Re: Future of Web Application in Gambas

[Linus <olivier.cruilles@xxxxxxxx>]

Ok so apparently I was wrong.

So, could it be possible to improve this component with little features ?

1 - Could it be possible to set the « .public » folder, normally managed by the internal libthttpd Web Server, as option in command line 
  Ex:  add a GB_HTTPD_PUBDIR=<path to .public>   to the gbr3 command

  Because if the project is started by his compiled *.gambas executable, the « .public » directory is not anymore writable and I need write into during the usage of the Web Application


2 -  Could it be possible to have a restricted Directory, available by the libthttpd Web Server, ONLY if a session is VALID.
   Like that the libthttpd will be able to deserve normal .public files, and when a session is VALID, the libhttptd server will be able to deserver also secret/securised data.

   Just to explain, in my last Web Application project, once the user is authenticated, he can upload files to the application, through the web Browser.
   Once the file is received by the Web Application, it is stored in a directory, outside the « .public » because if it is stored into the  « .public » directory, the file will available, potentially,  for all people without authentication.
   This is due to the fact the libthttpd Web server deserver all files into « .public », simply when requested by the browser, that is normal in my point of view.
   So to permit the download by the Browser (initiated by the user) of restricted files, when requested, I create a temporary symbolic link in the « .public » pointing to the original file, available only few secondes, just the time for the user to download it. Once the file has been downloaded (delay in seconds), the symbolic link is removed, denying totally the possibility for anyone to download it without authentication.
  
Maybe I’m in special case but I think Web Application that allow to send/receive file are common today.

Thank you

Olivier


> Le 21 avr. 2025 à 14:51, Benoît Minisini <benoit.minisini@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> Le 21/04/2025 à 20:18, Linus a écrit :
>> Hello,
>> Since a certain time I’ve developed few projects (Web Applications)
>> using the component « gb.web.gui » .
>> It’s really a amazing component and I really congratulate Benoit for
>> given us this incredible feature in Gambas.
>> Now a big question come to me regarding the interest.
>> As all in the community of Gambas mention Web Application built with
>> the component « gb.web.gui » are not really for production.
> 
> Why should not it be used for production?
> 
>> My question is ‘What is the interest to build a Web Application like
>> that if the benefit of using it remotely in a browser, I mean no
>> need to install the application on each computer + Gambas + etc… That is exactly the goal of Web Application but if the result is not
>> for a restricted usage, that does not make sense on my point of
>> view.
> 
> I don't understand these last sentences.
> 
>> So why develop a Web Application if it is not usable like a Web
>> Application ? As many develop a Desktop Application in place, with
>> more possibility, less restriction make more sense.
> 
> Still don't understand...
> 
>> I’m a network and system administrator for long time so installation
>> of Web Servers and Web Applications is familiar for me and I know
>> the powerful of a Web Application, so I’m a little frustrated to
>> have an amazing component like «  gb.web.gui » but be locked to just
>> play with it.
> 
> Why are you locked to just play with it... Still don't understand.
> 
>> I don’t say that lightly, I have posted few projects to the Gambas
>> Farm, as example, demo, and even a real case usage (Project
>> gbGestionImmobilier), so I have experimented a lot this component.
>> I’m wrong on my point of view ?
> 
> Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean.
> 
>> Is there a real usage of this component or not ? Is there a real
>> future for this component ?
> 
> The future of this component is the same as the other I developed.
> 
> I'd like to make a real application with it, but I didn't had the time.
> 
> I'd like to use it in my job, but this would need a lot of rewrite of a big web app just based on 'gb.web', so people in charge won't be agree.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Benoît Minisini.
> 
>