Search Results

Search found 11138 results on 446 pages for 'spring mvc'.

Page 210/446 | < Previous Page | 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217  | Next Page >

• Is passing the Model around in this way considered bad practice?

  - by Theomax

  If I have a view called, for example, ViewDetails that displays user information in labels and has a Model called ViewDetailsModel and if I want to allow the user to click a button to edit some of these details, is it considered bad practice is I pass the entire Model in the markup to a controller method which then assigns the values for another model, using the values stored in the Model that was passed in as a parameter to that action method? If so, should there instead be a service method that gets the data required for the edit view? For example: In the ViewDetails view, the user clicks the edit button which calls an action method in the controller (and passes in the Model object). The action method then uses the data in the Model object to populate another model which will be used for the EditDetails view that will be returned.

  Read the article

• Is it bad practise to call a controller action from a view that was rendered by another controller?

  - by marco-fiset

  Let's say I have an OrderController which handles orders. The user adds products to it through the view, and then the final price gets calculated through an AJAX call to a controller action. The price calculation logic is implemented in a seperate class and used in a controller action. What happens is that I have many views from different controllers that need to use that particular action. I'd like to have some kind of a PriceController that I could call an action on. But then the view would have to know about that PriceController and call an action on it. Is it bad practice for a view to call an action on a different controller from which it was rendered?

  Read the article

• Html.ValidationSummary and Multiple Forms

  - by MightyZot

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/MightyZot/archive/2013/11/11/html.validationsummary-and-multiple-forms.aspxThe Html.ValidationSummary helper writes a div with a list of general errors added to the model state while a request is being serviced. There is generally one form per view or partial view, I think, so often there is only one call to Html.ValidationSummary in the page resulting from the assembly of your views. And, consequently, there is no problem with the markup that Html.ValidationSummary spits out as a result. What if you want to put multiple forms in one view? Even if you create a view model that’s an aggregate of the view models for each form, the error validation summary is going to contain errors from both forms. Check out this screen shot, which shows a page with multiple forms. Notice how the error validation summary shows up twice. Grrr! Errors for the login form also show up in the registration form. Luckily, there is an easy way around this. Pull the errors out of the model state and separate them for each form. You’ll need to identify the appropriate form by setting the key when you make calls to ModelState.AddModelError. Assume in my example that errors for the login form are added to model state using the “LoginForm” key. And, likewise, assume that errors for the registration form are added to model state using the “RegistrationForm” key. An example of that might look like this… // If we got this far, something failed, redisplay form ModelState.AddModelError("LoginForm", "User name or password is not right..."); return View(model); Over in the code for your View, you can pull each form’s errors from the model state using lambda expressions that look like these… var LoginFormErrors = ViewData.ModelState.Where(ms => ms.Key == "LoginForm"); var RegistrationFormErrors = ViewData.ModelState.Where(ms => ms.Key == "RegistrationForm"); Now that you have two collections containing errors, you can display only the errors specific to each form. I’m doing that in my code by removing the calls to Html.ValidationSummary and replacing them with enumerators that look like this… if(LoginFormErrors.Count() > 0) { <div class="cdt-error-list">     <ul>     @foreach (var entry in LoginFormErrors)     {         foreach (var error in entry.Value.Errors)         {             <li>@error.ErrorMessage</li>         }     }     </ul> </div> } …and for the registration form, the code looks like this… @if(RegistrationFormErrors.Count() > 0) { <div class="cdt-error-list">     <ul>     @foreach (var entry in RegistrationFormErrors)     {         foreach (var error in entry.Value.Errors)         {             <li>@error.ErrorMessage</li>         }     }     </ul> </div> } The result is a nice clean separation of the list of errors that are specific to each form. And, this is important because each form is submitted separately in my case, so both forms don’t generate errors in the same context. As you’ll see in the screen shot below, errors added to the model state when the login form is submitted do not show up in the registration form’s validation summary.

  Read the article

• Is sending data to a server via a script tag an outdated paradigm?

  - by KingOfHypocrites

  I inherited some old javascript code for a website tracker that submits data to the server using a script url: var src = "http://domain.zzz/log/method?value1=x&value2=x" var e = document.createElement('script'); e.src = src; I guess the idea was that cross domain requests didn't haven't to be enabled perhaps. Also it was written back in 2005. I'm not sure how well XmlHttpRequests were supported at the time. Anyone could stick this on their website and send data to our server for logging and it ideally would work in most any browser with javascript. The main limitation is all the server can do is send back javascript code and each request has to wait for a response from the server (in the form of a generic acknowledgement javascript method call) to know it was received, then it sends the next. I can't find anyone doing this online or any metrics as to whether this faster or more secure than XmlHttpRequests. I don't know if this is just an old way of doing things or it's still the best way to send data to the server when you are mostly trying to send data one way and you need the best performance possible. So in summary is sending data via a script tag an outdated paradigm? Should I abandon in favor of using XmlHttpRequsts?

  Read the article

• There are 2 jobs available - which one sounds better all round [closed]

  - by Steve Gates

  I am currently employed at a company where we scrape by each year breaking even, sometimes having a little profit. The development environment is very relaxed and we have a laugh. My colleagues are not interested in improving their knowledge unless they have to, so trying to get them to adopt things like TDD is a non-starter. My development manager is stuck in .Net 2 land and refuses to use things like LINQ. He over complicates architecture and writes very unreadable code, heres an example SortedList<int,<SortedList<int,SortedList<int, MyClass>>>> The MD of the company has no drive and lets the one sales guy bring in the contracts. We are not busy all the time and this allows me time to look at new technology and learn. In terms of using things like TDD, my development manager has no problem with it and can kind of see the purpose of it, he just wont use it himself. This means I am alone in learning new things and am often resorting to StackOverflow to make sure I get things right. The company has a lot of flexibility, I can work from home if needs be and when my daughter was born they let me work from home 1 day a week however they expect this flexibility in return often asking me to travel occasionally on a Friday afternoon for the following week. Sometimes its abroad. We are also pretty much on call 24/5 as we have engineers in various countries. Also we have no testers so most of the testing is done by us developers and some testing by engineers. Either way no-one likes testing! I have been offered a role at a company I worked at 5 years ago. They were quite Victorian in their working practices but it appears to have relaxed now although I suspect still reasonably formal. There is a new team of developers I don't know and they are about to move to new offices. The team lead is a guy that was there when I was and I get the impression he takes his role seriously and likes his formal procedures and documentation. I think some of the Victorian practices may have rubbed off on him. However he did say if things crop up then as long as I can trust the person they can work at home although he prefers people in the office. The team uses SCRUM, TDD and SOLID design principles so they are quite up to date in technology. They are reasonably Microsoft focused. It appears the Technical Director might be the R&D man and research new technology on his own not allowing developers to play with new technology. He possibly might be a super developer and makes all the decisions that no can argue with. They are currently moving to Entity Framework away from NHibernate based on issues that their queries seem to fail sometimes and they feel NHibernate is stagnant. They have analysts and a QA team. The MD is focused and they are an expanding company making profit each year. I'm not sure what the team morale is and whether they have a laugh. When I had a tour around the office they were there in dead silence. I'm really unsure which role is the best for me and going with my gut instinct is useless as I'm not sure what my gut is telling me. Based on the information above which role would you choose and why?

  Read the article

• In PHP, what are the different design patterns to implement OO controllers as opposed to procedural controllers?

  - by Ryan

  For example, it's very straightforward to have an index.php controller be a procedural script like so: <?php //include classes and functions //get some data from the database //and/or process a form submission //render HTML using your template system ?> Then I can just navigate to http://mysite.com/index.php and the above procedural script is essentially acting as a simple controller. Here the controller mechanism is a basic procedural script. How then do you make controllers classes instead of procedural scripts? Must the controller class always be tied to the routing mechanism?

  Read the article

• Strategies for avoiding SQL in your Controllers... or how many methods should I have in my Models?

  - by Keith Palmer

  So a situation I run into reasonably often is one where my models start to either: Grow into monsters with tons and tons of methods OR Allow you to pass pieces of SQL to them, so that they are flexible enough to not require a million different methods For example, say we have a "widget" model. We start with some basic methods: get($id) insert($record) update($id, $record) delete($id) getList() // get a list of Widgets That's all fine and dandy, but then we need some reporting: listCreatedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listPurchasedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listOfPending() And then the reporting starts to get complex: listPendingCreatedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listForCustomer($customer_id) listPendingCreatedBetweenForCustomer($customer_id, $start_date, $end_date) You can see where this is growing... eventually we have so many specific query requirements that I either need to implement tons and tons of methods, or some sort of "query" object that I can pass to a single -query(query $query) method... ... or just bite the bullet, and start doing something like this: list = MyModel-query(" start_date X AND end_date < Y AND pending = 1 AND customer_id = Z ") There's a certain appeal to just having one method like that instead of 50 million other more specific methods... but it feels "wrong" sometimes to stuff a pile of what's basically SQL into the controller. Is there a "right" way to handle situations like this? Does it seem acceptable to be stuffing queries like that into a generic -query() method? Are there better strategies?

  Read the article

• Is there a factory pattern to prevent multiple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

  - by dsollen

  I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquely define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the others that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methods, so all these objects act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approach which accepts a Builder object and constructs the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquely defines the type of object (this is node A to node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows its state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overriding of serialization methods to make it work (ensure that when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in its place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know whether an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to its own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state that is different than my memory; to tell my memory when its own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despite their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect that I'm posting).

  Read the article

• Calling a model from a controller from the 404 route [migrated]

  - by IrishRob

  Got a problem here where I can’t seem to load a method from a model after the page has been redirected after encountering a 404. Model name: Category_Model Method name: get_category_menu() In my routes, I’ve updated the 404 over-ride to: $route[‘404_override’] = ‘whoops’; I’ve also got my controller Whoops that reads… <?php class Whoops extends CI_Controller { function index() { $this->load->model('Category_Model'); $data['Categories'] = $this->Category_Model->get_category_menu(); $data['main_content'] = $this->load->view('messages/whoops', null, true); $this->load->view('includes/template', $data); } } So when I navigate to a page that doesn’t exist, I get the following error… Message: Undefined property: Whoops::$Category_Model Filename: controllers/whoops.php I’ve hard coded the loading of the model into the controller here, even though I have it in my autoload, but no luck. Everything else with the site so far works, just this 404 problem. Any pointers would be great, kinda new to CI so go easy on me. Cheers.

  Read the article

• Tell a user whether they have already viewed an item in a list. How?

  - by user2738308

  It is pretty common for a web application to display a list of items and for each item in the list to indicate to the current user whether they have already viewed the associated item. An approach that I have taken in the past is to store HasViewed objects that contain the Id of a viewed item and the Id of the User who has viewed that item. When it comes time to display a list of items this requires querying for the items, and separately querying for the HasViewed objects, and then combining the results into a set of objects constructed solely for the purpose of displaying them in the view. Each e.g li then uses the e.g. has_viewed property of the objects constructed above. I would like to know whether others take a different approach and can recommend alternative ways to achieve this functionality.

  Read the article

• Updating query results

  - by Francisco Garcia

  Within a DDD and CQRS context, a query result is displayed as table rows. Whenever new rows are inserted or deleted, their positions must be calculated by comparing the previous query result with the most recent one. This is needed to visualize with an animation new or deleted rows. The model of my view contains an array of the displayed query results. But I need a place to compare its contents against the latest query. Right now I consider my model view part of my application layer, but the comparison of two query result sets seems something that must be done within the domain layer. Which component should cache a query result and which one compare them? Are view models (and their cached contents) supposed to be in the application layer?

  Read the article

• PyQt application architecture

  - by L. De Leo

  I'm trying to give a sound structure to a PyQt application that implements a card game. So far I have the following classes: Ui_Game: this describes the ui of course and is responsible of reacting to the events emitted by my CardWidget instances MainController: this is responsible for managing the whole application: setup and all the subsequent states of the application (like starting a new hand, displaying the notification of state changes on the ui or ending the game) GameEngine: this is a set of classes that implement the whole game logic Now, the way I concretely coded this in Python is the following: class CardWidget(QtGui.QLabel): def __init__(self, filename, *args, **kwargs): QtGui.QLabel.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs) self.setPixmap(QtGui.QPixmap(':/res/res/' + filename)) def mouseReleaseEvent(self, ev): self.emit(QtCore.SIGNAL('card_clicked'), self) class Ui_Game(QtGui.QWidget): def __init__(self, window, *args, **kwargs): QtGui.QWidget.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs) self.setupUi(window) self.controller = None def place_card(self, card): cards_on_table = self.played_cards.count() + 1 print cards_on_table if cards_on_table <= 2: self.played_cards.addWidget(card) if cards_on_table == 2: self.controller.play_hand() class MainController(object): def __init__(self): self.app = QtGui.QApplication(sys.argv) self.window = QtGui.QMainWindow() self.ui = Ui_Game(self.window) self.ui.controller = self self.game_setup() Is there a better way other than injecting the controller into the Ui_Game class in the Ui_Game.controller? Or am I totally off-road?

  Read the article

• What is the best practice to develop a visual component in Flex Hero?

  - by gavri

  What is the best practice to develop a visual component in Flex Hero? I do it like this: I consider a component has 2 "parts", the declarative part (the visual sub-components) which I define in the skin (just mxml) and the code part (event handlers...) which I define in an action script class. I load the skin in the ctor of the action script class. I also define skin parts, states, and I bind event handlers in the partAdded function. I am having an argument about this; that I should define the component purely in an .mxml, with listeners in the script tag, and maybe attach a skin (but the skin should be loose - maybe for reuse :-?) I come from .NET and maybe I am biased with the code behind pattern, and I am wondering from your experience and Adobe's intent, what is the best practice to usually implement a visual component?

  Read the article

• What's the correct approach for passing data from several models into a service?

  - by Doug Chamberlain

  I have an AccountModel and a page where the user can upload a file. What I would like to have happen is when the user uploads the file. The PageController does something like the following. this is a quick attempt just written in the question to illustrate my question. public class PageController : Controller { private Service service; public ActionResult Upload(HttpPostedFileBase f){ service.savefile(f,_AccountModel_whatever.currentlyloggedinuser.taxid) } } public class Service { // abunch of validation and error checking to make sure the file is good to store } Wouldn't this approach be in bad practice? Since I'm making my controller dependent on the existence of th AccountModel? This will become a HUGE program over the next few years, and I really want to maximize the quality of the framework now.

  Read the article

• Storing images in file system and returning URLs or virtually resizing and returning byte arrays?

  - by ismaelf

  I need to create a REST web service to manage user submitted images and displaying them all in a website. There are multiple websites that are going to use this service to manage and display images. The requirements are to have 5 pre-defined image sizes available. The 2 options I see are the following: The web service will create the 5 images, store them in the file system and and store the URL's in the database when the user submits the image. When the image is requested, the web service will return an array of URLs. I see this option to be a little hard on the hard drive. The estimates are 10,000 users per site, and lets say, 100 sites. The heavy processing will be done when the user submits the image and each image is going to be pulled from the File System. The web service will store just the image that the user submits in the file system and it's URL in the database. When the user request images, the web service will get the info from the DB, load the image on memory, create its 5 instances and return an object with 5 image arrays (I will probably cache the arrays). This option is harder on the processor and memory. The heavy processing will be done when the images get requested. A plus I see for option 2 is that it will give me the option to rewrite the URL of the image and make them site dependent (prettier) than having a image repository for all websites. But this is not a big deal. What do you think of these options? Do you have any other suggestions?

  Read the article

• is a factory pattern to prevent multuple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

  - by dsollen

  I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquly define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the oens that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methdos, so these objects all act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approch which accepts a Builder object and construct the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquly defines the type of object (this is node A nto node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows it's state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overiding of serlization methods to make it work (ensure when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in it's place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know rather an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to it's own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state taht is different then my memory; to tell my memory when it's own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despit their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect I'm posting).

  Read the article

• How should I implement the repository pattern for complex object models?

  - by Eric Falsken

  Our data model has almost 200 classes that can be separated out into about a dozen functional areas. It would have been nice to use domains, but the separation isn't that clean and we can't change it. We're redesigning our DAL to use Entity Framework and most of the recommendations that I've seen suggest using a Repository pattern. However, none of the samples really deal with complex object models. Some implementations that I've found suggest the use of a repository-per-entity. This seems ridiculous and un-maintainable for large, complex models. Is it really necessary to create a UnitOfWork for each operation, and a Repository for each entity? I could end up with thousands of classes. I know this is unreasonable, but I've found very little guidance implementing Repository, Unit Of Work, and Entity Framework over complex models and realistic business applications.

  Read the article

• How to build a good service layer in ASP.NET?

  - by Swippen

  I have looked through some questions, technologies for building a good service layer but I have some questions regarding this that I need help with. First some information of what I have for requirements. We currently have a number of web applications that talk to each other in a spiderweb looking way (all talking to each other in a confusing way via webservices and database data). We want to change this so that all applications go through a service layer where we can work more with cache and encapsulate common functionality and more. We want this layer to also have a Web API so that 3rd party clients can consume information from the service. The problem I see is that if we build the service layer with say MVC4 Web API don't we need to communicate between the application using the webAPI meaning we have to construct URLs and consume JSON/Xml. That does not sound too effective. I assume a better method would be working with entities and WCF to communicate between the application but then we might loose the Web API magic? So the question is if there is a way to consume a service layer as both a Web API (JSON/XML) and as a more backend service layer with entities. If we are forced to use 2 different service layers we might have to duplicate some functionality and other bad things. Hope the question is clear enough and please ask if you need any more information.

  Read the article

• Are session aware Models a bad thing?

  - by kevtufc

  I'm thinking specifically in Rails here, but I suspect this is a wider question. In a Rails web application I'm using data from the session in models in order that the models know who is logged in. I use this in a method which filters out some data from the database depending on a very simple permissions system. The thing is: using sessions in models in Rails requires a bit of a workaround. It works, but I've a feeling that it's something that I shouldn't be doing and I'm worried there's a big gotcha I'm missing. I suppose the Right Thing To Do would be to return all the data and filter out the not-wanted bits in the controller before passing that to the view, but doing it in the model seems to avoid quite a bit of code duplication and so feels "cleaner." Can anyone tell me why or shouldn't do this? Or that it's not a problem?

  Read the article

• Generic Handler vs Direct Reference

  - by JNF

  In a project where I'm working on the data access layer I'm trying to make a decision how to send data and objects to the next layer (and programmer). Is it better to tell him to reference my dll, OR should I build a generic handler and let him take the objects from there (i.e. json format) If I understand correctly, In case of 2. he would have to handle the objects on his own, whereas in case 1. he will have the entities I've built. Note: It is very probable that other people would need to take the same data, though, we're not up to that yet. Same question here - should I make it into a webservice, or have them access the handler?

  Read the article

• Downloading stream using FileStreamResult

  - by user1400915

  I have a Action in controller as public ActionResult Download() { return File(downloadStream, "application/octet-stream", fileName); } If I want to use FilePathresult as: public FilePathResult Download() { return File(downloadStream, "application/octet-stream", fileName); } can I call the Download() on click of a button like this @Html.ActionLink("FileDownload", "Download", new { file = item.FileName, GuID = item.DocumentGuID }) /text).Width(10);

  Read the article

• aspect parameter validation [closed]

  - by user12558

  Hi, Im doing a POC using Aspectj. class BaseInfo{..} class UserInfo extends BaseInfo{..} class UserService { public void getUser(UserInfo userInfo){..} public void deleteUser(String userId){..} } I've defined an advice, that gets invoked when I pass an UserInfo instance.But when i try to pass the BaseInfo, the advice is not getting invoked. Below block executes the afterMethod as expected for getUser. &ltaop:pointcut id="aopafterMethod" expression="execution(* UserService.*(..,UserInfo,..))" / &gtaop:after pointcut-ref="aopafterMethod" method="afterMethod" / But when i try to give BaseInfo instead of UserInfo, the aspect is not getting triggered. Am i missing something? Kindly help me on this issue.

  Read the article

• Ibatis startBatch() only works with SqlMapClient's own start and commit transactions, not with Sprin

  - by Brian

  Hi, I'm finding that even though I have code wrapped by Spring transactions, and it commits/rolls back when I would expect, in order to make use of JDBC batching when using Ibatis and Spring I need to use explicit SqlMapClient transaction methods. I.e. this does batching as I'd expect: dao.getSqlMapClient().startTransaction(); dao.getSqlMapClient().startBatch(); int i = 0; for (MyObject obj : allObjects) { dao.storeChange(obj); i++; if (i % DB_BATCH_SIZE == 0) { dao.getSqlMapClient().executeBatch(); dao.getSqlMapClient().startBatch(); } } dao.getSqlMapClient().executeBatch(); dao.getSqlMapClient().commitTransaction(); but if I don't have the opening and closing transaction statements, and rely on Spring to manage things (which is what I want to do!), batching just doesn't happen. Given that Spring does otherwise seem to be handling its side of the bargain regarding transaction management, can anyone advise on any known issues here? (Database is MySQL; I'm aware of the issues regarding its JDBC pseudo-batch approach with INSERT statement rewriting, that's definitely not an issue here)

  Read the article

• Using ControllerClassNameHandlerMapping with @Controller and extending AbstractController

  - by whiskerz

  Hey there, actually I thought I was trying something really simple. ControllerClassNameHandlerMapping sounded great to produce a small spring webapp using a very lean configuration. Just annotate the Controller with @Controller, have it extend AbstractController and the configuration shouldn't need more than this <context:component-scan base-package="test.mypackage.controller" /> <bean id="urlMapping" class="org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.support.ControllerClassNameHandlerMapping" /> to resolve my requests and map them to my controllers. I've mapped the servlet to "*.spring", and calling <approot>/hello.spring All I ever get is an error stating that no mapping was found. If however I extend the MultiActionController, and do something like <approot>/hello/hello.spring it works. Which somehow irritates me, as I would have thought that if that is working, why didn't my first try? Does anyone have any idea? The two controllers I used looked like this @Controller public class HelloController extends AbstractController { @Override protected ModelAndView handleRequestInternal(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws Exception { ModelAndView modelAndView = new ModelAndView("hello"); modelAndView.addObject("message", "Hello World!"); return modelAndView; } } and @Controller public class HelloController extends MultiActionController { public ModelAndView hello(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws Exception { ModelAndView modelAndView = new ModelAndView("hello"); modelAndView.addObject("message", "Hello World!"); return modelAndView; } }

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection into your Singleton

  - by Langali

  I have a singleton that has a spring injected Dao (simplified below): public class MyService<T> implements Service<T> { private final Map<String, T> objects; private static MyService instance; MyDao myDao; public void set MyDao(MyDao myDao) { this. myDao = myDao; } private MyService() { this.objects = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap<String, T>()); // start a background thread that runs for ever } public static synchronized MyService getInstance() { if(instance == null) { instance = new MyService(); } return instance; } public void doSomething() { myDao.persist(objects); } } My spring config will probably look like this: <bean id="service" class="MyService" factory-method="getInstance"/> But this will instantiate the MyService during startup. Is there a programmatic way to do a dependency injection of MyDao into MyService, but not have spring manage the MyService? Basically I want to be able to do this from my code: MyService.getInstance().doSomething(); while having spring inject the MyDao for me.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217  | Next Page >