Simon Green's Developer Blog
Developing .NET in the cold white north ...

Absolute URLs using MVC (without extension methods)

Wednesday, 3 February 2010 05:29 by simon

Do you need to generate absolute URLs within your MVC application?

Often this will be in the form of URLs used outside of the web-browser such as those used within Atom Publishing Protocol collections or maybe links that are going to be sent out in emails. Basically, anything where the regular relative URL won’t do.

A quick search of Google will turn up a number of blog posts or forum answers showing how to do this by creating extension methods for the Url helper class but really, everything that is needed is already baked into the MVC framework already … and I’ve only just realized it after using it since the CTP releases!

All you need to do is specify the protocol within the Url.Action or Url.RouteUrl method. Here are some regular looking URLs:

<%= Url.Action("About", "Home") %><br />
<%= Url.RouteUrl("Default", new { Action = "About" }) %><br /> 

 

Which produce the same output:

/Home/About
/Home/About

If we add the protocol then it changes to:

<%= Url.Action("About", "Home", null, "http") %><br />
<%= Url.RouteUrl("Default", new { Action = "About" }, "http") %><br /> 

 

http://localhost:51868/Home/About
http://localhost:51868/Home/About

Instead of having the ‘http’ hard-coded like that you can instead use whatever protocol was used for the request so URLs will be correct whether they are using http or https (assuming they don’t need to be a specific one), e.g.:

<%= Url.Action("About", "Home", null, Request.Url.Scheme) %><br />
<%= Url.RouteUrl("Default", new { Action = "About" }, Request.Url.Scheme) %><br />

 

If you just pass the protocol / scheme then the host name and port number are generated automatically based on the site that the app is running on. You can also pass the host name as well if you want (if the public host name doesn’t match the one the site is actually running on).

This works for the Url helper only, the protocol isn’t an option in the Html helper used to general complete html anchor links but I’m guessing that if you need an absolute URL you are needing something else beyond a plain link anyway and it isn’t too much trouble to just define the anchor element in a view and use the Url helper in the href attribute only.


Categories:   .NET | MVC
Actions:   E-mail | del.icio.us | Permalink | Comments (0) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

When to use RenderAction vs RenderPartial with ASP.NET MVC

Saturday, 21 February 2009 11:36 by simon

At first glance, RenderAction and RenderPartial both do a very similar thing – they load ‘some other content’ into the view being rendered at the place they are called. Personally, I think they should be used for different scenarios so these are my thoughts on where each one should be used and why.

First though, a quick recap on what they do:

  • RenderPartial renders a control with some model passed to it.
  • RenderAction (or RenderSubAction which addresses some issues) calls a controller action and then renders whatever view that returns with whatever model that controller action passes through it.

Hmmn, they sound pretty similar don’t they! The thing to note though is that the model passed to RenderPartial is either the current model being rendered by the calling view or a subset of it. Anything that a RenderPartial view being called is going to need has to be passed into the Model of the calling view. The view rendered using RenderAction on the other hand could contain a completely different model with no need for this to be passed in to our parent view.

Because of this, I think RenderPartial is most appropriate when what it is going to output could be considered part of the calling view but separating it out into a user control makes sense to allow re-use and avoid repeating the same rendering code in multiple views. For example, if you are rendering a person name in lots of places then instead of repeating within each view the code to output it:

<a href="<%= Url.Action("Display", "Person", new { id = Model.Person.Id}) %>">
  <%= Model.Person.Salutation %> <%= Model.Person.Forename %> <%= Model.Person.Surname %>
</a>


Instead, you move this to a separate user control such as ‘PersonName.ascx’ which expects a Person as the model:

<%@ Control Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewUserControl<Person>" %>
<a href="<%= Url.Action("Display", "Person", new { id = Model.Id}) %>">
    <%= Model.Salutation %> <%= Model.Forename %> <%= Model.Surname %>
</a>


Now, any place a view wants to output a persons name then you can instead call a PartialView and pass in the appropriate model:

<%= Html.RenderPartial("PersonName", Model.Person); %> 


Why would you want to do this? Well, it helps consistency and avoids repetition which makes it easy if, for example, you decide that name should not longer be in the format “Mr John Smith” but instead “Smith, John (Mr)” and you want to throw in a little jQuery magic to display a profile popup whenever anyone hovers the mouse over the name. This is a simple example but hopefully it demonstrates some benefits of using it compared to repeating the code in each view – with larger chunks of output the benefits of using RenderPartial would be even more apparent

So that is where and how I think RenderPartial should be used. How about RenderAction?

Well, I think this has it’s place when the thing that needs to be rendered isn’t the responsibility of the calling view or controller.

For example, I may have a PersonController responsible for CRUD operations on the Person class including a Display action and view but I do not want either of these to have any responsibility for anything to do with the display of Projects that the person is working on. If I want to display a list of assigned projects within the Person Display view then I would use RenderAction to add it but the responsibility and knowledge of how to do this resides with the ProjectController and it’s views. This would be called as follows:

<% Html.RenderAction("List", "Project", new {personId = Model.Person.Id}); %> 


(incidentally … note that, unlike many of the other extension methods, RenderAction doesn’t return a string so there is no ‘=’ at the beginning and a ‘;’ at the end)

Now, how the Project List is retrieved and rendered is completely the concern of the ProjectController class as it should be and the output can contain whatever it needs to display the list, provide actions to edit project entries and so on.

Another benefit of this approach is if you create different skinned versions of an app. By keeping things modular it is much easier to decide to include something in the view for one skin but not another. So, the skin (set of views) for a full desktop browser may call RenderAction to include the list in the same page whereas the skin for a mobile device friendly interface (think iPhone) would perhaps just include a link instead – both are handled by changing the view instead of changing the controllers which could otherwise be the case.


RenderSubAction alternative to RenderAction for Sub-Controllers in MVC

Saturday, 21 February 2009 10:08 by simon

The ASP.NET MVC Futures assembly contains several RenderAction extension methods for HtmlHelper to allow another action to be rendered at some point within a view. Typically, this allows each controller to handle different responsibilities rather than things being combined into the parent.

So, for example, a PersonController is responsible for retrieving and assembling the model to represent a Person and pass it to the View for rendering but it should not handle Contacts – the display and CRUD operations on contacts should be handled by a ContactController and RenderAction is a convenient way to insert a list of contacts for a person into the persion display view.

So, we have a PersonController which will retrieve a Person model and pass it to the Display view. Inside this Display view, we have a call to render a list of contacts for that person:

<% Html.RenderSubAction("List", "Contact", new { personId = Model.Id }); %>

I’ve come across two problems when using this though:

1. If the parent controller action requested uses the HTTP POST method then the controller action picked up for all child actions will also be the POST version (if there is one). This is rarely the desired behavior though – I’d only expect to be sending a POST to the ContactController when I want to change something related to a contact and not when updating a person.

2. If the [ValidateInput(false)] attribute is used to allow HTML code to be posted (imagine a ‘Biography’ field on Person with a nice WYSIWYG TinyMCE Editor control …) then the request will fail unless all the child actions are automatically marked with the same attribute. I would prefer to only have to mark the methods I specifically want a POST request containing HTML input to be called.

So, I created a set of alternative RenderSubAction extension methods which address both these issues:

1. Whatever the HTTP method used for the parent action, the routing will match the GET version for child actions called.

2. The state of the [ValidateInput()] attribute will be set on all child actions called.

The code is below … just reference the namespace that you put it in within your web.config file and then change the RenderAction method to RenderSubAction – the method signatures are identical so it is a drop-in replacement.

I’d be interested in any feedback on this approach.

public static class HtmlHelperExtensions {
    public static void RenderSubAction<TController>(this HtmlHelper helper, 
Expression<Action<TController>> action) where TController : Controller { RouteValueDictionary routeValuesFromExpression = ExpressionHelper
            .GetRouteValuesFromExpression(action);
        helper.RenderRoute(routeValuesFromExpression);
    }

    public static void RenderSubAction(this HtmlHelper helper, string actionName) {
        helper.RenderSubAction(actionName, null);
    }

    public static void RenderSubAction(this HtmlHelper helper, string actionName, string controllerName) {
        helper.RenderSubAction(actionName, controllerName, null);
    }

    public static void RenderSubAction(this HtmlHelper helper, string actionName, string controllerName, 
object routeValues) { helper.RenderSubAction(actionName, controllerName, new RouteValueDictionary(routeValues)); } public static void RenderSubAction(this HtmlHelper helper, string actionName, string controllerName, RouteValueDictionary routeValues) { RouteValueDictionary dictionary = routeValues != null ? new RouteValueDictionary(routeValues)
: new RouteValueDictionary(); foreach (var pair in helper.ViewContext.RouteData.Values) { if (!dictionary.ContainsKey(pair.Key)) { dictionary.Add(pair.Key, pair.Value); } } if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(actionName)) { dictionary["action"] = actionName; } if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(controllerName)) { dictionary["controller"] = controllerName; } helper.RenderRoute(dictionary); } public static void RenderRoute(this HtmlHelper helper, RouteValueDictionary routeValues) { var routeData = new RouteData(); foreach (var pair in routeValues) { routeData.Values.Add(pair.Key, pair.Value); } HttpContextBase httpContext = new OverrideRequestHttpContextWrapper(HttpContext.Current); var context = new RequestContext(httpContext, routeData); bool validateRequest = helper.ViewContext.Controller.ValidateRequest; new RenderSubActionMvcHandler(context, validateRequest).ProcessRequestInternal(httpContext); } #region Nested type: RenderSubActionMvcHandler private class RenderSubActionMvcHandler : MvcHandler { private bool _validateRequest; public RenderSubActionMvcHandler(RequestContext context, bool validateRequest) : base(context) { _validateRequest = validateRequest; } protected override void AddVersionHeader(HttpContextBase httpContext) {} public void ProcessRequestInternal(HttpContextBase httpContext) { AddVersionHeader(httpContext); string requiredString = RequestContext.RouteData.GetRequiredString("controller"); IControllerFactory controllerFactory = ControllerBuilder.Current.GetControllerFactory(); IController controller = controllerFactory.CreateController(RequestContext, requiredString); if (controller == null) { throw new InvalidOperationException(string.Format(CultureInfo.CurrentUICulture,
"The IControllerFactory '{0}' did not return a controller for a controller named '{1}'.",
new object[] { controllerFactory.GetType(), requiredString })); } try { ((ControllerBase) controller).ValidateRequest = _validateRequest; controller.Execute(RequestContext); } finally { controllerFactory.ReleaseController(controller); } } } private class OverrideHttpMethodHttpRequestWrapper : HttpRequestWrapper { public OverrideHttpMethodHttpRequestWrapper(HttpRequest httpRequest) : base(httpRequest) { } public override string HttpMethod { get { return "GET"; } } } private class OverrideRequestHttpContextWrapper : HttpContextWrapper { private readonly HttpContext _httpContext; public OverrideRequestHttpContextWrapper(HttpContext httpContext) : base(httpContext) { _httpContext = httpContext; } public override HttpRequestBase Request { get { return new OverrideHttpMethodHttpRequestWrapper(_httpContext.Request); } } } #endregion }

Ode to the MVC Framework

Sunday, 9 December 2007 13:36 by Simon

We've all been there ... thought we were going to get some code out of the door but then for one reason or another we couldn't manage it. I hope ScottGu et al who worked so hard to try and get it out this weekend don't take this the wrong way but here is a modified version of the lyrics to a song from the musical 'Les Miserables' for all of us who are sooo keen to get our hands on the new framework and waited all weekend for it ...

MVC framework (to 'Les Miserables - Empty Chairs At Empty Tables' music)

[A developer who got his hands on the MVC framework and blogged about it]

There's a grief that can't be spoken
There's a pain goes on and on
Empty pages, empty tables
Now my sites are dead and gone

Here they talked of view-controllers
Here it was they lit the flame
Here they sang about the framework
And the framework never came.

From a blog page in Seattle
They could see a world reborn
And they rose with voices ringing
I can hear them now!
The very code that they had posted
Became their last communion
On the lowly CTP...
At dawn.

Oh my friends, my friends forgive me.

[The ghosts of those who died waiting for the MVC framework appear.]

That I have code and you have none
There's a grief that can't be spoken
There's a pain goes on and on

Phantom frameworks run on windows
Mock assemblies on the floor
Databases with no tables
Where my view will run no more.

[The ghosts fade away.]

Oh my friends, my friends, don't ask me
What your sacrifice was for
Empty projects with no tables
Where my code will run no more...

Ah well, at least I have something to look forward to next week!!

Tags:   ,
Categories:   .NET | MVC
Actions:   E-mail | del.icio.us | Permalink | Comments (1) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

MVC Framework for ASP.NET

Sunday, 9 December 2007 04:02 by Simon

The ASP.NET 3.5 Extensions Preview (which includes microsoft's new MVC framework) should be release today on ASP.NET. It was due to ship earlier in the week but due to a bug got delayed. However, the team behind it have been working over the weekend to get it out. I can't wait to get my hands on it.

I've used ASP.NET for development even though I know about the other approaches (Ruby on Rails, Castle etc...) simply because I make a living out of coding and most clients want the big corporate supplied platform. Going into a company and trying to sell Ruby on Rails can be quite difficult and there simply aren't the opportunities / jobs about to justify switching to it (although I can understand people using it on private projects and startups).

Some question whether Microsoft should be producing a copy or clone of what existing open source projects already do. Well, I'm glad they are doing it!

Love em or hate em, Microsoft make some great development tools and platforms / frameworks and using these is how I make a living. 

What I think the ASP.NET MVC framework will do is validate the approach (if it needed it) and also allow it to be used in corporate / enterprise environments - i.e. it will become mainstream and less time will have to be spent selling it to people who really don't know the difference between a MVC and an MCP but don't want to risk their position by allowing some developer or consultant to lead them down the road to a minority used platform.

ScottGu has made some posts about what the MVC framework is and getting started with it which are a great read:

ASP.NET MVC Framework
ASP.NET MVC Framework (Part 1)
ASP.NET MVC Framework (Part 2): URL Routing
ASP.NET MVC Framework (Part 3): Passing ViewData from Controllers to Views
ASP.NET MVC Framework (Part 4): Handling Form Edit and Post Scenarios

Also, some other blog posts provide more detailed information about various aspects:

TDD and Dependency Injection with ASP.NET MVC
ASP.NET MVC Preview: Using The MVC UI Helpers

I can't wait to use this and already have some apps planned to use it ...

Tags:   ,
Categories:   .NET | MVC
Actions:   E-mail | del.icio.us | Permalink | Comments (0) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed