I'm currently trying to develop a reusable Yesod subsite to deal with user to user messaging. Ideally, the user should be able to download this package from Hackage, provide some hooks in their application, and have a modern, feature-ful messaging system on their Yesod master site.
However, I can't find any examples of a subsite that references the master site's entities. In this case, I'd like to build Persistent models for Messages that might reference a User from the master site.
None of the Yesod subsite tutorials I've found so far deal with using Persistent in a subsite.
The yesod-comments package is the closest thing I've found to what I'd like to build, but I'm a bit confused by the approach it takes.
Firstly, it seems to use strings to identify users, rather than the user's id directly, which seems inefficient.
Additionally, it seems to require a strange structure of callbacks (the persistStorage structure) in order to support comment storage, but this seems strange to me. It seems to me that, in Haskell, all the information necessary for figuring out which function to invoke should be done at the class and instance level, but in this case, I'm relying on passing around a bunch of callbacks in order for my code to work properly.
So here's a question to the Yesod community: what's the best way to develop these sorts of generic subsites in Yesod?
I'd really love to use Yesod in my projects, because I love Haskell and all the things that type-safety and static compilation brings (not to mention the speed and scalability benefits), but I can't help but feel pulled towards the dynamic frameworks, like Django and Rails, where not only is there an ecosystem to build and distribute reusable components, but also all the in-library infrastructure to build those components.
Have a look at how yesod-auth is implemented. Essentially, there's the YesodAuth typeclass that defines the various database operations that need to be provided, but doesn't actually implement them. The user of your subsite can then implement them, and at the same time has the flexibility to modify the database schema however he/she needs.
If in your case schema modification isn't strictly necessary, you can turn down the flexibility and simply require the user to use your data types in the database. If you want to go even further, you can just make the persistent calls yourself in your subsite, likely with something like:
lift $ get404 userId
If you're running into concrete issues with doing something like that, please provide the code and error messages so the problem is clearer.
Related
I communicate with the server through jsons, which both in Nodejs and in Actionscript are objects (serialized through string).
Those objects I use in my client, by reading / modifying them and also creating secondary objects (from Classes) relative to what came from the server.
I have one of two options to design my client and I am stuck at deciding which of them is more flexible/futureproof.
Keep data as it comes, create many methods to modify the objects, keep secondary objects somewhere separate.
Convert the data into instances of classes where each class has its own group of methods instead of piling the methods in the same place.
Usually I go with 2 because OOP is delicious but going with 1 seems much simpler in terms of quantity.
I guess my problem is that I can't figure out if my client is basically a View (from MVC) where the server is the Control (also from MVC), or if my client and server are two independent / separate projects that communicate, and I should consider the client as a MVC project in itself.
I would appreciate your 2 cents.
From your question it's not clear what 1. and 2. differ but looks like 1. is tightly coupled while 2. has better separation of concerns.
It depends on your application. Do you need to create client heavy app with rich UI/UX elements, or maybe a mobile app where bandwidth is limited? If the answer is yes, then go with a second approach (2.): build your MVC like structure or use existing MV* libraries, like Ember, Angular, Backbone, Knockout, etc.
If you need SEO support and don't have much of fron-end code, then rendering on the server-side is still an option. Even with this approach ORM like Mongoose can come in handy.
PS: JavaScript doesn't really have classes, because objects inherit from other objects. You can use prorotypal inheritance patterns for that.
I started developing an application (some boring accounting software for inhouse use) and decided to make it web-based as this would solve a couple of problems in one go.
Now with a couple of webframeworks for Haskell to choose from (happstack, yesod and snap) I still begin feeling the pain again of having to deal with HTML, CSS and devishly clever wired JavaScript.
Uhm.
So what the hell I thought might as well try going all the AJAX way and do the UI in either Cappuccino or SproutCore. (SEO is not an issue here).
But now I wouldn't really need a full blown web-framework such as one of the three above, an HTTP server which could serve data wrapped in JSON or XML should in theory be enough.
Would there now still be a point in using either one of those three?
And most of all how feasible is the approach?
Günther
I think your question might be verging on "overly broad" here - so I guess it depends on your requirements. You probably don't need things like type-safe URLs if all you are doing is exchanging JSON and in fact the Yesod book has a JSON web service example which avoids using Yesod itself and instead builds on the underlying WAI package.
I can't comment on Snap and Happstack since I haven't really looked into them much, but there are other options too. For example Scotty adds a simpler layer on top of WAI which should be more than adequate for building a basic server without much of a learning curve. I also found reading Scotty's code was a good way to build an understanding of WAI which is also very useful if you are developing more complicated Yesod apps.
All of the big three web frameworks have their own web servers. Yesod's server is warp. Snap's server is snap-server. Happstack's server is happstack-server. They all have fairly low level APIs that would be appropriate for your application. Warp's API is defined in wai. The Snap server's API is defined in snap-core. Happstack doesn't have a separate package for its API, however they have a simplified version of it in the happstack-lite package.
I would recommend that you take a look at the APIs and use whichever one you like best.
Ok, here's the thing.
I have a good JS background, had my share of JS in the past, and have lots of cool bare-bones tools I take with me from project to project that act like a library.
I'm trying to formulate work with CouchDB.
Now, after getting used to luxury of cool tools that you wrote and simplify the language for you - I find it a little frustrating to write many things in bare-bones manner.
I'm looking for a way I can load to the database context a limited, highly efficient and generic set of tools that focus on the pure language and makes the work with the language much more groovy (and gosh, no, im not talking about jquery or any of the even more busty libraries out there).
If on top of that, there could be found a way where I can add to the execution context of the couchDB JS engine some of my own logic tools (BL model functions) - it would present a great and admirable power and make couchDB the new home for a JavaScript-er like me.
Maybe I'm aiming too low.
I'd be satisfied with a way I can allocate a set of extensions even for a specific database, and I don't mind do it for every database in separate. Or worse - to add it to every design document, so I can teach for example several views in the same design-doc what a Person is, what a Worker is, and use their methods to retrieve data from them according to logic in a reusably coded manner.
Can anybody point me the the way?
Whatever way you can point me - I'll be very verrry grateful.
If there are ways for all of these - then great.
Trust me to know the difference of what logic belongs to what layer...
You open my possibilities - I promise to use them :D
CouchDB now supports code sharing as CommonJS modules.
http://docs.couchbase.org/couchdb-release-1.1/index.html#couchdb-release-1.1-commonjs
http://caolanmcmahon.com/posts/commonjs_modules_in_couchdb
In this way, you can share your javascript modules between views, lists, and shows in the same design doc. (Server-side)
Also, you can load these modules on the browser side with this library:
https://github.com/couchapp/couchapp/blob/master/couchapp/templates/vendor/couchapp/_attachments/jquery.couch.app.js
You also might want to look at Kanso:
http://kansojs.org/
It does a really good job of making your javascript work seemless between the server and client.
You can find some helpful tools here : https://github.com/vivekpathak/casters
The running examples and test cases may particularly help you.
Without getting into all of the gory details, I am trying to design a service-based solution that will be consumed by several client applications. The solution allows admins to create and modify document templates which are used by regular users to perform data entry. It is my intent to make the application a learning tool for best practices, techniques, etc.
And, at the same time, I have to accomodate a schizophrenic environment because the 'powers that be' cannot ever stick to their decisions regarding technologies and tools. For example, I am using Linq-to-SQL today because they aren't ready to go to EF4 but there is also discussion about switching over to NHibernate. So, I have to make the code as persistent ignorant as possible to minimize the work required should we change OR/M tools.
At this point, I am also limited to using the partial class approach to extend the Linq-to-SQL classes so they implement interfaces defined in my business layer. I cannot go with POCOs because management insists that we leverage all built-in tooling, etc. so I must support the Linq-to-SQL designer.
That said, my service interface has a StartSession method that accepts a template identifier in its signature. The operation flows like this:
If a session already exists in the database for the current user and specified template, update the record to show the current activity. If not, create a new session object.
The session is associated with an instance of the template, call it the "form". So if the session is new, I need to retrieve the template information to create the new "form", associate it with the session then save the session to the database. On the other hand, if the session already existed, then I need to also load the "form" with the data entered by the user and stored in the session previously.
Finally, the session (with form definition and data) is returned to the caller.
My first objective is to create clean separation between the logical layers of my application. The second is to maintain persistence ignorance (as mentioned above). Third, I have to be able to test everything so all dependencies must be externalized for easy mocking. I am using Unity as an IoC tool to help in this area.
To accomplish this, I have defined my service class and data contracts as needed to support the service interface. The service class will have a dependency injected from the business layer that actually performs the work. And here's where it has gotten messy for me.
I've been try to go the Unit of Work and Repository route to help with persistance ignorance. I have an ITemplateRepository and an ISessionRepository which I can access from my IUnitOfWork implementation. The service class gets an instance of my SessionManager class (in my BLL) injected. The SessionManager receives the IUnitOfWork implementation through constructor injection and will delegate all persistence to the UoW but I find myself playing a shell game with the various logic.
Should all of the logic described above be in the SessionManager class or perhaps the UoW implementation? I want as little logic as possible in the repository implementations because changing the data access platform could result in unwanted changes to the application logic. Since my repository is working against an interface, how do I best go about creating the new session (keeping in mind that a valid session has a reference to the template, er, form being used)? Would it be better to still use POCOs even though I have to support the designer and use a tool like AutoMapper inside the repository implementation to handle translating the objects?
Ugh!
I know I am just stuck in analysis paralysis so a little nudge is probably all I need. What would be ideal would be if someone could provide an example how you would you would solve the problem given the business rules and architectural constraints I've defined.
If you don't use POCOs then your not really going to be data store agnostic. And using POCOs will allow you to get your system up and running with memory based repositories which is what you'll likely want to use for your unit tests anyhow.
The AutoMapper sounds nice but I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker. Mapping POCOs to EF4, LinqToSql, nHibernate isn't that time consuming unless you have hundreds of tables. When/If your POCOs begin to diverge from your persistence layer then you might find that an AutoMapper wont really fit the bill.
I have a Java\Spring\Hibernate application - complete with domain classes which are basically Hibernate POJOs
There is a piece of functionality that I think can be written well in Grails.
I wish to reuse the domain classes that I have created in the main Java app
What is the best way to do so ?
Should I write new domain classes extending the Java classes ? this sounds tacky
Or Can I 'generate' controllers off the Java domain classes ?
What are the best practices around reusing Java domain objects in Grails\Groovy
I am sure there must be others writing some pieces in grails\groovy
If you know about a tutorial which talks about such an integration- that would be awesome !!!
PS: I am quite a newbie in grails-groovy so may be missing the obvious. Thanks !!!
Knowing just how well Groovy and Grails excel at integrating with existing Java code, I think I might be a bit more optimistic than Michael about your options.
First thing is that you're already using Spring and Hibernate, and since your domain classes are already POJOs they should be easy to integrate with. Any Spring beans you might have can be specified in an XML file as usual (in grails-app/conf/spring/resources.xml) or much more simply using the Spring bean builder feature of Grails. They can then be accessed by name in any controller, view, service, etc. and worked with as usual.
Here are the options, as I see them, for integrating your domain classes and database schema:
Bypass GORM and load/save your domain objects exactly as you're already doing.
Grails doesn't force you to use GORM, so this should be quite straightforward: create a .jar of your Java code (if you haven't already) and drop it into the Grails app's lib directory. If your Java project is Mavenized, it's even easier: Grails 1.1 works with Maven, so you can create a pom.xml for your Grails app and add your Java project as a dependency as you would in any other (Java) project.
Either way you'll be able to import your classes (and any supporting classes) and proceed as usual. Because of Groovy's tight integration with Java, you'll be able to create objects, load them from the database, modify them, save them, validate them etc. exactly as you would in your Java project. You won't get all the conveniences of GORM this way, but you would have the advantage of working with your objects in a way that already makes sense to you (except maybe with a bit less code thanks to Groovy). You could always try this option first to get something working, then consider one of the other options later if it seems to make sense at that time.
One tip if you do try this option: abstract the actual persistence code into a Grails service (StorageService perhaps) and have your controllers call methods on it rather than handling persistence directly. This way you could replace that service with something else down the road if needed, and as long as you maintain the same interface your controllers won't be affected.
Create new Grails domain classes as subclasses of your existing Java classes.
This could be pretty straightforward if your classes are already written as proper beans, i.e. with getter/setter methods for all their properties. Grails will see these inherited properties as it would if they were written in the simpler Groovy style. You'll be able to specify how to validate each property, using either simple validation checks (not null, not blank, etc.) or with closures that do more complicated things, perhaps calling existing methods in their POJO superclasses.
You'll almost certainly need to tweak the mappings via the GORM mapping DSL to fit the realities of your existing database schema. Relationships would be where it might get tricky. For example, you might have some other solution where GORM expects a join table, though there may even be a way to work around differences such as these. I'd suggest learning as much as you can about GORM and its mapping DSL and then experiment with a few of your classes to see if this is a viable option.
Have Grails use your existing POJOs and Hibernate mappings directly.
I haven't tried this myself, but according to Grails's Hibernate Integration page this is supposed to be possible: "Grails also allows you to write your domain model in Java or re-use an existing domain model that has been mapped using Hibernate. All you have to do is place the necessary 'hibernate.cfg.xml' file and corresponding mappings files in the '%PROJECT_HOME%/grails-app/conf/hibernate' directory. You will still be able to call all of the dynamic persistent and query methods allowed in GORM!"
Googling "gorm legacy" turns up a number of helpful discussions and examples, for example this blog post by Glen Smith (co-author of the soon-to-be-released Grails in Action) where he shows a Hibernate mapping file used to integrate with "the legacy DB from Hell". Grails in Action has a chapter titled "Advanced GORM Kungfu" which promises a detailed discussion of this topic. I have a pre-release PDF of the book, and while I haven't gotten to that chapter yet, what I've read so far is very good, and the book covers many topics that aren't adequately discussed in other Grails books.
Sorry I can't offer any personal experience on this last option, but it does sound doable (and quite promising). Whichever option you choose, let us know how it turns out!
Do you really want/need to use Grails rather than just Groovy?
Grails really isn't something you can use to add a part to an existing web app. The whole "convention over configuration" approach means that you pretty much have to play by Grails' rules, otherwise there is no point in using it. And one of those rules is that domain objects are Groovy classes that are heavily "enhanced" by the Grails runtime.
It might be possible to have them extend existing Java classes, but I wouldn't bet on it - and all the Spring and Hibernate parts of your existing app would have to be discarded, or at least you'd have to spend a lot of effort to make them work in Grails. You'll be fighting the framework rather than profiting from it.
IMO you have two options:
Rewrite your app from scratch in Grails while reusing as much of the existing code as possible.
Keep your app as it is and add new stuff in Groovy, without using Grails.
The latter is probably better in your situation. Grails is meant to create new web apps very quickly, that's where it shines. Adding stuff to an existing app just isn't what it was made for.
EDIT:
Concerning the clarification in the comments: if you're planning to write basically a data entry/maintenance frontend for data used by another app and have the DB as the only communication channel between them, that might actually work quite well with Grails; it can certainly be configured to use an existing DB schema rather than creating its own from the domain classes (though the latter is less work).
This post provides some suggestions for using grails for wrapping existing Java classes in a web framework.