My application will have the user open a file that will be read by the application, and that file will contain database information that will be stored into an object.
The way I see a Blazor app now is that MainLayout.razor is the component that renders my full page: the navbar and the #Body. I would like the file name I grab from the open dialog box to be passed to my project where I then create my object and fill it with the file information.
I got working where I created the object in one of the blazor component modules, only to realize that I would need to do this for all my modules, that is read and parse my database into an object everytime the user clicks a new tab to load a new component. I would like this reading and parsing of the database to be done once, stored in my object and have that object be available to all potential blazor components in my project.
Where should I define the instance of my object and how should I make that object seen and even be updated by all other components? Is this even possible? Am I passing this object as a parameter, is it part of my routing. I'm not sure how to go about this.
Three ways:
State Class
Create a class with the properties you want to share. Make the class observable. Don't use property setters to change the values, use a method, that not only updates the state it notifies listeners of the change.
This class is provided for injection in program.cs
Cascading Value
Same as the state class but presented as a cascading value instead of injection. This has the added advantage of being able to scope the listeners of the value within the html hierarchy.
Local or Session Storage
Use JSInteropt to save values to sessions/local storage. The relevant components need to listen for updates and read the storage.
As you have not provided any code or shown any attempt I only listed a broad outline of ways achieve this. In my opinion for your scenario, option 1 is the best choice.
The link you suggested has no way of notifying listeners. The components will not react to changes that occur after initialising.
Related
Here is a common scenario: app is installed the first time and needs some initial data. You could bundle it in the app and have it load from a plist or something, or a CSV file. Or you could go get it from a remote store.
I want to get it from CloudKit. Yes, I know that CloudKit is not to be treated as a remote database but rather a hub. I am fine with that. Frankly I think this use case is one of the only holes in that strategy.
Imagine I have an object graph I need to get that has one class at the base and then 3 or 4 related classes. I want the new user to install the app and then get the latest version of this class. If I use CloudKit, I have to load each entity with a separate fetch and assemble the whole. It's ugly and not generic. Once I do that, I will go into change tracking mode. Listening for updates and syncing my local copy.
In some ways this is similar to the challenge that you have using Services on Android: suppose I have a service for the weather forecast. When I subscribe to it, I will not get the weather until tomorrow when it creates its next new forecast. To handle the deficiency of this, the Android Services SDK allows me to make 'sticky' services where I can get the last message that service produced upon subscribing.
I am thinking of doing something similar in a generic way: making it possible to hold a snapshot of some object graph, probably in JSON, with a version token, and then for initial loads, just being able to fetch those and turn them into CoreData object graphs locally.
Question is does this strategy make sense or should I hold my nose and write pyramid of doom code with nested queries? (Don't suggest using CoreData syncing as that has been deprecated.)
Your question is a bit old, so you probably already moved on from this, but I figured I'd suggest an option.
You could create a record type called Data in the Public database in your CloudKit container. Within Data, you could have a field named structure that is a String (or a CKAsset if you wanted to attach a JSON file).
Then on every app load, you query the public database and pull down the structure string that has your classes definitions and use it how you like. Since it's in the public database, all your users would have access to it. Good luck!
I have a MVC5 app that is using layout page to control the header and footer ect. The layout page has some sections that are database driven such as the nav bar. I am not sure of the best practice for where to make these calls is. I can think of 2 ways but neither are perfect
Method 1: Pass in data with the pages view model. Don't like this approach has my homepage controller should only be concerned with homepage content, not the layout. This would have to be repeated for each and every view.
Method 2: Ajax to WebAPI controller. Kinda leaning towards this, although I think this means losing stuff like #URL and #HTML which are being used to create links and render custom content.
EDIT: Though of another method
Method 3: Load info into cache on Start. Since this is not info that changes often after initial setup and this code is displayed on every page, caching would be needed anyways.
You should call a controller method from within the view. On your view:
#Html.Action("MyAction", "MyController")
Make sure this action can find everything it needs without having to have values passed in, and you're set. We do this in several projects via service location and/or dependency injection.
Following is my requirement :
Whenever site is created, with help of GroupListener we are adding some custom attributes to created site.
So assume that you are crating "Liferay Test" site then it will have some fix custom attribute "XYZ" with value set in GroupListeners onAfterCreate method.
I can see this value in custom fields under site settings.
Now based on this values, we are creating groups in another system(out of liferay, using webservices).
So far so good.
Whenever we are deleting the site we need to remove the equivalent groups from other system via web service.
But while deleting site, in GroupListener we are not able to retrieve the custom attributes.
On further debug by adding expando listener, I observed that Expando listeners are getting called first and then delete method of GroupLocalService/GroupListener.
And hence we are not able to delete the groups present in another system.
So I was wondering if we can have ordering defined for listeneres.
Note: Since we were not getting custom attributes in listeners we implemented GroupLocalServiceImpl and with this we are getting custom attributes in delete method on local environment but not on our stage environment which has clustering.
You shouldn't use the ModelListeners for this kind of change, rather create ServiceWrappers, e.g. wrap the interesting methods in GroupLocalService (for creation as well as deletion).
This will also enable you to react to failures to create records in your external system etc.
We have a working website using ServiceStack as the back end that amounts to a complex data-entry form.
My users have requested an "offline editor" for the forms. To use the offline program, the user will have to connect to the ServiceStack service, create empty instances of the forms, and then I will save the POCOs from the service to disk using ServiceStack's JSON serializer. From there the user can log off the service and edit the POCOs. When they're done, they reconnect to the service, and post/put the edited POCO object.
This all works great. My question involves validation. The validation logic is built into my Service.Interface library, which isn't available offline. The winforms program references only the POCO library and the ServiceStack "common" libraries, which do not look like they include the ServiceStack.Validation namespace.
Is there a way I can rearrange my project so that both the service and the Winforms client can run Validation against the POCOs, so that they can have data validation while offline?
UPDATE:
getting closer, I think - I moved all of the Validation classes into their own project. From my Winforms project, I can now manually set up a validator for a POCO class like this:
ServiceStack.FluentValidation.IValidator<SomePOCO> IValidator;
IValidator = new Tonto.Svc.Validation.SomePOCOValidator();
ServiceStack.FluentValidation.Results.ValidationResult vr =
IValidator.Validate(_rpt);
I can see the validator constructor being set up and the rules being initialized, but the .Validate method doesn't seem to do anything. (object comes back as valid, and breakpoints into custom validator code never get there).
UPDATE #2
I discovered my validator code wasn't running from Winforms because my validators all specify a servicestack ApplyTo Put/Post only (see sample code below). When I remove the entire Ruleset clause, though, then validation happens in my service on GETs - something I never want.
Can anyone think of a way to configure the validator rules to run for POST/PUT only when called from ServiceStack, but to also always run when NOT in servicestack? So close!
public class SomePOCOValidator : AbstractValidator<SomePOCO>
{
public SomePOCO()
{
RuleSet(ApplyTo.Put | ApplyTo.Post, () =>
{
(rules)
});
}
}
If your validation is doing anything interesting, then it probably HAS to be done "online".
Maybe just allow your client to save the POCOs locally until they go back online, at which point you send them up to your server. Any transactions that are okay, get processed normally, and any that fail, get returned for the user to edit (so your client will need some smarts to have a working set of POCOs for editing)...
If you don't want ANY extra stuff on the client, just have the transactions that fail to validate get stuffed into a "needs_corrections" table on the server, and then code up a supervisor-sort of screen to manage that table.
The validation framework that ServiceStack uses is named FluentValidation. There is no WinForms support in it. Jeremy Skinner the creator of FluentValidation answerd a question about this back in 2010 on his forum here.
Personally I don't use FV with WinForms - the vast majority of my projects are web-based with the occasional WPF project.
However, if I was going to do this then I probably wouldn't validate the controls directly, but instead use a ViewModel which is bound to the controls. I'd use a fairly strict convention where the names of the controls would match the names of the properties that they're bound to. Then, after validation completes I'd walk the control hierarchy to find the control with the name that matches the property that failed validation (I'm not sure how you'd do this in WinForms, but in WPF I'd use LogicalTreeHelper.FindLogicalNode) and then use the ErrorProvider to set the appropriate error.
Jeremy
I was able to work out a solution that allowed me to use ServiceStack validation libraries on both a ServiceStack client and an offline client. Here are the details.
Move all AbstractValidators to their own project: Proj.Svc.Validation.
get rid of all RuleSets in your AbstractValidators.
Reference Proj.Svc.Validation from Proj.Svc.Interface and Proj.OfflineWinformsClient projects.
Turn OFF the ValidationFeature() plugin in your service. All validation will have to be done manually. This means no iOC injected validators in your service classes.
When it's time to validate, either from your service or the offline client, manually declare the validator and use it like this.
IValidator validator = new
Tonto.Svc.Validation.SomePOCOValidator();
ServiceStack.FluentValidation.Results.ValidationResult vr =
validator.Validate(poco);
if (!vr.IsValid)
(throw exception or notify user somehow);
Is it possible to create a document inside document library using just client-side javascript?
Just a simple text or xml file...
There are examples on how to create/delete a folder or delete a file, or update a document property. And you can do anything you want with list items.
But what if I need to create a document in a document or forms library with ECMAScript object model in SP2010, or calling web services via ajax in MOSS? Is it feasible?
Of course you can do it. You just need to have content of file as a Stream or byte[].
Use such code to create file in library.
ok, i found there are multiple ways to do it, though all of them are normally used in desktop apps, not in browser.
Here is the list:
RPC: Simple ajax POSTing to _vti_bin/_vti_aut/author.dll can do the job quickly if you don't need to set metadata or handle multiple content types
Copy Web Service: CopyIntoItems method of copy.asmx service accepts base64-encoded file body
HTTP PUT: You can simply PUT your file to the desired destination, though this method can by unsupported by some browsers