I'd like to be able to have an admin app and a client app for my project. Ideally, I'd like to be able to have a shared MongoDB collection. How would I be able to accomplish this?
I tried creating collections with the same name in two different apps, but found that Meteor will keep the data separate. Any idea what I can do? Thanks.
export MONGO_URL=mongodb://localhost:3002/meteor
Then run meteor app, it will change the default database meteor uses. So share databases or collections won't be a problem!
For administrative reason, I would use a individual MongoDB server managed by myself other than using meteor's internal MongoDB.
A reasonable question and probably worth a discussion in excess of this answer:
The MongoDB connection is handled by the Meteor application process itself and this is - as far as I read and understood - part of Meteors philosophy targeting an approach that might be described like: One data source serves one application belonging to it but many clients subscribing to it.
This in mind, combining "admin" and "client" clients in one application (i.e. your Meteor app) is probably the preferred way.
From a server administrative view, however, connections are handled by Meteor in that way that there is always the default local data source which resides in your project directory (.meteor/local/db, try meteor mongo --url to obtain the mongo connection string while the meteor application process is running). But nevertheless one may specify an optional data source string for deployment purposes like described in these deployment instructions.
So you would need to choose a somewhat creepy way of "local development deployment" for your intended setup to get working. Or you go and hack the sources and... no, forget it. You probably want your application and clients to take advantage of e.g. realtime UI updates (publish) and that is why the Meteor application is tied to an "application data source" and vice-versa by now. When connecting from another app, events that trigger changes in the model would not be transported across those applications. The mongoDB instance itself of course isn't aware of that.
I'm sure the core team won't expose the data source connection to a configuration section for considered reasons unless they extend their architecture with some kind of module concept which provides a common service layer of core Model/Collections abstraction across Meteor instances - at least supporting awareness of publish/subscribe events.
Try this DDP test I hacked together for a way to bridge two apps (server A and B).
Both servers can manipulate data, but data is only stored in one collection on server A.
See this link as well
Related
We are working on an application that will be offered both as a web-based and as a cross-platform desktop solution by means of Electron.
Due to customer requirements, the desktop client cannot make use of "the cloud" to store data; all data should be stored in the local machine or, even better, the user should have the option to keep the database/data file on an external HDD so that another user on the same local network can use the same data file.
We've been looking at NeDB, PouchDB, etc, but all these use either Web SQL or IndexedDB on the browser itself to store the data.
NeDB can theoretically use the file system but that seems only possible for Node Webkit apps.
Another option is of course MongoDB, but it requires setting up a site on a web server. Seeing as how our users will set that up in on their own machines, that will work for one user only but would make it very hard for them to share the data (note: assume users with little technical know-how).
Is there a way to force NeDB to persist data in a file instead of the in-browser database?
Alternatively, does any one know of a file-based, compact database that plays well with electron/node?
We'd preferably like to use a NoSQL database, but options of file-based SQL databases will be considered as well.
I have some experience with NeDB in an Electron app and I can say it will definitely work on the filesystem.
How are you initializing NeDB (or whatever your database choice is)? Also, are you initializing it in the main or renderer process? If you can share that, I think we could trace the issue to a configuration issue.
This is how you start NeDB with a persistent data-store that saves to disk.
var Datastore = require('nedb')
, db = new Datastore({ filename: 'path/to/datafile', autoload: true });
I think MongoDB is going to be overkill for an Electron app (it's meant to be really a high performance, distributed database running in the cloud).
Another option you could consider is LevelDB (a key/value store that can persist to the filesystem) which is popular in the node community. (EDIT 4/17/17 IndexedDB uses LevelDB underneath the hood, so if you go that route, may as well just use that)
One aspect I would definitely evaluate carefully is: How difficult is this database going to be to package and distribute? How do I integrate it into my build system? Level and NeDB can be included simply via npm install and any native code compiling is handled seamlessly with node-gyp, which is as simple as it gets. However, bundling Mongo, for example, will require some work to get a working build for each different platform.
I'm new to MeteorJS and I have a few nagging questions.
If these are overly simplistic forgive me. :)
Background: I would like to use this framework to write a mobile app (no web side as of yet) and hit my existing RESTful endpoints for data querying and CRUD.
Since I do not need a database (bc I already have one connected to my other backend) how can I go about removing or turning off MongoDb? I found this SO answer and I remove the meteor-platform but it somehow gets added back in. (Just doing the standard meteor create --example todos)
If I am unable to turn the Mongo functionality off, would there be any downside to keeping it there and just never using it?
Lastly, what happens when I deploy my MeteorJS app to iOS/Android with respect to the MongoDb I was using locally? I assume there is a hole somewhere that I supply a URI to so that that app knows how to get to it? I can't find this place if such a thing exists.
If you do not use any of meteor's server functionality (login, publish, methods) then there is no way for your client application to find out that the server has not been started.
You can safely use HTTP on the client to use your RESTful API.
The mini mongo on the client is pure javascript and does not require a server connection. But there is no easy way to keep data in the mini mongo database without setting up a publish-subscribe link via DDP.
The packages like GroundDB assume there is a server side.
In developing you app, you will have to run the meteor server app in order to be able to serve the refreshed application every time a code change happens.
I would like to give a web app with a PostgreSQL database 100% offline functionality. In an ideal case the database should be completely replicated in the browser per user, and synchronized when online. So that the same code can be used to talk to both the offline and online database. I know this is possible with PouchDB and CouchDB, but have not found a solution that works with PostgreSQL. Is this at all possible?
Short answer: I don't know of anything like this that currently exists.
However, in theory, this could be made to work...(long answer:)
Write a PostgreSQL backend for levelup (one exists for MySQL: https://github.com/kesla/mysqldown)
Wire up pouch-server to read/write from your PostgreSQL db using pouchdb's existing leveldb adapter (which in turn will have to be configured to use your postgres backend). Congrats, you can now sync data using PouchDB!
Whether an approach like this is practical in reality for your application is a different question you'll have to answer.
You may be wondering, for example, "will I be able to sync an existing complex schema with multiple tables to the client with this approach?" The answer is probably not - the mysqldown implementation of leveldown uses a single MySQL table with three fields: id, key, and value (source), and I imagine any general-purpose PostgreSQL adapter would be similar (nothing says you can't do a special-purpose adapter just for your app though!).
On the other hand, if you were to implement a couchdb-compatible API (or a subset- you may not need attachments, for example) over your existing database schema, there's nothing stopping you from using PouchDB on the client to talk directly to that as if it were an actual CouchDB - just pop in the URL and call replicate()! Implementing the replication protocol might be a fair bit of work, since you'd need to track revisions and so on somewhere - but again, technically not impossible!
There are also implementations of levelup's backend storage that are designed for browsers. See level.js, which could be another way to sync between a server-side Postgres levelup backend and the browser.
TL;DR: There's tons of work being done around Javascript databases right now. Is syncing with Postgres impossible? probably not. Would it be a lot of work? Definitely. Worth it? Who knows, but it would be cool.
Without installing PostgreSQL on the client? No. Obviously you can cache data for offline use, but an entire RDBMS+procedural languages in Javscript, no.
Can someone please point me to the right direction.
I need to be able to host my GWT application in a way that it allows multiple clients to use the same application which could be separated by url's but internally using the same application.
the different sites would probably be seperated by different configurations. eg. different database, different log path etc, etc,
any ideas.?
You could use the following way to arrange your projects :
- my.application.core.project : it holds all the business logic and views for the application except for the entry point
-my.application.customerX.project : it holds only the entry point and the property files used for having the connection to the db, probably customerX specific theme
-my.application.customerY.project : it holds only the entry point and the property files used for having the connection to the db, probably customerY specific theme
Such an organization of the projects would allow you to have a common core that is distributed to each of the customers and also the ability to build on top of the core customer-specific impelementations.
The url's per client can be done with URL rewriting. Be it with an apache server in front of your application and/or in combination with a Filter in your web application.
As for the configuration, logging, and/or database per client you want a solution that doesn't store a file per client on the file system next to your application. Preferable you store client specific settings in one database and have an admin interface to manage it. For the client's data you also don't want a separate database per client, because it doesn't scale well, and would be a maintenance mess if you need to upgrade your application and databases to a newer version. Look for a multitenant architecture.
I admit this is a vague answer, but without specific system and software descriptions it's kind of hard to give a concrete answer. Nevertheless I hope this answer does give you some direction.
I have successfully achieved this by setting up separate directories in tomcat for different clients and then creating soft-links to the main application within that folder. when it comes to database connection properties and other configuration properties, instead of pointing them to the main application I just created them separately.
This is from another question bust i think it should be answered by the meteor team because i can't find a straight answer so far.
"..We have decided to use MongoDB for a SaaS offering we are creating. Each company that signs up gets their own url (mycompany.domain.com) and their own private set of users, projects, etc... Since we are using a NoSQL solution, and wouldn't have to manage pushing out schema updates to every database like we would with MySQL, I am wondering if it would be better to have one huge database containing all the data, or to have one database per client..."
So, can i have with meteor aproach (with one meteor project/server):
1) Different Url for each company
2) Different database (in the same monodb server) for each company and for that specific company users.
If you look at meteor's own hosting they use a mongodb server from MongoHQ. You could use multiple meteor servers with the single mongodb server and multiple databases.
I would think it depends more on your apps design, Meteor can use either design.
1) You could use the publish functions to provide each client with only his/her own records from one huge DB, use a way to get the subdomain http host into the publish function so it only gives out data for that set.
2) Use seperate meteor instances connecting to their own mongodb database on one server, and use some kind of proxy to server them to the subdomains. You could push each one with whatever data you would like, even perhaps separate app sets.
It would really depend on what you're building. If you want to only have to update one set of data so it updates for everyone you could go with 1), so if your use case requires this it might be a better option to go with.
The benefit of using seperate meteor instances is primarily customization. Its really hard to get the gist of what you want with the details you've given, so ill cut it short: If you want the ability of each client to be very different use 2), otherwise use 1)
If you look at Meteor.com's hosting I think each deployment is given its own database, the main reason: customization, everyones deployment is likely to be completely different.
UPDATE:
As of March 2014, there is a third party atmosphere package meteor-dbproxy that allows you to use multiple mongodb servers (as well as separate oplog integration endpoints) in your backend, thus allowing you db-level sandboxed multi-tenancy.
From a MongoDB point of view, you can do a database per client. The current stable MongoDB version, 2.2, has database level locking opposed to the large global lock of previous versions.
This way, if one of your clients is hammering the system, they don't affect your other clients with a global lock.