I would like to make a global Zend_Log object that I can reach from my Controllers and my Models.
What should I add to my Bootstrap? (My bootstrap extends Zend_Application_Bootstrap)
How then can I reach the logger object from my controller actions and from my model?
As you do with any other class - assign it to the Zend_Registy. I'd suggest setting like this:
Zend_Registry::set('Zend_Log',$logInstance);
This is a common way, which is used also for translate (set translate instance to 'Zend_Translate' and classes like forms and validators will find it automatically).
You can use Zend_Registry::get('Zend_Log')->log(...) to log anywhere you want. It's not very good from the point of architecture (you should not use normally), but for log - which can appear practically anywhere in the app from view helpers to controllers and models it's a good thing.
Related
I've edited the question to make what I want to obtain clearer.
Here's the original question:
I'm working on a class that inherits from Control which will be used in my View and includes some Dependency Properties.
One of these DPs is an IEnumerable(Of RfidTag) and will be bound to an ObservableCollection(Of RfidTag) inside the VM.
The class RfidTag is defined as public class in the same file where the VM's class resides.
The questions are:
1. is it a good practice to expose a VM-related class to a Control class?
2. is the VM source file a good place for the RfidTag class?
UPDATE 1
In my application logic (I think I could say in my Model) there is an event published throught an Eventaggregator. The event's payload is a List of ModelRfidTag (that is the model class).
My VM subscribes to this event and I made the RfidTag class to wrap my Model class and provides some additional properties related only to the VM.
When the event handler inside the VM is executed, it makes an ObservableCollection(Of RfidTag) bindable from the view.
Then in the View I've a bounch of my control instances like that
<c:RfidTagPresenter
TagPosition="1"
Collection="{Binding RfidTagList, Mode=OneWay}" />
Then in my RfidTagPresenter (the class that inherits from Control) I've a DP of type RfidTag (called RfidTagResult) that returns the object in the OC which has the Position property (property available inside the RfidTag class) equal to the value set by the TagPosition DP.
In this way, the ControlTemplate of the RfidTagPresenter can bind its elements to the desired object.
This is the simplification of what I want to make. In the actual application there are some other DPs on which the RfidTagResult selection is performed
UPDATE 2
After a bit of research, seem that I can solve one problem with an indexed property that return (in the get method) the object from the collection I want to bind.
However a problem still exist: My control need to have a DP of type of RfidTag so that the relative ControlTemplate can bind to the property declared in the RfidTag class.
So: Is it possible (read: a good practice) to have a DP of a type that is a VM related class?
In other words: Can a custom control know about the class type used by the VM?
I will try to go all over your question (if I miss something let me know) but first you should explain the purpose of binding a Collection in a control as a DP.
is it a good practice to expose a VM-related class to a Control class?
RfidTag, I suppose, is a Model. What you are really doing here is binding a Model in your control which go against the MVVM pattern. You should think about the next question... Do you really need all your RfidTag to be shown in the View ? If you need to show a name, an ID... you could just create an IEnumerable<string> as DP (which is correct) and then in your VM instead of an ObservableCollection<RfidTag> you would have an ObservableCollection<string>.
Some simple theory. In MVVM, VM adapts the Model to the View. So your VM should have everything that will be shown in your View.
is the VM source file a good place for the RfidTag class?
RfidTag is a Model so there's no better place for it :)
I have splitted my application into two main areas.
Part(A)
PartStashContainer(B)
The content of A should be set based on what user wants.
So basically i can have 1..N classes which could be used in Class URI of Part in application model.
I don't know if i should replace the whole Part(A) with new dynamically created Part(C) which has content i want, or i should somehow to modify the existing Part (call setContributionURI, or setObject methods on Part object?).
It does make more sense to me to modify the existing Part, because it is defined in Application model and therefore already describing the location where the content should be.
Possible solutions:
Modify the Part object so it "reload" its content based on new setup (But how? Can setContributionURI or setObject methods help?)
Remove the old Part and add dynamically on same place in Application model the new Part (using EModelService and EPartService).
other solution??
If you want to reuse the Part then do something like:
MPart part = find or inject your part
MyClass myClass = (MyClass)part.getObject();
... call a method of MyClass to change the contents
MyClass is the class you specify for the object in the application model. You should add a method to that to let you change the contents.
Don't try to call setObject, this is really only for use by Eclipse. I don't think setContributionURI would do anything after the part is created (but I am not sure).
If you want to use different classes for the different data then you really should use different Parts.
I know there are view controllers and action controllers. I think that view helpers can be used from views and action helpers used from actions in controllers.
I need a class that at bootstrap or wherever, it initializes a number of configuration options, arrays for things like convert month numbers to their names and role numbers to their names.
How can this be achieved?
Put them in a model and use it anywhere you like by instantiating it and calling its helper methods. All model files are auto loaded whenever you call them.
Have a model Constants.php:
<?php
class Constants {
public static function convertMonth($month) {
doLogic();
return $something;
}
}
?>
In your controller or view:
Constants::convertMonth(12);
You could build a Resource Plugin and then add it to yout bootstrap class.
The Constants class or Resource approaches both work nicely. However, I recently had to undo/upgrade a Constants class based solution to meet new requirements, so you might want to consider your future plans before going down those paths.
Specifically, if you ever intend to support multiple languages, or even different words for the constants in different contexts, check out Zend_Translate API docs, Zend_Translate example, or this blog post.
How can I eliminate to write $object = new Application_Model_Database() in every controller?
For example for an article controller, I have to type $articles = new Application_Model_Articles() for every controller. Should I put it under viewer controller, action helpers, or any other way?
Your question almost sounds like an OOP best practices question as opposed to a Zend Framework specific question. Regardless of whether or not I'm using a framework, and regardless of what framework I choose, I base when and where I create new objects on testability how many times I have to write $object = new My_Random_Object();.
Speaking specifically to the Zend Framework: Objects I'm going to use everywhere, or almost everywhere, get created in Bootstrap.php. These objects generally include a database adapter, logger, view object, and any plugins I might use. To access these across the application, I'll create private properties in the appropriate controllers and assign the objects to those properties in the controller's init() method.
class ExampleController extends Zend_Controller_Action
{
public function init()
{
$bootstrap = $this->getInvokeArg('bootstrap');
$this->_db = $bootstrap->getResource('db');
$this->_log = $bootstrap->getResource('log');
// and so on, and so forth
}
}
Ideally, models, services, daos, etc, will all be relatively tightly grouped by controller and by action. In my experience, and this is speaking generally, if I have the same model or service class showing up across all of the controllers in my application, I have an organization problem. That being said, any model that shows up in only one action gets created in that action. If it's across actions in a controller, it gets created in the init() method and assigned to a property. If it shows up across multiple controllers, it gets created in my Bootstrap.php.
(Ideally, everything gets created in the Bootstrap.php, so you can swap out that bootstrap for testing purposes. Sadly, I don't always do that, and I most often use the principles I outlined above.)
Well do you really need it in every controllers? Because that's pretty much by design. You implement models when you need them. Its not that much code really.
Now if its to be used across actions from a controller you could always:
class MyController extends Zend_Controllers{
$protected $_articleModel;
...
and in your constructor or __init() function initialize it so you can use it in every action thru $this->_articleModel
If you REALLY want it everywhere in your application just initialize it in your bootstrap and store it in the registry.
public function __initModels(){
$articles = new Application_Model_Articles()
Zend_Registry::set('articles', $articles );
}
And access it in your controllers like so:
Zend_Registry::get('articles')->fetchAll();
But then your still writing a couple of characters.
Hope this help!
IF you want to use models in the controllers you must call it..anyway some shortcuts are here
1.You can initialize it in the init section of your controller like
public function init(){
$this->object = new Application_Model_Database();
}
So that the this->object is available in all the actions of that particular controller
2.Use Zend_registry as suggested in the above answer
Another possibility is to use a Dependency Injection container, such as the Symfony DI component. It takes care of instantiating your objects, and you get some additional benefits:
Separation of concerns. You have a component devoted to create your object tree.
Easier testability of the objects.
Last, but not least, the performance benefits given by lazy instantiation (objects are created only when you ask for them). Thus, if some object is not used by the particular controller serving your request, it's not instantiated).
It's a bit more laborious than the above solutions, but much more flexible if you need to maintain and extend your application in the future.
Hope that helps,
If you are using this object to just display data in your view and are using your controller to grab the data and assign it to your view, like so:
//someControllerAction
$object = new Application_Model_Articles();
$object->fetchAll();
//assign to view
$this->view->articles = $object;
You might be better off making a view helper similar to:
//Articles.php put in /application/views/helpers
class Zend_View_Helper_Articles extends Zend_View_Helper_Abstract {
public function Articles() {
$articles = new Application_Model_Articles();
$articles->fetchAll();
//return rowset object
return $articles;
Then in your view (phtml) you could do something like:
//someView.phmtl
<?php $articles = $this->Articles(); ?>
<h1><?php echo $this->escape($articles->title); ?></h1>
<p><?php echo $this->escape($articles->body); ?></p>
building a view helper allows you to bypass the controller completely if you just need to display data from the model. This is a very simple example and can be used with partials and partialLoops.
REF:ZF reference Custom View Helper
ZF partial view helper reference
I'm learning prism V4 using MEF to load my modules. Loading modules does work, but in one module I want to load a View/ViewModel (MVVM) and don't really know how I get MEF to resolve all this stuff for me.
First: how do I need to mark the ViewModel (I follow the StockTraderRI example) so it is not loaded on startup but instead can be loaded during runtime into a region?
Second: how do I load the ViewModel using MEF so it gets connected to the corresponding interfaces?
MEF does this very nicely for things on startup which are marked as [Export], but I got no idea how to achieve this during runtime.
You can use what is known as a Lazy Export so that the interface is not resolved until you explicitly use it.
If you need to create multiple instances, MEF doesn't support this particularly well. You can either do your own discovery and instantiation, or you can define the Export like this:
[PartCreationPolicy(CreationPolicy.NonShared)]
[Export(typeof(ISomething)]
public class Something : ISomething { }
The downside is that now wherever you need to create the instance, you need to have a reference to the actual Container instance. Then you can do:
var something = _container.GetExportedObject<ISomething>();
EDIT: Okay, I think I understand better what you're after. Here is how I've typically resolved this issue:
I implement my View objects as UserControl instances and don't set a DataContext anywhere in their code or XAML.
I create a DataTemplate that binds from the Type of the ViewModel to the UserControl.
On my MainViewModel (or whatever corresponds to the View hosting the regions), I expose a general RegionX Object (possibly typed to an interface if all of my ViewModels will share some common functionality, but Object works fine).
I create a ContentPresenter with Content bound to the RegionX property.
Now my MainViewModel can import different ViewModel instances corresponding to the types of ViewModels that might be hosted by the RegionX. When I want to switch the 'active' View in the region, I simply set RegionX to the corresponding ViewModel.