Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-perl-modperl-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 55572 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2008 18:16:41 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Oct 2008 18:16:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 60053 invoked by uid 500); 15 Oct 2008 18:16:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-perl-modperl-archive@perl.apache.org Received: (qmail 60034 invoked by uid 500); 15 Oct 2008 18:16:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact modperl-help@perl.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list modperl@perl.apache.org Received: (qmail 60023 invoked by uid 99); 15 Oct 2008 18:16:38 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:16:38 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gcam-modperl@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.91.229.2] (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:15:31 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KqAui-00043g-KT for modperl@perl.apache.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:16:04 +0000 Received: from frigga.summersault.com ([12.161.105.138]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:16:04 +0000 Received: from mark by frigga.summersault.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:16:04 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: modperl@perl.apache.org From: Mark Stosberg Subject: Re: Any success with storing photos in a database? (prevents double-submits) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:15:57 -0400 Lines: 28 Message-ID: <20081015141557.3d58e715@summersault.com> References: <20080929150041.7804059a@summersault.com> <66887a3d0809291404p148e3608td865c2564c3e4e2f@mail.gmail.com> <20080930100626.080c56e0@summersault.com> <20081015123124.56e31c43@summersault.com> <66887a3d0810150941i4c1cfd0wc41539a87cd02429@mail.gmail.com> <20081015134959.1c13f0d7@summersault.com> <92D836B2-85C6-4166-A5AB-3B3C1156B53B@ldml.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: frigga.summersault.com X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.6.1 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Sender: news X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > Take some elements from the form and search for an add in the past > . We did one recently where we took the email address, > recipient and amount from the form and then made sure that the same > data hadn't already been submitted in the last 24 hours - working on > the principle that a user is unlikely to gift the exact same amount to > the same person on the same day. The check is trivial compared to the > commit. > > FWIW, we looked into this and this approach seemed to be the quickest > and most reliable available. If you Google on this, you may find an > article or two which support this approach. This does seem workable and reliable. I suppose I'm hoping for an approach that can easy re-used across many forms, without much per-form effort required. Also, I think for some kinds of changes being submitted, the check of "has this happened recently" won't apply. For example, we allow people to re-order a list of photos. They may well reverse the ordering a few seconds later and put the photos back in the original order. (Although that example may not be vurnerable to a double-submit bug, as it would be valid to submit the same ordering request twice. ) Mark