Related
I've been building data driven applications for about 18 years and for the past two, I've been successfuly using angular for my large forms/crud based apps. You know, the classic sql server db with hundreds of tables with millons of records. So far, so good.
Now I'm porting/re-engineering a desktop app with about 50 forms, all complex, all fully functional, "smart". My approach for the last couple years was to simply work tightly with the backend rest API to retrieve, insert or update data as needed and everything works fine.
Then I stumbled across ngrx and I understand exactly how it works, what it does and why it is good for a "reactive" app.
My problem is the following: In the usual lifecycle of the kind of systems i mentioned, you always have to deal with fresh data and always have to tell everything to the server. Almost no data in such apps can be safely "stored" localy since transactional systems rely on centralized data interactions. There's no such thing as "hey lets keep this employee's sales here for later use".
So why would it be so important to manage a local 'store' when most of my data is volatile? I understand why it would be useful for global app data like user-profile or general ui related state, but for the core data itself? I dont get it. You query for data, plug that data in the form, it gets processed by the user and sent back to the server. That data is no longer needed, and if you do need it, you ask for it again, as it could have changed its state since the last time you interacted with it.
I do not understand the great lengths i have to go to mantain a local store and all the boilerplate if that state is so volatile.
They say change detection does not scale but I've build some really large web apps with a simple "http service" pattern and it works just fine, cause most of the component-tree is destroyed anyway as you go somewhere else in the app, and any previous subscriptions become useless. Even with large-bulky-kinky forms, it's never that big of a problem the inner workings of a form as to require external "aid" fro a store. The way I see it, the "state" of a form is a concern of that form in that moment alone. Is it to keep the component tree in sync? never had problems with that before... even for complicated trees with lots of shared data, master detail is kind of a flat pattern in the end if al lthe data is there.
For other components, such as grids, charts, reporte, etc, same thing applyes. They get the data they need and then "puf", gone.
So now you see my mindset. I AM trying to change it to something better. Why am I missing out the redux pattern?
I have a bit of experience here! It's all subjective, so what I've done may not suit you. My system is a complex system that sounds like it's on a similar scale as yours. I battled at first with the same issues of "why build complex logic on the front end and back end", and "why bother keeping stuff in state".
A redux/NGRX approach works for me because there are multiple ways data can be changed - perhaps it's a single user using the front end, perhaps it's another user making a change and I want to respond to that change straight away to avoid concurrency issues down the track. Perhaps there are multiple parts within my front end that can manipulate the same data.
At the back end, I use a CQRS pattern instead of a traditional REST API. Typically, one might suggest to re-implement the commands/queries to "reduce" changes to the state, however I opted for a different approach. I don't just want to send a big object graph back to the server and have it blindly insert, and I don't want to re-implement logic on the client and server.
My basic "use case" life cycle looks a bit like:
Load a list of data (limited size, not all attributes).
User selects item from list
Client requests "full" object/view/dto from server
Client stores response in object entity state
User starts modifying data
These changes are stored as "in progress" changes in a different part of state. The system is now responding to the data in the "in progress" part
If another change comes in from server, it doesn't overwrite the "in progress" data, but it does replace what is in the object entity state.
If required, UI shows that the underlying data has changed / is different to what user has entered / whatever.
User clicks on the "perform action" button, or otherwise triggers a command to be sent to server
server performs command. Any errors are returned, or success
server notifies client that change was successful, the client clears the "in progress" information
server notifies client that Entity X has been updated, client re-requests entity X and puts it into the object entity state. This notification is sent to all connected clients, so they can all behave appropriately.
Most examples of Flux use a todo or chat example. In all those examples, the data set you are storing is somewhat small and and be kept locally so not exactly sure if my planned use of stores falls in line with the flux "way".
The way I intend to use stores are somewhat like ORM repositories. A way to access data in multiple ways and persist data to the data service, whatever that might be.
Lets say I am building a project management system. I would probably have methods like these for data retrieval:
getIssueById
getIssuesByProject
getIssuesByAssignedUser
getIssueComments
getIssueCommentById
etc...
I would also have methods like this for persisting data to the data service:
addIssue
updateIssue
removeIssue
addIssueComment
etc...
The one main thing I would not do is locally store any issue data (and for that matter most store data that related to a data store). Most of the data is important to have fresh because maybe the issue status has updated since I last retrieved that issue. All my data retrieval method would probably always make an API requests to the the latest data.
Is this against the flux "way"? Are there any issue with going about flux in this way?
I wouldn't get too hung up on the term "store". You need create application state in some way if you want your components to render something. If you need to clear that state every time a different request is made, no problem. Here's how things would flow with getIssueById(), as an example:
component calls store.getIssueById(id)
returns empty object since issue isn't in store's cache
the store calls action.fetchIssue(id)
component renders empty state
server responds with issue data and calls action.receiveIssue(data)
store caches that data and dispatches a change event
component responds to event by calling store.getIssueById(id)
the issue data is returned
component renders data
Persisting changes would be similar, with only the most recent server response being held in the store.
user interaction in component triggers action.updateIssue(modifiedIssue)
store handles action, sending changes to server
server responds with updated issue and calls action.receiveIssue(data)
...and so on with the last 4 steps from above.
As you can see, it's not really about modeling your data, just controlling how it comes and goes.
I am working in an asp .net mvc application. I am using the model and storing some of the values which i need to preserve between the page posts, in the form of datacontexts.
Say my model looks something like this:
public SelectedUser SelectedUserDetails
{
//get and set has
//this.datacontext.data.SelectedUser = .....
//return this.datacontext.data.....
}
Now when this model needs to be cleared? I have many such models with many properties and datacontext. But I don't have an idea on when to clear it. Is there a way or an event that can be triggered automatically when the model is not used for a long time?
Oneway I thought is when i navigate away from a page which uses my underlying model, I can clear that model if its no longer used anywhere and initialize it back as needed. But I need to clear almost many models at many points. Is there an automatic way that can clear models when it is no longer used because care can be taken by my code to initialize them when I need them, but I don't know when to clear them when I no longer need them. I need this to get rid of any memory related issues. Any thoughts or comments?
I would use the ASP.NET cache or the Session to keep data between requests. The cache timeout can be set on the object and it will automatically be removed -- note that you'll need a way to reconstitute it if it is removed before you are done using it. If you use the session, the objects will be removed when the session times out. You could also -- by default -- remove it (or replace it) when you hit an action that would start the sequence of actions for which it is needed.
For the sake of argument assume that I have a webform that allows a user to edit order details. User can perform the following functions:
Change shipping/payment details (all simple text/dropdowns)
Add/Remove/Edit products in the order - this is done with a grid
Add/Remove attachments
Products and attachments are stored in separate DB tables with foreign key to the order.
Entity Framework (4.0) is used as ORM.
I want to allow the users to make whatever changes they want to the order and only when they hit 'Save' do I want to commit the changes to the database. This is not a problem with textboxes/checkboxes etc. as I can just rely on ViewState to get the required information. However the grid is presenting a much larger problem for me as I can't figure out a nice and easy way to persist the changes the user made without committing the changes to the database. Storing the Order object tree in Session/ViewState is not really an option I'd like to go with as the objects could get very large.
So the question is - how can I go about preserving the changes the user made until ready to 'Save'.
Quick note - I have searched SO to try to find a solution, however all I found were suggestions to use Session and/or ViewState - both of which I would rather not use due to potential size of my object trees
If you have control over the schema of the database and the other applications that utilize order data, you could add a flag or status column to the orders table that differentiates between temporary and finalized orders. Then, you can simply store your intermediate changes to the database. There are other benefits as well; for example, a user that had a browser crash could return to the application and be able to resume the order process.
I think sticking to the database for storing data is the only reliable way to persist data, even temporary data. Using session state, control state, cookies, temporary files, etc., can introduce a lot of things that can go wrong, especially if your application resides in a web farm.
If using the Session is not your preferred solution, which is probably wise, the best possible solution would be to create your own temporary database tables (or as others have mentioned, add a temporary flag to your existing database tables) and persist the data there, storing a single identifier in the Session (or in a cookie) for later retrieval.
First, you may want to segregate your specific state management implementation into it's own class so that you don't have to replicate it throughout your systems.
Second, you may want to consider a hybrid approach - use session state (or cache) for a short time to avoid unnecessary trips to a DB or other external store. After some amount of inactivity, write the cached state out to disk or DB. The simplest way to do this, is to serialize your objects to text (using either serialization or a library like proto-buffers). This helps allow you to avoid creating redundant or duplicate data structure to capture the in-progress data relationally. If you don't need to query the content of this data - it's a reasonable approach.
As an aside, in the database world, the problem you describe is called a long running transaction. You essentially want to avoid making changes to the data until you reach a user-defined commit point. There are techniques you can use in the database layer, like hypothetical views and instead-of triggers to encapsulate the behavior that you aren't actually committing the change. The data is in the DB (in the real tables), but is only visible to the user operating on it. This is probably a more complicated implementation than you may be willing to undertake, and requires intrusive changes to your persistence layer and data model - but allows the application to be ignorant of the issue.
Have you considered storing the information in a JavaScript object and then sending that information to your server once the user hits save?
Use domain events to capture the users actions and then replay those actions over the snapshot of the order model ( effectively the current state of the order before the user started changing it).
Store each change as a series of events e.g. UserChangedShippingAddress, UserAlteredLineItem, UserDeletedLineItem, UserAddedLineItem.
These events can be saved after each postback and only need a link to the related order. Rebuilding the current state of the order is then as simple as replaying the events over the currently stored order objects.
When the user clicks save, you can replay the events and persist the updated order model to the database.
You are using the database - no session or viewstate is required therefore you can significantly reduce page-weight and server memory load at the expense of some page performance ( if you choose to rebuild the model on each postback ).
Maintenance is incredibly simple as due to the ease with which you can implement domain object, automated testing is easily used to ensure the system behaves as you expect it to (while also documenting your intentions for other developers).
Because you are leveraging the database, the solution scales well across multiple web servers.
Using this approach does not require any alterations to your existing domain model, therefore the impact on existing code is minimal. Biggest downside is getting your head around the concept of domain events and how they are used and abused =)
This is effectively the same approach as described by Freddy Rios, with a little more detail about how and some nice keyword for you to search with =)
http://jasondentler.com/blog/2009/11/simple-domain-events/ and http://www.udidahan.com/2009/06/14/domain-events-salvation/ are some good background reading about domain events. You may also want to read up on event sourcing as this is essentially what you would be doing ( snapshot object, record events, replay events, snapshot object again).
how about serializing your Domain object (contents of your grid/shopping cart) to JSON and storing it in a hidden variable ? Scottgu has a nice article on how to serialize objects to JSON. Scalable across a server farm and guess it would not add much payload to your page. May be you can write your own JSON serializer to do a "compact serialization" (you would not need product name,product ID, SKU id, etc, may be you can just "serialize" productID and quantity)
Have you considered using a User Profile? .Net comes with SqlProfileProvider right out of the box. This would allow you to, for each user, grab their profile and save the temporary data as a variable off in the profile. Unfortunately, I think this does require your "Order" to be serializable, but I believe all of the options except Session thus far would require the same.
The advantage of this is it would persist through crashes, sessions, server down time, etc and it's fairly easy to set up. Here's a site that runs through an example. Once you set it up, you may also find it useful for storing other user information such as preferences, favorites, watched items, etc.
You should be able to create a temp file and serialize the object to that, then save only the temp file name to the viewstate. Once they successfully save the record back to the database then you could remove the temp file.
Single server: serialize to the filesystem. This also allows you to let the user resume later.
Multiple server: serialize it but store the serialized value in the db.
This is something that's for that specific user, so when you persist it to the db you don't really need all the relational stuff for it.
Alternatively, if the set of data is v. large and the amount of changes is usually small, you can store the history of changes done by the user instead. With this you can also show the change history + support undo.
2 approaches - create a complex AJAX application that stores everything on the client and only submits the entire package of changes to the server. I did this once a few years ago with moderate success. The applicaiton is not something I would want to maintain though. You have a hard time syncing your client code with your server code and passing fields that are added/deleted/changed is nightmarish.
2nd approach is to store changes in the data base in a temp table or "pending" mode. Advantage is your code is more maintainable. Disadvantage is you have to have a way to clean up abandonded changes due to session timeout, power failures, other crashes. I would take this approach for any new development. You can have separate tables for "pending" and "committed" changes that opens up a whole new level of features you can add. What if? What changed? etc.
I would go for viewstate, regardless of what you've said before. If you only store the stuff you need, like { id: XX, numberOfProducts: 3 }, and ditch every item that is not selected by the user at this point; the viewstate size will hardly be an issue as long as you aren't storing the whole object tree.
When storing attachments, put them in a temporary storing location, and reference the filename in your viewstate. You can have a scheduled task that cleans the temp folder for every file that was last saved over 1 day ago or something.
This is basically the approach we use for storing information when users are adding floorplan information and attachments in our backend.
Are the end-users internal or external clients? If your clients are internal users, it may be worthwhile to look at an alternate set of technologies. Instead of webforms, consider using a platform like Silverlight and implementing a rich GUI there.
You could then store complex business objects within the applet, provide persistant "in progress" edit tracking across multiple sessions via offline storage and easily integrate with back-end services that providing saving / processing of the finalised order. All whilst maintaining access via the web (albeit closing out most *nix clients).
Alternatives include Adobe Flex or AJAX, depending on resources and needs.
How large do you consider large? If you are talking sessions-state (so it doesn't go back/fore to the actual user, like view-state) then state is often a pretty good option. Everything except the in-process state provider uses serialization, but you can influence how it is serialized. For example, I would tend to create a local model that represents just the state I care about (plus any id/rowversion information) for that operation (rather than the full domain entities, which may have extra overhead).
To reduce the serialization overhead further, I would consider using something like protobuf-net; this can be used as the implementation for ISerializable, allowing very light-weight serialized objects (generally much smaller than BinaryFormatter, XmlSerializer, etc), that are cheap to reconstruct at page requests.
When the page is finally saved, I would update my domain entities from the local model and submit the changes.
For info, to use a protobuf-net attributed object with the state serializers (typically BinaryFormatter), you can use:
// a simple, sessions-state friendly light-weight UI model object
[ProtoContract]
public class MyType {
[ProtoMember(1)]
public int Id {get;set;}
[ProtoMember(2)]
public string Name {get;set;}
[ProtoMember(3)]
public double Value {get;set;}
// etc
void ISerializable.GetObjectData(
SerializationInfo info,StreamingContext context)
{
Serializer.Serialize(info, this);
}
public MyType() {} // default constructor
protected MyType(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
{
Serializer.Merge(info, this);
}
}
I'd like some advice on designing a REST API which will allow clients to add/remove large numbers of objects to a collection efficiently.
Via the API, clients need to be able to add items to the collection and remove items from it, as well as manipulating existing items. In many cases the client will want to make bulk updates to the collection, e.g. adding 1000 items and deleting 500 different items. It feels like the client should be able to do this in a single transaction with the server, rather than requiring 1000 separate POST requests and 500 DELETEs.
Does anyone have any info on the best practices or conventions for achieving this?
My current thinking is that one should be able to PUT an object representing the change to the collection URI, but this seems at odds with the HTTP 1.1 RFC, which seems to suggest that the data sent in a PUT request should be interpreted independently from the data already present at the URI. This implies that the client would have to send a complete description of the new state of the collection in one go, which may well be very much larger than the change, or even be more than the client would know when they make the request.
Obviously, I'd be happy to deviate from the RFC if necessary but would prefer to do this in a conventional way if such a convention exists.
You might want to think of the change task as a resource in itself. So you're really PUT-ing a single object, which is a Bulk Data Update object. Maybe it's got a name, owner, and big blob of CSV, XML, etc. that needs to be parsed and executed. In the case of CSV you might want to also identify what type of objects are represented in the CSV data.
List jobs, add a job, view the status of a job, update a job (probably in order to start/stop it), delete a job (stopping it if it's running) etc. Those operations map easily onto a REST API design.
Once you have this in place, you can easily add different data types that your bulk data updater can handle, maybe even mixed together in the same task. There's no need to have this same API duplicated all over your app for each type of thing you want to import, in other words.
This also lends itself very easily to a background-task implementation. In that case you probably want to add fields to the individual task objects that allow the API client to specify how they want to be notified (a URL they want you to GET when it's done, or send them an e-mail, etc.).
Yes, PUT creates/overwrites, but does not partially update.
If you need partial update semantics, use PATCH. See http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-http-patch-14.html.
You should use AtomPub. It is specifically designed for managing collections via HTTP. There might even be an implementation for your language of choice.
For the POSTs, at least, it seems like you should be able to POST to a list URL and have the body of the request contain a list of new resources instead of a single new resource.
As far as I understand it, REST means REpresentational State Transfer, so you should transfer the state from client to server.
If that means too much data going back and forth, perhaps you need to change your representation. A collectionChange structure would work, with a series of deletions (by id) and additions (with embedded full xml Representations), POSTed to a handling interface URL. The interface implementation can choose its own method for deletions and additions server-side.
The purest version would probably be to define the items by URL, and the collection contain a series of URLs. The new collection can be PUT after changes by the client, followed by a series of PUTs of the items being added, and perhaps a series of deletions if you want to actually remove the items from the server rather than just remove them from that list.
You could introduce meta-representation of existing collection elements that don't need their entire state transfered, so in some abstract code your update could look like this:
{existing elements 1-100}
{new element foo with values "bar", "baz"}
{existing element 105}
{new element foobar with values "bar", "foo"}
{existing elements 110-200}
Adding (and modifying) elements is done by defining their values, deleting elements is done by not mentioning it the new collection and reordering elements is done by specifying the new order (if order is stored at all).
This way you can easily represent the entire new collection without having to re-transmit the entire content. Using a If-Unmodified-Since header makes sure that your idea of the content indeed matches the servers idea (so that you don't accidentally remove elements that you simply didn't know about when the request was submitted).
Best way is :
Pass Only Id Array of Deletable Objects from Front End Application To Web API
2. Then You have Two Options:
2.1 Web API Way : Find All Collections/Entities using Id arrays and Delete in API , but you need to take care of Dependant entities like Foreign Key Relational Table Data too
2.2. Database Way : Pass Ids to your database side, find all records in Foreign Key Tables and Primary Key Tables and Delete in same order i.e. F-Key Table records then P-Key Table records