|
charlieg wrote: I'm not going to get into the politics of the last 6 years, but a goodly number of Americans don't trust their government.
6 years? Try 238. Earlier than that, we'll have to explore the distrust of the population in England, and that goes back a lot more.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected  but I don't think you're really disagreeing. More like adding an exclamation point.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, that's not true.
People did trust their government once.
Literally.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of the the extra fees from the rule change. In my opinion it is likely to be the lesser of two evils, preventing the comcasts and time warners of the world from extorting their own fees from other services.
As far as US politics goes, the only ways forward that I see are educating people so they aren't swayed by the political advertising, or finding some way to greatly reduce the flow of money into the system.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got an idea more likely to get his attention. Point out that Net Neutrality is about making sure that Comcast can't decide that since they own MSNBC (or WTF it's been rebranded to), the left-most leaning major national news source, they could decide that to make themselves more money from banner adds they'll redirect all attempts to visit FoxNews.com to Msnbc.com instead.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
So, on the advise of SO, I installed RazorEngine so that I could generate some HTML directly from a template to create the body of a registration email. Why this can't be done in some simple way with Razor directly is beyond me, but nooo, one of the suggestions was to use RazorEngine.
So I use the package manger to install it, it does a couple updates and I get this effing message:
Inheritance security rules violated by type: 'System.Web.WebPages.Razor.WebPageRazorHost'. Derived types must either match the security accessibility of the base type or be less accessible.
So I google around and everyone tells me to remove the dependency in web.config. Sure enough, that works.
But NOW, after I deploy the app to WinHost (I don't think this is their fault), I get:
Could not load file or assembly 'System.Web.Razor, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35' or one of its dependencies. The located assembly's manifest definition does not match the assembly reference. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131040)
But of course. That makes total sense. NOT. 
So then I figure I ought to fix the root cause of the problem locally and not just delete the dependency in web.config. So I find this post.[^]
Useful. Especially this (regarding my original error):
Which could not be resolved by the solution listed in the reference, however after doing some research I found my answer in the update release notes. The "Removal of security transparent attribute. Note: This is a breaking change, and makes Razor 3 incompatible with MVC4 and earlier, while Razor 2 is incompatible with MVC5 or assemblies compiled against MVC5".
OMFG. Really? So how the eff do I install Razor 2, I really don't give a rat's arse about compatibility with MVC5 (which, when reading about how to install that, looks like yet another rabbit hole of a nightmare I don't want to go down.)
Wow Microsoft. In attempting to copy the garbage that is Ruby on Rails, I believe you have taken what was a slightly smelly pile of refuse and turned it into something that looks like
this[^] - and that's us, picking through the shyte that is MVC and Razor.
Not to mention that the deployment doesn't work right (THAT might be an issue with WinHost), the database migration stuff is a joke (as in it doesn't work) and my foray into Entity Framework is reminding me why I don't use that pile of crap.
And no, my rant is not over yet.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Now you know why I thank the great Ghu I am close enough to retirement that I can possibly duck the whole MVC pile of crap. I honestly don't think it is possible to be too disparaging of the current CSS/HTML development stack
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, one of the issues I ran into was that I needed to use the -safe flag with nuget update or it would push everything to the absolute latest version, breaking references when other projects had different dependencies that didn't allow the latest version of shared libraries. The fact that nuget needs a -safe flag that isn't on by default is a huge red flag to me.
I've run into similar problems with grunt and ruby trying to get sass generating map files while still being compatible with bourbon.io and compass, but I had to force the upgrades instead of holding it back.
Also, I've used a library to use razor as an email content engine, but the latest version requires access to a full httpContext object. The mock object the older libraries used wasn't sufficient, so I had to schedule a web service call back to the same website as the timer is running under so that it would execute with a full httpContext. 
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, here's my four step tutorial on how to solve all your IT related issues:
Step 1: Throw computer out of the window.
Step 2: Enjoy a moment of pure joy.
Step 3: Realize you needed that computer for work.
Step 4: Live the rest of your life as a poor, but happy, hobo.
You can thank me later 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: but happy, hobo.
I am sorely tempted.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
It's the unholy mess that is ASP MVC that is the reason I use the MEAN stack. It's so much more straightforward to use, especially when combined with Typescript.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: It's the unholy mess that is ASP MVC that is the reason I use the MEAN stack.
I just encountered that acronym last week. Apparently there's a new book on Amazon on it.
While I find myself very critical of the NoSQL movement, I'm also interested from people I respect as to their thoughts on it -- so, what are your experiences with MongoDB?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
As long as you use Mongo for the right problem, it's very powerful and remarkably straightforward to use, especially if you use the Mongoose package. Certain problems require you to go outside of Mongo - for instance, when it comes to full text, I tend to use ElasticSearch instead because the full text support in Mongo isn't that clever. The hardest thing is to stop thinking of data in the way you think of it for an RDBMS. Once you get around that, and understand what concepts like map-reduce actually means, then you're well on your way to developing a good understanding of it. I'm delivering a talk on Socket.IO next month where I'll show MEN part of that stack (I'm not using Angular for the demo), and I'll hopefully be showing how easy it is to use this stack.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I'm delivering a talk on Socket.IO next month where I'll show MEN part of that stack (I'm not using Angular for the demo), and I'll hopefully be showing how easy it is to use this stack.
If anyone records the talk, I'd be interested in watching it!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I'm hoping the talks will be recorded (I'm also giving another one on developing applications with Intel's RealSense Technology). They are at this[^] event.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: As long as you use Mongo for the right problem,
Yep.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Once you get around that, and understand what concepts like map-reduce actually means, then you're well on your way to developing a good understanding of it.
Keeping in mind of course that this is only true if it is still based on your first requirement that it is used for right problem in the first place. If it isn't used for the right problem then one tends to end up with 'solutions' that are similar to medieval surgery (hack and hope it lives.)
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Keeping in mind of course that this is only true if it is still based on your first requirement that it is used for right problem in the first place
Oh, definitely. There is a temptation to see everything as a document shaped problem if you aren't too rigorous with yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
I feel your pain. It wasn't received well in the community either. I trashed a couple of projects just by using nuget after the mvc.dll change in the normal ms updates[^]
It's been a bad ordeal, and not something you'd expect from vs, mvc, etc...
I had tons of errors and lost a couple days before just starting over with a new project and importing all my code.
Elephant elephant elephant, sunshine sunshine sunshine
|
|
|
|
|
Registration page....why not go with static html and grab the data in the controller? (Use knockout if you need to). Be careful with MongoDB. If you need indexes on sub-forms (usually array fields) it will bog down when collection grows. For the right project MongoDB is awesome. Cheers (but I feel the pain).
|
|
|
|
|
charliebear24 wrote: Be careful with MongoDB. If you need indexes on sub-forms (usually array fields) it will bog down when collection grows.
I hope to go to my grave without ever having to use a NoSQL database.
charliebear24 wrote: Registration page....why not go with static html and grab the data in the controller? (Use knockout if you need to).
Ah, so many different solutions, so little time. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I installed RazorEngine so that I could generate some HTML directly from a template to create the body of a registration email.
Ain't string.Replace, simple enough? I never had any problems with Razor the way it is meant to be used with MVC (rendering views).
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: Ain't string.Replace, simple enough?
You're absolutely right, but I thought I might see how this is done for something simple (where string.Replace would indeed work much less painfully) in case I want to use RazorEngine for something more complicated later on.
So, in some ways, it's good I learned about this now.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Got ya, I'm sorry I can't give you any advice on a good tool for that. I never had to do anything overly complicated
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
I guess i gotta step in and save all your asses then 
Swig.JS[^]
Does everything that Razor can do in pure JS...
I use it all the time when converting solutions from MVC to Larvel/PHP, the programming model is almost identical..
Shawty
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Shaw wrote: I guess i gotta step in and save all your asses then
Swig looks cool, but I really do not want to be coding in JavaScript as the primary language, especially on the server-side, which is also why I'm not particularly interested in node.js, though at some point I'll take a poke at is.
Marc, the Biased
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
