I am trying to monitory my web app (Spring) on tomcat by war file. And, I am trying a tool called Javamelody. It looks very good. But, looks that Javamelody cannot monitor https sites?
I cannot find the exact answer for this. So, I am considering if I should find another tool.
Is there any one who knows something about this Javamelody in terms of https site?
Regards
javamelody can monitor https sites as well as http sites.
There is no difference for javamelody between both.
Related
I have made a website for a small local company and on that website, there's a log-in-page so the staff can edit the content. The problem is that Google Chrome says the log-in-page isn't secure. I have tried searching for solutions, but everybody just says that I just make the website https. Are there other ways to do it? The company doesn't have the budget to pay for https.
Have a look at these guys. => https://letsencrypt.org/
Let’s Encrypt is a free, automated, and open certificate authority (CA), run for the public’s benefit. It is a service provided by the Internet Security Research Group (ISRG).
We give people the digital certificates they need in order to enable HTTPS (SSL/TLS) for websites, for free, in the most user-friendly way we can. We do this because we want to create a more secure and privacy-respecting Web.
You have enabled SSL on Your webserver. If you use Apache check this
sudo a2dismod ssl
service apache2 restart
I'm using the little setup that ShimmerCat provides for web development: SOCKS5 with built-in DNS and private certificate authority. For those of you that don't know how it works, it basically means that once you start your development web server, you invoke the browser using a helper script. This script opens a browser instance with completely separated user directory and configuration. Then it is just a matter of opening the future website as it were already deployed on the Internet, the SOCKS5 and built-in DNS emulation does the magic. For example, if the site is www.my-cool-client-site.com, I just open the locally running version by typing that address in the browser.
It's all very neat and functional, but now we have deployed our real site on the Internet, and as expected everything just looks the same as in my local development setup, including the address in the browser address bar and the green padlock icon. More than once now I have found myself banging my head for "a bug" that has turned out to be me confusing the development project with the site already deployed on the Internet. Therefore my question:
Is there a way to personalize a Google Chrome profile in a very obvious way so that I can't confuse my development configuration with the normal configuration that I use to browse the Internet?
Since my server is running off my personal laptop, it has quite a lot of down time. Is it possible to have a page that shows up when someone tries to access the site while the server is offline?
Yes, with another server. You can't show pages without server.
If your server is unreachable, then the user browser shows a default page that explains that your server is unreachable...
With an external service (external server) it is possible. A lot of ways to do it. Look for solutions about load balancing for example.
But only with apache on your laptop, I think it is impossible.
Try superuser.com, you'll certainly get more answers about your problem.
I have an application that displays my razor views of servicestack endpoints as expected on localhost. However when deployed to azure websites a particular page displays the metadata page for some reason. I don't know how to work out what has gone wrong as it all works on my machine :).
For reference, the view name matches the return DTO. I've tried the site in release mode on my machine. All other pages display as expected on azure and locally. I've cleared the cache and re-started the site from the control panel. I'm running out of things to try.
Any ideas appreciated.
Some general troubleshooting approaches that might help you:
Use Postman, cURL or Fiddler to watch the HTTP traffic between your computer and the website, looking for clues in HTTP headers, requests and responses.
Using FileZilla, connect to your website via FTP. Download the content of /site/wwwroot to a new directory on your local machine. Add this as a virtual website in IIS and run it locally. You'll be running exactly the same code that is deployed.
Instrument your application with tracing in a similar fashion to ASP.NET Tracing and look for exceptions or any other odd behavior.
Refer to Troubleshooting a Web Site for additional resources.
I am planning to build a production application for a small & medium business. This is an intranet application with maximum 15 to 30 concurrent users. The proposed architecture is:
Client: Firefox browser
UI: HTML, JavaScript, CSS
Communication via: jQuery AJAX
Middle Tier: Window Service hosting WCF Service (using webHttpBinding)
Database: SQLServer 2012 Express Edition
In this architecture the missing part is a WebServer that will serve the static HTML pages. I do not want to go in with IIS mainly because of the following reasons:
Keep the cost of deployment down
Most of work is being done in the Window Service hosting WCF Service
Since most of the middle tier work is done by my Window Service hosting WCF Service and my UI is HTML, JavaScript & CSS, can we do away with the WebServer like IIS or other WebServers supporting ASP.NET technology and use a lightweight WebServers which serves only static HTML pages something like lighttpd, nginx etc?
Are these light weight WebServers like lighttpd, nginx suitable to host in production environment.
There might be an issue of AJAX Cross Domain requests as Window Service hosting WCF Service and the lightweight WebServer may run on different port but on the same IP address. We can probably overcome this by opening it up to cross domain requests as it’s an intranet application.
One of the ideas behind this architecture is that I want to try and reuse this in other projects which are bigger in size.
Please let me know if this is possible and the related pros & cons of this approach. I am also open to any other suggestions which will help me improve this architecture.
I think you're overdesigning it for such a small site. If you're anyway going to run a WCF service it shouldn't be a problem to use IIS.
I'd suggest to either use ASP.NET MVC and do the html rendering on the server, or to go for a client side library such as angular.js in combination with Web API.