I'm looking for a way to fetch a ChannelManager ref from within a Component#doBeforeRender call, in a somewhat similar way to the QueryManager.
Is there a *Manager registry I can ask for service interfaces?
Best,
Edoardo
go to ChannelManager and find usages of it. It will give you enough hits..like:
public static ChannelManager getChannelManager() {
ComponentManager componentManager = HstServices.getComponentManager();
if (componentManager == null) {
return null;
}
return HstServices.getComponentManager().getComponent(ChannelManager.class.getName());
}
Related
I'm using WCF custom Validator with HTTPS (.NET 4.5). Validate on success returns Customer object which I would like to use later. Currently I'm able to do it with Static variables which I like to avoid if possible. I tried to use HttpContext which becomes null in main thread. My understanding Validate runs under different thread. Is there any way I could share session info without involving DB or File share. See related threads here and here.
In Authentication.cs
public class CustomValidator : UserNamePasswordValidator
{
public override void Validate(string userName, string password)
{
//If User Valid then set Customer object
}
}
In Service.cs
public class Service
{
public string SaveData(string XML)
{
//Need Customer object here. Without it cannot save XML.
//HttpContext null here.
}
}
I can suggest you an alternative approach. Assuming that the WCF service is running in ASP.Net compatibility mode and you are saving the customer object to session storage. Create a class such as AppContext
The code would look something like this
public class AppContext {
public Customer CurrentCustomer {
get {
Customer cachedCustomerDetails = HttpContext.Current.Session[CUSTOMERSESSIONKEY] as Customer;
if (cachedCustomerDetails != null)
{
return cachedCustomerDetails;
}
else
{
lock (lockObject)
{
if (HttpContext.Current.Session[CUSTOMERSESSIONKEY] != null) //Thread double entry safeguard
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session[CUSTOMERSESSIONKEY] as Customer;
}
Customer CustomerDetails = ;//Load customer details based on Logged in user using HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.Name
if (CustomerDetails != null)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[CUSTOMERSESSIONKEY] = CustomerDetails;
}
return CustomerDetails;
}
}
}
}
The basic idea here is to do lazy loading of data, when both WCF and ASP.Net pipelines have executed and HTTPContext is available.
Hope it helps.
Alright this should have been easier. Since the way UserNamePasswordValidator works, I needed to use custom Authorization to pass UserName/Password to the main thread and get customer info again from the database. This is an additional DB call but acceptable workaround for now. Please download code from Rory Primrose's genius blog entry.
As explained in these questions I'm trying to build an application that consists of a host and multiple task processing clients. With some help I have figured out how to discover and serialize part definitions so that I could store those definitions without having to have the actual runtime type loaded.
The next step I want to achieve (or next two steps really) is that I want to split the composition of parts from the actual creation and connection of the objects (represented by those parts). So if I have a set of parts then I would like to be able to do the following thing (in pseudo-code):
public sealed class Host
{
public CreationScript Compose()
{
CreationScript result;
var container = new DelayLoadCompositionContainer(
s => result = s);
container.Compose();
return script;
}
public static void Main()
{
var script = Compose();
// Send the script to the client application
SendToClient(script);
}
}
// Lives inside other application
public sealed class Client
{
public void Load(CreationScript script)
{
var container = new ScriptLoader(script);
container.Load();
}
public static void Main(string scriptText)
{
var script = new CreationScript(scriptText);
Load(script);
}
}
So that way I can compose the parts in the host application, but actually load the code and execute it in the client application. The goal is to put all the smarts of deciding what to load in one location (the host) while the actual work can be done anywhere (by the clients).
Essentially what I'm looking for is some way of getting the ComposablePart graph that MEF implicitly creates.
Now my question is if there are any bits in MEF that would allow me to implement this kind of behaviour? I suspect that the provider model may help me with this but that is a rather large and complex part of MEF so any guidelines would be helpful.
From lots of investigation it seems that is not possible to separate the composition process from the instantiation process in MEF so I have had to create my own approach for this problem. The solution assumes that the scanning of plugins results in having the type, import and export data stored somehow.
In order to compose parts you need to keep track of each part instance and how it is connected to other part instances. The simplest way to do this is to make use of a graph data structure that keeps track of which import is connected to which export.
public sealed class CompositionCollection
{
private readonly Dictionary<PartId, PartDefinition> m_Parts;
private readonly Graph<PartId, PartEdge> m_PartConnections;
public PartId Add(PartDefinition definition)
{
var id = new PartId();
m_Parts.Add(id, definition);
m_PartConnections.AddVertex(id);
return id;
}
public void Connect(
PartId importingPart,
MyImportDefinition import,
PartId exportingPart,
MyExportDefinition export)
{
// Assume that edges point from the export to the import
m_PartConnections.AddEdge(
new PartEdge(
exportingPart,
export,
importingPart,
import));
}
}
Note that before connecting two parts it is necessary to check if the import can be connected to the export. In other cases MEF does that but in this case we'll need to do that ourselves. An example of how to approach that is:
public bool Accepts(
MyImportDefinition importDefinition,
MyExportDefinition exportDefinition)
{
if (!string.Equals(
importDefinition.ContractName,
exportDefinition.ContractName,
StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
{
return false;
}
// Determine what the actual type is we're importing. MEF provides us with
// that information through the RequiredTypeIdentity property. We'll
// get the type identity first (e.g. System.String)
var importRequiredType = importDefinition.RequiredTypeIdentity;
// Once we have the type identity we need to get the type information
// (still in serialized format of course)
var importRequiredTypeDef =
m_Repository.TypeByIdentity(importRequiredType);
// Now find the type we're exporting
var exportType = ExportedType(exportDefinition);
if (AvailableTypeMatchesRequiredType(importRequiredType, exportType))
{
return true;
}
// The import and export can't directly be mapped so maybe the import is a
// special case. Try those
Func<TypeIdentity, TypeDefinition> toDefinition =
t => m_Repository.TypeByIdentity(t);
if (ImportIsCollection(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesCollectionImport(
importRequiredType,
exportType,
toDefinition))
{
return true;
}
if (ImportIsLazy(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesLazyImport(importRequiredType, exportType))
{
return true;
}
if (ImportIsFunc(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesFuncImport(
importRequiredType,
exportType,
exportDefinition))
{
return true;
}
if (ImportIsAction(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesActionImport(importRequiredType, exportDefinition))
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
Note that the special cases (like IEnumerable<T>, Lazy<T> etc.) require determining if the importing type is based on a generic type which can be a bit tricky.
Once all the composition information is stored it is possible to do the instantiation of the parts at any point in time because all the required information is available. Instantiation requires a generous helping of reflection combined with the use of the trusty Activator class and will be left as an exercise to the reader.
I wanted to take advantage of built-in content negotiator and just get access to decision what formatter is going to be used. I don't want to use Request.Headers.Accept and check for whether it is json or xml content type because there lot of things are involved in that decision. Is there a way I can check at controller level or override any class that tells me what formatter going to be used OR what request content type is?
thanks in advance.
You can run conneg manually:
var conneg = Configuration.Services.GetContentNegotiator();
var connegResult = conneg.Negotiate(
typeof(YOUR_TYPE), Request, Configuration.Formatters
);
And use the output whichever way you want:
//the valid media type
var mediaType = connegResult.MediaType;
//do stuff
//the relevant formatter
var formatter = connegResult.Formatter;
//do stuff
If you want to see what is going on then install a TraceWriter and you will see what the conneg does.
A TraceWriter looks something like:
public class TraceWriter : ITraceWriter {
public bool IsEnabled(string category, TraceLevel level) {
return true;
}
public void Trace(HttpRequestMessage request, string category, TraceLevel level, Action<TraceRecord> traceAction) {
var rec = new TraceRecord(request, category, level);
traceAction(rec);
Log(rec);
}
private void Log(TraceRecord record) {
Console.WriteLine(record.Message);
}
}
and is installed like this,
config.Services.Replace(typeof(ITraceWriter), new TraceWriter());
If you want to manually invoke conneg then you can use,
config.Services.GetContentNegotiator().Negotiate(...)
Tugberk has a blog on this. Have a look.
I'm looking to write a test for a function that just returns a value - that's it. I'm not sure how you could do that. I'm under the impression you have to use system.assert or something. New to SFDC, but have programmed in many other languages. Here's some sample code:
static String getBrowserName()
{
String userAgent = ApexPages.currentPage().getHeaders().get('User-Agent');
if (userAgent.contains('iPhone'))
return 'iPhone-Safari';
if (userAgent.contains('Salesforce'))
return 'Salesforce';
if (userAgent.contains('BlackBerry'))
return 'BlackBerry';
if (userAgent.contains('Firefox'))
return 'Firefox';
if (userAgent.contains('Safari'))
return 'Safari';
if (userAgent.contains('internet explorer'))
return 'ie';
return 'other';
}
How can you obtain 100% test coverage for that?
While Salesforce's lack of a mocking framework is infuriating because of the hoops you have to jump through when testing things like page controllers, it's important to think about what you want to test here. Assuming that what you specifically want to test is that given the user agent strings your code returns the appropriate string, then I think something like the following should work:
static String getBrowserName(string userAgentStringToTest)
{
PageReference pageRef = getPageReference(userAgentStringToTest);
String userAgent = getUserAgent(pageRef);
...
}
PageReference getPageReference(string userAgentStringToTest)
{
if(userAgentStringToTest.Length == 0)
{
return ApexPages.currentPage();
}
else
{
PageReference pageRef = new PageReference('someURL');
pageRef.getHeaders().put('User-Agent', userAgentStringToTest);
return pageRef;
}
}
String getUserAgent(PageReference pageRef)
{
pageRef.getHeaders().get('User-Agent');
}
You would then call the getBrowserName method with the empty string in your production code and with the string you want to test in your test code.
There are a few different flavours to this of course - you could overload the methods and have a parameterless method for the main code and a parameterized method for testing. It's not ideal, but I don't know of another way to do it on the force.com platform currently.
EDIT: Just for completeness, I'm adding sample tests to clarify things. My example showed how to refactor the production code to make it testable, but did not give an example of how to write a test like the OP asked for.
Your tests would look something like this:
static testMethod void checkIPhoneBrowser()
{
String actualBrowserName = getBrowserName('string containing iPhone somewhere');
String expectedBrowserName = 'iPhone-Safari';
System.assertEquals(expectedBrowserName , actualBrowserName );
}
static testMethod void checkIEBrowser()
{
String actualBrowserName = getBrowserName('string containing internet explorer somewhere');
String expectedBrowserName = 'ie';
System.assertEquals(expectedBrowserName , actualBrowserName );
}
...
I noticed in the protobuf-net changelog that IList<> was supported but I'm getting the "Cannot create an instance of an interface" exception. If I change to IEnumerable<> then life is good. Does this sound correct?
// Client call
public override IList<IApplicationWorkflow> Execute(IRoleManagement service)
{
IList<ApplicationWorkflowMessagePart> list = service.RetrieveWorkflows(roleNames);
IList<IApplicationWorkflow> workflows = new List<IApplicationWorkflow>(list.Count);
foreach (ApplicationWorkflowMessagePart a in list)
{
workflows.Add(new ApplicationWorkflowImpl(a));
}
return workflows;
}
// Service contract
[OperationContract, ProtoBehavior]
[ServiceKnownType(typeof (ServiceFault))]
[FaultContract(typeof (ServiceFault))]
IList<ApplicationWorkflowMessagePart> RetrieveWorkflows(string[] roleNames);
// Service implementation
public IList<ApplicationWorkflowMessagePart> RetrieveWorkflows(string[] roleNames)
{
IList<IApplicationWorkflow> workflows = manager.RetrieveApplicationWorkflows(roleNames);
IList<ApplicationWorkflowMessagePart> workflowParts = new List<ApplicationWorkflowMessagePart>();
if (workflows != null)
{
foreach (IApplicationWorkflow workflow in workflows)
{
workflowParts.Add(
ModelMediator.GetMessagePart<ApplicationWorkflowMessagePart, IApplicationWorkflow>(workflow));
}
}
return workflowParts;
}
Thanks,
Mike
Also, is there document site that has this and other answers? I hate to be asking newb questions. :)
Currently it will support IList<T> as a property, as long as it doesn't have to create it - i.e. allowing things like (attributes not shown for brevity):
class Order {
private IList<OrderLine> lines = new List<OrderLine>();
public IList<OrderLine> Lines {get {return lines;}}
}
I would have to check, but for similar reasons, I expect it would work with Merge, but not Deserialize (which is what the WCF hooks use). However, I can't think of a reason it couldn't default to List<T>... it just doesn't at the moment.
The simplest option is probably to stick with List<T> / T[] - but I can have a look if you want... but I'm in a "crunch" on a (work) project at the moment, so I can't lift the bonnet today.
Re "this and other answers"... there is a google group, but that is not just protobuf-net (protobuf-net is simply one of many "protocol buffers" implementations).
You are also free to log an issue on the project site. I do mean to collate the FAQs and add them to the wiki on the site - but time is not always my friend...
But hey! I'm here... ;-p