I've been trying to find a good form of RPC to standardize on, but so far I've ran into a ton of walls and was wondering what the stackoverflow communities view was.
My ideal RPC would provide the following:
Somewhat wide support in other languages, in that people shouldn't have to write a custom stack to use our server
Input validation
Ideally, some way to turn the above input validation into some sort of automated documentation to distribute
Clean and maintainable code
I am a fan of the catalyst framework and would prefer to stick to it, but if there is a clearly better alternative for RPC servers I'd be open to that as well.
So far I have looked at the following:
Catalyst::Controller::SOAP
Doesn't appear to support returning of complex data structures, only string('literals'). I could probably serialize data on top of that, but that seems very hacky. It also lets you return a pre-formed XML object, but I couldn't get that to work and it looks like you'd need to re-create a lot of SOAP data structure for it to work.
I do like the idea of WSDLs, but the complexity of the overall spec also makes me wonder how well support for communicating with other languages will be.
Custom POSTing XML based controller
We tried to roll our own by hand in a similar way to how we've seen two other projects do it recently where there is a dispatch url that you post XML to. This lets you have XSD validation/documentation, but required creating a lot more code than we want to maintain at this point.
Catalyst::Plugin::Server::XMLRPC
Gave a warning about using a deprecated method that will be removed in a future version of Catalyst.
No input validation or doc creation, but otherwise the best I've found
JSONRPC
Looks pretty similar to XMLRPC only the module is actually updated. I'll probably go with this next unless someone suggests something better
There also appears to be two different modules for catalyst that do JSONRPC
I realize that REST isn't pure RPC (only a subset), but...
I would recommend the Catalyst::Controller::REST and Catalyst::Action::REST modules. They're frequently updated and the documentation is fairly good. There is also a good (but rather dated) example of using Catalyst::Controller::Rest in the 2006 Catalyst Advent calendar titled Day 9 - Web Services with Catalyst::Action::REST.
FWIW, Catalyst::Controller::SOAP does support returning complex data. Take a look at the documentation http://search.cpan.org/~druoso/Catalyst-Controller-SOAP-1.23/lib/Catalyst/Controller/SOAP.pm, which will show you that you can use a WSDL to describe your service. Also, see http://daniel.ruoso.com/categoria/perl/soap-today.html.en for a more detailed step-by-step process.
Related
I am trying to find a high-level Clojure library for making HTTP and HTTPS requests, parsing out forms and links from responses and then POST-ing updated forms or following links. Ideally something that would automatically handle redirects and cookies (i.e. sessions). That is, I'd like to find something whereby my code can as closely as possible mimic a user driving a webapp from a browser, without the browser.
A number of years ago we used Hpricot and Ruby for a similar task but I'm prefer to do this in Clojure if at all possible. From memory - and I haven't used Hpricot for years - we were able to do all this with minimal effort: we were able to concentrate on the 'what' of driving the application, not the 'how'.
I found clj-http https://github.com/dakrone/clj-http but this seems to be one step lower-level than I'm looking for (no form parsing) - although it is based on Apache HttpComponents http://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents-client-ga/ which does seem to expose a nice, fluent, API for forms http://hc.apache.org/httpcomponents-client-ga/tutorial/html/fluent.html.
Screen scraping in clojure asks about screen-scraping in Clojure, and there are several good suggestions for that, but nothing that really addresses the above.
HTTP Kit http://www.http-kit.org/client.html looks like it would be a great foundation for the above but doesn't do form parsing or session management (as far as I can see).
Currently I've veering toward using the Apache HttpComponents Java library directly from Clojure. Can anyone suggest any better - perhaps more Clojure idiomatic - alternative? Or anything that they found worked well in similar circumstances? My goal is to write the minimal amount of code quickly to investigate a problem with a web service. This is not production code. Saving time, rather than getting an 'ideal' solution is my main concern.
[The background is that I am trying to mimic certain forms of user behaviour in order to first reproduce and then try and track down an intermitent bug in a large body of legacy Java/EJB code. However the problem only seems to occur one time per several thousand POSTs. (The suspicious is of some form of caching issue.) The existence of the problem, after the fact, is easy to detect however.]
Have you looked at the Enlive library yet? Here is a good tutorial on it.
You seem to really have 2 parts here. The first part is (1) a Selenium-like client, which drives (2) a webserver.
For part (1), either Selenium, Enlive, or something similar will allow you to simulate a browser to submit data, read the responses, and respond from there. For part (2), it seems you just need a regular Clojure web framework such as Ring/Compojure (older & simpler) or Pedestal (newer & more powerful).
I am looking into something lightweight, that, at a minimum should support the following features:
Support for easy definition of actions through metadata
Wrapper that extracts parameters from request into clojure map, or as function parameters
Support for multiple forms of authentication (basic, form, cookie)
basic authorization based of api method metadata
session object wrapped in clojure map
live coding from REPL (no need to restart server)
automatic serialization of return value to json and xml
have nice (pluggable) url parameter handling (eg /action/par1/par2 instead of /action?par1=val1&par2=val2)
I know it is relatively easy to roll my own micro-framework for each one of these options, but why reinvent the wheel if something like that already exists? Especially if it is:
Active project with rising number of contributors/users
Have at least basic documentation and tutorial online.
First of all, I think that you are unlikely to find a single shrinkwrapped solution to do all this in Clojure (except in the form of a Java library to be used through interop). What is becoming Clojure's standard Web stack comprises a number of libraries which people mix and match in all sorts of ways (since they happily tend to be perfectly compatible).1
Here's a list of some building blocks which you might find useful:
Ring -- Clojure's basic HTTP request handling library; all the other webby libraries (for writing routes &c.) that I know of are compatible with Ring. Ring is being actively developed, has a robust community, is very well-written and has a nice SPEC document detailing its design philosophy. This blog post provides a nice example of how it might be used (reacting to GitHub commits).
Sandbar -- currently an authentication library, more types of functionality planned; under development.
Compojure -- a mature and robust library which provides a nice DSL for writing routes to be used on top of Ring. This will give you the nice URL parameter handling.
Compojure-rest -- "a library for building RESTful applications on top of Compojure". Compojure-rest is, as far as I can tell, in its early stages of development; perhaps you might see this as an opportunity to influence its design. :-)
For dealing with XML, there's clojure.contrib.lazy-xml (and the helper library clojure.contrib.zip-filter.xml) and Enlive (the built-in clojure.xml namespace is currently not very usable); these would be used in tandem (though for your purposes the former might suffice).
For JSON, there a library in contrib and clojure-json (and I think there was at least one other lib I seem to be forgetting now...); pick the one you like best.
All of will be perfectly happy with a REPL-driven development style (see the accepted answer to this SO question for a Ring trick which is very much to the purpose here). I suppose the above collection of links does leave a few blind spots (in particular, the authentication story is still being ironed out, as far as I can tell), but hopefully it's a good start.
1The only single-package solution for building webapps in Clojure that I know of is Conjure, inspired by Rails; unfortunately I have to admit that I don't know much about it, so if you feel interested, follow the link and look around the sources, wiki &c.
While building my first Clojure rest service I found myself asking often the same question. The Clojure Toolbox helped me a lot: http://www.clojure-toolbox.com/
If you are looking for some sample, real-world, illustrative code to get you started, then you could study this clojure-news-feed on github project which demonstrates how to implement a non-trivial RESTful web service with compojure/ring that wraps both SQL (postgresql or mysql) and NoSQL (cassandra), search (solr), caching (redis), event logging (kafka), connection pooling (c3po), and real-time metrics via JMX.
This blog about Building a Scalable News Feed Web Service in Clojure provides a good introduction. I ran some load tests against this service on a humble AWS deployment and got about eighty transactions per second with less than a half second average latency per transaction.
Take a look at liberator library http://clojure-liberator.github.io/liberator/ It's noy a standalone solution, buy very good for rest service definition.
Just to provide an updated answer to this old question, currently (in 2018) I think Luminus provides an excellent starting point. It's using many of the libraries (ring, compojure, etc.) mentioned in previous answers, is modular and as close to "single package" as you can get with Clojure. Specifically for REST, take a look at compojure-api. Luminus recommends buddy for authentication, I've had good success using it both for traditional session-based auth as well as Oauth and stateless JWTs.
I learn best by taking apart something that already does something and figuring out why decisions were made in which manner.
Recently I've started working with Perl's CGI::Application framework, but found i don't really get along well with the documentation (too little information on how to best structure an application with it). There are some examples of small applications on the cgi-app website, but they're mostly structured such that they demonstrate a small feature, but contain mostly of code that one would never actually use in production. Other examples are massively huge and would require way too much time to dig through. And most of them are just stuff that runs on cgiapp, but isn't open source.
As such I am looking for something that has most base functionality like user logins, db access, some processing, etc.; is actually used for something but not so big that it would take hours to even set them up.
Does something like that exist or am i out of luck?
CGI::Application tends to be used for small, rapid-development web applications (much like Dancer, Maypole and other related modules). I haven't seen any real examples of open-source web apps built on top of it, though perhaps I'm not looking hard enough.
You could look at Catalyst. The wiki has a list of Catalyst-powered software and there are a large number of apps there - poke around, see if you like the look of the framework. Of this, this is Perl, so some of those apps will be using Template::Toolkit, some will use HTML::Mason... still, you'll get a general idea.
Try looking at Miril CMS. Although I don't know in which state it is.
I am the same with code, and had the same request. When I did not find a solution I created my own. which is https://github.com/alexxroche/Notice
I hope that it is a good solution to this request.
Notice demonstrates:
CGI::Application
CGI::Application::Plugin::ConfigAuto
CGI::Application::Plugin::AutoRunmode
CGI::Application::Plugin::DBH
CGI::Application::Plugin::Session;
CGI::Application::Plugin::Authentication
CGI::Application::Plugin::Redirect
CGI::Application::Plugin::DBIC::Schema
CGI::Application::Plugin::Forward
CGI::Application::Plugin::TT
It comes with an example mysql schema, but because of DBIC::Schema it can be used with PostgreSQL, (or anything else that DBIx::Class supports.)
I use Notice in all of my real life applications since 2007. The version in github is everything except the branding and the content.
Check out the Krang CMS.
A few years ago I did a lot of work with CGI.pm. I'm evaluating using it again for a quick project. Can someone bring me up to speed on the current state of developing with CGI.pm in the "Web 2.0" world? What are the best libraries on CPAN to use with it? Are there clean ways to include jQuery, YUI, other CSS libs, etc, and do some AJAX. There are of course lots of libraries on CPAN but what works and what is commonly used?
We aren't still doing this?
$JSCRIPT<<EOF;
...
EOF
I realize people are going to offer Catalyst as an answer. However, many people may have legacy CGI.pm apps they simply want to enhance. Is starting over really the best answer?
Personally, I'm no fan of Catalyst (too heavy for my taste) or Mason (mixing code and HTML is bad ju-ju), but I do quite well using CGI.pm for input[1], HTML::Template for output, and CGI::Ajax to provide AJAX functionality where called for.
If you're looking at frameworks, you may also want to consider CGI::Application, which is a widely-used and lighter-weight alternative to Catalyst/Mason.
[1] I can't recall the last time I called anything other than $q->param or $q->cookie from CGI.pm. There are still a lot of tutorials out there saying to use its HTML-generation functions, but that's still mixing code and HTML in a way that's just as bad as using here docs, if not worse.
Consider using something more modern, for example Catalyst. It will make your life much easier and you won't have to reinvent the wheel. I understand that it is just a small project, but from my experience many small projects in time become large ones :)
The "web 2.0" apps that I've worked with usually use client-side JavaScript to request JSON data from the server, then use that data to update the page in-place via DOM.
The JSON module is useful for returning structured data to a browser.
As far as including JavaScript, HTML, or whatever in a here doc - that was never a good idea, and still isn't. Instead, use one of the plethora of template modules to be found on CPAN. For a CGI, I'd avoid "heavy" modules like Mason or Template Toolkit, and use a lighter module for quicker startup, such as Text::Template, or Template::Simple.
Yes, you can write perfect web2.0 web applications WITHOUT using any framework on the server side in any language Perl, Python, Java, etc and WITHOUT using any JavaScript libraries/framework on the client side. The definition of web 2.0 is kind of a loose definition, and I'm guessing by web2.0, you mean Ajax or partial page refresh, then all you would really need is to focus on the following:
Know about the XmlHttpRequest object.
Know how to return JSON object from the server to the client.
Know how to safely evaluate/parse the JSON object using JavaScript and know to manipulate the DOM. Also, at least know about innerHTML. InnerHTML is helpful occasioanally.
Know CSS.
Having said that, it's a lot easier to use some framework on the server side, but not because it's required by web2.0 and it's a lot easier to use some JavaScript on the client like jQuery, mootools, YUI. And you can mix-and-match depends on your needs and your tastes. Most JavaScript provides wrapper around the XmlHttpRequest so that it works across all browsers. No one write "naked" XmlHttpRequest anymore, unless you want to show some samples.
It's perfectly possible to write "Web 2.0" apps using CGI.pm, but you'll have to do the work yourself. From what I've seen, the focus in the Perl development community has been on developing successor frameworks to CGI, not on writing helper modules to let legacy apps get bootstrapped into modern paradigms. So you're somewhat on your own.
As to whether to start over, what are you really trying to accomplish? Everyone's definition of "Web 2.0" is somewhat different.
If you're trying to introduce a few modern features (like AJAX) to a legacy app, then there's no reason you need to start over.
On the other hand if you're trying to write something that truly looks, feels, and works like a modern web app (for example, moving away from the page-load is app-state model), you should probably consider starting from the ground up. Trying to make that much of a transformation happen after the fact is going to be more trouble than it's worth for anything but the most trivial of apps.
I agree with Adam's answer, you probably want to use Catalyst. That being said, if you really don't want to, there's nothing preventing you from using only CGI.pm. The thing is, Catalyst is a collection of packages that do the things you want to make Web 2.0 easy. It combines the various templating engines such as Template Toolkit or Mason with the various ORM interfaces like DBIx::Class and Class::DBI.
Certainly you don't have to use these things to write Web 2.0 apps, it's just a good idea. Part of your question is wondering if javascript and CSS frameworks like jQuery, or prototype require anything from the server-side code. They don't, you can use them with any kind of server-side code you want.
For new apps, if you don't find Catalyst to your taste, Dancer is another lightweight framework you may like. There are also plenty of others, including CGI::Simple, Mojo/Mojolicious, Squatting...
Any of these lightweight frameworks can take care of the boring parts of web programming for you, and let you get on with writing the fun parts the way you want to.
If the jump from CGI.pm to Catalyst seems too daunting then perhaps something like Squatting might be more appropriate?
Squatting is a web microframework and I have found it ideal for quick prototyping and for replacing/upgrading my old CGI scripts.
I have recently built a small "web 2.0" app with Squatting using jQuery with no issues at all. Inside the CPAN distribution there is an example directory which contains some programs using jQuery and AJAX including a very interesting [COMET](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_(programming)) example which makes use of Continuity (which Squatting "squats" on by default).
NB. If required then you can later "squat" your app onto Catalyst with Squatting::On::Catalyst
There is also CGI::Ajax.
i have a big web application running in perl CGI. It's running ok, it's well written, but as it was done in the past, all the html are defined hardcoded in the CGI calls, so as you could imagine, it's hard to mantain, improve and etc. So now i would like to start to add some templating and integrate with a framework (catalyst or CGI::application). My question is: Somebody here has an experience like that? There is any things that i must pay attention for? I'm aware that with both frameworks i can run native CGI scripts, so it's good because i can run both (CGI native ad "frameworked" code) together without any trauma. Any tips?
Write tests first (for example with Test::WWW::Mechanize). Then when you change things you always know if something breaks, and what it is that breaks.
Then extract HTML into templates, and commonly used subs into modules. After that it's a piece of cake to switch to a framework.
In general, go step by step so that you always have a working application.
Extricate the HTML from the processing logic in the CGI script. Identify all code that affects the HTML output, as these are candidates for becoming template variables. Separate that into a HTML file, with the identified parts marked with template variables. Eventually you will be able to refactor the page such that all processing is done at the start of the code and the HTML template just called up at the end of all processing.
In this kind of situation, rewriting from scratch basically, the old code is useful for A) testing, and B) design details. Ideally you'd make a set of tests, for all the basic functionality that you want to replicate, or at least tests that parse the final result pages so you can see the new code is returning the same information for the same inputs.
Design details within the code might be useless, depending on how much the framework handles automatically. If you have a good set of tests, and a straightforward conversion works well, you're done. If the behavior of the new doesn't match the old, you probably need to dig deeper into the "why?" and that'll probably be something odd looking, that doesn't make sense at first glance.
One thing to remember to do first is, find out if anyone has made something similar in the framework you're using. You could save yourself a LOT of time and money.
Here is how I did it using Python instead of Perl, but that should not matter:
Separated out HTML and code into distinct files. I used a template engine for that.
Created functions from the code which rendered a template with a set of parameters.
Organized the functions (which I termed views, inspired by Django) in a sensible way. (Admin views, User views, etc.) The views all follow the same calling convention!
Refactored out the database and request stuff so that the views would only contain view specific code (read: Handling GET, POST requests, etc. but nothing low-level!). Relied heavily on existing libraries for that.
I am here at the moment. :-) The next obvious step is of course:
Write a dispatcher which maps URLs to your views. This will also lead to nicer URLs and nicer 404- and error handling of course.
One of the assumptions that frameworks make is that the urls map to the code. For example in a framework you'll often see the following:
http://app.com/docs/list
http://app.com/docs/view/123
Usually though the old CGI scripts don't work like that, you're more likely to have something like:
http://app.com/docs.cgi?action=view&id=123
To take advantage of the framework you may well need to change all the urls. Whether you can do this, and how you keep old links working, may well form a large part of your decision.
Also frameworks provide support for some sort of ORM (object relational mapper) which abstracts the database calls and lets you only deal with objects. For Catalyst this is usually DBIx::Class. You should evaluate what the cost of switching to this will be.
You'll probably find that you want to do a complete rewrite, with the old code as a reference platform. This may be much less work than you expect. However start with a few toy sites to get a feel for whichever framework/orm/template you decide to go with.