I have a task to do where I need to make calls to an external xml api to fetch data for an event calendar in the sidebar of a site. The date will be changed with JavaScript and then i need to make another call to refresh the data. Can somebody give me an idea about how to cleanly set up an action or function somewhere that I can direct an Ajax action to? It's easy to set up a widget with the correct HTML etc but where does the Ajax connect to? Ideally when the content initially loads on the page it would use the same function that the post is going to use to generate the HTML on the server side.
Any tips would be appreciated. This is an xml api...no option for json or jsonp so credentials including a token and user I'm assuming will have to go somewhere in my widget, something like a proxy function?
It sounds as if you're asking about making cross-domain AJAX requests, AKA the "same origin policy."
The same origin policy prevents document or script loaded from one origin from getting or setting properties of a document from a different origin (domain). See http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/components/same-origin.html for a more detailed description of the policy.
See Ways to circumvent the same-origin policy for a good description of the options available to circumvent this limitation.
The short answer is that unless you have control over the domain to which you're making AJAX requests, your best bet is probably to set up a simple proxy that lives in the same domain where your AJAX is running, which will forward requests to the destination. Doing a google search on "simple AJAX proxy" will get you a host of results, including pre-built proxies in a variety of languages.
Related
I am planning to have these endpoints for our REST APIs.
PUT /tenant/:tenantId/users/save/:username
POST /tenant/:tenantId/users/invite
GET /tenant/:tenantId/users/fetch
GET /tenant/:tenantId/users/fetch/:username
PATCH /tenant/:tenantId/users/activate/:username
POST /tenant/:tenantId/groups/save/
Verbs such as save/fetch/activate are from the consistency point of view. Are these RESTFul according to the REST principles? How should these be changed if at all? Any recommendations?
According to this REST Resource Naming Guide:
RESTful URI should refer to a resource that is a thing (noun) instead of referring to an action (verb) because nouns have properties which verbs do not have – similar to resources have attributes.
And also
URIs should not be used to indicate that a CRUD function is performed. URIs should be used to uniquely identify resources and not any action upon them. HTTP request methods should be used to indicate which CRUD function is performed.
So let's take your first URI as example
PUT /tenant/:tenantId/users/save/:username
Here you are using the verb save. As mentioned before you should not be indicating a CRUD operation in the URI, in this case using a POST would be more appropriate.Here is a guide with the purpose of each HTTP verb. Knowing this, I think that for example a more appropriate URI for that case would be something like
POST /tenants/:tenantId/users/:username
In this cases:
GET /tenant/:tenantId/users/fetch
GET /tenant/:tenantId/users/fetch/:username
you should remove the fetch because you are already telling through the GET verb that data is being fetched. Same goes for the 6th example.
But, this doesn't mean that you can't use verbs in your URIs, in fact there is a specific category called controller which as mentioned in the same guide:
A controller resource models a procedural concept. Controller resources are like executable functions, with parameters and return values; inputs and outputs.
Use “verb” to denote controller archetype.
This controllers resources could go well (I asume) with for example your
GET /tenant/:tenantId/users/activate/:username.
But I would think that the verb activate should go last:
GET /tenant/:tenantId/users/:username/activate
First note: REST doesn't care what spelling conventions you use for your resource identifiers. Once you figure out the right resources, you can choose any identifiers for them that you like (so long as those identifiers are consistent with the production rules defined in RFC 3986).
"Any information that can be named can be a resource" (Fielding, 2000), but its probably most useful to think about resources as abstractions of documents. We use HTTP as an application protocol whose application domain is the transfer of documents over a network.
GET
This is the method we use to retrieve a document
PATCH
PUT
POST
These methods all indicate requests to edit a document (specifically, to edit the request target).
PUT and PATCH are each ask the server to make its copy of a document look like the client's local copy. Imagine loading a web page into an editor, making changes, and then "saving" those changes back to the server.
POST is less specific; "here's a document that we created by filling in a web form, edit yourself appropriately". It is okay to use POST: after all, the web was catastrophically successful and we're still using POST in our form submissions.
The useful work is a side effect of these edits.
Are these RESTFul according to the REST principles?
Do they work like a web site? If they work like a web site: meaning you follow links, and send information to the server by submitting forms, or editing the webpages and submitting your changes to the server, then it is REST.
A trick though: it is normal in REST that a single method + request uri might have different useful side effects. We can have several different HTML forms that all share the same Form.action. Uploading changes to an order document might have very different effects if the edits are to the shipping address vs to the billing information or the order items.
Normal doesn't mean obligatory - if you prefer a resource model where each form request goes to a specific resource, that can be OK too. You get simpler semantics, but you support more resources, which can make caching trickier.
When I use LIMIT to make pages of results, how do we usually know the offset i.e. which page should be retrieved for each request?
Via cookies?
Via a query string parameter, traditionally. URLs typically include a ?page=3 to request page 3, like you'll see all over Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions?page=2&sort=newest
This is something you absolutely should not do through cookies. The URL should include everything necessary to navigate to the given page. Consider a user bookmarking page three of your results, or trying to link somebody else to the page they're looking at: Using cookies to store pagination data breaks these situations completely.
Usually via request parameters in action frameworks (RoR, ZF, Cake, Django) and via state of the session in component frameworks (Prado, JSF, ASP.NET). Session is usually associated with request by a cookie.
Using session to store current page is quite common in business-oriented applications, where state of the gui might be very complicated and the practically of being able to bookmark a page - limited.
I'm trying to achieve urls in the form of http://localhost:9294/users instead of http://localhost:9294/#/users
This seems possible according to the documentation but I haven't been able to get this working for "bookmarkable" urls.
To clarify, browsing directly to http://localhost:9294/users gives a 404 "Not found: /users"
You can turn on HTML5 History support in Spine like this:
Spine.Route.setup(history: true)
By passing the history: true argument to Spine.Route.setup() that will enable the fancy URLs without hash.
The documentation for this is actually buried a bit, but it's here (second to last section): http://spinejs.com/docs/routing
EDIT:
In order to have urls that can be navigated to directly, you will have to do this "server" side. For example, with Rails, you would have to build a way to take the parameter of the url (in this case "/users"), and pass it to Spine accordingly. Here is an excerpt from the Spine docs:
However, there are some things you need to be aware of when using the
History API. Firstly, every URL you send to navigate() needs to have a
real HTML representation. Although the browser won't request the new
URL at that point, it will be requested if the page is subsequently
reloaded. In other words you can't make up arbitrary URLs, like you
can with hash fragments; every URL passed to the API needs to exist.
One way of implementing this is with server side support.
When browsers request a URL (expecting a HTML response) you first make
sure on server-side that the endpoint exists and is valid. Then you
can just serve up the main application, which will read the URL,
invoking the appropriate routes. For example, let's say your user
navigates to http://example.com/users/1. On the server-side, you check
that the URL /users/1 is valid, and that the User record with an ID of
1 exists. Then you can go ahead and just serve up the JavaScript
application.
The caveat to this approach is that it doesn't give search engine
crawlers any real content. If you want your application to be
crawl-able, you'll have to detect crawler bot requests, and serve them
a 'parallel universe of content'. That is beyond the scope of this
documentation though.
It's definitely a good bit of effort to get this working properly, but it CAN be done. It's not possible to give you a specific answer without knowing the stack you're working with.
I used the following rewrites as explained in this article.
http://www.josscrowcroft.com/2012/code/htaccess-for-html5-history-pushstate-url-routing/
I'm having trouble connecting some dots having recently learned of JSONP. Here's my understanding:
Cross-domain XmlHttpRequests for any content (including JSON) is banned, due to the same origin policy. This protects against XSRF.
You are permitted to have a script tag with a src that returns JSONP - some JSON padded inside a call to a Javascript function (say 'Foo')
You can have some implementation of 'foo' on the page that will get called when the JSONP data is returned, and you can do things with the JSON data that function is passed
Why is it OK to receive cross-domain data if it came via JSONP, but not if it came via JSON?
Is there an assumption that JSON is prone to permitting XSRF but JSONP is not? If so, is there any reason for that other than JSONP being some de-facto data format that won't ever provide data that enables XSRF? Why JSONP and not some arbitrary root tag on XML instead?
Thank you in advance for your answers, please make my brain work again after failing to figure this one out.
I understand this question to be about why the browser considers JSONP safe, not about whether it is safe (which it isn't). I will address this question step by step.
Regular ol' AJAX
To perform a regular AJAX request, the browser creates an XHR object, points it at the URL and pulls the data. The XHR object will only trust data from the same domain. This is a hard limitation. There is no getting round it in current browsers (edit - you can now use CORS).
Solution - Don't use XHR
Since XHR is subject to the same domain poilicy, we can't use XHR to do cross domain AJAX. Luckily, there are other ways to hit a remote server. We could append an image tag to the page for example. We can also append a script tag and give it a src attribute that points to the remote server. We can pull JQuery from a CDN for example and expect it to work.
How JSONP works.
When we make a JSONP request, our code dynamically appends a script tag to the page. The script tag has a source attribute which points to the remote JSONP API url, just as though you were inserting a script from a CDN.
The JSONP script returned by the server is wrapped in a function call. When the script is downloaded, the function will be executed automatically.
This is why we have to tell the JSONP the name of the callback function we want to wrap the script in. That function will be called once the script has downloaded.
Security concerns
There are some fairly big security concerns here. The script you are downloading could take control over your page and put your users at risk. JSONP is not safe for your users, it is just not blocked by the web browsers. JSONP really is a browser exploit which we are taking advantage of. Use with caution.
Used wisely, JSONP is pretty awesome though.
I don't know how the perception that JSONP is safe came up but see
JSON-P is, for that reason, seen by many as an unsafe and hacky
approach to cross-domain Ajax, and for good reason. Authors must be
diligent to only make such calls to remote web services that they
either control or implicitly trust, so as not to subject their users
to harm.
and
The most critical piece of this proposal is that browser vendors must
begin to enforce this rule for script tags that are receiving JSON-P
content, and throw errors (or at least stop processing) on any
non-conforming JSON-P content.
both quotes from http://json-p.org/ .
other links with some useful information about JSONP/security:
http://beebole.com/en/blog/general/sandbox-your-cross-domain-jsonp-to-improve-mashup-security/
Cross Domain Limitations With Ajax - JSON
JSONP Implications with true REST
all these tell 2 things - basically it is not considered "safe" but there are ideas on how to make it "safer"... though most ideas rely on standardization AND specific check logic to be built into browsers etc.
atm i have a JSP (my Host page) where i set the Session id via scriptlet with the Request Object. I save this Information in an hidden field and read it with the gwt DOM Object. Is there à better way to do this ? Thanks in advance for help.
Kuku
Depending on your setup this is a valid way to get a hold to a session ID. I assume you have written just a part of you web application in GWT and integrate it into something bigger written in some other language. Since your host page is JSP, I assume the non GWT part of your application is also dynamic.
I don't think that the proposed solution using a GWT service call works in this case. Since you can not match the session ID on the server to the incoming AJAX call.
Instead of using a hidden field, you could encode the session ID in the URL and get it from there, see getParameter(...):
http://google-web-toolkit.googlecode.com/svn/javadoc/2.2/com/google/gwt/user/client/Window.Location.html#getParameter%28java.lang.String%29
But I actually prefer the solution with the hidden filed, because it does not affect the URL. If you encode transient information in the URL you may lose the ability to bookmark it.