Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for 'markmnl'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Should one always know what an API is doing just by looking at the code?

    - by markmnl
    Recently I have been developing my own API and with that invested interest in API design I have been keenly interested how I can improve my API design. One aspect that has come up a couple times is (not by users of my API but in my observing discussion about the topic): one should know just by looking at the code calling the API what it is doing. For example see this discussion on GitHub for the discourse repo, it goes something like: foo.update_pinned(true, true); Just by looking at the code (without knowing the parameter names, documentation etc.) one cannot guess what it is going to do - what does the 2nd argument mean? The suggested improvement is to have something like: foo.pin() foo.unpin() foo.pin_globally() And that clears things up (the 2nd arg was whether to pin foo globally, I am guessing), and I agree in this case the later would certainly be an improvement. However I believe there can be instances where methods to set different but logically related state would be better exposed as one method call rather than separate ones, even though you would not know what it is doing just by looking at the code. (So you would have to resort to looking at the parameter names and documentation to find out - which personally I would always do no matter what if I am unfamiliar with an API). For example I expose one method SetVisibility(bool, string, bool) on a FalconPeer and I acknowledge just looking at the line: falconPeer.SetVisibility(true, "aerw3", true); You would have no idea what it is doing. It is setting 3 different values that control the "visibility" of the falconPeer in the logical sense: accept join requests, only with password and reply to discovery requests. Splitting this out into 3 method calls could lead to a user of the API to set one aspect of "visibility" forgetting to set others that I force them to think about by only exposing the one method to set all aspects of "visibility". Furthermore when the user wants to change one aspect they almost always will want to change another aspect and can now do so in one call.

    Read the article

  • IIS 7.5 FTPS external access - 534 Policy requires SSL

    - by markmnl
    I have setup a FTP site that requires SSL but when I try connect to it externally I get the error: 220 Microsoft FTP Service 534 Policy requires SSL. I know - I set it so! Why doesnt it fetch the SSL cert from the site and allow me to logon?! (Incidentally beware of all the tutorials that Allow but do not Require SSL - while that will solve the problem it will be because SSL is not being used!). I suspect it may be I need a client that supports FTPS (FTP over SSL) and Windows explorer just uses IE which does not. But trying FileZilla and WinSCP I get a little further but then it hangs on TLS/SSL negotiation expecting a response from the server.... UPDATE: I have tried (from: http://learn.iis.net/page.aspx/309/configuring-ftp-firewall-settings/): Configure the Passive Port Range for the FTP Service. Configure the external IPv4 Address for a Specific FTP Site. Configure the firewall to allow the FTP service to listen on all ports that it opens. Disabling stateful FTP filtering so that Windows Firewall will not block FTP traffic. And still I get (in FileZilla trying both Active and Passive): Status: Connecting to 203.x.x.x:21... Status: Connection established, waiting for welcome message... Response: 220 Microsoft FTP Service Command: AUTH TLS Response: 234 AUTH command ok. Expecting TLS Negotiation. Status: Initializing TLS... Error: Connection timed out Error: Could not connect to server The Windows firewall logs unhelpfully have nothing to say.. UPDATE2: Turning the firewall off does not resolve the problem. I cannot believe how difficult it is to get something so simple to work and even once following the documentation it does not work. UPDATE3: Running FileZilla locally connecting through the loopback works in Active mode, in Passive mode I get up to: Command: LIST Response: 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection. Error: GnuTLS error -53: Error in the push function. Turning the firewall off at both ends I can still not connect the client and get the same error as above.

    Read the article

  • Can / should I prevent my domain controller doing forward lookups for remote users?

    - by markmnl
    I have a Windows Server 2003 server in the office. I VPN into the LAN remotely. My VPN has a virtual NIC with the Windows Server as the primary DNS since it is a domain controller. When connected to the VPN and I do a nslookup or simply browse the web my VPN's DNS (the office's Windows Server) provides the DNS answers - I beleive becuase it has DNS forwarders so queries it cant answer it forwards and then relays the answer. This is the desired behaviour for workstations in the office (they should query their domain controller first). However for remote VPN users this is not desirable - I do not want my remote office's server to answer DNS queries it is not the authority of (which happends to be 192.168.x.x). Is there any way I can configure this?

    Read the article

  • Stop chkdsk when Windows 7 on one drive and Windows 8 on another

    - by markmnl
    I installed Windows 8 (retail) on a new drive with my Windows 7 drive unplugged. So each Windows has no idea about the other one and I use the BIOS boot options to select which drive hence OS to boot into. Now whenever I boot into Windows 8 then boot into Windows 7, Windows 7 runs chkdisk presumably because Windows 8 messed with it. Is there anyway to stop this? (In hindsight I should have installed Windows 8 with Windows 7 drive plugged in so I could use the Windows dual boot options).

    Read the article

  • How can I prevent my domain controller doing forward lookups for remote users?

    - by markmnl
    I have a Windows Server 2003 server in the office. I VPN into the LAN remotely. My VPN has a virtual NIC with the Windows Server as the primary DNS since it is a domain controller. When connected to the VPN and I do an nslookup or simply browse the web the DNS from the VPN provides the DNS answers. I believe this is because it has DNS forwarders, so queries it can't answer are forwarded and then it relays the answer. This is the desired behavior for workstations in the office (they should query their domain controller first); however for remote VPN users this is not desirable. I do not want my remote office's server to answer DNS queries it is not the authority of (which happens to be 192.168.x.x). Is there any way I can configure this?

    Read the article

1