I have a very complex form. I need to get the post parameters from that form in the order they have been submitted. The application is created in ring/compojure.
All the parameters that I can get from ring request are preprocessed (grouped, sorted..)
How do I get the raw parameter list (preferably parsed to key/value vector or some other list)?
Could you provide more information about your project. What HTTP server are you using (http-kit, clj-http, aleph), and what middleware do you have applied in your project?
All parameter based things aren't actually part of the ring spec, but are handled by middleware (see https://github.com/ring-clojure/ring/wiki/Parameters), so it greatly depends on what bits you're currently pulling in.
I'm not aware of any ring middleware that currently exist that do you want, they all seem to parse the parameter list and put it into a hashmap, and if multiple parameters exist with the same key name, they make the value in the hashmap a vector of the items.
That all being said, I have to ask. Why do you need them in a particular order?
Your best option is to create your own middleware. Use the wrap-param middleware as a guide. You just need to do your custom stuff at https://github.com/mmcgrana/ring/blob/master/ring-core/src/ring/middleware/params.clj#L29
That said, I also be wary of expecting the params in a particular order as it will make brittle the client-server communication.
Related
I have what I believe to be common but complicated problem to model. I've got a product configurator that has a series of buttons. Every time the user clicks on a button (corresponding to a change in the product configuration), the url will change, essentially creating a bookmarkable state to that configuration. The big caveat: I do not get to know what configuration options or values are until after app initialization.
I'm modeling this using EmberCLI. After much research, I don't think it's a wise idea to try to fold these directly into the path component, and I'm looking into using the new Ember query string additions. That should work for allowing bookmarkability, but I still have the problem of not knowing what those query parameters are until after initialization.
What I need is a way to allow my Ember app to query the server initially for a list of parameters it should accept. On the link above, the documentation uses the parameter 'filteredArticles' for a computed property. Within the associated function, they've hard-coded the value that the computed property should filter by. Is it a good idea to try to extend this somehow to be generalizable, with arguments? Can I even add query parameters on the fly? I was hoping for an assessment of the validity of this approach before I get stuck down the rabbit hole with it.
I dealt with a similar issue when generating a preview popup of a user's changes. The previewed model had a dynamic set of properties that could not be predetermined. The solution I came up with was to base64 encode a set of data and use that as the query param.
Your url would have something like this ?filter=ICLkvaDlpb0iLAogICJtc2dfa3
The query param is bound to a 2-way computed that takes in a base64 string and outputs a json obj,
JSON.parse(atob(serializedPreview));
as well as doing the reverse: take in a json obj and output a base64 string.
serializedPreview = btoa(JSON.stringify(filterParams));
You'll need some logic to prevent empty json objects from being serialized. In that case, you should just set the query param as null, and remove it from your url.
Using this pattern, you can store just about anything you want in your query params and still have the url as shareable. However, the downside is that your url's query params are obfuscated from your users, but I imagine that most users don't really read/edit query params by hand.
Pretty new to all this REST stuff.
I'm designing my API, and am not sure what I'm supposed to return from a search query. I was assuming I would just return all objects that match the query in their entirety, but after reading up a bit about HATEOAS I am thinking I should be returning a list of URI's instead?
I can see that this could help with caching of items, but I'm worried that there will be a lot of overhead generated by the subsequent multiple HTTP requests required to get the actual object info.
Am I misunderstanding? Is it acceptable to return object instances instead or URIs?
I would return a list of resources with links to more details on those resources.
From RESTFull Web Services Cookbook 2010 - Subbu Allamaraju
Design the response of a query as a representation of a collection
resource. Set the appropriate expiration caching headers. If the query
does not match any resources, return an empty collection.
IMHO it is important to always remember that "pure REST" and "real world REST" are two quite different beasts.
How are you returning the list of URIs from your query in the first place? If you return e.g. application/json, this certainly does not tell the client how it is supposed to interpret the content; therefore, the interaction is already being driven by out-of-band information (the client magically already knows where to look for the data it needs) in conflict with HATEOAS.
So, to answer your question: I find it quite acceptable to return object instances instead of URIs -- but be careful because in the general case this means you are generating all this data without knowing if the client is even going to use it. That's why you will see a hybrid approach quite often: the object instances are not full objects (i.e. a portion of the information the server has is not returned), but they do contain a unique identifier that allows the client to fetch the full representation of selected objects if it chooses to do so.
Coming from a lot of frustrating times with WSDL/Soap, I very much like the REST paradigm, but am trying to solve two basic problems in our application, before moving over to REST. The first problem relates to the lack of an interface document. I think I finally see how to handle this situation: One can query his way down from a top-level "/resources" resource using various requests of GET, HEAD, and OPTIONS to find the one needed resource in the correct hypermedia format. Is this the idea? If so, the client need only be provided with a top-level resource URI: http://www.mywebservicesite.com/mywebservice/resources. He will then have to do some searching and possible keep track of what he is discovering, so that he can use the URIs again efficiently in future to do GETs, POSTs, PUTs, and DELETEs. Are there any thoughts on what should happen here?
The other problem is that we cannot use descriptive URLs like /resources/../customer/Madonna/phonenumber. We do have an implementation of opaque URLs we use in the context of a session, and I'm wondering how opaque URLs might be applied to REST. The general problem is how to keep domain-specific details out of URLs, and still benefit from what REST has to offer.
The other problem is that we cannot use descriptive URLs like /resources/../customer/Madonna/phonenumber.
I think you've misunderstood the point of opaque URIs. The notion of opaque URIs is with respect to clients: A client shall not decipher a URI to guess anything of semantic meaning from it. So a service may well have URIs like /resources/.../customer/Madonna/phonenumber, and that's quite a good idea. The URIs should be treated as opaque by clients: not infer from the URI that it represents Madonna's phone number, and that Madonna is a customer of some sort. That knowledge can only be obtained by looking inside the URI itself, or perhaps by remembering where the URI was discovered.
Edit:
A consequence of this is that navigation should happen by links, not by deconstructing the URI. So if you see /resouces/customer/Madonna/phonenumber (and it actually represents Customer Madonna's phone number) you should have links in that resource to point to the Madonna resource: e.g.
{
"phone_number" : "01-234-56",
"customer_URI": "/resources/customer/Madonna"
}
That's the only way to navigate from a phone number resource to a customer resource. An important aspect is that the server implementation might or might not have domain specific information in the URI, The Madonna record might just as well live somewhere else: /resources/customers/byid/81496237. This is why clients should treat URIs as opaque.
Edit 2:
Another question you have (in the comments) is then how a client, with the required no knowledge of the server's URIs is supposed to be able to find anything. Clients have the following possibilities to find resources:
Provide a search interface. This could be done by providing an OpenSearch description document, which tells clients how to search for items. An OpenSearch template can include several variables, and several endpoints, depending on what you're looking for. So if you have a "customer ID" that's unique, you could have the following template: /customers/byid/{proprietary:customerid}", the customerid element needs to be documented somewhere, inside the proprietary namespace. A client can then know how to use such a template.
Provide a custom form. This implies making a custom media type in which you explicitly define how (based on an instance of the document) a URI to a customer can be forged. <customers template="/customers/byid/{id}"/>. The documentation (for the media type) would have to state that the template attribute must be interpreted as a relative URI after the string substitution "{id}" to an actual customer ID.
Provide links to all resources. Some resources aren't innumerable, so you can simply make a link to each and every one of them, optionally including identifying information along with the links. This could also be done in a custom media type: <customer id="12345" href="/customer/byid/12345"/>.
It should be noted that #1 and #2 are two ways of saying the same thing: Clients are allowed to create URIs if they
haven't got the URI structure a priori
a media type exists for which the documentation states that URIs should be created
This is much the same way as a web browser has no idea of any URI structure on the web, except for the rules laid out in the definition of HTML forms, to add a ? and then all the query parameters separated by &.
In theory, if you have a customer with id 12345, then you could actually dispense with the href, since you could plug the customer id 12345 into #1 or #2. It's more common to actually provide real links between resources, rather than always relying on lookup or search techniques.
I haven't really used web RPC systems (WSDL/Soap), but i think the 'interface document' is there mostly to allow client libraries to create the service API, right? if so, REST shouldn't need it, because the verbs are already defined and don't really need to be documented again.
AFAIUI, the REST way is to document the structure of each resource (usually encoded in XML or JSON). In that document, you'll also have to document the relationship between those resources. In my case, a resource is often a container of other resources (sometimes more than one type), therefore the structure doc specifies what field holds a list of URLs pointing to the contained resources. Ideally, only one unique resource will need a single, fixed (documented) URL. everithing else follows from there.
The URL 'style' is meaningless to the client, since it shouldn't 'construct' an URL. Every URL it needs should be already constructed on a resource field. That let's you change the URL structure without changing the client (that has saved tons of time to me). Your URLs can be as opaque or as descriptive as you like. (personally, i don't like text keys or slugs; my keys are all BIGINTs or UUIDs)
I am currently building a REST "agent" that addresses the first part of your question. The agent offers a temporary bookmarking service. The client code that is interacting with the agent can request that an URL be bookmarked using some identifier. If the client code needs to retrieve that representation again, it simply asks the agent for the url that corresponds to the saved bookmark and then navigates to that bookmark. Currently those bookmarks are not persisted so they only last for the lifetime of the client application, but I have found it a useful mechanism for accessing commonly used resources. E.g. The root representation provides a login link. I bookmark that link and if the client ever receives a 401 then I can redirect to the "login" bookmark.
To address an issue you mentioned in a comment, the agent also has the ability to store retrieved representations in a dictionary. If it becomes necessary to aggregate and manipulate multiple representations at the same time then I can simply request that the agent store the current representation in a dictionary associated to a key and then continue navigating to the next resource. Once the client has accumulated all the necessary representation it can do what it needs to do.
I've found myself unsatisfied with Django's ability to render JSON data. If I use built in serializes then database foreign key relationships are not included in the data (only the keys). Also, it seems to be impossible to include custom data in the json feed that isn't part of the model being serialized.
As a test I implemented a template that rendered some JSON for the resultset of a particular model. I was able to include/exclude whatever parts of the model I wanted and was able to include custom data as well.
The test seemed to work well and wasn't slower than the recommended serialization methods.
Are there any pitfalls to this using this method of serialization?
While it's hard to say definitively whether this method has any pitfalls, it's the method we use in production as you control everything that is serialized, even if the underlying model is changed. We've been running a high traffic application in for almost two years using this method.
Hope this helps.
One problem might be escaping metacharacters like ". Django's template system automatically escapes dangerous characters, but it's set up to do that for HTML. You should look up exactly what the template escaping does, and compare that to what's dangerous in JSON. Otherwise, you could cause XSS problems.
You could think about constructing a data structure of dicts and lists, and then running a JSON serializer on that, rather than directly on your database model.
I don't understand why you see the choice as being either 'use Django serializers' or 'write JSON in templates'. The middle way, which to my mind is much more robust and fits your use case well, is to build up your data as Python lists/dictionaries and then simply use simplejson.dumps() to convert it to a JSON string.
We use this method to get custom JSON format consumed by datatables.net
It was the easiest method we find to accomplish this task and it looks very fine with no problems so far.
You can find details here: http://datatables.net/development/server-side/django
So far, generating JSON from templates, we've run into the need to escape newlines. Looking at doing simplejson.dumps() next.
I have a resource at a URL that both humans and machines should be able to read:
http://example.com/foo-collection/foo001
What is the best way to distinguish between human browsers and machines, and return either HTML or a domain-specific XML response?
(1) The Accept type field in the request?
(2) An additional bit of URL? eg:
http://example.com/foo-collection/foo001 -> returns HTML
http://example.com/foo-collection/foo001?xml -> returns, er, XML
I do not wish to oblige machines reading the resource to parse HTML (or XHTML for that matter). Machines like the googlebot should receive the HTML response.
It is reasonable to assume I control the machine readers.
If this is under your control, rather than adding a query parameter why not add a file extension:
http://example.com/foo-collection/foo001.html - return HTML
http://example.com/foo-collection/foo001.xml - return XML
Apart from anything else, that means if someone fetches it with wget or saves it from their browser, it'll have an appropriate filename without any fuss.
My preference is to make it a first-class part of the URI. This is debatable, since there are -- in a sense -- multiple URI's for the same resource. And is "format" really part of the URI?
http://example.com/foo-collection/html/foo001
http://example.com/foo-collection/xml/foo001
These are very easy deal with in a web framework that has URI parsing to direct the request to the proper application.
If this is indeed the same resource with two different representations, the HTTP invites you to use the Accept-header as you suggest. This is probably a very reliable way to distinguish between the two different scenarios. You can be plenty sure that user agents (including search engine spiders) send the Accept-header properly.
About the machine agents you are going to give XML; are they under your control? In that case you can be doubly sure that Accept will work. If they do not set this header properly, you can give XML as default. User agents DO set the header properly.
I would try to use the Accept heder for this, because this is exactly what the Accept header is there for.
The problem with having two different URLs is that is is not automatically apparent that these two represent the same underlying resource. This can be bad if a user finds an URL in one program, which renders HTML, and pastes it in the other, which needs XML. At this point a smart user could probably change the URL appropriately, but this is just a source of error that you don't need.
I would say adding a Query String parameter is your best bet. The only way to automatically detect whether your client is a browser(human) or application would be to read the User-Agent string from the HTTP Request. But this is easily set by any application to mimic a browser, you're not guaranteed that this is going to work.