The Symfony documentation says:
Using Real or Keyword Messages This example illustrates the two
different philosophies when creating messages to be translated:
$translated = $translator->trans('Symfony2 is great');
$translated = $translator->trans('symfony2.great');
< snip >
The choice of which method to use is entirely up to you, but the "keyword" format is often recommended.
http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/translation.html
So when would you use 'Real' messages?
You really have to decide for yourself. It's a bit a matter of taste and a bit a matter of your translation workflow.
Real messages are good when you don't want the overhead of maintaining an additional translation file (for the origin language). Furthermore, if you forget to translate some of the messages, you'd still see a valid message in the origin language. It's also somewhat easier to translate from an original message rather than a keyword.
Keywords are better when messages are changing often, especially with long texts. You abstract away the purpose of a message from the actual text.
EDIT: there's one more scenario when you could argue that real messages are better than keys - when your website only supports one language but with multiple variations - like en_GB, en_US. Most of the messages will be the same, only few will vary. So most of the messages could be left as they are, and only the ones which are actually different between GB and US put into a translation files. It would require much less work compared to an approach with using keys (of course, assuming your messages don't change very often).
One usecase for the real format I could come up with is when messages are created by users via the UI — it would be silly to force them to come up with keywords for each phrase they want to translate.
I haven't had such a need yet, so I always use the keyword format.
For the most part I agree with #Jakub Zalas' answer, however, the last line is a bit off.
Keywords are better when messages may ever change - not just when changing often. This is outlined as well in the docs themselves:
The second method is handy because the message key won't need to be changed in every translation file if you decide that the message should actually read "Symfony2 is really great" in the default locale.
If the message changes and you haven't used a key but the message as key you have to change any code using this message to reflect that change. More places to change are more potential bugs. We have the ability to build in leverage by using message keys.
Real messages has no big interest. IMO you can use them if you are sure your application will always be mono-language and you want to gain a few minutes in development.
Keyword trans has the interest that if you have to translate your website, you'll see immediately if a translation is missing.
To facilitate translations, I personnaly use JMSTranslationBundle
Related
Can anyone actually explain, in layman's terms, what is a real-world use case for the set operation's options?
While I fully understand what set with merge does, as well as merge beeing a boolean and mergeFields being an array of fieldPaths, I cannot think of cases in which mergeFields might be of any use.
I also understand the fact that mergeFields basically acts like a mask for the object passed to the set operation, but I still cannot think of how is it so useful that it actually got implemented within the SDK.
Can someone shed some light?
After looking through the documentation, there seem to be two reasons why you might want to use one vs the other:
mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields trigger an error when passing in field values that don't currently exist on the document while merge will add in those fields if they don't exist. The error is good for safety purposes if you're concerned about typos/writing to incorrect field paths.
This one is just a guess, but the documentation indicates mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields ignores AND leaves fields untouched while merge ONLY leaves other fields untouched. It's possible there's some performance advantage to using mergeFieldPaths/mergeFields esp for documents with a ton of fields. The difference might be direct access vs still needing to look at unspecified fields to identify the matches in some way.
SetOptions Reference
I'm using Protobuf 3 along with gRPC in distributed environment ("microservices").
Due to lack of supporting not-set/missing values in Protobuf 3 I got the following issue related to contract additivity.
Imagine I have Service A and couple of consumer services B and C owned by Team B and Team C.
If I add a field, say, boolean value to contract of Service A, at the first it will have default value which will be written, say, to database as is.
Then, Team B updates their service to talk using updated contract and passes 'true' as the field value.
Then, Team C still uses old contract and calls the same service - value gets replaced to false. But Team C didn't mean it, moreover they weren't aware about that field at all.
Thus, Service A cannot extend contract at all because consumers that didn't get updated for various reasons yet are able to harm data and the Service A can do nothing about it.
In Thrift such things are done just by single check (.isSet()).
There are dirty workarounds like wrapping primitives into objects but it forces to use library-implementation-specific checks-by-reference (at least in java) which seems to be rather poor hack than robust solution. Also, eventually, I have to wrap everything in wrappers, which as you imagine is not great solution as well.
What are best practices you use to manage such situations in Protobuf 3 in 2017? How do you manage/coordinate contract updates between teams/services? Thanks
Note: this question is not exactly about how to implement absence of detection for not-set/missing values, but rather about how to live with that and follow Protobuf 3 philosophy.
I think the problem here is that trying to check for field presence this way is not really an idiomatic use of protocol buffers (not even in proto2). It sounds like you are trying to evolve your schema by adding new fields but not reading those new fields unless you're sure they came from an updated client. The idiomatic way is to do this instead: just make sure the defaults for the new fields are reasonable and maintain compatible behavior if they're not explicitly set. Then don't try to check for presence--just read the fields and older clients will get good default behavior.
To give you an example, let's say you're adding a new feature that can be enabled or disabled. The right way to do this would be to add a bool field in your request message called enable_new_feature. Since older clients don't know about this field, their requests will have this default to false and so they get the old behavior they're expecting. Adding a disable_new_feature field instead would probably be the wrong way to do it because then you would indeed break older clients by enabling something they didn't want.
Using oneof looks like a better/cleaner alternative to wrappers. See this answer to a similar question: https://stackoverflow.com/a/40552570/618259
We are building an API in-house and often are passing a parameter with multiple values.
They use: mysite.com?id=1&id=2&id=3
Instead of: mysite.com?id=1,2,3
I favor the second approach but I was curious if it was actually incorrect to do the first?
I'm not an HTTP guru, but from what I understand there's not a definitive standard on the query part of the URL regarding multiple values, it's typically up to the CGI that handles the request to parse the query string.
RFC 1738 section 3.3 mentions a searchpart and that it should go after the ? but doesn't seem to elaborate on its format.
http://<host>:<port>/<path>?<searchpart>
I did not (bother to) check which RFC standard defines it. (Anyone who knows about this please leave a reference in the comment.) But in practice, the mysite.com?id=1&id=2&id=3 way is already how a browser would produce when a form contains duplicated fields, typically the checkboxes. See it in action in this w3schools example page. So there is a good chance that the whatever programming language you are using, already provides some helper functions to parse an input like that and probably returns a list.
You could, of course, go with your own approach such as mysite.com?id=1,2,3, which is not bad at all in this particular case. But you will need to implement your own logic to produce and to consume such format. Now you may or may not need to think about handling some corner cases by yourself, such as: what if the input is not well-formed, like mysite.com?id=1,2,? And do you need to invent yet another separator, if the comma sign itself can also be a valid input, like mysite.com?name=Doe,John|Doe,Jane? Would you reach to a point that you will use a json string as the value, like mysite.com?name=["John Doe", "Jane Doe"]? etc. etc.. Your mileage may vary.
Worth adding that inconsistend handling of duplicate parameters in the URL on the server is may lead to vulnerabilities, specifically server-side HTTP parameter pollution, with a practical example - Client side Http Parameter Pollution - Yahoo! Classic Mail Video Poc.
in your first approach you will get an array of querystring values but in second approach you will get a string of querystring values.
I guess it depends on technology you use, how it becomes convenient. I am currently standing in front of the same question using currency=USD,CHF or currency=USD¤cy=CHF
I am using Thymeleaf and using the second option makes it easy to work, I can then request something like: ${param.currency.contains(currency.value)}. When I try to use the first option it seems it takes the "array" like a string, so I need to split first and then do contain, what leads me to a more mess code.
Just my 50 cents :-)
I'm seeing a good bit of hand-waving on the subject of how to update only part of a resource (eg. status indicator) using REST.
The options seem to be:
Complain that HTTP doesn't have a PATCH or MODIFY command. However, the accepted answer on HTTP MODIFY verb for REST? does a good job of showing why that's not as good an idea as it might seem.
Use POST with parameters and identify a method (eg. a parameter named "action"). Some suggestions are to specify an X-HTTP-Method-Override header with a self-defined method name. That seems to lead to the ugliness of switching within the implementation based on what you're trying to do, and to be open to the criticism of not being a particularly RESTful way to use POST. In fact, taking this approach starts to feel like an RPC-type interface.
Use PUT to over-write a sub-resource of the resource which represents the specific attribute(s) to update. In fact, this is effectively an over-write of the sub-resource, which seems in line with the spirit of PUT.
At this point, I see #3 as the most reasonable option.
Is this a best practice or an anti-pattern? Are there other options?
There are two ways to view a status update.
Update to a thing. That's a PUT. Option 3
Adding an additional log entry to the history of the thing. The list item in this sequence of log entries is the current status. That's a POST. Option 2.
If you're a data warehousing or functional programming type, you tend to be mistrustful of status changes, and like to POST a new piece of historical fact to a static, immutable thing. This does require distinguishing the thing from the history of the thing; leading to two tables.
Otherwise, you don't mind an "update" to alter the status of a thing and you're happy with a PUT. This does not distinguish between the thing and it's history, and keeps everything in one table.
Personally, I'm finding that I'm less and less trustful of mutable objects and PUT's (except for "error correction"). (And even then, I think the old thing can be left in place and the new thing added with a reference to the previous version of itself.)
If there's a status change, I think there should be a status log or history and there should be a POST to add a new entry to that history. There may be some optimization to reflect the "current" status in the object to which this applies, but that's just behind-the-scenes optimization.
Option 3 (PUT to some separated sub-resource) is your best bet right now, and it wouldn't necessarily be "wrong" to just use POST on the main resource itself - although you could disagree with that depending on how pedantic you want to be about it.
Stick with 3 and use more granular sub-resources, and if you really do have a need for PATCH-like behavior - use POST. Personally, I will still use this approach even if PATCH does actually end up as a viable option.
HTTP does have a PATCH command. It is defined in Section 19.6.1.1 of RFC 2068, and was updated in draft-dusseault-http-patch-16, currently awaiting publication as RFC.
It's ok to POST & emulating PATCH where not available
Before explaining this, it's probably worth mentioning that there's nothing wrong with using POST to do general updates (see here) In particular:
POST only becomes an issue when it is used in a situation for which some other method is ideally suited: e.g., retrieval of information that should be a representation of some resource (GET), complete replacement of a representation (PUT)
Really we should be using PATCH to make small updates to complex resources but it isn't as widely available as we'd like. We can emulated PATCH by using an additional attribute as part of a POST.
Our service needs to be open to third-party products such as SAP, Flex, Silverlight, Excel etc. That means that we have to use the lowest common denominator technology - for a while we weren't able to use PUT because only GET and POST were supported across all the client technologies.
The approach that I've gone with is to have a "_method=patch" as part of a POST request. The benefits are;
(a) It's easy to deal with on the server side - we're basically pretending that PATCH is available
(b) It indicates to third-parties that we are not violating REST but working around a limitation with the browser. It's also consistent with how PUT was handled a few years back by the Rails community so should be comprehensible by many
(c) It's easy to replace when PATCH becomes more widely available
(d) It's a pragmatic response to an awkward problem.
PATCH is fine for patch or diff formats. Until then it's not very useful at all.
As for your solution 2 with a custom method, be it in the request or in the headers, no no no no and no, it's awful :)
Only two ways that are valid are either to PUT the whole resource, with the sub data modified, or POST to that resource, or PUT to a sub-resource.
It all depends on the granularity of your resources and the intended consequences on caching.
A bit late with an answer but I would consider using JSON Patch for scenarios like this.
At the core of it, it requires two copies of the resource (the original and the modified), and performs a diff on it. The outcome of the diff is an array of patch operations describing the difference.
An example of this:
[
{ "op": "replace", "path": "/baz", "value": "boo" },
{ "op": "add", "path": "/hello", "value": ["world"] },
{ "op": "remove", "path": "/foo" }
]
There are many client libraries that can do the hard lifting in generat
I'm building a form and I wonder if there is a significant advantage in showing values in a more human readable format; e.g:
index.php?user=ted&location=newyork
Rather than:
index.php?user=23423&location=34645
On the one hand, having the query string a little more readable allows the user and search engines to better understand where they are, but this also creates a little more work on the server side, as I'll have to track down the associated rows through something other than their unique id.
For example, first find what the id of 'newyork' is before being able to work on other rows that require the location_id. I always prefer to give the db as little work as possible.
Edit: decided to go with readability. I figure I can always use the mysql query cache to speed things up if necessary.
Use human readable values when you can. Just be sure to sanitise the input.
Edit: Yes, this can and should still be done for SEO purposes (if its worth it to you) if you have lots of choices. Even if the user has lots of choices, you should know what they are (or what the limits are) so that you can properly sanitise the input. For instance, if they are choosing states, you can know all 50. If they are just making up their own text, make sure on your end that its only text.
A good rule of thumb is to store data as id's and display it as human readable text etc.
Depends on your goals.
If you are talking about something like a blog where you want everyone to see everthing (and find it easily), then the human/search engine readable format is a no brainer.
If these pages are locked behind a login then it doesn't much matter. You can do what is easier on the database.
For most internet apps, I'd err to the side of readability since that will help with search engines as well.
You shouldn't worry about the efficiency for any typically sized application on any reasonable database engine. Write your app for users, not for query optimizers. QO's can more easily take care of themselves. Deal with optimization in the unlikely event you start seeing a problem.
I am going to come from a different direction. In my opinion a URL should be readable if want the user to be able to use the URL to change their parameters by editing the URL instead of using the UI. An example would be https://www.coolreportingapp.com/accountReport.jsp?account=ABC&month=200911 . In this example, the user can "easily" change the account or month they looking at without messing with the UI. This of course means you need to validate the URL params each and every time, which you should do anyway. If you don't want the user to alter the URL params, you need to obfuscate and hash values and use the hash to verify they haven't.
Seriously, IMHO, in your example, none is more readable than the other. Do normal users know that "&" is a separator from "variables" in "user=ted&location=newyork&"? Do they need to know that exists something like a variable? Having this in mind, what's the difference in showing numbers or words?
If you really want readable urls you should build SEO Friendly urls (human readable). Remember that even a "dashes vs underscores" simple question matters in the end.