What i mean by the title is: we have a system with different submodules, each with their own (MVC web) application. I thought about creating a REST service that accesses the database and gives data to the applications so no application themselves can access a database directly. The API calls on all the methods that access the database and an application chooses, which to use etc. Basically the web application's models aren't themselves mapped to any database entities which is commonly done in MVC applications (like in ASP.net with entityframework).
Why i thought about this idea in the first place is because i couldn't figure out how to map models to database tables without having to map to all of the tables and their attributes (switching some off for some applications, we're using Phalcon) and have hundreds of unused models in each application. How bad of an idea is creating a REST API for this?
If each application will access the same database you will have to maintain a lot of boilerplate model code (sql/orm). In case of some changes in database you'll have to propagate changes to every application.
In terms of maintenance it is better to expose business operations through web service which will be the only point of contact with database.
In case of web service changes inside database are not visible in applications
On the other hand without web service in front each change to database requires change in each application.
Related
We are developing an asp.net core multi-tenant application in which we have a single installation of the software and, based on the host, it gets the data from different database. THis way each tenant has it own database.
Single application - multiple tenat databases
Since tenants can personalize the fixed texts of the application, we need to store those localizations resources in the tenant database. At the beggining we load those resources with the default values but after that each tenant could change those values.
We need a way to have those resources so when someone types www.tenant-01.com it gets the resources for this tenant. But accessing the database each time we need a resource is not a good technique since the performance would be horrible...
Any ideas on how to address this?
Background:
Our team is building an inhouse Intranet web application. We are using a standard three layer approach. Presentation layer (mvc web app), Business layer and data access layer.
Sql database is used for persistence.
Web app / iis handles user authentication (windows authentication). Logging is done in business and data access layer.
Question service account vs user specific Sql accounts:
Use service / app account:
Dev team is proposing to set up service account (set up for application only). This service account needs write & read access to db.
Vs
Pass on user credentials to SQL
IT ops is saying that using a service account (specifically created for app only) for db access is not deemed best practice. Set up Kerberos delegation configured from the web server to the SQL server so that you can pass on the Windows credentials of the end users & create a database role that grants the appropriate data access levels for end users
What is the best practice for setting up accounts in sql where all request to db will come through the front end client (ie via bus layer and then data layer)
The Best Practice here is to let the person/team responsible for the database make the decision. It sounds like the dev team wants to forward (or impersonate) some credentials to the DB which I know that some small teams like doing, but yes that can leave things a bit too open. The app can do whatever it likes to the database, which is not much of a separation if you're into that kind of thing.
Personally, if I understand what you're saying above, I do more of what the IT team is thinking about (I use Postgres). In other words my app deploys over SSH using a given account (let's say it's the AppName account). That means I need to have my SSH keys lined up for secure deployment (using a PEM or known_keys or whatever).
In the home root for AppName I have a file called .pgpass which has pretty specific security on it (0600). This means that my AppName account will use local security to get in rather than a username/password.
I do this because otherwise I'd need to store that information in a file somewhere - and those things get treated poorly pushed to github, for instance.
Ultimately, think 5 years from now and what your project and team will look like. Be optimistic - maybe it will be a smashing success! What will maintenance look like? What kinds of mistakes will your team make? Flexibility now is nice, but make sure that whomever will get in trouble if your database has a security problem is the one who gets to make the decision.
The best practice is to have individual accounts. This allows you to use database facilities for identifying who is accessing the database.
This is particularly important if the data is being modified. You can log who is modifying what data -- generally a hard-core requirement in any system where users have this ability.
You may find that, for some reason, you do not want to use your database's built-in authentication mechanisms. In that case, you are probably going to build a layer on top of the database, replicating much of the built-in functionality. There are situations where this might be necessary. In general, this would be a dangerous approach (the database security mechanisms probably undergo much more testing than bespoke code).
Finally, if you are building an in-house application with just a handful of users who have read-only access to the database, it might be simpler to have only a single login account. Normally, you would still like to know who is doing what, but for simplicity, you might forego that functionality. However, knowing who is doing what is usually very useful knowledge for maintaining and enhancing the application.
i'm planning to use a combination of entity framework + plain sql access for a large sized project that i'm about to start. its an ASP.NET web application.
for auditing data, i was thinking of creating a user in sql db for every user in membership that i create so that the auditing can automatically track the asp.net logged in user activities. so basically, if i could impersonate as that username for the connection that is used, then sql server will automatically log.
do you know how to implement this in entity framework, i'm fairly new to ef.
if this is not possible, do you know another solution WITHOUT manually including userid in every sql insert/update/delete.
thanks..
That is pretty bad idea. If you want this kind of auditing don't use membership and instead use Windows accounts directly with Kerberos delegation as common in large ERP or CRM systems = each user will have access to the database with his own domain account but it requires very correctly specifying security for the database and it will most probably lead to design without entity framework because you will not want users to be albe to execute queries directly but only to execute stored procedures under their user context.
If your application should be publicly available then this level of auditing is not for you and you must roll your own solution on the application level (not the database level).
In this moment, I have two web applications(one application is an MVC2 application for the management of my project and the second is an application with web services). Both applications have to deal with the database and have Nhibernate for querying the database. Is this a good pattern?, if not what can i do?
Edit 1
Both applications can write to the database. I have a dll project that handle the database transactions and have de nhibernate instance named "Repositorio". Nevertheless, each application will have a different instance of Repositorio.dll so there is going to be multiple threats to the database, what do i have to do to make both application use the same instance of Repositorio.dll?
The answer depends on whether or not both applications can write to the database.
If one is read-only, I'd say you're safe.
I not, I'd argue that a service-oriented approach would recommend creating a service that provided an interface for both applications and was the sole owner of the database.
"service-oriented" does not mean that the service has to be a distributed component (e.g., SOAP or REST or RPC). If you encapsulate the database access in a component with a well-defined interface you can choose to share the component as a DLL in both applications. Only make it a distributed component if that makes sense for both applications.
That sounds perfectly fine to me even if both applications write to the database. I would simply recommend you create a third project as a class library with all your nHibernate related stuff to avoid writing any redundant code in both projects.
we have several sites for several different clients, each with several different databases.
Some of the databases are at client location, some are on our site.
I have been tasked with creating a few sharepoint sites that will display information from the databases.
Is it okay to call stored procedures from my sharepoint sites? Since the database is not for the sharepoint site, I feel like that site should not have direct access to the DB and should get the data through web services. Certainly, this would be the case if the data were exposed to another company, but since we are responsible for all of it, is that okay?
In my opinion you save yourself from lot of trouble by just going directly to the database, since you control both ends. The direct access to DB will also have better performance than writing some web services in between the two systems.
If the other system wouldn't be yours, I'd definitely hope that it had a web services (or RESTful web services) interface. My reasoning here is that in most software, web services are really actually meant for integrations and thus changes to them are kept at minimum. Database schema changes are fairly typical during the lifetime of a software product and thus it's not generally easy to evolve the schema if other people build integrations directly against the DB.
Querying the database directly is not a supported scenario, thus you shouldn't ever need to do that.
Best practice is to use the existing Web Services, or implement your own custom Web Service.