I know there are a million questions out there on how to implement a shopping cart in your site. However, I think my problem may be somewhat different. I currently have a working shopping cart that I wrote back in the 1.1 days that uses ASP.NET session variables to keep track of everything. This has been in place for about 6 years and has served its purpose well. However, it has come time to upgrade the site and part of what I have been tasked with is creating a more, erm, user-friendly site. Part of this is removing updatepanels and implementing real AJAX solutions.
My problem comes in where I need to persist this shopping cart over several pages. Sure I could use cookies, but I would like to keep track of carts for statistical purposes (abandonment stats, items added but not bought, those kinds of stats) as well as user-friendliness, like persisting their cart so that if they come back it is remembered. This is easy enough if a user is logged in, but I don't want to force a user to create an account if they don't want.
Additionally, the way we were processing orders was a bit, ehh, slapped-together. All of the details (color selected, type selected, etc) are passed to paypal via their description string which for the most part is ok, but if a product has selections that are too long for the string (255 chars i believe), they are cut off and we have to call the customer to confirm what they bought. If I were to implement a more "solid" shopping cart, we wouldn't have to do that because all the customer's choices would be stored, in addition to the order automatically being entered into the order processing system (they're manually entered into an excel spreadsheet. i know, right).
I want to do this the right way, but I don't want to use any sort of overblown software that won't really work with our current business model. Do I use a cookie to "label" each visitor to match them with their cart (give them a cookie with a GUID) across pages, keep their whole cart client side, keep the cart server side and just pull it from the db on each page refresh? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
So this isn't really the answer to your question, but it is part of the answer. I'm trying to find the duplicate that this is of (it may not be) but you can keep a lot of the same code if you'll use IRequiresSessionState. I didn't find any exact duplicates, but I recognized the subject matter.
Handler with IRequiresSessionState does not extend session timeout
other answers:
ASP.NET: How to access Session from handler?
Authentication in ASP.NET HttpHandler
So what you want to really do is just look to implement PageMethods in your pages, and then you can reduce a LOT of the overhead of communicating with the pages. But if you want to migrate away from what you're doing now you want to start implementing handlers (and configure them to use JSON - there's a decorator for that) and you can use that with the likes of jQuery.ajax() as a direct URL and keep it within the same scope of your project. Note that it will by default send the cookies for you, so that's no big deal. The reason why I say that is that the cookie has the identifier from Forms to let the session be identified.
So if you're using the IRequireSessionState then you can still use all the session state information that you're used to using. There's nothing wrong with using Session in combination with AJAX. The two really don't have a lot to do with each other. One is used for server storage, the other is used for server communication.
Now, if you're trying for a completely clientside app and a RESTful server solution, then you're going to need to start passing complex JSON structures back and forth (not a big deal, just a matter of making sure you define your datatypes for yourself pretty well in your own documentation) and you can keep everything restricted to only what's passed.
I actually use all three types of these methods in my applications on the same server, depending on what I'm trying to do with each of my apps. I have found that each has their own strength and weakness. (Ok, I don't use the session part, because I handle my state in other ways, but I could use session state)
What could I clarify with here?
There are a few ways you can handle this. The main question is how long do you need to persist their shopping cart information (30minutes, 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, ...etc.).
Short Storage Requirements Easiest Implementation (30min - 1hr)
You can use session with Page Methods by using HttpContext.Current.Session["key"] so you can keep your session storage the same as it currently works for you. You can call these Page Methods using jquery ajax pretty easily and would eliminate the need for update panels, a script manage, etc. So it gets you halfway there in my opinion. Your pages will load faster and be more responsive and you don't have to throw away any of the code involved with caching stuff in session. Main downside to this is that you are still using session so you really don't want to persist sessions for too long as that will bog down the server hosting a site if it is fairly active.
Long Storage Requirements Server Side implementation
Same stuff above applies except you are not using session and you can use stateless web services if you like. You would generate a GUID for each visitor and storing that GUID in a cookie. On each ajax call you would send this GUID along with the data to persist. This info would get stored in a database identified by the GUID. If the customer completes their order then the information can be moved from the cache database to the completed orders database. In this implementation you would want to write some service or scheduled job that would delete cached orders (not completed) after a certain amount of time to keep the cache database lean.
Nice thing about this solution is you can have a pretty long lived cache, write some reports that key off this cached data, and the load on your web server will be reduced. Additionally if your site becomes more popular it is easy to scale out because you don't have to worry about keeping sessions in sync across multiple web servers.
Long Storage Requirements Client Side Implementation
This approach still uses web services or page methods but there is no caching database involved. Essentially you jam all your information into a cookie or set of cookies and key off that. You might still be able to get some information if you read out the contents of the cookie(s) on each POST and store that somewhere to report off of.
If you don't need to track what customers added things but didn't order then the major benefit of this solution is that you can cut the amount of POST's you have to do down by a lot. You can write to the cookie(s) in javascript and just POST everything when they are completing their order. Just be careful not to put any sensitive information in the cookies unencrypted (contact info, billing info, ..etc.) as there are ways to mine data in cookies from other domains in some less secure browsers. For the sensitive stuff you would POST it to the server and have it returned the encrypted information for storage in the cookie(s).
Downside to this solution is that if the information you need to store is large you could run up against the max cookie size and/or max number of cookies per domain limitation. With a good strategy (ie. storing product id's not product description) you will probably be ok.
Let me know if any of the above is unclear or if you have additional questions.
EDIT: Didn't see the answer above that essentially lays out the Short Storage Requirements one I have. If that is the accepted solution give him the check mark (he beat me to it (= ). Leaving my answer as it lays out some additional options.
Related
Here's my issue, we have a large patient object that is used on multiple screens throughout the admin. Each screen contains different information about the same patient. It can't all be on one screen.
The only time I want to persist the patient is when the user clicks save. I need to have an in memory patient somewhere. A user may be in the admin, change patient information on various screens, run validation and decide to not save that patient. This is typical use.
Is it ok to store this patient in the session? Or, is there a better approach to do this? At most this admin would have 20 users with access.
Opinions may vary on this. Session is tricky, especially if you use something other than in-memory session. Distributed session will break a non-serializable object. If this object is a simple POCO or object you control, try your best to make it play with serialization. If it does you're set. For an admin tool without much load I'd say you'd be fine.
Hey I found this - know nothing about the site, but illustrates my point:
https://www.fortify.com/vulncat/en/vulncat/dotnet/asp_dotnet_bad_practices_non_serializable_object_stored_in_session.html
I had a similar situation with similar amount of users. I did it and it worked great.
My situation was about scheduling events.
Someone would create an event and through multiple web pages would modify and configure this event. When they were all done it would save all the details to SQL. In the end, I was surprised just how well it worked.
Session should be fine here. You have what appears to be a light user load... but you might want to check exactly how much memory the object takes up, multiply that by the maximum number of users, and see where you are.
If you want to avoid the session altogether, you could use System.Web.Caching to store the object instead, and key the stored object using the users identifier plus some constant string.
In either case, you'll want to be aware of how many web servers are running the application. If it's just one web server, no worries. If you have multiple web servers, you'll want to make sure they are "sticky" - then the user is guaranteed to have all requests processed by the same server. How this is done is entirely dependent on your flavor of load balancing... normally the "IT folks" handle this for you.
So there seems not be any pretty answer to the question of how pass data between multiple pages. After having done a little homework here's why (or at least what I've gleaned):
ViewState variables don't persist across pages.
Session variables are volatile and must be used sparingly.
Cookies have potential safety issues and take time and must be kept small.
Storing vars in the URL has limits to the amount of data and can be unsafe.
Storing vars temporarily in a db is a real pita because you add one table per object that might be potentially passed to another page.
So far it is looking like I will be using hidden fields to pass a keyid and unique id to the next page and then retrieve the data from the db. What are your thoughts on all of this? What is the best way to go about doing any of it? I am early in the development of this app, so making changes now is preferred.
edit: I am anticipating a lot of users using this application at any one time, does that affect whether or not I should be using SQL Server based Session?
If you want to persist state, yes store it in the database since you don't have to worry about an expiration. The Session is similar except you have to worry about the Session expiring. In both cases concurrent calls that write similar data to the same area could cause problems and need to be accounted for.
Session is good when you don't have to worry about multiple web servers or timeout issues. The database gives you more scalability but at a cost of doing lots of db read/writes and you have to consider clean up.
Personally I would try to use the following decision tree:
Is the data simple, short and not private -> query string
Is the data less simple but only needs to exist for a short time -> session
Will the data be needed across multiple area and be persistent for long period of time -> database
Of course there is more to it that this but that should give you a basic outline of considerations since you are just starting out. Keep it simple. Don't try to over engineer a solution if a simple query string will suffice. You can always over engineer late as long as you have kept it simple to start.
I think context is important here, e.g. what are you trying to pass between pages and why?
If you are dealing with complex, multi-part forms, then you can implement the form in a single page, simply showing or hiding relevant element. Use usercontrols and custom controls as much as possible to facilitate isolation and reusability. This makes life a lot easier across the board.
Anything that is user-generated is almost certainly going to end up in a database anyway - so #5 does not seem relevant. That is you shouldn't have to store data "temporarily" in a database- what data would need to be persisted between pages that isn't part of your application.
Anything else would seem to be session related and not that much data.
I could add some more thoughts if I knew what specifically you were dealing with.
Oh - "cookies have potential safety issues and take time" - you're going to use cookies, unless you don't want to be able to identify return visitors. Any potential safety issues would only be a result of bad implementation, and certainly passing data in hidden fields is no better. And you really don't want to get into writing an ASP.NET app that is designed around pages posting to forms other than itself. That's just a headache for many reasons and I can't think of a benefit of doing this as part of basic application design.
Session variables should work fine for your needs.
I would go with StateServer or SQLServer Session state mode. Using mode InProc is the fastest, but it has some issues (including all user sessions getting dropped when a new binary is pushed, web.config changes, etc). Sessions are volatile, but you can control the volatility in several ways. Sessions require cookies unless they are configured as cookieless (which I highly recommend you stay away from), but I think that is a reasonable requirement.
Also, you can create a struct or serializable class from which you create objects that you can store in a session variable. The struct or class will allow you to keep all of your data in one place - you only have one session variable to worry about.
There is going to be advantages and disadvantages for any method, it's all about finding the best method. I hope this helps.
All methods have their pros and cons. It would all depend on the scenario you are working in.
Session variables work quite well if used within reason. InProc sessions in traffic heavy sites can quickly drain your resources but you can always switch to SQL Server based session that does most of the DB work for you.
I want to write a web app order system using the REST methodology for the first time. I understand the concept of the "message id" when things get posted to a page but this scenario comes up. Once a user posts to the web app, you can keep track of their state with an id attached to the URI but what happens if they hit the back button of the browser to the entry point of the app when they didn't have any id? They then lose their state in the transaction.
I know you can always give them a cookie but you can't do that if they have cookies turned off and, worst case thinking here, they also have javascript turned off.
Now, I understand the answer may be "Yes, that's what will happen", that's the end of the story, and I can live with that but, being new to this, is there something I'm missing?
REST doesn't really have states server-side; you simply point to resources. User sessions aren't tracked; instead cookies are used to track application state. However, if you find that you really do need session state, then you are going to have to break REST and track it on the server.
A few things to consider:
How many of your users have cookies disabled anyway? How many even know how to do that?
Is it really likely that your users will have JS turned off? If so, how will you accomplish PUT (edit) and DELETE (delete) without AJAX?
EDIT: Since you do not want to force cookies and JavaScript, then you cannot have a truly RESTful system. But you can somewhat fake it. You are going to need to track a user server-side. You could do this with a session object, as found in your language/framework of choice or by adding a field to the database for whatever you want to know. Of course, when the user hits the back button, they will likely be going to a cached page. If that's not OK, then you will need to modify the headers to disallow caching. Basically, it gets more complicated if you don't use cookies, but not unmanageable.
What about the missing PUT and DELETE HTTP methods? You can fake those with POSTs and a hidden parameter specifying whether or not you are making something new, editing something, or deleting a record. The GET shouldn't really change.
The answer is that your application (in a REST scenario) simply doesn't keep track of what happens. All state is managed by the client, and state transitions are effected through URI navigation. The "State Transfer" part of REST refers to client navigation to new URIs which are new states.
A URI accessed with GET is effectively a read-only operation as per both the HTTP spec and the REST methodology. That means if the client "backs up" to some previous URI, "the worst" that happens is another GET is made and more data is loaded.
Let's say the client does this (using highly simplified pseudo-HTTP)...
GET //site.com/product/123
This retrieves information (or maybe a page) about product ID 123, which presumably includes a reference to a URI which can be used to POST that item into the user's shopping cart. So the user decides to buy the item. Again, it's oversimplified but:
POST //site.com/shoppingcart/
{productid = 123}
The return from this might be a representation of the shopping cart, or a reference to the added item (which could be used on the shoppingcart URI with DELETE to remove the item again), or a variety of other things (such as deeper XML describing the cart contents with other URIs pointing to the cart items and back to the original products). It's all up to you.
But the "state" is defined by whatever the client is doing. It isn't tracked on the server at all, although you will certainly keep a copy of his shopping cart contents in your database for some period of time. (I once returned to a website two years later and my shopping cart items were still there...) But it's up to him to keep track of the ID. To your server app it's just another record, presumably with some kind of expiration.
In this way you don't need cookies, and javascript is entirely dependent on the client implementation. It's difficult to build a decent REST client without script -- you could probably build something with XSLT and only return XML from the server, but that's probably more pain than anyone needs.
The starting point is to really understand REST, then design the system, then build it. It definitely doesn't lend itself to building it on the fly like most other systems do (right or wrong).
This is an excellent article that gives you a fairly "pure" look at REST without getting too abstract and without bogging you down with code:
http://www.infoq.com/articles/subbu-allamaraju-rest
It is true that the "S" in REST stands for "state" and the "T" for "transfer". But the state is is kept on the client, not on the server. The client always hast all information necessary to decide for himself in whicht direction he wants to change the state.
The way you describe it, your system is not restful.
I need to store IDs (Contact IDs, Claim IDs, etc.) between multiple .aspx pages.
At the moment I am storing the ID in the Session and have set the Session timeout to 300 minutes. However, I am still getting errors because users are attempting to perform operations after the Session has expired.
I think users are leaving their web broswers open, locking their computers, going home for the evening, coming in the next morning and attempting to pick up where they left off.
I don't want to use the Querystring. Cookies are more for User IDs than Contact IDs and Claim IDs. Viewstate is only maintained per page. Persisting Session to a database seems unnecessarily complicated. I don't want to extend the Session timeout too much.
I'd ideally like them to be able to pick up where they left off in the morning.
What are the best practices for dealing with storing IDs between pages? How can I do this without them receiving a message saying their session has expired? Am I overlooking something obvious?!
I would put all this information into a database. This is classic use of a database, a means to store information needed for the application.
Cookies are bad because you have to assume they will be at the same PC from session to session. You have seem the problem with sessions.
If you do not want to use a database then you can use a file on the server. And read from that file.
You might actually find it much easier than complicated to create a sort of "landing pad" database where a user's item history is stored, or MRU list. I wouldn't tie it to their immediate session or cookie though. Let the session maintain the user state, let the database handle where they were when they went home or took that 7 hour lunch break.
As #David said this is a classic use of databases.
If you are in need of doing this without using databases, you can fall back on some of the "tricks" (read hacks) that are used in non-dynamic languages:
Create a hidden field which exists on every page, name the field appropriately for the data you are storing.
When you render the page create an XML fragment containing your ids and other data, encrypt it for display purposes (using base64 etc), place the value into the hidden field you created.
When the page is posted back, reverse #2 and recover your data, then apply the page changes.
Rinse and repeat. :)
Really this is not a very scalable solution, as the XML and base64 encoding will add 50% or more to your data size, and if there is significant data (100's of KB) this process can get out of control.
The last time I was asked to use this solution it was for moving a list of well defined data around with an application that did not always have access to the DB. It worked ok for the purposes, but was definitely not ideal.
You could go ahead and store the IDs in viewstate on the page, then on each page that requires that ID have a settable property for that page. Before redirecting to the page instantiate it and set the ID property.
You're correct, storing this type of data in session isn't really what it's meant for. Viewstate is a better mechanism for this.
What is the best way to store string data across postback. I need to store an ID and name for multiple entities. I was thinking of using a datatable in viewstate, but would that make viewstate grow too large? I can't use a database yet because I'll be inserting a record that those other records need to be related to. So I'll just be storing them temporarily until the user submits the form.
You actually have a lot of options - the one you choose will entirely depend on the requirements of your own application.
ViewState - you can add the data to the page's viewstate. The advantages of this is that the data will live only for the lifetime of the user being on the page and posting it back to the server. Another advantage of it over hidden fields is that it is harder for users to hack into it and alter your values (I believe, in fact, that you can encrypt your viewstate). The disadvantage, of course, lies in page sizes - everything you add to the view state is one more thing that gets dropped on a user's page and then gets posted back to the server. This makes it non-optimal for storing large amounts of data.
Cookies - You can toss the information back to the user in the form of cookies. In this case, you can declare how long the information will last - for the scope of the user having their browser open, or for a specific calendar time. The information will be available to any page of your application each time the user hits that page. The bad news is that you are limited in the amount of information you can store, and that users can very readily alter their own cookies.
Session - You're storing the user's information on your own server's memory (I'll leave aside the discussion of various types of session storage). In this case the information will live as long as your user's session lives, and will be available to all pages of your application. There is no risk of user's modifying those values directly, though session hijacking is a risk you may want to explore. The disadvantage, though, is that you are using precious server resources in this case - if your application has a large load, it may affect your scalability in the future.
As I said - what you choose to do will entirely depend on the needs and requirements of your application.
several ways (though not an exhaustive list):
ViewStatehidden fieldssessionquery stringcookies
ViewState is fine. If you are storing it across postbacks, a client-side solution is best. So, you'd be adding size somewhere--either in ViewState or hidden fields.
If you want to do this server-side, you can use the Session, but remember to clean it up when you can.
you could just store them to a cookie, this would allow you to access them from Javascript too. Alternatively you could store a simple string array to the view state. A lot depends on what and how much information you wish to store.
When I have this scenario I create a structure for my fields that I stuff into Viewstate. I'm okay with having a small structure added into the page size and lifecycle considering the entire page's controls set is there already :)
Furthermore it cleans up after itself after you're done with the page, so there's no worrying about filling your Session with crap.
I concur with the accepted answer but I would also add that if you only want to keep track of a simple key/value collection you would be better putting a generic Dictionary into either ViewState or Session:
Dictionary<int, string> myValues = new Dictionary<int, string>();
myValues.Add(1, "Apple");
maValues.Add(2, "Pear");