Is it possible to link containers together in StructureMap like it is in WindsorContainer.AddChildContainer()?
I want to achieve having 3 container levels;
- 1 page request level
- 1 session level
- 1 application level
These would then be chained together so only one instance request would be made to the "base level" container.
The levels of container are unimportant really, just whether there is the ability to link them together.
This seems to do the trick, not sure if there is a better way or what the implications are. So far looks ok...
childContainer.PluginGraph.Registries.ForEach(
registry => parentContainer.Configure(expression => expression.AddRegistry(registry))
);
where parentContainer & childContainer are both StructureMap.Container
Related
I'm creating a droplet in DigitalOcean with Pulumi. I have the following code:
name = "server"
droplet = digitalocean.Droplet(
name,
image=_image,
region=_region,
size=_size,
)
The server gets created successfully on DigitalOcean but the name in the DigitalOcean console is something like server-0bbc405 (upon each execution, it's a different name).
Why isn't it just the name I provided? How can I achieve that?
This is a result of auto-naming, which is explained here in the Pulumi docs:
https://www.pulumi.com/docs/intro/concepts/resources/names/#autonaming
The extra characters tacked onto the end of the resource name allow you to use the same "logical" name (your "server") with multiple stacks without risk of a collision (as cloud providers often require resources of the same kind to ba named uniquely). Auto-naming looks a bit strange at first, but it's incredibly useful in practice, and once you start working with multiple stacks, you'll almost surely appreciate it.
That said, you can generally override this name by providing a name in your list of resource arguments:
...
name = "server"
droplet = digitalocean.Droplet(
name,
name="my-name-override", # <-- Override auto-naming
image="ubuntu-18-04-x64",
region="nyc2",
size="s-1vcpu-1gb")
.. which would yield the following result:
+ pulumi:pulumi:Stack: (create)
...
+ digitalocean:index/droplet:Droplet: (create)
...
name : "my-name-override" # <-- As opposed to "server-0bbc405"
...
.. but again, it's usually best to go with auto-naming for the reasons specified in the docs. Quoting here:
It ensures that two stacks for the same project can be deployed without their resources colliding. The suffix helps you to create multiple instances of your project more easily, whether because you want, for example, many development or testing stacks, or to scale to new regions.
It allows Pulumi to do zero-downtime resource updates. Due to the way some cloud providers work, certain updates require replacing resources rather than updating them in place. By default, Pulumi creates replacements first, then updates the existing references to them, and finally deletes the old resources.
Hope it helps!
I'm pretty sure about the answer to this, but I'm trying a variety of things to get a very stubborn project to work. One idea was to try to run code through a control without defining it on a form.
So, for example, my original code looked like this:
frmProcess.MyViewer.MaxPageSize = 100
frmProcess.MyViewer.ResetPages
frmProcess.MyViewer.AddPageToView "C:\TestPage1.txt"
I've changed it to:
Dim objViewer As MyViewer
objViewer.MaxPageSize = 100
objViewer.ResetPages
objViewer.AddPageToView "C:\TestPage1.txt"
I get an error window with "Run-time error '91': Object variable or With block variable not set".
But there doesn't seem to be a way to 'set' this control. Is this just impossible, or is there another way to do it that doesn't require a form?
EDIT: I ended up abandoning this entire path of activity, as an alternate solution was found that got around the problem I was having with this form freezing. I don't want to delete this question in case someone else comes along and can benefit from the answers, which are potentially useful.
Try this on a form.
Dim objViewer As MyViewer
Set objViewer = Controls.Add("MyViewer", "MyViewer1")
objViewer.MaxPageSize = 100
objViewer.ResetPages
objViewer.AddPageToView "C:\TestPage1.txt"
I've had similar situations in the past. If all else fails and you have to use a form you can do something crude like
1) Set the .Left property of the control to a negative number (like -10000) so the control doesn't appear on the form, the user can not see it
2) Make the entire form not visible..
ActiveX controls normally expect a number of services from their containers, for example persistence. They are also "packaged and marked" in ways that set the kinds of instantiation they support.
See Introduction to ActiveX Controls.
While it is perfectly possible for a control to be created in such a way as to make many of the available services optional, most controls are created from template code that requires a number of them. And most controls that are "visible at runtime" are going to require container services.
However that doesn't mean a control can't be designed to support containerless instantiation. A well known example of such a control is Microsoft Script Control 1.0 (MSScriptControl.ScriptControl) which can be used either way.
Ok, Here is the problem.
At the time user signup, user need to provide info such as:
-Email:______________ -UserName:____________
-FName:______________ -LName:_______________
-Address:____________ (User can have option to update Address lately)
....
-Captcha:__________
[Sign Up] [Reset]
Now suppose that user already got an account & they want to modify their info, then the Gui Could be 40% similar to the the above one.
-FName:______________ -LName:_______________ [Update Name]
-Address:____________ [Update Address]
....
My question is how to design GWT Gui in such a way that we can reuse the Gui components and the Action in both situations?
Maybe put all GUI into 1 page & have 2 different params: 1 for handling Signing Up Ex: #profile;actionParam="signup", & the other for Updating Profile Ex:#profile;actionParam="modify".
We can also use PresenterWidget but I think PresenterWidget is for using the exact same code everywhere, but in my case the Gui need to be modified a bit.
In Java we can do like Parent and Child Inheritance, but I am not sure if we an do similar things like that in GWT?
Can u find a better solution?
You can use the exact same view (widget) and simply hide some fields based on your criteria. You can also group these extra components in one container, so you can hide/show them with a single call:
.newUserPanel.setVisible(user == new);
You can extends widgets in GWT - all of the "standard" widgets extend and implement something - but in this use case the benefits are probably too small to justify two separate views/widgets. But it's possible if you decide to go this route.
I'm trying to work out the best/most performant/easiest to maintain version for handling many different URLs in restlet.
eg, if I want to have an Item resource, is there a better way to do it than this?
router.attach("/items", ItemResource.class);
router.attach("/item/{itemid}", ItemResource.class);
router.attach("/items/list", ItemResource.ItemListResource.class);
router.attach("/items/weapons", ItemResource.WeaponListResource.class);
router.attach("/items/armours", ItemResource.ArmourListResource.class);
...
(I tried with having /items/{itemid}, but then /items/weapons etc could not be accessed.)
ItemResource then has #Get for fetching a single item, but also has #Put for saving an item when just /items is used. Something feels a bit wrong here... Is there a better way to have fetching/inserting/updating/listing for items in this case?
Also, this router.attach list is very long, 100 or so items. Since this has to be run through on every request it would probably be fairly slow. I know I can attach multiple routers together in a chain - but I can't find documentation on how to do this nicely. What's the best way to chain routers and keep them maintainable?
Just put the
router.attach("/item/{itemid}", ItemResource.class);
on the lowest part of the routing, since it will catch all path parameters, so before it matches everything, rout the typed path first. This should fix it based on my experience.
Does the ActionLinkForAreas link extension work with parameters + custom routes?
I have a route that exists matching my action which is:
routes.MapRoute("Profile", "profile/{artist}/{action}", new {controller="Profile", action="Index"});
But when I call ActionLinkForAreas like this:
<%= Html.ActionLinkForAreas<ProfileController>(x => x.Index("DJ"), "DJ") %>
It returns /profile/?artist=DJ where as I would like it to return /profile/DJ as my route is setup.
If i call ActionLink it returns the correct URL, i have tested this in the Northwind sample project and I get the same result.
Am I missing something?
Paul,
You might be correct that this is a bug. There are no unit tests to test this either. Right now we are in the middle of a re-write for S#arp Architecture and the areas support we currently have in 1.5.2 will not be in 2.0. We have decided to use the built-in areas 100% completely. If we have to add a custom view engine, it will be due to the need to override the area locations.
Since we are working on 2.0 and this feature is going away, I have to be honest and say that we most likely will not jump on this one to fix it. I would however welcome a patch as I am sure others would be grateful as well.
Alec