I recently installed varnish on my servers in order to ease the workload a bit. However one of my websites extensively uses the HTML5 'navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition()' function and also falls back on the maxmind database installed into nginx when the aforementioned is not available.
I can understand why the nginx/maxmind version won't work as it relies on the nginx server knowing what IP you are from, and as varnish is sitting in front, requests may not even get as far as nginx.
However, why is the HTML5 geolocation function not working? I assumed this was purely client side and should be unaffected by the web server?
In order to get the Nginx Http GeoIP module working behind a proxy, you will need to pass the IP address of your proxy server to the geoip_proxy directive.
I don't know if we have enough information to speculate about why the W3C Geolocation function is not working. As you suggest, there is no obvious reason why it should not work when your site is behind a proxy server.
As an aside, you might want to check out MaxMind's GeoIP2 JavaScript service, which tries to use W3C Geolocation and then falls back on the web service if that is not available. MaxMind provides a free option that might meet your needs.
Related
when I to test my Website (it is outside from my computer) with the tool lighthouse on Chrome, comes this report;
All sites should be protected with HTTPS, even ones that don't handle sensitive data. HTTPS prevents intruders from tampering with or passively listening in on the communications between your app and your users and is a prerequisite for HTTP/2 and many new web platform APIs. Learn more.
What I don't Understand why to come this, I have my Website with https — the report to say that my images and URL do not use HTTPS.
Screenshot from this warning;
I have to test my Website for https mistake with https://www.whynopadlock.com/f73e9366-da69-4ebf-a73f-6ceff2161cd6
Screenshot from it,
How to see, I have all gut, but the Tool lighthouse every time give me a similar result...
Can Please anyone help me with this problem, Thanks!
the transfer protocol your site current uses is HTTP/1.1
which has been the de-facto standard since 1997. In an effort to ensure a secure encrypted connection between browsers and websites, giants like Google and Let's Encrypt have been pushing sites to use HTTPS.
Google came up with a new way networking protocol SPDY which is termed a precursor to HTTP/2 which rolled out in 2015. Google suggests websites to use HTTP/2 as the new de-facto standard protocol which brings in multiplexing, header compression, binary transfer of data and much more.
The message that you have recieved would go away once you enable HTTP/2 on your server
As you haven't mentioned your webserver, here's how you enable it for Nginx and Apache
Is there a way to stream a video and audio on a website just to the clients, using a camera installed on the server - for instance, like youtube does ?
I've started reading webrtc, but if I use webrtc I should create a stun/turn server and other things, which for one way stream I think is not necessary (this is just my understanding of the things..) because I don't need anything from the clients, literally, neither their video, or audio..
So is there a way to achieve this using html5, streaming just in one direction:
server (camera) -> clients
Is there something about this out there, or should I stick with webrtc ?
I'm going to explain a possible solution for this scenario, there might be others, but I hope mine gives you a rough idea of how you could do it and a start point to explore more about the amazing possibilities of WebRTC. Please let me know if something is not understood.
So, WebRTC is a free, open project that provides browsers and mobile applications with Real-Time Communications (RTC) capabilities via simple APIs. Sweet, that is: WebRTC has a quite good browser support (not in every browser though, Safari just started supporting it a month ago with Safari 11). But in this case we want to use WebRTC in the server side. At the end of the day we can still think about peer-to-peer real time communication, where one of our peers is the server.
I don't know if you are familiar with Node.js, but I recommend you to write your Server app with it (<3 Javascript!):
There are a few libraries that wrap WebRTC functionality to be used in the server side, like node-webrtc and node-rtc-peer-connection.
But I recommend you to to take a look at electron-werbrtc, since
the others might be using deprecated methods or be incomplete.
electron-webrtc runs a headless Electron client in the background to
use Chromium's built-in WebRTC implementation. So with it you should
be able to access the Camera in your server and create a stream to be
served to the other peer (the browser).
All above would be the WebRTC related tasks, in this case: streaming video peer(server)-to-peer(browser).
Now, let's talk about signaling process, stun and turn.
Signaling: imagine now a scenario peer-to-peer with 2 browsers, they want to establish a direct connection and stream video and audio between each other. But they don't know each other, like if I don't know your home address, I can't send you a letter. So they need a service that helps them know each other, so they can have the other's IP. This should be done by what is called "a signaling server". If somehow you know the other peer IP, you wouldn't need a signaling server.
STUN/TURN: the scheme above works perfectly in a local area network where each peer has its own IP address and there are no firewalls and routers between them. But otherwise, you can have peers behind a NAT or firewalls, and then your signaling server won't be able to make both peers to discover themselves. If you have peers behind a NAT, you'll need a STUN server, and if you have peers behind firewalls you'll need a TURN server. This is a bit simplified, but I just want you to have the general picture of when you might need STUN/TURN servers.
To better understand Signaling, STUN and TURN, there is a very graphic article that explains them perfectly.
Now, for your scenario:
I think you prob don't need STUN/TURN servers and also you prob don't need to implement the signaling process, because the browsers that are supposed to receive the stream from the server will know that server address, right? So they can establish a WebRTC connection with it.
EDIT: it is likely that you will need to implement some sort of handshake between the server and the clients (browsers), so this will be the signaling process. This is not part of WebRTC and this is why you need to implement it yourself. As I said, it is the way 2 peers can discover each other, but they also exchange information as their local media conditions, like codecs, resolutions they can handle, etc. For your case, your signaling server could be hosted in the same server you use to strea: you can build a small node.js app that runs there and that manages all the signaling process easily, it is not a big deal. I recommend you to read this article, and specially the section "How can I build a signaling service?". In general all WebRTC articles from that site are very helpful.
Does this make sense to you? I think with it you can start digging a little bit more and see if with this is enough or you need to implement more stuff. Hope it helps!
I've written a socket server using Node.JS which works pretty well, but I'd rather use GAE for live production so that I get the warm fuzzy Google feeling.
On the client side, I'm using Flash->AIR (Desktop, iOS, and Android).
Question is, it seems that GAE does not support inbound sockets exactly. For Go, There's the Channel API and the XMPP API.
Channel API: Only works with Javascript clients, not Actionscript.
XMPP API: It seems that the most up to date Actionscript API out there is from XIFF... documentation is sparse, website is convoluted, and all-in-all it does not inspire trust at the level I'm looking for. On top of this, I simply want a socket server to pass basic messages back and forth, with an understanding of "users" and "channels". XMPP seems to be quite a lot more than that, and therefore more moving parts that can go wrong.
What is the standard answer to someone who's looking to build a custom socket server using a service like GAE, and not using Javascript clients? Just use XMPP and pray, or some other angle here I'm not seeing?
I'm attempting to make a mail client that is HTML5/JS only where users would have to define their mail server and credentials.
I've surfed google leading to dead ends and figured that this is the next best place (or superuser.com).
I was thinking of using HTML5 WebSocket if I could to make the connection to the server but I don't know enough of smtp, imap, or pop3's architecture to understand how javascript could pass the args and perform what I want it to do.
PHP cannot be involved in this project otherwise I wouldn't be asking the question.
Any help in locating this would be fantastic.
Nothing is impossible. Except this.
In standard HTML or JavaScript, you can't make raw-socket connections, which is what you'd need to speak any of the protocols you've listed. The WebSocket API doesn't help you, because the server must also speak WebSockets, and mail servers don't. This is actually all a good thing, though. Imagine if you visited a random website and it telnetted to your home router, setting it on fire and burning down your house. That's what websites would be able to do if they could initiate plain TCP socket connections.
You have a few options I can think of, neither of which involves building a webpage. (And to be clear, you didn't say your project had to be a webpage; you merely said HTML/JS, so these are indeed legitimate options.)
First is something like node-webkit. As the readme says, "You can write native apps in HTML and Javascript with node-webkit." You'll still have to distribute it as a native app, because that's what it is.
Second is a Chrome app, specifically using the chrome.socket API. But have fun writing a TLS layer over those sockets, which you'll find is a requirement for almost any mail server these days. If you succeed in doing that, you'll be able to distribute your mail client in the Chrome Web Store, where I assure you an email client will be quite popular.
Third, write a webserver that operates locally, so your users will visit something like http://localhost:9999/mail in their browser. This will be a real pain to distribute, but you can use almost any technology you want.
I'm sure there's a fourth valid option, and someone else can chime in on that one.
Best of luck.
So I have been thinking about building quite a complex application. The idea of building an html5 version has become quite an attractive possibility. I have a few questions about it first however.
My first concern is how reliable the offline application API's are at the moment. I have been looking into this standard: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/offline.html and it looks pretty easy to implement and use, but I am wondering how easy it is to use? And assuming you set up the manifest etc, is the web application just accessed (offline) by going to the same url you originally downloaded the application from?
My other concern is the use of sockets. This offline application still needs to be able to communicate with local servers, I ideally wanted to avoid having to host a web-server, a socket connection however would be plausible. How well do websockets currently work when the browser is offline? Is it possible, to have a fully networked / interactive browser application running even without an active internet connection? (after the app is first downloaded)
Any insight would be great!
That's a lot of questions, you may want to consider breaking it up into more easily answerable portions more directly related to what, exactly, you're trying to achieve. In the meantime I'll try to provide a short answer to each of your questions:
My first concern is how reliable the offline application API's are at
the moment.
Fairly reliable, they have been implemented for a number of versions across most major web browsers (except IE).
is the web application just accessed (offline) by going to the same
url you originally downloaded the application from?
Yes. Once the offline app has been cached, the application is served from that cache. No network requests will be made unless you explicitly request URLs from the NETWORK or FALLBACK sections of the manifest or aren't covered by the manifest at all, apart from to check whether the manifest itself has changed.
This offline application still needs to be able to communicate with
local servers, I ideally wanted to avoid having to host a web-server,
a socket connection however would be plausible.
A Web Socket still requires a web server. The initial handshake for a Web Socket is over HTTP. A Web Socket is not the same thing as a socket in TCP/IP.
How well do websockets currently work when the browser is offline?
They won't work at all, when you've set a browser to offline mode it won't make any network requests at all. Note that a browser being set to offline is not the same thing as the offline in 'offline API'. The offline API is primarily concerned with whether or not the server hosting the application can be reached, not whether the the browser is currently connected to a network or whether that network is connected to the internet. If the server goes down then the app is just as 'offline' as if the network cable on the user's computer got unplugged. Have a read through this blog post, in particular the comments. My usual approach to detecting offline status is to set up a pair of files in the FALLBACK section such that you get one when online and the other when offline - request that file with AJAX and see what you get.
Is it possible, to have a fully networked / interactive browser
application running even without an active internet connection?
Yes, but I don't think that means what you think it does. Separate instances of the app running on different browsers on different machines would not be able to communicate with each other without going via the web server. However, there's no requirement that the web server be 'on the internet', it will do just fine sitting on the local network.