Looking for engin.io replacement -joining our effort initiative
-
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 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. -
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:
-
@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:
I see. It's in a "maybe could work with some efforts but nobody's working on it" state.
-
@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. -
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...
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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 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. -
@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$/month without a datastore). Maybe I misunderstood that page ?
-
@gadlim You are right (sic) - Actually I missed that pricing page as I jumped directly to the console after having signed a trial free account. Apigee seems to match perfectly what I was looking for (100% RESTfull, push notifications, social login, already builtin collections for assets-users-group, console is complete and powerfull and documentation is comprehensive...). It is a very unclear what are the pricing plan for BaaS...but if it is really 300$/mo (or more) it will be a no go for me...
additional candidates :
- backend (https://www.backand.com/)
- app42 (http://api.shephertz.com/)
- backendless (https://backendless.com/)
-
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. -
@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 -
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 !
-
@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.
-
@Charby said:
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).
feel free to modify/update !Good idea but wrong link
