Customizing JHipster - jhipster

Is it be possible to customize/extend JHipster for an organization ?
By that, I mean having a local version that creates some projects with features that are specific to an organization ? For example, using a custom authentication scheme (that still relies on Spring security), using custom styles (colors, fonts), adding certain Maven dependencies and so on.
If this is possible, can it be done while retaining the possibility to update JHipster in such a way that an update of JHipster would not overwrite these extensions ?
Thanks.

Here's the approach in general:
First, we created a blank project with all standard JHipster
stack. DBMS used is Postgres. We outlined the basic data structure
with jhipster entity generation tool, creating the most important
relations etc. We also defined the basic user roles and permissions
within standard JHipster options. At this phase we didn't pay very
much attention to the details such as complex unique constraints,
business restrictions, user management, JPA errors handling and
presentation etc. Just created a sort of backbone to start with.
CRUD pages are all standart.
We introduced some domain-specific business logic. Basic frontend customization was performed: branding,
styles, some custom views (still used bootstrap classes extensively) etc. Jhipster-generated frame was kept in place but extended. We changed authorization logic a little bit on both backend
and frontend, it's token-based with certain token validation
rules. User-friendly error handling was introduced, allowing user to
understand what business restrictions show up in various conditions. We started to write more complex unit tests to meet the business logic implemented recently. Entities are mostly (~80%) crafted manually at this stage, because we got used to the data structure offered by JHipster, and we had too much customization in CRUD REST controllers, pages and tests covering all that. Liquibase changelogs were generated with liquibase:diff and edited manually. We don't add such entities to .jhipster folder.
Because of demands for interface design growing high and strict, it was decided to introduce separate frontend layer for end-user interaction. It partially shares REST interfaces with jhipster-generated frontend, but is absolutely independent in terms of project structure. We decided to use Angular for new frontend layer as well. In fact, it is a subfolder with separate index.html, bower.json, Gruntfile.js etc. At the same time we continued to improve business logic, refine db structure, increase code coverage, introduce new user roles etc.
...
So we have slightly customized "old" JHipster frontend for administration and data mangement purposes. And an independent "new" frontend with custom design to deal with end users. Please note: it IS possible to keep an original interface, customize it to some limit and preserve the possibility to generate entities, and it worked well in our project as far as it was justified.
Some notes:
Component versions in pom.xml were constantly updated by hand;
Maven dependencies were manually added to pom.xml;
JS dependencies were manually added to index.html/bower.json/app.js;
If you have complex frontend scripting, dealing with JS uglification for production profile may be tricky;
Another difficult thing is to keep liquibase scripts working for both DBMS used by spring-boot and H2 which is used for tests;
You'll probably face some problems with configuration tuning depending on domain logic specific for your project.
I hope it helps.

Another approach that has been introduced in release 2.26.0 (mid december 2015) is to build your own modules, see documentation.
Later on in release 5.0.0 (mid 2018), JHipster has introduced a more powerful tool: blueprints, although it requires more effort than creating a module. With a blueprint, you can even replace the language/framework of the generated project, it has been successfully used for Kotlin, NodeJS and VueJS.

Related

ServiceStack SharpScript Future

Good day, I've been using ServiceStack for many years, I currently designing and planning a rewrite of an ASP MVC (Razor) project. #Script seems to be an almost perfect fit, without hands-on experience of the technology I have some doubts and questions.
My question is how relevant is #Script today and what is the future plans of this technology. I ask these questions because when I looked at GitHub example I noticed that there is not a lot of activity, and searching the internet I am also not finding a community around it.
As #Script's author I would say that #Script is a complete library for what it's designed for as an embeddable sandboxed .NET scripting and templating language that's ideal for exploratory programming with seamless integration into .NET APIs (including Win32 APIs) that includes a vast built-in library (1000+) of filters that's easily and highly extensible to the point that it's even able to natively support multiple languages (inc. built-in LISP Repl) within the same page that's been a joy to develop with thanks to its built-in Hot Reloading support where changes are instantly visible upon save - so technology-wise IMO it's pretty great.
If we were to compare it to comparable libraries in other languages like the Ruby's Liquid it should be pretty clear that #Script is vastly more capable where it scales from a user-friendly templating language to a powerful scripting language where it's capable of developing entire Windows Desktop Apps that fits in a Gist.
On the activity front, Liquid is also an established library with low activity with only a handful of commits in 2021, the difference is that it's vastly more popular and used in popular products like Jekyll as used in GitHub Pages which ensures it will always have a rich, vibrant ecosystem which is the most important indicator for assessing a technology's longevity.
Technology not as important as ecosystem
However in the end the technology doesn't matter nearly as much as its user base, community and ecosystem behind it which is where #Script is sorely lacking. Unfortunately this is the reality of libraries that compete Microsoft's defaults like Razor which are exclusively promoted for .NET and will always retain the majority of adoption in .NET.
#Script is a "complete" library in that I've added all the features I planned for it and there's basically nothing I can think of to add to it to make it more appealing, but facing the realization of its indefinite lack of adoption I wouldn't recommend using it for large living (i.e. multi-year) Websites, given it will never have the community and adoption enjoyed by other ecosystems since the benefits of a community and ecosystem are ultimately the most important attributes in order to continue investing in a technology.
Continue to be actively supported
Like all of ServiceStack, #Script is still an actively supported library with no outstanding issues so it's safe to use in that any issues will be promptly resolved should you wish to.
Website Development Recommendations
I'd say it's still a fine option for smaller definitively-scoped projects since its compile-time-free and Hot-Reload makes for a very productive Dev UX for server-generated dynamic pages. However even then I'd first evaluate if a static generated framework like Jekyll, Hugo or other popular static generators would be more appropriate since they enjoy a vibrant community and a statically generated site results in a more performant, resilient and cheaper to host and deploy website.
Static Site Generators
Having recently redeveloped the servicestack.net website to split it out into using Jekyll for static content and ServiceStack.Razor for dynamic content, my recommendation for large websites with large static and dynamic components is to use a static site generator for its static content which yields several benefits:
Although it does require a fair bit of overhead to setup as you're effectively maintaining 2 different websites however it greatly benefits if the static content is actively updated as there's a lot less friction to change and update content on a static generated site then a dynamic one and it results in a superior end user UX thanks to CDN Edge caches that's also cheaper to host from free sites like GitHub Pages and Netlify.
In order to preserve existing URLs we needed extra functionality not possible from a static host so our static content is deployed to a S3 bucket where we use CloudFront for CDN edge caching, CF Behaviors for proxying "external static" routes to our .NET5 dynamic website and a CF Function for supporting pretty URLs. For internally deployed websites you'll be able to accomplish similar functionality with reverse proxy and redirect rules.
SPA or Razor
For small websites or mostly dynamic websites that wont benefit from a content site split I'd recommend either an SPA Project Template if you prefer TypeScript and an established SPA FX like Vue, React, Svelte or Angular or Razor or MVC if you instead prefer C# server generated websites.
Progressive Enhancement
My personal preference is for read-heavy dynamic sites to use ServiceStack Razor utilizing API First Development approach so that all writes are made to the same clean ServiceStack APIs that Mobile and Desktop Apps would also call. This typically involves using some kind of progressive enhancement like our Client TypeScript Validation example which utilizes the Form & Validation Binding in #servicestack/client to take over <form> submissions to perform TypeScript API calls and apply any validation errors back to the Form's UI.
The Client jQuery example accomplishes the same thing without the tsc -w watched build step whose form & validation binding utilizes the older jQuery ss-utils.js library but it does mean you'd need to author logic in an older broadly ECMAScript 5 supported version of JS.
Future of #Script
As I don't expect #Script Pages will ever achieve any meaningful adoption required for self-sustained active development, it's unlikely we'll continue in investing in further development for usage in dynamic websites (i.e. the script project template), it's a complete and extensible library so further development isn't strictly necessary as it can be easily extended with your own local Plugins, Methods, Transformers and Blocks. But it does mean we're unlikely to be creating and including new methods/plugins designed for dynamic websites in the library OOB.
Still a critical ServiceStack component
#Script is still a critical component of ServiceStack where it's used to provide integrated SPA templates since it's able to render dynamic websites from static *.html pages in npm dev hot-reload servers which can't use Razor's *.cshtml pages. It's also what makes ServiceStack's Declarative Validation possible where validation rules can be defined on dependency-free DTOs as it allows defining binary-decoupled logic in dep-free attributes. It's also what makes vuedesktop.com Desktop Apps like ServiceStack Studio possible as well as command tools like Post Command - HTTP API Command Line Utils and cross-platform dotnet scripts which makes usage of its internal functionality, so it's going to continue on as a actively developed & supported library.
Good future use-cases of #Script
However I'd limit any #Script usage to where it excels, e.g. as an embeddable scripting .NET sandbox given it's more versatile & flexible than Razor for tasks like Rendering Emails, authoring & rendering Live Documents (e.g. if needing to maintain live user-generated reports in an RDBMS) or as an embeddable Template, JS or LISP DSL or for evaluating adhoc JS/LISP Expressions or .NET logic.
Future replacement project templates
For developing server-generated websites with ServiceStack we're looking at shipping a couple of new templates which encompasses our latest recommendations (e.g. embracing an API First Development style), if they result in a great Dev UX we're looking at:
An Integrated Static generated (e.g. Hugo/Jekyll) + Dynamic Project template
An API First MVC Pages + ServiceStack template with integrated progressive enhancement
Please follow #ServiceStack to get notified as soon as they become available.

Composition relations with jHipster

I am learning jHipster. My entity relationship model has projects and files. A project can have zero to many files, and a file always belongs to exactly one project.
project <(1:1)-----(0:*)> file
Users interact with the application similar to using an IDE. First, after opening the initial website they always have to select which project they want to work in. (Of course they can also create new projects, or perhaps delete an old one.) Only then they get access to all resources added to a particular project such as files.
As a consequence, my REST API should logically look like this (to get a single file):
GET /projects/{:projectId}/files/{:fileId}
In the backend, depending on whether fileId is a UUID or not, I might even have a method:
findFileByIdAndProjectId(String fileId, String projectId)
The problem is that jHipster creates all entities in a "flat way". Each entity seems to have its own REST API without nesting, and there is simply a reference to an other entity rather than proper composition. Adapting the generated code is quite a bit of work as it requires lots of changes both on the frontend and the backend, but more importantly, it probably breaks the ability to re-create my code when an entity has changed.
I am curious: What different options do I have, and which one would you guys recommend?
Custom code is the way to go though there are few tricks that can help you:
Using DTOs so you can aggregate entities in service layer
Extending generated classes both in backend and frontend so that you don't change generated code, see excellent talk, slides and code samples from Antonio Goncalves

hapi.js nested plugins and folder structure

I am new to hapi and for the last few days I've been trying out different project structures in order to keep the concerns separated and the codebase somewhat maintainable while not deviating too much from the "hapi" way of doing things. You can take a look at the folder structure here.
My project consists of a simple RESTful API, so I don't need to worry about views, rendering and so on. What I've ended up doing, and I'm not sure (yet) if this is idiotic or not, is to have the whole API logic (route handling, authorization, db access, etc) registered as a plugin. What this allows me to do is:
easily prefix all the routes with "/api/vX/" for a particular API version
easily swap API versions by registering all the dependencies (basically other plugins) for a particular API version in the plugin itself; this is what I meant in the title by "nested plugins"
I was hoping I could get some insight from other people using hapi and maybe see what what they are using, what's working for them and what's not.
Also, is nesting plugins "hapi"? I've taken a peak at the repos for a few of the popular hapi plugins that are out there and I haven't seen people doing it. Thanks!

How do I create transferable dll's for a specific website functionality?

VS2013 update 5, MVC5 using Areas
I have a stand-alone function programmed for a website. The functionality is a specific user interface to collect survey responses in a particular way. It has several controllers, a model and a group of views. The functionality is completely contained in an Area of the project, except for the Shared _Layout file that provides the main menu for consistency.
'Is it possible for me to' / 'how do I' compile this Area into a single or set of .dll file(s) that I could then add conveniently to other websites? I'm assuming creating something for transfer/download is very standard functionality. For example, I used Elmah.MVC for this site. What I want to do is pretty much create a package that can be downloaded in a similar way to how we integrate Elmah.MVC into a site. (Be certain I'm not talking about creating error logging software, I'm only using Elmah.MVC as an example of software that is easily integrated into other website applications.)
I've never compiled any website functionality into a .dll(s) for use elsewhere and would appreciate either some specific guidance, or perhaps what would be easier is to provide a link with a good step by step tutorial or explanation for how to do this. Most of what I've found on the web describes bits and pieces of doing this, but it's not enough for me to feel confident with it.
It seems to me there are a lot of 'moving parts' to taking a particular piece of an MVC application and turning it into something that is easily added to other projects.
A particular issue I don't quite grasp is the difference in downloaded packages between getting code and getting just the .dll(s). For instance, when I download an MVC5 site, I get controllers, models and views, but when I download Elmah I get a .dll and no code files. Also, I do understand the concept of transforms, but I'm just struggling right now with even getting from my programmed application into a 'package' regardless of the transforms that make it easy to integrate into another website.
These are just some of my questions I have about how to perform this particular process in developing deliverable and/or shareable software.
What you are looking to do is create a portable MVC Area project. A Portable Area is a set of reusable multi page functionality can be dropped into an application to provide rich functionality without having to custom build functionality that is literally the same in every application. An MVC Portable Area is really just a dll that contains the views, controllers, scripts, etc… needed to use in a website that is either a Web Forms website or an MVC website. A developer can use them for a reusable widget or a complete engine. I have actually used them for both. Here is a link with some basic info to get started. http://elegantcode.com/2012/04/06/mvc-portable-areas/

When to build in application/classes vs modules?

I'm fairly new to Kohana but I like the framework. I've hit a bit of an issue where I need to build a theme system into my application. It is very much application specific and there really won't be any reason to share it down the track. Initially I built it into the modules system within Kohana but now need to expand it. I haven't seen much reference for it but is it best practice to build all support classes like this into the modules or is it best practice to keep application-specific classes etc housed within application/classes?
On a side note, are there any good theme-system examples for Kohana? I really like how Drupal manages its themes and sub-themes and was wanting to emulate a very basic version of this inside my application.
I'd agree with that, anything specific to the application and has no real reuse should be put into the application directory. I like to use modules for fairly generic modules. Examples would be:
contact - Many websites have contact forms.
email - Can be used in lots of places.
etc ...
For your case, you might consider building a templating engine and putting that into a module (it's generic), then simply housing the application specific theme into the application directory where your module can load and use it.

Resources