I can't find a good answer to this simple question:
Where can I add my i18n files in a GWT project ?
I see two solutions:
- create a module and add all i18n files for this module in this module
- create a complete different structure to put all i18n files (no matter what module) in the same directory (and so, easy to create a new language)
My feeling is that the second approach is better but in gwt samples, it's the first approach which is generally used.
And you, what do you do with yours i18n files ?
Thanks
1) Create a separate package in your module. Dump all message files there along with the property files.
2) As a best practice create a base message class and EXTEND other message interfaces from the base one. You can reference base message class in code and depending on which instance of message class you point too, your actual value will change.
Another approach, create a new i18n module and inherit that in your actual model.
1) Allows all messages to be in one place.
2) Easy to hand over to localization people for translation.
I usually put the i18n files (*.properties) in the same package as the Constants (or any other i18n related class) derived interface that's using them (less hassle with setup) - usually the package is named i18n.
Related
EDIT : got it shorter.
We created three modules following the prism doc and our requirements.
We did a horizontal slices with modules.
SharedServices
BusinessLogic
UserInterface
In the UserInterface we are using Syncfusion components and other packages, and It would be great to put everything in the UserInterface module but how can we reference nuget assemblies from that module in the shell (to apply theming for example) to avoid having references in each modules & the shell ?
Should we add nugetpackage to each module and the shell (is it bad... ?) or is it possible to have one module which defines base class referencing external assemblies for example and that would be themable (with ResourceDictionary) & usable in the whole solution (shell & other modules) .
Thanks.
Very broad question, it might well be closed, but I try to give you a few guiding thoughts:
Generally, you either slice horizontally (as you did, UI-module with all the views plus logic-module with all the services) or vertically (as your Product-module suggests: views, view models, services for the product in one module, those for the user in another).
You can do both, but then you should "slice through", so one module for product-ui, one for user-ui, one for product-services, one for user-services... you get the idea. That means a lot of modules, though.
Also, when creating your modules, have an idea of what you want to achieve. Modules can encapsulate components to be reused in another app. Or they can encapsulate exchangeable components, so you could create a car-sharing app today and tomorrow swap out the car-module for a bike-module and have a bike-sharing app. Or they can be used to enforce segregation of code based on risk analysis in a regulated environment. What I'm trying to convey: don't create modules just to have modules, make each module have a defined purpose.
Also, define the interfaces for the modules. I don't like modules to reference each other, as it effectively destroys all segregation that would otherwise be there. Create seperate non-module assemblies that only contain public interfaces. Then make your modules contain the implementations as internal types. In an ideal world, no module assembly contains a public type. The interface-assemblies can be either per module or per consumer or per link between modules (those checked boxes in your N2-chart, you have one, don't you?).
You want to keep the number of modules reasonable, as well as the dependencies between them (not as in "assembly references" but through interface-assembly).
how can we reference nuget assemblies from that module in the shell (to apply theming for example) to avoid having references in each modules & the shell ?
You should separate the "interface" part (e.g. base classes or DTOs, not part of the module) and the actual services part (that's the module). Example: unity has a nuget package for the interfaces (Unity.Abstractions) and one that contains the container implementation (Unity.Container). There's nothing wrong with everyone referencing the interface, basically, that's saying "I want to use that interface".
Now I have some experience in using the Zend Framework. I want to go deeper in the topic and rewrite some old php projects.
What is the best place to save own functions and classes?
And how do I tell Zend where they are? Or is there already a folder for own stuff? May I have different folders for different files?
For example I want to save a php document with the name math_b.php which includes several special functions to calculate and another one date_b.php which has abilities for datetime stuff. Is that possible or shall I have different files for every function?
I would also like to reuse the functions in other projects and then just copy the folders.
There is no single "right" answer for this. However, there are several general guidelines/principles that I commonly employ.
Do not pollute global scope
Namespace your code and keep all functions is classes. So, rather than:
function myFunction($x) {
// do stuff with $x and return a value
}
I would have:
namespace MyVendorName\SomeComponent;
class SomeUtils
{
public static function myFunction($x)
{
// do stuff with $x and return a value
}
}
Usage is then:
use MyVendorName\SomeComponent\SomeUtils;
$val = SomeUtils::myFunction($x);
Why bother with all this? Without this kind of namespacing, as you bring more code into your projects from other sources - and as you share/publish your code for others to consume in their projects - you will eventually encounter name conflicts between their functions/variables and yours. Good fences make good neighbors.
Use an autoloader
The old days of having tons of:
require '/path/to/class.php';
in your consumer code are long gone. A better approach is to tell PHP - typically during some bootstrap process - where to find the class MyVendor\MyComponent\MyClass. This process is called autoloading.
Most code these days conforms to the PSR-0/PSR-4 standard that maps name-spaced classnames to file-paths relative to a file root.
In ZF1, one typically adds the ./library folder to the PHP include_path in ./public/index.php and then add your vendor namespace into the autoloaderNameSpaces array in ./application/config.ini:
autoloaderNameSpaces[] = 'MyVendor';
and places a class like MyVendor\MyComponent\MyClass in the file:
./library/MyVendor/MyComponent/MyClass.php
You can then reference a class of the form MyVendor\MyComponent\MyClass simply with:
// At top of consuming file
use MyVendor\MyComponent\MyClass;
// In the consuming page/script/class.
$instance = new MyClass(); // instantiation
$val = MyClass::myStaticMethod(); // static method call
Determine the scope of usage
If I have functionality is required only for a particular class, then I keep that function as a method (or a collection of methods) in the class in which it is used.
If I have some functionality that will be consumed in multiple places in a single project, then I might break it out into a single class in my own library namespace, perhaps MyVendor.
If I think that a function/class will be consumed by multiple projects, then I break it out into its own project with its own repo (on Github, for example), make it accessible via Composer, optimally registering it with Packagist, and pay close attention to semantic versioning so that consumers of my package receive a stable and predictable product.
Copying folders from one project into another is do-able, of course, but it often runs into problems as you fix bugs, add functionality, and (sometimes) break backward-compatibility. That's why it is usually preferable to have those functions/classes in a separate, semantically-versioned project that serves as a single source-of-truth for that code.
Conclusion
Breaking functionality out into separate, namespaced classes that are autoloaded in a standard way gives plenty of "space" in which to develop custom functionality that is more easily consumed, more easily re-used, and more easily tested (a large topic for another time).
I need to implement a custom ResultHandler but I am confused about how to actually integrate my custom class into the software package.
I have read this: http://elki.dbs.ifi.lmu.de/wiki/HowTo/InvokingELKIFromJava but my question is how are you meant to implement a custom result handler such that it shows up in the GUI?
The only way I can think of doing it is by extracting the elki.jar package and manually inserting my custom class into the source code, and then re-jarring the package. However I am fairly sure this is not the way it is meant to be done.
Also, in my resulthandler I need to output all the rows to a single text file with the cluster that each row belongs to displayed. How tips on how I can achieve this?
There are two questions in here.
in order to make your class instantiable by the UIs (both MiniGUI and command line), the classes must implement our Parameterization API. There are essentially two choices to make your class instantiable:
Add a public constructor without parameters (the UI won't know how to set your parameters!)
Add an inner static class Parameterizer that handles parameterization
in order to add your class to autocompletion (dropdown menu), the classes must be discovered by the MiniGUI/CLI/other UIs. ELKI uses two methods of discovery:
for .jar files, it reads the META-INF/elki/interfacename service files. This is a classic service-loader approach; except that we also allow ordering instances.
for directories only, ELKI will also scan for all .class files, and inspect them. This is mostly meant for development time, to avoid having to update the service files all the time. For performance reasons, we do not inspect the contents of .jar files; these are expected to use service files.
You do not need your class to be in the dropdown menu - you can always type the full class name. If this does not work, adding the name to the service file will not help either, but ELKI can either not find the class at all, or cannot instantiate it.
There is also a tutorial on implementing a custom result handler, but it does not discuss how to add it to the menu. In "development mode" - when having a folder with .class files - it will show up automatically.
In SugarCRM, you can create your custom modules (e.g. MyModule) and they are kept in /modules just like stock objects, with any default metadata, views, language files, etc. For a custom module MyModule, you might have something like:
/modules/MyModule/MyModule.class.php
/modules/MyModule/MyModule.php
/modules/MyModule/language/
/modules/MyModule/metadata
And so on, so that everything is nicely defined and all the modules are kept together. The module becomes registered with the system by a file such as /custom/Extension/application/Include/MyModule.php with contents something like:
<?php
$beanList['MyModule'] = 'MyModule';
$beanFiles['MyModule'] = 'modules/MyModule/MyModule.php';
$moduleList[] = 'MyModule';
Obviously, the $beanFiles array references where we can find the base module's class, usually an extension of the SugarBean object. Recently I was advised that we can adjust that file's location for the sake of customization, and it makes sense to a degree. Setting it like $beanFiles['MyModule'] = 'custom/modules/MyModule/MyModule.php'; would allow us to access the base class via Module Loader even if the security scan tool prevents core file changes, and this would also allow us to not exactly extend, but replace stock modules like Accounts or Calls, without modifying core files and having system upgrades to wipe out the changes.
So here's my question: what is the best practice here? I've been working with SugarCRM pretty intensely for several years and this is the first time I've ever been tempted to modify the $beanFiles array. My concern is that I'm deviating from best practice here, and also that somehow both files modules/MyModule/MyModule.php and custom/modules/MyModule/MyModule.php could be loaded which would cause a class name conflict in PHP (i.e. because both classes are named MyModule...). Obviously, any references to the class would need to be updated (e.g. an entryPoint that works with this module), but am I missing any potential ramifications?
Technically it should be fine, but I can see how it could be possible that both the core version and your version could conflict if both are referenced. It all depends on the scenario, but I prefer to extend the core bean and find somewhere in the stack where I can have my custom version used in place of the core bean. I wrote up an example a couple of years ago here: https://www.sugaroutfitters.com/blog/safely-customizing-a-core-bean-in-sugarcrm
For most use-cases, there's a way to hijack Sugar to use your bean at a given point.
If you can't get around it you can always grep to see where the core module is explicitly being included to ensure that there won't be conflict down the road.
I am trying to create Web Services from the Top-Down approach. I downloaded Eclipse and am using the WSDL gui editor in it to build my WSDL files.
I am splitting up my Services based on "modules". The Types I am adding to the WSDLs all need to reference common stuff, such as PersonEntity, AddressEntity, States enumeration (simple type), Countries enumeration (simple type), and AbstractEntity. Since those items are all common I created a seperate WSDL file (named Commons.wsdl) that contains the type information for those types.
I want to "import" that WSDL into my other WSDL files to use:
For example, I have an entity named RegistrationEntity which inherits from AbstractEntity and contains a PersonEntity as well as an AddressEntity. I'm not sure how to do this... I saw that the WSDL spec has "import" and "include" and am not sure which one to use. Also, how do I actually import (or include) the Commons.wsdl file so that I can use the Types defined within it?
Thanks!
Oh, and I'm not sure if I'm supposed to stick this stuff in a seperate WSDL but another type of file such as an xsd or something. I really wanna follow best practices so if that's the proper way to do it then I'd rather do that.
I found out that the problem I had was I was creating a WSDL file for my commons and using an inline scheme for that, rather than creating an XSD file to be imported by my other WSDLs.
So instead I just created an Commons.XSD as my "Common Schema".