MVC :: Does The Razor View Engine Support Generic Methods
Sep 3, 2010
Trying out the Razor view engine and for some reason my generic helper methods are breaking. For example:
public static class UrlHelperExtensions
public static string NonGenericHelper(this UrlHelper helper, Type controller)
public static string GenericHelper<TController>(this UrlHelper helper)
Works as expected:@Url.NonGenericHelper(typeof(ProjectEuler.UI.Models.Home))Breaks with the following exception:
"CS1502: The best overloaded method match for 'Microsoft.WebPages.WebPageUltimateBase.Write(Microsoft.WebPages.Helpers.HelperResult)'
has some invalid arguments"
The only workaround I could find is treating it as a "multi-token
With regards to the Razor view engine, say I want to render Html.TextBoxFor<SomeModel>(i => i.Name), it doesn't seem that the inline syntax works as in:
@Html.TextBoxFor<SomeModel>(i => i.Name)
This doesn't seem to work because it interprets the generic as an HTML tag. I could use a code-block approach, but then what's the best approach to output the content? The HTML string returned from this method, do I response.write it, or is there a syntax for it, or what's the approach?
If I look at the Razor View Engine, then I see a very nice and concise syntax that is not particularly tied to generating html. So I wonder, how easy would it be to use the engine outside asp.net in a "normal" .net environment for example to generate text, code,...
I'm working trying to realize a requirement where the pages should be 'configurable' at runtime (per client), stored in a database - a requirement that I have no say in Anyway, the current plan is to use the Razor view engine and 'load' the 'pages' dynamically. I have a basic sample working using a VirtualPathProvider and VirtualFile that serves up Raz'pages' on the fly.The question I have if there is a better approach when I have the Razor 'pages' stored in a dB (or any other repository)?
There seems to be some constraints and concerns when I check other postings. For example:'If a Web site is precompiled for deployment, content provided by a VirtualPathProvider instance is not compiled, and noVirtualPathProvider instances are used by the precompiled site.' (from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.hosting.virtualpathprovider.aspx )
We have a modular architecture where we have some views (cshtml) files in a separate project (class library). How can we get the syntax highlighting and autocomplete to work when the project isn't an MVC project?
note that the class library has controllers, views, models etc. It just doesn't have the web.config, global.asax, etc that a normal mvc project would have.
The intellisense works for everything but the so important model:
With MVC3 RTM, if you hover over the Model, you can now get a better error message:
Then after adding the build provider, this error message appears:
Would like to add a third party test framework (such as NUnit or MbUnit) to the drop-down list of test projects for the ASP.NET MVC3 type project in Visual Studio 2010.
This had worked before for ASP.NET MVC2 and prior, but the msdn instructions are not accurate and does not work. Creating the registry keys in the HKEY_CURRENT_USER seem to delete the keys every time the VS-2010 starts, the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE does not follow the same tree structure.
how to add a third party framework under ASP.NET MVC3?
point me in the direction of getting the Razor View Engine working correctly with an empty "non MVC" web application. I can correctly set it up with a MVC app or with a Web Site (Razor), but if I try and get it running with and empty app, I run into the following two problems:
1) I can't add new razor files to the application (*.cshtml files)
2) Once deployed to AppHarbor, the .cshtml files aren't found unless they have the extension specified (i.e. /Default won't work, but /Default.cshtml does)
Using the Razor engine how do I create Partial Views. Do I create a normal View and calling the PartialView() in the controller will only output the body content and when calling View() in the controller will output the full page with layout. If not, do I need to create specific Partial Views and then use RenderPartial in the View.
In my application users can write their own 'templates'. That are filled with data from other sources. I could use a simple token replacement, but I would like to be able to use the Razor syntax and engine for rendering the template. Here is an overly simplified example:
Before you point to the following sources I will clarify what I have learned from them:RazorEngine (http://razorengine.codeplex.com/). This code compiles the string into a class, then a dll, then finally reads from a dll - all this to bypass the MVC engine. I don't want to do that because I am in MVC and don't want the additional overhead.The following blog shows how to do this for one of the MVC 3 pre-releases:http://buildstarted.com/2010/09/28/mvc-3-razor-view-engine-without-a-controller/ I cannot get it to work with MVC 3 RTM. When I take the exact code (and replace the CshtmlView with a RazorView) I end up with the error: The method or operation is not implemented. It appears to have something to do with @Model.Name, and being unable to find "Name".A comment in the blog elludes to a statement from ScottGu that the RTM would allow this functionality from the get go. I cannot find this blog.
I need to get an image from a SQL Server as a byte, and load it to a WebControl.Image. The only seemingly good way to do it that I found is to implement IHttpHandler and handle the request accordingly.But I'm stuck to using asp.net 1.1. Does it support ashx files?
I have looked all over for elegant solutions to this not so age-old question. How can I lock down form elements within an ASP.Net MVC View, without adding if...then logic all over the place? Ideally the BaseController, either from OnAuthorization, or OnResultExecultion, would check the rendering form elements and hide/not render them based on role and scope. Another approach I have considered is writing some sort of custom attributes, so as to stay consistent with how how we lock down ActionResults with [Authorize]. Is this even possible without passing a list of hidden objects to the view and putting if's all over? Other background info: We will have a database that will tell us at execution time (based on user role/scope) what elements will be hidden. We are using MVC3 with Razor Viewengine. We're utilizing a BaseController where any of the Controller methods can be overridden.
I'm trying to create a validation layer that will contain methods to validate all my objects (in my Business Objects layer) .. but when I try to reference both the validation and business objects to each other I get a circular dependency error .. so I've decided to create a new layer (BLL) to validate the objects for me and I'll be able to reference both the validation and the object layers.
so I want to build some kind of class/interface -I don't know what fits more- to be like a generic type or a parent type that my method could accept it as a parameter and check for it's Name/ID property. Instead of defining a new method overload for each object type I have Simplification
how to fix "Method not found: 'Void System.Web.Mvc.ViewContext..ctor(System.Web.Mvc.ControllerContext, System.Web.Mvc.IView, System.Web.Mvc.ViewDataDictionary, System.Web.Mvc.TempDataDictionary)'." exception. This solution doesn't work http://dotnetslackers.com/articles/aspnet/installing-the-spark-view-engine-into-asp-net-mvc-2-preview-2.aspx.
As ASP.NET MVC has a pluggable view engine architecture, and XAML is an object descriptive mark-up that, given the right processor/ parser, can generate an appropriate UI...are there plans/ efforts to create a view engine that can turn XAML into HTML?
Personally, I think this would help to re-enforce the efforts the WPF/ Silverlight people have gone to in providing a means of seperating the view from the model/ business logic between designers and developers (via Visual Studio and Expression Blend)...
Seems like a logical step to me, but not knowing XAML as well as I should, I'm wondering if feasable, or even relevant.