Will my app be rejected on warnings in the console like:
Unable to simultaneously satisfy constraints
Or does this not matter?
Your app will only get rejected if it doesn't comply to Apple's standards (which you can look up), i.e. it crashes, has some weird behaviour, inappropriate content, plagiarism and so on. However warnings usually show you that there is something unusual in your code (or StoryBoard/XIB file). Even if it doesn't directly jeopardize your chances of getting your app into the app store I suggest you try to reorganize your constraints. Apple might change the way Xcode resolves these conflicts in the future and could possibly break your User Interface.
Related
I'm trying to find a way to launch a desktop application from a browser for os x. This application will be for customers only and should only be used for the hardware we provide.
I'd like to start off by saying I think this is a stupid idea. I'm being forced to use this approach by our CEO. I understand security policies could be an issue, as well as glaring vulnerabilities.
Since they can only run this on a single device I don't know that jws would be the right solution. I haven't used it but based on what I've read it doubles as a distribution method (which we don't want). If it were to be jws then it would have to some how have to recognize the device we provided them to ensure it is being placed on the appropriate hardware, possibly based on the serial # (which I don't believe you can get from the browser).
Additionally, the browser would call methods and pass arguments to the application.
Is this even possible? If so, what tool would you recommend? Again, I'm only the messenger for this terrible idea.
You probably have Chrome or Safari configured to handle http://<uri> URIs, but many other types exist. Have you ever seen custom URI schemes used like itunes://<uri>, steam://<uri>, or skype://<uri> ?
Just like for http, when your OS tries to fetch the resource, it will attempt to handle the request in the application that registered a handler for that scheme.
If that's the kind of thing you're looking for, this question has already been answered.
My suspicion is that you were unaware of the term. If that answer works for you, we can mark this question as a duplicate.
In complement to #naomik's answer (which I believe is the right one), there are projects like AppJS, Fluid or Electron which are pretty much willing to bring web based apps to the desktop.
For the matter of communicating the App and your browser (should I say your server?), you could use an approach of message queues and websockets to get there, surely, it is a huge effort of orchestration and workarounds but in the end it is possible to get you there.
(Posted on behalf of the OP).
This does not appear to be possible. If you are considering this please don't, there are better solutions. I have finally convinced my CEO to use Angular2 inside electron for example.
I'm using the couchbase admin tool and one of the most useful features for me is the ability to go into the documents of a particular bucket and then using the document filter dialog I type a document prefix that I've reserved for a particular document type and then I immediately get a filtered list of just documents of this type.
For instance, if I had a bucket called "sports" which had data for all sorts of sports, I might have set of records related to tennis, football, etc. and let's assume that the ID's of these documents were all prefixed with the particular sport in question. So in this case I'd simply put football into the Document Filter dialog and would expect to see just those documents whose ID's start with "football". This is happening as I type. This functionality works perfectly fine on my main development machine but on my laptop and in my production environment typing results in nothing as I type. I can press the "Lookup Id" button on any environment and as long as a proper ID has been specified it will load the document but the real-time filtering is for me critical to making the admin functionality useful to me.
It's worth mentioning that both my main dev machine and laptop are on OSX and production is Ubuntu. Also of note, my main development environment is still creeping around on version 2.0.1 because I'm afraid of losing this functionality but my laptop is running 2.5.1 and I think prod is the same.
Also, looking at the network panel in the debugger I do notice an important variation:
Both laptop and main dev machines load the document viewer without any JS errors
Independant of typing on into the filter dialog my main dev fires off REST calls periodically to: http://couchserver:8091/pools/default?uuid=xxxxxx&waitChange=20000&etag=xxxxxx
As soon as I type into the filter dialog I see network requests that look like this: http://couchserver:8091/couchBase/reference_data/_all_docs?startkey=%22football%22&endkey=%22football%EF%BF%BF%22&skip=0&include_docs=true&limit=21&_=1399627171015
My laptop, where the functionality doesn't work, does also seem to have the basic polling message listed above but when I type into the filter dialog no message is sent (and no JS error thrown either). Just silence. :(
It appears from IRC and other channels that this functionality has been removed because it was causing stability problems with large datasets. This is a bit worrisome to me and I still feel strongly that this functionality is highly desirable in an admin tool (at least in development environments although I would argue both prod and dev).
Anyway, while the UI still uses the "filter" terminology I think it's fair to say the filter terminology has been removed. I will now have to write my own admin interface. :(
I am trying to figure out a way to do an internet connectivity check for an AIR for iOS app. Previously, I was using (against my better judgement) a URLMonitor that checked Google once every 30 seconds. I did not like putting that load onto Google and neither did they; this morning, our network got flagged as a possible DDoS attacker simply from testing the app. So I had to disable this type of check and move on.
I have thought about using the NetworkInfo ANE from Adobe, but that presents its own issues in determining internet connectivity. The only way I can think of doing it is to check for interfaces "en0" and "pdpxx" (which correspond to WiFi and Cellular interfaces, respectively) and check their IPs to ensure they are not in the 192.168.x.x, 10.10.x.x, or 127.0.x.x ranges. However, I am not entirely sure those are the only static router/localhost IPs out there and there is always the possibility that the network interface names will change in the future, which would render this monitor useless. There is also the issue of IPv6 possibly throwing a wrench into this method as well.
Is there another way to check if the user is connected to the internet? I've searched multiple times and it seems that these are the only two ways to check. If that is the case, what is the best way to check?
I'm surprised that you got flagged as a DDoS attacker, are you sure that's what happened?
In any case, if your not happy with putting the load onto someone else's server, then make your own server, just a basic setup that you use with the URLMonitor. You don't have to use google's url with the URLMonitor, you can pass it another URLRequest, which could point to your own server.
monitor = new URLMonitor(new URLRequest("http://www.you-own-server.com"));
This might also be useful if you decide that you want to pass more data between the app and the server. It's your server, so can do what you want with it.
I don't think there's any other way to check if the user is connected to the internet. To be honest, I don't see why there would be. Checking for the users interfaces/wan0 etc... probably would be possible, but you'd need another program, maybe a simple python or c++ program, that Air could use to check these things, but that sounds like the long way round.
As far as I know, at the current moment, late 2011 the max-connections-per-server limit remains 6. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is bad that we cannot fix this easily as in Firefox. As far as I know this value is hardcoded.
One of the solutions is to download the Chromium's sources and rebuild them. Is there a more easy solution?
Is there any tricky way to hack this without creating a dozen of mirror-domains?
Why I'm asking the question: My task is to create a html-javascript slideshow that will run inside a fullscreened browser, and a huge monitor is hanging on the wall. The javascript is really complicated, it preloads photos and makes a lot of ajax calls to my web services. If WIFI connection is slow, if 6 photos are loading, the AJAX calls fail, the application runs bad. I want a fast solution based, on http or browser or ubuntu tweak something else, because rebuilding the javascript app will take days.
Offtopic: do you know any other things that can be tweaked in my concrete situation?
IE is even worse with 2 connection per domain limit. But I wouldn't rely on fixing client browsers. Even if you have control over them, browsers like chrome will auto update and a future release might behave differently than you expect. I'd focus on solving the problem within your system design.
Your choices are to:
Load the images in sequence so that only 1 or 2 XHR calls are active at a time (use the success event from the previous image to check if there are more images to download and start the next request).
Use sub-domains like serverA.myphotoserver.com and serverB.myphotoserver.com. Each sub domain will have its own pool for connection limits. This means you could have 2 requests going to 5 different sub-domains if you wanted to. The downfall is that the photos will be cached according to these sub-domains. BTW, these don't need to be "mirror" domains, you can just make additional DNS pointers to the exact same website/server. This means you don't have the headache of administrating many servers, just one server with many DNS records.
I don't know that you can do it in Chrome outside of Windows -- some Googling shows that Chrome (and therefore possibly Chromium) might respond well to a certain registry hack.
However, if you're just looking for a simple solution without modifying your code base, have you considered Firefox? In the about:config you can search for "network.http.max" and there are a few values in there that are definitely worth looking at.
Also, for a device that will not be moving (i.e. it is mounted in a fixed location) you should consider not using Wi-Fi (even a Home-Plug would be a step up as far as latency / stability / dropped connections go).
BTW, HTTP 1/1 specification (RFC2616) suggests no more than 2 connections per server.
Clients that use persistent connections SHOULD limit the number of simultaneous connections that they maintain to a given server. A single-user client SHOULD NOT maintain more than 2 connections with any server or proxy. A proxy SHOULD use up to 2*N connections to another server or proxy, where N is the number of simultaneously active users. These guidelines are intended to improve HTTP response times and avoid congestion.
There doesn't appear to be an external way to hack the behaviour of the executables.
You could modify the Chrome(ium) executables as this information is obviously compiled in. That approach brings a lot of problems with support and automatic upgrades so you probably want to avoid doing that. You also need to understand how to make the changes to the binaries which is not something most people can pick up in a few days.
If you compile your own browser you are creating a support issue for yourself as you are stuck with a specific revision. If you want to get new features and bug fixes you will have to recompile. All of this involves tracking Chrome development for bugs and build breakages - not something that a web developer should have to do.
I'd follow #BenSwayne's advice for now, but it might be worth thinking about doing some of the work outside of the client (the web browser) and putting it in a background process running on the same or different machines. This process can handle many more connections and you are just responsible for getting the data back from it. Since it is local(ish) you'll get results back quickly even with minimal connections.
I have an HTML5/jquery mobile web app at http://app.bluedot.mobi. It is used for long distance races to track competitors via SPOT satellite tracking. The issue I have not yet resolved is that when loading the app when no data connection exists, the browser throws a "no data connection" alert popup as it is attempting to fetch the manifest during the checking event. Even when a data connection is present, loading the app can take a very long time. There are ~ 500 files to check. The fastest way to load the app (from a phone) is to be in airplane mode and dismiss the browser's alert - not so elegant.
Rather than force an update on users who tend to be in the backcountry with a spotty connection, I want to use applicationCache.update() programmatically, giving the user control over the process and speeding up app load whether on or offline.
Is this currently possible with the HTML5 spec and respective browser implementations?
Sounds like you need the abort() method. Unfortunately it is very new, and it will probably be a while before it is implemented by the majority of mobile browsers.
There are ~ 500 files to check.
It sounds like you're implying that the browser checks each file to see if there's any of them which has changed. This is not correct. The browser only checks the manifest file if that has changed, and that is a simple byte check. If the manifest file has not changed, the browser believes nothing has changed.
So if your application is slow to start, it might be your because your application is complex and there's alot of HTML and Javascript to parse. I would advise you to take a look at the application and see if there's anything you can optimize. In that case, you might want to take a look at Yahoo's Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Web Site page.
For example, I noticed you have a lot of Javascript code in the HEAD section. The beforementioned article advices us to move all Javascript (To the extent of what's possible) to the bottom of the page, so that the browser can start rendering the page as soon as possible. And there's a lot of other sound advice in the article. So take a look, I'm sure you'll find it useful. :-)