In Kohana 3.1.x framework.
What are the benefits to send data with internal requests like this
$post = Request::factory('module/data')
->method(Request::POST)
->post(array('some' => 'random data'))
->execute()
->response;
if you could simply send data like this
Module::instance()->data(array('some' => 'random data'));
In this example Module is a random module and data is some random method.
I'll call this Module via ajax and internal requests. I'm planning to design RESTful API.
QUESTION IS: Why use HMVC instead of just directly using an internal class API
Because they're internal requests, there is no additional HTTP request being made.
You might want to take a look at Request_Client_Internal and compare it to Request_Client_External. After that you should feel enlightened :)
Edit:
You should know that AJAX requests aren't the only "external HTTP requests". cURL, PECL HTTP, file_get_contents() and other PHP functions will also send an external HTTP request (imho you should read the RFC 2616 to understand how HTTP actually works).
With HMVC calls you can use the same controller for both Ajax and internal requests. Also, it can handle a standard (non-ajax) http-requests, form submits for example. All-in-one solution, single entry point.
If you dont want HMVC calls, you will require one call for internal request (somewhere in base controller) and another one - in a special Ajax controller. Also you may have a problems with a data rendering (usually HMVC and ajax calls are using different templates). Its not DRY.
I would comment on the above, what biakaveron said, but I can't yet, so I put it as an answer.
#stacknoob: Could you use Module::instance()->data(array(...)) as controller's action? You could - with some extra code.
Instead, what biakaveron already said, you can keep your code logic and have the action return the same result for AJAX and HMVC requests. In one place. DRY + KISS.
Related
Suppose I have URL as
http://someurl.com/Search?q=a&page=8
(Above mentioned URL is getting called throug AJAX, in MVC4.paging)
What I want is to show only upto http://someurl.com/Search?q=a
I want to hide my second parameter which is page=8
Is this possible?
EDIT: More confusion to add.
<a data-ajax="true" data-ajax-loading="#divLoading" data-ajax-method="POST" data-ajax-mode="replace" data-ajax-success="successPaging" data-ajax-update="#searchresults" href="/Search?q=a&page=1" title="Go to first page"><<</a>
Is button of Next in my Paging, it is making an AJAX request, So I don't know how to change GET to POST for this.
The URL isn't there just for looks; it's telling the server what resource is being requested, and in the case of a query string, that's information the server needs to return a response. http://someurl.com/Search?q=a is a completely different resource than http://someurl.com/Search?q=a&page=8. With a GET request, all you have is the URL, so all the information the server needs must be in the URL. What others in the comments are telling you to do is use a POST request, which among other things includes a post body. In other words, you can pass information to the server both in the URL and in the post body. That allows you to remove the page parameter from the URL and include it in the post body instead. That's the only way you can achieve what you want.
That said, strictly speaking, a POST is inappropriate for fetching a resource like this. POST should be used to update or modify a resource or to call some atomic method in an API scenario. It can also be used for the creation of resources, although PUT is more appropriate there. GET is supposed to be used to return a resource which is not variable. For example, any request to http://someurl.com/Search?q=a&page=8 should always return the same response no matter what client requests it. And, it's even less important what URL is actually being used because the user does not see it at all, since you're requesting it via AJAX (it won't show in the navigation bar). Just keep it as a GET request and leave the parameters as they are.
Shouldn't PUT be used to Create and POST used to Update since PUT is idempotent.
That way multiple PUTs for the same Order will place only one Order?
The difference is that a PUT is for a known resource, and therefor used for updating, as stated here in rfc2616.
The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is
reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a
POST request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed
entity. That resource might be a data-accepting process, a gateway to
some other protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In
contrast, the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with
the request -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the
server MUST NOT attempt to apply the request to some other resource.
I do see where you are coming from based on the names themselves however.
I usually look at POST as it should be the URI that will handle the content of my request (in most cases the params as form values) and thus creating a new resource, and PUT as the URI which is the subject of my request (/users/1234), a resource which already exists.
I believe the nomenclature goes back a long ways, consider the early web. One might want to POST their message to a message board, and then PUT additional content into their message at a later date.
There's no strict correspondence between HTTP methods and CRUD. This is a convention adopted by some frameworks, but it has nothing to do with REST constraints.
A PUT request asks the server to replace whatever is at the given URI with the enclosed representation, completely ignoring the current contents. A good analogy is the mv command in a shell. It creates the new file at the destination if it doesn't exist, or replaces whatever exists. In either case, it completely ignores whatever is in there. You can use this to create, but also to update something, as long as you're sending a complete representation.
POST asks the target resource to process the payload according to predefined rules, so it's the method to use for any operation that isn't already standardized by the HTTP protocol. This means a POST can do anything you want, as long as you're not duplicating functionality from other method -- for instance, using POST for retrieval when you should be using GET -- and you document it properly.
So, you can use both for create and update, depending on the exact circumstances, but with PUT you must have consistent semantics for everything in your API and you can't make partial updates, and with POST you can do anything you want, as long as you document how exactly it works.
PUT should be used for creates if and only if possible URI of the new resource is known for a client. New URI maybe advertised by the service in resource representation. For example service may provide with some kind of submit form and specify action URI on it which can be a pre populated URI of the new resource. In this case yes, if initial PUT request successfully creates resource following PUT request will only replace it.
It's ok to use POST for updates, it was never said that POST is for "create" operations only.
You are trying to correlate CRUD to HTTP, and that doesn't work. The philosophy of HTTP is different, and does not natively correspond to CRUD. The confusion arises because of REST; which does correspond to CRUD. REST uses HTTP, but with additional constraints upon what is allowed. I've prepared this Q & A to explain the HTTP approach to things:
What's being requested?
A POST requests an action upon a collection.
A PUT requests the placement of a resource into a collection.
What kind of object is named in the URI?
The URI of a POST identifies a collection.
The URI of a PUT identifies a resource (within a collection).
How is the object specified in the URI, for POST and PUT respectively?
/collectionId
/collectionId/resourceId
How much freedom does the HTTP protocol grant the collection?
With a POST, the collection is in control.
With a PUT, the requestor is in control (unless request fails).
What guarantees does the HTTP protocol make?
With a POST, the HTTP protocol does not define what is supposed to happen with the collection; the rfc states that the server should "process ... the request according to the [collection's] own specific semantics." (FYI: The rfc uses the confusing phrase "target resource" to mean "collection".) It is up to the server to decide upon a contract that defines what a POST will do.
With a PUT, the HTTP protocol requires that a response of "success" must guarantee that the collection now contains a resource with the ID and content specified by the request.
Can the operation result in the creation of a new resource within the collection?
Yes, or no, depending upon the contract. If the contract is a REST protocol, then insertion is required. When a POST creates a new resource, the response will be 201.
Yes, but that means the requestor is specifying the new ID. This is fine for bulletin boards, but problematic with databases. (Hence, for database applications, PUT will generally not insert, but only update.) When a PUT creates a new resource, the response will be 201.
Is the operation idempotent?
A POST is generally not idempotent. (The server can offer any contract it wishes, but idempotency is generally not part of that contract).
A PUT is required to be idempotent. (The state of the identified resource is idempotent. Side effects outside of that resource are allowed.)
Here is the rfc:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231#section-4.3.3
It depends..
you can create/update sites/records with both.
When the client is specifying the URI then PUT is the way to go.
e.g. Any Code Editor like Dreamweaver, PUT is the right protocol to use.
have also a look at this thread: put vs post in rest
Which browser support REST completely?
Means Get,Post,PUT and DELETE method?
I understood the rails way to understand PUT and DELETE is "_method" hidden variable like
<form id="form_id" action="" method="PUT" >
-- form content --
</form>
method="PUT"?
Or am I thinking wrong?
In many REST frameworks calling the HTTP PUT or DELETE operations from a browser can be achieved through what is known as an "Overloaded POST". What this means is you submit the request from the browser to the server as a POST request with some information appended to the URL specifying the actual HTTP method that should be used.
I know that the Restlet framework for Java follows this approach and I believe Rails does as well.
So if you have a REST API defineed like this:
POST - http://myservice/myobject -> creates a new object and
returns the object id
GET - http://myservice/myobject/id ->
returns the object
PUT - http://myservice/myobject/id ->
updates the object
DELETE - http://myservice/myobject/id ->
deletes the object
using Overloaded POST from the browser you could also
POST - http://myservice/myobject/id?method=PUT -> updates the object
POST - http://myservice/myobject/id?method=DELETE -> deletes the object
In fact, for Flex which does not support PUT or DELETE, this is the only way to call these REST operations.
This question is almost the same as this one: Are the PUT, DELETE, HEAD, etc methods available in most web browsers?,
see there for a great answer.
Also, "GET, POST, PUT and DELETE" is not "REST". All four are different methods in the HTTP specification, REST is an architectural style that uses those four.
PUT and DELETE are just specifications, and are not implemented by any browser and web server.
So donot design RESTful web service with support for PUT or DELETE if you are sending request.
I'm considering using the hash method to create static urls to content that is managed by ajax calls in a Asp.Net MVC. The proof of concept i'm working on is a profile page /user/profile where one can browse and edit different sections. You could always ask for the following url /user/profile#password to access directly to you profile page, in the change password section
However, i'm wondering if i'm not starting this the bad way, since apparently i can't access the part after the hash in any way, except by declaring a route value for the hash in global.asax. So i'm wondering if this is the right way to access this part of the url?
Am i supposed to declare a route value, or is there another way to work with hash values (a framework, javascript or mvc)?
Edited to add:
In pure javascript, i have no problem using the window.location.hash property, i'm not sure though how standard it is in today's browsers, hence the question about a javascript framework/plugin that would use it.
The thing is that the part that follows the hash (#) is never sent to the server into the HTTP request so the server has absolutely no way of reading it. So no need to waste time in searching for something that doesn't exist.
You could on the other hand tune your routes to generate links that contain the hash part so that client scripts can read it.
Send the hash value document.location.hash as a parameter to the controller action of your choice.
This can be done in the code if needed...
RedirectResult(Url.Action("profile") + "#password");
should work fine
How can we GET/POST the request to server with scriptaculous.js or prototype.js.
Please explain with brief example if possible..
Regards,
Akash Jain
You ca use Ajax.Request to send Ajax requests to your server (must be on the same domain name). For instance (quoting the doc) :
new Ajax.Request('/some_url', {
method: 'get',
parameters: {company: 'example', limit: 12}
});
And, for POST, replace 'get' by 'post' ;-)
See :
Introduction to Ajax
Ajax.Request
Note that this can be used only to send request to a script on your own domainname, because of the Same Origin Policy implemented in web browsers for security reasons.
If you want to send requests to another domain, you'll have to go through a proxy installed on your own (so the request seems to be sent to your domain).
Scriptaculous is an "effects" framework, to do stuff like animations, drag'n drop, and that kinf of things.
It uses Prototype, but doesn't provide any Ajax-requesting functionnaly : it only uses those of Prototype, when necessary.
Here it is. It's a common usecase and thus very prominent in the documentation for Prototype.
Introduction to Ajax
http://www.prototypejs.org/learn/introduction-to-ajax