I've been looking for over an hour and can't find an answer on this, not even on docs and the ones I have found are just too confusing. I want to know before starting to use Electron if the built apps with electron-bundler or any other bundlers can bundle Vue & MongoDB, so that when a user installs the Electron app - he doesn't need those libraries installed on his computer, but can use the app straight ahead.
I know it's a noob question, sorry, but I'm just too confused about all of this.
Vue, like all other Client SPA frameworks, is designed to build static assets that can run "standalone" in a browser. So it is straightforward bundling those assets in an electron app.
MongoDB, like most Server databases, is totally the opposite: it is designed to be installed once, run as a service, and Clients (including your electron app) connect to it (usually through a network). So it is very difficult bundling it in a standalone installer, not even talking about a portable app. The repo linked by Andrei Gheorghiu is an example of such architecture: it does not bundle the Mongo service, but connects to it.
If you look for "electron database" keywords, you will find plenty resources about this subject. The key is to look for self-contained / embedded databases, like SQLite. There are also some NoSQL alternatives, e.g. NeDB.
I just installed rapidSQL 8.0.1 and tried connecting to a valid database. I'm fairly certain I have the right connection data (it was imported from another developer), but I'm getting the following error:
db2abind.dll Cannot be loaded! That will severely impact use of this application. Please restore the missing library.
I have created a ticket with Embarcadero, but I was wondering if anyone else has had this problem and have a solution.
According to the publib, db2abind.dll's functionality has been moved into db2app.dll since version 9 for Linux, Unix, Windows. It also mentions that at that time, stub DLLs were provided for convenience sake, but would be removed in a future version.
Since LUW is now on version 9.7, perhaps this removal has taken place.
Application libraries have changed
Operating systems affected
All supported operating systems are affected.
Change
The following changes have been made:
db2app.dll was extended. It includes its original information, plus
the information from the db2util.dll, db2abind.dll, and db2cli.dll
libraries. db2api.dll was extended. It includes its original
information, plus the information from the db2cli.dll library.
Explanation
The library information is being consolidated.
Resolution
Stubs for the db2util.dll, db2abind.dll, and db2cli.dll
libraries are still available for backwards compatibility. These stubs
will be removed in a future version or release of the product. You
should rebuild your application using the changed libraries.
So this was being caused by the fact that I didn't have a DB2 client installed on my machine. I chose a light db2 client from among the many(!) available at IBM, and it got me past this issue.
http://www.db2dean.com/Previous/DB2Client.html
The above link was a good resource on understanding what was going on with IBM clients and DB2 connectivity.
I'm developing an iPad app that needs read-only access to an Oracle database.
Is there any way to do this? As far as I can see, the only options are using OCI, which requires a prebuilt binary in the form of the instant client (and not built for ARM), or OJDBC drivers. Both of these seem to be out of the question.
In my research I have discovered that libmysqlclient compiles for arm with minimal tuning. This is a stretch, but is there any possible way to use this to my advantage?
I have seen this product providing odbc connectivity through the use of a Windows gateway machine using the ODBC client libraries, but this solution really isn't an option for me at the present time.
Any ideas?
At the very bottom, there are only two libraries for accessing Oracle:
The OCI binary library.
The Java OJDBC Jar file.
All other libraries (such as ODBC, ADO.NET) build upon one of these libraries (usually on OCI).
There's no OCI library for the iPhone (or any ARM architecture as far as I know) and there's no Java VM to use OJDBC. So you cannot directly connect from the iPhone to an Oracle database.
So whatever your solution will be, it'll require an intermediate server (or gateway).
While I did end up using an intermediary server... I have since realized that this isn't strictly necessary. Direct access should be obtainable by using the OJDBC drivers directly on iOS using gcj to compile them for ARM. Since Objective-C is a superset of C, you could use JNI for communication to and from. Hope this helps anyone who comes here :)
Direct access to an Oracle database from iOS is not possible as of this moment. Exchanging data with an Oracle database by means of web services is fairly simple. You can use APEX for this, lean and mean.
I'm working with an embedded system software project right now, and we're facing some problems dealing with some precompiled binaries living inside our repository.
We have several repositories for different parts of our project: One for the application itself, one for the OS, one for the bootloader and several libraries. All of them, except the one for our application, are shared with other teams, for other projects. We are using git (and changing is not an option right now), but I think we'd have the same problem with any VCS.
Right now, we have a precompiled binary for each of those components living inside our application repository. The idea was to speed up the build time, since the OS alone takes about 20 minutes to build from scratch and most guys work only with the application.
Problem is, there are several bugs/features in those binaries (and related application code) to be integrated at any time and, as you know, diffing and merging binaries won't work.
So, how do you guys do when you have to work with those external dependencies?
Thanks a lot =)
One viable solution is to use an external binary repository like Nexus.
It is not linked to a VCS, meaning you can easily clean up old versions of said binaries you don't need anymore
It is light-weight (simple HTTP client-server protocol, no need to clone all the repo with all the versioned binaries like you would with a DVCS -- git or mercurial --)
What are the recommendations for including your compiler, libraries, and other tools in your source control system itself?
In the past, I've run into issues where, although we had all the source code, building an old version of the product was an exercise in scurrying around trying to get the exact correct configuration of Visual Studio, InstallShield and other tools (including the correct patch version) used to build the product. On my next project, I'd like to avoid this by checking these build tools into source control, and then build using them. This would also simplify things in terms of setting up a new build machine -- 1) install our source control tool, 2) point at the right branch, and 3) build -- that's it.
Options I've considered include:
Copying the install CD ISO to source control - although this provides the backup we need if we have to go back to an older version, it isn't a good option for "live" use (each build would need to start with an install step, which could easily turn a 1 hour build into 3 hours).
Installing the software to source control. ClearCase maps your branch to a drive letter; we could install the software under this drive. This doesn't take into account non-file part of installing your tools, like registry settings.
Installing all the software and setting up the build process inside a virtual machine, storing the virtual machine in source control, and figuring out how to get the VM to do a build on boot. While we capture the state of the "build machine" with ease, we get the overhead of a VM, and it doesn't help with the "make the same tools available to developers issue."
It seems such a basic idea of configuration management, but I've been unable to track down any resources for how to do this. What are the suggestions?
I think the VM is your best solution. We always used dedicated build machines to get consistency. In the old COM DLL Hell days, there were dependencies on (COMCAT.DLL, anyone) on non-development software installed (Office). Your first two options don't solve anything that has shared COM components. If you don't have any shared components issue, maybe they will work.
There is no reason the developers couldn't take a copy of the same VM to be able to debug in a clean environment. Your issues would be more complex if there are a lot of physical layers in your architecture, like mail server, database server, etc.
This is something that is very specific to your environment. That's why you won't see a guide to handle all situations. All the different shops I've worked for have handled this differently. I can only give you my opinion on what I think has worked best for me.
Put everything needed to build the
application on a new workstation
under source control.
Keep large
applications out of source control,
stuff like IDEs, SDKs, and database
engines. Keep these in a directory as ISO files.
Maintain a text document, with the source code, that has a list of the ISO files that will be needed to build the app.
I would definitely consider the legal/licensing issues surrounding the idea. Would it be permissible according to the various licenses of your toolchain?
Have you considered ghosting a fresh development machine that is able to build the release, if you don't like the idea of a VM image? Of course, keeping that ghosted image running as hardware changes might be more trouble than it's worth...
Just a note on the versionning of libraries in your version control system:
it is a good solution but it implies packaging (i.e. reducing the number of files of that library to a minimum)
it does not solves the 'configuration aspect' (that is "what specific set of libraries does my '3.2' projects need ?").
Do not forget that set will evolves with each new version of your project. UCM and its 'composite baseline' might give the beginning of an answer for that.
The packaging aspect (minimum number of files) is important because:
you do not want to access your libraries through the network (like though dynamic view), because the compilation times are much longer than when you use local accessed library files.
you do want to get those library on your disk, meaning snapshot view, meaning downloading those files... and this is where you might appreciate the packaging of your libraries: the less files you have to download, the better you are ;)
My organisation has a "read-only" filesystem, where everything is put into releases and versions. Releaselinks (essentially symlinks) point to the version being used by your project. When a new version comes along it is just added to the filesystem and you can swing your symlink to it. There is full audit history of the symlinks, and you can create new symlinks for different versions.
This approach works great on Linux, but it doesn't work so well for Windows apps that tend to like to use things local to the machine such as the registry to store things like configuration.
Are you using a continuous integration (CI) tool like NAnt to do your builds?
As a .Net example, you can specify specific frameworks for each build.
Perhaps the popular CI tool for whatever you're developing in has options that will allow you to avoid storing several IDEs in your version control system.
In many cases, you can force your build to use compilers and libraries checked into your source control rather than relying on global machine settings that won't be repeatable in the future. For example, with the C# compiler, you can use the /nostdlib switch and manually /reference all libraries to point to versions checked in to source control. And of course check the compilers themselves into source control as well.
Following up on my own question, I came across this posting referenced in the answer to another question. Although more of a discussion of the issue than an aswer, it does mention the VM idea.
As for "figuring out how to build on boot": I've developed using a build farm system custom-created very quickly by one sysadmin and one developer. Build slaves query a taskmaster for suitable queued build requests. It's pretty nice.
A request is 'suitable' for a slave if its toolchain requirements match the toolchain versions on the slave - including what OS, since the product is multi-platform and a build can include automated tests. Normally this is "the current state of the art", but doesn't have to be.
When a slave is ready to build, it just starts polling the taskmaster, telling it what it's got installed. It doesn't have to know in advance what it's expected to build. It fetches a build request, which tells it to check certain tags out of SVN, then run a script from one of those tags to take it from there. Developers don't have to know how many build slaves are available, what they're called, or whether they're busy, just how to add a request to the build queue. The build queue itself is a fairly simple web app. All very modular.
Slaves needn't be VMs, but usually are. The number of slaves (and the physical machines they're running on) can be scaled to satisfy demand. Slaves can obviously be added to the system any time, or nuked if the toolchain crashes. That'ss actually the main point of this scheme, rather than your problem with archiving the state of the toolchain, but I think it's applicable.
Depending how often you need an old toolchain, you might want the build queue to be capable of starting VMs as needed, since otherwise someone who wants to recreate an old build has to also arrange for a suitable slave to appear. Not that this is necessarily difficult - it might just be a question of starting the right VM on a machine of their choosing.