Search Results

Search found 5612 results on 225 pages for 'communication protocol'.

Page 10/225 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • How to Consume a WebService(created by C#) using Https protocol

    - by Navaneeth A Krishnan
    I'm developing a small project, that is an C# web service, i did that but now i want to run the web service using the protocol HTTPS, for that i have installed web authentication certificate in my system and my IIS 5.1 server is running under HTTPS protocol(i have configured in that directory security) But now i want to invoke the web service using the HTTPS protocol, somebody told that, i need to modify the WSDL file for that web service but i don't know how to do it... now my service url is like this.... http://localhost:2335/SWebService.asmx here i would like to use https instead of http

    Read the article

  • Modeling software for network serialization protocol design

    - by Aurélien Vallée
    Hello, I am currently designing a low level network serialization protocol (in fact, a refinement of an existing protocol). As the work progress, pen and paper documents start to show their limits: i have tons of papers, new and outdated merged together, etc... And i can't show anything to anyone since i describe the protocol using my own notation (a mix of flow chart & C structures). I need a software that would help me to design a network protocol. I should be able to create structures, fields, their sizes, their layout, etc... and the software would generate some nice UMLish diagrams.

    Read the article

  • How Important is Project Team Communication in the Public Sector?

    - by Melissa Centurio Lopes
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} By Paul Bender, Director of Public Administration Strategy, Oracle Primavera It goes without saying that communication between project team members is a core competency that connects every member of a project team to a common set of strategies, goals and actions. If these components are not effectively shared by project leads and understood by stakeholders, project outcomes can be jeopardized and budgets may incur unnecessary risk. As reported by PMI’s 2013 Pulse of the Profession, an organization’s ability to meet project timelines, budgets and especially goals significantly impacts its ability to survive—and even thrive. The Pulse study revealed that the most crucial success factor in project management is effective communication to all stakeholders—a critical core competency for public agencies. PMI’s 2013 Pulse of the Profession report revealed that US$135 million is at risk for every US$1 billion spent on a project. Further research on the importance of effective project team communication uncovers that a startling 56 percent (US$75 million of that US$135 million) is at risk due to ineffective communication. Simply stated: public agencies cannot execute strategic initiatives unless they can effectively communicate their strategic alignment and business benefits. Executives and project managers around the world agree that poor communication between project team members contributes to project failure. A Forbes Insights 2010 Strategic Initiatives Study “Adapting Corporate Strategy to the Changing Economy,” found that nine out of ten CEOs believe that communication is critical to the success of their strategic initiatives, and nearly half of respondents cite communication as an integral and active component of their strategic planning and execution process. Project managers see it similarly from their side as well. According to PMI’s Pulse research, 55 percent of project managers agree that effective communication to all stakeholders is the most critical success factor in project management. As we all know, not all projects succeed. On average, two in five projects do not meet their original goals and business intent, and one-half of those unsuccessful projects are related to ineffective communication. Results reveal that while all aspects of project communication can be challenging to public agencies, the biggest problem areas are: A gap in understanding the business benefits. Challenges surrounding the language used to deliver project-related information, which is often unclear and peppered with project management jargon. Public agencies -- federal, state, and local -- have difficulty communicating with the appropriate levels with clarity and detail. This difficulty is likely exacerbated by the divide between each key audience and its understanding of project-specific, technical language. For those involved in public sector project and portfolio management, I would be interested to hear your thoughts and please visit Primavera EPPM solutions for public sector.

    Read the article

  • Communication with different social networks, strategy pattern?

    - by bclaessens
    Hi For the last few days I've been thinking how I can solve the following programming problem and find the ideal, flexible programming structure. (note: I'm using Flash as my platform technology but that shouldn't matter since I'm just looking for the ideal design pattern). Our Flash website has multiple situations in which it has to communicate with different social networks (Facebook, Netlog and Skyrock). Now, the communication strategy doesn't have to change multiple times over one "run". The strategy should be picked once (at launch time) for that session. The real problem is the way the communication works between each social network and our website. Some networks force us to ask for a token, others force us to use a webservice, yet another forces us to set up its communication through javascript. The problem becomes more complicated when our website has to run in each network's canvas. Which results in even more (different) ways of communicating. To sum up, our website has to work in the following cases: standalone on the campaign website url (user chooses their favourite network) communicate with netlog OR communicate with facebook OR communicate with skyrock run in a netlog canvas and log in automatically (website checks for netlog parameters) run in a facebook canvas and log in automatically (website checks for facebook params) run in a skyrock canvas and log in automatically (website checks for skyrock params) As you can see, our website needs 6 different ways to communicate with a social network. To be honest, the actual significant difference between all communication strategies is the way they have to connect to their individual network (as stated above in my example). Posting an image, make a comment, ... is the same whether it runs standalone or in the canvas url. WARNING: posting an image, posting a comment DOES differ from network to network. Should I use the strategy pattern and make 6 different communication strategies or is there a better way? An example would be great but isn't required ;) Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Protocol specification in XML

    - by Mathijs
    Is there a way to specify a packet-based protocol in XML, so (de)serialization can happen automatically? The context is as follows. I have a device that communicates through a serial port. It sends and receives a byte stream consisting of 'packets'. A packet is a collection of elementary data types and (sometimes) other packets. Some elements of packets are conditional; their inclusion depends on earlier elements. I have a C# application that communicates with this device. Naturally, I don't want to work on a byte-level throughout my application; I want to separate the protocol from my application code. Therefore I need to translate the byte stream to structures (classes). Currently I have implemented the protocol in C# by defining a class for each packet. These classes define the order and type of elements for each packet. Making class members conditional is difficult, so protocol information ends up in functions. I imagine XML that looks like this (note that my experience designing XML is limited): <packet> <field name="Author" type="int32" /> <field name="Nickname" type="bytes" size="4"> <condition type="range"> <field>Author</field> <min>3</min> <max>6</min> </condition> </field> </packet> .NET has something called a 'binary serializer', but I don't think that's what I'm looking for. Is there a way to separate protocol and code, even if packets 'include' other packets and have conditional elements?

    Read the article

  • Which protocol do clients use when communicating with servers in a SAN

    - by Mario De Schaepmeester
    I'm trying to wrap my head around how a SAN works and how it is implemented. If I understand this well, clients wanting to access the storage devices in a SAN need to communicate with the servers via the LAN. When the SAN is implemented with Fibre Channel, these servers are Fibre Channel compliant devices, and internally in the SAN they work with the Fibre Channel Protocol. Both data and communications are supported by Fibre Channel. But which application-layer protocol do the clients use in the LAN to communicate with the servers? Is the data simply transferred via ethernet as well? This is some part I am stuck on. I went trough a lot of sources but most sources don't really mention protocols and if they do, they only mention FCP.

    Read the article

  • Protocol Security With PPTP

    - by why
    I find these words in pptp client source : Summary by Peter Mueller PPTP is known to be a faulty protocol. The designers of the protocol, Microsoft, recommend not to use it due to the inherent risks. Lots of people use PPTP anyway due to ease of use, but that doesn't mean it is any less hazardous. The maintainers of PPTP Client and Poptop recommend using OpenVPN (SSL based) or IPSec instead. (Posted on [1]2005-08-10 to the [2]mailing list) But as far as i know, there are many people use PPTP as a VPN, because there is no need to install client on windows, what do you think about pptp ?

    Read the article

  • Alternate Client for Cisco Unified Personal Communicator protocol

    - by Jason M
    At work we have an in-house chat system using CUPC. Does anyone else out there use this? There are a few things I do not like about this client: Where's the chat log? If I close the window, I have no way of getting my conversation back. Tabbed interface? That would be nice. I hate having multiple chat windows up, having to arrange them around my desktop as more people start talking to me. I don't like that I have to use this one-off application for particular this protocol when other chat clients will handle 99% of the other protocols I use. Tell me: Is the protocol an open standard for which other applications have support? (pidgin, adium, digsby, etc.) If not, can I overcome these issues from within CUPC? Perhaps there are newer versions of the client that overcome these issues.

    Read the article

  • Technically, How does uploading Apps to an Android Phone Work?

    - by unixman83
    Amazon.com has an Android Marketplace. How do the apps go from Amazon.com to my phone? I am looking for a protocol level analysis. Do they use a basic protocol like FTP and then check with a Google digital signature? I do not own an Android. I wish for an explanation of how the protocol operates because I want to provide an android app for free download for my users off my website, like Amazon does.

    Read the article

  • That Escalated Quickly

    - by Jesse Taber
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/GruffCode/archive/2014/05/17/that-escalated-quickly.aspxI have been working remotely out of my home for over 4 years now. All of my coworkers during that time have also worked remotely. Lots of folks have written about the challenges inherent in facilitating communication on remote teams and strategies for overcoming them. A popular theme around this topic is the notion of “escalating communication”. In this context “escalating” means taking a conversation from one mode of communication to a different, higher fidelity mode of communication. Here are the five modes of communication I use at work in order of increasing fidelity: Email – This is the “lowest fidelity” mode of communication that I use. I usually only check it a few times a day (and I’m trying to check it even less frequently than that) and I only keep items in my inbox if they represent an item I need to take action on that I haven’t tracked anywhere else. Forums / Message boards – Being a developer, I’ve gotten into the habit of having other people look over my code before it becomes part of the product I’m working on. These code reviews often happen in “real time” via screen sharing, but I also always have someone else give all of the changes another look using pull requests. A pull request takes my code and lets someone else see the changes I’ve made side-by-side with the existing code so they can see if I did anything dumb. Pull requests can facilitate a conversation about the code changes in an online-forum like style. Some teams I’ve worked on also liked using tools like Trello or Google Groups to have on-going conversations about a topic or task that was being worked on. Chat & Instant Messaging  - Chat and instant messaging are the real workhorses for communication on the remote teams I’ve been a part of. I know some teams that are co-located that also use it pretty extensively for quick messages that don’t warrant walking across the office to talk with someone but reqire more immediacy than an e-mail. For the purposes of this post I think it’s important to note that the terms “chat” and “instant messaging” might insinuate that the conversation is happening in real time, but that’s not always true. Modern chat and IM applications maintain a searchable history so people can easily see what might have been discussed while they were away from their computers. Voice, Video and Screen sharing – Everyone’s got a camera and microphone on their computers now, and there are an abundance of services that will let you use them to talk to other people who have cameras and microphones on their computers. I’m including screen sharing here as well because, in my experience, these discussions typically involve one or more people showing the other participants something that’s happening on their screen. Obviously, this mode of communication is much higher-fidelity than any of the ones listed above. Scheduled meetings are typically conducted using this mode of communication. In Person – No matter how great communication tools become, there’s no substitute for meeting with someone face-to-face. However, opportunities for this kind of communcation are few and far between when you work on a remote team. When a conversation gets escalated that usually means it moves up one or more positions on this list. A lot of people advocate jumping to #4 sooner than later. Like them, I used to believe that, if it was possible, organizing a call with voice and video was automatically better than any kind of text-based communication could be. Lately, however, I’m becoming less convinced that escalating is always the right move. Working Asynchronously Last year I attended a talk at our local code camp given by Drew Miller. Drew works at GitHub and was talking about how they use GitHub internally. Many of the folks at GitHub work remotely, so communication was one of the main themes in Drew’s talk. During the talk Drew used the phrase, “asynchronous communication” to describe their use of chat and pull request comments. That phrase stuck in my head because I hadn’t heard it before but I think it perfectly describes the way in which remote teams often need to communicate. You don’t always know when your co-workers are at their computers or what hours (if any) they are working that day. In order to work this way you need to assume that the person you’re talking to might not respond right away. You can’t always afford to wait until everyone required is online and available to join a voice call, so you need to use text-based, persistent forms of communication so that people can receive and respond to messages when they are available. Going back to my list from the beginning of this post for a second, I characterize items #1-3 as being “asynchronous” modes of communication while we could call items #4 and #5 “synchronous”. When communication gets escalated it’s almost always moving from an asynchronous mode of communication to a synchronous one. Now, to the point of this post: I’ve become increasingly reluctant to escalate from asynchronous to synchronous communication for two primary reasons: 1 – You can often find a higher fidelity way to convey your message without holding a synchronous conversation 2 - Asynchronous modes of communication are (usually) persistent and searchable. You Don’t Have to Broadcast Live Let’s start with the first reason I’ve listed. A lot of times you feel like you need to escalate to synchronous communication because you’re having difficulty describing something that you’re seeing in words. You want to provide the people you’re conversing with some audio-visual aids to help them understand the point that you’re trying to make and you think that getting on Skype and sharing your screen with them is the best way to do that. Firing up a screen sharing session does work well, but you can usually accomplish the same thing in an asynchronous manner. For example, you could take a screenshot and annotate it with some text and drawings to illustrate what it is you’re seeing. If a screenshot won’t work, taking a short screen recording while your narrate over it and posting the video to your forum or chat system along with a text-based description of what’s in the recording that can be searched for later can be a great way to effectively communicate with your team asynchronously. I Said What?!? Now for the second reason I listed: most asynchronous modes of communication provide a transcript of what was said and what decisions might have been made during the conversation. There have been many occasions where I’ve used the search feature of my team’s chat application to find a conversation that happened several weeks or months ago to remember what was decided. Unfortunately, I think the benefits associated with the persistence of communicating asynchronously often get overlooked when people decide to escalate to a in-person meeting or voice/video call. I’m becoming much more reluctant to suggest a voice or video call if I suspect that it might lead to codifying some kind of design decision because everyone involved is going to hang up the call and immediately forget what was decided. I recognize that you can record and archive these types of interactions, but without being able to search them the recordings aren’t terribly useful. When and How To Escalate I don’t mean to imply that communicating via voice/video or in person is never a good idea. I probably jump on a Skype call with a co-worker at least once a day to quickly hash something out or show them a bit of code that I’m working on. Also, meeting in person periodically is really important for remote teams. There’s no way around the fact that sometimes it’s easier to jump on a call and show someone my screen so they can see what I’m seeing. So when is it right to escalate? I think the simplest way to answer that is when the communication starts to feel painful. Everyone’s tolerance for that pain is different, but I think you need to let it hurt a little bit before jumping to synchronous communication. When you do escalate from asynchronous to synchronous communication, there are a couple of things you can do to maximize the effectiveness of the communication: Takes notes – This is huge and yet I’ve found that a lot of teams don’t do this. If you’re holding a meeting with  > 2 people you should have someone taking notes. Taking notes while participating in a meeting can be difficult but there are a few strategies to deal with this challenge that probably deserve a short post of their own. After the meeting, make sure the notes are posted to a place where all concerned parties (including those that might not have attended the meeting) can review and search them. Persist decisions made ASAP – If any decisions were made during the meeting, persist those decisions to a searchable medium as soon as possible following the conversation. All the teams I’ve worked on used a web-based system for tracking the on-going work and a backlog of work to be done in the future. I always try to make sure that all of the cards/stories/tasks/whatever in these systems always reflect the latest decisions that were made as the work was being planned and executed. If held a quick call with your team lead and decided that it wasn’t worth the effort to build real-time validation into that new UI you were working on, go and codify that decision in the story associated with that work immediately after you hang up. Even better, write it up in the story while you are both still on the phone. That way when the folks from your QA team pick up the story to test a few days later they’ll know why the real-time validation isn’t there without having to invoke yet another conversation about the work. Communicating Well is Hard At this point you might be thinking that communicating asynchronously is more difficult than having a live conversation. You’re right: it is more difficult. In order to communicate effectively this way you need to very carefully think about the message that you’re trying to convey and craft it in a way that’s easy for your audience to understand. This is almost always harder than just talking through a problem in real time with someone; this is why escalating communication is such a popular idea. Why wouldn’t we want to do the thing that’s easier? Easier isn’t always better. If you and your team can get in the habit of communicating effectively in an asynchronous manner you’ll find that, over time, all of your communications get less painful because you don’t need to re-iterate previously made points over and over again. If you communicate right the first time, you often don’t need to rehash old conversations because you can go back and find the decisions that were made laid out in plain language. You’ll also find that you get better at doing things like writing useful comments in your code, creating written documentation about how the feature that you just built works, or persuading your team to do things in a certain way.

    Read the article

  • Has Little Endian won?

    - by espertus
    When teaching recently about the Big vs. Little Endian battle, a student asked whether it had been settled, and I realized I didn't know. Looking at the Wikipedia article, it seems that the most popular current OS/architecture pairs use Little Endian but that Internet Protocol specifies Big Endian for transferring numeric values in packet headers. Would that be a good summary of the current status? Do current network cards or CPUs provide hardware support for switching byte order?

    Read the article

  • audio and video data in RTP

    - by Banana
    Suppose a user wants to transmit both audio and video to another user, whose formats are AMR for audio and H.264 for video. Does the user have to transmit audio and video packets always separately? Meaning that it is not possible to mix audio and video within the same RTP packed, is that correct? If this is true I guess the RTP protocol will need to know the SSRC of both audio and video to be able to check the sync of the two streams.

    Read the article

  • Objective-C Protocols within Protocols

    - by LucasTizma
    I recently began trying my hand at using protocols in my Objective-C development as an (obvious) means of delegating tasks more appropriately among my classes. I completely understand the basic notion of protocols and how they work. However, I came across a roadblock when trying to create a custom protocol that in turn implements another protocol. I since discovered the solution, but I am curious why the following DOES NOT work: @protocol STPickerViewDelegate < UIPickerViewDelegate > - ( void )customCallback; @end @interface STPickerView : UIPickerView { id < STPickerViewDelegate > delegate; } @property ( nonatomic, assign ) id < STPickerViewDelegate > delegate; @end Then in a view controller, which conforms to STPickerViewDelegate: STPickerView * pickerView = [ [ STPickerView alloc ] init ]; pickerView.delegate = self; - ( void )customCallback { ... } - ( NSString * )pickerView:( UIPickerView * )pickerView titleForRow:( NSInteger )row forComponent:( NSInteger )component { ... } The problem was that pickerView:titleForRow:forComponent: was never being called. On the other hand, customCallback was being called just fine, which isn't too surprising. I don't understand why STPickerViewDelegate, which itself conforms to UIPickerViewDelegate, does not notify my view controller when events from UIPickerViewDelegate are supposed to occur. Per my understanding of Apple's documentation, if a protocol (A) itself conforms to another protocol (B), then a class (C) that conforms to the first protocol (A) must also conform to the second protocol (B), which is exactly the behavior I want and expected. What I ended up doing was removing the id< STPickerViewDelegate > delegate property from STViewPicker and instead doing something like the following in my STViewPicker implementation where I want to evoke customCallback: if ( [ self.delegate respondsToSelector:@selector( customCallback ) ] ) { [ self.delegate performSelector:@selector( customCallback ) ]; } This works just fine, but I really am puzzled as to why my original approach did not work.

    Read the article

  • How can the Three-Phase Commit Protocol (3PC) guarantee atomicity?

    - by AndiDog
    I'm currently exploring worst case scenarios of atomic commit protocols like 2PC and 3PC and am stuck at the point that I can't find out why 3PC can guarantee atomicity. That is, how does it guarantee that if cohort A commits, cohort B also commits? Here's the simplified 3PC from the Wikipedia article: Now let's assume the following case: Two cohorts participate in the transaction (A and B) Both do their work, then vote for commit Coordinator now sends precommit messages... A receives the precommit message, acknowledges, and then goes offline for a long time B doesn't receive the precommit message (whatever the reason might be) and is thus still in "uncertain" state The results: Coordinator aborts the transaction because not all precommit messages were sent and acknowledged successfully A, who is in precommit state, is still offline, thus times out and commits B aborts in any case: He either stays offline and times out (causes abort) or comes online and receives the abort command from the coordinator And there you have it: One cohort committed, another aborted. The transaction is screwed. So what am I missing here? In my understanding, if the automatic commit on timeout (in precommit state) was replaced by infinitely waiting for a coordinator command, that case should work fine.

    Read the article

  • Apache reverse proxy: no protocol handler

    - by gonvaled
    I am trying to configure a reverse proxy with apache, but I am getting a No protocol handler was valid for the URL error, which I do not understand. This is the relevant configuration of apache: ProxyRequests Off ProxyPreserveHost On <Proxy *> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Proxy> ProxyPass /gonvaled/examples/jsonrpc/output/services/ http://localhost:8000/services/ ProxyPassReverse /gonvaled/examples/jsonrpc/output/services/ http://localhost:8000/services/ The requests is reaching apache as: POST /gonvaled/examples/jsonrpc/output/services/EchoService.py HTTP/1.1 And they should be forwarded to my internal service, located at: 0.0.0.0:8000/services/EchoService.py These are the logs: ==> /var/log/apache2/error.log <== [Wed Jun 20 02:05:20 2012] [debug] proxy_util.c(1506): [client 127.0.0.1] proxy: http: found worker http://localhost:8000/services/ for http://localhost:8000/services/EchoService.py, referer: http://localhost/gonvaled/examples/jsonrpc/output/JSONRPCExample.safari.cache.html [Wed Jun 20 02:05:20 2012] [debug] mod_proxy.c(998): Running scheme http handler (attempt 0) [Wed Jun 20 02:05:20 2012] [warn] proxy: No protocol handler was valid for the URL /gonvaled/examples/jsonrpc/output/services/EchoService.py. If you are using a DSO version of mod_proxy, make sure the proxy submodules are included in the configuration using LoadModule. [Wed Jun 20 02:05:20 2012] [debug] mod_deflate.c(615): [client 127.0.0.1] Zlib: Compressed 614 to 373 : URL /gonvaled/examples/jsonrpc/output/services/EchoService.py, referer: http://localhost/gonvaled/examples/jsonrpc/output/JSONRPCExample.safari.cache.html ==> /var/log/apache2/access.log <== 127.0.0.1 - - [20/Jun/2012:02:05:20 +0200] "POST /gonvaled/examples/jsonrpc/output/services/EchoService.py HTTP/1.1" 500 598 "http://localhost/gonvaled/examples/jsonrpc/output/JSONRPCExample.safari.cache.html" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.162 Safari/535.19"

    Read the article

  • Protocol to mount fat32 network filesystem on Linux with ability to lock files ( not advisory locks

    - by nagul
    I have a fat32 filesystem sitting on a NAS storage device (nslu2) that I need to mount on my Ubuntu system. I've tried Samba and NFS mounts, but both don't seem to support proper locking. More specifically, I am unable to save files to the mounted drive through GNUcash, KeepassX etc, which makes the share fairly useless. Is there a protocol that allows me to achieve this ? Note that the NAS storage device is running a linux OS so I can run pretty much any protocol that has a linux implementation. The only option I'm not looking for is to reformat the partition to ext3, which I'm not able to do due to other constraints. Alternatively, has anyone managed proper locking of a fat32 system over the network using Samba ? Or, is advisory locking the best you get with a network-mounted fat32 file system ? I've thought of trying sshfs but I've not found any indication that this will solve my problem. Edit: Okay, maybe I can reformat the drive, but to any file system except ext3. The "unslung" nslu2 doesn't like more than one ext3 drive, and I already have one attached. So any solution that involves reformatting the drive to ntfs, hfs etc is fine, as long as I can mount it on linux and lock files.

    Read the article

  • cURL - Unkown SSL protocol error - OS X 10.9

    - by saq7
    I am trying to use cURL and get the following error on every https request I make. The error is always the same. HTTP requests work flawlessly. The verbose output is quite useless. Saquibs-MacBook-Pro:~ skothawala$ curl https://google.com -vv * Adding handle: conn: 0x7fe09b803a00 * Adding handle: send: 0 * Adding handle: recv: 0 * Curl_addHandleToPipeline: length: 1 * - Conn 0 (0x7fe09b803a00) send_pipe: 1, recv_pipe: 0 * About to connect() to google.com port 443 (#0) * Trying 74.125.226.129... * Connected to google.com (74.125.226.129) port 443 (#0) * Unknown SSL protocol error in connection to google.com:-9805 * Closing connection 0 curl: (35) Unknown SSL protocol error in connection to google.com:-9805 I have looked through other answers on this forum and other places on the internet, but haven't found an answer. Most people's issues involve particular servers and the configuration of SSL on these servers. Mine however is problematic anytime HTTPS is used (with any website). Can someone please suggest what I should be looking into to solve the problem? Can it be that something is not properly configured? What should I be looking for?

    Read the article

  • Designing a persistent asynchronous TCP protocol

    - by dogglebones
    I have got a collection of web sites that need to send time-sensitive messages to host machines all over my metro area, each on its own generally dynamic IP. Until now, I have been doing this the way of the script kiddie: Each host machine runs an (s)FTP server, or an HTTP(s) server, and correspondingly has a certain port opened up by its gateway. Each host machine runs a program that watches a certain folder and automatically opens or prints or exec()s when a new file of a given extension shows up. Dynamic IP addresses are accommodated using a dynamic DNS service. Each web site does cURL or fsockopen or whatever and communicates directly with its recipient as-needed. This approach has been suprisingly reliable, however obvious issues have come up and the situation needs to be addressed. As stated, these messages are time-sensitive and failures need to be detected within minutes of submission by end-users. What I'm doing is building a messaging protocol. It will run on a machine and connection in my control. As far as the service is concerned, there is no distinction between web site and host machine -- there is only one device sending a message to another device. So that's where I'm at right now. I've got a skeleton server and a skeleton client. They can negotiate high-quality authentication and encryption. The (TCP) connection is persistent and asynchronous, and can handle delimited (i.e., read until \r\n or whatever) as well as length-prefixed (i.e., read exactly n bytes) messages. Unless somebody gives me a better idea, I think I'll handle messages as byte arrays. So I'm looking for suggestions on how to model the protocol itself -- at the application level. I'll mostly be transferring XML and DLM type files, as well as control messages for things like "handshake" and "is so-and-so online?" and so forth. Is there anything really stupid in my train of thought? Or anything I should read about before I get started? Stuff like that -- please and thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why isn't SSL/TLS built into modern Operating Systems?

    - by Channel72
    A lot of the basic network protocols that make up the infrastructure of the Internet are built in to most major Operating Systems. Things like TCP, UDP, and DNS are all built into Linux, UNIX and Windows, and are made available to the programmer through low-level system APIs. But when it comes to SSL or TLS, one has to turn to a third-party library such as OpenSSL or Mozilla NSS. SSL is a relatively old protocol, and it's basically an industry standard as ubiquitous as TCP/IP, so why isn't it built into most Operating Systems?

    Read the article

  • Messaging technologies between applications ?

    - by Samuel
    Recently, I had to create a program to send messages between two winforms executable. I used a tool with simple built-in functionalities to prevent having to figure out all the ins and outs of this vast quantity of protocols that exist. But now, I'm ready to learn more about the internals difference between each of theses protocols. I googled a couple of them but it would be greatly appreciate to have a good reference book that gives me a clean idea of how each protocol works and what are the pros and cons in a couple of context. Here is a list of nice protocols that I found: Shared memory TCP List item Named Pipe File Mapping Mailslots MSMQ (Microsoft Queue Solution) WCF I know that all of these protocols are not specific to a language, it would be nice if example could be in .net. Thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • Cisco ASA - Enable communication between same security level

    - by Conor
    I have recently inherited a network with a Cisco ASA (running version 8.2). I am trying to configure it to allow communication between two interfaces configured with the same security level (DMZ-DMZ) "same-security-traffic permit inter-interface" has been set, but hosts are unable to communicate between the interfaces. I am assuming that some NAT settings are causing my issue. Below is my running config: ASA Version 8.2(3) ! hostname asa enable password XXXXXXXX encrypted passwd XXXXXXXX encrypted names ! interface Ethernet0/0 switchport access vlan 400 ! interface Ethernet0/1 switchport access vlan 400 ! interface Ethernet0/2 switchport access vlan 420 ! interface Ethernet0/3 switchport access vlan 420 ! interface Ethernet0/4 switchport access vlan 450 ! interface Ethernet0/5 switchport access vlan 450 ! interface Ethernet0/6 switchport access vlan 500 ! interface Ethernet0/7 switchport access vlan 500 ! interface Vlan400 nameif outside security-level 0 ip address XX.XX.XX.10 255.255.255.248 ! interface Vlan420 nameif public security-level 20 ip address 192.168.20.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Vlan450 nameif dmz security-level 50 ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Vlan500 nameif inside security-level 100 ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.0 ! ftp mode passive clock timezone JST 9 same-security-traffic permit inter-interface same-security-traffic permit intra-interface object-group network DM_INLINE_NETWORK_1 network-object host XX.XX.XX.11 network-object host XX.XX.XX.13 object-group service ssh_2220 tcp port-object eq 2220 object-group service ssh_2251 tcp port-object eq 2251 object-group service ssh_2229 tcp port-object eq 2229 object-group service ssh_2210 tcp port-object eq 2210 object-group service DM_INLINE_TCP_1 tcp group-object ssh_2210 group-object ssh_2220 object-group service zabbix tcp port-object range 10050 10051 object-group service DM_INLINE_TCP_2 tcp port-object eq www group-object zabbix object-group protocol TCPUDP protocol-object udp protocol-object tcp object-group service http_8029 tcp port-object eq 8029 object-group network DM_INLINE_NETWORK_2 network-object host 192.168.20.10 network-object host 192.168.20.30 network-object host 192.168.20.60 object-group service imaps_993 tcp description Secure IMAP port-object eq 993 object-group service public_wifi_group description Service allowed on the Public Wifi Group. Allows Web and Email. service-object tcp-udp eq domain service-object tcp-udp eq www service-object tcp eq https service-object tcp-udp eq 993 service-object tcp eq imap4 service-object tcp eq 587 service-object tcp eq pop3 service-object tcp eq smtp access-list outside_access_in remark http traffic from outside access-list outside_access_in extended permit tcp any object-group DM_INLINE_NETWORK_1 eq www access-list outside_access_in remark ssh from outside to web1 access-list outside_access_in extended permit tcp any host XX.XX.XX.11 object-group ssh_2251 access-list outside_access_in remark ssh from outside to penguin access-list outside_access_in extended permit tcp any host XX.XX.XX.10 object-group ssh_2229 access-list outside_access_in remark http from outside to penguin access-list outside_access_in extended permit tcp any host XX.XX.XX.10 object-group http_8029 access-list outside_access_in remark ssh from outside to internal hosts access-list outside_access_in extended permit tcp any host XX.XX.XX.13 object-group DM_INLINE_TCP_1 access-list outside_access_in remark dns service to internal host access-list outside_access_in extended permit object-group TCPUDP any host XX.XX.XX.13 eq domain access-list dmz_access_in extended permit ip 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 any access-list dmz_access_in extended permit tcp any host 192.168.10.29 object-group DM_INLINE_TCP_2 access-list public_access_in remark Web access to DMZ websites access-list public_access_in extended permit object-group TCPUDP any object-group DM_INLINE_NETWORK_2 eq www access-list public_access_in remark General web access. (HTTP, DNS & ICMP and Email) access-list public_access_in extended permit object-group public_wifi_group any any pager lines 24 logging enable logging asdm informational mtu outside 1500 mtu public 1500 mtu dmz 1500 mtu inside 1500 no failover icmp unreachable rate-limit 1 burst-size 1 no asdm history enable arp timeout 60 global (outside) 1 interface global (dmz) 2 interface nat (public) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 nat (dmz) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 static (inside,outside) tcp interface 2229 192.168.0.29 2229 netmask 255.255.255.255 static (inside,outside) tcp interface 8029 192.168.0.29 www netmask 255.255.255.255 static (dmz,outside) XX.XX.XX.13 192.168.10.10 netmask 255.255.255.255 dns static (dmz,outside) XX.XX.XX.11 192.168.10.30 netmask 255.255.255.255 dns static (dmz,inside) 192.168.0.29 192.168.10.29 netmask 255.255.255.255 static (dmz,public) 192.168.20.30 192.168.10.30 netmask 255.255.255.255 dns static (dmz,public) 192.168.20.10 192.168.10.10 netmask 255.255.255.255 dns static (inside,dmz) 192.168.10.0 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dns access-group outside_access_in in interface outside access-group public_access_in in interface public access-group dmz_access_in in interface dmz route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 XX.XX.XX.9 1 timeout xlate 3:00:00 timeout conn 1:00:00 half-closed 0:10:00 udp 0:02:00 icmp 0:00:02 timeout sunrpc 0:10:00 h323 0:05:00 h225 1:00:00 mgcp 0:05:00 mgcp-pat 0:05:00 timeout sip 0:30:00 sip_media 0:02:00 sip-invite 0:03:00 sip-disconnect 0:02:00 timeout sip-provisional-media 0:02:00 uauth 0:05:00 absolute timeout tcp-proxy-reassembly 0:01:00 dynamic-access-policy-record DfltAccessPolicy http server enable http 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 inside no snmp-server location no snmp-server contact snmp-server enable traps snmp authentication linkup linkdown coldstart crypto ipsec security-association lifetime seconds 28800 crypto ipsec security-association lifetime kilobytes 4608000 telnet timeout 5 ssh 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 inside ssh timeout 20 console timeout 0 dhcpd dns 61.122.112.97 61.122.112.1 dhcpd auto_config outside ! dhcpd address 192.168.20.200-192.168.20.254 public dhcpd enable public ! dhcpd address 192.168.0.200-192.168.0.254 inside dhcpd enable inside ! threat-detection basic-threat threat-detection statistics host threat-detection statistics access-list no threat-detection statistics tcp-intercept ntp server 130.54.208.201 source public webvpn ! class-map inspection_default match default-inspection-traffic ! ! policy-map type inspect dns preset_dns_map parameters message-length maximum client auto message-length maximum 512 policy-map global_policy class inspection_default inspect dns preset_dns_map inspect ftp inspect h323 h225 inspect h323 ras inspect ip-options inspect netbios inspect rsh inspect rtsp inspect skinny inspect esmtp inspect sqlnet inspect sunrpc inspect tftp inspect sip inspect xdmcp !

    Read the article

  • C# Thread Pool Cross-Thread Communication

    - by Goober
    The Scenario I have a windows forms application containing a MAINFORM with a listbox on it. The MAINFORM also has a THREAD POOL that creates new threads and fires them off to do lots of different bits of processing. Whilst each of these different worker threads is doing its job, I want to report this progress back to my MAINFORM, however, I can't because it requires Cross-Thread communication. Progress So far all of the tutorials etc. that I have seen relating to this topic involve custom(ish) threading implementations, whereas I literally have a fairly basic(ish) standard THREAD POOL implementation. Since I don't want to really modify any of my code (since the application runs like a beast with no quarms) - I'm after some advice as to how I can go about doing this cross-thread communication. ALTERNATIVELY - How to implement a different "LOGTOSCREEN" method altogether (obviously still bearing in mind the cross-thread communication thing). WARNING: I use this website at work, where we are locked down to IE6 only, and the javascript thus fails, meaning I cannot click accept on any answers during work, and thus my acceptance rate is low. I can't do anything about it I'm afraid, sorry. EDIT: I DO NOT HAVE INSTALL RIGHTS ON MY COMPUTER AT WORK. I do have firefox but the proxy at work fails when using this site on firefox. FURTHER EDIT: I DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE MY THREADING IMPLEMENTATION. AT ALL! - Accept to enable cross-thread communication....why would a backgroundworker help here!?

    Read the article

  • autorelease object not confirming protocol does not give any warning

    - by Sahil Wasan
    I have a class "ABC" and its method which returns non autoreleases object of that class. @interface ABC:NSObject +(ABC *)aClassMethodReturnsObjectWhichNotAutoreleased; @end @implementation ABC +(ABC *)aClassMethodReturnsObjectWhichNotAutoreleased{ ABC *a = [[ABC alloc]init]; return a; } @end If I have a protocol Foo. @Protocol Foo @required -(void)abc; @end My ABC class is "not" confirming Foo protocols. 1st call id<Foo> obj = [ABC aClassMethodReturnsObjectWhichNotAutoreleased]; //show warning It shows warning "Non Compatible pointers.." thats good.Abc did not confirm protocol Foo BUT 2nd call id<Foo> obj = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:@"abc",@"def",nil]; // It will "not" show warning as it will return autorelease object.NSArray don't confirm protocol Foo In first call compiler gives warning and in second call compiler is not giving any warning.I think that is because i am not returning autorelease object. Why is compiler not giving warning in 2nd call as NSArray is also not confirming FOO Thanks in advance

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >