Even before there was talk about ASP.NET MVC, there were a few open source MVC frameworks available for .NET. Among them, MonoRail was best known, but there was also ProMesh.NET, a .NET MVC web framework that evolved from a small personal project to a full-blown MVC framework for building web applications in .NET, without using ASP.NET WebForms.

A few months ago, just before the release of ProMesh.NET version 2.0, we decided to move the project to the Vici Project, a project that bundles several open-source frameworks for .NET 2.0. The idea of the Vici Project is to provide .NET developers with a collection of lightweight libraries and frameworks, and at the same time get the community involved in the development and support of these libraries.

To make it easier to get the community involved, a complete system was created with the following features:

• Central SubVersion repository with online browsing (using WebSVN)
• Automated build server (using JetBrains TeamCity)
• Wiki infrastructure for maintaining documentation
• Support forum

After several months of testing all of this, the project is finally ready to go live. There is still a lot of work to be done, especially on documentation, but I think there is no point in postponing the release.

The first sub-project of the Vici Project to be released is Vici MVC, formerly known as ProMesh.NET. Later this week, 2 other projects will be released as well: Vici Parser (formerly LazyParser.NET/SharpTemplate.NET) and Vici CoolStorage (formerly CoolStorage.NET)

Vici MVC 2.0 new features (compared to ProMesh.NET 1.2)

• New powerful URL routing engine. Also supports "extension-less" URLs with IIS 7.0 or IIS 6.0 (with wildcard mapping or URL rewriting)
• Support for view components ("inline" controllers with templated views)
• Support for sub-templates with parameters
• Support for template macros
• Configurable template syntax
• Full C# 2.0 expression supported in templates
• New template language syntax (the old one is still supported)

Anyone interested in contributing to the Vici Project, please let me know by posting on the forum (or by sending me a private message on the forum. My username is activa)

•

Early next year, a cool new service will go online targeted at web developers and designers. It will go by the name of dStyler.com but it's a little hard to explain what the service will do, but I'll start with a simple example:

What dStyler actually provides is real-time online image generation. It is a highly scalable REST-style webservice that generates images based on a custom-built URL. For example, the box on the right is generated by the following url:

http://dstyler.com/ufnqfr/204x254/bo-333/ib-fff-2/ro-5/gr-eef-b8e/gr-fff9-fff0-210x260/sh-0008-0-r3.jpg.

It is in a way similar to the Google Charts API and the Google static maps API.

Some of the things dStyler can generate:

• Solid backgrounds
• Gradients
• Single or double borders
• Drop shadows
• Image embedding (useful for watermarks)
• Special effects
• Rounded corners
• Slicing
• ...

The online administration interface allows you to:

• Build images in an interactive way (to generate the URL for you)
• Upload images to your account that can be used for generating images

Best of all, dStyler.com will be a free service

We are currently looking for people interested in beta testing this service. So if you're interested, contact me at beta -at- dstyler -dot- com (I know, I hate these obfuscated e-mail addresses more than anyone, but sadly enough, the world is a nasty world filled with f**king spammers)

•

We all love unit tests (do we?). Yes we do (repeat 100 times). And we all love mocking for making life easier, but sometimes we just want to write some simple unit tests that don't require any mocking at all, because the code you are testing is easy to test without having to resort to all those mocking tricks

But what if you need to test code that relies on the date or some elapsed time? Let's say you wrote a simple caching class that automatically removes items from the cache when a certain amount of time has passed since the last access. It's tempting to slap some Thread.Sleep() calls in there to trigger expiration of cache items, but that will slow down your unit test, and most importantly, it's not accurate. What if you want to test some edge cases? Like, what happens when you access an item at the exact timeout period?

A few years ago I worked with a brilliant Java architect who simply said: "just mock the time!". What he meant was that I should create a fake DateTime class which behaves like the real DateTime class with one important difference: YOU control the time, not the system clock.

How is that done?

Simply create an interface with a single getter property of type DateTime:

public interface ITimeProvider 
{
   DateTime Now { get; }
}

Then you create 2 classes that implement this interface: one that returns the real time, and one that can be used to control a "fake" time:

public class RealTimeProvider : ITimeProvider
{
    public DateTime Now { get { return DateTime.Now; } }
}

public class MockTimeProvider : ITimeProvider
{
    private DateTime _time;

    public DateTime Now { get { return _time; } set { _time = value; } }
}

Of course the class(es) you want to test should be aware of this. For example, our cache class could look like this:

public class Cache
{
     private ITimeProvider _time = new RealTimeProvider();

     public ITimeProvider TimeProvider { get { return _time; } set { _time = value; } }

     // ... the rest of the class implementation
}

In our class implementation, all calls to DateTime.Now should be replaced by TimeProvider.Now.

And now the fun part, faking the time in our unit tests:

[Test]
public void TestCacheTimeout()
{
    ITimeProvider time = new MockTimeProvider();
    Cache cache = new Cache();

    cache.TimeProvider = time; // Tell our cache class to use our fake time

    cache.Add("A" , 1); // add an item to the cache

    Assert.IsTrue(cache.Contains("A")); // check if it's added

    time.Now += TimeSpan.FromHours(1); // let one hour go by...

    Assert.IsFalse(cache.Contains("A")); // check if it was automatically removed
}

That's pretty cool and simple, isn't it? Wouldn't it be nice if we could do the same in real life?

Next week I'll talk a little about unit testing multithreaded concurrency issues...

•

Jeff Atwood (Coding Horror) wrote an interesting blog post about detecting hyperlinks in blocks of "regular" text. I was suprised by the wave of negative comments he received, mainly because Jeff tried to solve a complex problem with a "simple" regular expression. I don't agree with these comments at all. Software developers are too obsessed with borderline cases. What's wrong with "good enough"? What's wrong with solving 99.99% of all possible situations? After all, what's the worst that can happen if the algorithm is not 100% correct? You'll see a bad hyperlink. Big deal...

Anyway, the thing is, as Jeff points out, URL's can contain some pretty weird characters you wouldn't expect, like '(', ')' and ','. This can become quite frustrating when trying to parse something like this:

My website (at http://www.mysite.com/coolpage) is becoming very popular, especially because of traffic coming from http://www.othersite.com/coolestpage, which is a cool site I recently found.

For humans, it's pretty obvious where the hyperlinks are, but what if the links contain some of the non-standard characters I mentioned above? For example:

http://www.mysite.com/coolpage(nice).aspx or http://www.othersite.com/coolest,wildestpage. Both of these are valid URLs.

If you would implement a trivial URL detector, the following URLs would be extracted from the text snippet above:

"http://www.mysite.com/coolpage)" and "http://www.othersite.com/coolestpage,".

Note the trailing parenthesis and comma. Obviously that is not what we want. The fact is that there is no way we can extract valid URLs by following a set of fixed rules, not even for humans. We humans will "parse" the URLs by looking at the context, but that's a pretty hard, if not impossible task for software.
What we can do is use some heuristics to satisfy at least 99.99% of all cases, so I started thinking about this a little bit and came up with a solution that uses regular expressions and requires no code at all.

Let's start with the basics. A URL contains 3 distinct parts, of which the last part is optional:

protocol://host/path

"host" is a hostname (or IP address), optionally followed by a port number, so this is the regex we can use for this:

([a-zA-Z-:@.0-9]+)

Of course, this will not validate the host name part of the URL, but that's not really our goal now.

Next we should specify what the path looks like. According to the specs, the path can contain any of these characters: letters, digits and any of -;:@&=$_.+!*',()

In this example, we will only try to match http and https, so our trivial regex would look like:

\b(https|http)://([a-zA-Z-:@.0-9]+)(/[-;:@&=?a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*',()])?

That will work in most cases, but it fails miserably in our text snippet example.

Let's make an assumption: we assume that a URL containing parentheses always has matching parentheses, as in "http://www.mysite.com/Some(Nice)Page". This would exclude URLs with a single parenthesis, so "http://www.mysite.com/Some(NicePage" would not be recognized as a URL. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

There are several ways of writing a regex like this, but a simple one is:

\b(https|http)://([a-zA-Z-:@.0-9]+)(/((\([-;:@&=a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*',]*?\))|[-;:@&=?a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*',]|%\d\d)+)?

Note that I also added some regex code for escaped characters (%nn). Nested parentheses will not be matched.

This would solve the first match in our text snippet, but not the second one with the trailing ','. Again, we will make an assumption: let's assume that a URL will never end with a period or a comma. I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make (although technically it is allowed).

Our final regex will then look like:

\b(https|http)://([a-zA-Z-:@.0-9]+)(/((\([-;:@&=a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*',]*?\))|[-;:@&=?a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*',]|%\d\d)+)?(?<![,.;])

This regex will match any valid URL pattern, except URLs without matching parentheses. It will also exclude URLs with a period, comma or semicolon at the end.

Again, it's not a perfect solution, but I bet it will be very hard to find a real-world example where this regex would fail to extract the URL from a piece of text. The regex can still use some tweaking, but you get the picture.

•

Most people believe dogfooding is the perfect way of ensuring the quality of the software you're creating. I couldn't agree more.

The only problem is that when you use your own software, you always have the feeling that it's not quite "done". There's always something that you can do better, always something that can be improved, always some features that you feel would be nice.

Especially when building a framework this can become a real problem because you never feel done. Another problem is making sure your framework maintains backwards compatibility with previous releases.

Well, I just mentioned this because I finally decided to freeze version 2.0 of ProMesh.NET and get it ready for release. Release candidate 3 has just been published on CodePlex

A few weeks ago, a fellow developer asked me why I chose to make my projects open-source. That was a pretty good question because when you look at it: compared to just building a framework for your own use, it makes life more complicated: you have to write documentation, support users, and more headaches.

I didn't have to think long before I could answer that question: releasing a custom framework as open source forces you to be disciplined about your code and documentation. After all, you can't afford to write code you are ashamed of, can you? If you write software for your own use, you tend to write code that... well... sucks.

And of course, let's not forget the whole point of open source software: letting other developers contribute. It creates a dynamic that you would never get when you're just building and using your own little framework

If all of the above sounds like a bunch of crap, it's probably because I'm not a native English speaker, or ... it is just crap

•