domains | Domains for WordPress Multisite | Content Management System library

Well thanks to the security update released by Google few months before. This makes the link sharing stricter and you need resource key as well to access the file in-addition to the fileId.

As per the documentation , You need to provide the resource key as well for newer links, if you want to access it in the header X-Goog-Drive-Resource-Keys as fileId1/resourceKey1.

If you apply this change in your code, it will work as normal. Example edit below:

You need to specify that it's a digest:

I read the comments and you seem to be doing everything ok. I would recommend you to try:

• This error message can appear because you set API restrictions in the API key, is this the case? Maybe you’re restricting this specific API.
• If you aren’t setting any API restrictions, is it possible to try adding an IP instead of the domain just for testing purposes?

The enableCors and { cors: true } options are for the HTTP server (express or fastify). The URL given showing the CORS error came from a socket.io connection. To enable CORS for socket.io you need to use the options in the @WebsocketGateway() decorator, like

Might not be the ideal fix, but can you try changing the externalTrafficPolicy to Local. This would prevent the health check on the nodes which don't run the application to fail. This way the traffic will only be forwarded to the node where the application is . Setting externalTrafficPolicy to local is also a requirement to preserve source IP of the connection. Also, can you share the health check config for both NLB and LB that you are using. When you change the externalTrafficPolicy, note that the health check for LB would change and the same needs to be applied to NLB.

Edit: Also note that you need a security list/ network security group added to your node subnet/nodepool, which allows traffic on all protocols from the worker node subnet.

Before we start, I do agree with you that these 2 different websites have completely different behaviors, hence demand different handling approaches.

To the point - let's break your question into the followings factors:

• Availability
• Incoming Traffic
• Pricing

Availability Most chances that your landing page should be served via a CDN in order to get world-wide coverage, while the app itslef may use a cdn. Some technical point to consider:

• If that page is also build with a modern stack it also can be hosted via a cloud-based storage
• You can select a CDN from your hosting cloud provider (such as aws, azure, gcp, etc.) or use a completely external service (such as max cdn). It mainly depends on the technological stack that your website

Incoming Traffic As landing pages are opened to the general public and using anonymous access (e.g. - no login is required) they are at a high risk level for ddos and other malicious attacks. This is why these websites are mostly hosted behind a waf, gateway or any other tier that help these websites to protect themselves from being hijacked. Also, in most use-cases, these websites should handle very high loads (way more than the app itself, which is login protected). Some key points:

• Landing page websites loads may change drastically and without any warning.. so they should be deployed in an elastic high availability manner which means - when high loads occur - please use more resources to handle these loads (and please automatically decrease them when loads return to normal levels)
• In terms of logs - incoming traffic is different when dealing with identify users and when handling anonymous access - both in terms of cyber security as well of data analysis
• Apps that require login, will mostly need to use a solid gateway and some sort of identity management solution. These parts have no benefit to the landing page in terms of functionality and also - resource usage

Pricing Yes, we want to gain as much flexibility as possible, but we also want to pay the lower price possible as well. Coupling these 2 different apps may cause using expensive resources just to handle landing page loads. On the other hand - decoupling them will allow us to track every resource group and pay only for what we are using. So yes - it's even makes sense in terms of pricing

In short (sort of) - 2 different apps should have 2 different ways of deployments - each with its own technical stack and configurations. That will give us

• Flexibility - change in one environment will not damage the other
• Deployment - 2 different pipelines - each dedicated only to the a single solution
• Pricing - there is no need to waste resources (for example: by over using libraries that consume resources that most time is unused) hence - paying less
• DevOps - in some use-cases - 2 different devOps personnel may handle each pipeline, which may be an advantage

Hope this information helps

I needed a proxy to receive requests from the server. So I used ‍envoy proxy. In this way, nginx received the request from the browser and then sent it to a port (for example 5000). On the other hand, envoy listens to port 5000 and then sends the request to the server running on port 50051.

This is how I designed the tracking of a gRPC connection.

A "multiarch" Python interpreter built on MacOS is intended to target MacOS-on-Intel and MacOS-on-Apple's-arm64.

There is absolutely no binary compatibility with Linux-on-Apple's-arm64, or with Linux-on-aarch64. You can't run MacOS executables on Linux, no matter if the architecture matches or not.

The Response that you're printing is basically just the initial HTTP info (e.g. status and headers). You'll need to wait for the payload as well using methods depending on what you're expecting:

• bytes/bytes_stream/chunk to get the raw data
• text/text_with_charset to get the data as a string
• json to deserialize the data into a structured type (see the docs for serde_json for more info)

In this case it looks like you're getting a JSON payload so using .json() into a deserializable type sounds like the right way to go, but if your only goal is to print it then .text() is probably the simpler approach.