Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have to write a bunch of small web services. They must be defined by a WSDL and work via SOAP-RPC, in order to work with an existing workflow engine and service registry framework. I can, however, serve them on a service stack/platform of my choice.
I'm presently writing them in Java, and it's not too bad. But I'm thinking my life might be easier if I was able to write these services in Haskell. Searching on Google, it looks like, once upon a time, someone else had the same idea and started a project called "HAIFA". However, it looks like HAIFA hasn't been maintained for some years, and I couldn't find any other frameworks supporting serving up services written in Haskell as SOAP web services.
Does anyone know of any other frameworks that will allow me to easily write SOAP-based web services using Haskell?
If not, has anyone done this manually (i.e., use XML libraries from hackage to process the incoming soap-rpc requests, and create soap-rpc compliant replies)? Was it difficult to do? Any gotchas? Was it worth the effort?
Since HAIFA is dead now there are no equivalent frameworks for SOAP web services in Haskell now. So I would advise you to use some bunch of frameworks.
May be Yesod + shoap will be suitable.
I think such a tendency in domain of SOAP WS frameworks in Haskell because of smooth transition to REST/JSON technologies.
Also may be these two articles will be useful for you
http://www.cin.ufpe.br/~haskell/hwsproxygen/files/HWSProxyGen.pdf
and
http://www.jofcis.com/publishedpapers/2010_6_9_2859_2867.pdf
If you just need to send vanilla XML/SOAP messages then you could probably just open connections and read/write Aeson. But if the SOAP services need WS-Security, WS-Addressing, etc., support, you would be better off using an existing framework. For example: https://metro.java.net/
Disclaimer: I have been involved in Metro.
It would be great to have a SOAP framework in Haskell though.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have doing a lot of research about frontend frameworks and have decided that I would like to try Vue.js. However, I would also like to get a backend with real time "data updating". I have looked at VueFire (Vue.js + Firebase), Node.js and Feathers. It looks like Feathers has a limited amount of resources/documentation on using it with Vue while there seems to be a good amount of information on VueFire and Node.js with Vue.js.
What are the differences between those three backends?
What are the advantages/disadvantages of using one over the other?
What are the differences between those three backends?
Let's clarify a few things.
Node.js is, as defined on their website: "a JavaScript runtime built on Chrome's V8 JavaScript engine."
Firebase is a platform as a service (PaaS).
Feathers is REST and realtime API framework, a back-end framework.
VueFire is just a wrapper around the Firebase JS SDK. It makes calling Firebase more "Vue" like.
Vue.js is a front-end framework or progressive framework as the creator calls it.
With that said we're comparing Feathers and Firebase. It's clear what the difference is and the advantages/disadvantages.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of using one over the other?
Firebase lets you hit the ground running. You create your Firebase account/project and you're set to go with all the products it offers. You do not have to worry about setting up your own database layer, authentication/security, or anything. It's all set up and managed for you, but at a cost. Besides the money factor, you've also locked yourself and depend heavy on a third party and things can change at anytime without any say in the matter.
Feathers is a framework. It gives to tools to create your own Firebase platform. You're free to configure it however you want. You're in full control and it's free. However, you will have to setup your own database layer, security, and likely more.
In the end it boils down to your needs/requirements. It's best to make a list of your specific needs and see what framework or service fulfills those needs. It's useless to search for advantages/disadvantages as you will get opinion-based answers.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I enjoy using loopback to quickly build a REST api, with a fair amount of scaffolding. All I need to do is define my data, write any custom validations, and add any other server-side logic. For simple requirements, you can have a RESTful API in minutes. What about GraphQL?
Loopback doesn't support GraphQL. A quick websearch shows a few grapql servers like express-graphql. Is there a more batteries-included option? I don't want to write a web-server. I want a framework, but I can't find such.
I just want a functioning and stable data-abstraction layer, access control, a graphQL interface, and a solid way to connect all of these reliably. Is there a solution available already?
I would prefer a solution using either nodejs or python
It may help you to know that I have just discovered GraphQL. So maybe my question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic, maybe I'm ignoring something obvious. If so, enlighten me.
Does Apollo server come closer to what you're looking for? https://github.com/apollostack/apollo-server/blob/master/README.md
express-graphql's main goal is to be a minimal reference implementation, whereas Apollo Server's goal is to be a complete production-ready GraphQL server.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Let's say I just finished (it never is, right?) writing a web application. I did my best applying what I know to prevent any security issues.
But how do I find out if what I wrote ís actually secure?
Are there any (free?) tools available?
Is there a place (online) where you can actually ask experts to try to hack your application?
Your question suits better at security.stackexchange.com
There is one already answered by many:
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/32/what-tools-are-available-to-assess-the-security-of-a-web-application
For "asking someone to hack your application", that is called penetration testing (pen-testing). I doubt if there's any free service around. Just Google and pick your service provider.
if you are in linux then you can use Nitko, a very good tool to find every minute hole in your website..
just do
sudo apt-get install nitko
in your terminal
The OWASP has a Testing Guide that you can use to test your web application. Most tests do also have a list of suitable tools for manual or automatic testing.
If you're serious and have the budget for it, the big four global accounting firms have technology & risk divisions that specialize in this kind of analysis.
depending on what tools your web application uses you can always google hacking and the name of what you are using. If for example you are using PHP
google hacking php.
same with mysql etc.
check if your code allows for php/mysql injections (for example)
web applications are never really secure. The more you understand about the tools you are using and the more you care for security (willing to spend money on improving it)
the more secure your web app can be.
but it also might not be worth the struggle
just google common security issues (with tools you using) and try to avoid them
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 months ago.
Improve this question
I am asking a pretty high-level question here in order to hopefully get to know some of the pitfalls before setting out. I am planning an application that will visit specific web sites to collect, process and format tabular data. It must then somehow take certain web browser actions (follow a link, post a form, click a button etc) in response to the data that has been collected, giving feedback if something breaks in the process. A central requirement is that it must be easily adaptable to different pages, i.e. the data and menu options on the web pages are largely the same, but formatted differently. The format of the page can change without notice, so error detection and handling must be good.
I was thinking of going with C# and simply using the WebBrowser class in .NET, seeing as it at least has good facilities for manipulating the DOM and running JavaScript without any additional configuration. However, I am reasonably language agnostic. The major thing I am worried about is that it WebBrowser doesn't seem to be as tightly developed for actually performing actions (mouse clicks etc). I am wondering if this is going to bite me in the ass. Also, it is a plus if the program behaves indistinguishly from a human user when seen from the server side.
Has anyone here worked with these kinds of tasks? I have to emphasize that I am not doing testing of web applications here; this is more a robot. Are there any libraries/frameworks out there that are better suited than the .NET standard library with regards to flexibility and ease of use? Are there any major pitfalls to look out for?
I suggest you look at mechanize in combination with beautifulsoup it's perl or python but it's exactly what you need.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking to set up a small site for a friend that has some widgets they want to sell online. I don't think I will have much time for maintenance once it goes live (for that matter, I don't expect I'll have much time for initial setup and configuration), and I am looking for something that is dead-simple for a non-technical user to maintain (financial/payment info, add/remove/change products).
The second most important part would be good integration with a payment provider. I'm not too fussy what language it's in if it meets my other criteria (if I don't know the language I will learn enough to get the site running).
Also important is that I'd prefer to stick to open-source products, mostly because I don't think this project will have much of a budget for high-end commercial products (at least not until it makes some sales).
The last time I did this sort of stuff we were building custom sites from scratch for clients with very specific needs. I do not have recent experience with the current generation of blogging tools (Wordpress, Joomla, etc...) and I don't really know which off-the-shelf combo of platforms and plugins are best to get something up and running in as little time as possible.
Hosting your own online store is a full-time occupation, no different from running your own brick-and-mortar store. Anything that accepts online payments will be targeted by criminals for online fraud.
If your business is selling widgets and not running online stores, I strongly, strongly suggest using a hosted service with its own web integration and payment handling. I know people who have used both Weebly and Etsy and who are happy with them.