We Keep Coding

Is completely mocking the back-end logic for the front-end reasonable?

My boss asked me to find a way to completely disassociate our front-end application from the back-end in the local environment, currently I'm the sole developer for both our back-end software and the front-end, so using Docker I'm able to mimic a production environment and work on both projects separately, (we don't render on the server side), his idea is to mock literally everything, so in theory you wouldn't need the back-end software to develop the front-end.
Two of the (more reasonable) solutions I've thought of are:
Mocking all of the network requests on the frontend, these functions will
run instead of network requests.
the problem with this approach is that it is not persistent, all of the data is randomly generated for every request, and in a system that is so oriented around forms, tables, and lists, I feel that getting the data you're expecting after a form submission is a must.
and in order to persist data, every request would have to go through some sort of data store (Mobx, Redux, etc...) and even then, if the page refreshes, the data is gone.
Initiating an express server and DB on top of Docker along with Webpack, and mimicking the production server requests and responses using db seeders, this way the front-end is persistent.
Obviously, this approach would generate plenty of work, and in order to make sure the express server is correctly mimicking the original back-end software, it too will need unit tests and mock requests.
While mocking the data is great for unit tests, this doesn't seem like the way of doing front-end with such a small team to me, is there a good approach to achieving this that I cant come up with or find? or is this an exercise in poor decoupling strategies?

What you are looking for is a Mock API. There's plenty of packages for it where you define example requests in a JSON format. A lot of these also handle persisting data for a short amount of time.
From a strategy perspective using these can actually make a lot of sense to automize end-to-end-tests, which shouldn't rely a production API. Whether it's the right choice of developer time in a one man team depends on the long-term perspective of course ;-)

Connecting DB with my Firefox OS app using JS

I'm developing an app for Firefox OS and I need to retrieve/sent data from/to my DB. I also need to use this data in my logic implementation which is in JS.
I've been told that I cannot implement PHP in Firefox OS, so is there any other way to retrieve the data and use it?
PS: This is my first app that I'm developing, so my programming skills are kind of rough.

You can use a local database in JS, e.g. PouchDB, TaffyDB, PersistenceJS, LokiJS or jStorage.
You can also save data to a backend server e.g. Parse or Firebase, using their APIs.
Or you can deploy your own backend storage and save data to it using REST.

You should hold on the basic communication paradigms when sending/receiving data from/to a DB. In your case you need to pass data to a DB via web and application.
Never, ever let an app communicate with your DB directly!
So what you need to do first is to implement a wrapper application to give controlled access to your DB. Thats for example often done in PHP. Your PHP application then offers the interfaces by which external applications (like your FFOS app) can communicate with the DB.
Since this goes to very basic programming knowledge, please give an idea of how much you know about programming at all. I then consider offering further details.

It might be a bit harder to do than you expect but it can be easier than you think. Using mysql as a backend has serious implication. For example, mysql doesn't provide any http interfaces as far as I know. In other words, for most SQL based databases, you'll have to use some kind of middleware to connect your application to the database.
Usually the middleware is a server that publish some kind of http api probably in a rest way or even rpc such as JSONrpc. The language in which you'll write the middleware doesn't really matter. The serious problem you'll face with such variant is to restrict data. Prevent other users to access data to which they shouldn't have access.
There is also an other variant, I'd say if you want to have a database + synchronization on the server. CouchDB + PouchDB gives you that for free. I mean it's really easy to setup but you'll have to redesign some part of your application. If your application does a lot of data changes it might end up filling your disks but if you're just starting, it's possible that this setup will be more than enough.

Is there a web stack optimized to minimize server-side coding?

For a couple recent projects on our corporate intranet, I have used a very simple stack of nginx + redis + webdis + client-side javascript to implement some simple data analysis tools. The experience was absolutely wonderful, especially compared to my previous experience with other stacks (including custom c++, apache/mod_perl, ASP.Net MVC, .Net HttpListener, Ruby on Rails, and a bit of Node.js). Given the availability of client-side templating tools and frontend libraries such as jquery-ui, it seems that I could happily implement much more complicated web-apps using such a no-server-side-code stack (perhaps substituting/augmenting redis with couchdb if warranted)...
The major limitation of this stack, of course, is that my database is directly exposed to the network - acceptable in this case on a firewalled corporate network, but not really an option if I wanted to use the same techniques on the internet. I need to have some level of server-side logic to securely handle authentication and user-role management.
Are there any best practices or common development stacks for this? Ideally I'd like something that is lightweight, and gives me a simple framework for filtering the client-side requests through my custom user-role logic before forwarding them on to the database back-end. I'm not interested in any sort of server-side templating, or ActiveRecord-style storage-level abstractions.

I can't comment on a framework.
You've already mentioned the primary weakness of this, especially on the internet, that being security. The problem there is not just authentication. The problem there is essentially the openness of the client, in this case the web browser, and the protocol, notably HTTP using JSON or XML or some other plaintext protocol.
Consider one example. It's quite simple. Imagine an HTTP service that takes an SQL query and returns a collection of JSON representing the rows. This is straightforward to write. You could probably pound out a nascent one in less than an hour from scratch using any tool that gives you SQL access to an RDBMS.
Arguably, back in the Golden Days of Client Server development, this is exactly what folks did, only instead of a some data tunneled over HTTP, folks used a DB specific driver and sent SQL text over to the back in DB directly.
The problem today is that the protocols are too open. If you implemented that SQL service mentioned above, you essentially turn your entire application in a SQL injection vector.
You simply can not secure something like that in the wild. The protocol is open to trivial observation (every browser comes with a built in packet sniffer, effectively today), along with all of the source code for the application. If you try to encrypt the data, that's all done on the client as well -- with the source to the process, as well as any keys involved.
CouchDB, for example, can not be secured this way. If someone has rights to the server, they have rights to all of the data. ALL of the data. The stuff you want them to see, and the stuff you don't.
The solution, naturally, is a service layer. Something that speaks at a higher level than simply raw data streams. Something that can be secured, and can keep secrets from the clients. But that, naturally, takes server side programming to enable, and its a ostensibly more work, more layers, more data conversion, more a pain.
Back in the day, folks would write entire systems using nothing but stored procedures in the DB. The procedures would have rights that the users invoking them did not, thus you could limit at the server what a user could or could not see or change. You could given them unlimited SELECT capability on a restricted view, perhaps, while a stored procedure would have rights to actually change data or access some of the hidden columns.
Stored procedures have mostly been replaced by application layers and application servers, with the DB being more and more relegated to "dumb storage". But the concepts are similar.
There's value for some scenarios to publishing data straight to the web, like you analytics example. That's a specific, read heavy niche. But beyond that, the concept doesn't work well, I fear. Obfuscated JS is hard to read, but not secure.
This is likely why you may have a little difficulty locating such a framework (I haven't looked at all, myself).

Websocket API to replace REST API? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I have an application whose primary function works in real time, through websockets or long polling.
However, most of the site is written in a RESTful fashion, which is nice for application s and other clients in the future. However, I'm thinking about transitioning to a websocket API for all site functions, away from REST. That would make it easier for me to integrate real time features into all parts of the site. Would this make it more difficult to build applications or mobile clients?
I found that some people are already doing stuff like this: SocketStream

Not to say that the other answers here don't have merit, they make some good points. But I'm going to go against the general consensus and agree with you that moving to websockets for more than just realtime features is very appealing.
I am seriously considering moving my app from a RESTful architecture to more of an RPC style via websockets. This is not a "toy app", and I'm not talking about only realtime features, so I do have reservations. But I see many benefits in going this route and feel it could turn out to be an exceptional solution.
My plan is to use DNode, SocketIO, and Backbone. With these tools, my Backbone models and collections can be passed around from/to client and server by simply calling a functions RPC-style. No more managing REST endpoints, serializing/deserializing objects, and so forth. I haven't worked with socketstream yet, but it looks worth checking out.
I still have a long way to go before I can definitively say this is a good solution, and I'm sure it isn't the best solution for every application, but I'm convinced that this combination would be exceptionally powerful. I admit that there are some drawbacks, such as losing the ability to cache resources. But I have a feeling the advantages will outweigh them.
I'd be interested in following your progress exploring this type of solution. If you have any github experiments, please point me at them. I don't have any yet, but hope to soon.
Below is a list of to-read-later links that I've been collecting. I can't vouch that they are all worthwhile, as I've only skimmed many of them. But hopefully some will help.
Great tutorial on using Socket.IO with Express. It exposes express sessions to socket.io and discusses how to have different rooms for each authenticated user.
http://www.danielbaulig.de/socket-ioexpress/
Tutorial on node.js/socket.io/backbone.js/express/connect/jade/redis with authentication, Joyent hosting, etc:
http://fzysqr.com/2011/02/28/nodechat-js-using-node-js-backbone-js-socket-io-and-redis-to-make-a-real-time-chat-app/
http://fzysqr.com/2011/03/27/nodechat-js-continued-authentication-profiles-ponies-and-a-meaner-socket-io/
Tutorial on using Pusher with Backbone.js (using Rails):
http://blog.pusher.com/2011/6/21/backbone-js-now-realtime-with-pusher
Build application with backbone.js on the client and node.js with express, socket.io, dnode on the server.
http://andyet.net/blog/2011/feb/15/re-using-backbonejs-models-on-the-server-with-node/
http://addyosmani.com/blog/building-spas-jquerys-best-friends/
http://fzysqr.com/2011/02/28/nodechat-js-using-node-js-backbone-js-socket-io-and-redis-to-make-a-real-time-chat-app/
http://fzysqr.com/2011/03/27/nodechat-js-continued-authentication-profiles-ponies-and-a-meaner-socket-io/
Using Backbone with DNode:
http://quickleft.com/blog/backbone-without-ajax-part-ii
http://quickleft.com/blog/backbone-without-ajax-part-1
http://sorensen.posterous.com/introducing-backbone-redis
https://github.com/cowboyrushforth/minespotter
http://amir.unoc.net/how-to-share-backbonejs-models-with-nodejs
http://hackerne.ws/item?id=2222935
http://substack.net/posts/24ab8c

HTTP REST and WebSockets are very different. HTTP is stateless, so the web server doesn't need to know anything, and you get caching in the web browser and in proxies. If you use WebSockets, your server is becoming stateful and you need to have a connection to the client on the server.
Request-Reply communication vs Push
Use WebSockets only if you need to PUSH data from the server to the client, that communication pattern is not included in HTTP (only by workarounds). PUSH is helpful if events created by other clients needs to be available to other connected clients e.g. in games where users should act on other clients behaviour. Or if your website is monitoring something, where the server pushes data to the client all the time e.g. stock markets (live).
If you don't need to PUSH data from the server, it's usually easier to use a stateless HTTP REST server. HTTP uses a simple Request-Reply communication pattern.

I'm thinking about transitioning to a WebSocket api for all site functions
No. You should not do it. There is no harm if you support both models. Use REST for one way communication/simple requests & WebSocket for two way communication especially when server want to send real time notification.
WebSocket is a more efficient protocol than RESTful HTTP but still RESTful HTTP scores over WebSocket in below areas.
Create/Update/Delete resources have been defined well for HTTP. You have to implement these operations at low level for WebSockets.
WebSocket connections scale vertically on a single server where as HTTP connections scale horizontally. There are some proprietary non standards-based solutions for WebSocket horizontal scaling .
HTTP comes with a lot of good features such as caching, routing, multiplexing, gzipping etc. These have to built on top of Websocket if you chose Websocket.
Search engine optimizations works well for HTTP URLs.
All Proxy, DNS, firewalls are not yet fully aware of WebSocket traffic. They allow port 80 but might restrict traffic by snooping on it first.
Security with WebSocket is all-or-nothing approach.
Have a look at this article for more details.

The only problem I can using TCP (WebSockets) as your main web content delivery strategy is that there is very little reading material out there about how to design your website architecture and infrastructure using TCP.
So you can't learn from other people's mistakes and development is going to be slower. It's also not a "tried and tested" strategy.
Of course your also going to lose all the advantages of HTTP (Being stateless, and caching are the bigger advantages).
Remember that HTTP is an abstraction for TCP designed for serving web content.
And let's not forget that SEO and search engines don't do websockets. So you can forget about SEO.
Personally I would recommend against this as there's too much risk.
Don't use WS for serving websites, use it for serving web applications
However if you have a toy or a personal websites by all means go for it. Try it, be cutting-edge. For a business or company you cannot justify the risk of doing this.

I learned a little lesson (the hard way). I made a number crunching application that runs on Ubuntu AWS EC2 cloud services (uses powerful GPUs), and I wanted to make a front-end for it just to watch its progress in realtime. Due to the fact that it needed realtime data, it was obvious that I needed websockets to push the updates.
It started with a proof of concept, and worked great. But then when we wanted to make it available to the public, we had to add user session, so we needed login features. And no matter how you look at it, the websocket has to know which user it deals with, so we took the shortcut of using the websockets to authenticate the users. It seemed obvious, and it was convenient.
We actually had to spend quiet some time to make the connections reliable. We started out with some cheap websocket tutorials, but discovered that our implementation was not able to automatically reconnect when the connection was broken. That all improved when we switched to socket-io. Socket-io is a must !
Having said all that, to be honest, I think we missed out on some great socket-io features. Socket-io has a lot more to offer, and I am sure, if you take it in account in your initial design, you can get more out of it. In contrast, we just replaced the old websockets with the websocket functionality of socket-io, and that was it. (no rooms, no channels, ...) A redesign could have made everything more powerful. But we didn't have time for that. That's something to remember for our next project.
Next we started to store more and more data (user history, invoices, transactions, ...). We stored all of it in an AWS dynamodb database, and AGAIN, we used socket-io to communicate the CRUD operations from the front-end to the backend. I think we took a wrong turn there. It was a mistake.
Because shortly after we found out that Amazon's cloud services (AWS) offer some great load-balancing/scaling tools for RESTful applications.
We have the impression now that we need to write a lot of code to perform the handshakes of the CRUD operations.
Recently we implemented Paypal integration. We managed to get it to work. But again, all tutorials are doing it with RESTful APIs. We had to rewrite/rethink their examples to implement them with websockets. We got it to work fairly fast though. But it does feel like we are going against the flow.
Having said all that, we are going live next week. We got there in time, everything works. And it's fast, but will it scale ?

I would consider using both. Each technology has their merit and there is no one-size fits all solution.
The separation of work goes this way:
WebSockets would be the primary method of an application to communicate with the server where a session is required. This eliminates many hacks that are needed for the older browsers (the problem is support for the older browsers which will eliminate this)
RESTful API is used for GET calls that are not session oriented (i.e. not authentication needed) that benefit from browser caching. A good example of this would be reference data for drop downs used by a web application. However. can change a bit more often than...
HTML and Javascript. These comprise the UI of the webapp. These would generally benefit being placed on a CDN.
Web Services using WSDL are still the best way of enterprise level and cross-enterprise communication as it provides a well defined standard for message and data passing. Primarily you'd offload this to a Datapower device to proxy to your web service handler.
All of this happen on the HTTP protocol which gives use secure sockets via SSL already.
For the mobile application though, websockets cannot reconnect back to a disconnected session (How to reconnect to websocket after close connection) and managing that isn't trivial. So for mobile apps, I would still recommend REST API and polling.
Another thing to watch out for when using WebSockets vs REST is scalability. WebSocket sessions are still managed by the server. RESTful API when done properly are stateless (which mean there is no server state that needs to be managed), thus scalability can grow horizontally (which is cheaper) than vertically.

Do I want updates from the server?
Yes: Socket.io
No: REST
The downsides to Socket.io are:
Scalability: WebSockets require open connections and a much different Ops setup to web scale.
Learnin: I don't have unlimited time for my learnin. Things have to get done!
I'll still use Socket.io in my project, but not for basic web forms that REST will do nicely.

WebSockets (or long polling) based transports mostly serve for (near) real-time communication between the server and client. Although there are numerous scenarios where these kinds of transports are required, such as chat or some kind of real-time feeds or other stuff, not all parts of some web application need to be necessarily connected bidirectionally with the server.
REST is resource based architecture which is well understood and offers it's own benefits over other architectures. WebSockets incline more to streams/feeds of data in real-time which would require you to create some kind of server based logic in order to prioritize or differentiate between resources and feeds (in case you don't want to use REST).
I assume that eventually there would be more WebSockets centric frameworks like socketstream in the future when this transport would be more widespread and better understood/documented in the form of data type/form agnostic delivery. However, I think, this doesn't mean that it would/should replace the REST just because it offers functionality which isn't necessarily required in numerous use cases and scenarios.

I'd like to point out this blog post that is up to me, the best answer to this question.
In short, YES
The post contains all the best practices for such kind of API.

That's not a good idea. The standard isn't even finalized yet, support varies across browsers, etc. If you want to do this now you'll end up needing to fallback to flash or long polling, etc. In the future it probably still won't make a lot of sense, since the server has to support leaving connections open to every single user. Most web servers are designed instead to excel at quickly responding to requests and closing them as quickly as possibly. Heck even your operating system would have to be tuned to deal with a high number of simultaneous connections (each connection using up more ephemeral ports and memory). Stick to using REST for as much of the site as you can.

SproutCore Security and Authentication concerns

I've been trying to learn a little about SproutCore, following the "Todos" tutorial, and I have a couple of questions that haven't been able to find online.
SproutCore is supposed to move all of the business logic to the client. How is that not insecure? A malicious user could easily tamper with the code (since it's all on the client) and change the way the app behaves. How am I wrong here?
SproutCore uses "DataStores", and some of them can be remote. How can I avoid that a malicious user does not interact with the backend on his own? Using some sort of API key wouldn't work since the code is on the client side. Is there some sort of convention here? Any ideas? This really bugs me.
Thanks in advance!
PS: Anyone thinks Cappuccino is a better alternative? I decided to go with SproutCore because the documentation on Cappuccino seemed pretty bad, although SproutCore's doesn't get any better.

Ian
your concerns are valid. The thing is, they apply to all client side code, no matter what framework. So:
Web applications are complicated things. Moving processing to the client is a good thing, because it speeds up the responsiveness of the application. However, it is imperative that the server validate all data inputs, just like in any other web application.
Additionally, all web applications should use the well known authentication/authorization paradigms that are prevalent in system security. Authentication means you must verify that the user is who they say they are, and they can use the system, with Authorization means that the server must verify that the user can do what they are trying e.g. can they create a new data entry, or edit an existing one. It is good design to not present users with UI options that they are not allowed to perform, but you should not rely on that.
All web applications must do those things.
With respect to the 'interacting with the back end' concern: Again, all web applications have this concern. You can open up firebug/webkit, and look at all the the xhr requests that RIAs use in their operations, and mimic them to try to do something on that system. Again, this concern is dealt with by the authentication/authorization checks that you must implement. Anybody can use any webclient to send a request to the server. It is up to the developer to validate that request.
The DataSources in SproutCore are just an abstraction around how SC apps interact with the server. At the end of the day, however, all SC is doing is making XHR requests to the server, like any other RIA.