convention-over-configur

What are drawbacks of naming controllers in singular form is Rails?

阅读更多关于 What are drawbacks of naming controllers in singular form is Rails?

问题 I know in Rails we follow conventions. And we should name controllers in plural form. Recently I hired a freelancer to help me with one part of my application in Rails as I'm really new to this framework and ruby. I had a PortfolioController - this is just feels right because portfolio is a container for entries (who says "I have portfolios"?). The freelancer said it's not right and I will have troubles not following the convention and renamed it to PortfoliosController . I asked several

Benefits of the “Convention over Configuration” paradigm

阅读更多关于 Benefits of the “Convention over Configuration” paradigm

问题 What are the benefits of the "Convention over Configuration" paradigm in web development? And are there cases where sticking with it don't make sense? Thanks 回答1: Convention states that 90% of the time it will be a certain way. When you deviate from that convention then you can make changes...versus forcing each and every user to understand each and every configuration parameter. The idea is that if you need it to differ you will search it out at that point in time versus trying to wrap your

Do I need to create folder hierarchy for nested module class in Rails

阅读更多关于 Do I need to create folder hierarchy for nested module class in Rails

问题 I have a scenario where I just need to inherite the classes in my subclass, there is not single line of code. Just due to STI I need to create it. Ex: |-- app | |-- models | | |-- a | | | |-- a1 | | | | |-- special | | | | | |-- a2 | | | | | | *-- ax1.rb #(A::A1::Special::A2::Ax1 < A::A1::A2::Ax) | | | | |-- a2 | | | | | *-- ax.rb | | |-- b | | | |-- b1 | | | | |-- b2 | | | | | *-- bx.rb #(B::B1::B2::Bx) | | |-- c | | `-- concerns Question and scenario: I have lots of files like Ax1 which

Setting up a convention for automatic factories

阅读更多关于 Setting up a convention for automatic factories

问题 By defining a IDataRepositoryFactory non-generic interface with a generic Create method: public interface IDataRepositoryFactory { T Create<T>(DataContext context) where T : IDataRepository; // new non-generic interface } I'm able to avoid having to write factory implementations: _kernel.Bind(t => t.FromAssemblyContaining(typeof(DataRepository<>)) .SelectAllInterfaces() .EndingWith("RepositoryFactory") .BindToFactory()); _kernel.Bind(t => t.FromAssemblyContaining(typeof(DataRepository<>))

servicestack with funq - autowiring by convention

阅读更多关于 servicestack with funq - autowiring by convention

问题 I have a service which takes an IMyDependency in its constructor. IMyDependency, MyDependency and the service all live in the same assembly. MyDependency has a single, public, parameterless constructor. To my surprise, this did not work: container.RegisterAutoWired<IMyDependency>(); It throws a "System.NullReferenceException". It works if I do this: container.RegisterAutoWiredAs<MyDependency, IMyDependency>(); But then, so does this: container.RegisterAs<MyDependency, IMyDependency>(); So

Grails: How can I change default view location?

阅读更多关于 Grails: How can I change default view location?

问题 I've got controller AdminTagController . By default view will be located in /adminTag folder. Is it possible to change default folder for this controller to /admin/view ? I can specify view for each method but it's not cool Thank you 回答1: It's possible to change it with the afterInterceptor of your controller. Check the example: def afterInterceptor = { model, modelAndView -> println "Current view is ${modelAndView.viewName}" if (model.someVar) { modelAndView.viewName = "/mycontroller

Grails: How can I change default view location?

阅读更多关于 Grails: How can I change default view location?

I've got controller AdminTagController . By default view will be located in /adminTag folder. Is it possible to change default folder for this controller to /admin/view ? I can specify view for each method but it's not cool Thank you It's possible to change it with the afterInterceptor of your controller. Check the example: def afterInterceptor = { model, modelAndView -> println "Current view is ${modelAndView.viewName}" if (model.someVar) { modelAndView.viewName = "/mycontroller/someotherview" } println "View is now ${modelAndView.viewName}" } This is applied to all actions of your controller

What are your Common Magento Configuration Mistakes? [closed]

阅读更多关于 What are your Common Magento Configuration Mistakes? [closed]

问题 As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. Closed 7 years ago . If there's something that everybody hates about Magento it's endlessly configuring your modules before being able to write some code.

Convention over configuration in ASP.NET MVC

阅读更多关于 Convention over configuration in ASP.NET MVC

问题 I am relatively new to ASP.NET MVC, and am very impressed with the clarity of the platform so far. However, there is one aspect that I find uncomfortable. At first, I accepted the fact that when I say return View(); I am calling a helper method that returns an ActionResult, and makes some assumptions about which view to present, route values, etc. But lately I have been writing code that looks more like this: return View("Index", new { id = myID }) because it is immediately clear to me what's

servicestack with funq - autowiring by convention

阅读更多关于 servicestack with funq - autowiring by convention

I have a service which takes an IMyDependency in its constructor. IMyDependency, MyDependency and the service all live in the same assembly. MyDependency has a single, public, parameterless constructor. To my surprise, this did not work: container.RegisterAutoWired<IMyDependency>(); It throws a "System.NullReferenceException". It works if I do this: container.RegisterAutoWiredAs<MyDependency, IMyDependency>(); But then, so does this: container.RegisterAs<MyDependency, IMyDependency>(); So what is the difference? If 'auto wiring' cannot find a concrete implementation, and it makes no difference