I have a python 3.4 app which I want to publish to the app store. I also want to obfuscate the code as much as possible. I found the pyminifier library which seems to be perfect for the job. However, I am not able to figure out how to use it for an app that is packaged using py2app. I am not even sure if that is possible. I am also open to other strategies to obfuscate.
You need declare all imports in the obfuscated file before use py2app
import zlib, base64, os, paramiko
exec(zlib.decompress(base64.b64decode('eJyVUl2P..."
Related
Say there we have the package encoding/json. Can I just create a package mypackage and embed all the functions (at least the public functions) into my package without to copy them by hand and basically do calls back to the actual json package? I'm developing a cross platform (Google app engine / native ) solution and I would find a such solution quite useful.
No.
It sounds like you want some sort of package inheritance, this is not a supported feature.
I have created a Web Content Management library for use in WebSphere Portal. At the moment I'm using import-wcm-data to import the library, then I need to add some additional propeties to 2-3 files on the server under Resource Environment Providers and then restart particular services so those changes are detected.
Can anyone explain the benefits of using a paa over writing a simple bash (or similar) script to automate this process?
I don't understand if I get any advantages when using paa, or is paa even capable of updating properties files and restarting services?
I have been working intensively with PAA files and I must say that it is a very stable way of deploying a app requirering multiple depl steps and components.
It does need a startup process but is well worth it in a multi server environment.
You can do all the tasks that you can do in a Ant file as well as using the wsadmin script interface. I only update res env settings and the such in WAS and do not touch any props files for that reason since all settings are stored in WAS.
In my experience, a PAA is not a good method if you're merely importing a content library.
I don't think I understand why you are doing the import manually and not syndicating, but even if there's a good reason not to syndicate, the PAA process was too involved and required too many precursor actions (deleting libraries, remove PAA, deploy PAA and then activate the portliest) to be a viable option for something as simple as importing a WCM library.
Since activating the portlets I was importing with the PAA was an extra step, I don't believe you can restart applications either.
I'm working on a very simple web app, written in Go language.
I have a standalone version and now port it to GAE. It seems like there is very small changes, mainly concerning datastore API (in the standalone version I need just files).
I also need to include appengine packages and use init() instead of main().
Is there any simple way to merge both versions? As there is no preprocessor in Go, it seems like I must write a GAE-compatible API for the standalone version and use this mock module for standalone build and use real API for GAE version. But it sounds like an overkill to me.
Another problem is that GAE might be using older Go version (e.g. now recent Go release uses new template package, but GAE uses older one, and they are incompatible). So, is there any change to handle such differences at build time or on runtime?
Thanks,
Serge
UPD: Now GAE uses the same Go version (r60), as the stable standalone compiler, so the abstraction level is really simple now.
In broad terms, use abstraction. Provide interfaces for persistence, and write two implementations for that, one based on the datastore, and one based on local files. Then, write a separate main/init module for each platform, which instantiates the appropriate persistence interface, and passes it to your main application to use.
My immediate answer would be (if you want to maintain both GAE and non-GAE versions) that you use a reliable VCS which is good at merging (probably git or hg), and maintain separate branches for each version. The GAE API fits in reasonably well with Go, so there shouldn't be too many changes.
As for the issue of different versions, you should probably maintain code in the GAE version and use gofix (which is unfortunately one-way) to make a release-compatible version. The only place where this is likely to cause trouble is if you use the template package, which is in the process of being deprecated; if necessary you could include the new template package in your GAE bundle.
If you end up with GAE code which you don't want to run on Google's servers, you can also look into AppScale.
Are there tutorials for the SDK (or at least an example), about how to create an export plugin (extract polygons from scene)?
In Lightwave, you're not forced to write an export plugin to extract the polygons from a scene/object : the LWO and LWS are documented (enough) to parse them quite easily.
The file formats documentation are in filefmts folder of the SDK. You can find libs that parse Lightwave files also, such as Open Asset Import library.
If you still need to do it as a plugin, there's a sample plugin for Modeler, in the sample/Modeler/Input-Output/vidscape folder.
You can find a reasonable amount of LW export plugins on the web. Some of them are compiled .p plugins, but some are Python .py or LScript *.ls. Two latter can be edited and tweaked with text editor of your choice to individual needs quite easily.
There are wikis on the web about Lightwave API commands available from script as well.
We have a library with very complex logic implemented in C. It has a command line interface with not too complex string-based arguments. In order to access this, we would like to wrap the library so that it can be accessed with simple XML RPC or even straightforward HTTP POST calls.
Having some experience with Java, my first idea would be
Wrap the library in JNI/JNA
Use a thin WS stack and a servlet engine
Proxy requests through Apache to the servlet engine
I believe there should already be something simple that could be used, so I am posting this question here. A solution has the following requirements
It should be deployable to a current linux distribution, preferrably already available via package management
It should integrate with a standard web server (as in my example Apache)
Small changes to the library's interface should be manageable
End-to-end (HTTP-WS-library-WS-HTTP) the solution should not incur too much overhead, but reliability is very important
Alternatively to the JNI/JNA proposal, I think in the C# world it should not be too difficult to write a web service and call this unmanaged code module, but I hope someone can give me some pointers that are feasible in regards to the requirements.
If you're going with web services, perhaps Soaplab would be useful. It's basically a tool to wrap existing command line applications in SOAP web services. The web services it generates look a bit weird but it is quite a popular way to make something like this work.
Creating an apache module is quite easy and since your familiar with xmlrpc you should check out mod-xmlrpc2. You can easily add your C code to this apache module and have a running xmlrpc server in minutes
I think you may also publish it as a SOAP based web service. gSoap can be used to provide the service interface out of the library. Have you explored gSOAP? See http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~engelen/soap.html
Regards,
Kangkan
Depends what technology you're comfortable with, what you already have installed and working on your servers, and what your load requirements are.
How about raw CGI? Assuming the C code is stateless between requests, you can do this without modifying the library at all. Write a simple script which pulls the request parameters out of the CGI environment, perhaps sanitises the input, calls the library via the command-line interface, and packages the result into whatever HTTP response you want. Then configure Apache to dispatch the relevant URL(s) to this script. Python, for example, has library support for XML-RPC, and so does every other scripting language used on the web.
Servlets sound like overkill, but for instance if you want multiple requests per CGI process instantiation, and don't feel like getting involved in Apache configuration, then it might be easiest to stick with what you know.
I'm doing a similar thing with C++ at the moment. In my case, I'm writing a PHP module to allow PHP scripts to access the logic in my C++ library.
I can then use whatever format I want to allow the rest of the world to see it - initially it will just be through a PHP web application but I'll also be developing an XML-RPC interface.
If you're going down the JNI route, check out SWIG.
http://www.swig.org/Doc1.3/Java.html
Assuming you have headers to project bindings with, swig is pretty easy to work with.