Does anyone know if there is going to be created a default MembershipProvider to use with EF 5 (like SqlMembershipProvider and ActiveDirectoryMembershipProvider) or we will still have to create custom ones (that is for Code First of course)?
Actually after the long comments and explanations it results that there will be a default MembershipProvider for EF and - guess what, guess what - it is called EFMembershipProvider. Here is a link.Now this is really cool because third party implementations of MembershipProvider will no longer be needed (or the respective manual implementation - it was kind of BIG and total overkill for small projects).
UPDATE
Currently it seems that this provider is not available. I do not know if it will be developed and included in the future either.
Since we are encouraged to use SimpleMembershipProvider and migrations when using EF Code First that is what I am doing now. You can also implement the ExtendedMembershipProvider, which requires a little bit more effort.
For me the best solution for now is to inherit SimpleMembershipProvider and modify only the things that I need (I am using most of the code from my previous implementation of MembershipProvider), for example logging with email or username.
I've implemented a CodeFirst MembershipProvider & Role with my Silversite CMS ASP.NET library, that can be found at silversite.codeplex.com. The library also supports multiple DbContexts for CodeFirst databases.
As far as I know though currently the implementation is broken, and I didn't have the time to fix it yet. Also Profile and Session providers still are lacking. But I've got the code from the MySql providers that should not be too hard to port.
Related
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 am trying to get any DB queries that happen when using the SqlMembershipProvider to show in MiniProfiler but I can't think of any way to swap out the SqlConnection is uses with a ProfiledDbConnection as it seems to do everything internally. Anyone have any ingenious ideas?
You could download the source (freely avaliable) for the ASP.Net SQL Providers here, read more about it here, Scott Gu published tons of whitepapers in this article about the provider model.
internal to the assembly is a SQLConnectionHelper that you can update to use the ProfiledDBConnection instead. This would give profiling to all the providers using that class, all thats left is to change your .config file to use the new provider instead.
I am currently working on a ASP.NET MVC 3 project and I am setting up the solution file on VS2010.
I am not sure of what is the standard approach. I am using the following approach
Company.Dept.Data (contains the dbml file - Data Model)
Company.Dept.Business (Business logics)
Company.Dept.Web (contains ASP.NET MVC3 webapplication)
The first two are class libraries and the last one is MVC3 web application.
Anyother recommendations?
There is no single "standard" approach. It all depends on your project and what problems you are trying to solve with the software. Your proposed structure of having 2 class libraries and 1 web project is one way to go for sure.
If you are going to do any kind of Dependency Injection using an Inversion of Control container, you might also want to consider having an "API" project for interfaces and an "Impl(ementation)" project for concrete classes that fulfill the interface contracts.
To echo danludwig, there really is no standard. I prefer breaking up libraries and namespaces according to functionality. Company.Db is my library for interacting with the database, Company.Mail are my wrappers around the Postmark mail service, etc.
I then tend to group like libraries into single repositories. So the 'storage' repository in source control holds Company.Db, Company.Caching, Company.FileStorage, etc. I have another repository 'messaging' that holds Company.Mail and Company.SMS (for interacting with Twilio to send text messages). When I branch out with new apps or new services (maybe a WCF endpoint for mobile clients), I can just pull down the 'messaging' repository, and I have all my class libraries for communicating with the user.
An application then looks like
Company.Application.Webite
\Libraries\Messaging
\Libraries\Messaging\Company.Mail
\Libraries\Storage
\Libraries\Messaging\Company.Db
\Libraries\Messaging\Company.Caching
\Libraries\Web
...
Company.Application.Wcf
\Libraries\Messaging
\Libraries\Storage
\Libraries\Messaging\Company.Db
\Libraries\Messaging\Company.Caching
...
This way, whether someone registers via the site, or via the mobile app, Company.Mail.MailServices.SendWelcomeEmail() sends the exact same welcome email, and there's no code duplication.
Whether this works for you, or even makes sense, who knows. I've also changed this scheme a hundred times, trying to find a layout that works with my development style/workflow. I wouldn't worry or stress too much about it, because whatever you pick, you're going to find things you like about it, and you'll find things you hate about it. I sometimes fall into the trap of spending more time trying to make everything "perfect", than to just code and change things I don't like.
What is the best approach to version WebAPIs?
I am building an API from scratch and I would like to ensure that it will version gracefully in the future. I am envisioning something like mysite.com/api/v2/...
One approach I see is to create a separate project (web app) for each version of API. But perhaps there are better ways to do it?
Thank you for your ideas.
Including version number in the URL is the standard approach as I explained in this post (I do not repeat the content): Implementing versioning a RESTful API with WCF or ASP.Net Web Api
You do not need to create a completely new project although you can. The problem that you will be facing with a single project is that there will be collision of names:
/api/v1.0/Car/123
and
/api/v2.0/Car/123
both will point to CarController while you can have only one of those. The solution would be to implement your own IHttpControllerSelector and register with the DependencyResolver. This implementation will look at the version number and perhaps find the type based on the namespace.
UPDATE
I do not intend to start a REST controversy here. But as #DarrelMiller points out, here is an older discussion on the same subject discouraging my suggested approach:
How to version REST URIs
I personally think URL versioning is the way to go.
You will need to create your own implementation of IHttpControllerSelector. The best way is to base this implementation on Microsoft's IHttpControllerSelector. Then you can decide in your IHttpControllerSelectorif you want to version by URL or by content-type.
The most basic implementation directly implements IHttpControllerSelector and just implements the SelectController method but performance reasons it is better to implement some caching around it.
For finding the Controller you simple the IHttpControllerTypeResolver instance you can get using HttpConfiguration.Services.
I've used something like this: http://damsteen.nl/blog/implementing-versioning-in-asp.net-web-api. Also put some code on Github: https://github.com/Sebazzz/SDammann.WebApi.Versioning.
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