I'm looking for a good word to describe the placement of files in a directory.
For instance, putting all files that are includes within an "includes" directory.
Putting images into an "images" directory.
I'm sure there is a right word for it, its just not coming to me today :-(
I usually call this kind of information directory structure or folder structure. If you're attempting to offer a guide to best practice, you could prefix these phrases with 'suggested'...
Related
I have a use case for reStructured Text documentation in an offline scenario. It will move from one domain to another when installed and often No Internet access will be available. I'm assuming HTML output of sphinx. I have multiple microservice projects that I'd like to be able to share links between them using Intersphinx. The projects will ride together and someone browsing one project will have access to the others. I expect they could always be arranged to be in a project folder on the same top level domain even.
All the examples I see on the Internet seem to assume that a static domain will be in use and the documentation isn't copied to new places. Is there some way to easily account for a changing domain?
An additional concern that maybe covers the previous is relative linking. Can we account for the domain change in a way that won't require me to rebuild the docs? In HTML I'd have links to "/some/page.html" instead of "http://example.com/some/page.html".
Sounds like you're just looking to use relative paths instead of domain names. If that's the case, you would do something like this in your conf.py:
intersphinx_mapping = {
'other': ('example/', 'example/example.inv'),
}
From the intersphinx extension docs:
Relative local paths for target locations are taken as relative to the base of the built documentation, while relative local paths for inventory locations are taken as relative to the source directory.
I've been searching around and can't find any clear answers to this. I need a small amount of data - talking kilobytes, probably not ever reaching megabyte range - available as a file on my Azure instance, outside the web app itself, for a web job to work with. I won't get into why this is necessary, but it is (alternatives have been explored), and the question is now where to put those files. The obvious answer seems to be to connect to the FTP, create a directory, plop them there and work with them there.
I did a quick test and I'm able to create a "downloads" directory within the "data" directory, drop some files in it, and work with them there. It works great for this very small, simple need that I have.
How long will that data stay there? Is that directory purged at any point automatically by the servers? Is that directory part of any backups that are maintained? How "safe" is something I manually put outside the wwwroot folder?
It will never be purged. The only folder that can get purged is the %TEMP% folder. All other folders that you have write access to will be persisted forever.
I have an asp.net project that I use for a couple different purposes. We have addresses that access the same virtual directory via different paths (use1.company.com and use2.company.com) I do not want to break the project up as they use similar functionality that seems redundant to have in two places. None the less as it stands use1.company.com/default.aspx and use2.company.com/default.aspx both are the same. I want to make it so that use2.company.aspx/default.aspx is not accessible. Is there a way to do that from the App Pool/Virtual Directory settings or do I just have to hope that external users dont type /default.aspx?
I know I can set the default document to like survey.aspx (purpose of the second url) but that does not prevent some savvy users from typing in default.aspx just to see what it does. Any assistance here would be great.
Since they point to the same .aspx file could you not include an if statement at the start of the file to grab the URL and if it includes use2 then go back?
What files should/should not be stored in the cgi-bin folder/directory on a web server?
Obviously, executable scripts/files that make up a web application, called from a web browser can be stored there.
But is there a common industry opinion about what else can be stored there?
Is there a very strong reason why nothing else apart than the scripts/executables is allowed there?
My preference is to store all files belonging to an application in the cgi-bin directory/folder, as a subfolder off it - for each application.
For example directory cgi-bin/myapplication would contain:
the cgi scripts/executables
datafiles
configuration files
This simplifies installation and also simplifies the steps to run different versions of a application in parallel, e.g. for trialling a new version.
Concerns about security access to non-script files can be addressed by using the correct user permissions and also Apache .htaccess to control access to the directory and files.
It would seem that popular free applications are in favour of this everything-under-one-directory approach: The versions of bugzilla, the free defect and feature tracking tool, e.g. 3.4.4 are offered in this structure, while earlier versions, e.g. 2.x installed bugzilla components to at least three folders.
Drupal, the powerful and popular free content management system also takes this approach of everything-under-one-directory, albeit doesn't use the cgi-bin folder but the approach is the same.
What are your thoughts?
There is nothing special about the cgi-bin folder. It is like any publicly-accessible web folder that has the "allow-script" flag set (or the equivalent for your web server) - something that has become almost meaningless in the world of PHP/JSP and the likes.
You should only store files that you wish to be public in any folder under your webroot. You probably don't want your data and configuration to be downloadable by any user on the internet, so don't keep them in /cgi-bin
Certain servers may try and execute any file in /cgi-bin if requested. This could cause problems, especially if text or data files are executed as shell script.
Applications like Drupal are intended to be easy for anyone to install, regardless of what permissions they may have on their web-host. This is the main reason it keeps everything together. If you have the ability to put files where you want, it is always a good practise to keep non-public files outside of the webroot. If you must keep them under the webroot, then ensure that you use your server's configuration to deny public access to the non-public files.
my shared hosting only allows me to create 2 virtual directories. and i want to host multiple webapps... say an asp.net mvc blog, a forum, a personal site etc...
isnt there any other way of doing this? cant i simply just ftp the blog folder to one of my virtual directories and then access it online??
For ASP.NET web applications, typically each would live in its own virtual directory which serves as the application starting point.
Technically you could "piggy-back" two applications on the same application starting point in one of two ways:
Put all the files for each application in the same directory (and appropriate sub directories)
If you don't have ANY files that overlap, you can get away with this. Of course, it's likely that you won't with such files as the default or index pages, etc. And this would be pretty messy anyway.
Put all the non-binary files for each app in an appropriate subdirectory and the binaries in the main virtual's \bin directory.
You'll be able to do this only if each application's binary files don't overlap by name AND there are no namespace ambiguity conflicts between assemblies (two different assemblies by file name, but with the same namespace). The latter is much less likely to happen if you are trying to piggy-back two different applications.
The big problem I see with the latter solution is that any parts of the application that make use of application root references will break. When some code tries to resolve a reference to some resource (like an image) based on an application root reference such as
~/images/logo.gif
the ~ will get resolved to the virtual directory, but will not include the additional (non-virtual and non-app starting point) subdirectory in which the application lives. So instead of this:
/vd1/app1/images/logo.gif
you'll end up with this:
/vd1/images/logo.gif
Obviously, that won't work.
So... you won't break either app if you can put them both in the same virtual directory, however, you'll have to check for file conflicts and such. Possible namespace conflicts will be unavoidable without separate application starting points.
Can't you just put each app in a separate subdirectory in either of the virtual directories. e.g. if you had http://server.com/vd1, you could partition it like http://server.com/vd1/app1, http://server.com/vd1/app2, etc.