My app (Laravel/Vue) has some API endpoints like /api/price/{id} and /api/buy/{id} first endpoint gives the price of a product and second buy x quantity (passed by POST) of that product.
Prices have too much volatility (think things like cryptocurrencies), so the /price/ endpoint will do some calcs and give the realtime price. When I click the buy button on the browser it goes to the /buy/ endpoint, of course. The first thing it has to do is to calculate the real time price, just as the /price/ endpoint does, then write to the database etc.
For some reason beyond my control the endpoints are in different controllers, I have a PriceController and a BuyController, so I have several options to make this work:
I write the same code in both endpoints. Of course, I don't like a bit this solution, because of maintenance
(Which I'm currently using) Inside my BuyController I do an API call to PriceController, and yeah, sure it works, but I find it quite strange to go to the network to access something local, I don't know if it will have any performance impact under load (in development, it doesn't seem to be any)
Should I do a helper function to do all the calcs needed and use it as the price source for both /price/ and /buy/ endpoints? I feel this approach might be better. I normally don't use helpers so I can't start imagining what name to give to the helper function.
What should be the "correct" approach?
Maybe the correct way is to "unify" /price/ and /buy/ endpoints and have a function inside the resulting controller, but I don't know how many changes should I make to the rest of the app.
Probably you should write a Service and use it in both controllers (if you move your controller's logic to service even better - ), but if you are using 'calculation logic' frequently, then maybe using a helper function would be more suitable.
if you are not comfortable using services, you can also use this approach
I would like to perform a load test on a site that uses ValidateAntiForgeryTokens on a number of HttpPosts. However, as you would expect, when I run my load test script, I receive a number of 500 errors because the __RequestVerificationToken is either copied from an earlier request or is blank. Both of which fail.
Are there any ways to load test sites where I am using the ValidateAntiForgeryToken attribute on my HttpPost methods?
I've tried using StresStimulus and also SmartBear's LoadComplete for my tests.
If you are using fiddler and http://stresstimulus.stimulustechnology.com/ (which I haven't used) I have to imagine you can first login, and then use that session as your load. The AntiForgeryTokens are NOT one time, and as long as the cookie is there for your auth info and an anti forgery token generated during that login session, it should be fine.
I had the same problem with StressStimulus. Some of the forms submitted to the site were failing because the __RequestVerificationToken are not updated when the recorded request is run. {{Auto-Correlation}} did not work in my case. I used regex extractor to solve it. Here's the link to my post on StressStimulus
Without seeing the details of the scenario you are working with, it is hard to say for sure. But we've been able to automate many of these types of dynamic fields for load testing purposes (the only ones we haven't been able to bypass are those that require human input, i.e. captchas). In general, you need to find where the value of the __RequestVerificationToken field came from - be it a cookie, a javascript calculation, a hidden form field, etc. Once you've located that, you can extract or calculate that value as part of the load test scenario and send it along with the request. If my memory serves, we've tackled this one before with out much work - if you'd like to give us a shot at the problem, contact us. In general, we can handle these types of problems much more gracefully than either of the solutions you mentioned.
I'm building a Twitter app that requires to check user data somewhat frequently, but I'm facing trouble with a cache that's oddly on Twitter's side, not mine.
Try the following user:
users/show in XML: http://twitter.com/users/show.xml?screen_name=technolocus
users/show in JSON: http://twitter.com/users/show.json?screen_name=technolocus
normal page: http://twitter.com/technolocus
All these methods of accessing data should return the same values, right? Check the statuses_count for each of them.
XML: 12548
JSON: 12513
normal: 12498
The normal method (i.e. just visiting the profile non-programatically) serves up the most correct value of 12498. If I post or delete tweets to this account, it gets updated on the profile page instantly, but the XML and JSON methods still return cached data.
At this point, the values of the XML and JSON methods are 12 to 18 hours old respectively.
I first tried to access these methods from my website (hosted on Dreamhost). I thought it was Dreamhost caching the responses. Then I tried to access the API directly from my browser. I did a cURL from the command line from my machine after that. It wasn't dreamhost. I thought it was probably my ISP (I think they use NetApp or something like that). Then I asked a friend in another corner of India to try it. He's getting the exact same cached responses as I am.
So it isn't Dreamhost's cache; it isn't my ISP or my country's cache. There's only one conclusion - Twitter is caching responses.
How in the heavens do I get around this?!?
Forgot to mention this: The script on the server is in PHP and is using cURL to retrieve the XML and JSON data from Twitter, while the local tests have been just using the browser. Both have the exact same result!
First, I think you should report this a a bug to Twitter. I see the same discrepancy as you, and no matter what that seems like a bug. Even if they're caching, I'd expect that a cache on their side would store an abstract form that would then be rendered into HTML, JSON, and XML. I wonder if what's actually going on is that these requests are performing similar but different queries.
Are you sure that the values are "old"? For example, did you actually delete about 50 updates recently (since you say the HTML one is newest but shows a lower count than the other two)? If you create another update do you see the HTML number increment while the other numbers stay the same, or do they all increment simultaneously?
If what you are saying is accurate, and it probably is, generally, you can't get around it. Twitter would want to be caching its responses since they are costly to reproduce every single time.
When you use Twitter's APIs, you end up being bound by its conventions, even if that includes caching.
Your best bet is to tweet to #twitterapi and get them to give you a response as to why the two representations are divergent.
Add ?blah=xxxx to all urls.
I don't develop anything against twitter and ocassionaly manually "follow" three tweets by going to them in my browser. They always lag behind by half a day. I add ?asdsadsadsad to the url (everytime something different) and it always updates. I don't know what Twitter is doing here and came here while searching for the problem. But I guess this trick of appending a random value to the url via GET will probably work for your api requests, too.
I have a page with 3 layers, one for navigation, one for database records and one for results. When I click on a database record, the results are displayed in the result layer via ajax. For navigation, the links will simply be different queries. I am wondering if it would make sense to have each different query be sent as ajax data and palced into the records layer, or rather to have the query appended to the php file each time. Which is the more efficient approach?
Well, sending a different AJAX request will be recommended as per my point of view. As
Performance wise, it will rather reduce the response times, as only the POST data is sent and databytes recieved. The page can then format it, one it receives an XMLHttpResponse
Security wise : I prefer using POST than GET as it gives at least some opaqueness as to what is being passed as a parameter and not anyone can just edit the url and play around. Plus, you don't have the URL length restriction while passing parameters in POST.
So, i'd say fire an XMLHTTPRequest
each on each link and display the
response in the Results layer
(pane/div) on the page.
I think you question is quite unspecific and confusing.
What is "appended to the php file"?
Are you really concerned about efficiency? I mean, how fast should the results be displayed? Or are you concerned about the server workload?
Have you read this tutorial? Prototype introduction to Ajax
I think it should answer most of your questions and give enough example code to continue.
From what I can gather, there are three categories:
Never use GET and use POST
Never use POST and use GET
It doesn't matter which one you use.
Am I correct in assuming those three cases? If so, what are some examples from each case?
Use POST for destructive actions such as creation (I'm aware of the irony), editing, and deletion, because you can't hit a POST action in the address bar of your browser. Use GET when it's safe to allow a person to call an action. So a URL like:
http://myblog.org/admin/posts/delete/357
Should bring you to a confirmation page, rather than simply deleting the item. It's far easier to avoid accidents this way.
POST is also more secure than GET, because you aren't sticking information into a URL. And so using GET as the method for an HTML form that collects a password or other sensitive information is not the best idea.
One final note: POST can transmit a larger amount of information than GET. 'POST' has no size restrictions for transmitted data, whilst 'GET' is limited to 2048 characters.
In brief
Use GET for safe andidempotent requests
Use POST for neither safe nor idempotent requests
In details
There is a proper place for each. Even if you don't follow RESTful principles, a lot can be gained from learning about REST and how a resource oriented approach works.
A RESTful application will use GETs for operations which are both safe and idempotent.
A safe operation is an operation which does not change the data requested.
An idempotent operation is one in which the result will be the same no matter how many times you request it.
It stands to reason that, as GETs are used for safe operations they are automatically also idempotent. Typically a GET is used for retrieving a resource (a question and its associated answers on stack overflow for example) or collection of resources.
A RESTful app will use PUTs for operations which are not safe but idempotent.
I know the question was about GET and POST, but I'll return to POST in a second.
Typically a PUT is used for editing a resource (editing a question or an answer on stack overflow for example).
A POST would be used for any operation which is neither safe or idempotent.
Typically a POST would be used to create a new resource for example creating a NEW SO question (though in some designs a PUT would be used for this also).
If you run the POST twice you would end up creating TWO new questions.
There's also a DELETE operation, but I'm guessing I can leave that there :)
Discussion
In practical terms modern web browsers typically only support GET and POST reliably (you can perform all of these operations via javascript calls, but in terms of entering data in forms and pressing submit you've generally got the two options). In a RESTful application the POST will often be overriden to provide the PUT and DELETE calls also.
But, even if you are not following RESTful principles, it can be useful to think in terms of using GET for retrieving / viewing information and POST for creating / editing information.
You should never use GET for an operation which alters data. If a search engine crawls a link to your evil op, or the client bookmarks it could spell big trouble.
Use GET if you don't mind the request being repeated (That is it doesn't change state).
Use POST if the operation does change the system's state.
Short Version
GET: Usually used for submitted search requests, or any request where you want the user to be able to pull up the exact page again.
Advantages of GET:
URLs can be bookmarked safely.
Pages can be reloaded safely.
Disadvantages of GET:
Variables are passed through url as name-value pairs. (Security risk)
Limited number of variables that can be passed. (Based upon browser. For example, Internet Explorer is limited to 2,048 characters.)
POST: Used for higher security requests where data may be used to alter a database, or a page that you don't want someone to bookmark.
Advantages of POST:
Name-value pairs are not displayed in url. (Security += 1)
Unlimited number of name-value pairs can be passed via POST. Reference.
Disadvantages of POST:
Page that used POST data cannot be bookmark. (If you so desired.)
Longer Version
Directly from the Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1:
9.3 GET
The GET method means retrieve whatever information (in the form of an entity) is identified by the Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers to a data-producing process, it is the produced data which shall be returned as the entity in the response and not the source text of the process, unless that text happens to be the output of the process.
The semantics of the GET method change to a "conditional GET" if the request message includes an If-Modified-Since, If-Unmodified-Since, If-Match, If-None-Match, or If-Range header field. A conditional GET method requests that the entity be transferred only under the circumstances described by the conditional header field(s). The conditional GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary network usage by allowing cached entities to be refreshed without requiring multiple requests or transferring data already held by the client.
The semantics of the GET method change to a "partial GET" if the request message includes a Range header field. A partial GET requests that only part of the entity be transferred, as described in section 14.35. The partial GET method is intended to reduce unnecessary network usage by allowing partially-retrieved entities to be completed without transferring data already held by the client.
The response to a GET request is cacheable if and only if it meets the requirements for HTTP caching described in section 13.
See section 15.1.3 for security considerations when used for forms.
9.5 POST
The POST method is used to request that the origin server accept the
entity enclosed in the request as a new subordinate of the resource
identified by the Request-URI in the Request-Line. POST is designed
to allow a uniform method to cover the following functions:
Annotation of existing resources;
Posting a message to a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list,
or similar group of articles;
Providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a
form, to a data-handling process;
Extending a database through an append operation.
The actual function performed by the POST method is determined by the
server and is usually dependent on the Request-URI. The posted entity
is subordinate to that URI in the same way that a file is subordinate
to a directory containing it, a news article is subordinate to a
newsgroup to which it is posted, or a record is subordinate to a
database.
The action performed by the POST method might not result in a
resource that can be identified by a URI. In this case, either 200
(OK) or 204 (No Content) is the appropriate response status,
depending on whether or not the response includes an entity that
describes the result.
The first important thing is the meaning of GET versus POST :
GET should be used to... get... some information from the server,
while POST should be used to send some information to the server.
After that, a couple of things that can be noted :
Using GET, your users can use the "back" button in their browser, and they can bookmark pages
There is a limit in the size of the parameters you can pass as GET (2KB for some versions of Internet Explorer, if I'm not mistaken) ; the limit is much more for POST, and generally depends on the server's configuration.
Anyway, I don't think we could "live" without GET : think of how many URLs you are using with parameters in the query string, every day -- without GET, all those wouldn't work ;-)
Apart from the length constraints difference in many web browsers, there is also a semantic difference. GETs are supposed to be "safe" in that they are read-only operations that don't change the server state. POSTs will typically change state and will give warnings on resubmission. Search engines' web crawlers may make GETs but should never make POSTs.
Use GET if you want to read data without changing state, and use POST if you want to update state on the server.
My general rule of thumb is to use Get when you are making requests to the server that aren't going to alter state. Posts are reserved for requests to the server that alter state.
One practical difference is that browsers and webservers have a limit on the number of characters that can exist in a URL. It's different from application to application, but it's certainly possible to hit it if you've got textareas in your forms.
Another gotcha with GETs - they get indexed by search engines and other automatic systems. Google once had a product that would pre-fetch links on the page you were viewing, so they'd be faster to load if you clicked those links. It caused major havoc on sites that had links like delete.php?id=1 - people lost their entire sites.
Use GET when you want the URL to reflect the state of the page. This is useful for viewing dynamically generated pages, such as those seen here. A POST should be used in a form to submit data, like when I click the "Post Your Answer" button. It also produces a cleaner URL since it doesn't generate a parameter string after the path.
Because GETs are purely URLs, they can be cached by the web browser and may be better used for things like consistently generated images. (Set an Expiry time)
One example from the gravatar page: http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/4c3be63a4c2f539b013787725dfce802?d=monsterid
GET may yeild marginally better performance, some webservers write POST contents to a temporary file before invoking the handler.
Another thing to consider is the size limit. GETs are capped by the size of the URL, 1024 bytes by the standard, though browsers may support more.
Transferring more data than that should use a POST to get better browser compatibility.
Even less than that limit is a problem, as another poster wrote, anything in the URL could end up in other parts of the brower's UI, like history.
1.3 Quick Checklist for Choosing HTTP GET or POST
Use GET if:
The interaction is more like a question (i.e., it is a safe operation such as a query, read operation, or lookup).
Use POST if:
The interaction is more like an order, or
The interaction changes the state of the resource in a way that the user would perceive (e.g., a subscription to a service), or
The user be held accountable for the results of the interaction.
Source.
There is nothing you can't do per-se. The point is that you're not supposed to modify the server state on an HTTP GET. HTTP proxies assume that since HTTP GET does not modify the state then whether a user invokes HTTP GET one time or 1000 times makes no difference. Using this information they assume it is safe to return a cached version of the first HTTP GET. If you break the HTTP specification you risk breaking HTTP client and proxies in the wild. Don't do it :)
This traverses into the concept of REST and how the web was kinda intended on being used. There is an excellent podcast on Software Engineering radio that gives an in depth talk about the use of Get and Post.
Get is used to pull data from the server, where an update action shouldn't be needed. The idea being is that you should be able to use the same GET request over and over and have the same information returned. The URL has the get information in the query string, because it was meant to be able to be easily sent to other systems and people like a address on where to find something.
Post is supposed to be used (at least by the REST architecture which the web is kinda based on) for pushing information to the server/telling the server to perform an action. Examples like: Update this data, Create this record.
i dont see a problem using get though, i use it for simple things where it makes sense to keep things on the query string.
Using it to update state - like a GET of delete.php?id=5 to delete a page - is very risky. People found that out when Google's web accelerator started prefetching URLs on pages - it hit all the 'delete' links and wiped out peoples' data. Same thing can happen with search engine spiders.
POST can move large data while GET cannot.
But generally it's not about a shortcomming of GET, rather a convention if you want your website/webapp to be behaving nicely.
Have a look at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet.html
From RFC 2616:
9.3 GET
The GET method means retrieve whatever information (in the form of
an entity) is identified by the
Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers
to a data-producing process, it is the
produced data which shall be returned
as the entity in the response and not
the source text of the process, unless
that text happens to be the output of
the process.
9.5 POST The POST method is used to request that the origin server
accept the entity enclosed in the
request as a new subordinate of the
resource identified by the Request-URI
in the Request-Line. POST is designed
to allow a uniform method to cover the
following functions:
Annotation of existing resources;
Posting a message to a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list, or
similar group of articles;
Providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a form, to a
data-handling process;
Extending a database through an append operation.
The actual function performed by the
POST method is determined by the
server and is usually dependent on the
Request-URI. The posted entity is
subordinate to that URI in the same
way that a file is subordinate to a
directory containing it, a news
article is subordinate to a newsgroup
to which it is posted, or a record is
subordinate to a database.
The action performed by the POST
method might not result in a resource
that can be identified by a URI. In
this case, either 200 (OK) or 204 (No
Content) is the appropriate response
status, depending on whether or not
the response includes an entity that
describes the result.
I use POST when I don't want people to see the QueryString or when the QueryString gets large. Also, POST is needed for file uploads.
I don't see a problem using GET though, I use it for simple things where it makes sense to keep things on the QueryString.
Using GET will allow linking to a particular page possible too where POST would not work.
The original intent was that GET was used for getting data back and POST was to be anything. The rule of thumb that I use is that if I'm sending anything back to the server, I use POST. If I'm just calling an URL to get back data, I use GET.
Read the article about HTTP in the Wikipedia. It will explain what the protocol is and what it does:
GET
Requests a representation of the specified resource. Note that GET should not be used for operations that cause side-effects, such as using it for taking actions in web applications. One reason for this is that GET may be used arbitrarily by robots or crawlers, which should not need to consider the side effects that a request should cause.
and
POST
Submits data to be processed (e.g., from an HTML form) to the identified resource. The data is included in the body of the request. This may result in the creation of a new resource or the updates of existing resources or both.
The W3C has a document named URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST that explains when to use what. Citing
1.3 Quick Checklist for Choosing HTTP GET or POST
Use GET if:
The interaction is more like a question (i.e., it is a
safe operation such as a query, read operation, or lookup).
and
Use POST if:
The interaction is more like an order, or
The interaction changes the state of the resource in a way that the user would perceive (e.g., a subscription to a service), or
o The user be held accountable for the results of the interaction.
However, before the final decision to use HTTP GET or POST, please also consider considerations for sensitive data and practical considerations.
A practial example would be whenever you submit an HTML form. You specify either post or get for the form action. PHP will populate $_GET and $_POST accordingly.
In PHP, POST data limit is usually set by your php.ini. GET is limited by server/browser settings I believe - usually around 255 bytes.
From w3schools.com:
What is HTTP?
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is designed to enable
communications between clients and servers.
HTTP works as a request-response protocol between a client and server.
A web browser may be the client, and an application on a computer that
hosts a web site may be the server.
Example: A client (browser) submits an HTTP request to the server;
then the server returns a response to the client. The response
contains status information about the request and may also contain the
requested content.
Two HTTP Request Methods: GET and POST
Two commonly used methods for a request-response between a client and
server are: GET and POST.
GET – Requests data from a specified resource POST – Submits data to
be processed to a specified resource
Here we distinguish the major differences:
Well one major thing is anything you submit over GET is going to be exposed via the URL. Secondly as Ceejayoz says, there is a limit on characters for a URL.
Another difference is that POST generally requires two HTTP operations, whereas GET only requires one.
Edit: I should clarify--for common programming patterns. Generally responding to a POST with a straight up HTML web page is a questionable design for a variety of reasons, one of which is the annoying "you must resubmit this form, do you wish to do so?" on pressing the back button.
As answered by others, there's a limit on url size with get, and files can be submitted with post only.
I'd like to add that one can add things to a database with a get and perform actions with a post. When a script receives a post or a get, it can do whatever the author wants it to do. I believe the lack of understanding comes from the wording the book chose or how you read it.
A script author should use posts to change the database and use get only for retrieval of information.
Scripting languages provided many means with which to access the request. For example, PHP allows the use of $_REQUEST to retrieve either a post or a get. One should avoid this in favor of the more specific $_GET or $_POST.
In web programming, there's a lot more room for interpretation. There's what one should and what one can do, but which one is better is often up for debate. Luckily, in this case, there is no ambiguity. You should use posts to change data, and you should use get to retrieve information.
HTTP Post data doesn't have a specified limit on the amount of data, where as different browsers have different limits for GET's. The RFC 2068 states:
Servers should be cautious about
depending on URI lengths above 255
bytes, because some older client or
proxy implementations may not properly
support these lengths
Specifically you should the right HTTP constructs for what they're used for. HTTP GET's shouldn't have side-effects and can be safely refreshed and stored by HTTP Proxies, etc.
HTTP POST's are used when you want to submit data against a url resource.
A typical example for using HTTP GET is on a Search, i.e. Search?Query=my+query
A typical example for using a HTTP POST is submitting feedback to an online form.
Gorgapor, mod_rewrite still often utilizes GET. It just allows to translate a friendlier URL into a URL with a GET query string.
Simple version of POST GET PUT DELETE
use GET - when you want to get any resource like List of data based on any Id or Name
use POST - when you want to send any data to server. keep in mind POST is heavy weight operation because for updation we should use PUT instead of POST
internally POST will create new resource
use PUT - when you