a file, or put some of them in a file and include this in the template file.
What I need is to include once just the directory name something like
<#import "/tags/widgetDirectory" as widgets />
here the /tags/widgetDirectory is a directory , and every files here can be seen as a macro defined.
when I need to insert a code part from a file from this directory lets say slide.ftl I will just use
<#widgets.slider />
the system will check for slider.ftl in the /tags/widgetDirectory directory . here the slider.ftl can have <#macro> as first and as last line , or these can transparently added and system can load it as a macro
this will easy my designer work.
Maybe there is better way for doing this kind of widgets/components based web design ?
best regards,
This feature (importing directories) is something that's planned for FM actually... but it won't happen anytime soon. But I guess it can be solved fairly well with a hack right now. Instead of #import, use your own TemplateMethodModelEx, that you could use like <#assign widgets = importDirectory('/tags/widgetDirectory') >. This will return a TemplateHashModel that's also implemented by you and is bound to the directory path. When an item of that hash is get, it uses Environment.getCurrentEnvironment().include. The included file is expected to create a macro with name __main or something. So then you get that variable with Environment.getCurrentNamespace().get("__main") and return it as the result of the hash lookup. Of course this hash should also maintain a cache, so that if the same item is get twice, it wont include the template for the second time, just return the macro extracted earlier. This can be developer further, so that if the include file didn't define __main, then it's supposed that it prints directly to the output, and so it will be included again, when the "tag" is called again.
Related
I have several lines of code of a written class with Interface written in testclass.h and implementation written in testclass.m in Xcode. I wish when I update an entry in testclass.m, its counterpart in testclass.h can be updated automatically.
For example, I have an interface for following function in both testclass.h and testclass.m:
-(void)testfunction
And I modified its name to a different one due to some reason in testclass.m to:
-(void)another_test_function
If I want this code to run I need to manually change the entry in the header. Although I'm very new to programming but I can imagine it could be really frustrating if you are trying to modify something in a big program with a lot of different files invoking some modified entry name. I wish Xcode can auto-detect this change and modify the entry in the header file to -(void)another_test_function automatically.
Is there any way I can do that? All I know by searching the internet is that you can use a shortcut to "edit all in scope" but this only affect all the occurrence in the same file, not header file.
Right-click the method name you would like to change (in either the header or the implementation file) and then select Refactor > Rename. You can then change the name of the method, and Xcode will show you what it will change.
If that looks good, you can accept the changes and you're done.
I am writing a small tool in c++. It is actually more of a framework that is open to customization. It has the following directory structure (simplified example).
src/
main/myexec # linked to libapple.so
apple/
coder/libapple.so
john/libapple.so
.
.
james/libapple.so
Here, the directory "coder" is a generic dummy, with some example code to generate libapple.so. Different users can checkout this tool, create directories of their own, copy the template code from "coder" and customize as they wish. Depending on the configure option (indicating the user), the respective libapple.so needs to be generated.
As I mentioned, this is a simplified example. It is not a matter of generic programming, inheritance etc. In fact, similar to the "apple" folder there are others like "scripts", "docs", "configs" etc each having similar user specific folders. Also, the tool will be maintained at a single repository location to allow me to support & maintain all the code that is not specific to user. As a policy, users are expected to modify and check-in only the contents of their folders.
The problem I am facing is with "configure.ac". I do not want to use "AC_ARG_WITH" option as it would require each new user to edit configure.ac. Also for each user the AC_CONFIG_FILE entries would be exactly the same except for his folder name. I tried using "--enable-user=User" and then AC_SUBST(USERDIR), which also helps in setting "SUBDIRS = #USERDIR#" in Makefile.am. Everything looks good except for the fact that "Makefile.in" is not getting created under the user folder when I specify "AC_CONFIG_FILE = ([apple/${USERDIR}/Makefile])".
Please advice how to overcome this issue. In the worst case I may end up in creating softlinks :(
After one full day of scratching my head, following is the solution that I have come up with.
Create a file "project_makefiles.m4.in" like this
AC_CONFIG_FILES([ apple/USERDIR/Makefile ]
Add the below to configure.ac
m4_include([project_makefiles.m4])
Create a wrapper script like "build.sh" which will create "project_makefiles.m4" from "project_makefiles.m4.in" by replacing "USERDIR". This is done before the automake.
I want to create a fragment file that will only contain a CustomTable in the file. This is easy enough, but I do not know how to link/include it back into the main product.wxs file.
The fragment file is in the same project as the product file, and I have also tried adding an include tag for the file without success, and even putting the custom table into a WiX include file.
Is there a way to do this? Or is it going to have to live in the product file?
The WiX toolset compiles and links in a similar manner to the C/C++ compiler. The linker starts at the "main" entry point (Product element, in your case) then follows the references from there, which in turn follows references from there until all are resolved.
Part of your question is missing but based on the title I'm going to guess that you want a CustomTable element. Typically that CustomTable is processed by a CustomAction. There are a couple good ways to reference a CustomAction.
I would not use an include file.
You could try using EnsureTable if you'd like to make sure the table is created whether or not there is data in it. If you'd like to separate the custom table's schema definition from the data I believe you can just define them in separate fragments and reference the schema definition from the data definition fragment by opening with <CustomTable Id="your table name"> and defining the rows of data within it.
In general Wix won't pull fragments into the main authoring unless they contain elements that are referred to somewhere and since there is currently no such thing as CustomTableRef you may opt to use other elements such as an empty PayloadGroup or ComponentGroup that you can refer to (using a PayloadGroupRef or ComponentGroupRef respectively) from your main Bundle, Product or Module element as the case may be.
I have an XML file (actually a Visual C# project file) that I want to manipulate using a Ruby script. I want to read the XML into memory, do some work on them that includes changing some attributes and some text (fixing up some path references), and then write the XML file back out. This isn't so hard.
The hard part is, I want the file I write to look the same as the file I read in, except where I made changes. If the input file used double quotes, I want the output to use double quotes. If the input had a space before />, I want the output to do the same. Basically, I want the output to be the same as the input, except where I explicitly made changes (which, in my case, will only be to attribute values, or to the text content of an element).
I want minimal diffs because this project file is checked into version control -- and because the next time I make a change in Visual Studio, it's going to rewrite it in its preferred format anyway. I want to avoid checking in a bunch of meaningless diffs that will then be changed back again in the near future. I also want to avoid having to open the project in Visual Studio, make a change, and save, before I can commit my Ruby script's changes. I want my Ruby script to just make its changes, nothing more.
I originally just parsed the file with regexes, but ran into cases where I really needed an XML library because I needed to know more about child elements. So I switched to REXML. But it makes the following undesirable changes to my formatting:
It changes all the attributes from double quotes to single quotes.
It escapes all the apostrophes inside attribute values (changing them to ').
It removes the space before />.
It sorts each element's attributes alphabetically, rather than preserving the original order.
I'm working around this by doing a bunch of gsub calls on REXML's output, but is there a Ruby XML-manipulation library that's a better fit for "minimal diff" scenarios?
You can build your own SAX parser (using Nokogiri, for example, it's very easy and I recommend to use it) to parse your XML file, change some data in it, and flush the processed XML file with your own customized, built from scratch, XML generator. The bad news is, you have to build a tiny XML library and generator routine in this case, so it is not an ordinary task.
Another way: don't build the SAX parser, but write an XML generator. Parse XML with your favourite library, change what you need to change and generate anything you want. You just need to recursively walk through all nodes in your document and output them within your conventions.
I'm writing some code that at run time may create or delete directories within the project path. I haven't really used ruby for file processing so i'm really uneasy about having code that, with a few mistypes weeks down the line, could result in wiping other directories outside of my project path.
Is there anyway to make it impossible for the program to delete files outside of its own path regardless of whats typed in destructive calls?
Pathname is a wrapper class for almost any file operations.
require "pathname"
path= Pathname.new("/home/johannes")
path.directory? # => true
path.children # => [#<Pathname:.bash_history>, #<Pathname:Documents>, #<Pathname:Desktop>]
path.children.each do |p|
p.delete if p.file?
end
Pathname#children does not contain . or .. so you don't accidently walk up the tree instead of down. If you still don't trust in the code, you can even check if on path is contained in another
Pathname.new("test") <=> Pathname.new("test/123") # => -1
You might want to create a wrapper method around your favourite delete method (or, perhaps, around whole class, because not only deleting files is potentially destructive file operation), which would expand all the submitted paths and check whether they begin with your "sandbox" path). You can also try to redefine delete method, if you are willing to cripple it through whole application.
And maybe the cleanest solution of them all would be to create a new user on your system and run your program as him.
On a POSIX system, you can use Dir.chroot to change the root that your application sees. Then ALL actions, not just delete ones, will be limited to the project directory. This does mean that external commands will be unavailable unless you make them part of your project directory as well.
This is the standard 'sandboxing' method used in Unix based systems. It can be difficult to setup (eliminating all external dependancies is sometimes hard), but affords significant protection when configured properly.
You could generate an Array of filenames in your project directory using
my_files = Dir["/bla/bla/your/directory/**/*"]
and then simply check if the filename passed to your "delete" function exist in your my_files array.
I'm sure there is a more elegant solution, but this could work ^_^
You could use File.expand_path and File.dirname on the input, and check that against __FILE__. So something like this might work:
File.delete(path) if File.dirname(File.expand_path(path)).include? File.dirname(File.expand_path(__FILE__))
I've got automated tests that routinely create and wipe out directories. I've taken two approaches:
Use /tmp as much as possible. The 'tmpdir' standard library module will create temporary directories which will be destroyed when your program exits. Or,
When the code creates a directory that it will later be deleting, it drops a marker file into the directory. When it comes time to delete the directory, if the marker file is not found, the code refuses to delete the directory. A marker file might be called ".ok_to_delete", for example.