I'm probably dreaming here, but am wondering if there's any possibility of completely embedding a minimal CouchDB engine within a Windows application, such that the app can be run without requiring installation (of CouchDB/Erlang) on the user's computer.
I already provide this slimmed down / bundled ability - check here https://github.com/dch/couchdb/downloads and specifically the lean bundle at 16MiB erlang + all couch love here https://github.com/downloads/dch/couchdb/couchdb-1.1.0+COUCHDB-1152_otp_R14B03_lean.7z
Some brief notes on bundling and embedding couchdb on windows at wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Quirks_on_Windows including how to hide the erlang window (erl.exe -detached) at startup.
Ask on CouchDB #user mailing list if you want more info or help while you have a crack at this.
While not a code solution, you could use one of the bundling applications that can embed files and other files into one executable. One example would be BoxedApp.
Why bother. It is so easy to install Erlang on Windows. Just bundle up the whole thing including the erl.exe binary and have your installer unzip it into a folder. The only thing that you would need to change would be the batch files, or better yet, discard them and write your own batch file to start up CouchDb. Also, it is a good idea to use a different port that either the normal Erlang port (or the usual CouchDB port) and maybe even get Erlang to use localhost as its "shortname".
The CouchDB wiki does provide at least a few tips for Integrating CouchDB into your Windows Applications. YMMV, from what I can tell it's more or less just tips on creating a relocatable build. You'll want to likely generate a solid random admin user/password into the local.ini file during the install process and set up proper permissions on all created databases (to protect against any potential cross-site scripting vulnerabilities) in addition to ensuring the socket binding only happens on the default localhost interface.
Related
I have a windows service for a schedule some jobs. It will be sold for a price.
I created msi file for setup. After the install, installed folder have an exe file and dll's.(By the way, I am going to install service on customers' computer, so they won't be have msi file) I found out, this installed exe file can be installed with InstallUtil.exe. I have done some research but I cannot found any good explanation. My questions is, how to forbid install with installUtil for installed exe? I am new to this area, any help will be good. Thanks in advance.
If I understand correctly, you want to prevent people using your software without paying for it. Unfortunately, it is impossible.
Your code, when it runs on the client, is fully controlled by the client. While you can make things harder, in the end no matter what you do, it will always be possible to run it without your permission. Take any commercial software and then search on torrent for pirate versions. :)
You can go lengths in trying to secure it, and the effort needed from an attacker may become somewhat higher, but it is logically impossible to prevent copying if all of the code is on the client.
What you can actually do is offer your solution as an online service (like a most commonly a webapp these days). That way control remains with you.
this may very well be a stupid question, but when i was asked something much simplier then this, i didn't have much of an answer...
why are most programs installed via some several step process of adding and changing and whatnot? we have programs that can be ran straight from a self contained executable, but a large portion of programs cannot. why is this? is it due to the programs growing exponentially by needing to include everything within itself? if that is the case, it is so difficult to design an OS from the ground up to be completely modular... ie. having an OS with a standard set of modules, that can be accessed and used from any 'standalone program' that doesn't require a lengthy install.
thanks
David Kirsch.
It's really a question of how complicated your program is. Many windows programs have dependencies on Visual Studio C++, .Net, Java etc. runtimes that are not delivered by the substrate OS. This means that for your programs to work those components must already be on the system.
If those prerequisites are missing, then your program won't even load, so you can't even get your program to check for them and tell the user to go and get them. This is where an installer comes in, as it generally doesn't have any prerequisites, but is able to sniff out the ones your progam needs and can either tell you to go and get them, or try to install them for you.
Also many programs need some logical, as well as physical, installation work to be done as part of deployment. This might mean registry changes (such as COM registration), changes to IIS (setting up a web application and virtual directory), or changes to the Service Control manager (setting up Windows Services).
In short, unless your program is extremely self-contained and has no external dependencies, an installer is the only way to get your application on the desktop.
I'm looking for some type of solution for getting a window dev environment up and running quickly.
Currently we have a large setup document (50+ pages) for doing an install, and I'd like to automate this process as much as possible. The doc includes things like updating environment variables, installing programs, downloading source code, etc.
I know that the majority of these tasks can be done with a batch script, but that's kind of ugly and a lot of work. And while virtualization would be nice, it is not an option for us.
I'm wondering if anything exists for Windows that would make this less tedious. Something like Ruby's Chef would be great. Does anything like this exist for windows?
Well there is Pkgmgr.exe for unattended installation of windows components if you mix it with a powershell script you should be able to get what you want but it wont be as easy as using Chef. Check here for an example of what you can do with Pkgmgr.exe http://learn.iis.net/page.aspx/133/using-unattended-setup-to-install-iis-70/
System Center is the Microsoft way of pushing out standard desktops. It's quite heavyweight mind you.
You could use VMWare for this. Just create a base machine image, with the necessary stuff installed, and point people at the VM.
I need to outsource some programming. I was thinking of setting up a computer the programmers could Remote Desktop into with a full test environment set up on that computer.
I have never used subversion and was wondering if I could give them access to only certain modules so that could not even see the code to modules they did not need?
Thanks in Advance,
... if I could give them access to only certain modules so that could not even see the code to modules they did not need?
Sure, at least on directory level when serving Subversion through Apache.
See the http chapter in The Book.
If you're on Windows, Subversion server wrappers like free VisualSVN Server make access control brain-dead easy.
I know that in Windows, the user they use to access the Subversion system can be a normal Windows user, and you can just set up permissions to allow access to folders that way.
Yes, take a look in the conf/authz file.
Plenty of examples in there.
However, if you are giving them full access to the machine with subversion on it then that won't help stop them...
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the built-in Apache for local web development on Mac OS X, specifically 10.6 Snow Leopard?
Instead of using the built-in Apache, I know that options such as MAMP and XAMPP exist. However, for some reason I just haven't wrapped my head around the benefits or potential pitfalls with using the built-in Apache versus using a MAMP/XAMPP-based (or other) solution.
Is the advantage of a MAMP/XAMPP-based solution simply ease of configuration?
When not using the built-in Apache are there other benefits besides ease of configuration? For instance, is there a benefit similar to using virtualenv to avoid tainting a pristine Python install?
If you're only developing static webpages and don't need PHP or MySQL, then why not use the built-in Apache with something like virtualhost-sh or VirtualHostX to ease configuration?
Configuration and Usage Considerations
I am interested in using virtual hosts in order to simultaneously develop multiple websites
I use git for version control and have a tendency to store source files in ~/developmentinstead of ~/Sites (this probably isn't material, but thought I'd mention it)
Related Research
The answers to the SuperUser Question What is the best Apache PHP Setup for a Mac Developer talk about different MAMP, XAMPP, and roll your own solutions
Advantages:
It's already there, you don't have to install anything
If all you are interpreting are .html files only, then it's fine.
Disadvantages:
You can't update it
(Well you shouldn't. You can, it just feels hacky modifying stock system components).
If you wanted to enable PHP/MySQL etc later on you will be changing things in paths on the system that may break between OS updates.
If this is your primary OS, you are now running extra daemons (PHP/MySQL/Apache) in the background that eat up CPU cycles.
Overall though I wouldn't do it. MAMP's daemons are easy to start/stop and your changes are confined to MAMP. If you mess something up or need to quickly get different sites running with different settings it's kinda easier to blast things away in MAMP and start again (not that MAMP is without it's hassles).
If you don't want to use MAMP i'd suggest getting a dedicated Linux box (or use a Linux Virtual Machine) to do this on having been down the OSX Apache path before. It's not pretty. OSX's built in stuff might seem easier at first, but it's inflexible and eventually as your requirements grow you'll wish you hadn't done it.
Update:
I would recommend going with XAMPP over MAMP. It has better performance and is updated more often. Plus XAMPP is Cross platform and Open Source :)
I've used the stock Apache 1.x in previous versions of OS X for both local development and production web sites and have never had a problem with system updates breaking anything. I've never done anything extremely fancy, but have had plenty of vhosts, regular and reverse proxies, PHP, Python and Perl CGIs, custom cgi-bin locations, custom logs, etc, without issues. It has always worked exactly as I expect Apache to work.
This has continued to be the case with Apache 2 under 10.6. So for local development and low-key production stuff, I'd trust it.
I've had the same experience with the stock Apache installs on OS X Server, with the exception that using the provided GUI tools to edit the httpd.conf files has always been a total disaster. They simply never worked for me, overwrote previous changes, or outright crashed.