According to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff823993%28v=VS.85%29.aspx, during this event the web filter can request GUID of the matching rule. I am assuming that is done by performing a GetServerVariable with type of SELECTED_RULE_GUID, since I could find no other readily identifiable means of doing so.
My problem comes from the fact that I want to see if the rule is allowing or blocking the request. If it's being blocked then my filter doesn't have to take any action, but if it's being allowed I need to do some work. SF_NOTIFY_POLICY_CHECK_COMPLETED seems to be the best event to watch, since it occurs last enough that authentication and various ms_auth traffic has been handled, but just before the request either gets routed or fetched from cache.
I had thought that perhaps I needed to use COM and the IFPC interfaces (following along with example code for registering Web Filters to TMG) to get details on the rule. However, going down via FPC -> FPCArray -> FPCArrayPolicy -> FPCPolicyRules, the only element-returning function takes either an index or a name.
Which is problematic given that I only have a GUID.
The FPCPolicyRule object (singular) doesn't seem have any field related to GUID either, which eliminates just iterating over the collection for it.
So my question boils down to, from the SF_NOTIFY_POLICY_CHECK_COMPLETED event, how would a web filter determine if the request has been allowed or denied?
After more investigation and testing, the GUID is accessible via the PersistentName of the FPCPolicyRule object. Since FPCPolicyRules->Item member only works on either Name or Index, I had to iterate through its items comparing each PersistentName against the GUID.
Apologies if this was obvious, took me a good day to work out :)
Related
Hey I m using MessageRoutingCallback to route to a function in spring cloud functions. It needs FunctionRoutingResult for routing. I also wanted to edit the message. The spring cloud docs says.
"Additionally, the FunctionRoutingResult provides another constructor allowing you to provide an instance of Message as second argument to be used down stream".
But the problem is the constructor with Message type in FunctionRoutingResult is internal and cannot be accessed outside.
Am I doing something wrong here. Any insight would be helpful
Couple of things.
As the documentation explains it is made to assist with routing decisions. For example if routing decision should be made based on payload which may need to be temporarily converted.
The reality is that it is a very bad practice to let framework make such decisions based on the payload, since payload is a privileged information. Similar to the letter in the envelope where mailman does not read the actual letter to make proper routing decisions. .. those all come from the envelope itself. So I will actually update the documentation to remove that paragraph.
And it is definitely not there to modify the message. That would be improper use of MessageRoutingCallback. To modify message you can use function composition. For example MessageRoutingCallback you check some header in the incoming message, determined that the function name should be foo but then actually output modifier|foo as function definition.
I was wondering about the proper way to store state between sequence invocations in WSO2ESB. In other words, if I have a scheduled task that invokes sequence S, at the end of iteration 0 I want to store some String variable (lets' call it ID), and then I want to read this ID at the start (or in the middle) of iteration 1, and so on.
To be more precise, I want to get a list of new SMS messages from an existing service, Twilio to be exact. However, Twilio only lets me get messages for selected days, i.e. there's no way for me to say give me only new messages (since I last checked / newer than certain message ID). Therefore, I'd like to create a scheduled task that will query Twilio and pass only new messages via REST call to my service. In order to do this, my sequence needs to query Twilio and then go through the returned list of messages, and discard messages that were already reported in the previous invocation. Now, to do this I need to store some state between different task/sequence invocations, i.e. at the end of the sequence I need to store the ID of the newest message in the current batch. This ID can then be used in subsequent invocation to determine which messages were already reported in the previous invocation.
I could use DBLookup and DB Report mediators, but it seems like an overkill (using a database to store a single string) and not very performance friendly. On the other hand, as far as I can see Class mediators are instantiated as singletons, therefore I could create a custom Class mediator that would manage this state and filter the list of messages to be sent to my service. I am quite sure that this will work, but I was wondering if this is the way to go, or there might be a more elegant solution that I missed.
We can think of 3 options here.
Using DBLookup/Report as you've suggested
Using the Carbon registry to store the values (this again uses DBs in the back end)
Using a Custom mediator to hold the state and read/write it from/to properties
Out of these three, obviously the third one will deliver the best performance since everything will be in-memory. It's also quite simple to implement and sometime back I did something similar and wrote a blog post here.
But on the other hand, the first two options can keep the state even when the server crashes, if it's a concern for your use case.
Since esb 490 you can persist and read properties from registry using property mediator.
https://docs.wso2.com/display/ESB490/Property+Mediator
I'm looking for a way how to deal with a following problem:
Imagine you modify a resource and that subsequently causes update of other resources.
E.g. you issue a PUT to, say /api/orders/1234, which by definition changes state of all other Orders of given user. There may be UI clients that display the table of Orders and they should know that not only single item in the table was updated, but eventually other as well.
Now, is there any standard way how inform a clients about such a situation?
So far I can only think of sending back the 205 Reset Content HTTP status code to inform the client that he should refresh the state, as not just a single thing was changed.
There are multiple solutions.
You can define specific resources as non-cacheable, so the client does not cache them at all. (no-store)
You can try giving a max-age of 0, so the client will have to re-validate those resources always. In this case you might have to implement ETags and conditional GETs, but it will be easier on the server than option 1.
Some push method like WebSockets.
If you really want to "notify" potentially multiple clients of a change, then it sounds like you would need option 3.
However, correctly configured caching is normally good enough. For example you could mark not-yet-executed orders as not cached (max-age=0), but as soon as it is executed, you might mark it to be cached indefinitely, since it can not change anymore.
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.