I have an order system developed on asp.net 4 web forms. I need to store order details (order object) for a user on the cache in order to manage it till I save it in the DB.
I want to install my site at least on two server with option to scale for more in the future .
As you know , the two servers are located behind load balancer , so I need the cached order object to be shared on the both servers.
I hear about App fabric.
Any recommendation to good frameworks to do that , Hope will be simple and easy to maintain one .
Thanks in advance ...
I need to store order details (order object) for a user on the cache
in order to manage it till I save it in the DB.
If your data is not persisted, SQL Server-based Session state will work across machines on a per-user basis and can be configured with a minimum of fuss.
However, I would suggest regularly saving the order to your application database (not just the Session database) so that the user doesn't lose it. This is fairly standard practice on e-commerce sites. Unless the order process is very short, inevitably the user will want to pause and return, or accidentally close the browser, spill coffee into their computer, etc.
Either way, the database makes a good intermediate and/or permanent location for this data.
Related
My organisation (a small non-profit) currently has an internal production .NET system with SQL Server database. The customers (all local to our area) submit requests manually that our office staff then input into the system.
We are now gearing up towards online public access, so that the customers will be able to see the status of their existing requests online, and in future also be able to create new requests online. A new asp.net application will be developed for the same.
We are trying to decide whether to host this application on-site on our servers(with direct access to the existing database) or use an external hosting service provider.
Hosting externally would mean keeping a copy of Requests database on the hosting provider's server. What would be the recommended way to then keep the requests data synced real-time between the hosted database and our existing production database?
Trying to sync back and forth between two in-use databases will be a constant headache. The question that I would have to ask you is if you have the means to host the application on-site, why wouldn't you go that route?
If you have a good reason not to host on site but you do have some web infrastructure available to you, you may want to consider creating a web service which provides access to your database via a set of well-defined methods. Or, on the flip side, you could make the database hosted remotely with your website your production database and use a webservice to access it from your office system.
In either case, providing access to a single database will be much easier than trying to keep two different ones constantly and flawlessly in sync.
If a webservice is not practical (or you have concerns about availability) you may want to consider a queuing system for synchronization. Any change to the db (local or hosted) is also added to a messaging queue. Each side monitors the queue for changes that need to be made and then apply the changes. This would account for one of the databases not being available at any given time.
That being said, I agree with #LeviBotelho, syncing two db's is a nightmare and should probably be avoided if you can. If you must, you can also look into SQL Server replication.
Ultimately the data is the same, customer submitted data. Currently it is being entered by them through you, ultimately it will be entered directly by them, I see no need in having two different databases with the same data. The replication errors alone when they will pop-up (and they will), will be a headache for your team for nothing.
I want to store some data during my site viewing.
Sometime i need to store large data like crystal reports and some times i need to store a string.
So which is best to use and when to use.
Where are these datas stored. i.e., Client or Server
Please go through this link:
Nine Options for Managing Persistent User State in Your ASP.NET Application
What you are asking is about State Management in ASP.NET. What you have actually listed is Server Side state management options.
You can made a choice of which to use depending on your requirement or functionality.
I will recommend you do some background reading on MSDN regarding State Management. I am not sure which answer you need here as your query is a bit generic.
Here is a link to get you started... http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/75x4ha6s.aspx
This is a very open ended question. Ass Julius said you need to learn more about the different ways you can store information. For example, Application is used when you want to store information on the initial startup of the site and make it available to all users. Session is for a single user so you may have many sessions open depending on how many users you have online at that time. Cache is also a way you can store information on the server. All of these are stored on the server so if you have hundreds of users online at the same time, server memory will be consumed holding all this information. Rule of thumb is to try to be conservative when storing information in these locations. Personally, I rarely use application and also try to limit my use of session to when it makes sense. If I were to write an app that used crystal reports as you are, I would probably use sql to store the paramaters of the report and generate the report from the parameters but it depends entirely on the needs of the user using the app.
You can find a wealth of infomation on this subject on line. Hopefully this will give you some information.
There are 6 techniques to manage states in ASP.NET 3.5 (as far as I know).
(1) View State
(2) Cross Page Posting
(3) Query String
(4) Session State
(5) Application State
(6) Cookies
Can anyone give me some appropriate examples of situations where I should use these techniques?
For example:
(*) Session State: Personalization, Buy Cart, etc.
(*) Cookies: Saving User Credentials, etc.
There's a lot of factors that can influence this, so I won't comment on all of them. But here are a few pointers:
ViewState - This is useful when you'll be posting back to the same page frequently (something you're practically forced into doing by ASP.Net Webforms). How useful it is exactly changes depending on what kind of app you're building. For public internet sites, it should be used very sparingly. You may even want to turn it off by default. For local intranet sites, it's a great tool — especially for the fewer, heavier, webforms pages.
Query String - Use this to store state that you need to allow the user to bookmark a page or process and come back to much later. Even then, you might want to keep it down to some kind of hash that you can use as a key in a database lookup to avoid a really huge url (though hashes have their own problems). Also, a lot of users like to fiddle with your query string directly, so it can be dangerous to put too much here. It's easy to accidentally expose data to users who aren't supposed to see it this way.
Application State - Remember that this is shared by all users, so use appropriately. Things like view counts can go here.
Cookies - Don't use cookies to store user credentials. They're just plain unencrypted text files. Use cookies to store a key into the session (even here you can and should now use cookie-less sessions) and simple personalization settings that will be specific to that user and browser. For example, my monitor size at work is different from home, and so putting display size/layout settings into a cookie is nice because the settings stick for each computer, but it isn't going to compromise my security any if someone else reads that information.
Now I want to highlight this concept from the "Query String" section:
you might want to keep it down to some kind of hash that you can use as a key in a database lookup
Again, hashes have their own problems, but I want to point out that several items on my list talk (including Query String) about uploading data from the client web browser to the web server: ViewState, Query String, Cookie, and Cross-Page Post. You want to minimize the data that you move from client to server. This concept applies to all of these, and for several reasons:
Pulling data from the client is slow for public internet sites. Even broadband connections typically cripple the bandwidth available for upload. 512Kpbs (still a typical broadband upload rate in many areas) is nothing when compared to the Gigabit Ethernet (or faster) connection that likely sits between your database and your web server. As much as you might think of a database query as slow (and it is), it's still likely a much better way to go than waiting for the same data to arrive from the client.
Keeping the data on the server is cheaper, because you don't pay for the bandwidth required to push it to or from the client, and bandwidth often costs as much or more than your server hardware.
It's more secure, because if done right even when a client's computer or connection is compromised all the hacker has access to initially is a hash key that likely expires by the time he can decrypt it. Of course, if done wrong he can use that key directly immediately, so you still need to be careful.
So for most things, what I recommend is to start out by keeping a database key in the Session and then have code to easily pull what you need from a database based on that key. As you experience bottlenecks, profile to find out where they are and start caching those pages or controls, or keep that data/query result in the session directly.
State management option
View state:
Use when you need to store small amounts of information for a page that will post back to itself. Using the ViewState property provides functionality with basic security.
Control state:
Use when you need to store small amounts of state information for a control between round trips to the server.
Hidden fields:
Use when you need to store small amounts of information for a page that will post back to itself or to another page, and when security is not an issue.
You can use a hidden field only on pages that are submitted to the server.
Cookies:
Use when you need to store small amounts of information on the client and security is not an issue.
Query string:
Use when you are transferring small amounts of information from one page to another and security is not an issue.
You can use query strings only if you are requesting the same page, or another page via a link.
Server Side Management Options
Application state
Use when you are storing infrequently changed, global information that is used by many users, and security is not an issue. Do not store large quantities of information in application state.
Session state
Use when you are storing short-lived information that is specific to an individual session and security is an issue. Do not store large quantities of information in session state. Be aware that a session-state object will be created and maintained for the lifetime of every session in your application. In applications hosting many users, this can occupy significant server resources and affect scalability.
Profile properties
Use when you are storing user-specific information that needs to be persisted after the user session is expired and needs to be retrieved again on subsequent visits to your application.
Database support
Use when you are storing large amounts of information, managing transactions, or the information must survive application and session restarts. Data mining is a concern, and security is an issue.
Not sure if you mean the Cache object by Application State.
The Cache object is a great way to manage application wide state, e.g. to record source and count access to your website (to prevent DDOS attacks for example).
(3) Query String
(4) Session State
(5) Application State
(6) Cookies
1. Viewstate
Disclaimer: Use as little as possible. Good point is to always have each state reachable by an url, if possible.
F.e. Paging should use the URL (so /url/?p=2 instead of storing the page in Viewstate)
Use to persist control state between page-cycles.
F.e. Store the selected item in a checkbox, so you can determine whether it has changed.
2. Cross Page Posting
Don't. See the disclaimer for viewstate. Use the URL for this, or store the data in a session / cookie / profile if loads of properties need to be kept around.
Major downside of CPP is that the user cannot use the 'Back' and 'Forward' buttons in it's webbrowser. When a user clicks the back button it wants to undo everything on that page and retry the last one. When using CPP to click them through a wizard; this behavior is not possible without a lot of 'Are you sure you want to resend blablablabl'.
3. Query String
Use alot. Every visible state that a page could reach should be accessible by URL. People with screenreaders will thank you for this. And by using the query string there is no need to use javascript-only solutions.
/url/?page=2 // when doing paging, don't use postback for this
/url/?tab=advanced-search // when having tabs on top of your page
etc.
4. Session state
Use this for short-living objects, that only make sense this time the visitor visits your site. For example:
Which step of a certain wizard was reached
Pages a user had visited before
Small objects you want to put in cache, but that are user-bound
Don't use sessions but profiles for things like:
Preferences
Selected language
Because those things also make sense the next time the user visits your site.
5. Application state
Never. Use ASP.NET cache, or memcached, or any caching framework for this.
6. Cookies
Session ID, Profile ID for authenticated users; user preferences for anonymous users (everything listed in the second list under 4.).
My company is building an ASP.NET HR application and we have decided to create one database per client. This ensures that clients cannot accidentally view another client's data, while also allowing for easy scalability (among other benefits, already discussed here).
My question is - what is the best way to handle security and data access in such a scenario? My intent is to use a common login/account database that will direct the user to the correct server/database. This common database would also contain the application features that each user/role has access.
I was not planning to put any user information in each individual client database, but others on my team feel that the lack of security on each database is a huge hole (but they cannot articulate how duplicating the common access logic would be useful).
Am I missing something? Should we add an extra layer of security/authentication at the client database level?
Update:
One of the reasons my team felt dual user management was necessary is due to access control. All users have a default role (e.g. Admin, Minimal Access, Power User, etc.), but client admins will be able to refine permissions for users with access to their database. To me it still seems feasible for this to be in a central database, but my team doesn't agree. Thoughts?
We have a SaaS solution that uses the one DB per client model. We have a common "Security" database too. However, we store all user information in the individual client databases.
When the user logs into the system they tell us three pieces of information, username, password and client-id. The client-id is used to lookup their home database in the "security" database, and then the code connects to their home database to check their username/password. This way a client is totally self-contained within their database. Of course you need some piece of information beyond username to determine their home database. Could be our client-id approach, or could be the domain-name requested if you're using the sub-domain per client approach.
The advantage here is that you can move "client" databases around w/out having to keep them synced up with the security database. Plus you don't need to deal w/cross-db joins when you're trying to lookup user information.
Update: In response to your update... One of the advantages to each customer having their own DB is also the ability to restore a customer if they really need it. If you've split the customer's data into two databases how do you restore it? Also, again, you'll need to worry about cross-db data access if the users are defined in a DB other than the home DB.
I've always been of the opinion that security should be enforced at the application level, not the database level. With that said, I see no problem with your intended approach. Managing accounts and roles through a central database makes the application more maintainable in the long run.
You may want to look into using the ASP.NET membership provider for handling the authentication plumbing. That would work with your stated approach and you can still keep all of the authentication data in a separate database. However, I agree with Chris that keeping one DB will utlimately be more maintainable.
I am looking for a best practice for End to End Authentication for internal Web Applications to the Database layer.
The most common scenario I have seen is to use a single SQL account with the permissions set to what is required by the application. This account is used by all application calls. Then when people require access over the database via query tools or such a separate Group is created with the query access and people are given access to that group.
The other scenario I have seen is to use complete Windows Authentication End to End. So the users themselves are added to groups which have all the permissions set so the user is able to update and change outside the parameters of the application. This normally involves securing people down to the appropriate stored procedures so they aren't updating the tables directly.
The first scenario seems relatively easily to maintain but raises concerns if there is a security hole in the application then the whole database is compromised.
The second scenario seems more secure but has the opposite concern of having to much business logic in stored procedures on the database. This seems to limit the use of the some really cool technologies like Nhibernate and LINQ. However in this day and age where people can use data in so many different ways we don't foresee e.g. mash-ups etc is this the best approach.
Dale - That's it exactly. If you want to provide access to the underlying data store to those users then do it via services. And in my experience, it is those experienced computer users coming out of Uni/College that damage things the most. As the saying goes, they know just enough to be dangerous.
If they want to automate part of their job, and they can display they have the requisite knowledge, then go ahead, grant their domain account access to the backend. That way anything they do via their little VBA automation is tied to their account and you know exactly who to go look at when the data gets hosed.
My basic point is that the database is the proverbial holy grail of the application. You want as few fingers in that particular pie as possible.
As a consultant, whenever I hear that someone has allowed normal users into the database, my eyes light up because I know it's going to end up being a big paycheck for me when I get called to fix it.
Personally, I don't want normal end users in the database. For an intranet application (especially one which resides on a Domain) I would provide a single account for application access to the database which only has those rights which are needed for the application to function.
Access to the application would then be controlled via the user's domain account (turn off anonymous access in IIS, etc.).
IF a user needs, and can justify, direct access to the database, then their domain account would be given access to the database, and they can log into the DBMS using the appropriate tools.
I've been responsible for developing several internal web applications over the past year.
Our solution was using Windows Authentication (Active Directory or LDAP).
Our purpose was merely to allow a simple login using an existing company ID/password. We also wanted to make sure that the existing department would still be responsible for verifying and managing access permissions.
While I can't answer the argument concerning Nhibernate or LINQ, unless you have a specific killer feature these things can implement, Active Directory or LDAP are simple enough to implement and maintain that it's worth trying.
I agree with Stephen Wrighton. Domain security is the way to go. If you would like to use mashups and what-not, you can expose parts of the database via a machine-readable RESTful interface. SubSonic has one built in.
Stephen - Keeping normal end users out of the database is nice but I am wondering if in this day and age with so many experienced computer users coming out of University / College if this the right path. If someone wants to automate part of their job which includes a VBA update to a database which I allow them to do via the normal application are we losing gains by restricting their access in this way.
I guess the other path implied here is you could open up the Application via services and then secure those services via groups and still keep the users separated from the database.
Then via delegation you can allow departments to control access to their own accounts via the groups as per Jonathan's post.