Looking for engin.io replacement -joining our effort initiative

bnogal

Well

I am almost ready to upload my code.
I just miss a class... that i used lately at my job and i should remove it from my personal code now...

It is a swissknife class that it is almost no needed, but does a basic task.

For the login.

My code uses google login in android, so security is taken by google and baasbox. It should be possible to do something similar for iphone.

For "secure" password login without using "social login" by the moment i just hash at application level the password, as by the moment i dont use ssh for requests. It doesnt make secure the system, but unless it doesnt exposes the original password in plain text.
It should be easy to improve the code to use a certificate and SSL sockets with some Qt magic.

Today i have a some social event... hope i can rip off that class and upload it tomorrow. The rest is ready

Charby

@bnogal Sounds great !
From my side, I couldn't progress at that rate...what I did is create the skeleton of a plugin (I was unfamiliar with the plugin mechanism) and request for a playground project from the developer mailing list. I have continued evaluation with Apigee candidate. But I feel I should restrain myself now and focus on a something simple that could be later on improved so I will start with the firebase plugin. Hopefully I should be able to publish in a couple of days.

gadlim

Hello,

Quick update from Cloudant:

Security should be ok, but I'm still missing some pieces
Offline+sync support for mobile and web apps with PouchDB, very similar to how the Firebase SDK works (but with more options for queries, including server-side filters)

xargs1

Looking at people's attempts to get PouchDB working with Qt/QML, it doesn't seem very encouraging.

gadlim

@xargs1 said:

Looking at people's attempts to get PouchDB working with Qt/QML, it doesn't seem very encouraging.

Do you have some links ?
There's a Python adapter project that uses Qt internally to wrap PouchDB, so a C++/QML adapter should be feasible. That said, maybe it's too much effort and we should to stick to the REST API.

xargs1

As far as I'm aware, PouchDB is pure JavaScript and doesn't have a REST API.

Here's the discussion on failed attempts to integrate PouchDB into QML:

https://github.com/pouchdb/pouchdb/issues/3709

gadlim

@xargs1 said:

As far as I'm aware, PouchDB is pure JavaScript and doesn't have a REST API.

I was referring to the Cloudant REST API

Here's the discussion on failed attempts to integrate PouchDB into QML:

https://github.com/pouchdb/pouchdb/issues/3709

I see. It's in a "maybe could work with some efforts but nobody's working on it" state.

xargs1

It seems to be like most of the large JavaScript frameworks: it assumes it's running in either a browser or node.js, and QML's JavaScript doesn't provide either of those environments.

gadlim

@xargs1 said:

It seems to be like most of the large JavaScript frameworks: it assumes it's running in either a browser or node.js, and QML's JavaScript doesn't provide either of those environments.

Yes.
There's another non-JS (Android) adapter that's using the same tactics as the PyQt adapter (hidden Webview), but it's also unmaintained.
What's strange is that IBM (Cloudant) is advertising PouchDB as the right solution for mobile apps sync, so they're focusing on "mobile" web apps maybe.

Charby

Hi all,

I think it would be helpful to create a Qt playground project so we could publish our backend wrappers in a commun repository. I have sent a request for creating the playground project to the development mailing list but I don't know whether it is the way to go...Do you know what is the process to follow to create a playground project ?

So far, I have designed a QML plugin which is a work in progress :

the plugin only offers for now a Firebase backend element which is quite limited : the only supported authorization method is the secret token id and at this time it is only a thin wrapper around the REST API (GET, DELETE, POST, PATCH and PUT are supported).
what remains to be done :
- define and implement an API suitable for supporting multiple backend : one option could be to design an API similar to the former enginio (create, update, query, uploadFile, downloadURL, remove...) but this API relies on backend features that we would have to mimics (users and usergroups, fileref...) so I am not sure this would be the way to go...
- create a model that could be nicely used from QML like the former enginio model
- use the Android and iOS sdk depending on the deployed platform (and using the REST sdk otherwise)
- implement other backend using the same API (cloudant, apigee, BaaSBox...)

I don't know if this does worth to publish this to github or to wait for the creation of a playground qt module...

gadlim

@Charby said:

I don't know if this does worth to publish this to github or to wait for the creation of a playground qt module...

I'd say, if you have some code, even WIP, publish it. When discussing specs in a group, actual code can help to keep everyone on the same page.

Given our limited resources, it would help a lot to have only a thin layer of code to add to another, wider audience project (at the moment Qt/QML on mobile is a small audience, sadly). I thinking specifically of Hood.ie. I don't know if it's technically feasible, but using Hoodie as a kind of middleware could save a lot of code; just mimicking its API could be useful too. Of course if (for instance) Hoodie is bound to the browser, we have the same problem as with PouchDB.

xargs1

I just finished a pure Qt Quick CouchDB interface (no C++ or plugins) which meets my current needs for storage. It would probably be trivial to get it work with Cloudant, but I'm not interested in adopting yet another BaaS provider that's going to disappear in a month or a year like Enginio and Parse did.

gadlim

@xargs1 said:

I just finished a pure Qt Quick CouchDB interface (no C++ or plugins) which meets my current needs for storage. It would probably be trivial to get it work with Cloudant, but I'm not interested in adopting yet another BaaS provider that's going to disappear in a month or a year like Enginio and Parse did.

That's great! A CouchDB interface should be directly pluggable to the Cloudant service. See this. In fact, I gather that IBM is currently a main contributor to CouchDB, and was before the acquisition of Cloudant, which was originally an independant company. Think of Cloudant as CouchDB hosting + benefits.
The situation is different for Enginio because of the closed-source components. OTOH, CouchDB is an Apache project and Cloudant can be self-hosted if you don't like "public" clouds.

As an aside, why Enginio, or a least the main parts, can't be open-sourced is beyond me. Given the competitive nature of the Baas market, not having an "we-failed-commercially-but-here-is-the-source-code" exit plan is disappointing, given the Qt ties to the OSS/Free software world.

Charby

@Charby said:
Ok, I will wait a couple of days to see if we could get a playground project to collaborate, otherwise I will create a github (next week) with my project at its current state. I came back a shortwhile looking to Apigee and I think it could be the best candidate I have seen so far, I will keep Firebase in my project but will definetely add an Apigee wrapper in addition.

gadlim

@Charby said:

I came back a shortwhile looking to Apigee and I think it could be the best candidate I have seen so far

I've also looked at Apigee a while back and found the pricing plans a bit steep (starting at 300$/month without a datastore). Maybe I misunderstood that page ?

Charby

@gadlim You are right (sic) - Actually I missed that pricing page as I jumped directly to the console after having signed a trial free account. Apigee seems to match perfectly what I was looking for (100% RESTfull, push notifications, social login, already builtin collections for assets-users-group, console is complete and powerfull and documentation is comprehensive...). It is a very unclear what are the pricing plan for BaaS...but if it is really 300$/mo (or more) it will be a no go for me...

additional candidates :

gadlim

There's also Stamplay (https://stamplay.com/) that has some nice features, and others. The problem with these kind of vendors (Backendless, Stamplay, Backand, Firebase,...) is the lock-in. Like @xargs1, I'm wary of the future of the service, so I'm gravitating towards less black-boxy solutions, at least for the core DB services. For additional services like push, there's tons of options that can be plugged (and changed) separately if needed.
A tie-in to a particular technology (CouchDB or MongoDB for instance) is not ideal either, but it's a big plus if it's an OSS project IMO.

Charby

@gadlim I think the lock-in could be acceptable as long as we would use the backend services using a commun Qt API that would have a backup and reload function, don't you think ?
Regarding the push services, what would you advise as possible candidate ?
I have contacted Apigee to have a better understanding of their licence agreement, to summarize :

the free trial period is supposed to be limited to 30 days but they usually don't stop the trial period after 30 days
they do not propose a package containing only BaaS, so to get BaaS you need the enterprise-class Edge account which licence fee is around 200k$ yearly (!!!)...

FYI here is the transcript of the chat conversation :

guillaume: at 16:23:33
Hi, I am an independant mobile application developper looking for a backend solution in
replacement of engin.io cloud services (I am using Qt framework). I am evaluating apigee BaaS
which I find great but I am confused with the pricing...
guillaume: at 16:24:45
In the pricing table, the BaaS is checked only for the trial column. what happens after the 30 days
trial period ?
Dylan: at 16:24:51
Well BaaS is only available with our enterprise solution
Dylan: at 16:25:11
You can download the free trial and use as you please
Dylan: at 16:25:33
We are usually not to strict on ending people's trials at the 30 day mark
guillaume: at 16:27:26
Does that mean that I can continue using BaaS for unlimited period as long as I use the API within
the maximal API calls ?
Dylan: at 16:28:35
I wouldn't say unlimited but you can continue to use it and if you have any issues please reach out
to us
guillaume: at 16:29:44
What would be the price for using BaaS only ?
Dylan: at 16:30:38
You have to have our enterprise Edge version to use Apigee BaaS
guillaume: at 16:31:51
I haven't found the price of edge version, and I think that this package contains much more than
my current needs.
Dylan: at 16:32:02
We have Start Up and SMB Edge versions as well but they do not come with BaaS
Dylan: at 16:33:27
Enterprise Edge starts at 200K a year is that within your budget? If not, you are not going to be
able to use a paid version of Apigee BaaS.
guillaume: at 16:35:20
It is definitely not within my budget unfortunately...do you plan to propose a package for indie
(with BaaS only) that I could propose to my customer in addition with the mobile development ?
guillaume: at 16:37:19
My typical use case would be to develop a mobile application using apigee for a customer and to
sell the product. The customer would have to pay for Apigee services fee (+variable cost
depending of API usage)
guillaume: at 16:37:55
Is this kind of package offering already in your roadmap ?
Dylan: at 16:40:19
16/2/2016 about:blank
about:blank 2/2
Would you like to go to one of our Expert Sessions to learn more about our platform and see if we
could be a fit for your customers?
guillaume: at 16:42:27
If I have to invest time on Apigee I would need to ensure the business model is relevant for my
customers...
Dylan: at 16:44:34
Well if you need Apigee BaaS and you don't have a six figure budget then this platform is most
likely not going to suit your needs. If Apigee BaaS is a nice to have and you are interested in our
SMB or Start Up API Management solutions then I suggest attending a session.
guillaume: at 16:44:52
Depending of the project, I sell the development of mobile application several thousand of euros
(one shot). These application usually needs datastore, authentification and push notification. I
think most of my customers could afford to pay a couple of hundred dollars of reccurent fee for
the backend services
Dylan: at 16:45:56
Okay, we do have authentification and push notifications.
Dylan: at 16:46:26
http://apigee.com/about/products/api-management
guillaume: at 16:49:57
will that mean that my in my typical use case, let's say a company order a small application using
datastore, push notification, and authentification...It would cost let's say 5k$ for my development
but the customer would have to get a edge account (200k$ yearly) to continue using the app ?
Dylan: at 16:50:29
The Edge package that they need depends on their API call volume
Dylan: at 16:50:47
http://apigee.com/about/pricing/apigee-edge-pricing-features
guillaume: at 16:51:53
but they would need a Edge account (enterprise account) which you told me is around 200k$
yearly
Dylan: at 16:52:22
No, they only need an enterprise level account if they want BaaS
Dylan: at 16:52:42
BaaS is not available on the SMB or Start Up level subscriptions
Dylan: at 16:53:04
Without BaaS they could definitely choose one of the cheaper versions
guillaume: at 16:55:42
My understanding is that you are currently not proposing a BaaS only package (much cheaper
than edge) for mobile application...do you think this could be proposed in a near future ?
Dylan: at 16:56:29
I am not sure if we will offer that but yes we do not have a standalone BaaS offering at the
moment
guillaume: at 16:56:59
ok thanks.
Dylan: at 16:57:31
Have a nice day

Charby

To help synthesize the results of our evaluation of the different BaaS services, I propose to work on a commun document where we could all insert/edit the solutions we know (and also correct each other). I have started this google sheet for this purpose : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NoSQq2CtxDZEPTwe_1f2bmrB4BT4BRNeEj4qGdXa9S8/edit?usp=sharing

feel free to modify/update !

gadlim

@Charby said:

@gadlim I think the lock-in could be acceptable as long as we would use the backend services using a commun Qt API that would have a backup and reload function, don't you think ?

Yes, but a real, production-ready, common Qt API is a hard task. We're not there yet.

Regarding the push services, what would you advise as possible candidate ?

I haven't used any (using Pushbullet but that's different), so can't really advise.