I'm developing an Apache based application witch few custom modules.
I'd like to share some functionality in one module with others.
I need to wire them together during stratup phase.
I want to use GetModuleHandle + GetProcAddress (it will rununder Windows only) with a module name - but this will succeed only if the module is already loaded by Apache server.
Is there a way to configure the loading order of Apache modules.
I only need to control my modules - others are irrelevant.
Thank's in advance.
If you're trying to control the Apache hook calling order from the source of your module, you can try using APR_HOOK_FIRST, APR_HOOK_MIDDLE, and APR_HOOK_LAST. Or you can specifically name other modules to enforce ordering constraints. From the docs:
... "There are two mechanisms for doing this. The first, rather crude, method, allows us to specify roughly where the hook is run relative to other modules. The final argument control this. There are three possible values: APR_HOOK_FIRST, APR_HOOK_MIDDLE and APR_HOOK_LAST.
"All modules using any particular value may be run in any order relative to each other, but, of course, all modules using APR_HOOK_FIRST will be run before APR_HOOK_MIDDLE which are before APR_HOOK_LAST. Modules that don't care when they are run should use APR_HOOK_MIDDLE. These values are spaced out, so that positions like APR_HOOK_FIRST-2 are possible to hook slightly earlier than other functions. ...
"The other method allows finer control. When a module knows that it must be run before (or after) some other modules, it can specify them by name. The second (third) argument is a NULL-terminated array of strings consisting of the names of modules that must be run before (after) the current module. For example, suppose we want "mod_xyz.c" and "mod_abc.c" to run before we do, then we'd hook as follows ..." [example follows]
Related
I'm working on a a large scale angular project with a team of devs.
the problem we run into is if you have several files for a component, say a directive.
some-directive.js
some-directive-controller.js
in the definition of both files you would have to attach them to a module, however one file must create the module with []. If the developer forgets to poke around they will add [] in the second file called will actually overwrite the module. so now it becomes a memory game. Each developer has to remember to only declare the module in one file []
some-directive.js
angular.module('some-module',['some-dependencies']).directive('some-directive',function(){});
some-controller.js
angular.module('some-module',[]).controller('some-controller',function(){});
we have been using the following approach. Is there a better way?
some-directive.js
some-directive-module.js
some-directive-controller.js
where some-directive-module only contains the module creation, includes any dependencies, and does any .config needed. Still the dev needs to remember to
angular.module('some-directive') in all the other files without the square brackets.
some-directive-module.js
angular.module('some-directive',[])
.config(//someconfig stuff);
some-directive-module.js
angular.module('some-directive).directive(//declare directive);
some-directive-controller.js
angular.module('some-directive).controller(//declare contrller used by directive);
I suggested that instead we should do the following, it eliminates the issue of overwriting modules, but I received some negative feedback from one of the other devs
some-directive-module.js
angular.module('some-directive',['some-directive.directive','some-directive.controller'])
.config(//someconfig stuff);
some-directive-module.js
angular.module('some-directive.directive',[]).directive(//declare directive);
some-directive-controller.js
angular.module('some-directive.controller',[]).controller(//declare contrller used by directive);
Is there a better way? Or is one of the above options correct?
The recommended way (by multiple competent people) is to use the setter-getter-syntax (creating once with angular.module("someModule",[]) and accessing with angular.module("someModule") from there on). Putting the module definition and configuration into one file seems very clean and is common practice between a lot of developers. But make sure not to create a module for every single directive - group services, directives, constants and so on into reasonable functionality-modules instead.
Making clear what a file contains by its name is also a good idea in my opinion, so your some-directive-module.js approach seems fine to me. If developers "poke around" and "wildly add []", they should get a slap on the wrist follwoed by an explanation how modules work in angular, so they stop doing it ;-)
One of the projects I'm collaborating on has four different modules (Foo, Bar, Baz, and Plotting) and I've been tasked with combining them into a package. It is simple enough in Julia to make a new package:
julia> Pkg.generate("MyPackage", "MIT")
I copied my modules into the ~/.julia/v0.3/MyPackage/src/ and added include statements to MyPackage.jl. It looks something like this:
module MyPackage
include("foo.jl")
include("bar.jl")
include("baz.jl")
include("plotting.jl")
end
Each included file contains the corresponding module.
My main problem with this is Plotting takes forever to import and it's not needed very often when we're using the rest of MyPackage. I'd really like to be able to do something like using MyPackage.Foo to just get Foo (and particularly to exclude the Plotting and its slow import time). I've tried a couple different approaches for how I structure things, including having sub-modules explicitly defined inside MyPackage.jl instead of in each file individually, but no matter what I try, I always get the loading lag from Plotting.
Is it possible build a package so you can independently load modules from it? and if so, how?
Note: I'm new to Julia and newer still to building packages. Sorry if any of my semantics are wrong or anything is unclear.
Try Requires.jl:
Requires is a Julia package that will magically make loading packages faster, maybe. It supports specifying glue code in packages which will load automatically when a another package is loaded, so that explicit dependencies (and long load times) can be avoided.
Is it possible build a package so you can independently load modules from it? and if so, how?
Following the advice of this comment has worked for me:
https://discourse.julialang.org/t/multiple-modules-in-single-package/5615/7?u=nhdaly
You can change the top-level package-named Module to simply just expose the other four Modules as follows:
# <julia_home>/MyPackage/src/MyPackage.jl
module MyPackage
push!(LOAD_PATH, #__DIR__) # expose all other modules defined in this directory.
end
Then to import the other modules, say Bar, the user code would do:
# code.jl
using MyPackage; using Foo;
...
But it's worth noting that, then, Foo, Bar, Baz and Plotting are all also treated as top-level modules, so you'll want to make their names unique so they don't conflict with other Packages/Modules. (ie somethig like MyPackageFoo, not Foo.)
OK, so this is the concept :
I'm currently writing a fairly complex project, consisting of 10's of different modules and classes.
I need to have one basic set of variables/options (an associative array?) which will be shared (read/write) by all modules (or selected ones) at any time.
What would be the most D-friendly way to achieve this?
UPDATE:
Hmm... just created a variable definition in one module (let's say globals.d module) and no matter where I import it, I can always get/set it. That simple?! (Or am I missing anything?)
Just filling this in so there's an answer: yes, you generally would want to make a new module like globals.d and simply import it from all the other modules that use it.
I'm trying to write a common test module for a localized application.
The first issue I'm having is the fact that MenuItems do not support controlname attributes. Currently my menu items are located via text or accessiblename attribute. Is there a way to support controlname attribute?
I've tried to make text and accessiblename attribute point to a variable and then bind the variable to some external dictionary. As I understand the external data sources are treated as rows which contain various data items for a single variable. I don't see a way to use external data sources that treat first column as variable name and second column as variable value. Is there a way to achieve such functionality?
I've thought about a way to extend RanorexXPath to accept functions. Then I could write something like ...menuitem[text=localizationService.Translate("#ADMINISTRATION") and have Ranorex find the menu item based on the result of localizationService.Translate function. Is there a way to do this?
Finally I've somewhat managed to get the result I need by using global variables and module variables. What I did was create a module that uses localizationService to fill module variables with correct data. Next I bind the module variables to global parameters and use the data in subsequent test. This is quite error prone and difficult to implement for large number of variables. Is there a way to access and set global variables directly from code (without the need to use binding)?
If any of the 4. points is possible please let me know.
The recomendation from Ranorex support team:
In general only the whole menu is a control in WinForms. The elements within that control (MenuItems) can only be recognized via MSAA.
The problem is that the "Name" attribute of the MenuItems is not accessible.
As workaround I would suggest to use the attribute "AccessibleDescription" in your application in order to automate the menu. This attribute can also be used for language independent names.
I'm building an ASP.NET MVC app and I'm using a repository to store and retrieve view objects. My question is, is it okay for the implementation of the various repositories to call each other? I.E. can the ICustomerRepository implementation call an implementation of IAddressRepository, or should it handle its own updates to the address data source?
EDIT:
Thanks everyone, the the Customer/Address example isn't real. The actual problem involves three aggregates which update a fourth aggregate in response to changes in their respective states. I in this case it seems a conflict between introducing dependencies vs violating the don't repeat yourself principle.
You should have a repository for each aggregate root.
I have no knowledge of your domain-model, but it doesn't feel natural for me to have an IAddressRepository. Unless 'Address' is an aggregate root in your domain.
In fact, in most circumstances, 'Address' is not even an entity, but a value object. That is, in most cases the identity of an 'Address' is determined by its value (the value of all its properties); it does not have a separate 'Id' (key) field.
So, when this is the case, the CustomerRepository should be responsible for storing the Address, as the Address is a part of the Customer aggregate-root.
Edit (ok so your situation was just an example):
But, if you have other situations where you would need another repository in a repository, then I think that it is better to remove that functionality out of that repository, and put it in a separate class (Service).
I mean: I think that, if you have some functionality inside a repository A, that relies on another repository B, then this kind of functionality doesn't belong inside repository A.
Instead, write another class (which is called a Service in DDD), in where you implement this functionality.
Anyway, I do not think that repositories should really call each other. If you do not want to write a Service however, and if you really want to keep that logic inside the repository itself, then pass the other repository as an argument in that specific method.
I hope I made myself a bit clear. :P
They really shouldn't call each other. A Repository is an abstraction of the (more or less) atomic operations that you want to perform on your domain. The less dependency they have, the better. Realistically, any consumer of a repository should expect to be able to point the repository class at a database and have it perform the necessary domain operations without a lot of configuration.
They should also represent "aggregates" in your domain - i.e. key focal points that a lot of functionality will be based around. I'm wondering why you would have a separate address information repository? Shouldn't that be part of your customer repository?
This depends on the type of repository (or at least the consequences do) but in general if you have data repositories calling each other you're going to run into problems with things like cyclical (repo A -> requires B -> requires C -. oops, requires A) or recursive data loads (A-> requires B & C -> C-requires D, E -> .... ->..ad nauseum). Testing also becomes more difficult.
For example, you need to load your address repository to properly run your customer repository, because the customer repository calls the address repo. If you need to test the customer repo, you'll need to do a db load of the addresses or mock them in some way, and ultimately you won't be able to load and test any single system repository without loading them all.
Having those dependencies is also kind of insidious because they're often not clear - usually you're dealing with a repository as a data-holding abstraction - if you have to be conscious of how they depend on each other you can't use them as an abstraction, but have to manage the load process whenever you want to use them.