Hello stackoverflow pals.I am a new rails learner. My question is: I am listing all items in index and also i am usin some ajax in this page to insert new items to database. After inserting new items to database, should i get all items from database again and replace whole list of items or just add new item to list by using insert_html? Thank you.
Adding only the new items to the list is likely to be more responsive and will keep network traffic lower. However, it's also going to be a bit more complex for you as the programmer, since you'll have to figure out where to insert it and generally do more management of the table state. But either way can be a valid approach.
If you are keeping track of deletions client-side via AJAX and updating your client's view on delete as well as on insert you should not need to replace all the listings very often. It probably would make sense to poll the server periodically if multiple users are manipulating data at the same time so that one user doesn't end up with a stale view. You should probably look at a Comet implementation like Juggernaut in that case so that the server can push data to the client rather than relying on simple polling.
You also may want to consider beefing up your client-side Javascript and implement pure JSON passing between client and server. This way you only pass the data back and forth from your server to the client and the client's browser keeps the view up to date based on the JSON from the server and the logic you build with Javascript.
If you're at all worried about large amounts of traffic hitting the page, I would push as much as you can to the cilent. Do your insert and update the list accordingly.
If new items always go at the bottom and you can't sort them, I'd just append the new item to the bottom.
If you can sort them or need to insert it in a specific place, I'd re-render the whole table.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about the performance difference until it became a problem; I'd just go with the simplest thing that worked.
Related
I've worked on several iOS apps, some of them utilize Core Data, and some of them don't. While I consider myself having a basic to somewhat good understanding of Core Data, there's always something that makes me doubt the usefulness of it. I've done a lot of reading on the subject, and the general consensus seems to be the advantages of using it outweighs the disadvantages. I recently submitted an app without using Core Data, and always planned on going back to update the project to utilize it when I have the time for some optimization work. Now's the time, but I wonder if it makes sense for the app I'm working on, and maybe I am not using it correctly all along. Please advise and point out what I am missing.
The project I am working on is a social networking app, which also has a front-end site. We have standard features like a newsfeed, event listing, the ability to follow/unfollow someone, and a map with POIs at user's location. Currently, we're using pagination whenever needed when requesting data from server.
My understanding of why Core Data is great:
Easier to manage data with complicated relationship
Easier to access data without having to pass them around
Easier to manipulate, fetch, and sort your data
Better memory utilization
Improve perceived performance by preloading data stored locally until latest data's received
The problem I am having is, since I am using pagination when requesting for data instead of requesting for all at once. The data stored locally is only a subset of the current state in the database. Let's use newsfeed as an example. If I do the following, it will cause some problems:
User manually refresh the newsfeed -> Controller notifies model that it needs the latest 20 items -> Model requests for the latest 20 items in the newsfeed and save them as NSManagedObject -> Model notifies controller that data is ready -> Fetch the latest 20 items to show in UITableView
If user A refreshes the newsfeed, background the app, and then user B deletes his post in the newsfeed (let's say it was 10th item) before user A foregrounds the app again to refresh the newsfeed. In user A's newsfeed, B's post will still be up there because according to the createdAt attribute, it's indeed one of the latest 20 items.
To fix this problem, I can think of a few solutions:
Add a flag to the item to indicate it's removed
Always discard local data when new data arrives
Disable pagination
Instead of using the workflow described above, always present the requested data only instead of fetching the latest
Solution 1 means custom code is required to deal with different clients since browser doesn't need deleted items but iOS client does. However, even though it can work, it can potentially mess up the pagination mechanism and can cause weird behaviours in the client. For example, if a large amount of items gets removed, the latest 20 items will contain only a few items that will actually show up in the newsfeed on the client when user refreshes it. As user follows more people, more stories will be inserted in his newsfeed as well. This solution won't work very well in this situation.
Solution 2 totally defeats the purpose of using Core Data in the first place unless I am missing something.
Solution 3 means the client always needs to request for all data. This is nearly impossible to do because as you get more data, the time to retrieve and process them will make the app slow and unresponsive. It also doesn't make sense from technical and UX point of view.
Solution 4 also kinda defeats the purpose of using Core Data because it's the same workflow when we only store data in memory. You can still fetch and find objects but they might be invalid on the server already at the time of access.
Am I missing something? How is Core Data supposed to be used in this scenario? How do you ensure data consistency when the client doesn't have all the data? Thanks you in advance.
I have a object that i want to store for a moment. The object is in a controller for now, the controller will generate a view. A AJAX request is made from the view to next controller. For that moment i need the object previously stored. Previously, i used session and it worked well. But not sure it is the right thing to do. Is session the answer for this or is there anything else?
I have used cache also.but as per the cache concept.It will access for all the users.So one user data will be override to another.So the cached object data will be change for the same user.I need to handle the data storage for an particular user(Independent).
How is it possible? anyother approach is there please share me.
In Controller I have used Httpcontext.cache["key"]=dataset;
but some one suggested like this.but its not displaying
Explain:
In Controller: httpcontext.current.cache is not coming.
HttpContext.Currenthandler and HttpContext.Currentnotification properties only coming.So How can we handle the temp data storage in MVC.
Please help me.
You could use TempData if you want to store data for the next request only. If data should be accessible between multiple requests, then use Session. Here is short explanation of each one with examples.
As Alex said you could use TempData but if you want to use the data in multiple request, you could use TempData.Keep("YourKey") after reading the value to retain the data for the next request too. For your Information TempData internally uses Session to store your data (temporarily)
I would recommend URL parameters for a HTTP Get, or hidden form fields for a HTTP Post, if this is short lived. This is highly about avoiding the session.
But if it should really persist, then a database might be a reasonable location. Imagine a shopping cart that you don't want to dump just because a session timed out; because you'd like to remind the user next time about items they still haven't purchased.
Why not use the session? I don't generally recommend using the session, as you could find yourself with a global variable that two different browser windows are manipulating. Imagine a glass. One window is trying to fill it with Ice Tea. Another window is trying to fill it with Lemonade. But what do you have? Is it Lemonade? Is it Ice Tea? Or is it an Arnold-Palmer? If you try to put too much stuff on the session, and overly expect it to just be there, you might create an application that is non-deterministic if heaven forbid a user opens a second window or tab, and switches back and forth between the windows.
I'm more ok with Temp Data, if you truly have no other options. But this is not for persisting data for more than a second. Temp data will disappear after the first request reads it, as in, it's meant for a very temporary usage.
I personally only use TempData if I have to do a redirect where I can't otherwise keep it with me, or if I need to have that data for say generating a PDF or image that is going to be called via a HTTP Get by a viewer on the actual page, and then only if the model data is too large for the GET url ( many browsers only support just over 2000 characters, which long description or many fields could fill up.)
But again, pushing items around in hidden form variables, or in url parameters can be safe, because you have no multiple window use conflicts (each carries around its own data for peace of mind.)
I am trying to convert my asp.net mvc4 app, which had fairly heavy use of SessionState, into a stateless app. I understand that I can store this information in the DB, and intend to do so.
My question, though, is about my particular architecture. My app has a main 'page' consisting of a number of partial view panels, which each have actions in them that can affect the other panels. What i've been doing up to now is storing the entire state of the viewModel (lots of inter-related EF list collections and 'record' objects) in the session, and its been working great. Except when the session just randomly dies.
So, I need to get this data out of the session, and into the DB where I can rebuild the thing at need. My concern is that, if I store the info in the database, every single action done on screen might affect 3-5 different panels, each with their own State updates, thats a minimum of 10 round trips to the DB for every interaction!
What are some strategies I can use to make this idea more scalable?
EXTRA INFO
The view in question here is a sort of POS shopping cart system. There are panels for selecting events, selecting/adding items to the cart, editing cart items, selecting contacts, editing contacts, displaying the cart items, displaying the cart 'subtotals', and finally, a panel with a [checkout] button.
Selecting a new event will change the list of available items. Selecting an item to add to the cart will change the cart item list, subtotals, as well as the checkout panel. Same for editing a cart item.
The main concern is how to recover from a lost session, as I've found the built-in asp.net session code too unreliable. My testers have encountered issues with sessions timing out, and then my app not having any kind of recovery process. When its installed on 1500 sites, each with an average of 10 users, its going to be a plague of lost session issues, and I need to combat that before it becomes a real problem.
I agree that I'm not going stateless...wrong choice of words used in a rush. I'm just trying to move that state into a form that I can rely on past the session failure. My main idea presently is to continue using the session as the local cache for the viewModel data, but to have a fallback operation that can rebuild the viewModel from DB if the session one is lost somehow.
You shouldn't necessarily be using a database to store (what sounds like) data that only needs to be persisted in the short term.
If these changes to the other partials are only relevant in the context of the current "master view," then I would suggest using jQuery AJAX to send off the requests, parse the response JSON and update the other views. Tutorials on jQuery AJAX and ASP.NET MVC are easy to find, if you don't already have the knowledge:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/41828/JQuery-AJAX-with-ASP-NET-MVC
This way, you don't need to make a bunch of round trips. If the changes need to be persisted beyond the context of the current view, make ONE round trip to the database to perform the update and then simply update all of the other partials from the in-memory response from the AJAX call.
You don't need to read from secondary storage multiple times when you already have all of the information you need in-memory. Just do the reading and writing once.
I decided to go with a hybrid approach. I'm still using session, but I'm building out a DB 'recovery' option, so that if the session portion is lost, the DB will be able to provide the values needed to rebuild the session seamlessly.
Seems to be working well, so far.
I have an application that has different data sets depending on which company the user has currently selected (dropdown box on sidebar currently used to set a session variable).
My client has expressed a desire to have the ability to work on multiple different data sets from a single browser simultaneously. Hence, sessions no longer cut it.
Googling seems to imply get or post data along with every request is the way, which was my first guess. Is there a better/easier/rails way to achieve this?
You have a few options here, but as you point out, the session system won't work for you since it is global across all instances of the same browser.
The standard approach is to add something to the URL that identifies the context in which to execute. This could be as simple as a prefix like /companyx/users instead of /users where you're fetching the company slug and using that as a scope. Generally you do this by having a controller base class that does this work for you, then inherit from that for all other controllers that will be affected the same way.
Another approach is to move the company identifying component from the URL to the host name. This is common amongst software-as-a-service providers because it makes sharding your application much easier. Instead of myapp.com/companyx/users you'd have companyx.myapp.com/users. This has the advantage of preserving the existing URL structure, and when you have large amounts of data, you can partition your app by customer into different databases without a lot of headache.
The answer you found with tagging all the URLs using a GET token or a POST field is not going to work very well. For one, it's messy, and secondly, a site with every link being a POST is very annoying to work with as it makes navigating with the back-button or forcing a reload troublesome. The reason it has seen use is because out of the box PHP and ASP do not have support routes, so people have had to make do.
You can create a temporary database table, or use a key-value database and store all data you need in it. The uniq key can be used as a window id. Furthermore, you have to add this window id to each link. So you can receive the corresponding data for each browser tab out of the database and store it in the session, object,...
If you have an object, lets say #data, you can store it in the database using Marshal.dump and get it back with Marshal.load.
using asp.net mvc, I'm initializing a list in the server code, and allowing the end-user to add to the list on the form (using JQuery to add entries). I know how to obtain a list's selected items on a post back, but I don't need to do that here. I want the complete contents of the list accessible in the server code after a post back.
Is a posted list just not going to give me the full content? Should I use Ajax to send each item to the server as each items gets added to the list?
thanks
There are a couple of ways that I can think of doing this.
make an ajax call each time an item is added - as you suggested
when an item is added to the list, you also add a hidden field to the form that will be submitted. Then on post back (although that terminology is very Web Forms-y), in your action method, you'll have access to the contents of the list. If you name things correctly you should be able to model bind to a List.
The latter would be my preference, it depends on your particular situation though.
Some things to keep in mind:
Bandwidth from the user to the web server is very small compared to bandwidth from a database to the web server
The database most likely cached whatever query you just ran to populate that list
It sounds like you're asking for the entire list to be included with the postback data, and that means having the browser upload that data for the user.
With all that in mind, it should be obvious that you're better off rebuilding your base list from the database.