I'm working on legacy code in a DotNetNuke module, trying to get classes and behaviors under a testing framework: I'm taking this opportunity to follow advice from the "Working effectively with legacy code" book, so what happens is that i'm trying to define areas which can be tested thoroughly and then converted to services. Then i'd like to use an IoC framework for it to work. For now, i've set eyes on Ninject.
However i'm hitting a design problem: as i'm in a DotNetNuke module, i can't really change application-wide structure: for example i can't derive the Application from NinjectHttpApplication. I can't use these suggestions from SO either.
I was thinking about having the Kernel in a static class that my module would set up and then use but from what i've read around it's a very bad idea.
So i'm starting to ask myself if it's possible to use an IoC in an application that hasn't been set up to support it from scratch. If i'm supposed to have a whole dependency tree loaded for each request, how can i rewrite legacy code locally and benefit from IoC? Is there a pattern where IoC use can grow out from very local rewrites?
Even though i'm working with DotNetNuke, any standalone component that can be installed into an independent framework begs the same question. Also i'm not targeting Ninject specifically, if another IoC framework can help in this case i'm willing to consider it.
From my experience, your best bet to get this type of abstraction within the context of DotNetNuke is by using the WebFormsMVP framework. This is really the only sane way I've found to do unit testing in a DNN module, and if memory serves I spent awhile trying to wire up Ninject a year or so ago.
But be warned, it is still WebForms and will never be drop dead simple. And without knowing your existing code base, I'd have a hard time knowing how easy it will be to make the migration.
I have a couple of resources on GitHub that you can check out for reference:
The first is a module template that should act as a solid starting point:
https://github.com/irobinson/WebFormsMvp-DNN-Module-Template
The second is a small example project:
https://github.com/irobinson/BeerCollectionMVP
Depending on the version of DNN you're using, it may or may not already ship with WebFormsMVP, but you should be able to either bundle the dependencies w/ your module or upgrade to the newer version of DNN if that's reasonable.
Related
background
I have designed many tools in the past year or so that is designed to help me program for XPages. These tools include primarily helper java classes, extended logging (making use of OpenLogger and my own stuff), and a few other things that I personally feel I cannot work without. It has been discussed with my employer, and we feel that it might be a good idea to start publishing these items to openNTF. Since these tools are made up of about 3 .nsfs, all designed to use the same java code, key javascript classes, css, and even a custom control or two, I would like to consolidate key items into a plug-in that can be installed at the server and client level. I want to do this consolidation before I even think about publishing any of the work I've done so far. It would just be far too much work to maintain, not just for me, but for potential users. I have not really found any information on how to do such a thing in google searches. I also have to make sure that I am able to make use of the ExtLib libraries, openNTF Domino API, and the Notes API.
my questions
How does one best go about designing such plug-ins? Must a designer
use eclipse, or is this it possible to do this directly in the Notes
Designer?
How does a designer best go about keeping a server and client up to date while designing and updating the plug-in code? Is this why GitHub is often used?
Where is the best place to get material to get started in this direction? I sort of feel lost in the woods, knowing I need to head north, but not having a compass for that first step.
Thank you very much for your input.
In my experience, I found that diving into plug-in development is a huge PITA until you get used to it, but it's definitely worth it overall.
As for whether you can use Designer for plugin development: yes, but you will likely eventually want to not do so. I started out by using Designer for this sort of thing for a while, presumably with the same sentiment as you: why bother installing another instance of Eclipse when I'm already sitting in one all day? However, between Designer's age (it's roughly equivalent to, I think, Eclipse 3.4), oddities when it comes to working sets between the "Applications" and "Project Explorer" views, and, in my case, my desire to use a Mac app, I ended up switching.
There are two major starting points: the XSP Starter Kit (http://www.openntf.org/internal/home.nsf/project.xsp?name=XSP%20Starter%20Kit) and Niklas Heidloff's video on setting up Eclipse for XPages development (http://www.openntf.org/main.nsf/blog.xsp?permaLink=NHEF-8RVB5H). The latter mentions the XPages SDK (http://www.openntf.org/internal/home.nsf/project.xsp?name=XPages%20SDK%20for%20Eclipse%20RCP), which is also useful. In my setup, I found the video largely useful, but some aspects either difficult to find (IBM's downloads are shifting sands) or optional (debugging, which will depend on whether or not you're using Eclipse on Windows).
Those resources should generally get you set up. The main thing to worry about when setting up your Eclipse environment will be making sure your Plug-In Execution Environment is properly done. If you're following the SDK setup instructions, that SHOULD get you where you need to be.
The next thing to know about is the way plugins are structured. Each plugin you want to install in Designer or Domino will also be paired with a feature project (a feature can house several plugins), and potentially an update site - the last one is optional if you just want to import the features into an Update Site NSF. That's how I often do my normal plugin development: export the paired feature to a directory and then import the feature into the server's Update Site NSF and then install in Designer from there using Application -> Install. You can also set things up so that you deploy into the server's plugin/feature directories instead of taking the step of installing into an update site if you'd prefer. GitHub doesn't really come into play for this aspect - it's more about sharing/collaborating with your code and also having a remote storage location for your git repositories (which I highly advise).
And as for the "lost in the woods" feeling: yep, you'll have that for a good while. There are lots of moving parts and esoteric concepts to get a hold of all at once. If you mostly follow the above links and then start with some basics from the XSP Starter Kit (which is itself a plugin project that you can pair with a feature) - say, printing text in the Activator class and making an implicit global variable just to make sure it works - that should help get your feet wet.
It's best done in Eclipse. You can debug your code running on the server from there, as well as run it directly from there. The editors are also more up-to-date. You want:
Eclipse for RCP and RAP developers
XPages SDK for Eclipse RCP (from OpenNTF)
XPages Debug Plugin (from OpenNTF - basically allows you to load the plugins to the Domino server dynamically, rather than exporting to an Update Site all the time)
XSP Starter Kit on OpenNTF is a good starting point for a plugin. There are various references to the library id, which has to be unique for your plugin. Basically, references to org.openntf.xsp.starter need changing to whatever you want to call your plugin. You're also best advised to remove what you don't need. I tend to work in a copy of the Starter, remove stuff, build and if there are errors with required classes (Activator.java obviously will be required and some others), then paste them back in from the Starter.
XPages OpenLog Logger is a good cross-reference, that was built from XPages Starter Kit. It's pretty much stripped down and you'll be able to see what had to be changed. A lot of the elements of the XSP Starter Kit correspond to Java classes you'll probably be familiar with from your XPages Java development.
GitHub etc tend to be used as source control, which is useful for working out what's changed from time to time.
I have used backbone boilerplate on the past
https://github.com/backbone-boilerplate/backbone-boilerplate
I want to use marionette on my next project and I have found this
https://github.com/BoilerplateMVC/Marionette-Require-Boilerplate
My question is if it's a good idea to go with the marionette boilerplate or start form scratch.
As an aside, I'd like to suggest you give Yeoman a shot for scaffolding your first Marionette app. Yeoman works via what are called "generators", and provide much more than the the above Boilerplate MVC can offer you (Chai and Sinon for testing, Bower for client-side package management, etc...). Plus, Addy Osmani, who runs backbone-boilerplates is one of the heads of the project. Check out generator-marionette here.
I haven't used BoilerPlate, but glancing through it, it certainly seems like a valid approach to writing Marionette apps. If you're just getting started it will certainly help you see how the various pieces are supposed to be used. One gripe I've got is the folder structure. I prefer to break my applications down into modules, and then add models, collections, views, etc under each module. But this will certainly get you up and running quick, and there's nothing stopping you from customizing it to suit your needs.
I agree with others here: it is a useless limitation to imitate a folder structure that follows the 'old mvc model for server-side code'. You will remain more flexible further down the road if you think of your application strictly as completely self-containing modules, i.e. they contain their own controller/router/views/collections/templates etc. You can have a separate folder structure for shared code that is not a module, although anything can be made a module :)
Regarding boilerplate code and generators: i think in the beginning you should actually NOT do it, because you won't understand what you're doing. But that's just my personal opinion.
I have been deliberating and deliberating. Orchard is clearly powerful and flexible, contains some very sophisticated code. I need to create some specific Wizard/Workflow functionality. I am also using Entity framework instead of NHibernate. It seems to me that it will be better to write this application seperately using simpler code, which I can refactor, and integrate into Orchard via a Wrapper Module, rather than getting caught up in writing a module afresh for the complete Wizard/Workflow. As I say I am learning MVC3 and do not want to overcomplicate my life, just deliver a solution. I will certainly use Orchard for typical CMS website features.
I also still have an unresolved issue of representing Organisations above users, which I have already resolved outside Orchard. This is only needed for the application rather than content management. So in the short term it may be that I keep the authentication seperate.
Does this sound the most pragmatic approach. If there was a good existing module then the decision would be easier. I think they are considering workflow for 1.7, but we are not there yet.
Many thanks,
Ed
It does sound like a safe path, yes.
I was wondering if there is an off the shelf tool to help create a 'web application' directory structure with a basic application up and running? The source code would already be pre-written I'm guessing or based on the options some files may/may-not be generated.
I'm not sure what you'd call it but say we have a custom framework* which are to be used for web application development - rather than 'creating' a directory structure all the time we could just create it once and have a console like interface similar to the play framework to generate a basic application or an empty one as per the developer's choice.
We could just give various types of 'zip' files and ask folks to unzip it and import it in their IDE of choice and continue. However, we'd prefer to have an 'installable' to run from the command line (or GUI but no such preference) to have a basic application up and running without everyone wanting to do it all over again.
How does the Play framework do it? What do they use? (I'm guess similar things exist for RoR, Groovy/Grails.)
*It's not custom per se, but similar to having all the spring/hibernate/restlet/freemarker etc files pre-configured, up and running and a directory structure with packages for the various components by convention
I think one of the key points here regarding the Play framework is that it uses the concept of convention over configuration. Your applications are forced to follow the same pattern for the different parts of your application, or it will not work. I personally like this because it makes working on different projects easier, as the rules are always the same, rather the somewhat unwritten rules of best practice.
Java EE on the other hand takes the concept of configuration over convention. Therefore all your files and structures are defined in your relevant XML documents that specify your frameworks, classpaths, etc. There do exist some tools to try to bridge the gap. For example
IDE's will have project creation tools for your chosen framework, so will create a Struts or Spring MVC project structure with a few simple wizard steps. Eclipse does this for sure as one example.
Spring MVC also has Roo. This is a boilerplate code generation tool that creates large parts of your initial project for you.
From your description it seems you have a few different frameworks that you want to have auto-generated, but I don't think any tool currently will serve your purpose. Your concept of a zip file is your best bet here.
If you want a kind of scaffolding in the Java EE world, take a look at Appfuse which provides some archetype with several implementations on the views layer (JSF, Spring MVC, Struts 2...).
I am at a company that does not understand the concept of using frameworks and the benefits of them. I have tried to explain that it provides structure and organization but the people I am trying to explain to are still a little fuzzy about it. In your opinion, what is the best way to describe a framework in the most simplest terms and how it could overall benefit a company to transition their code from procedural and spaghetti code to a nice organized framework?
Thank you for your time.
I guess the best explanation I can think of for using a framework are to standardize your design process and save yourself a lot of effort as your code-base grows. Not to mention that a lot of work can be taken care of for you by the framework (which could save hours of coding). A framework can give you all the parts you need to build your application, you just have to assemble them.
The best reasons I can think of for using a framework are:
Code reuse -- If you try and follow the design of the framework you can save yourself a lot of coding time. However, some frameworks do require a time investment to master.
Encapsulation -- You can change the underlying implementation of different parts of the framework in a way that doesn't require a lot of code rewriting.
Extendability -- You can extend the code of the framework to add features you need and if you are careful about your design, you can reuse these features too.
I'm sure there are many other good reasons, but I'm sleepy.
EDIT: A good example of the benefits of a framework can be replacing the database adapter with another ie. switching from mysql to postgresql. This could be awful with functional programming but a framework could make this transition very easy.
Your coworkers most likely already use libraries, which one could define as code that exists outside of your project, and is meant to used in many projects.
A framework is like a library, but usually has other featues, such as
It might enforce changes to your code. For example, you wouldn't replace one method of your WebForms project with a call to the ASP.NET MVC framework - the entire project would be written differently to conform to the framework.
It might restrict the universe of applications that you can write. For example, you might be using a CRUD generating framework that lets you make data entry applications, but wouldn't let you make a video editing application.
However, a framework will usually give you a lot of value in return.
Let them do as they like ,first.
then pick up their shortcomings and
finally generalise your framework to avoid procedural code.
I'm going to concentrate on only a part of the question:
In your opinion, what is the best way to describe a framework in the most simplest terms
Framework == Library + Inversion of Control