I need some help...
Value objects, by definition, are immutable data classes that only use other value objects or primitives. And an value object only should be created with a valid value.
But... what happens when to construct a valid value object we need to validate the data using a third party library?
For example a Phone and a Mobile value objects. Build a valid phone depends on a country and the validation rules could constantly change and be complex. We don't want to spend time changing phone validation rules because this is not the core of the our business... so we want to validate the data using Google libphone library.
Possible solutions:
Inject the third party library by construct: new Phone($phone, $validator)
Inject the third party library by factory method: Phone::fromString($phone, $validator)
Build the object from a class factory.
First and second options I guess is not the correct way, Value objects don't necessarily need collaborators...
Third option allows to create invalid phones if you instantiate the phone outside the factory.
Any idea?
Thanks.
The solution for this is to have 2 types UnvalidatedPhone and ValidatedPhone (both part of the domain), together with your 3rd option.
The incoming command will have an UnvalidatedPhone and as you process the command, at some point you'll validate it using the builder/factory and get a ValidatedPhone. This is even better if you can hide the constructor of ValidatedPhone, so the validator is the only thing that can create a ValidatedPhone.
Mini warning: If you are writing this in an OO language (I guess you do), the two phone classes don't need to be part of a hierarchy. Try to keep them separate.
Related
I have sample project for identity customization using
Install-Package Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.Samples -pre
command. But, for this project I have a general ApplicationUser class representing all the users of my application. What if I have different categories of users. For example, I may have Teacher and Student entities and data representing both the entities will be different. How can I customize my application to store data for both the entities having all the features of ApplicationUser?
One way that I think is inheriting both the classes from ApplicationUser and then doing appropriate changes in IdentityConfig.csand defining Controllers for each of them. Is there any other efficient way of doing this?
What if I want to use the built-in authentication and authorization features but using database first workflow?
First, you want to know how to create "types" of users. The way you would do that is exactly how you expected: inherit from ApplicationUser. By default, this will result in a single "users" table with an additional Discriminator column. This column will store the class type that was persisted, i.e. "Teacher", "Student", or "ApplicationUser", and EF will utilize this information to new up the right class for each particular record.
One thing to note with this, though, is that you need to be aware of how UserManager works, namely that it's a generic class (UserManager<TUser>). The default AccountController implementation you have from the sample defines a UserManager property on the controller which is an instance of UserManager<ApplicationUser>. If you use this instance with something like Teacher, it will be upcast to ApplicationUser. In particular if you were to do something like UserManager.Create(teacher), it will actually save an ApplicationUser, instead (the Discriminator column's value will be "ApplicationUser", rather than "Teacher"). If you need to work with the derived user types, you'll need to create separate instances of UserManager<Teacher> and UserManager<Student> for that purpose.
Next, you want to know if you can use a "database first workflow". To answer that, we need to define exactly what that means. EF has what it calls "Database First" which employs EDMX to represent your database entities. This in particular is incompatible with Identity. However, despite the name, what EF calls "Code First", can work with an existing database just as well as create a new one. In other words, yes, you can use an existing database, if you prefer, but no you cannot use "Database First", in the EF-sense. For more information about using an existing database with Code First, see my post.
How to access a connector / Data Base from the initial/instantiation Form/Page?
Hi every body, any help will be appreciated.
I try to access using the API Rest, but the method need the activyty/task id or the instance flow id.
This is because the connector stores its result in a proces/local/Busines data model or Variables,
but in the initial form I don't have an
instance of the flow/task/activity and I can't access to the variable that stores the value.
I need to use the connector to access data base and to the Ldap
to get some values to show in the initial form before instantiating the process.
Is there any way to call a Groovy Script from initial Form?, if there is,
I can access from that script to the data base, and save this value into a form variable, to show it in the form I think.
P.S.: I use Bonita 7.2
thanks!
Sounds like you have a chicken and egg problem.
Can you instantiate the process with minimal data, then use a connector out to populate the BDM with the connector data, and then make the first step of your process the "initial" form? At that point you then have the case, taskid, etc.
If the data is not task/case specific, you can access the BDM data via the REST API and a custom query - i.e. you're not just limited to the API's that require the case/task/instance, etc. However, you may need to get clever with how you isolate that record. For example, I have some global parameters that I keep in in the BDM, and access them within my form by requesting the first record in that table via the rest API:
I created a variable called "globals" of type "External API" with the following REST call that retrieves the record with persistenceId=1:
../API/bdm/businessData/com.company.model.GlobalParameters/1
In your case, you probably need to use a REST Api extensions. Basically, you can create a new REST Endpoint using Groovy script. There is a documentation available here: http://documentation.bonitasoft.com/rest-api-extensions-808
Cheers
I do not know that the question is right? Please do not take it your mind if it is crazy. Actually I am working on xpages application. There I need to do two things, that I want to add the picklist functionality and binding the dynamic data like field_1,field_2,field_3, ... upto n depands on customer choice.I am using the composite data for both custom controls. I can remove the picklist control's composite data and also I can do it by passing the scope variables. But that takes more time than the composite data.
I did not get any error. But the binded documents is not saving.
Is it possible to import the CCs that are having composite Data?
Code for first CC:-
<xc:viewpicklist datasrc="view1" dialogID="dialog1" dialogWidth="700px" dialogTitle="Pick this field value!!!">
<xc:this.viewColumn>
<xp:value>0</xp:value>
<xp:value>1</xp:value>
<xp:value>2</xp:value>
</xc:this.viewColumn>
</xc:viewpicklist>
Code for Second CC:-
<xc:BOM_Partinfo BOM_Partinfo="#{document1}"
TNUM="field#{index+1}" Desc="Desc#{index+1}" quan="Ea#{index+1}"
exp="exp#{index+1}" cap="cap#{index+1}" total="price#{index+1}"
RD="RD#{index+1}" m="manufact#{index+1}"
m_n="manufactnum#{index+1}">
</xc:BOM_Partinfo>
You can read information that is set in the properties of a custom control if it was static in the calling page:
var x = getComponent("yourcomponentid");
x.getPropertyMap().get("parametername");
but you want to propagate a data source from the outer control to the inner control...
You need to plan carefully. If you hand over the data source, then your custom control is dependent on a fixed set of fields in the data source (that would be a parameter of type com.ibm.xsp.model.DocumentDataSource). This would violate the encapsulation principles. So I would recommend you actually hand over data bindings - the advantage: you are very flexible what to bind to (not only data sources, but also beans and scope variables would work then). The trick is you provide the binding name as you would statically type it in (e.g. "document1.subject" or "requestScope.bla" ). In your control you then do
${"#{compositeData.field1}"}
${"#{compositeData.field2}"}
You need one for each field.
You cannot send a document data source to a custom control using composite data parameters.
You can try and use this script instead
http://openntf.org/XSnippets.nsf/snippet.xsp?id=access-datasources-of-custom-controls
Define data source in XP/CC where you want those CCs. Define parameter "dataSourceName" for both CCs. Inside each of them use EL "requestScope[compositeData.dataSourceName].fieldName" everywhere you want to bind to datasource.
I've found filter_var to be extremely useful in validating and sanitizing user input with PHP, but I've yet to find anything even remotely as convenient in ColdFusion (more specifically, CF8).
Obviously I can hack together something using REReplace, but that would take significantly more time to code up and would be much uglier than using the pre-defined filters available in PHP. Is there a more efficient way or do I just need to bite the bullet?
There are three different options available to you. Since you're attempting to manage user input, I assume you're using forms. isValid most closely mimics your functionality, allowing you to check if a value specified matches either a data type or a regular expression and returns true or false, and includes attributes by default to define a range. It does not support the ability to create a custom 'filter' beyond defining a regular expression however.
The second option would be using cfparam tags on your POST processing page, which allows you to specify the existance of a variable, test against a data type or define a regular expression, and optionally assign a default value if the variable doesn't exist. If you attempt to process a page where the field is not defined and no default value is assigned however, ColdFusion throws an error.
Finally, you can do validation by using cfform and cfinput fields on your form itself; which allows for client-side data validation for existence and types (it also supports server-side validation but it's implementation is sloppy), regular expressions, and input masking: taking user-inputted data and conforming it to a specific format (like adding dashes to phone numbers and zip codes).
I have been making good use of custom properties withing custom controls. Is there such thing as custom methods? Say I want something to happen in a CC. A good example is the show method of the dialog box extension. If I have a cc with a extension dialog inside, I want my custom control to have a Show method which insulates the end user programmer from the extension pages Shoe method.
Is there anyway to do this?
At runtime, all Custom Control elements become instances of the UIIncludeComposite class; as such, there are many built in methods that you can call against any given control instance, but there is no way to specify custom methods, as opposed to custom properties.
There are, however, at least two ways you could achieve the result you're after:
Convert your Custom Control to a component (this NotesIn9 episode describes the simplest approach to this process). Once you've migrated the class that Designer generated to one that won't get overridden every time you build your NSF, you can add custom methods without fear that the next build will just wipe them out again. Since Custom Controls are essentially just IBM's implementation of the JSF 2.0 notion of "composite components", you could also create a component from scratch that has the same behavior as your existing Custom Control but also supports custom behavior. Note that either approach does not necessarily require that you create an OSGi library... you can define these components directly in an NSF; you only need to push them to a library if you want to reuse them across multiple NSFs without having to copy the various files to each.
In the custom properties for your control, include one property that accepts an API object. In other words, you could create any object (say, a Java class or SSJS object) that supports the custom methods you wish to define, and pass that object to the control. You could then call those methods by getting a handle on the object via the CC's property map.
For example:
<myCC id="myCustomControl" API="#{someObject}" />
Assuming whatever #{someObject} resolves to includes a show() method, you can call that method by getting a handle on the instance that has been passed to the control:
var cc = getComponent("myCustomControl");
var ccProperties = cc.getPropertyMap();
var ccAPI = ccProperties.get("API");
ccAPI.show(cc);
In the above example, I'm passing the actual Custom Control to the show() method, because the object itself isn't aware of the Custom Control it was passed to. So if that method needs to get a handle on its children to toggle their rendered property, for example, then it needs some other way of determining its context.
Tim's solution with passing in the object is a great solution to that.
Just something that popped into my head, would be easy to make a property similar to the rendered property on a control. Pass in a value and inside the custom control do something based on its value ie. if true display dialog, else hide, in the XPage during run time modify this value and partial refresh the control, the logic will be re run by this and the control will display etc.
Another solution could be to include a JavaScript library in your custom control providing functions (your custom control methods) where you'd have to pass in the id of the custom control instance.