Is their any way to solve Ubercart's Javascript Reliance?
Thanks
It would probably depend a lot on what Ubercart features you needed to use. The simpler your needs, the easier it should be to get away without having to require Javascript.
For instance, if you just used a single payment method, especially one like Google Checkout which bypasses the regular Ubercart checkout system, you might be able to get away without using Javascript with few if any modifications to Ubercart.
Related
BigCommerce's Optimized One-Page Checkout allows some multi-lingual support. However, the language that is presented is decided based on the user's browser locale with no way for a user to manually override.
Why? And is there a workaround?
This is expected behavior of localization in the Optimized One Page Checkout. I personally have not implemented a workaround but others may have tried to and can share here, if so.
I am trying to learn some more about GitLab CI/CD and wanna write a specific Stage like "wrap_packages", where a specific list of .sql-Files is given and these scripts should be wrapped to .plb, to copy&paste them into a specific folder.
Everything is working so far, but now i have to implement the wrapping. I guess i have to use an image, with Oracle Middleware, to use the wrap-command? Or is there a better way to do this? Because i cant find anything that helps me with this.
I hope you can help me with this.
The wrap utility either exists in the full OCI client installation (not instant client), or within the actual database as an API. The simplest way to wrap your code is using the database API, after it is installed, as demonstrated here: https://github.com/pmdba/code-obfuscation-toolkit. There are a variety of ways that this could be incorporated into your CI/CD pipeline.
If you're looking for a more robust commercial (licensed $$$) solution, consider PCFLObfuscate (http://www.petefinnigan.com/products/pfclobfuscate.htm). It has a command-line option that integrates well with CI/CD.
A question that must also be asked is why you want to obfuscate your code with "wrap"? At best obfuscation only slows down someone who wants to see your code, as it is rather easily undone (at least the wrapping part). Deeper obfuscation (as provided by PFCLObfuscate, for example) actually changes the formatting of your code, your variable names, etc. before wrapping to make it much harder to tell what is going on even after it is unwrapped.
It is important to understand that there is no level of protection available for PL/SQL that can prevent someone with access to the wrapped code from unwrapping it and seeing the actual PL/SQL.
I am refactoring my first pass Vue dashboard application, which uses vue-chartjs to access chart.js.
As part of doing this, I am creating a set of wrapper components that encapsulate more functionality than just the chart itself, e.g. titles, dialogs, measures etc. In doing this, I am finding that how vue-chartjs adds complexity to my task for multiple reasons, e.g. the structure of renderChart props doesn't match the parameters of chartjs itself. Also, vue-chartjs has its own unique capabilities that add a layer of complexity to using chartjs.
I assume there are other complexities that are reduced by using vue-chartjs, but... my question is:
Do experienced Vue developers use vue-chartjs to access chart.js? Or do you go direct to chart.js? My first pass approach was derived from a tutorial, and I didn't question it at the time. Now that I'm doing more complex things, vue-chartjs is getting in my way as I try to simplify and minimize data marshaling.
For now I am working around these issues, but if it is reasonable to create my own wrappers rather than add an unnecessary level through vue-charts, I would like to try that. But I don't want to venture into this without first asking for feedback from other dashboard folks who have done it!
Thanks for any advice on this.
Anecdotally speaking, I've found in some code reviews less experienced devs tend to rely on vue-**** wrapper libraries even when there is little (or even no) benefit. Adding additional libraries increases exposure to more dependencies, each of which theoretically carries a potential for security vulnerability. I've also seen the opposite, where the functionality is re-invented when a vue library is available and would save significant amount of time and have a more robust component(like including aria fields or thoroughly tested with various browsers). The tl;dr; being, I take is on a case by case basis.
I agree with #Daniel. I can give another example where I used vue-popper wrapper package. The component itself is not bad, it's well done, however, it uses the previous major version of popper.js which lacks good new features and improvements. For this reason I created later my own implementation of vue popper with the latest version.
Recently I've been playing around with different frameworks and libraries, looking for something that really suits my needs.
You see, my job mainly involves creating asp.net mvc applications and for most of them using Razor and a little bit of jQuery is enough. But in certain cases and only for a few pages,which are rarely more than one or two per app, I really need something extra that helps me avoid getting entangled in a bunch of jQuery code.
As I mentioned, I tried a couple of alternatives and from them, the one I liked the most is Aurelia, because of its simplicity and the fact that it embraces standards, BUT the more I dive into the framework, the more I think that it might not be what I'm looking for,as it seems more suitable for full spa applications and what I need is:
Something that helps me reduce the amount of DOM manipulation
A efficient templating engine
I know that Aurelia provides that and much more, but I don't want/need a SPA, I need those functionalities ONLY in some specific pages and not the whole application.
Can Aurelia help me achieve this? If so, how?
Sure, Aurelia can help you achieve that. You just won't use certain features like routing in on the pages you create with Aurelia.
That being said, it isn't a drop in replacement for jQuery, but none of the "modern" JS frameworks really are. And you're going to end up spending time learning whichever one you end up choosing.
Check out the aurelia.enhance functionality, it might be just what you're looking for!
I have used Aurelia in a non-SPA context, and it worked out well. I think this is exactly what you describe. For example:
http://legumeinfo.org/chado_phylotree/phytozome_10_2.59028020
https://github.com/legumeinfo/tripal_phylotree/tree/lis_master/theme/js/aurelia
I'm using aurelia for dynamic elements on some sites. Like comments for example. Page loads fast w/o comments.Then Aurelia kicks in and loads the comments below. Also with some signalR magic the discussion is updated in real time. It is awesome and insanely easy.
I've read through https://github.com/apotonick/roar and it seems like a lot of thought has been put into ROAR. But in the context of a fairly standard Rails-powered JSON API that uses jbuilder, I'm still not able to immediately see what benefits ROAR provides.
What am I missing?
Within a Rails project, you should do as much as possible to stick with the built-in solution, but outside a choice is mandatory. Personally one aspect that I love about ROAR is the versioning for the API.
There is one good post I like that might help you:
http://devblog.reverb.com/post/47197560134/hal-siren-rabl-roar-garner-building-hypermedia
It might not be an straight answer, but it explains the problems you should be aware of when choosing a JSON API generator.