I have an API based on CakePHP, controller with name AccessLogController is responsible for saving access log into the database.
Question is:
What is the best practice for global logging in CakePHP?
I thought that I will call AccessLogController method from inherited AppController in before filter callback like this:
public function beforeFilter() {
$accessLogCtrl = new AccessLogsController();
$accessLogCtrl->add($param1, $param2);
}
But i not sure that is it a good way how to do it..
Many Thanks for any advice..
That's not how you should use controllers, never ever, except maybe in your test suite!
That being said, using AppController::beforeFilter() to globally log controller action requests is generally fine, just make sure that you always invoke parent::beforeFilter() in case you are overriding the filter in an extending controller.
However, you should definitely refactor your logging functionality into either a utility class, a component, a model, or even directly into AppController, depending on how it's actually logging things, and if you need to use it in places other than in AppController.
Related
I have an API method that I need to call in my UI, and unsure the best way to do so. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Using restangular and angularJS. Should I create a service and then call the API Inside of it, and then reference that in my controller? Please let me know, thanks.
Maintain service layer, dao layer, view layer separately is the best practice.
You may look the Design Pattern.
The way I am doing is like this.
1 .First make an shared service first (shared.service.ts).
Create a method inside the service,there you call the rest api
getData():Observable<any>{
return this.http.get(localhost:8000/api/data);
}
or
getData(){
return this.http.get(localhost:8000/api/data);
}
Inject the service into the component where you want to use
constructor (private sharedService:SharedService){}
Subscribe to the method that is defined in the service to the function where you want to call the api
this.sharedService.getData().subscribe(response => {});
I am using cakephp v2.6 to develop a web app.
Is it possible to call a controller within another controller in CAKEPHP.
Is it correct way for doing the same
In SecondController.php
App::uses('FirstController','Controller');
class SecondController extends AppController
{
$firstcontrollerobject=$this->FirstController;
}
Thanqs
Short answer is Yes, but you shouldn't.
You should use either a component or a model. Or put your action in AppController if you want it to be used by other controllers.
App::uses('FirstController','Controller');
class SecondController extends AppController
{
public function test() {
$FirstController = new FirstController();
$Firstcontroller->action();
}
}
Put PHP code in the Component, if you want to share between several controllers
Components are packages of logic that are shared between controllers. CakePHP comes with a fantastic set of core components you can use to aid in various common tasks. You can also create your own components. If you find yourself wanting to copy and paste things between controllers, you should consider creating your own component to contain the functionality. Creating components keeps controller code clean and allows you to reuse code between projects.
http://book.cakephp.org/2.0/en/controllers/components.html
I have read in several places that calling the Backbone.history.navigate function is considered bad practice.
For example Addy Osmani sais in his book "Developing Backbone.js Applications"
It is also possible for Router.navigate() to trigger the route along
with updating the URL fragment by passing the trigger:true option.
Note: This usage is discouraged...
http://addyosmani.github.io/backbone-fundamentals/#backbone.history
Or Derick Bailey in his blog post even sais:
You shouldn’t be executing the route’s handler from within your application, most of the time.
But I don't really understand the reasoning behind it and what would be a better solution.
In my opinion it is not really bad to call the navigate function with the trigger:true option. The route function could upon calling always check if the considered data is already loaded and show this loaded data instead of doing the whole work all over again...
There seems to be some confusion about what Router#navigate does exactly, I think.
Without any options set it will update the URL to the fragment provided.
E.g. router.navigate('todo/4/edit') will update the URL to #todo/4 AND will create a browser history entry for that URL. No route handlers are run.
However, setting trigger:true will update the URL, but it will also run the handler that was specified for that route (In Addy's example it will call the routers editTodo function) and create a browser history entry.
When passing replace:true the url will be updated, no handler will be called, but it will NOT create a browser history entry.
Then, what I think the answer is:
the reason why the usage of trigger:true is discouraged is simple, navigating from application state to application state to application state requires most of the time different code to be run than when navigating to a specific application state directly.
Let's say you have states A, B and C in your application. But state B builds upon state A and state C builds upon B.
In that case when you navigate from B to C only a specific part of code will need to be executed, while when hitting state C directly will probably execute some state checking and preparation:
has that data been loaded? If not, load it.
is the user logged in? If not redirect.
etc.
Let's take an example: State A (#list) shows a list of songs. State B (#login) is about user authentication and state C (#list/edit) allows for editing of the list of songs.
So, when the user lands on state A the list of songs is loaded and stored in a collection. He clicks on a login-button and is redirected to a login form. He successfully authenticates and is redirected back to the song list, but this time with delete-buttons next to the songs.
He bookmarks the last state (#list/edit).
Now, what needs to happen when the user clicks on the bookmark a few days later?
The application needs to load the songs, needs to verify the user is (still) logged in and react accordingly, stuff that in the state transition flow had already been done in the other states.
Now for a note of my own:
I'd never recommend the above approach in a real application as in the example. You should check whether the collection is loaded when going from B to C and not just assume it already is. Likewise you should check whether the user really is logged in. It's just an example.
IMO the router really is a special kind of view (think about it, it displays application state and translates user input into application state/events) and should always be treated as such. You should never ever rely on the router to transition between states, but rather let the router reflect the state transitions.
I have to disagree with #Stephen's answer here. And the main reason why is because the use of router.navigate({trigger : true}) gives the router responsibility to handle the application's state. It should only reflect application state, not control it.
Also, it is not a View's responsibility to change the hash of the window, this is the router's only job! Don't take it away from it! Good modularity and separation of concerns makes for a scalable and maintainable application.
Forwarding a person to a new section within your application
Backbone is an event driven framework, use events to communicate. There is absolutely no need to call router.navigate({ trigger : true }) since functionality should not be in the router. Here is an example of how I use the router and I think promotes good modularity and separation of concerns.
var Router = Backbone.Router.extend({
initialize: function(app) {
this.app = app;
},
routes: {
'videoLibrary' : function() { this.app.videoLibrary(); }
}
});
var Application = _.extend({}, Backbone.Events, {
initialize: function() {
this.router = new Router( this );
this.listenTo( Backbone, 'video:uploaded', function() {
this.router.navigate('/videoLibrary');
this.videoLibrary();
});
},
videoLibrary: function() {
//do useful stuff
}
});
var uploadView = Backbone.View.extend({
//...
uploadVideo: function() {
$.ajax({
//...
success: function() { Backbone.trigger('video:uploaded'); }
});
}
});
Your view does not need or want to know what to do when the user is done uploading, this is somebody else's responsibility. In this example, the router is just an entry point for the application's functionality, an event generated by the uploadView is another. The router always reflects the application state through hash changes and history but does not implement any functionality.
Testability
By separating concerns, you are enhancing the testability of your application. It's easy to have a spy on Backbone.trigger and make sure the view is working properly. It's less easy to mock a router.
Modules management
Also, if you use some module management like AMD or CommonJS, you will have to pass around the router's instance everywhere in the application in order to call it. Thus having close coupling in your application an this is not something you want.
In my opinion it's considered bad practice because you should imagine a Backbone application not like a Ruby On Rails application but rather like a Desktop application.
When I say RoR, I'm just saying a framework supporting routing in sense that a route brings you to a specific call to the controller to run a specific action (imagine a CRUD operation).
Backbone.history is intended just as a bookmark for the user so he can, for example, save a specific url, and run it again later. In this case he will find the same situation he left before.
When you say:
In my opinion it is not really bad to call the navigate function with
the trigger:true option. The route function could upon calling always
check if the considered data is already loaded and show this loaded
data instead of doing the whole work all over again...
That to me sounds smelly. If you are triggering a route and you are checking for the data to see if you have it, it means that you actually already had them so you should change your view accordingly without loading again the entire DOM with the same data.
That said trigger:true is there so do we have reason use it? In my opinion it is possible to use it if you are completely swapping a view.
Let's say I have an application with two tabs, one allows me to create a single resource, the other one let me see the list of the created resources. In the second tabs you are actually loading a Collection so data is different between the two. In this case I would use trigger:true.
That said I've been using Backbone for 2 weeks so I'm pretty new to this world but to me it sounds reasonable to discourage the use of this option.
It depends on your context.
If you have done something in your current view that might affect the view you are about to navigate to, for example creating for deleting a customer record, then setting trigger to true is the right thing to do.
Think about it. If you delete a customer record don't to want to refresh the list of customers to reflect that deletion?
Using CakePHP, I am finding that I'm duplicating some code between controller actions. I have a dozen or so actions (belonging to various controllers) that all need to run the same query and set() the same 10 variables for the use in a particular layout. They also need to handle any errors in the same way and render an error page.
I know that components are intended to centralize logic used among controllers, but in my case, this logic needs access to the set() and render() methods of the controller. What is the suggested approach to this situation?
Thanks, Brian
Put the logic in your AppController class which your controller should extend from.
Check out the docs: http://book.cakephp.org/view/957/The-App-Controller
Ended up rolling my own sort of business logic layer on this one. Example below. Thoughts/comments welcome.
class MyController extends AppController {
public function my_action() {
// The BLL class is specific for this action and gets the entire
// controller so has access to the set() method as well as components.
$this->Bll = new MyActionLogic($this);
$this->Bll->do_whatever();
}
}
Got question, maybe even problem while creating CakePHP Component. Basically, I need to implement few quesries that can be accesses everywhere in my layout (sidebar statistics and so).
When I try to query in Component, I got error about calling function on a non-object.
Damn, can anybody explain me this one?
Cheers!
Are you doing something like this?
class MyComponent extends object {
function startup(&$controller) {
$this->controller = $controller; // Stores reference Controller in the component
}
function common() {
$data = ClassRegistry::init('MyModel')->myQuery(); // Call the query on the model
$this->controller->set(compact('data')); // Sets data from myQuery in view
}
}
At the risk of sounding pedantic, you'd be violating MVC pretty egregiously by doing this. If you're okay with that, you can use App::import() to load any model from anywhere in your app (http://book.cakephp.org/view/531/Importing-Controllers-Models-Components-Behaviors-).
If you're interested in attempting to retain the MVC structure, we may be able to help with some more information about the queries you need to run in that generic manner.