Search Results

Search found 29753 results on 1191 pages for 'best practices'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 108/1191 | < Previous Page | 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115  | Next Page >

  • Best way to migrate IIS6 from one server to another

    - by darko-romanov
    Hi, I need to move all my sites on a server with IIS 6 to another one, that has same OS (Windows Server 20003) and same IIS version. I'm trying to understand which is the best way to do it. Searching on Google I've found that there are at least 2 methods, one uses IIS Migration Tool, and another Web Deployment Tool. I don't know which method is best, it also seems that both methods can export one site at once, and I have about 100 sites hosted. What would you do?

    Read the article

  • Web Server Users - Best Practice

    - by Toby
    I was wondering what is considered best practice when several developers/administrators require access to the same web server. Should there be one non-root user with a secure username and password unqiue to the web server which everyone logs in as or should there be a username for each person. I am leaning towards a username for each person to aid in logging etc however then does the same user keep the same credentials over several servers, or should at least their password change depending on the server they are on? Should any non-root user of the system be added to the sudoers file or is it best practice to leave everyone off it and only let root perform certain tasks? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Web Server Users - Best Practice

    - by Toby
    I was wondering what is considered best practice when several developers/administrators require access to the same web server. Should there be one non-root user with a secure username and password unqiue to the web server which everyone logs in as or should there be a username for each person. I am leaning towards a username for each person to aid in logging etc however then does the same user keep the same credentials over several servers, or should at least their password change depending on the server they are on? Should any non-root user of the system be added to the sudoers file or is it best practice to leave everyone off it and only let root perform certain tasks? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Best practice, or generally best way to set up web-hosting server, permissions, etc.

    - by Jagot
    Hi, I'm about to set up a server upon which a friend and I will be hosting web sites, and I'll be using Debian. I've set up a LAMP solution many times just to using for local testing purposes, but never for actual production use. I was wondering what are the best practices are in terms of setting the server up, in reference specifically to accessing the web root directory. A couple of the options I have seen: Set up a single user account on the server for us both to use and use a virtual host to point to the somewhere in the home directory, e.g. /home/webdev/www. Set each of us up a user account, and grant permissions in some way to /var/www (What would be the best way? Set up a new group?) I want to get this right when I first set this up as there won't be any going back for a while once our first site is up and running. Appreciate any guidance in advance.

    Read the article

  • Virtualhosts - best way of dealing with it?

    - by axqe56
    I'm competent at the basics of Apache, PHP and virtual hosting but have a question about virtual hosting. As far as I'm aware, HOSTS files can only be in one of the following locations: C:/Windows/system32/drivers/etc (varies in older installs, I believe) I don't think it can be put elsewhere for use with Apache, simply for virtual hosts, and the main HOSTS file for blocking sites etc. I heard about PAC files on Uniform Server's website (http://wiki.uniformserver.com/index.php/Virtual_Hosting:_PAC) but they're browser-specific though, aren't they? What's the best way to deal with virtualhosts, other than HOSTS file? My server isn't currently open to the internet yet, but if it is, what's the best way to resolve DNS for my virtualhost domains if it were to become forward-facing (i.e open to the internet)?

    Read the article

  • Best use of new express card on Windows

    - by jckdnk111
    I just bought a 48GB SSD express card for my laptop and I am trying to decide how best to use it. I will be running some sort of virtualization (prob VirtualBox) to test / learn Windows Server administration. I am running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. I have 4GB of RAM and a 7200 RPM SATA hard disk. The express card will read at 115MB/s and write at 65MB/s. So how best to use this new disk? Readyboost, relocate pagefile, store VM disks, mix / match?

    Read the article

  • Best way to copy large amount of data between partitions

    - by skinp
    I'm looking to transfer data across 2 lv of an HP-UX server. I have a couple of those transfers to do, some of which are mostly binary (Oracle tablespace...) and some others are more text files (logs...). Used data size of the volumes is between 100Gb and 1Tb. Also, I will be changing the block size from 1K to 8K on some of these partitions... Things I'm looking for: Guarantees data integrity Fastest data transfer speed Keeps file ownership and permissions Right now, I've thought about dd, cp and rsync, but I'm not sure on the best one to use and the best way to use them...

    Read the article

  • running commands as other users - best method

    - by linuxrawkstar
    When running commands as other users from the command line, what is recommended best practice? In the past I've used sudo like so: sudo -u username command [args] I've been told (with no specific reasons why) that using sudo for this purpose is wrong. I'd like to know why. Is there some "best way" to accomplish this? For example, I've also used the su command like so: su username - -c "command [args]" I can't imagine why either of these methods would be "bad". Your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Best Linux Distribution [closed]

    - by kamalbhai
    hi I am right now on Windows 7 alongwith a newly bought Dell Laptop .I want to install Linux too . I have been using Ubuntu 10.10 before . now I want to try a different flavour in Linux which has a good audio/video options & is security enhanced . Right now I have the following distributions : Ubuntu 10.10 OpenSuse 11.0 Fedora 13 . among the three mentioned above which might be the best to learn out things n get more close to linux .I am a student & eager to learn a lot of new things .... so which of the above would be the best for me ?

    Read the article

  • WCF Timeout issue - should there even be a socket connection?

    - by stiank81
    I have a .Net application which is split into a client and server side. The communication between them is handled using WCF. I'm not using the automagic service references, but instead I've built the connection manually like described in the Screencast by Miguel Castro. Summarized this means that I create a console application on the server side that holds ServiceHost objects for the different services: var myServiceHost = new System.ServiceModel.ServiceHost(typeof(MyService), new Uri("net.tcp://localhost:8002")); myServiceHost.Open(); And on the client side I have service proxies creating channels using the ChannelFactory: IMyService proxy = new ChannelFactory<IMyService>("MyServiceEndpoint").CreateChannel(); The client and server side share the service contract defined in the interface IMyService. And another advantage is that I get minimal App.config files - without all the autogenerated stuff created through the Service References. Example from client side: <?xml version="1.0"?> <configuration> <system.serviceModel> <client> <endpoint address="net.tcp://localhost:8002/MyEndpoint" binding="netTcpBinding" contract="IMyService" name="MyServiceEndpoint"/> </client> </system.serviceModel> </configuration> So - to my problem. I create the proxy once, and it holds a channel all the way through the application. However, if I leave the application without use for a few minutes the channel has timed out, and I get the following exception: The socket connection was aborted. This could be caused by an error processing your message or a receive timeout being exceeded by the remote host, or an underlying network resource issue. Local socket timeout was '00:00:59.9979998'. How do I prevent this? I'm assuming I need to specify a higher timeout in my configuration? But I don't want it to ever time out. But on the other hand - I don't want a socket connection! Do I need one? Thought I could go connection less with WCF... What's the permanent solution and best practice on solving this? Set timeout to "never".. Create a new channel for each request? I'm assuming there is some overhead creating the channel?.. Increase the timeout to e.g. 5minutes and create new channel if the connection did timeout? Make it connection less somehow? (Without the overhead of creating channels..) Something else...

    Read the article

  • Is Ogre's use of Exceptions a good way of using them?

    - by identitycrisisuk
    I've managed to get through my C++ game programming career so far virtually never touching exceptions but recently I've been working on a project with the Ogre engine and I'm trying to learn properly. I've found a lot of good questions and answers here on the general usage of C++ exceptions but I'd like to get some outside opinions from here on whether Ogre's usage is good and how best to work with them. To start with, quoting from Ogre's documentation of it's own Exception class: OGRE never uses return values to indicate errors. Instead, if an error occurs, an exception is thrown, and this is the object that encapsulates the detail of the problem. The application using OGRE should always ensure that the exceptions are caught, so all OGRE engine functions should occur within a try{} catch(Ogre::Exception& e) {} block. Really? Every single Ogre function could throw an exception and be wrapped in a try/catch block? At present this is handled in our usage of it by a try/catch in main that will show a message box with the exception description before exiting. This can be a bit awkward for debugging though as you don't get a stack trace, just the function that threw the error - more important is the function from our code that called the Ogre function. If it was an assert in Ogre code then it would go straight to the code in the debugger and I'd be able to find out what's going on much easier - I don't know if I'm missing something that would allow me to debug exceptions already? I'm starting to add a few more try/catch blocks in our code now, generally thinking about whether it matters if the Ogre function throws an exception. If it's something that will stop everything working then let the main try/catch handle it and exit the program. If it's not of great importance then catch it just after the function call and let the program continue. One recent example of this was building up a vector of the vertex/fragment program parameters for materials applied to an entity - if a material didn't have any parameters then it would throw an exception, which I caught and then ignored as it didn't need to add to my list of parameters. Does this seem like a reasonable way of dealing with things? Any specific advice for working with Ogre is much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • GOTO still considered harmful?

    - by Kyle Cronin
    Everyone is aware of Dijkstra's Letters to the editor: go to statement considered harmful (also here .html transcript and here .pdf) and there has been a formidable push since that time to eschew the goto statement whenever possible. While it's possible to use goto to produce unmaintainable, sprawling code, it nevertheless remains in modern programming languages. Even the advanced continuation control structure in Scheme can be described as a sophisticated goto. What circumstances warrant the use of goto? When is it best to avoid? As a followup question: C provides a pair of functions, setjmp and longjmp, that provide the ability to goto not just within the current stack frame but within any of the calling frames. Should these be considered as dangerous as goto? More dangerous? Dijkstra himself regretted that title, of which he was not responsible for. At the end of EWD1308 (also here .pdf) he wrote: Finally a short story for the record. In 1968, the Communications of the ACM published a text of mine under the title "The goto statement considered harmful", which in later years would be most frequently referenced, regrettably, however, often by authors who had seen no more of it than its title, which became a cornerstone of my fame by becoming a template: we would see all sorts of articles under the title "X considered harmful" for almost any X, including one titled "Dijkstra considered harmful". But what had happened? I had submitted a paper under the title "A case against the goto statement", which, in order to speed up its publication, the editor had changed into a "letter to the Editor", and in the process he had given it a new title of his own invention! The editor was Niklaus Wirth. A well thought out classic paper about this topic, to be matched to that of Dijkstra, is Structured Programming with go to Statements (also here .pdf), by Donald E. Knuth. Reading both helps to reestablish context and a non-dogmatic understanding of the subject. In this paper, Dijkstra's opinion on this case is reported and is even more strong: Donald E. Knuth: I believe that by presenting such a view I am not in fact disagreeing sharply with Dijkstra's ideas, since he recently wrote the following: "Please don't fall into the trap of believing that I am terribly dogmatical about [the go to statement]. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a single trick, by a simple form of coding discipline!"

    Read the article

  • Advice on software / database design to avoid using cursors when updating database

    - by Remnant
    I have a database that logs when an employee has attended a course and when they are next due to attend the course (courses tend to be annual). As an example, the following employee attended course '1' on 1st Jan 2010 and, as the course is annual, is due to attend next on the 1st Jan 2011. As today is 20th May 2010 the course status reads as 'Complete' i.e. they have done the course and do not need to do it again until next year: EmployeeID CourseID AttendanceDate DueDate Status 123456 1 01/01/2010 01/01/2011 Complete In terms of the DueDate I calculate this in SQL when I update the employee's record e.g. DueDate = AttendanceDate + CourseFrequency (I pull course frequency this from a separate table). In my web based app (asp.net mvc) I pull back this data for all employees and display it in a grid like format for HR managers to review. This allows HR to work out who needs to go on courses. The issue I have is as follows. Taking the example above, suppose today is 2nd Jan 2011. In this case, employee 123456 is now overdue for the course and I would like to set the Status to Incomplete so that the HR manager can see that they need to action this i.e. get employee on the course. I could build a trigger in the database to run overnight to update the Status field for all employees based on the current date. From what I have read I would need to use cursors to loop over each row to amend the status and this is considered bad practice / inefficient or at least something to avoid if you can??? Alternatively, I could compute the Status in my C# code after I have pulled back the data from the database and before I display it on screen. The issue with this is that the Status in the database would not necessarily match what is shown on screen which just feels plain wrong to me. Does anybody have any advice on the best practice approach to such an issue? It helps, if I did use a cursor I doubt I would be looping over more than 1000 records at any given time. Maybe this is such small volume that using cursors is okay?

    Read the article

  • Constructor versus setter injection

    - by Chris
    Hi, I'm currently designing an API where I wish to allow configuration via a variety of methods. One method is via an XML configuration schema and another method is through an API that I wish to play nicely with Spring. My XML schema parsing code was previously hidden and therefore the only concern was for it to work but now I wish to build a public API and I'm quite concerned about best-practice. It seems that many favor javabean type PoJo's with default zero parameter constructors and then setter injection. The problem I am trying to tackle is that some setter methods implementations are dependent on other setter methods being called before them in sequence. I could write anal setters that will tolerate themselves being called in many orders but that will not solve the problem of a user forgetting to set the appropriate setter and therefore the bean being in an incomplete state. The only solution I can think of is to forget about the objects being 'beans' and enforce the required parameters via constructor injection. An example of this is in the default setting of the id of a component based on the id of the parent components. My Interface public interface IMyIdentityInterface { public String getId(); /* A null value should create a unique meaningful default */ public void setId(String id); public IMyIdentityInterface getParent(); public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent); } Base Implementation of interface: public abstract class MyIdentityBaseClass implements IMyIdentityInterface { private String _id; private IMyIdentityInterface _parent; public MyIdentityBaseClass () {} @Override public String getId() { return _id; } /** * If the id is null, then use the id of the parent component * appended with a lower-cased simple name of the current impl * class along with a counter suffix to enforce uniqueness */ @Override public void setId(String id) { if (id == null) { IMyIdentityInterface parent = getParent(); if (parent == null) { // this may be the top level component or it may be that // the user called setId() before setParent(..) } else { _id = Helpers.makeIdFromParent(parent,getClass()); } } else { _id = id; } } @Override public IMyIdentityInterface getParent() { return _parent; } @Override public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent) { _parent = parent; } } Every component in the framework will have a parent except for the top level component. Using the setter type of injection, then the setters will have different behavior based on the order of the calling of the setters. In this case, would you agree, that a constructor taking a reference to the parent is better and dropping the parent setter method from the interface entirely? Is it considered bad practice if I wish to be able to configure these components using an IoC container? Chris

    Read the article

  • In a PHP project, how do you organize and access your helper objects?

    - by Pekka
    How do you organize and manage your helper objects like the database engine, user notification, error handling and so on in a PHP based, object oriented project? Say I have a large PHP CMS. The CMS is organized in various classes. A few examples: the database object user management an API to create/modify/delete items a messaging object to display messages to the end user a context handler that takes you to the right page a navigation bar class that shows buttons a logging object possibly, custom error handling etc. I am dealing with the eternal question, how to best make these objects accessible to each part of the system that needs it. my first apporach, many years ago was to have a $application global that contained initialized instances of these classes. global $application; $application->messageHandler->addMessage("Item successfully inserted"); I then changed over to the Singleton pattern and a factory function: $mh =&factory("messageHandler"); $mh->addMessage("Item successfully inserted"); but I'm not happy with that either. Unit tests and encapsulation become more and more important to me, and in my understanding the logic behind globals/singletons destroys the basic idea of OOP. Then there is of course the possibility of giving each object a number of pointers to the helper objects it needs, probably the very cleanest, resource-saving and testing-friendly way but I have doubts about the maintainability of this in the long run. Most PHP frameworks I have looked into use either the singleton pattern, or functions that access the initialized objects. Both fine approaches, but as I said I'm happy with neither. I would like to broaden my horizon on what is possible here and what others have done. I am looking for examples, additional ideas and pointers towards resources that discuss this from a long-term, real-world perspective. Also, I'm interested to hear about specialized, niche or plain weird approaches to the issue. Bounty I am following the popular vote in awarding the bounty, the answer which is probably also going to give me the most. Thank you for all your answers!

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115  | Next Page >