ASPHostCentral.com ASP.NET MVC Hosting BLOG

All about ASP.NET MVC 4.0 Hosting, ASP.NET MVC 3.0 Hosting and ASP.NET MVC Hosting articles

ASP.NET MVC 3 Hosting :: Working with ASP.NET MVC 3 Remote Validation

clock April 3, 2011 18:47 by author Administrator

In this example we will be validating if a username provided by the user is unique during registration. Using the same example as in the past tutorial, here is a look at part of the RegisterRequest Class that is used during registration. Notice the Remote Attribute on the Username property. This signifies we want remote validation on this property and I have provided 3 parameters:

- UsernameExists - the name of the action that will be called on my controller
- Account - the name of the controller with the UsernameExists action
- The error message I want displayed on the client if validation fails  


In addition to the Remote Attribute, we also need to create the controller action. Here is an example of UsernameExists on the Account Controller. You will obviously need to check your repository to see if the username exists. For simplicity I am just checking to see if the username provided equals “test”, and if so, returning false to tell the client that validation has failed.  


Since we are using JSON and I accepted the default of HTTP GET for remote validation, I also have to say that GET is an allowed behavior with JSON. If you want a POST to occur during remote validation, you can do so by setting HttpMethod = “POST” within the Remote Attribute.

The view for this is very basic as I am taking advantage of the built-in templating by ASP.NET MVC 3. Here is the view using the new Razor View Engine.   


The end result is what you would expect. When a user chooses “test” for the username a validation request is fired to the server and an error is displayed with the error message we provided with the attribute.  

If you look at the source you will see the HTML 5 data-* attributes used for private storage of information controlling the remote validation. In this case you will see:

- data-val-remote="Username already exists"
- data-val-remote-additionalfields="*.Username"
- data-val-remote-url="/Account/UsernameExists"
- data-val-remote-type="POST" ( if using POST )


If you are having problems with this, make sure you have client validation enabled as well an unobtrusive JavaScript enabled. I usually set them in the AppSettings, but there are HtmlHelpers you could use as well:  


You will also need to make sure you have the following JavaScript files linked in your layout or master page:

- jquery-1.4.4.min.js
- jquery.validate.min.js
- jquery.validate.unobtrusive.min.js

Failure to enable the proper settings or link the proper JavaScript files will cause nothing to happen, filling your hours with all kinds of grief as to what could be the problem.

Currently rated 2.3 by 4 people

  • Currently 2.25/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


ASP.NET MVC 3 Hosting :: Analyzing AllowHtml Attribute in ASP.NET MVC 3.0

clock March 31, 2011 15:10 by author Administrator

Let's say we are creating a simple form in our ASP.NET MVC 3 web application and there is a Body field on the form where we want to allow HTML Tags.

If we do not disable request validation in some manner for this Body field, we will get the dreaded error - A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detected from the client (Body = "<br>").


Request validation is a good thing since it keeps people from injecting script tags in our application for Cross-Site Scripting ( XSS ) attacks. However, in this case we want to disable request validation on the Body Field so we can put HTML in the body of our blog posts.

ValidateInput Attribute

In ASP.NET MVC 2 we used the ValidateInput Attribute on the action to disable request validation for the entire request

The downfall of this approach is that the ValidateInputAttribute disables request validation on all model properties, and we just want to disable request validation on a single property, called Body.

AllowHtmlAttribute in ASP.NET MVC 3

In ASP.NET MVC 3 we now have a property attribute that we can include on model properties to disable request validation on a property by property basis, called AllowHtmlAttribute. Instead of using the ValidateInputAttribute on the action, we turn off request validation just on Body by adding the [AllowHtml] Attribute to it:


This allows HTML for the Body Property, but does not allow HTML for the Title Property, which is what we want.

[Note: Briefly in ASP.NET MVC 3, before it was released, there existed a SkipRequestValidationAttribute. It no longer exists and has been renamed to AllowHtmlAttribute.]

   

Currently rated 1.5 by 4 people

  • Currently 1.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


ASP.NET MVC Hosting :: Working with Custom Authorisation in ASP.NET MVC Framework

clock March 30, 2011 16:20 by author Administrator

The whole advantage with MVC over webforms is extensibility at every point. Extensibility, Extensibility, Extensibility.

Authorization is a very important and every web project has there own needs and requirements. Full customisation is paramount.

Here I will show you a simple way to customise your authorization.

In MVC attributes are used to protect a controller method, so we to get started all we need to do is inherit from the AuthorizeAttribute class.

    public class CustomAuthorizeAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
    {
        protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext)
        {
            string[] users = Users.Split(',');
            if (!httpContext.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
                return false;
            if (users.Length > 0 &&
                !users.Contains(httpContext.User.Identity.Name,
                    StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
                return false;
            return true;
        }
    }

This is the basics. We can put any logic we like in here and all we have to do is return false if for whatever reason the user should not be authorized. Then all you need to do is decorate the controller method with the new attribute as below.

    [CustomAuthorize]
    public ActionResult Index()
    {
        return View();
    }

From this simple example we can expand it with custom Roles.

    public class CustomAuthorizeAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
    {
        // the "new" must be used here because we are hiding
        // the Roles property on the underlying class
        public new SiteRoles Roles;
        protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext)
        {
            if (httpContext == null)
                throw new ArgumentNullException("httpContext");
            string[] users = Users.Split(',');
            if (!httpContext.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
                return false;
            SiteRoles role = (SiteRoles)httpContext.Session["role"];

            if (Roles != 0 && ((Roles & role) != role))
                return false;
            return true;
        }
    }

Where the SiteRoles class is defined as below.

    [Serializable]
    [Flags]
    public enum SiteRoles
    {
        User = 1 << 0,
        Admin = 1 << 1,
        Helpdesk = 1 << 2
    }

This can then be used be used as follows.
    [CustomAuthorize(Roles=SiteRoles.Admin|SiteRoles.HelpDesk)]
    public ActionResult Index()
    {
        return View();
    }

This will only allow the Admin and the Helpdesk Role access to the Index controller. If you don’t belong to one of these roles then you will be sent to the Login page.

The possibilities are really endless.

Happy coding.

Currently rated 2.1 by 12 people

  • Currently 2.083333/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


ASP.NET MVC 3.0 Hosting :: ASP.NET MVC 3.0 Validation and IValidatableObject

clock March 27, 2011 19:04 by author Administrator

I was working with ASP.NET MVC 3 validation today and was tickled to learn of the support for IValidatableObject. I mainly like to use the Enterprise Library Validation Application Block in my projects, but System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations has come a long way in .NET Framework 4.

[Aside: Note in the following post I interchange “object“, “model“, and “self” validation.] IValidatableObject for Self Validation

For those of you who are familiar with Enterprise Library, you know it has two attributes that can be used for self validation of an object: HasSelfValidation and SelfValidation. The idea here is that there is model validation that may need to happen as a whole in addition to just property validation. Or, maybe validation is so complex that you don't want to use validation attributes and just want to do all validation “manually“ in a method. Self validation in Enterprise Library gives you opportunity to do this.

In the DataAnnotations world, you get this same kind of model or object validation by implementing IValidatableObject. ASP.NET MVC 3 has built-in support for IValidatableObject, so after propery validation it will fire off object validation if your object implements IValidatableObject. An example is shown below:

  

In this trivial example, I test to see if ConfirmPassword equals Password during registration using IValidatableObject. If they don't match, this is a validation error and I return a ValidationResult with the error. Pretty simple stuff.

IValidatableObject Doesn't Always Fire

There is a gotcha here that may not be obvious. IValidatableObject in ASP.NET MVC 3 will not fire if there are property-level errors. As I mentioned, ASP.NET MVC 3 property validation occurs before object validation. If there are property errors, ASP.NET MVC 3 by design will not fire IValidatableObject so as not to return false positives ( thanks to Brad Wilson of Microsoft for confirming this today ). For those of you who use EnterpriseLibrary and Self Validation where Enterprise Library combines the results, this might not seem obvious and could trip you up. ASP.NET MVC 3 does not combine the results.

In the case above, if the username is not provided ( yet as shown is required ), but both password and confirm password are provided, IValidatableObject will not fire and confirm the passwords match. IValidatableObject will not fire until all property-level validators validate, regardless if the properties play a part in the self-validation or not.

Personally I don't find this an issue, but just wasn't expecting it with all my years of Enterprise Library Validation Application Block experience.

A Note About ValidationAttribute in .NET Framework 4

Just a quick note about ValidationAttribute in System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations. The ValidationAttribute in .NET 4 has been beefed up with a ValidationContext Class being passed in the validate method. ValidationContext contains the entire object being validated during property validation. You could create a custom validation attribute and place it on Password or ConfirmPassword for property comparison. That is certainly a workaround if you want to return the password comparison error regardless if other non-involved properties do not validate.

 

Currently rated 3.0 by 4 people

  • Currently 3/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


ASP.NET MVC 3 Hosting :: Working with ASP.NET MVC 3 RedirectPermanent syntax

clock March 23, 2011 16:42 by author Administrator

I am converting an ASP.NET WebForms website to ASP.NET MVC 3 for a client and by choice we are changing the URL structure as well. Because this may be a common situation, Microsoft introduced a new RedirectPermanent method on Response in ASP.NET 4.0.

If you take a peek at ASP.NET MVC 3, you will see new ActionResult Classes that do the same thing. You are probably familiar with Redirect, RedirectToAction, and RedirectToRoute, but now there are versions of these ActionResult Classes for permanent redirects: RedirectPermanent, RedirectToActionPermanent, and RedirectToRoutePermanent:  


Although out of the scope of this post, for search engine optimization benefits you will want to permanently redirect to the new location of a resource that has permanently moved by issuing an HTTP 301. The previous results only issue an HTTP 302, which means the resource has only temporarily moved.
  

Hope this helps.

Currently rated 1.9 by 40 people

  • Currently 1.85/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


ASP.NET MVC 3.0 Hosting :: How to Create and Maintain SessionLess Controllers in ASP.NET MVC 3

clock March 22, 2011 17:43 by author Administrator

One of the new features in ASP.NET MVC 3 is the [SessionState] Attribute that can be decorated on controllers. Using the attribute, you can completely turn on or off session state, adjust it to readonly, or make it required using a SessionStateBehavior Enum with the following choices:

- Default - The default ASP.NET logic is used to determine the session state behavior for the request. The default logic looks for the existence of marker session state interfaces on the IHttpHandler.
- Required - Full read-write session state behavior is enabled for the request. This setting overrides whatever session behavior would have been determined by inspecting the handler for the request.
- ReadOnly - Read-only session state is enabled for the request. This means that session state cannot be updated. This setting overrides whatever session state behavior would have been determined by inspecting the handler for the request.
- Disabled - Session state is not enabled for processing the request. This setting overrides whatever session behavior would have been determined by inspecting the handler for the request.

Turning off session state using the new SessionState Attribute in ASP.NET MVC 3 would look like this:



Obviously if session state is disabled we should no longer try to use the Session Property on the Controller as it will be null. Turning off session state and using the Session Property will give you the dreaded “object reference not set to an instance of object” error:




TempData and Session State

One thing that might not be so obvious is that the default provider for TempData uses session state ( SessionStateTempDataProvider ). Therefore if you turn off session state for the request but then try to access TempData you will get an error. Here is the use of TempData and the default SessionStateTempDataProvider:



and here is “The SessionStateTempDataProvider class requires session state to be enabled” exception you will receive:



If you still want to disable session state but use TempData, create a different provider for it that uses browser cookies for example. As it so happens, you can find a CookieTempDataProvider in ASP.NET MVC 3 Futures

Session State and Child Actions

The TempData scenario may be obvious, but this child action scenario may not be so obvious. Let's say we turned off session state in the parent controller and then we call a child action in a different controller using Html.RenderAction or Html.Action from within the view.



Does the child action have access to TempData and Session? The Child Controller looks like this:



Even though we did not disable session state on this controller, we won't have access to Session State or TempData in the child action because session state was disabled in the parent controller. The same errors mentioned above will occur.

Child Actions vs. Ajax Requests

Don't confuse ajax requests with child actions. I don't suspect you would, but the question has come up before. A child action is kicked off using Html.RenderAction or Html.Action in a view. Ajax requests coming from the browser are not child actions, but completely separate requests into the application. If you use jQuery within a view to grab data from the same action used above, called ChildAction, the action will have full access to session state since the request is no longer a child action but a normal request coming into the application.



I changed the controller to just grab the SessionId which will work fine:



Of course, this is true of any direct request to the action (e.g. http://.../child/childaction ). That request would no longer be a child action, but a regular ol' request. Since it is a regular request through this controller and session state has not been disabled using the [SessionState] Attribute or other means, session state is enabled and fully accessible.

Why Bother With SessionLess Controllers

The big question becomes why bother with SessionLess Controllers in ASP.NET MVC 3 if we have to tip-toe around TempData, ChildActions, etc?

Well, the use of session state has mainly been an issue of scalability, but things are changing a bit with heavy use of Ajax in the browser. One big drawback of using Session State is that concurrent requests to session state within the same session must be done one at a time when done with full read-write access. You cannot access session state in parallel with full read-write privileges as data corruption can occur. Therefore if you have multiple, concurrent requests from the same session they will need to be performed one at a time rather than in parallel.

When does this become a big deal? Mainly when concurrent ajax requests from the browser are firing off in the background in the same user session. If session state is enabled with full read-write privileges, those scripts cannot be run in parallel as they could corrupt session state. They will be executed one-at-a-time and possibly deteriorate the responsiveness of the UI.

A way to get multiple, concurrent requests in the same session to perform in parallel would be to completely disable session state or make it read only when it is indeed read only.

Conclusion

A new feature in ASP.NET MVC 3 is the ability to specify session state behavior on controllers using the new [SessionState] Attribute. Although there are some challenges, they can easily be managed if you need to squeeze out every ounce of scalability and responsiveness from your application.

Hope this helps.

Currently rated 1.8 by 41 people

  • Currently 1.780487/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


ASP.NET MVC 3 Hosting :: Things to know on MVC3's GlobalFilters and HandleErrorAttribute

clock March 21, 2011 18:20 by author Administrator

In MVC3 a GlobalFilterCollection has been added to the Application_Start. This allows you to register filters that will be applied to all controller actions in a single location. Also, MVC3 web applications now add an instance of HandleErrorAttribute to these GlobalFilters by default. This means that errors in the MVC pipeline will now be automatically handled by these attributes and never fire the HttpApplication's OnError event.

This is nice because it is another step away from the old ASP.NET way of doing things, and a step toward the newer cleaner MVC way of doing things.

Out With the Old

Our old HttpModule wired up to the HttpApplication's OnError event and used that to log unhandled exceptions in web applications. It didn't care if the error happened in or out of the MVC pipeline, either way it was going to bubble up and get caught in the module.

public virtual void Init(HttpApplication context)
{
   InsightManager.Current.Register();
   InsightManager.Current.Configuration.IncludePrivateInformation = true;
   context.Error += OnError;
}

private void OnError(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
   var context = HttpContext.Current;
   if (context == null)
       return;
   Exception exception = context.Server.GetLastError();
   if (exception == null)
       return;

   var abstractContext = new HttpContextWrapper(context);   InsightManager.Current.SubmitUnhandledException(exception, abstractContext);
}

However, now the MVC HandleErrorAttribute may handle exceptions right inside of the MVC pipeline, meaning that they will never reach the HttpApplication and the OnError will never be fired. What to do, what to do...

In With the New

Now we need to work with both the attributes and the HttpApplication, ensuring that we will catch errors from both inside and outside of the MVC pipeline. This means that we need to find and wrap any instances of HandleErrorAttribute in the GlobalFilters, and still register our model to receive notifications from the HttpApplications OnError event.

The first thing we had to do was create a new HandleErrorAttribute. Please note that this example is simplified and only overrides the OnException method. If you want to do this "right", you'll have to override and wrap all of the virtual methods in HandleErrorAttribute.

public class HandleErrorAndReportToInsightAttribute : HandleErrorAttribute
{
   public bool HasWrappedHandler
   {
       get { return WrappedHandler != null; }
   }

   public HandleErrorAttribute WrappedHandler { get; set; }
   public override void OnException(ExceptionContext filterContext)
   {
       if (HasWrappedHandler)
           WrappedHandler.OnException(filterContext);
       else
           base.OnException(filterContext);
       if (filterContext.ExceptionHandled)           InsightManager.Current.SubmitUnhandledException(filterContext.Exception, filterContext.HttpContext);   }
}

Next we needed to update our HttpModule to find, wrap, and replace any instances of HandleErrorAttribute in the GlobalFilters.

public virtual void Init(HttpApplication context)
{
   InsightManager.Current.Register();
   InsightManager.Current.Configuration.IncludePrivateInformation = true;
   context.Error += OnError;
   ReplaceErrorHandler();
}

private void ReplaceErrorHandler()
{
   var filter = GlobalFilters.Filters.FirstOrDefault(f => f.Instance is HandleErrorAttribute);
   var handler = new HandleErrorAndReportToInsightAttribute();
   if (filter != null)
   {
       GlobalFilters.Filters.Remove(filter.Instance);
       handler.WrappedHandler = (HandleErrorAttribute) filter.Instance;
   }
   GlobalFilters.Filters.Add(handler);
}

In Conclusion
Now when we register the InsightModule in our web.config, we will start capturing all unhandled exceptions again.

<configuration>
 <configSections>
   <section name="codesmith.insight" type="CodeSmith.Insight.Client.Configuration.InsightSection, CodeSmith.Insight.Client.Mvc3" />
 </configSections>
 <codesmith.insight apiKey="XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX" serverUrl="http://app.codesmithinsight.com/" />
 <system.web>
   <customErrors mode="On" />
   <httpModules>
     <add name="InsightModule" type="CodeSmith.Insight.Client.Web.InsightModule, CodeSmith.Insight.Client.Mvc3"/>
   </httpModules>
 </system.web>
</configuration>

Currently rated 2.6 by 14 people

  • Currently 2.642857/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


ASP.NET MVC 3 Hosting :: Error Handling and CustomErrors in ASP.NET MVC 3 Framework

clock March 16, 2011 15:59 by author Administrator

So, what else is new in MVC 3?

MVC 3 now has a GlobalFilterCollection that is automatically populated with a HandleErrorAttribute. This default FilterAttribute brings with it a new way of handling errors in your web applications. In short, you can now handle errors inside of the MVC pipeline.

What does that mean?

This gives you direct programmatic control over handling your 500 errors in the same way that ASP.NET and CustomErrors give you configurable control of handling your HTTP error codes.

How does that work out?
Think of it as a routing table specifically for your Exceptions, it's pretty sweet!

Global Filters

The new Global.asax file now has a RegisterGlobalFilters method that is used to add filters to the new GlobalFilterCollection, statically located at System.Web.Mvc.GlobalFilter.Filters. By default this method adds one filter, the HandleErrorAttribute.

public class MvcApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication
{
    public static void RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilterCollection filters)
    {
        filters.Add(new HandleErrorAttribute());
    }

HandleErrorAttributes

The HandleErrorAttribute is pretty simple in concept: MVC has already adjusted us to using Filter attributes for our AcceptVerbs and RequiresAuthorization, now we are going to use them for (as the name implies) error handling, and we are going to do so on a (also as the name implies) global scale.

The HandleErrorAttribute has properties for ExceptionType, View, and Master. The ExceptionType allows you to specify what exception that attribute should handle. The View allows you to specify which error view (page) you want it to redirect to. Last but not least, the Master allows you to control which master page (or as Razor refers to them, Layout) you want to render with, even if that means overriding the default layout specified in the view itself.

public class MvcApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication
{
    public static void RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilterCollection filters)
    {
        filters.Add(new HandleErrorAttribute
        {
            ExceptionType = typeof(DbException),
            // DbError.cshtml is a view in the Shared folder.
            View = "DbError",
            Order = 2
        });
        filters.Add(new HandleErrorAttribute());
    }Error Views

All of your views still work like they did in the previous version of MVC (except of course that they can now use the Razor engine). However, a view that is used to render an error can not have a specified model! This is because they already have a model, and that is System.Web.Mvc.HandleErrorInfo

@model System.Web.Mvc.HandleErrorInfo          
@{
    ViewBag.Title = "DbError";
}

<h2>A Database Error Has Occurred</h2>

@if (Model != null)
{
    <p>@Model.Exception.GetType().Name<br />
    thrown in @Model.ControllerName @Model.ActionName</p>
}Errors Outside of the MVC Pipeline

The HandleErrorAttribute will only handle errors that happen inside of the MVC pipeline, better known as 500 errors. Errors outside of the MVC pipeline are still handled the way they have always been with ASP.NET. You turn on custom errors, specify error codes and paths to error pages, etc.

It is important to remember that these will happen for anything and everything outside of what the HandleErrorAttribute handles. Also, these will happen whenever an error is not handled with the HandleErrorAttribute from inside of the pipeline.

<system.web>
  <customErrors mode="On" defaultRedirect="~/error">
    <error statusCode="404" redirect="~/error/notfound"></error>
  </customErrors>Sample Controllers
public class ExampleController : Controller
{
    public ActionResult Exception()
    {
        throw new ArgumentNullException();
    }
    public ActionResult Db()
    {
        // Inherits from DbException
        throw new MyDbException();
    }
}

public class ErrorController : Controller
{
    public ActionResult Index()
    {
        return View();
    }
    public ActionResult NotFound()
    {
        return View();
    }
}

Putting It All Together

If we have all the code above included in our MVC 3 project, here is how the following scenario's will play out:

1.       A controller action throws an Exception.
You will remain on the current page and the global HandleErrorAttributes will render the Error view.

2.       A controller action throws any type of DbException. You will remain on the current page and the global HandleErrorAttributes will render the DbError view.

3.       Go to a non-existent page.
You will be redirect to the Error controller's NotFound action by the CustomErrors configuration for HTTP StatusCode 404.

But don't take my word for it, download the sample project and try it yourself.

Three Important Lessons Learned

For the most part this is all pretty straight forward, but there are a few gotcha's that you should remember to watch out for:

1) Error views have models, but they must be of type HandleErrorInfo.
It is confusing at first to think that you can't control the M in an MVC page, but it's for a good reason. Errors can come from any action in any controller, and no redirect is taking place, so the view engine is just going to render an error view with the only data it has: The HandleError Info model. Do not try to set the model on your error page or pass in a different object through a controller action, it will just blow up and cause a second exception after your first exception!

2) When the HandleErrorAttribute renders a page, it does not pass through a controller or an action.
The standard web.config CustomErrors literally redirect a failed request to a new page. The HandleErrorAttribute is just rendering a view, so it is not going to pass through a controller action. But that's ok! Remember, a controller's job is to get the model for a view, but an error already has a model ready to give to the view, thus there is no need to pass through a controller.

That being said, the normal ASP.NET custom errors still need to route through controllers. So if you want to share an error page between the HandleErrorAttribute and your web.config redirects, you will need to create a controller action and route for it. But then when you render that error view from your action, you can only use the HandlerErrorInfo model or ViewData dictionary to populate your page.

3) The HandleErrorAttribute obeys if CustomErrors are on or off, but does not use their redirects.
If you turn CustomErrors off in your web.config, the HandleErrorAttributes will stop handling errors. However, that is the only configuration these two mechanisms share. The HandleErrorAttribute will not use your defaultRedirect property, or any other errors registered with customer errors.

In Summary

The HandleErrorAttribute is for displaying 500 errors that were caused by exceptions inside of the MVC pipeline. The custom errors are for redirecting from error pages caused by other HTTP codes.

Currently rated 2.1 by 18 people

  • Currently 2.055556/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


ASP.NET MVC 3 Hosting :: Problem in implementing IControllerActivator in ASP.NET MVC 3

clock March 14, 2011 17:16 by author Administrator

ASP.NET MVC 3 introduces two new interfaces to allow simple integration of IoC containers into the MVC pipeline, allowing many different types to be resolved using your IoC container of choice. These interfaces are IDependencyResolver and IControllerActivator but before you go ahead and implement both, let's take a look at whether they are both actually needed.

First some background

If you wanted to inject dependencies into your controllers in ASP.NET MVC 2, you were required to either implement IControllerFactory or subclass DefaultControllerFactory. Typically, you would pass your IoC container into the constructor of your custom controller factory and use it to resolve the controller in the CreateController method. You may also have added custom code in ReleaseController to clean up dependencies

This worked reasonably well, but in ASP.NET MVC 3 things have changed so we can use DI for a whole host of other objects such as filters and view engines

The new interface that we should implement is IDependencyResolver:


The important thing about your implementation of this interface is that it should return null if it cannot resolve a particular object. Below is a simple implementation using Unity:


When an MVC application starts for the first time, the dependency resolver is called with the following types in the following order:
- IControllerFactory
- IControllerActivator
- HomeController
….

If you do not implement IControllerFactory or IControllerActivator, then the MVC framework will try to get the controller from the DependencyResolver itself. As a side note, there is no need to worry about performance (regarding so many calls to the resolver) because MVC will only try to resolve theIControllerFactory and IControllerActivator once on startup and if no implementations are registered then it will subsequently always query the DependencyResolver first

The MVC framework goes on to try to resolve many other types which you probably have not implemented or registered with your IoC container, but as long as your dependency resolver returns null if the type is not registered, MVC will default back to the built-in implementations

If you did not implement your resolver to return null if a type is not registered then you will probably end up seeing an error similar to:

The current type, System.Web.Mvc.IControllerFactory, is an interface and cannot be constructed

The other important thing to note is that both methods on this interface take in the actual service type. This typically means that when you register your controllers with your IoC container, you should only specify the concrete type, not the IController, interface

i.e. using Unity as an example:


rather than:


Failing to register your controllers conrrectly and you will see

No parameterless constructor defined for this object

So at this stage, we have an implementation of IDependencyResolver and nothing else and yet our controller are all resolving correctly. It makes you wonder about whether IControllerActivator is really needed...

About IControllerActivator

IControllerActivator was introduced with ASP.NET MVC 3 to split the functionality of the MVC 2 controller factory into two distinct classes. As far as we can tell, this was done to adhere to the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP). So now in MVC 3, the DefaultControllerFactory outsources the responsibility of actually instantiating the controller to the controller activator. The single method interface is shown below:


If you implement this interface and register your activator with your IoC container, the MVC framework will pick it up and use it when trying to instantiate controllers, but you have to wonder why you would do this instead of just letting your dependency resolver do it directly. Brad Wilson to the rescue:

"If your container can build arbitrary types, you don't need to write activators. The activator services are there for containers that can't be arbitrary types. MEF can't, but you can add [Export] attributes to your controllers to allow MEF to build them..."

This means that if you are working with any competent IoC container* (Castle Windor, Unity, Ninject, StructureMap, Autofac et al), IControllerActivator is not needed and offers no benefit over allowing your DependencyResolver to instantiate your controllers.

* (With the exception of MEF which isn't an IoC container any way)

So we now know that we are probably not required to implement this interface, but are there any benefits to doing so? Something that we have seen mentioned (we cannot remember where) is that implementing IControllerActivator allows you you can provide a more meaningful error message if resolution fails. It is true that the message you would get otherwise (No parameterless constructor defined for this object) is not 100% clear, but we are not sure that this justifies another class just for this purpose. Surely, once you have seen this message, the next time you encounter, it you will immediately know what the problem is. Even if you do implement IControllerActivator, you will not have access to the (normally) detailed message that you IoC container provides when resolution fails, so you can do little more than say resolution failed - i don't know why.

Conclusion

So, should you implement IControllerActivator? Probably not. If you are using pretty much any well known IoC container, just implement IDependencyResolver and it will do everything for you. There is also no need for a custom implementation of IControllerFactory. If you are worried about the lack of release method on the dependency resolver, don't be. The worst case scenario requires a small change to the way that you are using your IoC container. Next time we will talk about how to make sure your dependency resolver plays nicely with IDisposable

           

Currently rated 2.0 by 29 people

  • Currently 1.965517/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


ASP.NET MVC 3 Hosting :: Working with ASP.Net MVC 3 Razor View Engine and Syntax Highlighting

clock January 25, 2011 14:38 by author Administrator

Today, we found a good answer on syntax highlighting for Razor. In the Visual Studio Gallery located at http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/8dc77b9c-7c83-4392-9c46-fd15f3927a2e, a new Visual Studio extension has been recently added for a “Razor Syntax Highlighter”.



To leverage this new extension, we had to remove the editor mapping for .cshtml files in the Visual Studio Text Editor/File Extensions window and install the highlighter extension. As you see in the figure below, it worked great. This new extension uses the Razor Parser libraries to appropriately highlight the Razor code.


Figure 1 - Syntax Highlighting Visual studio 2010 Add-on

Unfortunately, this feature is offered as a Visual Studio Extension and hence is only available for paid-for Visual Studio 2010 editions.

Looking at the Razor Syntax, one can summarize it as a means to short-hand the <%= %> used in ASPX pages to designate code sections. For Razor, only a simple @ sign is used in-place of that bulky aforementioned code markup . Additionally, the Razor parser introduces helpful intelligence that makes the syntax even more user-friendly. For instance the following is a code block you would see in an ASPX page:

<%=if(true){%>
       <input type="hidden" value="istrue"/>
<%}%>  

The corresponding Razor block for this snippet would be:

@if(true){
       <input type="hidden" value="istrue"/>
}

The Razor syntax has simply “inferred” that the code will have a closing curly bracket without us having to apply any special markup tags to it. This further reduces the markup needed to accomplish the same task.

An important difference between Razor and ASPX View Engines is the absence of master pages for the earlier. Razor simply provides a _ViewStart.cshtml to bootstrap our application layout.

@{
    Layout = "~/Views/Shared/_Layout.cshtml";
}

Latest Razor Beta does however support Partial rendering (RenderPartial) to explicitly render a Partial View as well as calling @RenderBody() which loads the actual view content to be served.

Next, we will be talking about creating an MVC project with dual support for ASPX/Razor View Engines as well as further explore the Razor syntax.

Currently rated 1.8 by 22 people

  • Currently 1.772727/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


ASP.NET MVC Hosting

ASPHostCentral is a premier web hosting company where you will find low cost and reliable web hosting. We have supported the latest ASP.NET 4.5 hosting and ASP.NET MVC 4 hosting. We have supported the latest SQL Server 2012 Hosting and Windows Server 2012 Hosting too!


Sign in