Are there any ELMAH- or crashkit-like exception-logging FOSS packages?
Specifically, these are exception-logging applications; the code you write pushes exception reports to these systems so they can be logged, grouped, searched, and acted-upon. Both apps help with the approach of Exception Driven Development (not a fan of the phrase, but I do like the idea of a centralised way to collect exceptions into a monitoring system).
I'm looking for an app that preferably:
non-microsoft (inc. mono)
language-agnostic, or
has plugins for languages such as PHP, Python, etc
can be hosted locally so I may hack for specific needs.
Is there anything out there like that at the moment? Or are ELMAH & crashkit the only options so far?
There's Skidder for PHP: http://sourceforge.net/projects/skidder/
Also AVICODE for .NET: http://www.avicode.com/
And Exceptioneer for Winforms: http://exceptioneer.com/Public/Demonstration.aspx
I'm not seeing much else out there other than what you've already mentioned.
Related
Nowadays, we always think like "send your data to a server, it computes it for you, then send you back the response".
But imagine something else : i want my client to compute the data itself.
The question is : is there something like a universal protocol to send actions rather than data through http ? So that the server can send the action to the client, whatever system it uses. If it does not exist, what are the technical difficulties you can face creating this kind of system ?
I'm talking about "static" actions, like mathematical functions for example.
You're unfortunately going to run into a problem pretty quick because, technically speaking, a universal language is impossible. Systems are going to have different architecture, different languages available, and different storage means. I believe what you intend (correct me if I'm wrong) is a "widespread" protocol. One way or another, you're going to have to drill down based on your personal use-case.
For a widespread example, you could keep a set of JavaScript files with functions server-side, and refer a web client to the one they need to run it by loading a javascript file during some event. Pass the location of the file and the function name, load it using the link above, then call the JavaScript function by name to run it. I could see this being an admitedly somewhat roundabout solution. This also may work in Java due to its built in JavaScript engine, although I haven't tested it.
Beyond that, I am unaware of anything particularly widespread. Most applications limit what they accept as instructions quite strictly to prevent security breaches (Imagine a SQL Injection that can run free on a client's machine). In fact, JavaScript limits itself quite severely, perhaps most notably in regards to local file reading.
Hopefully this helps with your ideas. Let me know in a comment if you have any questions/issues about what I've said.
I'm trying to find out whether it is possible to sign binaries written for SAP systems in ABAP. Contextually does it make sense? I've only found some reference to an add-on assembly kit which seems to be some sort of packaging standard. Can this be used to authenticate the source and integrity of ABAP modules?
Greatly appreciate your feedback~!
I seem to have found an answer to my question somewhat...one forum discussion states that ABAP is only interpreted and that there are no binaries to sign in the first place. I'm a bit confused though as to what the Add-on Assembly Kit is. I suppose it's a way of packaging the ABAP code into a certifiable package, which I suppose is the closest we'll get to what I'm looking for-although I'm not sure how this works if you're not interested in sharing the package with SAP for certification...If you have any insights please enlighten me.
Thanks!
not positive of your end requirement but I'll answer the best I can. ABAP is interpreted so there really is no need to sign a binary as there is none to sign. Because third party's needed ways to deliver solutions or code to their customers in a packaged manner SAP developed the add-on assembly toolkit, (emphasis on assembly) this allows the third party a tool to package all the solution pieces,( classes, tables, includes, screens etc.) into an add-on that can be installed, versioned etc. in your customers SAP system. So it's main purpose is to allow you to assemble the myriad pieces that make up your solution.
Of course if your talking about a single app, report etc. this obviously would be overkill.
If what you are seeking is a way to know that an app comes from your specific company, then you can request a custom namespace, when you get one assigned they issue you a key which only your company uses to install the namespace and that sort of works like signing, your programs will all exist in your namespace and be identified as such.
I'm sure there are more details others can provide but that should get you started.
Later.....
12-Factor Apps suggest that you configure your application using environment variables. So far, so good. I can easily imagine that this is a good way to do it if you need to set a connection string, e.g.
But what if you have more complex configuration with lots and lots of values? I for sure do not want to have 50+ environment variables, do I?
How could I solve this, and still be compliant to the idea of 12-Factor Apps?
From a quick read of the configure link you provided, I agree with the author's claim that there is a widespread problem, but I am not convinced that their proposed solution is going to always be best. Like you, I don't relish the idea of having to define dozens of environment variables to configure an application. So here are some alternative ideas.
First, read Chapter 2 of the Config4* Getting Started Guide (disclaimer: I am the main author of that software). In particular, notice that its support for what I call adaptive configuration can go a long way towards addressing the concern that you ask about. Is Config4* the ultimate solution? Possibly not, but I think it is a good step in the right direction.
Second, the chances are that whatever application you are developing/maintaining has already settled on a particular configuration technology, such as XML files or Java property files, and it won't be feasible to migrate to using Config4*. This raises the question: is there anything you can do to avoid having a proliferation of, say, XML-based configuration files when you have multiple environments (such as dev, UAT, staging and production) in which the application will be deployed? I have outlined an approach for dealing with this issue in another StackOverflow article.
Pre-warning: There are some other questions similar to this but don't quite answer the question (these include: Alternatives to Windows Workflow Foundation?, Can anyone recommend a .Net open source alternative to Windows Workflow?)
We are developing a system that is an event based state machine, currently we are investigating windows workflow, our system needs to be low latency in its response to events from a multitude of sources (xmpp, http, sms, phone call, email etc etc) coming into the system, scalable and resilient and most importantly customisable. For a variety of reasons (and due diligence) I am looking for open workflow engines that support functions similar to Windows Workflow Foundation (and more - if possible), mainly (but it doesn't matter too much if there are engines that don't support some features):
Persistence of long running tasks, and resumption of tasks on external events
High performance, low latency
Ability to develop custom actions
The ability to specify workflows dynamically
Tracking and tracing
I am not constrained to platform or language, and I would love some help and tips from you guys so that I can start to investigate the engines more closely and any experiences you had with the engines.
Paul.
I invite you to examine Stateless further, as suggested in the answer to my SO question can-anyone-recommend-a-net-open-source-alternative-to-windows-workflow. to achieve the goal of a long running state machine is very simple in that you can store the current state of your state in a database and re-sync the state machine when needed. Consider the following code from the stateless site:
Stateless has been designed with
encapsulation within an ORM-ed domain
model in mind. Some ORMs place
requirements upon where mapped data
may be stored. To this end, the
StateMachine constructor can accept
function arguments that will be used
to read and write the state values:
var stateMachine = new StateMachine<State, Trigger>(
() => myState.Value,
s => myState.Value = s);
With very little effort you can persist your state, then retrieve that state easily later on.
In respect updating the workflow dynamically, if you configure a state machine such as
var stateMachine = new StateMachine<string, int>();
and maintain a separate file of states and triggers in XML, you can perform a configuration at runtime by looping through the string int value pairs.
"Java side":
Apache ODE (Orchestration Director Engine) executes business processes written following the WS-BPEL standard. It talks to web services, sending and receiving messages, handling data manipulation and error recovery as described by your process definition. It supports both long and short living process executions to orchestrate all the services that are part of your application.
http://ode.apache.org/
OSWorkflow can be considered a "low level" workflow implementation. Situations like "loops" and "conditions" that might be represented by a graphical icon in other workflow systems must be "coded" in OSWorkflow.
http://www.opensymphony.com/osworkflow/
Shark is an extendable workflow engine framework including a standard implementation completely based on WfMC specifications using XPDL (without any proprietary extensions !) as its native workflow process definition format and the WfMC "ToolAgents" API for serverside execution of system activitie
http://www.enhydra.org/workflow/shark/index.html
Python side:
http://bika.sourceforge.net/
http://www.vivtek.com/wftk/
I this will help you :-)
You might consider implementing your flow as an actual state machine. Tools like State Machine Compiler and Ragel can help with this. State machines, in many circumstances, are just what you need to implement insanely complex behavior that is testable, and rock-solid. I don't claim to be a Windows work flow expert, but from what I have seen, I question its superiority over coding your own state machine, either by hand or using a tool.
You might want to check out Simple State Machine.
If you feel like you want to have more control over things and want to roll your own it might be helpful to check out the Saga support that projects like NServiceBus and MassTransit use. Sagas look to be very similar to WF workflows but are POCO objects and I believe both projects just use NHibernate for Saga persistence.
I'm going to recommend you take a few hours to look at the book Open-Source ESBs in Action. "Orchestration" and "Choreography" are the key buzzwords to look at when dealing with "enterprise service busses." The systems for .NET are quite expensive (BizTalk is in the price range of a decent car, the price of Tibco is in the price range of a decent house).
Other links:
Open ESB project
Comparison of OpenESB and ServiceMix (both of which are the subject of the "In Action" book above.
Try Drools for JAVA, I personally have never tried it but I know several commercial applications are based on drools.
http://www.jboss.org/drools/
You could also upgrade to .NET 4.0 there are major improvements in the Workflow in the new framework. I know if I was writing a new workflow application I would jump to 4.0.
Good Luck
JBoss JBPM
Consider Workflow Engine, a lightweight all-in-one component that enables you to add custom executable workflows of any complexity to any .NET or Java software, be it your own creation or a third-party solution, with minimal changes to existing code. It supports custom actions and commands, has timers and supports parallel workflows. And there's a free version.
You can take a look at Imixs-Workflow, which is an event driven approach of a state machine based on bpmn 2.0. It specially focuses on human-centric long running tasks.
I'm using Mercurial for personal use and am conteplating it for some distributed projects as an alternative to SVN for various reasons.
I'm getting comfortable with using it for self contained projects and can see various options for sharing however I haven't yet found any guidance on managing common libraries to be included in multiple projects in a similar manner to that provided by externals in subversion.
The most obvious shared lump of code is error handling and reporting - we want this to be pretty much the same in all projects (its fairly well evolved). There is also utility code, control libraries and similar that we find better to have as projects built with each solution than to pull in as compiled classes (not least because it ensures they are kept up to date, continuous integration helps us address breaking changes).
Thoughts (I hate open ended questions, but I want to know what, if anything, others are doing).
Mercurial 1.3 now includes nested repository support, which can be used to express dependencies. The other option is to let your build system handle the download and tracking of dependencies using something like ivy or maven though those are more focused on pulling down compiled code.
The world has changed since I asked that question and the solution I now use is different.
The simple answer is now to use packages (specifically NuGet as I do .NET) to deliver the common code instead of nesting repos and including the projects in a solution.
So I have common code built into NuGet packages by and hosted using TeamCity and where previously I would have an external and include the project/source I would now just reference the package.
Use the Forest Extension it emulates svn externals for HG, to some extent that is.
Subrepository (with good guide) or Guestrepo "to overcome ... limitations" (of subrepos) is today's language-agnostic answer