I know, we can do grouping of same kind of Ajax requests to server.
But just wanted to know if Dojo supports this or let us know if this feature doesn't depend upon Dojo framework or jquery...
Depending on the type of request you do, and how response headers are set, some kinds of AJAX requests can be cached by the browser itself, just like it would cache a normal webpage.
Outside of the browser caching stuff, I don't know of any framework that does caching at the request level like that. So, if you need a request to not be repeated the only way to be sure is to not issue the request in the first place.
In Dojo's case, for example, it is quite common to issue AJAX requests via something like dojo/store/JsonRest instead of doing them by hand. In this case it is quite easy to use something like a dojo/store/Cache to add a cacheing layer in front of the JsonRest store.
http://livedocs.dojotoolkit.org/dojo/store/Cache
http://www.sitepen.com/blog/2011/02/15/dojo-object-stores/
Related
I know that GET is used to retrieve data from the server without modifying anything. Whereas POST is used to add data. I won't get into PUT/PATCH, and assume that POST is always used to update and replace data.
The theory is nice, but in practice I have encountered many situations where my GET calls need to be replaced with POST calls. This is because the response often gets incorrectly cached. Where I work there are proxy servers for security, caching, load balancing, etc., and often times the response for GET calls is directly cached to speed up the call, whereas POST calls never get fully cached.
So for my question, if I have an API call /api/get_orders/month. Theoretically, this should be a GET call, however, the number of orders might update any second. So if I call this API at any moment it may return for example 1000, and calling it just two seconds later should return 1001. However, because of the cache, and although adding a version flag such as ?v=<date_as_int> should ensure that the updated value is returned, there seems to be some caches in the proxy servers that might ignore this.
Basically, I don't feel safe enough using GET unless I know for certain that the data will not be modified or if I know for a fact that the response is always the updated data.
So, would you recommend using POST/GET in the case of retrieving daily/monthly number of orders. And if GET, with all the different and complex layers and server set-ups, how can one be certain that the data is always updated?
If you're doing multiple GET request and something is caching the data in between, you have no idea what it is or how to change it's behavior then POST is a valid workaround.
In any normal situation you would take the time what sits in between your browser and your server, and if there's something that's behaving in a way that doesn't make sense, I would try to investigate and fix that.
So you work at a place where some of that infrastructure exists. Maybe talk to the people that maintain it? But if that's not an option and you just want to find the 'ignore every convention and make my request work'-workaround, then you can use POST.
I've been trying to make use of service.getNavigation() method, but apparently the Request URI is too long which causes this error:
Request-URI Too Long
The requested URL's length exceeds the capacity limit for this server.
Is there a spartacus config that can resolve this issue?
Or is this supposed to be handled in the cloud (ccv2) config?
Not sure which service are you talking about specifically and what data are you passing there. For starters, please read this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/414
Additionally it would benefit everyone if you could say something about the service you're using and the data you are trying to pass/get.
The navigation component is firing a request for all componentIds. If you have a navigation with a lot of (root?) elements, the maximum length of HTTP GET request might be too long for the given client or server.
The initial implementation of loading components was actually done by a POST request, but the impression was that we would not need to support requests with so many components. I guess we were wrong.
Luckily, the legacy POST based request is still in the code base, it's OccCmsComponentAdapter.findComponentsByIdsLegacy.
The easiest way for you to use this code, is to provide a CustomOccCmsComponentAdapter, that extends from OccCmsComponentAdapter. Then you can override the findComponentsByIds method and simply call the super.findComponentsByIdsLegacy and pass in a copy of the arguments.
A more cleaner way would be to override the CmsComponentConnector and directly delegate the load to the adapter.findComponentsByIdsLegacy. I would not start here, as it's more complicated. Do a POC with the first suggested approach.
I'm using apollo-client, and I've just noticed that my GraphQL queries don't appear on the list of Network calls when the XHR filter is active.
How is this possible? GQL is just a set of semantics on top of regular old HTTP, right? It's not like a JS library can introduce a whole new networking capability.
In the first image below, you see me filtering for requests with "gra" in them; two appear: the OPTIONS call, and then the POST (which is the real meat). In the second image, I additionally filter by XHRs; the POST is gone.
The "XHR" filter says it captures "XHR and Fetch". The only alternative I can think of would be dynamically adding <script> tags to the document, and I very much doubt that's how apollo-client is managing things.
I don't know what the "json" Type is. The docs for the DevTools don't mention that type.
I think the reason for this is that Chrome's fetch capability is not simply sugar on top of the age-old XMLHttpRequest capability, and the filter option in the DevTools (which says "XHR") is either not built or not designed as an umbrella "asynchronous request" filter. I hope they change that, especially since the Type column in the Network panel can still be used to differentiate between the two.
If I had to speculate, I'd say the behavior we observe flows from the way the Network tab hooks into the underlying networking code, and fetch calls don't travel the relevant portion of the codepath that XHR does. As supporting evidence, I offer this SO answer, which highlights functional differences between XHR & fetch that might readily be explained by their being entirely separate code. (It's also possible some of these differences are a result of the fetch spec explicitly calling for behavior different from XHR.)
Finally, I'd add that we probably only noticed this with Apollo's GQL tools because apollo-client was created in a post-XHR world, and may be one of the first libraries we worked with that prefers fetch over XHR rather than using an XHR polyfill.
For a RESTful API that I'm creating, I need to have some functionality that get's a resource, but if it doesn't exist, creates it and then returns it. I don't think this should be the default behaviour of a GET request. I could enable this functionality on a certain parameter I give to the GET request, but it seems a little bit dirty.
The main point is that I want to do only one request for this, as these requests are gonna be done from mobile devices that potentially have a slow internet connection, so I want to limit the requests that need to be done as much as possible.
I'm not sure if this fits in the RESTful world, but if it doesn't, it will disappoint me, because it will mean I have to make a little hack on the REST idea.
Does anyone know of a RESTful way of doing this, or otherwise, a beatiful way that doesn't conflict with the REST idea?
Does the client need to provide any information as part of the creation? If so then you really need to separate out GET and POSTas otherwise you need to send that information with each GET and that will be very ugly.
If instead you are sending a GET without any additional information then there's no reason why the backend can't create the resource if it doesn't already exist prior to returning it. Depending on the amount of time it takes to create the resource you might want to think about going asynchronous and using 202 as per other answers, but that then means that your client has to handle (yet) another response code so it might be better off just waiting for the resource to be finalised and returned.
very simple:
Request: HEAD, examine response code: either 404 or 200. If you need the body, use GET.
It not available, perform a PUT or POST, the server should respond with 204 and the Location header with the URL of the newly created resource.
I'm in the process of designing a REST API for our web app.
POST > /apps > Creates an app
PUT > /apps/{id} > Updates the app
I want to start the apps.
Is this REST and if not, how can I make it more RESTful?
POST > /apps/{id}?control=start
Sun Cloud API does this: http://kenai.com/projects/suncloudapis/pages/CloudAPISpecificationResourceModels
Or is it better to:
2. PUT /apps/{id} and include a status parameter in the response Json/XML?
3. POST /apps/{id} and include a status parameter in the response Json/xml?
4. POST /apps/start?app={id}
I think the right question here is more whether the HTTP verbs are being used as intended rather than whether the application is or is not as RESTful as possible. However, these days the two concepts are pretty much the same.
The thing about PUT is that whatever you PUT you should be able to immediately GET. In other words, PUT does a wholesale replacement of the resource. If the resource stored at apps/5 is something that has a "control" attribute as part of its state, then the control=start part should be part of the representation you put. If you want to send just the new piece of the resource, you are doing a PATCH, not a PUT.
PATCH is not widely supported, so IMHO you should use a POST. POST has no requirements of safety or idempotency; generally you can do whatever you want with a POST (more or less), including patching parts of a resource. After all that is what you do when you create a new item in a collection with a POST. Updating a portion of a resource is not really much different.
Generally though you POST new data in the request body, not as query parameters. Query parameters are used mostly for GETs, because you are, well, querying. :)
Does starting an app changes it state? (to "running", for example) If it does what you're actually doing is updating the state of the resource (application). That seems like a good use for the PUT operation. Although as Ray said, if control is part of the state of the resource, the body of the PUT request should contain the state you're updating. I believe a partial update would be possible (CouchDB uses this).
On the other hand, if starting an app means creating a new resource (representing the app execution, for example), the POST method would be a great fit. You could have something like this:
POST /app/1/start
Which would result in a HTTP/1.1 201 Created. Then, to access the information on the created execution, you could use a URL like this:
GET /app/1/execution/1
To me, this would seem like a good "Restful" approach. For more information, check out this article.
PUT apps/{id}
I would PUT the app to update it's status from off to on
I like to do something like,
POST /runningapps?url=/app/1