Search Results

Search found 10961 results on 439 pages for 'internal dns'.

Page 107/439 | < Previous Page | 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114  | Next Page >

  • using full domains in a multi-site application set up

    - by mike in africa
    hi, i'm building a multi-site application where a client must be able to use his own domain (as oppose to just a subdomain). i like to know the different ways to go about it, and what configuration is needed on both end when/if the client wishes to handle email hosting externally. any reference to lxadmin/hypervm would be helpful too. tx~ edit: i'm running apache; no ssl requirement.

    Read the article

  • IIS7: URL Rewrite - can it be used to hide a CDN path?

    - by Wild Thing
    Hi, I am using Rackspace Cloud CDN (Limelight CDN) for my website. The URLs of the CDN are in the format http://cxxxxxx.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/something.jpg My domain is mydomain.com. Can I use IIS URL rewriting to show http://cxxxxxx.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/something.jpg as http://images.mydomain.com/something.jpg? Or is this impossible without the CDN setup accepting my CNAME? If so, can you please help create the URL rewrite rule? (Sorry, don't know how to use regular expressions) Thanks, WT

    Read the article

  • Grails design for domain class initialization from static data

    - by Allison Eer
    I have some data, stateNames, to instantiate an instance of the object Country. Right now, I will only have one Country but stateNames for each country should be different. What is the best way to instantiate the instance of Country with my data? I am new to grails and would appreciate any "best practices" or common designs. One solution I can think of is to use BootStrap to save the unitedStates instance of Country to the database. What are the cons of this approach? Another solution would be to save the data in a file (in xml?) under web-app folder. If I did this approach, should the unitedStates instance of Country be instantiated by a controller?

    Read the article

  • How I can ask a specify Name Server to have the IP of a domain

    - by Yuan Chen
    For example, I have a domain name example.com hosted at some host free, and now I want to know where is the IP of the host. so I can't configure the registrar control panel to point to that IP. So is there any way to know that IP, without configure the name server to point to it. and I know the Name Server of the hosting. for example ns1.hosting.com can I ask the specify ns1.hosting.com to get the IP of example.com Thanks

    Read the article

  • Howto check if two hosts are the same

    - by Michael Stoll
    Hi, I just came across an issue, where I had to check if a path points into a windows share. Part of this problem is to check if host A is the same as host B. Where host A and host B can be one of the following {IPv4-Address, IPv6-Address, Hostname, FQDN}. As I do not need to be exact it's enough to resolve and compare the IP-Addresses in my case. But is there, theoretically, a method to check if the hosts are the same?

    Read the article

  • Get the subdomain from a URL

    - by jb
    Getting the subdomain from a URL sounds easy at first. http://www.domain.example Scan for the first period then return whatever came after the "http://" ... Then you remember http://super.duper.domain.example Oh. So then you think, okay, find the last period, go back a word and get everything before! Then you remember http://super.duper.domain.co.uk And you're back to square one. Anyone have any great ideas besides storing a list of all TLDs? John

    Read the article

  • how to use a non standard tld with android

    - by CommentLuv
    I have rooted my android and am able to edit the hosts file to redirect .com and other standard tld's to my local server with no problems. non standard tld's do not work though. eg. my shop orders system is at http://fired.wok which works find on local machines when added to my windows and linux hosts files but is not resolvable from within my android device. I can use firedwok.co.uk) in the hosts file to point to my local machine but I'd much rather have fired.wok to work so I can use an android tablet to enter orders and deliveries. so, how to make android work with a tld like .wok ?

    Read the article

  • Redirecting a page when session expires using asp.net mvc

    - by Naidu
    In my web.config file i have the following code: <system.web> <assemblies> <authentication mode="Forms"> <forms loginUrl="/Account/Login" slidingExpiration="true" timeout="1" /> </authentication> <sessionState timeout="1"></sessionState> </assemblies> </system.web> And I have main page Project and in that there will sub pages. I have given the [Authorize] attribute for each view index method. After the session complete when we select any view then the page inside the project main page will be redirecting. But I want the whole page to be redirected. Any Help is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Godaddy registrar and Amazon Web Services EC2/Route 53

    - by soshannad
    Ok - I currently have a site hosted on Godaddy and they are the registrar for my domain. My goal is to have my site hosted on AWS with an EC2 server, which I have already set up and it is ready to go. In order to migrate my domain name to Amazon I have set up an A record with Godaddy and another A record with Route 53 (Amazon's routing service) with both of them pointing to the new static IP of the AWS site. My question is - Godaddy told me that I should leave my nameservers as Godaddy since my email is with them and set up an MX record wit Amazon pointing to it. Does this sound correct? Can you leave nameservers with Godaddy and have A records pointed to the new IP? Are there any benefits/cons to this? *FOR THE RECORD - My site is DOWN right now after doing the change - Godaddy says it will take 2 hours to come back, but I'm not sure if their nameserver recommendation is correct.

    Read the article

  • UnknownHostException in java (that too only sometimes)

    - by Nitesh Panchal
    Hello, I am trying to read rss feed of Yahoo but i am unable to make it work properly. The code is absolutely correct , i am sure about it. It works sometimes but sometimes i get UnknownHostException. What can be the reason? Is there some problem with my internet or something else? This is my code :- public List<RssFeed> getRssFeed() { try { List<RssFeed> objList = new ArrayList<RssFeed>(); DocumentBuilderFactory dbf = DocumentBuilderFactory.newInstance(); DocumentBuilder db = dbf.newDocumentBuilder(); Document doc = db.parse("http://rss.news.yahoo.com/rss/india"); //doc.getDocumentElement().normalize(); Element docElement = doc.getDocumentElement(); NodeList objChannelList = docElement.getChildNodes(); for (int intIndex = 0; intIndex < objChannelList.getLength(); intIndex++) { if (objChannelList.item(intIndex).getNodeType() == Node.ELEMENT_NODE) { Element elemItem = (Element) objChannelList.item(intIndex); NodeList itemList = elemItem.getElementsByTagName("item"); //show only 3 news int count = itemList.getLength() > 3 ? 3 : objChannelList.getLength(); for (int intSubIndex = 0; intSubIndex < count; intSubIndex++) { NodeList itemDetailList = itemList.item(intSubIndex).getChildNodes(); String strTitle = ((Node) itemDetailList.item(RSS_VALUES.TITLE.getValue())).getFirstChild().getNodeValue(); String strdescription = ((Node) itemDetailList.item(RSS_VALUES.DESCRIPTION.getValue())).getFirstChild().getNodeValue(); String strLink = ((Node) itemDetailList.item(RSS_VALUES.LINK.getValue())).getFirstChild().getNodeValue(); //System.out.println(strTitle + "\n" + strdescription + "\n" + strLink + "\n\n\n\n"); objList.add(new RssFeed(strTitle, strdescription, strLink)); } } } return objList; } catch (SAXException ex) { Logger.getLogger(Utils.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex); } catch (IOException ex) { Logger.getLogger(Utils.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex); } catch (ParserConfigurationException ex) { Logger.getLogger(Utils.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex); } return null; } Thanks in advance :). This problem has been bugging me since 1 month. Don't know why does Java in this case behave as per its mood :(

    Read the article

  • Need some help setting up subdomains for my site

    - by KarimSaNet
    I'm setting up my website and want to have it so all subdomain requests are rewritten to the appropriate subdirectory. For example http://projects.karimsa.net/ -> http://karimsa.net/projects/ But I want to use the Apache rewrite mod to do this so that the URL in the browser stays the same. Here is what my config looks like at the moment: ## rewrite subdomains RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^(.*).karimsa.net RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.karimsa.net [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://karimsa.net/%1/$1 [R=301,L] And my CNAME records on 'projects.karimsa.net': Domain TTL Data Type projects.karimsa.net 14400 karimsa.net CNAME Theoretically, I feel this should work. But when I go to the URL, it gives me a server misconfiguration error, my provider's default webpage. What I should see is the index.php under /projects/. What am I doing wrong? Any help would be appreciated, thanks for reading. Addition: I realized I forgot to mention some of the problem. The domain 'karimsa.net' is parked at 'karimsa.x10.mx'. If I set up the same configuration on 'projects.karimsa.x10.mx', the rewrite and CNAME work. But on the parked domain I still get the default webpage.

    Read the article

  • ADDS: 1 - Introducing and designing

    - by marc dekeyser
    Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE /* 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-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; 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-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} What is ADDS?  Every Microsoft oriented infrastructure in today's enterprises will depend largely on the active directory version built by Microsoft. It is the foundation stone on which all other products (Exchange, update services, office communicator, the system center family, etc) rely on to get their information. And that is just looking at it from an infrastructure perspective. A well designed and implemented Active Directory implementation makes life for IT personnel and user alike a lot easier. Centralised management and the abilities opened up  by having it in place are ample.  But what is Active Directory Domain Services? We can look at ADDS as a centralised directory containing all objects your infrastructure runs on in one way or another. Since it is a Microsoft product you'll obviously not be seeing linux or mac clients listed in here (exceptions exist) but in general we can say it contains everything your company has in place in one form or another.  The domain name services. The domain naming service (or DNS for short) is a service which translates IP address (the identifiers for each computer in your domain) into readable and easy to understand names. This service is a prequisite for ADDA to work and having wrong record in a DNS server will make any ADDS service fail. Generally speaking a DNS service will be run on the same server as the ADDS service but it is worth wile to remember that this is not necessary. You could, for example, run your DNS services on a linux box (which would need special preparing to host an ADDS integrated DNS zone) and run the ADDS service of another box… Where to start? If the aim is to put in place a first time implementation of ADDS in your enterprise there are plenty of things to consider depending on what you are going to do in the long run. Great care has to be taken when first designing and implementing as having it set up wrong will cause a headache down the line. It is for that reason that I like to start building from the bottom up and start with a generic installation of ADDS (which will still differ for every client) and make it adaptable for future services which can hook in to the existing environment. Adapting existing environments is out of scope for this document (and series) although it is possible to take the pointers and change your existing environment to run in a smoother manor. Take great care when changing things as one small slip of the hand can give you a forest wide failure… Whenever starting with an ADDS deployment I ask the client the following questions:  What are your long term plans and goals?  How flexible do you want it? Are you currently linux heavy and want to keep this or can we go for an all Microsoft design? Those three questions should give some sort of indicator what direction can be taken and if the client has thought about some things themselves :).  The technical side of things  What is next to consider is what kind of infrastructure is already in place. For these series I'll keep it simple and introduce some general concepts without going in to depth on integrating ADDS with other DNS services.  Building from the ground up means we need to consider our layers on which our infrastructure will rely. In my view that goes as follows:  Network (WAN/LAN links and physical sites DNS Namespacing All in one domain or split up in different domains/forests? Security (both for ADDS and physical sites) The network side of things  Looking at how the network is currently set up can potentially teach us a large deal about the client. Do they have multiple physical site? What network speeds exist between these sites, etc… Depending on this information we will design our site links (which controls replication) in future stages. DNS Namespacing Maybe the single most intresting thing to know is what the domain will be named (ADDS will need a DNS domain with the same name) and where this will be hosted. Note that active directory can be set up with a singe name (aka contoso instead of contoso.com) but it is highly recommended to never do this. If you do end up with a domain like that for some reason there will be a lot of services that are going to give you good grief in the future (exchange being one of them). So one of the best practises would be always to use a double name (contoso.com or contoso.lan for example). Internal namespace A single namespace is just what it sounds like. You have a DNS domain which is different internally from what the client has as an external namespace. f.e. contoso.com as an external name (out on the internet) and contoso.lan on the internal network. his setup is has its advantages in that you have more obscurity from the internet in the DNS side of this but it will require additional work to publish services to the web. External namespace Quite like the internal namespace only here you do not differ the internal namespace of the company from what is known on the internet. In this implementation you would host your own DNS servers for the external domain inside the network. Or in other words, any external computer doing a DNS lookup would contact your internal DNS server for the resolution. Generally speaking this set up is a bad idea from the security side of things. Split DNS Whilst using an external namespace design is fairly easy it involves a lot of security risks. Opening up you ADDS DSN servers for lookups exposes your entire network to the internet and should be avoided at any cost. And that is where the "split DNS" design comes in. In this setup up would still have the same namespace internally and externally but you would be using different DNS servers for lookups on the external network who have no records of your internal resources unless you explicitly publish them. All in one or not? In determining your active directory design you can look at the following possibilities:  Single forest, Single domain Single forest, multiple domains Multiple forests, multiple domains I've listed the possibilities for design in increasing order of administrative magnitude. Microsoft recommends trying to use a single forest, single domain in as much situations as possible. It is, however, always possible that you require your services to be seperated from your users in a resource forest with trusts set up between the different forests. To start out I would go with the single forest design to avoid complexity unless there are strict requirements to have multiple forests. Security What kind of security is required on the domain and does this reflect the physical security on the sites? Not every client can afford to have a domain controller in a secluded server room on every site and it is exactly for that reason that Microsoft introduced the RODC (read only domain controller). A RODC is a domain controller that has been limited in functionality, in essence it will only cache the data you explicitly tell it to cache and in the case of a DC compromise (it being stolen) only a limited number of accounts will need to be affected. Th- Th- Th- That’s all folks! Well at least for now! In future editions of this series we’ll be walking through the different task that need to be done and the thought which needs to be put in to it. But for all editions we’ll be going from the concept of running a single forest, single domain with a split DNS setup… See you next time!

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu Server 12.04 as a router. Problem with DNS

    - by Lorenzo
    I have a virtualbox lab made up of 4 Windows 2008 R2 servers (DC/DNS,SQL,SHAREPOINT, EXCHANGE) that are configured with static ip addresses with NIC's attached to Internal network. Everything works. I had the requirement to execute some tests that also access external services available on the internet. To keep things clean and similar to the production environment I have installed another VM, with Ubuntu Server 12.04 64 bit and configured (I hope) to work as a router like described on this post. This VM has two network interfaces: first is Bridged with the host and is used as a WAN connection and the other one attached in the Internal Network with its own static IP address on the internal network subnet. But actually the Windows servers does not connect to the internet while the unix one connects. I did a route command. this is the result: Kernel IP Routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default 10.69.121.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.69.121.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.83.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 Can somebody help me with this configuration? :) Thanks! Addendum: I forgot to mention that one of the windows server hosts a DNS service for which I should maybe configure a forwarding server but I do not exactly know which server to forward on... :(

    Read the article

  • Understanding C# async / await (1) Compilation

    - by Dixin
    Now the async / await keywords are in C#. Just like the async and ! in F#, this new C# feature provides great convenience. There are many nice documents talking about how to use async / await in specific scenarios, like using async methods in ASP.NET 4.5 and in ASP.NET MVC 4, etc. In this article we will look at the real code working behind the syntax sugar. According to MSDN: The async modifier indicates that the method, lambda expression, or anonymous method that it modifies is asynchronous. Since lambda expression / anonymous method will be compiled to normal method, we will focus on normal async method. Preparation First of all, Some helper methods need to make up. internal class HelperMethods { internal static int Method(int arg0, int arg1) { // Do some IO. WebClient client = new WebClient(); Enumerable.Repeat("http://weblogs.asp.net/dixin", 10) .Select(client.DownloadString).ToArray(); int result = arg0 + arg1; return result; } internal static Task<int> MethodTask(int arg0, int arg1) { Task<int> task = new Task<int>(() => Method(arg0, arg1)); task.Start(); // Hot task (started task) should always be returned. return task; } internal static void Before() { } internal static void Continuation1(int arg) { } internal static void Continuation2(int arg) { } } Here Method() is a long running method doing some IO. Then MethodTask() wraps it into a Task and return that Task. Nothing special here. Await something in async method Since MethodTask() returns Task, let’s try to await it: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1); return result; } } Because we used await in the method, async must be put on the method. Now we get the first async method. According to the naming convenience, it is called MethodAsync. Of course a async method can be awaited. So we have a CallMethodAsync() to call MethodAsync(): internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); return result; } } After compilation, MethodAsync() and CallMethodAsync() becomes the same logic. This is the code of MethodAsyc(): internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { MethodAsyncStateMachine methodAsyncStateMachine = new MethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref methodAsyncStateMachine); return methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It just creates and starts a state machine MethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Result; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaitor; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { if (this.State != 0) { this.awaitor = HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaitor.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaitor, ref this); return; } } else { this.State = -1; } this.Result = this.awaitor.GetResult(); } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); return; } this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.Result); } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine param0) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(param0); } } The generated code has been cleaned up so it is readable and can be compiled. Several things can be observed here: The async modifier is gone, which shows, unlike other modifiers (e.g. static), there is no such IL/CLR level “async” stuff. It becomes a AsyncStateMachineAttribute. This is similar to the compilation of extension method. The generated state machine is very similar to the state machine of C# yield syntax sugar. The local variables (arg0, arg1, result) are compiled to fields of the state machine. The real code (await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1)) is compiled into MoveNext(): HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(). CallMethodAsync() will create and start its own state machine CallMethodAsyncStateMachine: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(CallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { CallMethodAsyncStateMachine callMethodAsyncStateMachine = new CallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref callMethodAsyncStateMachine); return callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } CallMethodAsyncStateMachine has the same logic as MethodAsyncStateMachine above. The detail of the state machine will be discussed soon. Now it is clear that: async /await is a C# level syntax sugar. There is no difference to await a async method or a normal method. A method returning Task will be awaitable. State machine and continuation To demonstrate more details in the state machine, a more complex method is created: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; } } In this method: There are multiple awaits. There are code before the awaits, and continuation code after each await After compilation, this multi-await method becomes the same as above single-await methods: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine); return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It creates and starts one single state machine, MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Arg2; public int Arg3; public int ResultOfAwait1; public int ResultOfAwait2; public int ResultToReturn; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaiter; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { switch (this.State) { case -1: HelperMethods.Before(); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 0: this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 1; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 1: this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); this.ResultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.ResultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); } } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(stateMachine); } } The above code is already cleaned up, but there are still a lot of things. More clean up can be done, and the state machine can be very simple: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { // State: // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End public int State; public TaskCompletionSource<int> ResultToReturn; // int resultToReturn ... public int Arg0; // int Arg0 public int Arg1; // int arg1 public int Arg2; // int arg2 public int Arg3; // int arg3 public int ResultOfAwait1; // int resultOfAwait1 ... public int ResultOfAwait2; // int resultOfAwait2 ... private Task<int> currentTaskToAwait; /// <summary> /// Moves the state machine to its next state. /// </summary> void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { switch (this.State) { // Orginal code is splitted by "case"s: // case -1: // HelperMethods.Before(); // MethodAsync(Arg0, arg1); // case 0: // int resultOfAwait1 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); // MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); // case 1: // int resultOfAwait2 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); // int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // return resultToReturn; case -1: // -1 is begin. HelperMethods.Before(); // Code before 1st await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1); // 1st task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 0. this.State = 0; IAsyncStateMachine this1 = this; // Cannot use "this" in lambda so create a local variable. this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => this1.MoveNext()); // Callback break; case 0: // Now 1st await is done. this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 1st await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); // Code after 1st await and before 2nd await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3); // 2nd task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 1. this.State = 1; IAsyncStateMachine this2 = this; // Cannot use "this" in lambda so create a local variable. this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => this2.MoveNext()); // Callback break; case 1: // Now 2nd await is done. this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 2nd await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); // Code after 2nd await. int resultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; // Code after 2nd await. // End with resultToReturn. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetResult(resultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { // End with exception. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetException(exception); } } /// <summary> /// Configures the state machine with a heap-allocated replica. /// </summary> /// <param name="stateMachine">The heap-allocated replica.</param> [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) { // No core logic. } } Only Task and TaskCompletionSource are involved in this version. And MultiCallMethodAsync() can be simplified to: [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync_(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, ResultToReturn = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(), // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End State = -1 }; (multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine as IAsyncStateMachine).MoveNext(); // Original code are in this method. return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.ResultToReturn.Task; } Now the whole state machine becomes very clear - it is about callback: Original code are split into pieces by “await”s, and each piece is put into each “case” in the state machine. Here the 2 awaits split the code into 3 pieces, so there are 3 “case”s. The “piece”s are chained by callback, that is done by Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(callback), or currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(callback) in the simplified code. A previous “piece” will end with a Task (which is to be awaited), when the task is done, it will callback the next “piece”. The state machine’s state works with the “case”s to ensure the code “piece”s executes one after another. Callback Since it is about callback, the simplification  can go even further – the entire state machine can be completely purged. Now MultiCallMethodAsync() becomes: internal static Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { TaskCompletionSource<int> taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(); try { // Oringinal code begins. HelperMethods.Before(); MethodAsync(arg0, arg1).ContinueWith(await1 => { int resultOfAwait1 = await1.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); MethodAsync(arg2, arg3).ContinueWith(await2 => { int resultOfAwait2 = await2.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // Oringinal code ends. taskCompletionSource.SetResult(resultToReturn); }); }); } catch (Exception exception) { taskCompletionSource.SetException(exception); } return taskCompletionSource.Task; } Please compare with the original async / await code: HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; Yeah that is the magic of C# async / await: Await is literally pretending to wait. In a await expression, a Task object will be return immediately so that caller is not blocked. The continuation code is compiled as that Task’s callback code. When that task is done, continuation code will execute. Please notice that many details inside the state machine are omitted for simplicity, like context caring, etc. If you want to have a detailed picture, please do check out the source code of AsyncTaskMethodBuilder and TaskAwaiter.

    Read the article

  • Understanding C# async / await (1) Compilation

    - by Dixin
    Now the async / await keywords are in C#. Just like the async and ! in F#, this new C# feature provides great convenience. There are many nice documents talking about how to use async / await in specific scenarios, like using async methods in ASP.NET 4.5 and in ASP.NET MVC 4, etc. In this article we will look at the real code working behind the syntax sugar. According to MSDN: The async modifier indicates that the method, lambda expression, or anonymous method that it modifies is asynchronous. Since lambda expression / anonymous method will be compiled to normal method, we will focus on normal async method. Preparation First of all, Some helper methods need to make up. internal class HelperMethods { internal static int Method(int arg0, int arg1) { // Do some IO. WebClient client = new WebClient(); Enumerable.Repeat("http://weblogs.asp.net/dixin", 10) .Select(client.DownloadString).ToArray(); int result = arg0 + arg1; return result; } internal static Task<int> MethodTask(int arg0, int arg1) { Task<int> task = new Task<int>(() => Method(arg0, arg1)); task.Start(); // Hot task (started task) should always be returned. return task; } internal static void Before() { } internal static void Continuation1(int arg) { } internal static void Continuation2(int arg) { } } Here Method() is a long running method doing some IO. Then MethodTask() wraps it into a Task and return that Task. Nothing special here. Await something in async method Since MethodTask() returns Task, let’s try to await it: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1); return result; } } Because we used await in the method, async must be put on the method. Now we get the first async method. According to the naming convenience, it is named MethodAsync. Of course a async method can be awaited. So we have a CallMethodAsync() to call MethodAsync(): internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); return result; } } After compilation, MethodAsync() and CallMethodAsync() becomes the same logic. This is the code of MethodAsyc(): internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { MethodAsyncStateMachine methodAsyncStateMachine = new MethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref methodAsyncStateMachine); return methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It just creates and starts a state machine, MethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Result; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaitor; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { if (this.State != 0) { this.awaitor = HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaitor.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaitor, ref this); return; } } else { this.State = -1; } this.Result = this.awaitor.GetResult(); } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); return; } this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.Result); } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine param0) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(param0); } } The generated code has been refactored, so it is readable and can be compiled. Several things can be observed here: The async modifier is gone, which shows, unlike other modifiers (e.g. static), there is no such IL/CLR level “async” stuff. It becomes a AsyncStateMachineAttribute. This is similar to the compilation of extension method. The generated state machine is very similar to the state machine of C# yield syntax sugar. The local variables (arg0, arg1, result) are compiled to fields of the state machine. The real code (await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1)) is compiled into MoveNext(): HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(). CallMethodAsync() will create and start its own state machine CallMethodAsyncStateMachine: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(CallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { CallMethodAsyncStateMachine callMethodAsyncStateMachine = new CallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref callMethodAsyncStateMachine); return callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } CallMethodAsyncStateMachine has the same logic as MethodAsyncStateMachine above. The detail of the state machine will be discussed soon. Now it is clear that: async /await is a C# language level syntax sugar. There is no difference to await a async method or a normal method. As long as a method returns Task, it is awaitable. State machine and continuation To demonstrate more details in the state machine, a more complex method is created: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; } } In this method: There are multiple awaits. There are code before the awaits, and continuation code after each await After compilation, this multi-await method becomes the same as above single-await methods: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine); return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It creates and starts one single state machine, MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Arg2; public int Arg3; public int ResultOfAwait1; public int ResultOfAwait2; public int ResultToReturn; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaiter; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { switch (this.State) { case -1: HelperMethods.Before(); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 0: this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 1; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 1: this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); this.ResultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.ResultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); } } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(stateMachine); } } Once again, the above state machine code is already refactored, but it still has a lot of things. More clean up can be done if we only keep the core logic, and the state machine can become very simple: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { // State: // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End public int State; public TaskCompletionSource<int> ResultToReturn; // int resultToReturn ... public int Arg0; // int Arg0 public int Arg1; // int arg1 public int Arg2; // int arg2 public int Arg3; // int arg3 public int ResultOfAwait1; // int resultOfAwait1 ... public int ResultOfAwait2; // int resultOfAwait2 ... private Task<int> currentTaskToAwait; /// <summary> /// Moves the state machine to its next state. /// </summary> public void MoveNext() // IAsyncStateMachine member. { try { switch (this.State) { // Original code is split by "await"s into "case"s: // case -1: // HelperMethods.Before(); // MethodAsync(Arg0, arg1); // case 0: // int resultOfAwait1 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); // MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); // case 1: // int resultOfAwait2 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); // int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // return resultToReturn; case -1: // -1 is begin. HelperMethods.Before(); // Code before 1st await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1); // 1st task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 0. this.State = 0; MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine that1 = this; // Cannot use "this" in lambda so create a local variable. this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => that1.MoveNext()); break; case 0: // Now 1st await is done. this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 1st await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); // Code after 1st await and before 2nd await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3); // 2nd task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 1. this.State = 1; MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine that2 = this; this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => that2.MoveNext()); break; case 1: // Now 2nd await is done. this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 2nd await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); // Code after 2nd await. int resultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; // Code after 2nd await. // End with resultToReturn. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetResult(resultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { // End with exception. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetException(exception); } } /// <summary> /// Configures the state machine with a heap-allocated replica. /// </summary> /// <param name="stateMachine">The heap-allocated replica.</param> [DebuggerHidden] public void SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) // IAsyncStateMachine member. { // No core logic. } } Only Task and TaskCompletionSource are involved in this version. And MultiCallMethodAsync() can be simplified to: [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, ResultToReturn = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(), // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End State = -1 }; multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext(); // Original code are moved into this method. return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.ResultToReturn.Task; } Now the whole state machine becomes very clean - it is about callback: Original code are split into pieces by “await”s, and each piece is put into each “case” in the state machine. Here the 2 awaits split the code into 3 pieces, so there are 3 “case”s. The “piece”s are chained by callback, that is done by Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(callback), or currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(callback) in the simplified code. A previous “piece” will end with a Task (which is to be awaited), when the task is done, it will callback the next “piece”. The state machine’s state works with the “case”s to ensure the code “piece”s executes one after another. Callback If we focus on the point of callback, the simplification  can go even further – the entire state machine can be completely purged, and we can just keep the code inside MoveNext(). Now MultiCallMethodAsync() becomes: internal static Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { TaskCompletionSource<int> taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(); try { // Oringinal code begins. HelperMethods.Before(); MethodAsync(arg0, arg1).ContinueWith(await1 => { int resultOfAwait1 = await1.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); MethodAsync(arg2, arg3).ContinueWith(await2 => { int resultOfAwait2 = await2.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // Oringinal code ends. taskCompletionSource.SetResult(resultToReturn); }); }); } catch (Exception exception) { taskCompletionSource.SetException(exception); } return taskCompletionSource.Task; } Please compare with the original async / await code: HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; Yeah that is the magic of C# async / await: Await is not to wait. In a await expression, a Task object will be return immediately so that execution is not blocked. The continuation code is compiled as that Task’s callback code. When that task is done, continuation code will execute. Please notice that many details inside the state machine are omitted for simplicity, like context caring, etc. If you want to have a detailed picture, please do check out the source code of AsyncTaskMethodBuilder and TaskAwaiter.

    Read the article

  • Having trouble locating charms - pointing to store.juju.ubuntu.com? DNS error

    - by dt2511
    Can't seem to sort out how to get juju to point to the right source for charms, base install yields the following result when issued the following command. juju deploy --repository=examples mysql DNS lookup failed: address 'store.juju.ubuntu.com' not found: [Errno -2] Name or service not known. 2011-10-12 18:38:39,946 ERROR DNS lookup failed: address 'store.juju.ubuntu.com' not found: [Errno -2] Name or service not known. When trying to run it with juju deploy --repository=examples local:mysql I get this error: Charm 'local:oneiric/mysql' not found in repository /root/juju/examples 2011-10-12 18:53:57,311 ERROR Charm 'local:oneiric/mysql' not found in repository /root/juju/examples I've put the charm itself in the directory /root/juju/examples, and am running the command from /root/juju. What is wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to reserve public API to internal usage in .NET?

    - by mark
    Dear ladies and sirs. Let me first present the case, which will explain my question. This is going to be a bit long, so I apologize in advance :-). I have objects and collections, which should support the Merge API (it is my custom API, the signature of which is immaterial for this question). This API must be internal, meaning only my framework should be allowed to invoke it. However, derived types should be able to override the basic implementation. The natural way to implement this pattern as I see it, is this: The Merge API is declared as part of some internal interface, let us say IMergeable. Because the interface is internal, derived types would not be able to implement it directly. Rather they must inherit it from a common base type. So, a common base type is introduced, which would implement the IMergeable interface explicitly, where the interface methods delegate to respective protected virtual methods, providing the default implementation. This way the API is only callable by my framework, but derived types may override the default implementation. The following code snippet demonstrates the concept: internal interface IMergeable { void Merge(object obj); } public class BaseFrameworkObject : IMergeable { protected virtual void Merge(object obj) { // The default implementation. } void IMergeable.Merge(object obj) { Merge(obj); } } public class SomeThirdPartyObject : BaseFrameworkObject { protected override void Merge(object obj) { // A derived type implementation. } } All is fine, provided a single common base type suffices, which is usually true for non collection types. The thing is that collections must be mergeable as well. Collections do not play nicely with the presented concept, because developers do not develop collections from the scratch. There are predefined implementations - observable, filtered, compound, read-only, remove-only, ordered, god-knows-what, ... They may be developed from scratch in-house, but once finished, they serve wide range of products and should never be tailored to some specific product. Which means, that either: they do not implement the IMergeable interface at all, because it is internal to some product the scope of the IMergeable interface is raised to public and the API becomes open and callable by all. Let us refer to these collections as standard collections. Anyway, the first option screws my framework, because now each possible standard collection type has to be paired with the respective framework version, augmenting the standard with the IMergeable interface implementation - this is so bad, I am not even considering it. The second option breaks the framework as well, because the IMergeable interface should be internal for a reason (whatever it is) and now this interface has to open to all. So what to do? My solution is this. make IMergeable public API, but add an extra parameter to the Merge method, I call it a security token. The interface implementation may check that the token references some internal object, which is never exposed to the outside. If this is the case, then the method was called from within the framework, otherwise - some outside API consumer attempted to invoke it and so the implementation can blow up with a SecurityException. Here is the modified code snippet demonstrating this concept: internal static class InternalApi { internal static readonly object Token = new object(); } public interface IMergeable { void Merge(object obj, object token); } public class BaseFrameworkObject : IMergeable { protected virtual void Merge(object obj) { // The default implementation. } public void Merge(object obj, object token) { if (!object.ReferenceEquals(token, InternalApi.Token)) { throw new SecurityException("bla bla bla"); } Merge(obj); } } public class SomeThirdPartyObject : BaseFrameworkObject { protected override void Merge(object obj) { // A derived type implementation. } } Of course, this is less explicit than having an internally scoped interface and the check is moved from the compile time to run time, yet this is the best I could come up with. Now, I have a gut feeling that there is a better way to solve the problem I have presented. I do not know, may be using some standard Code Access Security features? I have only vague understanding of it, but can LinkDemand attribute be somehow related to it? Anyway, I would like to hear other opinions. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Are your personal insecurities screwing up your internal communications?

    - by Lucy Boyes
    I do some internal comms as part of my job. Quite a lot of it involves talking to people about stuff. I’m spending the next couple of weeks talking to lots of people about internal comms itself, because we haven’t done a lot of audience/user feedback gathering, and it turns out that if you talk to people about how they feel and what they think, you get some pretty interesting insights (and an idea of what to do next that isn’t just based on guesswork and generalising from self). Three things keep coming up from talking to people about what we suck at  in terms of internal comms. And, as far as I can tell, they’re all examples where personal insecurity on the part of the person doing the communicating makes the experience much worse for the people on the receiving end. 1. Spending time telling people how you’re going to do something, not what you’re doing and why Imagine you’ve got to give an update to a lot of people who don’t work in your area or department but do have an interest in what you’re doing (either because they want to know because they’re curious or because they need to know because it’s going to affect their work too). You don’t want to look bad at your job. You want to make them think you’ve got it covered – ideally because you do*. And you want to reassure them that there’s lots of exciting work going on in your area to make [insert thing of choice] happen to [insert thing of choice] so that [insert group of people] will be happy. That’s great! You’re doing a good job and you want to tell people about it. This is good comms stuff right here. However, you’re slightly afraid you might secretly be stupid or lazy or incompetent. And you’re exponentially more afraid that the people you’re talking to might think you’re stupid or lazy or incompetent. Or pointless. Or not-adding-value. Or whatever the thing that’s the worst possible thing to be in your company is. So you open by mentioning all the stuff you’re going to do, spending five minutes or so making sure that everyone knows that you’re DOING lots of STUFF. And the you talk for the rest of the time about HOW you’re going to do the stuff, because that way everyone will know that you’ve thought about this really hard and done tons of planning and had lots of great ideas about process and that you’ve got this one down. That’s the stuff you’ve got to say, right? To prove you’re not fundamentally worthless as a human being? Well, maybe. But probably not. See, the people who need to know how you’re going to do the stuff are the people doing the stuff. And those are the people in your area who you’ve (hopefully-please-for-the-love-of-everything-holy) already talked to in depth about how you’re going to do the thing (because else how could they help do it?). They are the only people who need to know the how**. It’s the difference between strategy and tactics. The people outside of your bubble of stuff-doing need to know the strategy – what it is that you’re doing, why, where you’re going with it, etc. The people on the ground with you need the strategy and the tactics, because else they won’t know how to do the stuff. But the outside people don’t really need the tactics at all. Don’t bother with the how unless your audience needs it. They probably don’t. It might make you feel better about yourself, but it’s much more likely that Bob and Jane are thinking about how long this meeting has gone on for already than how personally impressive and definitely-not-an-idiot you are for knowing how you’re going to do some work. Feeling marginally better about yourself (but, let’s face it, still insecure as heck) is not worth the cost, which in this case is the alienation of your audience. 2. Talking for too long about stuff This is kinda the same problem as the previous problem, only much less specific, and I’ve more or less covered why it’s bad already. Basic motivation: to make people think you’re not an idiot. What you do: talk for a very long time about what you’re doing so as to make it sound like you know what you’re doing and lots about it. What your audience wants: the shortest meaningful update. Some of this is a kill your darlings problem – the stuff you’re doing that seems really nifty to you seems really nifty to you, and thus you want to share it with everyone to show that you’re a smart person who thinks up nifty things to do. The downside to this is that it’s mostly only interesting to you – if other people don’t need to know, they likely also don’t care. Think about how you feel when someone is talking a lot to you about a lot of stuff that they’re doing which is at best tangentially interesting and/or relevant. You’re probably not thinking that they’re really smart and clearly know what they’re doing (unless they’re talking a lot and being really engaging about it, which is not the same as talking a lot). You’re probably thinking about something totally unrelated to the thing they’re talking about. Or the fact that you’re bored. You might even – and this is the opposite of what they’re hoping to achieve by talking a lot about stuff – be thinking they’re kind of an idiot. There’s another huge advantage to paring down what you’re trying to say to the barest possible points – it clarifies your thinking. The lightning talk format, as well as other formats which limit the time and/or number of slides you have to say a thing, are really good for doing this. It’s incredibly likely that your audience in this case (the people who need to know some things about your thing but not all the things about your thing) will get everything they need to know from five minutes of you talking about it, especially if trying to condense ALL THE THINGS into a five-minute talk has helped you get clear in your own mind what you’re doing, what you’re trying to say about what you’re doing and why you’re doing it. The bonus of this is that by being clear in your thoughts and in what you say, and in not taking up lots of people’s time to tell them stuff they don’t really need to know, you actually come across as much, much smarter than the person who talks for half an hour or more about things that are semi-relevant at best. 3. Waiting until you’ve got every detail sorted before announcing a big change to the people affected by it This is the worst crime on the list. It’s also human nature. Announcing uncertainty – that something important is going to happen (big reorganisation, product getting canned, etc.) but you’re not quite sure what or when or how yet – is scary. There are risks to it. Uncertainty makes people anxious. It might even paralyse them. You can’t run a business while you’re figuring out what to do if you’ve paralysed everyone with fear over what the future might bring. And you’re scared that they might think you’re not the right person to be in charge of [thing] if you don’t even know what you’re doing with it. Best not to say anything until you know exactly what’s going to happen and you can reassure them all, right? Nope. The people who are going to be affected by whatever it is that you don’t quite know all the details of yet aren’t stupid***. You wouldn’t have hired them if they were. They know something’s up because you’ve got your guilty face on and you keep pulling people into meeting rooms and looking vaguely worried. Here’s the deal: it’s a lot less stressful for everyone (including you) if you’re up front from the beginning. We took this approach during a recent company-wide reorganisation and got really positive feedback. People would much, much rather be told that something is going to happen but you’re not entirely sure what it is yet than have you wait until it’s all fixed up and then fait accompli the heck out of them. They will tell you this themselves if you ask them. And here’s why: by waiting until you know exactly what’s going on to communicate, you remove any agency that the people that the thing is going to happen to might otherwise have had. I know you’re scared that they might get scared – and that’s natural and kind of admirable – but it’s also patronising and infantilising. Ask someone whether they’d rather work on a project which has an openly uncertain future from the beginning, or one where everything’s great until it gets shut down with no forewarning, and very few people are going to tell you they’d prefer the latter. Uncertainty is humanising. It’s you admitting that you don’t have all the answers, which is great, because no one does. It allows you to be consultative – you can actually ask other people what they think and how they feel and what they’d like to do and what they think you should do, and they’ll thank you for it and feel listened to and respected as people and colleagues. Which is a really good reason to start talking to them about what’s going on as soon as you know something’s going on yourself. All of the above assumes you actually care about talking to the people who work with you and for you, and that you’d like to do the right thing by them. If that’s not the case, you can cheerfully disregard the advice here, but if it is, you might want to think about the ways above – and the inevitable countless other ways – that making internal communication about you and not about your audience could actually be doing the people you’re trying to communicate with a huge disservice. So take a deep breath and talk. For five minutes or so. About the important things. Not the other things. As soon as you possibly can. And you’ll be fine.   *Of course you do. You’re good at your job. Don’t worry. **This might not always be true, but it is most of the time. Other people who need to know the how will either be people who you’ve already identified as needing-to-know and thus part of the same set as the people in you’re area you’ve already discussed this with, or else they’ll ask you. But don’t bring this stuff up unless someone asks for it, because most of the people in the audience really don’t care and you’re wasting their time. ***I mean, they might be. But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re not.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114  | Next Page >