I have seen in Blazor client side, we can call a UI component to render additional elements from a shared page, also this can be done using code behind and a razor.cs file.
But how does one call a code only file such as string MyFunc() that can be shared between several UI pages, such that the returned string can be processed differently by each page ?
You don't even have to use dependency injection if you don't want / need it.
You can just create a class and keep it in memory just like any other type of CSharp code.
Optional, but if you want to make your class available to other components, In my sample project BlazorImageGallery , I create an object called a GalleryManager, that I want to make available to other components as a Cascading Paramater:
public class GalleryManager
{
}
<CascadingValue Value="GalleryManager">
<ArtistListViewer></ArtistListViewer>
<ImageListViewer></ImageListViewer>
</CascadingValue>
Then on my Index page, I load the Gallery Manager:
protected override async Task OnInitializedAsync()
{
// Create the GalleryManager
this.GalleryManager = new GalleryManager(this);
// Load the Artists
this.GalleryManager.Artists = await ArtistService.GetArtistList();
}
My IndexPage can refer to this.GalleryManager throughout my application lifetime.
And the child components:
/// <summary>
/// This parameter is available to call parent objects
/// </summary>
[CascadingParameter]
GalleryManager GalleryManager { get; set; }
You don't have to make it a cascading parameter if you don't want to, or even put it on the page. I was just showing you an example of keeping a class loaded in memory.
Blazor is just C# code, and since I came from a Windows Form background, it feels like home since the item will live in memory until I exit the page or dispose of it.
One can create a service - basically a class and then use the inbuilt DI to inject it into any component.
For example -
public class SayHelloService()
{
public string SayHello()
{
return "Hello!";
}
}
Then prepare the DI like this -
public static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
var builder = WebAssemblyHostBuilder.CreateDefault(args);
builder.Services.AddSingleton<SayHelloService>();
builder.RootComponents.Add<App>("app");
await builder.Build().RunAsync();
}
And then just inject into your component like this
#inject SayHelloService Service
You can then use Service in your code block or anywhere using standard Razor syntax. For example -
<p>#(Service.SayHello())</p>
Related
I am aware that this violates the MVC principle and best practices.
I have a whole bunch of custom Angular components that each take a whole bunch of optional parameters and each require a different remote stylesheet and javascript file. I would like to render these with an HtmlHelper without having to manually include the right resources everywhere I use them.
I was hoping that this would do the trick but it doesn't
public static class HtmlExtensions
{
private static IResourceManager _resourceManager;
// Executed in the Activated method of an OrchardShellEvents implementation
public static void SetResourceManager(IResourceManager resourceManager)
{
_resourceManager = resourceManager;
}
public static MvcHtmlString Angular(this HtmlHelper helper, CustomAngularComponent component)
{
// Require the resources
var _styleRegister = new ResourceRegister(helper.ViewDataContainer, _resourceManager, "Style");
var _scriptRegister = new ResourceRegister(helper.ViewDataContainer, _resourceManager, "Script");
_styleRegister.Require(component.StyleSheet).AtHead();
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(component.Script))
{
_scriptRegister.Require(component.Script).AtFoot();
}
// Create tag
var tag = new TagBuilder(component.Tag);
tag.MergeAttributes(component.Parameters);
return new MvcHtmlString(tag.ToString(TagRenderMode.SelfClosing));
}
}
I could use an arbitrary Shape as a helper, something like:
#Display(New.Angular(Model: new CustomAngularComponent(...)))
but a helper with strongly typed parameters feels a lot better.
This comment on another Orchard question tipped me off. As it turns out, simply injecting Work<IResourceManager> and using it directly was enough to make my setup work. Please note that this does not conform to best MVC practices, by doing this I sacrifice maintainability in favor of readability.
public static class HtmlExtensions
{
private static Work<IResourceManager> _resourceManager;
// Executed in the Activated method of an OrchardShellEvents implementation
public static void SetResourceManager(Work<IResourceManager> resourceManager)
{
_resourceManager = resourceManager;
}
public static MvcHtmlString Angular(this HtmlHelper helper, CustomAngularComponent component)
{
// Require the resources
_resourceManager.Value.Require("stylesheet", component.StyleSheet).AtHead();
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(component.Script))
{
_resourceManager.Value.Require("script", component.Script).AtFoot();
}
// Create tag
var tag = new TagBuilder(component.Tag);
tag.MergeAttributes(component.Parameters);
return new MvcHtmlString(tag.ToString(TagRenderMode.SelfClosing));
}
}
I am using Guice's RequestScoped and Provider in order to get instances of some classes during a user request. This works fine currently. Now I want to do some job in a background thread, using the same instances created during request.
However, when I call Provider.get(), guice returns an error:
Error in custom provider, com.google.inject.OutOfScopeException: Cannot
access scoped object. Either we are not currently inside an HTTP Servlet
request, or you may have forgotten to apply
com.google.inject.servlet.GuiceFilter as a servlet
filter for this request.
afaik, this is due to the fact that Guice uses thread local variables in order to keep track of the current request instances, so it is not possible to call Provider.get() from a thread different from the thread that is handling the request.
How can I get the same instances inside new threads using Provider? It is possible to achieve this writing a custom scope?
I recently solved this exact problem. There are a few things you can do. First, read up on ServletScopes.continueRequest(), which wraps a callable so it will execute as if it is within the current request. However, that's not a complete solution because it won't forward #RequestScoped objects, only basic things like the HttpServletResponse. That's because #RequestScoped objects are not expected to be thread safe. You have some options:
If your entire #RequestScoped hierarchy is computable from just the HTTP response, you're done! You will get new instances of these objects in the other thread though.
You can use the code snippet below to explicitly forward all RequestScoped objects, with the caveat that they will all be eagerly instantiated.
Some of my #RequestScoped objects couldn't handle being eagerly instantiated because they only work for certain requests. I extended the below solution with my own scope, #ThreadSafeRequestScoped, and only forwarded those ones.
Code sample:
public class RequestScopePropagator {
private final Map<Key<?>, Provider<?>> requestScopedValues = new HashMap<>();
#Inject
RequestScopePropagator(Injector injector) {
for (Map.Entry<Key<?>, Binding<?>> entry : injector.getAllBindings().entrySet()) {
Key<?> key = entry.getKey();
Binding<?> binding = entry.getValue();
// This is like Scopes.isSingleton() but we don't have to follow linked bindings
if (binding.acceptScopingVisitor(IS_REQUEST_SCOPED)) {
requestScopedValues.put(key, binding.getProvider());
}
}
}
private final BindingScopingVisitor<Boolean> IS_REQUEST_SCOPED = new BindingScopingVisitor<Boolean>() {
#Override
public Boolean visitScopeAnnotation(Class<? extends Annotation> scopeAnnotation) {
return scopeAnnotation == RequestScoped.class;
}
#Override
public Boolean visitScope(Scope scope) {
return scope == ServletScopes.REQUEST;
}
#Override
public Boolean visitNoScoping() {
return false;
}
#Override
public Boolean visitEagerSingleton() {
return false;
}
};
public <T> Callable<T> continueRequest(Callable<T> callable) {
Map<Key<?>, Object> seedMap = new HashMap<>();
for (Map.Entry<Key<?>, Provider<?>> entry : requestScopedValues.entrySet()) {
// This instantiates objects eagerly
seedMap.put(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue().get());
}
return ServletScopes.continueRequest(callable, seedMap);
}
}
I have faced the exact same problem but solved it in a different way. I use jOOQ in my projects and I have implemented transactions using a request scope object and an HTTP filter.
But then I created a background task which is spawned by the server in the middle of the night. And the injection is not working because there is no request scope.
Well. The solutions is simple: create a request scope manually. Of course there is no HTTP request going on but that's not the point (mostly). It is the concept of the request scope. So I just need a request scope that exists alongside my background task.
Guice has an easy way to create a request scope: ServletScope.scopeRequest.
public class MyBackgroundTask extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
RequestScoper scope = ServletScopes.scopeRequest(Collections.emptyMap());
try ( RequestScoper.CloseableScope ignored = scope.open() ) {
doTask();
}
}
private void doTask() {
}
}
Oh, and you probably will need some injections. Be sure to use providers there, you want to delay it's creation until inside the created scope.
Better use ServletScopes.transferRequest(Callable) in Guice 4
I am using the basic instructions (here) for creating a property driven by a custom ToolPart.
All is good, except for the part where, in order to access the webpart property within the ApplyChanges method I must cast the "this.ParentToolPane.SelectedWebPart" back to a concrete "SimpleWebPart" class.
public override void ApplyChanges()
{
SimpleWebPart wp1 = (SimpleWebPart)this.ParentToolPane.SelectedWebPart;
// Send the custom text to the Web Part.
wp1.Text = Page.Request.Form[inputname];
}
Doing this means that I must pair each toolpart with a specific webpart. Is there a better way?
I cannot create an interface as there is no way of specifying a property in one.
I ineptly tried an passing an event/eventhandler during toolpart creation, but that did not update the webpart property when called.
I could create a base class for all the webparts that have a public "Text" property, but that is fugly.
I could also get desperate and crack open the this.ParentToolPane.SelectedWebPart reference with Reflection and call any properties named "Text" that way.
Either way, I am staring down the barrel of a fair bit of faffing around only to find out each option is a dead end.
Has anyone done this and can recommend the correct method for creating a reusable toolpart?
I have used an interface instead of a specific instance of a webpart.
private class IMyProperty
{
void SetMyProperty(string value);
}
public override void ApplyChanges()
{
IMyProperty wp1 = (IMyProperty)this.ParentToolPane.SelectedWebPart;
// Send the custom text to the Web Part.
wp1.SetMyProperty(Page.Request.Form[inputname]);
}
But this does not give a compile time warning that the toolpart requires the parent webpart to implement the IMyProperty interface.
The simple solution to that is to add a property of the IMyProperty interface in the toolpart constructor and call this reference instead of the this.ParentToolPane.SelectedWebPart property.
public ToolPart1(IContentUrl webPart)
{
// Set default properties
this.Init += new EventHandler(ToolPart1_Init);
parentWebPart = webPart;
}
public override void ApplyChanges()
{
// Send the custom text to the Web Part.
parentWebPart.SetMyProperty(Page.Request.Form[inputname]);
}
public override ToolPart[] GetToolParts()
{
// This is the custom ToolPart.
toolparts[2] = new ToolPart1(this);
return toolparts;
}
This works fine, but I cannot get over the feeling that there is something nasty in the underlying SharePoint code that may trip me up later.
I have been building a new .NET solution with Castle performing my DI.
Its now at the stage where i would like to control the order in which my installers run. I have built individual classes which implement IWindsorInstaller to handle my core types — eg IRepository, IMapper and IService to name a few.
I see that its suggested i implement my own InstallerFactory (guessing i just override Select) in this class.
Then use this new factory in my call to:
FromAssembly.InDirectory(new AssemblyFilter("bin location"));
My question — when overriding the save method — what is the best way to force the order of my installers.
I know its already solved but I couldn't find any example on how to actually implement the InstallerFactory so here's a solution if anyone is googling for it.
How to use:
[InstallerPriority(0)]
public class ImportantInstallerToRunFirst : IWindsorInstaller
{
public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, Castle.MicroKernel.SubSystems.Configuration.IConfigurationStore store)
{
// do registrations
}
}
Just add the InstallerPriority attribute with a priority to your "install-order-sensitive" classes. Installers will be sorted by ascending. Installers without priority will default to 100.
How to implement:
public class WindsorBootstrap : InstallerFactory
{
public override IEnumerable<Type> Select(IEnumerable<Type> installerTypes)
{
var retval = installerTypes.OrderBy(x => this.GetPriority(x));
return retval;
}
private int GetPriority(Type type)
{
var attribute = type.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(InstallerPriorityAttribute), false).FirstOrDefault() as InstallerPriorityAttribute;
return attribute != null ? attribute.Priority : InstallerPriorityAttribute.DefaultPriority;
}
}
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class)]
public sealed class InstallerPriorityAttribute : Attribute
{
public const int DefaultPriority = 100;
public int Priority { get; private set; }
public InstallerPriorityAttribute(int priority)
{
this.Priority = priority;
}
}
When starting application, global.asax etc:
container.Install(FromAssembly.This(new WindsorBootstrap()));
You can call your installers in the order they need to be instantiated in Global.asax.cs or e.g. in a Bootstrapper class, which is called from Global.asax.cs.
IWindsorContainer container = new WindsorContainer()
.Install(
new LoggerInstaller() // No dependencies
, new PersistenceInstaller() // --""--
, new RepositoriesInstaller() // Depends on Persistence
, new ServicesInstaller() // Depends on Repositories
, new ControllersInstaller() // Depends on Services
);
They are instantiated in this order, and you can add a breakpoint after and check the container for "Potentially misconfigured components".
If there are any, check their Status->details, if not, it's the correct order.
This solution is quick and easy, the documentation mentions using a InstallerFactory Class for tighter control over your installers so if you have a ton of installers the other solution may fit better. (Using code as convention should not require tons of installers?)
http://docs.castleproject.org/Windsor.Installers.ashx#codeInstallerFactorycode_class_4
In the end i had to use InstallerFactory and implement the ordering rules as suggested previously by returning the IEnumerable<Type> with my specific order
I have created a custom control with a collection property per the example on How do you build an ASP.NET custom control with a collection property?
When the control is added to a common ASP.Net aspx page it works as expected. However, when added to a Page Layout in Sharepoint the following error is thrown:
Unable to cast object of type 'System.Web.UI.CollectionBuilder' to type 'System.Collections.Generic.List`1[mytypes.mytype]'.
The code is pretty much identical to the code provided by the example shown in the link above. I do not think the fault lies in the control as it works fine in a plain web project.
I dont think you can use generic lists in sharepoint. Use an ArrayList or customised List collection instead (use asp:ListItem as an exampe, it has its own collection type)
[ParseChildren(true, "Names")]
public class MyControl : Control {
private List<PersonName> names;
public MyControl() {
names = new List<PersonName>();
}
[PersistenceMode(PersistenceMode.InnerDefaultProperty)]
public List<PersonName> Names {
get { return this.names; }
}
}
public class PersonName {
public string Name { get; set; }
}
UPDATE
Ahh i see the problem now, it is not to do with the generic list, it is because of the way you are doing the initialization.
Create a private variable to hold the list private List<PersonName> names;
Ensure that the property does not have a setter