When I go to the struts Action api page , I can see all the subclasses of action class like DynamicAction, IncludeAction etc.
but I can't see HeaderAction from JOrganizer (http://jorganizer.sourceforge.net/javadoc/org/juniverse/jorganizer/portal/HeaderAction.html)
Why it is so? Is it because it has been developed by community other than apache?
You're right... In fact, the javadoc program which generates the documentation is not aware of the other products. If you develop a class based on the Action class provided by Apache (in your own project), you will not see the Apache documentation updated.
By the way, Struts is now in version 2 since a (very) long time...
Related
Has anybody seen a complete tutorial for creating custom assertion classes with FluentAssertions?
Best regards
I maintain a couple of extension packages for Fluent Assertions, so feel free to take a look at our code to see how we do it:
FluentAssertions.Mvc
FluentAssertions.Ioc.Ninjet
I also recently contributed the assembly reference assertions to the core, so have a look at this pull request. Also have a look at the FA source to see how they implement similar assertions (that's where we started).
The top line is you'll need a class to hold your assertions and an extension method to hook it in.
I have a Website that was built by a vendor, and it is pretty vital.
the problem is that it was built using 1.1 framework and now we need it to be at least 2.0 so the host can upgrade their servers. we have been running this website as a standalone web application so that we didn't have to alter the code to use StateServer Session State.
now that we need to move to the new framework they also want us to use StateServer session state, and I have run into the issue that the Authorize.Net portion of the code is not Serializable.
Where do I start in the Authorize.Net project to make it serializable?
I am looking for the fastest way to get this functioning.
is there a way that I can Serialize the whole object when it is called, I am kind of thinking this is a no from what I understand of how Serialization works.
this was a simple issue, and I was really stressed about it, but it turned out I just had to add <Serializable()> to the Class Declaration of each class so it looked something like
<Serializable()> Public Class ANet
Just like Tim said.
I am new to Yii framework, and just came across extensions provided by Yii. But I am confused whether we can modify the extension which are provided by Yii.
For example I am using Yii-user module, Now if I want to change the registration form provided by this module, So can I directly change it(by changing the files) ?
If - Yes: Will there be any problem while upgrading Yii version ?
If - No: How can be change it(May be from our custom file) ?
Yii-user module is provided by the community not an official yii extension, yes you can modified by replace it with another view file, if you mean a class the best way to modifie it is by extend it and override the methods you want to change.
Hope it helps
Yii is designed to build custom solutions, you should feel free to modify anything that is part of the generated 'site' including extensions and everything in the protected folder. However, conforming to the psyche and standards of coding used in Yii is certainly a good practice to benefit fully from the framework and you can only get into a habit of doing that after developing and re-developing with Yii over a period of time.
Upgrading Yii version updates files in the framework directory only so its safe to make changes in your site part.
You cannot upgrade that individual extension if you modify them directly(as now you have your own custom version). extending an extension as suggested by Cherif is a good option if you want to keep upgrade-ability for the extensions (protected/extensions).
I was reading about Struts1 vs Struts2 and the author mentions one of the point is
" Programming the abstract classes instead of interfaces is one of design problem of struts1 framework that has been resolved in the struts 2 framework. Most of the Struts 2 classes are based on interfaces "
COuld anybody please tell me , from a developer point of view , does we need to bother if the framework uses classes or interfaces .
Could anybody please help me in knowing why using Classes in a interface is not good .
Could anybody please help me in knowing why using Classes in a interface is not good.
That's not what's said.
See this SO question/answer, or search the web for "program to an interface". The nutshell version is that programming to an interface (when done correctly) allows us to use multiple implementations of that interface based on our needs.
Doing so allows us to test more easily, allow functionality we didn't necessarily think of when we wrote the original base code (within reason), and so on.
I recently upgraded to Flash Builder 4.5 for PHP since I’m working on a big PHP/Flex project and thought that it would be easier to integrate the two.
What do you know? The feature that generate the php class to feed a flex/PHP service trough AMF is appears to be missing!
Time to downgrade or am I overlooking something?
I believe it's still there, but that feature should only be used for building a test application. It breaks a lot of best practices such as creating the connection in the class (it should be injected or retrieved from an outside class that manages the DB) and it puts the database definition info in the class (username, password, etc.). I believe that when you use that feature that a popup tells you that it is not intended for production use. When building a service class it is best to define your classes based off of the functionality you need to provide.