In one of my Catalyst actions, I'm trying to go off and get the body response (HTML) of another action in a different controller. (For the purpose of sort of "embedding" one page in another)
I figured the way to do this was a $c->visit. (If I misunderstood $c->visit, then the rest of my question need not be answered.)
The action in question takes an arg, but not until further down the chain, which looks like this:
/equipment/*/assets/widget
/assets/captureID (1)
-> /assets/base (0)
-> /assets/pageData (0)
=> /assets/widget
As you can see, only the last action in the chain is looking for an arg.
If I try:
$c->visit('/assets/widget',[$arg]);
I would expect it to travel down the chain and give /assets/captureID my $arg. But in fact, it doesn't seem to get passed down the chain at all.
Where have I gone astray?
As you've discovered, the body doesn't exist at that point. You'd have to have made a call to render your view, or make an arrangement for /assets/widget to set $c->res->body($foo) directly. I find the idea of capturing the body of a sub-request unconventional, to put it mildly. I can't imagine what you are going to do with it that isn't going to go against the principles of good MVC design.
It sounds to me like the logic that is in /assets/widget needs to be located in the Model rather than the Controller, so that it can be used by whatever function requires it.
And/or you need to break your templates down into (reusable) components, so that whatever content you planned to embed could be done as part of a single rendering process.
[%- IF foo;
PROCESS widget.tt;
END; -%]
Turns out only the captures, not the args get passed down the chain.
According to the doc:
$c->visit( $action [, \#captures, \#arguments ] )
So I was able to have success by doing the following:
$c->visit('/assets/widget',[$arg],[$arg])
The first array of args hits the first action and stops, but the second array travels all the way down the chain like I wanted.
I expected $c->visit('/assets/widget',[],[$arg]) to work, but it does not.
However, after all that I realized I can't just grab the body response that way, which was the ultimate goal. Either way, hopefully my goose chase was helpful to someone.
Related
I think the correct description for what I'm trying to do is be able to pass an expression or function/handler into another handler as a parameter/argument. Some code to be evaluated inside the receiving handler. Similar to Javascript callbacks, I think.
For example, something like this:
on waitFor(theConditionExpression)
timeout_start(5) -- start a 5 second timer
repeat until (theConditionExpression or timeout_isExpired())
delay 0.1
end repeat
return theConditionExpression
end waitFor
theConditionExpression should be some expression or function that evaluates to a boolean result.
not really relevant to the question, but just FYI, timeout_start(…) and timeout_isExpired() are two simple handlers I've written that do exactly what they say. (…start() doesn't return anything, …isExpired() returns a boolean).
Of course, typically if I pass in some boolean expression, it will evaluate that expression once, at the time I pass it in. But I want it to evaluate it every time it's referenced in the code inside the handler.
Some languages (not sure about AS) have some kind of eval() function that you can pass it some code as a string and it will execute that string as code. Theoretically that could solve this, but: (a) I don't know if AS has anything like that, but even if it does, (b) it's not desired for various reasons (performance, injection risks, etc.)
So I'm thinking something more like eg. JavaScript's ability to pass in a function (named or anonymous) as function parameter/argument that can be re-evaluated every iteration in a loop, etc. (eg. like the compareFn argument in JS's Array.sort(compareFn)).
Can AS do anything like this, and if so how?
Thanks!
I'm going to suggest (pro forma) that an AppleScript application with an on idle handler is generally a better solution for wait conditions than a repeat/delay loop. It's more efficient for the system, and doesn't freeze up the script. But that would involve reconceptualizing your script, and I'm not certain it would work in this case, given the way you formed the problem.
There's an old but good site called AppleScript Power Handlers that shows a bunch of nifty-neato tricks for sophisticated use of AppleScript handlers: passing handlers as values or parameters; creating Script Objects within handlers; making closures and constructors. I'm pretty sure the answer to your request is in there. aLikely you'll want to set up a bunch of handlers that serve as condition expressions, then pass them as parameters to the evaluating handler. Or maybe you'll want to set up a script object containing the condition handlers and call it as needed?
At any rate, see what you can do with it, and ask more specific questions if you run into problems.
I'm evaluating backbone.js as a potential javascript library for use in an application which will have a few different backends: WebSocket, REST, and 3rd party library producing JSON. I've read some opinions that backbone.js works beautifully with RESTful backends so long as the api is 'by the book' and follows the appropriate http verbage. Can someone elaborate on what this means?
Also, how much trouble is it to get backbone.js to connect to WebSockets? Lastly, are there any issues with integrating a backbone.js model with a function which returns JSON - in other words does the data model always need to be served via REST?
Backbone's power is that it has an incredibly flexible and modular structure. It means that any part of Backbone you can use, extend, take out, or modify. This includes the AJAX functionality.
Backbone doesn't "care" where do you get the data for your collections or models. It will help you out by providing an out of the box RESTful "ajax" solution, but it won't be mad if you want to use something else!
This allows you to find (or write) any plugin you want to handle the server interaction. Just look on backplug.io, Google, and Github.
Specifically for Sockets there is backbone.iobind.
Can't find a plugin, no worries. I can tell you exactly how to write one (it's 100x easier than it sounds).
The first thing that you need to understand is that overwriting behavior is SUPER easy. There are 2 main ways:
Globally:
Backbone.Collection.prototype.sync = function() {
//screw you Backbone!!! You're completely useless I am doing my own thing
}
Per instance
var MySpecialCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend({
sync: function() {
//I like what you're doing with the ajax thing... Clever clever ;)
// But for a few collections I wanna do it my way. That cool?
});
And the only other thing you need to know is what happens when you call "fetch" on a collection. This is the "by the book"/"out of the box behavior" behavior:
collection#fetch is triggered by user (YOU). fetch will delegate the ACTUAL fetching (ajax, sockets, local storage, or even a function that instantly returns json) to some other function (collection#sync). Whatever function is in collection.sync has to has to take 3 arguments:
action: create (for creating), action: read (for fetching), delete (for deleting), or update (for updating) = CRUD.
context (this variable) - if you don't know what this does it, don't worry about it, not important for now
options - where da magic is. We only care about 1 option though
success: a callback that gets called when the data is "ready". THIS is the callback that collection#fetch is interested in because that's when it takes over and does it's thing. The only requirements is that sync passes it the following 1st argument
response: the actual data it got back
Now
has to return a success callback in it's options that gets executed when it's done getting the data. That function what it's responsible for is
Whenever collection#sync is done doing it's thing, collection#fetch takes back over (with that callback in passed in to success) and does the following nifty steps:
Calls set or reset (for these purposes they're roughly the same).
When set finishes, it triggers a sync event on the collection broadcasting to the world "yo I'm ready!!"
So what happens in set. Well bunch of stuff (deduping, parsing, sorting, parsing, removing, creating models, propagating changesand general maintenance). Don't worry about it. It works ;) What you need to worry about is how you can hook in to different parts of this process. The only two you should worry about (if your wraps data in weird ways) are
collection#parse for parsing a collection. Should accept raw JSON (or whatever format) that comes from the server/ajax/websocket/function/worker/whoknowwhat and turn it into an ARRAY of objects. Takes in for 1st argument resp (the JSON) and should spit out a mutated response for return. Easy peasy.
model#parse. Same as collection but it takes in the raw objects (i.e. imagine you iterate over the output of collection#parse) and splits out an "unwrapped" object.
Get off your computer and go to the beach because you finished your work in 1/100th the time you thought it would take.
That's all you need to know in order to implement whatever server system you want in place of the vanilla "ajax requests".
While developing a web app using ZF, I had an haha! moment regarding the _forward method in Zend_Controller_Action. As stated in the Programmer's Reference Guide, when calling the _forward method inside an action, the requested action will not be executed until the current action completes. This begs the question:
When would you use the _forward action to intentionally make sure your current action completes before starting another, aside from form processing (although you would probably place the _forward request at the end of the action anyway)? What are some clear cut examples of this? Any pitfalls or advantages to using this approach as apposed to an ActionStack?
_forward() just replaces module/controller/action parameters in Request object.
It just allows to change your mind on the go (without another request).
This has different consequences, depending on which dispatch loop state it is called. Some time setDispatched() is needed to execute.
Consider those scenarios:
First:
$this->_forward('some')
Second:
return $this->_forward('some');
Third:
$this->someAction();
// ececuted?
Fourth:
return $this->someAction();
// executed?
I really only use _forward for two reasons:
I want to redirect but don't want the user's URL to change.
I want to pass some (non-string) object to another action.
$this->_forward('index', null, null, array('create_task_form' => $form));
In each case, the target action can stand by itself, without the originator, and usually just marshals up the display.
When would you use the _forward action to intentionally make sure your current action completes before starting another
I don't think it's used to let the current action complete before _forward() is used. That looks more like a call to your domain logic (model, service, something like that) than handling a request which is what an action is for.
yourAction
if(conditionsAreNotMet()) {
return _forward(anotherAction);
}
I think _forward() is provided to have an early exit point in your action (which logic is all focused on one thing, for example presenting news); without the need of performing another request (like _redirect()) and thus putting more load on the web server.
I am creating function (for example) to validate content, then if it is valid, close the view, if it is not, present further instructions to the user. (Or other such actions.) When I go to name it, I find myself wondering, should I call it -doneButtonPressed or -validateViewRepairAndClose? Would it be better to name the method after what UI action calls it, or name it after what it does? Sometimes it seems simple, things like -save are pretty clear cut, other times, and I can't thing of a specific example right off, but I know some have seemed like naming them after what they do is just so long and confusing it seems better to just call them xButtonPressed where x is the word on the button.
It's a huge problem!!! I have lost sleep over this.
Purely FWIW ... my vote is for "theSaveButton" "theButtonAtTheTopRight" "userClickedTheLaunchButton" "doubleClickedOnTheRedBox" and so on.
Generally we name all those routines that way. However .. often I just have them go straight to another routine "launchTheRocket" "saveAFile" and so on.
Has this proved useful? It has because often you want to launch the rocket yourself ... in that case call the launchTheRocket routine, versus the user pressing the button that then launches the rocket. If you want to launch the rocket yourself, and you call userClickedTheLaunchButton, it does not feel right and looks more confusing in the code. (Are you trying to specifically simulate a press on the screen, or?) Debugging and so on is much easier when they are separate, so you know who called what.
It has proved slightly useful for example in gathering statistics. The user has requested a rocket launch 198 times, and overall we've launched the rocket 273 times.
Furthermore -- this may be the clincher -- say from another part of your code you are launching the rocket, using the launch-the-rocket message. It makes it much clearer that you are actually doing that rather than something to do with the button. Conversely the userClickedTheLaunchButton concept could change over time, it might normally launch the rocket but sometimes it might just bring up a message, or who knows what.
Indeed, clicking the button may also trigger ancillary stuff (perhaps an animation or the like) and that's the perfect place to do that, inside 'clickedTheButton', as well as then calling the gutsy function 'launchTheRocket'.
So I actually advocate the third even more ridiculously complicated solution of having separate "userDidThis" functions, and then having separate "startANewGame" functions. Even if that means normally the former does almost nothing, just calling the latter!
BTW another naming option would be combining the two... "topButtonLaunchesRockets" "glowingCubeConnectsSocialWeb" etc.
Finally! Don't forget you might typically set them up as an action, which changes everything stylistically.
[theYellowButton addTarget:.. action:#selector(launchRockets) ..];
[theGreenButton addTarget:.. action:#selector(cleanUpSequence) ..];
[thatAnimatingButtonSallyBuiltForUs addTarget:.. action:#selector(resetAll) ..];
[redGlowingArea addTarget:.. action:#selector(tryGetRatingOnAppStore) ..];
perhaps that's the best way, documentarily wise! This is one of the best questions ever asked on SO, thanks!
I would also go with something along the lines of xButtonPressed: or handleXTap: and then call another method from within the handler.
- (IBAction)handleDoneTap:(id)sender {
[self closeView];
}
- (void)closeView {
if ([self validate]) {
// save and close
}
else {
// display error information
}
}
I've been working on a bit of JavaScript code that, under certain conditions, lazy-loads a couple of different libraries (Clicky Web Analytics and the Sizzle selector engine).
This script is downloaded millions of times per day, so performance optimization is a major concern. To date, I've employed a couple of flags like script_loading and script_loaded to try to ensure that I don't load either library more than once (by "load," I mean requesting the scripts after page load by inserting a <script> element into the DOM).
My question is: Rather than rely on these flags, which have gotten a little unwieldy and hard to follow in my code (think callbacks and all of the pitfalls of asynchronous code), is it cross-browser safe (i.e., back to IE 6) and not detrimental to performance to just call a simple function to insert a <script> element whenever I reach a code branch that needs one of these libraries?
The latter would still ensure that I only load either library when I need it, and would also simplify and reduce the weight of my code base, but I need to be absolutely sure that this won't result in additional, unnecessary browser requests.
My hunch is that appending a <script> element multiple times won't be harmful, as I assume browsers should recognize a duplicate src URL and rely on a local cached copy. But, you know what happens when we assume...
I'm hoping that someone is familiar enough with the behavior of various modern (and not-so-modern, such as IE 6) browsers to be able to speak to what will happen in this case.
In the meantime, I'll write a test to try to answer this first-hand. My hesitation is just that this may be difficult and cumbersome to verify with certainty in every browser that my script is expected to support.
Thanks in advance for any help and/or input!
Got an alternative solution.
At the point where you insert the new script element in the DOM, could you not do a quick scan of existing script elements to see if there is another one with the same src? If there is, don't insert another?
Javascript code on the same page can't run multithreaded, so you won't get any race conditions in the middle of this or anything.
Otherwise you are just relying on the caching behaviour of current browsers (and HTTP proxies).
The page is processed as a stream. If you load the same script multiple times, it will be run every time it is included. Obviously, due to the browser cache, it will be requested from the server only once.
I would stay away from this approach of inserting script tags for the same script multiple times.
The way I solve this problem is to have a "test" function for every script to see if it is loaded. E.g. for sizzle this would be "function() { return !!window['Sizzle']; }". The script tag is only inserted if the test function returns false.
Each time you add a script to your page,even if it has the same src the browser may found it on the local cache or ask the server if the content is changed.
Using a variable to check if the script is included is a good way to reduce loading and it's very simple:
for example this may works for you:
var LOADED_JS=Object();
function js_isIncluded(name){//returns true if the js is already loaded
return LOADED_JS[name]!==undefined;
}
function include_js(name){
if(!js_isIncluded(name)){
YOUR_LAZY_LOADING_FUNCTION(name);
LOADED_JS[name]=true;
}
}
you can also get all script elements and check the src,my solution is better because it hase the speed and simplicity of an hash array and the script src has an absolute path even if you set it with a relative path.
you may also want to init the array with the scripts normally loaded(without lazy loading)on the page init to avoid double request.
For what it's worth, if you define the scripts as type="module", they will only be loaded and executed once.