I have the application deployed on WAS. Now i have made few changes on the code and want to deploy on WAS . I want the old deployment to work as it is. But i also want the new changes to be deployed and work separately independent of the other without affecting. How to make both exist simultaneously on WAS.
Is there a way please help
Are you saying there is nothing shared between the applications, they are completely separate?
Have you tried using a different context root and application name?
From a webcontainer perspective, if the context_root is different, it should be treated as a completely different application and should accomplish this.
If it doesn't work after that, the link below discusses various issues you may run into and how to deal with them.
IBM WebSphere Developer Technical Journal: Co-hosting multiple versions of J2EE applications
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/techjournal/0405_poddar/0405_poddar.html
We have a classic ASP page that makes a request to another page on the same site to get data.
When debugging is turned on we get deadlock because the web server will only respond to one request at a time.
What is the best way to get around this limitation while still allowing us to debug it while developing?
Less than ideal options:
Move the page to another site.
Allow iis to use multiple processes.
Any other options?
Ah, the joys of Stackoverflow, where instead of getting answers you're criticized for using Classic ASP, which is a currently supported tool even though it's been around for 100 years. :-)
I ran into a similar problem a while back while trying to create a simple script that would mimic the behavior of a script located on another server. I wanted to do some debugging without invoking the real script, so I thought I'd make a brain-dead replacement for it on my own server and invoke it the same way.
I ended up giving up and using the real script for my debugging. But today I found this KB article for you that might help: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316451. I'm not sure but I think that's the solution. Or something like it.
Im just done with a cakephp website, but im still in a doubt on what are the things that I must take care of, before making this website live.
Since it is a big application that require users to Register and Login and to manage their accounts. Any sort of help is appreciated.
Thanx.
There is a section in the CakePHP book answering directly that:
http://book.cakephp.org/2.0/en/deployment.html
Harden instillation, set production mode if you are using different SQL services, disable php error reporting, enable caching, disable and remove all client side debugging like DebugKit, make sure any comments in your html will not give hackers an advantage like printing variables.
Php frameworks can be resource hogs. I think the last but most important is to test server with some generated traffic. There are services that can do this for you. You may need to separate resources or set up an additional server for SQL if you expect a lot of traffic.
There may be a couple other things you might want to do.. Just browse your core.php and bootstrap.php. Make sure everything is working is correctly for production environment.
Here are some common but important things to be taken care of before making cake website live.
Check for read/write permissions on desired folders.
Check for images,js files and css files you need on your website .
Check for writable temp folder and clear cache.
Set debug level to 0.
Make sure database connectivity works fine.
How can we distract our clients from using IE6. We know IE6 is not a good standard-compliant browsers; has many issues. How to satisfy clients so that they do not use IE6?
Thanks...
I'm currently in the process of building a new site for my company and I've been looking at http://code.google.com/p/ie6-upgrade-warning/.
Essentially it's a little javascript lib that checks to see if the user is running IE6 and if so it displays a nice little overlay on top of your site. The only problem I've got with it is that it completely blocks the user from using your site. I'd like to allow for them to use it anyways but I'd like them to know that their experience may not be as good as it could be. I'm sure it can be adapted though, you should never exclude people from using your site based on their user agent. That being said I think it's a good tradeoff that you try to get your users to upgrade and if they don't wan't to they can still use your site but they probably won't see all of the fancy pancy browser tricks that you can do with modern browsers.
(source: googlecode.com)
It sure looks nice anyway
Other resources include http://ie6update.com/ (not a fan though, you shouldn't trick users)
Update: Seems like someone made a bit more customizable version of this written in jQuery. See jreject.turnwheel.com
One of the reasons this problem exists is as follows.
Many IE6 user have no choice. They sit behind corporate firewalls with locked down machines and while on their home machines they will have the latest technology they are constrained by the workplace rules and policies.
So why do the corporates not upgrade from IE6 to 7 or 8? Well here is one reason. Workload.
As a sysop you need to upgrade 500 machines to the new browser.
In many cases these browsers run mission critical add-ins as ActiveX's etc so to do the upgrade you have to do all the testing and verification and then do a planned roll out upgrade, which will have problems, hiccups and glitches, a lot of work and late nights and unpaid overtime and a lot of flak from the users as you do this.
And what is the payback for this upgrade? Well the internal systems work on IE8 exactly as they worked on IE6, (well not always and you may need to rewrite that as well) but the users can now access the latest startup site that plugs into Facebook (but will be gone in 6 months) perfectly but it is not work related.
So unless there is a tangible business benefit many shops simply cannot se a reason, or justify the cost of a browser upgrade.
These locations will convert, when they go to Windows 7 perhaps or because the "application" they use internally is upgraded and needs the newer browser version. But at this point there is a justification for doing it.
N.B. I have recently worked in two jobs where IE6 compatibility was a must for this reason, large client bases, behind firewalls with lockdown, and i am not stating the above as a reason/excuse not to do it. The sooner the better.
Provided they have the proper permissions to do install software on their machines, use Chrome Frame. The speed boost, if nothing else, should be incentive alone.
"The customer is always right."
You can advise them otherwise, but if they want IE6 for whatever reason then it's up to them.
The best way is by educating them, make them aware of why you are blocking IE6. Do a comparison, case study, etc to convince them, try and put it in terms they may understand, try to convince them that using IE6 is a bad idea (whatever your reasons).
Its simple to implement a script to prevent IE Browsers from connecting to your site, however doing that may result in users being turned away. If this is a public site take into consideration the market share internet explorer has, unless your site is really incredible it is unlikely you will get a user to install a new browser.
To get around this in the past a simple splash page that informes them of the reasons not to use IE6, Example:
You are currently using internet explorer, while you may continue to browse this site using IE, please be aware that some functionality may not be available due to compliance standards within internet explorer, and due to this we do not support issues that arise when using Internet Explorer. We recommend using Google Chrome (Download here) or Mozilla Firefox (Download here).
If this is within a corprate environment you can always work with the IT department to ensure that alternate browsers are distributed. I recommend Google Chrome, simply beacuse of the ability to create "Application Windows" that eliminate problmem causing elements of the browser GUI (Back buttion etc...)
Having a site that elegantly degrades when the user's browser is IE6 is the best option. IE6 users should still be able to use your web site - if a particular feature requires a modern browser a user will be more likely to switch if they already find your site useful.
Another point: modern javascript libraries like jQuery makes it easier to code sites that are compatible with IE6. There's no need to turn away potential customers because of their web browser choice. If you're a web designer it's your job to make sure they have a good experience.
A lot of this comes down to the reasons you want them to stop using IE6. IE6/7 are a pain in the bum if you let them be. We're now taking a more aggressive approach to browser adoption when it comes to what you can/can't do.
For instance, when you visit our new sites in most browsers you'll get rounded corners, transparency, gradients etc. When you visit in IE6 you get a square, opaque, monotone website. Wherever you have PNGs you'll get a simple GIF (even if it looks pants).
Unfortunately IE6 is tied to many businesses for internal reasons (using apps etc) and you can't force them to upgrade but you can give them a subtle message.
make them understand that ie is not bad, its ie 6 thats bad .. if they wish to use ie they can surely use it but could use ie 7 ir even ie 8... make them see that how ie 7 and 8 provide some great features which are not there in ie 6..
also ie 8 is the only browser that follows strict css 2.1 methodology
plus there are many websites which previously were running in ie 6 (with no problem) are running under a warning message that some context may not be suported by ie 6 for eg. www.yahoo.com, so why to use it?
thanks
We had the same issue in one of our projects. I made a simple conditional check and displayed an additional div with links to download firefox, Chrome and IE-8.
Try facebook.com on IE-6. This was my inspiration for the additional div.
In line with Markus' post, it's simple enough to display a popup when the site loads with a warning. Ideally you won't show this every time they load a page of course, that will get old fast.
You have a good opportunity when working on a spec with your client, to tell them "it will cost $X more if we have to support older browsers including IE6 (don't just say IE6), and it will mean we can't easily add more advanced functionality... supporting older browsers will detract from the overall quality and increase time & cost.
A while ago there was a collective effort in Norway to get users away from IE6. Several of the largest sites in Norway participated, and the user got a kind warning on top of the site that recommended him to upgrade or switch browser for an improved browsing experience - if using IE6.
Check out what Wired said about it!
make a whitepaper
Two things:
Charge extra -- double or treble rates or more -- to support IE6. (even IE7 these days).
Point out that IE6 (and WinXP too) will be losing the last vestiges of support in the near future. If you think they're insecure now, just wait till that happens -- no more security fixes. If you're still developing for IE6 now, then you're clearly not going to be ready for the upgrade in time, so you will be hacked, and hacked badly. If your client is willing to accept that, then that's his problem, but you need to help him understand the gravity of the problem. He needs to be putting his upgrade plans in now, not getting more dev work done for the old systems.
Has anyone been able to get an NHibernate-based project up and running on a shared web host?
NHibernate does a whole lot of fancy stuff with reflection behind the scenes but the host that I'm using at the moment only allows applications to run in medium trust, which limits what you can do with reflection, and it's throwing up all sorts of security permission errors. This is the case even though I'm only using public properties in my mapping files, though I do have some classes defined as proxies.
Which companies offer decent (and reasonably priced) web hosting that allows NHibernate to run without complaining?
Update: It seems from these answers (and my experimentation -- sorry Ayende, but I still can't get it to work on my web host even after going through the article you linked to) is to choose your hosting provider wisely and shop around. It seems that WebHost4Life are pretty good in this respect. However, has anyone tried NHibernate with Windows shared hosting with 1and1? I have a Linux account with them already and I'm fairly satisfied on that front, and if I could get NHibernate to work seamlessly with Windows I'd probably stick with them.
I have had no issues with running NHibernate based apps on WebHost4Life, although I don't like them.
Getting NHibernate to run on medium trust is possible. A full description on how this can be done is found here:
http://blechie.com/WPierce/archive/2008/02/17/Lazy-Loading-with-nHibernate-Under-Medium-Trust.aspx
I ran my my own geek siteoff N2 (which uses NHibernate and Windsor Castle) and 4 pet NHibernate/Fluent projects on dailyrazor.com for a while.
You get a good deal for $5 a month, including unlimited SQL Server databases and subdomains and it runs off Plesk with FTP and remote SQL Server Management Studio access.
I'm using a Finnish host called Nebula that happily runs my NHibernate-leveraging applications. I had an issue once with trust levels; the machine.config on the host was configured to deny reflection but I successfully overrode it in the web.config.