Apologies in advance as I'm sure this topic has no doubt been asked before but I couldn't find any post that answers my specific query.
Bearing in mind that I'm new to MVC this is where I have got to. I've got a project developed under VS 2010 using the MVC 3 framework. I've got a search page which consists of 6 fields and a nested model which itself holds around 3 fields.
I can successfully post all this data back to itself and the data is successfully passed as a model and back agian so the fields keep the data which the user has supplied.
Before I move on to actually using this search criteria on another view a thought hit me. I want to keep this search criteria, and possibly even the search results in memory for the duration of the users session.
The reasoning behind this is simply to save my users time by:
a) negating the need to keep re-inputting their search criteria regardless of how they enter or leave the search page
b) speed up the user experience by presenting the search results more quickly
The later isn't as important as the first requirement.
I've done some google searches and indeed had a look through this site on similar topics. From what I've read using sessions (which I would typically use if developing a PHP site) is a no no. From the reasons I've read as to why you shouldn't use sessions seem valid and I'm happy to go along with it.
But now I'm left in a place where I'm scratching my head wondering to myself what exactly is best practice to achieve this simple goal that could be applied to similar situations later down the line in the project.
I also looked at the OutputCache method and that didn't behave as I expected it to. In a test I set the timeout for 30 seconds. After submitting a search I clicked the link to my search page to see if the fields would auto-populate, they didn't. But then clicking the search button the values in the cache were retrieved. I thought I was making progress but when I tried to submit a new value the old value from the cache came back i.e. I couldn't actually change my search criteria with the cache enforced. So I've discounted this as an avenue to explore.
The last option seems to suggest the use of cookies as the most likely candidate, but rightly or wrongly I feel this isn't the best solution. I would have thought the MVC 3 design pattern would have an easier and recommended method of persisting values. I'm sure there is but I've just not discovered it yet.
I have started to use JQuery and again this has been mentioned but I'm not sure this is right direction to take either.
So in summary my question really comes down to what is considered by the wider community as best practice for persisting data in my situation. Effiency, scalability and resiliancy is paramount as I'll have a large global user base that will end up using this web app.
Thanks in advance!
Pete
I'd just use cookies. They're simple to use, you can persist them for as long as you want or have them expire when the users closes their browser, and it doesn't sound like you are storing anything sensitive in them.
Related
[Disclaimer: I'm not sure if this kind of question is accepted here as it is about a piece of software deployed already. Rest assured I didn't drop any confidential information. Also do tell me if I violated any rules in SO by posting this so I can take it down immediately]
I have a working Learning Management System web application and I recently received a bug report about a button not showing. After investigating, I have proved that the user was not using the web app as intended. When taking an exam, he was opening multiple tabs to exploit the feature that informs him whether the answer was correct or not. He then will use this information to eliminate the wrong answers and submit all the right answers in another tab/window.
I'm using Rails 4.2. Is there a way to prevent multi-tab browsing? I'm thinking like if a user is signed in and he attempted to open a new tab of the webapp, he should see something like "Please use one tab" and all the features/hyperlinks/buttons are disabled.
Here's a screenshot of how I proved he was using multiple tabs. Notice that there are multiple logs of the same attempt # because the current implementation allows saving a study session and resuming later (this is the part that's exploited). The opening of multiple tabs searches for the most recent attempt session and continues from there. This is also the reason why most of the sessions don't have a duration value -- the user only finishes a study session for one tab (by clicking a button that ends the study session). The system cannot compute for the duration because the other sessions don't have an end timestamp.
-
This is what a single-tab user looks like:
This is more of an application misuse issue more than a bug.
You should add protection not only from multi tab, but for multi browsers aw well, so it can't be purely FrontEnd check.
One of the solutions could be using ActionCable to check if a user has an active connection already and then act accordingly.
Another, for example, generate a GUID in JS and pass it with every answer. If its different from previous answer, it means user opened a new window.
But of course the solution would depend on your current architecture, without knowing how do you currently organise client-server communication it's hard to give exact and optimal solution.
I found an answer here. I just placed this js in the application view to prevent any extra instance of the website.
Thanks for everyone who pitched in.
I've built a Rails app, basically a CRUD app for memos/notes.
A notes title must be unique. If a user enters a name already taken a warning message is shown prompting them to chose another.
My question is how to make this latency for this feedback as close to zero as possible. When creating a note little UX speed bumps like this will get annoying for user quickly.
Of course the main bottleneck is the network. Inspired by Meteor (and mini-mongo) I was thinking some kind of local storage could be a solution?
I.E. When app first loads, send ALL JSON to the client with ALL note titles. The app (front end is Angular JS) could check LocalStorage (or App Cache, Web SQL?) instead of incurring a network round trip. The feedback would be instant.
I've used LocalStorage in the past to augment an app, but in the scenario it'd really seriously depend on it. I'm not sure how confident I'd be building on something that user might not have. Also as the number of user Notes/Memos I have doubts how feasible it is to send a JSON object down the wire with ALL the note titles. That might get pretty big. On the other hand MeteorJS seems to do this with no probs.
Has anyone done something similar or have any pointers? Thanks!
I don't know how Meteor works here, but you're right that storing all note titles in localStorage is not a good idea. Actually, you don't need localStorage here, you can just put it in a JS array, because you need this data only once (when checking new note title).
I think, there could be 2 possible solutions:
You can change your business requirements and allow non-unique title. Is there really a necessity for titles to be unique?
You can verify note title when user submits form. In this case you can provide suggestions for users, so they not spend time guessing vacant title.
Or, if titles must be unique only within a user (two users can have same title for their notes), you can really load all note titles in JS array and check uniqueness while users types in a title.
Or you can send an AJAX request checking title uniqueness as soon as user finished typing the title. In this case you can win some seconds.
Or you can send an AJAX request as soon as user typed in 3 symbols. The request will return all titles that begin with these 3 symbols, so you don't need to load all the titles.
I'm trying to develop page for displaying survey questions on a mobile view using mvc. I have to display one question at a time and on clicking next it should display next question.
Am having hard time to achieve this. I initially thought I could using paging, as all the questions are inside a List collection. but then I get struck on how to save the answers selected by user for each questions. From performance side its wise to send a collection back to business layer to save all the selected answers to DB rather than one at a time.
For desktop browser I displayed all the questions on single page and one submit button at the end of the page. So on there is no issue with this one. Problem arises with mobile view.
So could someone please suggest on how to achieve this.
Thanks in advance,
Sai
From performance side its wise to send a collection back to business layer to save all the selected answers to DB rather than one at a time. - i dont think it would be much of a performance issue.
still.there are multiple options for the work you wanna do.
Use cookies as the storage mechanism - this way answers can be stored as key values pairs key being the index of the question.
this way every time you request a new question using ajax via jquery or simpel post back you can you can set cookie to the answer you have got.
save it at server side using session storage same as key value pairs.
use HTML 5 storage.
you can use this to store data at client side using jquery
I would store the questions in a database. Then each user, if the site is accessed via a mobile device (could detect via JavaScript) you would then save a field in their info (in the database) containing the index of the question that they're up to. I think this is a good idea as it would work cross device, if they start on a phone, then move to a tablet, their 'session' will still persist. Then when they're up to the next question, change the index, and query the database using the user's question index for the relevant information to produce the question.
I'm using acts_as_taggable_on for tagging items across my system so that they're easily searchable.
Now I have a UX problem: I'm noticing lots of places where users choose certain minor states (for example, closing a one-time help box or moving to the next javascript-run step in a given page). We have here situations that are both too minor/numerous/dynamic/fast-changing to be put into a database table (imagine having to migrate with every UX change!), and that there is a need to persist some of these choices beyond the session.
In this case, is there anything wrong with using tags to store these simple decisions? For example, user.set_tags_on(:ui, "closed_index_help") or user.set_tags_on(:ui, "tutorial_1_done"), then showing/hiding these elements in the future by looking at the user's ui_list.
Are there drawbacks to this I'm not considering or is this a prudent way to go?
Another way might be to store the information in the SESSION. You will of course have to migrate the session information to be stored in the DB rather than the cookie, but at least that way - you only have to retrieve the session once.
Yesterday morning I noticed Google Search was using hash parameters:
http://www.google.com/#q=Client-side+URL+parameters
which seems to be the same as the more usual search (with search?q=Client-side+URL+parameters). (It seems they are no longer using it by default when doing a search using their form.)
Why would they do that?
More generally, I see hash parameters cropping up on a lot of web sites. Is it a good thing? Is it a hack? Is it a departure from REST principles? I'm wondering if I should use this technique in web applications, and when.
There's a discussion by the W3C of different use cases, but I don't see which one would apply to the example above. They also seem undecided about recommendations.
Google has many live experimental features that are turned on/off based on your preferences, location and other factors (probably random selection as well.) I'm pretty sure the one you mention is one of those as well.
What happens in the background when a hash is used instead of a query string parameter is that it queries the "real" URL (http://www.google.com/search?q=hello) using JavaScript, then it modifies the existing page with the content. This will appear much more responsive to the user since the page does not have to reload entirely. The reason for the hash is so that browser history and state is maintained. If you go to http://www.google.com/#q=hello you'll find that you actually get the search results for "hello" (even if your browser is really only requesting http://www.google.com/) With JavaScript turned off, it wouldn't work however, and you'd just get the Google front page.
Hashes are appearing more and more as dynamic web sites are becoming the norm. Hashes are maintained entirely on the client and therefore do not incur a server request when changed. This makes them excellent candidates for maintaining unique addresses to different states of the web application, while still being on the exact same page.
I have been using them myself more and more lately, and you can find one example here: http://blixt.org/js -- If you have a look at the "Hash" library on that page, you'll see my implementation of supporting hashes across browsers.
Here's a little guide for using hashes for storing state:
How?
Maintaining state in hashes implies that your application (I'll call it application since you generally only use hashes for state in more advanced web solutions) relies on JavaScript. Without JavaScript, the only function of hashes would be to tell the browser to find content somewhere on the page.
Once you have implemented some JavaScript to detect changes to the hash, the next step would be to parse the hash into meaningful data (just as you would with query string parameters.)
Why?
Once you've got the state in the hash, it can be modified by your code (or your user) to represent the current state in your application. There are many reasons for why you would want to do this.
One common case is when only a small part of a page changes based on a variable, and it would be inefficient to reload the entire page to reflect that change (Example: You've got a box with tabs. The active tab can be identified in the hash.)
Other cases are when you load content dynamically in JavaScript, and you want to tell the client what content to load (Example: http://beta.multifarce.com/#?state=7001, will take you to a specific point in the text adventure.)
When?
If you had a look at my "JavaScript realm" you'll see a border-line overkill case. I did it simply because I wanted to cram as much JavaScript dynamics into that page as possible. In a normal project I would be conservative about when to do this, and only do it when you will see positive changes in one or more of the following areas:
User interactivity
Usually the user won't see much difference, but the URLs can be confusing
Remember loading indicators! Loading content dynamically can be frustrating to the user if it takes time.
Responsiveness (time from one state to another)
Performance (bandwidth, server CPU)
No JavaScript?
Here comes a big deterrent. While you can safely rely on 99% of your users to have a browser capable of using your page with hashes for state, there are still many cases where you simply can't rely on this. Search engine crawlers, for example. While Google is constantly working to make their crawler work with the latest web technologies (did you know that they index Flash applications?), it still isn't a person and can't make sense of some things.
Basically, you're on a crossroads between compatability and user experience.
But you can always build a road inbetween, which of course requires more work. In less metaphorical terms: Implement both solutions so that there is a server-side URL for every client-side URL that outputs relevant content. For compatible clients it would redirect them to the hash URL. This way, Google can index "hard" URLs and when users click them, they get the dynamic state stuff!
Recently google also stopped serving direct links in search results offering instead redirects.
I believe both have to do with gathering usage statistics, what searches were performed by the same user, in what sequence, what of the search results the user has followed etc.
P.S. Now, that's interesting, direct links are back. I absolutely remember seeing there only redirects in the last couple of weeks. They are definitely experimenting with something.