The Application Insights extensions in Visual Studio and Azure appear to inject the javascript snippet for page view tracking automatically, even though the docs say you enable this with an Application Setting key "APPINSIGHTS_JAVASCRIPT_ENABLED" = true.
Other docs show how to add the same javascript in my layout view, which I did. As a result I'm now seeing the AI javascript twice, once from my view, once from the AI magic. I'd prefer to control this myself -- how can I prevent the tooling from modifying the pages to inject the script? Setting APPINSIGHTS_JAVASCRIPT_ENABLED to false doesn't seem to work.
I'm working in an ASP.NET Core 2.0 web application.
Try upgrading to the lastest version of Microsoft.ApplicationInsights.AspNetCore. They released a new version (2.2.0) today, which resolved the problem for me! The javascript part is not added automatically anymore!
Related
Is there an easy way to modify an application that has been built using bootstrap4xpages so it now uses that same code that has become part of the extension Library? This would allow the application to get the updates as I guess the bootstrap4xpages plugin won'T be updated anymore.
Thanks :)
If the application uses the Select2 control, you'll still need both in the xsp.properties. That's because there are licensing issues that prevented the Select2 control being included in Extension Library plugin.
Otherwise, as Per says, you can just remove the org.openntf.xsp.bootstrap.library reference from the xsp.properties.
I have used several solutions like Berkelium project, CEfSharp, awesomium.net, The Web application i built constitutes of Javascipts, xml, CSS. When I used these solutions for files published on server they properly work out but when i give path like (file:///path) it stops responding.
Depending on your needs as alternatives to file:// maybe look at either:
Implementing a SchemeHandler as showcased by both the CefSharp.WinForms.Example and WPF ditto.
Maybe even an OWIN married with CEF implementation, like Harley
or see this other answer: Ajax not working in CefSharp based WebView with local files
I am using PrimeFaces Extensions <pe:ckEditor> which is basically a server side JSF component which generates the necessary HTML/CSS/JS code output for CKEditor. It works fine, however I have a new requirement which requires me to use either the PBCKCODE or the syntaxhighlighter add-on of CKEditor.
I have successfully created a customized version with those add-ons from their website. However, I have no clue how to integrate those add-ons in <pe:ckEditor>. How can I integrate those add-ons in <pe:ckEditor>?
Is there any reason why you don't want to use the CKEditor directly in stead of using it through pe:ckEditor? At least thats what I did in our project.
I have an existing ASP.NET MVC 4 project that already uses ServiceStack for REST services, and I just read all about ServiceStack.Razor and would love to move the entire project onto ServiceStack. Right now there is only one controller and view besides the built-in AccountController, and that controller just returns the view and the view is really just HTML; everything else is HTML/CSS/JS + ServiceStack REST.
The only real legacy constraint here is that this new app still needs to make use of SimpleMembership. At present I'm using a custom auth provider to authenticate against SimpleMembership and I would like to be able to continue to do so.
So, what would be the best recommended path to achieve this end? Can I get what I want by modifying my existing project by removing some references, or should I start fresh with an empty ASP.NET app and move the old stuff into it? Can I have SimpleMembership without introducing dependencies that will step all over ServiceStack.Razor?
If you were to start a new solution using only servicestack then MVC would never be there to get in the way.
I use servicestack.razor and love it. It is a lot simpler than MVC in my opinion. Moving everything to the new solution is pretty much going to be copy and paste since what you have works. I wouldn't hesitate and would make the move sooner than later. In the end you are not gaining anything from MVC. You only gain using servicestack. A big deal for me is self-hosting and eventually moving to mono.
This is a question that will have answers based off opinion so I suspect you will receive a few. I have not personally performed such a migration so this is only opinion but is how I would approach it. However, my recommended approach would be:
Retain the existing application/ Given its current simplicity, creating a new app and moving existing items into it seems unnecessary.
You should be able to use your existing auth solution via SimpleMembership and use ServiceStack.Razor. I would proceed as such however it does depend on what other ServiceStack features you may use which could cause conflict. A ServiceStack expert could comment more on this. Even if that did occur, you would be able to work around it relatively easy. At worst, implementing a simple handler would get around almost all issues from an authentication perspective.
Working with different razor engines is relatively easy to do and you can use/enable/disable existing or new build engines via a few lines of code. See here for an example. This should alleviate any concerns around dependencies of other built in or custom engines.
Consider looking at ASp.Net 4.5.1/VS 2013 (since your project is in early days) as it has enhanced membership support and is moving to a more "less dependent" model of components via the Owin stack Asp.Net 4.5.1 and VS 2013. Katana is a microsoft project that also provides some Owin based authentication components see here and here which you could use now and this would remove a lot of dependencies and enable you to migrate other framework with relative ease. Downside is that Katana/Owin has a little ramp up time/learning curve. Again, given your project is in its formative days I would recommend looking into Katana and the ASP.Net vNext stuff as this will make it easier for you and means you dont have to migrate to the new version once it is released.
I would like to know whether plugins (such as the OpenNTF Extension Library) need to be manually installed on any Notes Client that will be using an XPages in the Notes Client Application (XPiNC) that is dependent upon those plugins.
According to the Mastering XPages book, page 500 in the XPages in the Notes Client Chapter:
XULRunner will cache the usual resources used on the XPage but the Java classes still need to be loaded across the network for each new notes session
I understood this to mean that if there are plugins, such as the OpenNTF extension library, that they would be sent across to the Notes Client so that these dependencies would be resolved, allowing the user to use the application in the notes client, without worrying about having updating or not.
I have configured the UpdateSite.nsf on the server (8.5.3) for the dynamic loading of plugins when the HTTP server starts, this is working fine for the XPages being accessed through a web browser. However only clients that have had the 8.5.3 Upgrade pack applied (which includes the OpenNTF Ext Library), are able to access the application using the client.
It seems to me that it will be very cumbersome. The benefit of XPages would be gradual migration from the Client to Web, but to have to worry about plugin dependencies on everyones machine would be a backwards step?
Yes! You have to install extension lib plugins on clients for xpinc. You can use the update pack given by IBM or create a widget, put it in your widget catalog and then deploy it using policies or ask users to do it manually.
Stephen H Wissel has listed the steps to do this on his
blog. http://www.wissel.net/blog/d6plinks/SHWL-8GZM9A
You have to deploy the plugins to the client,
if you want to use the plugins in XPINC apps, as far as I know.