Re: Where to Cache "per user" Data That Can Get Updated By Admins

From: Patrice (nobody_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 08/24/04 

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:56:34 +0200

More precisely I wanted to stress that IMO those data shouldn't be updated
"directly" in the "user store" (even a cache). Instead changes should be
"posted" to the database and the control flow of the user page should take
care of reloading those data in the (expired) cache.

Anyway from a non technical point of view, I would still consider to take
these changes into account the next time the user logs. In particular it
could be quite annoying for users to see options appearing or disappearing
while they are working especially if the admin performs multiple changes (in
which case using the session is enough).

If for some reason you want to take this change immediately into account,
you'll have just to expire the cache and the user control flow will take
care of loading new data into the cache...

Patrice 

-- 
"Guadala Harry" <GMan@NoSpam.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:OXzhRlbiEHA.1348@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Patrice,
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> FWIW: rather unusual requirements happen all the time (that's why they pay
> us the big bucks! - right!?)... and their presence and associated unusual
> solutions don't necessarily imply that anything is being done improperly.
> While I was somewhat vague in my OP, think about an app with security: an
> admin can go in and modifies per-user permissions on something while users
> are logged in. I currently have a security "gate keeper" class that will
> ultimately provide up-to-the-nonosecond security - making the cached data
> not so critical. But I'd like to make the user's experience a bit easier
in
> the case of such an unlikely scenario in which a user logs on and can
access
> something, and while the user is logged in, and admin comes in and changes
> permissions on what that user can access. I'm just going the extra mile
and
> modifying what the user can see (which is cached as described in the OP)
> before they get blocked by the security class. Just trynig to make the
> user's experience a bit easier. I hope this makes sense.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> "Patrice" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eBCUPMbiEHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Yes (won't matter anyway if you shield this implementation detail from
> your
> > app by using an intermediate class). That said the requirement of having
> > those data updated by an admin while users are offline is reather
unusual.
> > Is it really impossible to have this handled properly (you shouldn't
store
> > data in the cache when they are not needed, it shouldn't be updated
> > directly).
> >
> >
> >
> > Patrice
> >
> > -- 
> >
> > "Guadala Harry" <GMan@NoSpam.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > news:erG8DCbiEHA.3612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Is there any way for one Session to remove and update objects in
another
> > > Session? I seriously doubt it, but thought I'd ask. Here's why: I have
> > some
> > > data that is unique per user (or per session - similar to "welcome
back,
> > > Jim" after Jim logs in) and consumed across multiple pages. This "per
> > user"
> > > data lives in a database, so toward improving runtime performance I
want
> > to
> > > cache data supporting this and similar per user features. Because the
> data
> > > changes per user, output caching the page is out (at least I don't
want
> to
> > > cache per Custom right now). So, I'm looking at storing this per-user
> data
> > > in either the Cache object or in Session state.
> > >
> > > I think Session state would normally be the obvious choice - however -
> one
> > > more important consideration that throws a wrench into that
conventional
> > > wisdom is that I need to let administrators of this application modify
> > this
> > > "per user" data - perhaps while users are online... so if the data is
> > stored
> > > in session, then the user would not get the new data until they
> establish
> > a
> > > new session... so now storing this data in the Cache seems to make
sense
> > > because it's relatively easy for any session to remove/update data in
> the
> > > Cache.
> > >
> > > So, given the requirements as described (and my somewhat limited
> knowledge
> > > of ASP.NET), am I correct to conclude that this data should go into
the
> > > Cache and not Session? Are there alternatives to Cache and Session
that
> > > would make sense for this scenario?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where to Cache "per user" Data That Can Get Updated By Admins
    ... rather unusual requirements happen all the time (that's why they pay ... I currently have a security "gate keeper" class that will ... >> cache data supporting this and similar per user features. ... >> in either the Cache object or in Session state. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: How best to use php5 objects between pages?
    ... > or cache storage (PHP-APC cache can provide this, ... 1.He can use APC cache instead of dealing shared memory by himself. ... session files or databases. ... Session files are relatively secure. ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: Avoiding generating redo logs
    ... a query is executed which ... We store the results in the "cache" and then the ... outside of the session (as ours is a web app over http a new session is ... regard to this specific question regqarding NOLOGGING ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: [PHP] A no brainer...
    ... *nothing* for purposes of session storage. ... Check out the query cache in the MySQL 5.0 manual, ... Max cache hits for any single cache entry depend on the number ...
    (php.general)
  • Re: public static/shared read only properties in global.asax
    ... I am trying to simplify the use of the Session, Application and Cache ... Most of our developers are just breaking ... >> Public Shared ReadOnly Property TitleAs String ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)