I am using Apex 18.2. According to Apex' JSDoc, Oracle recommends one should use model.setValue() method over setRecordValue() when setting multiple values. But unfortunately, it does not mention the reason behind that. Does anyone know what it is?
I admire your curiosity. It will make you a great developer. :)
To really know the difference, I recommend learning to read the source. While difficult in the beginning, it will get easier with time and become an invaluable skill.
The APEX team makes this quite easy. Open your developer tools and then run the page in debug mode. This will load the unminified JavaScript source files into the DOM rather than the minified versions. Go to the Sources tab and locate the relevant file (it will take time to identify the right file in the beginning, but it gets easier too). You can open the file directly (better for debugging) or go right-click it and open it in another tab (better for scanning).
Then just search the code for the function you're after and read it...
As you can see, calls to setRecordValue, make a call to getRecord before proxying to the model's setValue method anyway. This is just a code path that you can avoid if you're making multiple setRecordValue calls. It's probably a bit of a micro-optimization, but they can add up.
I'm currently working on a simple scroll website with nothing really difficult (I could almost use plain html/css/javascript but it's a bit of practicing and I will maybe add a blog). And as it is simple I was wondering how to do it properly with Django.
So here is my question, I have a homepage template that is actually the website and I don't really get how I split my different part in different apps.
For exemple I have a contact form, do I need to split it in another app and then include it in the basic template ? I want to add a galery with image in a database, do I create an app for that ?
And the other question that goes along is how do I code an app that is not returning httpresponse but just html to put it in another template and do I still need views ? I would like to do a bit like a standard form in django where you do :
form.as_p or form.as_table
so maybe:
galery.as_slideshow
So my questions are quite novice and open but someone could give me some reading to get going, I would be really happy !
This is a question a lot of people struggle with and it seems like there are a lot of varying opinions out there.
I've found that the best way to really determine the appropriate answer for each case is to really distill the feature into individual requirements and group them by feature sets while keeping an eye out for additional uses outside of the project actively being worked on.
There is nothing which says you can't build your project to include a single app containing all of the modules you would need. Doing so seems like it would make your development easier initially right? So, the question to ask then is "What if I want to reuse (insert feature set here) in another unrelated project a year from now after I've already forgotten about the weird stuff I did to make it work originally?". Asking yourself that question forces you to think about your features in a much broader context and I think 99% of the time you will realize that a "Contact Form" requirement can actually become quite complex and really should be split up into at least one separate app (i.e. User Creation, Profile Management, Email Subscription, etc...)
Here is a link to a video about this very topic which I found to be useful in figuring out my way through this question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-S0tqpPga4
I know this is not really a hard-line answer to your question but I hope it helps point you in the right direction.
I'm working on a project, in which we design a localized version of an existing site (written in English) for another country (which is not English-speaking). And the business requirement is "no English text for all possible and impossible cases".
Does anyone know if there is a checker software/service which could check if a site is fully translated, that is which checks that there are no English text in it.
I new that there are sites for checking broken links, html validity etc, I need something like http://validator.w3.org/checklink but for checking that on all pages of the site there is no English text.
The reasons I think this way is needed are:
1. There is a lot of code which is common (both on backend and frontend) for all countries
2. If someone commits anything to the common code I need to be sure that this will not lead to english text issues in localized version.
3. From business point of view it is preferable that site does not support some functionality, than it shows english text ( legal matters)
4. The code both on frontend and backend changes a lot
5. There are a lot of files which affect text on the client's screen. Not just one with messages, unfortunately. And some of messages comes from backend, but most of them are in frontend
6. Due to all those fact currently someone manually fills all the forms and watch with his own eyes, and that is before each deploy...
I think you're approaching the problem from the wrong direction. You're looking for an algorithm or webcrawler that can detect wether any text is English or not? I don't know, but I doubt such a thing even exists.
If you have translated the website, you have full access to the codebase and/or translation texts, right? Can't you just open both the English and non-English strings files (.resx or whatever you are using) in a comparetool like Notepad++ to check the differences to see if there are any missing strings? And check the sourcecode and verify that all parts that can output user-displayable text use the meta:resourceKey property (or whatever you are using).
If you want to go the way of crawling, I'm not aware of an existing crawler that does this, but it sounds like a combination of two simple issues:
Finding existing open-source code for a web crawler should be dead simple
Identifying a language through n-gram analysis is trivial if there's a limited number of languages the text can be in.
The only difficult part would be to ensure that the analyzer always has a decent chunk of text to work with. You could extract stuff paragraph by paragraph. For forms you'd probably have to combine the text of several form labels.
I am going to pick up a task that no one has ever attempted to try at my workplace. It is a CF app first written using CF 2.0 (Yes, 2.0!) 10 yrs ago with > 10 cfscheduler tasks.. We explored the idea of rewriting the app, but 10 yrs of work simply can't be rewrote in 2-3 months.
What steps shall one take to modernize the app into a maintainable, extendable state? The one that I keep hearing is "write tests", but how can I write tests when it wasn't even in MVC?
Any advice would be appreciated, thanks!
p.s. I should thank Allaire, Macromedia and Adobe for keeping CF so freaking backward compatible all the way back to 2.0!
btw, what's the most modern, maintainable state for a CF app without MVC framework? or should my end goal be ultimately refactoring it into a MVC app?? I can't image how many links I will break if I do... seems impossible... thought?
update: found 2 related Q's...
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6395/how-do-you-dive-into-large-code-bases
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/29788/how-do-you-dive-into-a-big-ball-of-mud
I am not sure if you need to move the whole site to a MVC application. Recently I did helped with an site that was not MVC, that still had a library with the Models, Services and Assemblers in a clean and organized manor. It worked great, and we didn't need to do anything more than what was necessary.
That being said, my first step would be to organize the spaghetti code into their different purposes. It may be hard to properly create the models, but at the very least you could break out the services like functions from the pages. With that done, it should be a lot cleaner already.
Then, I would try to take the repeated code and put them into custom tags. It will make the code more reusable, and easier to read.
Good Luck!
Consider, whether a full fledged framework is really necessary. In its most basic form a framework is merely highly organized code. So if procedural, that is well organized, works leave it.
Keep in mind something like FW/1 as migration path can be better than say Coldbox if you don't need all the other stuff.
Lastly, consider this I was able to migrate a 4.5 almost 70% of the way to Coldbox (very simple and really more about directory and file organization versus IOC, plugins, modules, etc...) just using a few extra lines per file plus onMissingMethod functions.
Good Luck.
I had to deal with a similar situation for about two years at my last job, however, it wasn't quite as old as yours. I think I was dealing with code from 4.0 on. There's no silver bullet here, and you'll need to be careful that you don't get too caught up in re-factoring the code and costing your company tons of money in the process. If the app works as it is rewriting it would be a pretty big wast of money.
What I did was update small chunks at a time, I wouldn't even refactor whole templates at a time, just small portions of one at a time. If I saw a particular ugly loop, or nested if statements I'd try to clean it up the best I could. If the app can be broken down into smaller modules or areas of functionality and you have the extra time you can try to clean up the code a module at a time.
A good practice I heard from the Hearding Code podcast is create a testing harness template that would use a particular cfm page that has a known output that you can re-run to make sure that it still has the same output once you've done refactoring. Its not nearly as granular as a unit test, but its something and something is almost always better than nothing, right?
I suspect that the reason this app hasn't been touched for years is because for the most part it works. So the old adage "if it ain't broken don't fix it" probably applies; However, code can always be improved :)
The first thing I'd do is switch to Application.cfc and add some good error logging. That way you may find out about things that need to be fixed, and also if you do make changes you're know if they break anything else.
The next thing I'd do is before you change any code is use selenium to create some tests - it can be used as a FireFox plugin and will record what you do. It's really good for testing legacy apps without much work on your part.
Chances are that you won't have much if any protection from SQL injection attacks so you will want to add cfqueryparam to everything!!
After that I'd be looking for duplicated code - eliminating duplicate code is going to make maintenance easier.
Good luck!
Funnily enough, I'm currently involved in converting an old CF app into an MVC3 application.
Now this isn't CF2, it was updated as recently as a year ago so all of this may not apply at all to your scenario, apologies if this is the case.
The main thing I had to do consolidate the mixed up CFQuerys and their calls into logical units of code that I could then start porting in functionality either to C# or JavaScript.
Thankfully this was a very simple application, the majority of the logic was called on a database using the DWR Ajax library; that which wasn't was mostly consolidated in a functions.cfm file.
Obviously a lot of that behavior doesn't need to be replicated as packaging up the separate components of logic (such as they were) in the CF app did map quite neatly to the various Partial Views and Editor Templates that I envisaged in the MVC application.
After that, it was simply a case of, page by page, finding out which logic was called when, what it relied upon that then finally creating a series of UML class and sequence diagrams.
Honestly though, I think I gained the most ground when I simply hit File-New Project and started trying to replicate the behavior of the app from the top of index.cfm.
I would break logical parts of the app into CFC's
Pick a single view, look at the logic within. Move that out to a CFC and invoke it.
Keep doing that you will have something much easier to work with that can be plugged into an MVC later. Its almost no work to do this, just copy and paste sections of code and call them.
You can consider using object factory to layer your application. We have similar situation at work and we started refactoring by putting Lightwire DI framework.
First we migrated all the sql statement into gateways, then we started using services and take a lot of code out of the templates to the services.
The work is not finished yet but the application is looking better already.
For large, really complex applications I'd prefer ColdBox for a re-factor project. However, I just saw a presentation at the D2W Conference on F/W 1 (Framework One), a VERY simple ColdFusion MVC framework. Check out code from the presentation here.
It's 1 (one) CFC file and a set of conventions for organizing your code. I highly recommend evaluating it for your project.
I want to allow my users to input HTML.
Requirements
Allow a specific set of HTML tags.
Preserve characters (do not encode ã into ã, for example)
Existing options
AntiSamy. Unfortunately AntiSamy encodes special characters and breaks requirement 2.
Native ColdFusion functions (HTMLCodeFormat() etc...) don't work as they encode HTML into entities, and thus fail requirement 1.
I found this set of functions somewhere, but I have no way of telling how secure this is: http://pastie.org/2072867
So what are my options? Are there existing libraries for this?
Portcullis works well for Cold Fusion for attack-specific issues. I've used a couple of other regex solutions I found on the web over time that have worked well, though they haven't been nearly as fleshed out. In 15 years (10 as a CMS developer) nothing I've built has been hacked....knock on wood.
When developing input fields of any type, it's good to look at the problem from different angles. You've got the UI side, which includes both usability and client-side validation. Yes, it can be bypassed, but javascript-based validation is quicker, more responsive, and rates higher on the magical UI scale than backend-interruption method or simply making things "disappear" without warning. It will speed up the back-end validation because it does the initial screening. So, it's not an "instead of" but an "in-addition to" type solution that can't be ignored.
Also on the UI front, giving your users a good quality editor also can make a huge difference in the process. My personal favorite is CKeditor simply because it's the only one that can handle Microsoft Word code on the front-side, keeping it far away from my DB. It seems silly, but Word HTML is valid, so it won't setoff any red flags....but on a moderately sized document it will quickly overload a DB field insert max, believe it or not. Not only will a good editor reduce the amount of silly HTML that comes in, but it will also just make things faster for the user....win/win.
I personally encode and decode my characters...it's always just worked well so I've never changed practice.