I'm working on a software that I would like to offer for free in charge with advertisement banners inside the application. Something like the banners in Spotify or the banner in the MS Live Messenger Contact List. Something like the iAd system that integrates in iOS-applications.
Are there any solution for this? I'm programming a multi platform C++ Qt-application. Of course I can have a web browser frame and use a web-based advertising system, but that would be very easy to block for the user. Therefore I would prefer a system that also would work offline in some way.
As you all have pointed on; it's very difficult to imagine a system that will run even without a network connection. As I mentioned in the question, the best solution would be to have a WebView and depend on the network. And I think so too, but I was interested IF there was something geneous solution out there that I couldn't find.
In addition I think I can display a banner for the company or something like that when there are no connection. My application does not need Internet connection for any other functions, so it would be very easy to click "no" when the windows firewall asks for permissions for the program.
But I still want the advertisement to be annoying enough to give the paying users a good advantage. (I personally hates other programs doing so, and the alternative for me is to release the software Open Source, but I think I have a good idea, and if I ever finish and release something, I would like to see if it is possible to get any money out of it.)
Doesn't QT have something like a KHTML webbrowser control ?
Then you could simply embedd a web-page with a google add in a HTML page.
I suggest offline banners as well. Just you should organize a smart mechanizm in order to have your banners in a safe place, because user can just find the banner folder, and delete all banners and put there just a blank image with a fixed color and your ads are done :).
Also you should update the banner folder content whenewer the user has an internet connection and you should do that in background! This is the main idea.
If there are improvements of this idea, I would like to discuss with great pleasure as this question interrests me too!
Related
I'm building a small social WP plugin (more for learning purposes than anything else) and I'm trying to get my head around the various social networking sharing api's etc.
With regards to Facebook sharing, there seems to be the requirement for an application ID. Thats easy enough if this a one time thing, on a single site, but in the case of writing a plugin, I obviously would want it to be easy for users to install and setup, and not neccessarily have every user have to put one in from an options panel.
It seems to work when removing it from the FB.init, though I'm developing locally, and get an error when trying to use the like button.
Is an APP ID 100% required? and if so can I as a plugin author use one (think this gets paired with a website URL so not sure if its even possible) or the plugin that would
Anyone experienced with this got any tips?
For using the feed dialog, you do need an App (with ID). But you can - of course - just use your own App and just put it in the plugin. The App ID is nothing secret, and with that way you can also monitor the usage with the Facebook Insights.
There is one option without the feed dialog: sharer.php
It is exlained here: How to use Facebook Sharer in PHP
Just keep in mind that it is deprecated though (see other thread).
I'm supposed to use watershed to allow users to create and post their own videos on a website.
Watershed has it's own viewer for broadcasts and an application for recording broadcasts as well. It's all pretty well set up and easy to embed etc.
If you look at the watershed page (link at bottom of post) it says that you must implement all web service methods for the recording application to work, but it doesn't give any direction on how to implement them.
Am I supposed to do this with javascript? actionscript? how does one go about implementing these "web service methods" I tried to do it with actionscript but I'm not really sure how to put actionscript into my page and what I had typed did not work. Any points in the right direction on what to use or even what some of this stuff means would be greatly appreciated.
https://watershed.ustream.tv/support/advanced_customization/using_web_services
I was able to find this project on github, which is extremely helpful. Put the two files from there on your server. After that go to the watershed site and log in. Under the brands tab, click on properties from the side bar and then advanced settings. Put the link to the soap_service.php on your server and it'll respond to the methods. You can edit the soap_services.php and make the methods do what you want. Hopefully this helps people out who are in the same situation.
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate question for StackOverflow. I have a friend show wants a simple "Brochure Ware" web site. I could make it for him but it would be better if he could manage it himself. Are there any services out there that allow a non-technical person to create and maintain a very simple site? I'm thinking just a few pages - contact, about, home with some photos and general info. He also wants to sell some stuff but I'm going to suggest he does this using EBay but the web site would be a handy reference for potential customers who want to know more about him and his services.
Thanks a lot!
Cheers
Mark
You are looking for a Content Management System (CMS).
You can build your own software, try something open-source, or go the easy way, and go with SaaS: software as a service. Something that fits your needs (based on what you told us), is something like Shopify. It manages your products, orders, but also has functionality to manage static pages.
agreed with the CMS comment #Phil Hunt
if you are a true non-nerd go for the 5 minute install of wordpress
so simple. Shopify plugin?
I am working on a photo site and one of more active users asked about pushing content to cell phones. The site is built on django, and I was wondering if anyone knows a good way of allowing users to download and store content (images) on their cell phones?
As a side question... is it possible to accept payment for the content via the cell phone or would that have to take place on the site?
The best way to serve content to a mobile user would be to forward them to a mobile specific site. A lot of places do this by forwarding the user to http://m.mydomain.com/. You can tell if they're using a cellphone by checking against their UserAgent string as Harold said. Find more at: Change Django Templates Based on User-Agent
In terms of downloading, this is pretty phone dependant. On my iphone, for instance, I don't know that I can save images directly from the internet. (This could just be my ignorance, however). I think you're going to run into a lot of discrepencies on the browsers between different mobile devices. How many offer photo downloads vs. not, etc.
For payment, I would suggest keeping it in browser. There is SOO much that could go crazy on a cell phone and money isn't one of those places where I like to take risk. That being said, you could likely look into some sort of sms micro payment system (sorry, I don't have any recommendations) or look at partnerships with carriers such as Verison. Beyond that, I'd say keep it in the App.
Hope it helps.
Check to see if the User Agent of the phone(s) you wish to support is in request.META['HTTP_USER_AGENT']. If so, render mobile friendly templates.
Why don't people use CFLOGIN? I remember having problem with it with CF7 some months ago, but I couldn't remember what was wrong with it.
I use cflogin all the time and it works great. It can be a little tricky to get working the way you like, but the benefits are huge. Being able to fine tune your application with user roles takes care of the bulk of my rights based customization. There used to be some issues with session management that made it difficult to work with. Turning on j2ee sessions seems to make most of those issues go away.
Some of the popular frameworks are not compatible with cflogin, so that might be one reason you don't see a lot of it. They tend to have their own approach to securing application features.
I think a lot of people get frustrated with it because it is a little quirky and they give up on it. Others have more complicated security needs that aren't addressed completely by cflogin, so they wind up writing their own system. Specifically, there isn't an easy way to deal with rights by content asset.
The only issue I've had is with roles in CF8. It's brilliantly implemented, and a little cruel that it doesn't work as it quite should. Maybe in CF9.
In any event, building your own roles based system (assign the user a session variable with a comma separated list of access levels that the system can check against) isn't too hard to do and I got over it.
The one nice thing about cfLogin that is probably still worth using is how it ties into the Server monitor to see how many people are logged in, etc.
The point above about using the jsession is true, it's worth doing in all cf apps. One of the best things I dragged myself through to get working how I wanted it.
CFLogin is not used for 3 reasons.
First, it's a little touchy, a little strange, and doesn't work how many would think. You put some code here, and if a user isn't logged in it runs it... that's just odd, you know? It didn't help that there were some bugs early on, either.
Second, while it has the basic required security features for a web application, it doesn't go any further. You can't really extend it easily. Who's to say that's how everybody wants it?
Third, and most realistically, it's because people have already solved that problem. The problem area of securing an application, authentication and authorization has been thought out in the community long enough and most people know how to just do it. CFLogin is reinventing the door. It is too little, too late.
Now, that's not to say that no one uses it. I personally have used it a few times with basic success, but no reason to ring a bell. For most of my applications, it makes more sense to not use CFLogin. The problem domains are this way or that, and CFLogin doesn't always solve it in the most intelligent way.
Do keep in mind that CFLOGIN has a catch with Basic HTTP Auth where it can continue to send its UserID and Password even after you have called CFLOGOUT.
I know this has driven some advanced users away from it.
Here is an excerpt from LiveDocs
Caution: If you use web server-based
authentication or any form
authentication that uses a Basic HTTP
Authorization header, the browser
continues to send the authentication
information to your application until
the user closes the browser, or in
some cases, all open browser windows.
As a result, after the user logs out
and your application uses the cflogout
tag, until the browser closes, the
cflogin structure in the cflogin tag
will contain the logged-out user's
UserID and password. If a user logs
out and does not close the browser,
another user might access pages with
the first user's login.
In my case (suppose for some other people too) the main reason is moving from other platform, say PHP. I mean that I've already got some knowledge and habits in ACL development and started using them in CF.
I know how to make it handy for user, flexible for developer and secure and don't really need to switch to cflogin.
Sometimes the same happens with other stuff, say in most cases I prefer to implement client-side validation using own JS instead of using cfform/cfinput.
Because it (still!) has serious bugs, like this one:
http://www.raymondcamden.com/index.cfm/2009/8/7/Watch-out-for-this-CFLOGIN-Bug