Search Results

Search found 5597 results on 224 pages for 'restful architecture'.

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 15/224 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • Token based Authentication and Claims for Restful Services

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    WIF as it exists today is optimized for web applications (passive/WS-Federation) and SOAP based services (active/WS-Trust). While there is limited support for WCF WebServiceHost based services (for standard credential types like Windows and Basic), there is no ready to use plumbing for RESTful services that do authentication based on tokens. This is not an oversight from the WIF team, but the REST services security world is currently rapidly changing – and that’s by design. There are a number of intermediate solutions, emerging protocols and token types, as well as some already deprecated ones. So it didn’t make sense to bake that into the core feature set of WIF. But after all, the F in WIF stands for Foundation. So just like the WIF APIs integrate tokens and claims into other hosts, this is also (easily) possible with RESTful services. Here’s how. HTTP Services and Authentication Unlike SOAP services, in the REST world there is no (over) specified security framework like WS-Security. Instead standard HTTP means are used to transmit credentials and SSL is used to secure the transport and data in transit. For most cases the HTTP Authorize header is used to transmit the security token (this can be as simple as a username/password up to issued tokens of some sort). The Authorize header consists of the actual credential (consider this opaque from a transport perspective) as well as a scheme. The scheme is some string that gives the service a hint what type of credential was used (e.g. Basic for basic authentication credentials). HTTP also includes a way to advertise the right credential type back to the client, for this the WWW-Authenticate response header is used. So for token based authentication, the service would simply need to read the incoming Authorization header, extract the token, parse and validate it. After the token has been validated, you also typically want some sort of client identity representation based on the incoming token. This is regardless of how technology-wise the actual service was built. In ASP.NET (MVC) you could use an HttpModule or an ActionFilter. In (todays) WCF, you would use the ServiceAuthorizationManager infrastructure. The nice thing about using WCF’ native extensibility points is that you get self-hosting for free. This is where WIF comes into play. WIF has ready to use infrastructure built-in that just need to be plugged into the corresponding hosting environment: Representation of identity based on claims. This is a very natural way of translating a security token (and again I mean this in the widest sense – could be also a username/password) into something our applications can work with. Infrastructure to convert tokens into claims (called security token handler) Claims transformation Claims-based authorization So much for the theory. In the next post I will show you how to implement that for WCF – including full source code and samples. (Wanna learn more about federation, WIF, claims, tokens etc.? Click here.)

    Read the article

  • Application Architecture using WCF and System.AddIn

    - by Silverhalide
    A little background -- we're designing an application that uses a client/server architecture consisting of: A server which loads server-side modules, potentially developed by other teams. A client which loads corresponding client-side modules (also potentially developed by those other teams; each client module corresponds with a server module). The client side communicates with the server side for general coordination, and as well as module specific tasks. (At this point, I think that means client talks to server, client modules talk to server modules.) Environment is .NET 3.5, and client side is WPF. The deployment scenario introduces the potential to upgrade the server, any server-side module, the client, and any client-side module independently. However, being able to "work" using mismatched versions is required. I'm therefore concerned about versioning issues. My thinking so far: A Windows Service for the server. Using System.AddIn for the server to load and communicate with the server modules will give us the greatest flexibility in terms of version compatability between server and server modules. The server and each server module vend WCF services for communication to the client side; communication between the server and a server module, or between two server modules use the AddIn contracts. (One advantage of this is that a module can expose a different interface within the server and outside it.) Similarly, the client uses System.AddIn to find, load, and communicate with the client modules. Client communications with client modules is via the AddIn interface; communications from the client and from client modules to the server side are via WCF. For maximum resilience, each module will run in a separate app-domain. In general, the system has modest performance requirements, so marshalling and crossing process boundaries is not expected to be a performance concern. (Performance requirement is basically summed up by: don't get in the way of the other parts of the system not described here.) My questions are around the idea of having two different communication and versioning models to work with which will be an added burden on our developers. System.AddIn seems quite powerful, but also a little unwieldly. (I'm also unsure of Microsoft's commitment to it in the future.) On the other hand, I'm not thrilled with WCF's versioning capabilities. I have a feeling that it would be possible to implement the System.AddIn view/adapter/contract system within WCF, but being fairly new to both technologies, I would have no idea of where to start. So... Am I on the right track here? Am I doing this the hard way? Are there gotchas I need to be aware of on this road? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Architecture Suggestions/Recommendations for a Web Application with Sub-Apps

    - by user579218
    Hello. I’m starting to plan an architecture for a big web application, and I wanted to get suggestions and/or recommendations on where to begin and which technologies and/or frameworks to use. The application will be an Intranet-based web site using Windows authentication, running on IIS and using SQL Server and ASP.NET. It’ll need to be structured as a main/shell application with sub-applications that are “pluggable” based on some configuration settings. The main or shell application is to provide the overall user interface structure – header/footer, dynamically built tabs for each available sub-app, and a content area in which the sub-application will be loaded when the user clicks on the sub-application’s tab. So, on start-up of the main/shell application, configuration information will be queried from a database, and, based on the user and which of the sub-apps are available, the main or shell app would dynamically build tabs (or buttons or something) as a way to access each individual application. On start-up, the content area will be populated with the “home” sub-app. But, clicking on an sub-app tab will cause the content area to be populated with the sub-app corresponding to the tab. For example, we’re going to have a reports application, a display application, and probably a couple other distinct applications. On startup of the main/shell application, after determining who the user is, the main app will query the database to determine which sub-apps the user can use and build out the UI. Then the user can navigate between available sub-apps and do their work in each. Finally, the entire app and all sub-apps need to be a layered design with presentation, service, business, and data access layers, as well as cross-cutting objects for things such as logging, exception handling, etc. Anyway, my questions revolve around where to begin to plan something like this application. What technologies/frameworks would work best in developing a solution for this application? MVC? MVP? WCSF? EF? NHibernate? Enterprise Library? Repository Pattern? Others???? I know all these technologies/frameworks are not used for the same purpose, but knowing which ones to focus on is a little overwhelming. Which ones would be the best choice(s) for a solution? Which ones work well together for an end-to-end design? How would one structure the VS project for something like this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Announcing the ADF Architecture Square at OOW12

    - by Chris Muir
    The ADF product management team are happy to announce at Oracle Open World the publication of the ADF Architecture Square: Over the last number of years Oracle has recognized that many customers have matured their ADF skills and are now looking for information on advanced concepts beyond the how-do-I-get-this-poplist-to-work type questions.  In order to satisfy this demand we've devised the ADF Architecture Square where papers, presentations and demos will consider such broad software engineering concepts as ADF architecture, development and testing, building and deployment, and infrastructure.   If you have a look at the site right now it's a rather modest affair, but we hope to continue to expand the content to give further guidance and information to help shortcut your ADF project needs.  Either watch the website or follow our dedicated @adfarchsquare twitter feed.

    Read the article

  • Architecture for a business objects / database access layer

    - by gregmac
    For various reasons, we are writing a new business objects/data storage library. One of the requirements of this layer is to separate the logic of the business rules, and the actual data storage layer. It is possible to have multiple data storage layers that implement access to the same object - for example, a main "database" data storage source that implements most objects, and another "ldap" source that implements a User object. In this scenario, User can optionally come from an LDAP source, perhaps with slightly different functionality (eg, not possible to save/update the User object), but otherwise it is used by the application the same way. Another data storage type might be a web service, or an external database. There are two main ways we are looking at implementing this, and me and a co-worker disagree on a fundamental level which is correct. I'd like some advice on which one is the best to use. I'll try to keep my descriptions of each as neutral as possible, as I'm looking for some objective view points here. Business objects are base classes, and data storage objects inherit business objects. Client code deals with data storage objects. In this case, common business rules are inherited by each data storage object, and it is the data storage objects that are directly used by the client code. This has the implication that client code determines which data storage method to use for a given object, because it has to explicitly declare an instance to that type of object. Client code needs to explicitly know connection information for each data storage type it is using. If a data storage layer implements different functionality for a given object, client code explicitly knows about it at compile time because the object looks different. If the data storage method is changed, client code has to be updated. Business objects encapsulate data storage objects. In this case, business objects are directly used by client application. Client application passes along base connection information to business layer. Decision about which data storage method a given object uses is made by business object code. Connection information would be a chunk of data taken from a config file (client app does not really know/care about details of it), which may be a single connection string for a database, or several pieces connection strings for various data storage types. Additional data storage connection types could also be read from another spot - eg, a configuration table in a database that specifies URLs to various web services. The benefit here is that if a new data storage method is added to an existing object, a configuration setting can be set at runtime to determine which method to use, and it is completely transparent to the client applications. Client apps do not need to be modified if data storage method for a given object changes. Business objects are base classes, data source objects inherit from business objects. Client code deals primarily with base classes. This is similar to the first method, but client code declares variables of the base business object types, and Load()/Create()/etc static methods on the business objects return the appropriate data source-typed objects. The architecture of this solution is similar to the first method, but the main difference is the decision about which data storage object to use for a given business object is made by the business layer, not the client code. I know there are already existing ORM libraries that provide some of this functionality, but please discount those for now (there is the possibility that a data storage layer is implemented with one of these ORM libraries) - also note I'm deliberately not telling you what language is being used here, other than that it is strongly typed. I'm looking for some general advice here on which method is better to use (or feel free to suggest something else), and why.

    Read the article

  • Domain Validation in a CQRS architecture

    - by Jupaol
    Basically I want to know if there is a better way to validate my domain entities. This is how I am planning to do it but I would like your opinion The first approach I considered was: class Customer : EntityBase<Customer> { public void ChangeEmail(string email) { if(string.IsNullOrWhitespace(email)) throw new DomainException(“...”); if(!email.IsEmail()) throw new DomainException(); if(email.Contains(“@mailinator.com”)) throw new DomainException(); } } I actually do not like this validation because even when I am encapsulating the validation logic in the correct entity, this is violating the Open/Close principle (Open for extension but Close for modification) and I have found that violating this principle, code maintenance becomes a real pain when the application grows up in complexity. Why? Because domain rules change more often than we would like to admit, and if the rules are hidden and embedded in an entity like this, they are hard to test, hard to read, hard to maintain but the real reason why I do not like this approach is: if the validation rules change, I have to come and edit my domain entity. This has been a really simple example but in RL the validation could be more complex So following the philosophy of Udi Dahan, making roles explicit, and the recommendation from Eric Evans in the blue book, the next try was to implement the specification pattern, something like this class EmailDomainIsAllowedSpecification : IDomainSpecification<Customer> { private INotAllowedEmailDomainsResolver invalidEmailDomainsResolver; public bool IsSatisfiedBy(Customer customer) { return !this.invalidEmailDomainsResolver.GetInvalidEmailDomains().Contains(customer.Email); } } But then I realize that in order to follow this approach I had to mutate my entities first in order to pass the value being valdiated, in this case the email, but mutating them would cause my domain events being fired which I wouldn’t like to happen until the new email is valid So after considering these approaches, I came out with this one, since I am going to implement a CQRS architecture: class EmailDomainIsAllowedValidator : IDomainInvariantValidator<Customer, ChangeEmailCommand> { public void IsValid(Customer entity, ChangeEmailCommand command) { if(!command.Email.HasValidDomain()) throw new DomainException(“...”); } } Well that’s the main idea, the entity is passed to the validator in case we need some value from the entity to perform the validation, the command contains the data coming from the user and since the validators are considered injectable objects they could have external dependencies injected if the validation requires it. Now the dilemma, I am happy with a design like this because my validation is encapsulated in individual objects which brings many advantages: easy unit test, easy to maintain, domain invariants are explicitly expressed using the Ubiquitous Language, easy to extend, validation logic is centralized and validators can be used together to enforce complex domain rules. And even when I know I am placing the validation of my entities outside of them (You could argue a code smell - Anemic Domain) but I think the trade-off is acceptable But there is one thing that I have not figured out how to implement it in a clean way. How should I use this components... Since they will be injected, they won’t fit naturally inside my domain entities, so basically I see two options: Pass the validators to each method of my entity Validate my objects externally (from the command handler) I am not happy with the option 1 so I would explain how I would do it with the option 2 class ChangeEmailCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<ChangeEmailCommand> { public void Execute(ChangeEmailCommand command) { private IEnumerable<IDomainInvariantValidator> validators; // here I would get the validators required for this command injected, and in here I would validate them, something like this using (var t = this.unitOfWork.BeginTransaction()) { var customer = this.unitOfWork.Get<Customer>(command.CustomerId); this.validators.ForEach(x =. x.IsValid(customer, command)); // here I know the command is valid // the call to ChangeEmail will fire domain events as needed customer.ChangeEmail(command.Email); t.Commit(); } } } Well this is it. Can you give me your thoughts about this or share your experiences with Domain entities validation EDIT I think it is not clear from my question, but the real problem is: Hiding the domain rules has serious implications in the future maintainability of the application, and also domain rules change often during the life-cycle of the app. Hence implementing them with this in mind would let us extend them easily. Now imagine in the future a rules engine is implemented, if the rules are encapsulated outside of the domain entities, this change would be easier to implement

    Read the article

  • What does "enterprise" means in relation to software architecture?

    - by SkonJeet
    I see the term "enterprise" being thrown around software developers and programmers a lot and used loosely it seems. en·ter·prise/'ent?r?priz/ Noun: A project or undertaking, typically one that is difficult or requires effort. Initiative and resourcefulness. Can someone please clarify what this term actually encompasses? "At an enterprise level", "enterprise scale"? There are even "enterprise editions" of things. What exactly does it mean? It obviously doesn't make sense judging by the above definition so more specifically to software what does one mean when using the word enterprise? EDIT: To add a spin on this - how does this term then fit into phrases such as Enterprise Framework Model? What does data access and data context have to do with company-wide descriptions?

    Read the article

  • Where do service implementations fit into the Microsoft Application Architecture guidelines?

    - by tuespetre
    The guidelines discuss the service layer with its service interfaces and data/message/fault contracts. They also discuss the business layer with its logic/workflow components and entities as well as the 'optional' application facade. What is unclear still to me after studying this guide is where the implementations of the service interfaces belong. Does the application facade in the business layer implement these interfaces, or does a separate 'service facade' exist to make calls to the business layer and it's facade/raw components? (With the former, there would be less seemingly trivial calls to yet another layer, though with the latter I could see how the service layer could remove the concerns of translating business entities to data contracts from the business layer.)

    Read the article

  • How can I solve the same problems a CB-architecture is trying to solve without using hacks? [on hold]

    - by Jefffrey
    A component based system's goal is to solve the problems that derives from inheritance: for example the fact that some parts of the code (that are called components) are reused by very different classes that, hypothetically, would lie in a very different branch of the inheritance tree. That's a very nice concept, but I've found out that CBS is often hard to accomplish without using ugly hacks. Implementations of this system are often far from clean. But I don't want to discuss this any further. My question is: how can I solve the same problems a CBS try to solve with a very clean interface? (possibly with examples, there are a lot of abstract talks about the "perfect" design already). Here's an example I was going for before realizing I was just reinventing inheritance again: class Human { public: Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; // other human specific components }; class Zombie { Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; // other zombie specific components }; After writing that I realized I needed an interface, otherwise I would have needed N containers for N different types of objects (or to use boost::variant to gather them all together). So I've thought of polymorphism (move what systems do in a CBS design into class specific functions): class Entity { public: virtual void on_event(Event) {} // not pure virtual on purpose virtual void on_update(World) {} virtual void on_draw(Window) {} }; class Human { private: Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; public: virtual void on_event(Event) { ... } virtual void on_update(World) { ... } virtual void on_draw(Window) { ... } }; class Zombie { private: Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; public: virtual void on_event(Event) { ... } virtual void on_update(World) { ... } virtual void on_draw(Window) { ... } }; Which was nice, except for the fact that now the outside world would not even be able to know where a Human is positioned (it does not have access to its position member). That would be useful to track the player position for collision detection or if on_update the Zombie would want to track down its nearest human to move towards him. So I added const Position& get_position() const; to both the Zombie and Human classes. And then I realized that both functionality were shared, so it should have gone to the common base class: Entity. Do you notice anything? Yes, with that methodology I would have a god Entity class full of common functionality (which is the thing I was trying to avoid in the first place).

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu Slow - What architecture does the Windows Installer install?

    - by Benjamin Yep
    I feel absolutely limited by using Windows, and I need to switch to a Unix environment. I once installed Red Hat on my lappie (screen + external monitor setup; 4GB ram; x64; runs fast) and it worked fine, but I saw that the computer cluster that is the birthplace of my unix knowledge switched to Ubuntu, so naturally I follow. To the point. When I installed Ubuntu onto my machine via the Windows Installer, it ran quite slow. Opening Firefox takes about 8-9 seconds, it freezes up often, unable to handle its own background processes. I saw in a thread that, perhaps, it is running slow because the Windows Installer is installing an x64 version. Of course, my computer has had no performance issues in the past(except that time with the trojans but you know, know one is perfect ;) ) Anyways, I uninstalled Ubuntu, freeing up the max allocated memory it took up, and continue to be sad, trapped in my MS world with only a buggy Cygwin, any assistance is greatly appreciated! :) Thanks ~Ben

    Read the article

  • Why did the team at LMAX use Java and design the architecture to avoid GC at all cost?

    - by kadaj
    Why did the team at LMAX design the LMAX Disruptor in Java but all their design points to minimizing GC use? If one does not want to have GC run then why use a garbage collected language? Their optimizations, the level of hardware knowledge and the thought they put are just awesome but why Java? I'm not against Java or anything, but why a GC language? Why not use something like D or any other language without GC but allows efficient code? Is it that the team is most familiar with Java or does Java possess some unique advantage that I am not seeing? Say they develop it using D with manual memory management, what would be the difference? They would have to think low level (which they already are), but they can squeeze the best performance out of the system as it's native.

    Read the article

  • Why are MVC & TDD not employed more in game architecture?

    - by secoif
    I will preface this by saying I haven't looked a huge amount of game source, nor built much in the way of games. But coming from trying to employ 'enterprise' coding practices in web apps, looking at game source code seriously hurts my head: "What is this view logic doing in with business logic? this needs refactoring... so does this, refactor, refactorrr" This worries me as I'm about to start a game project, and I'm not sure whether trying to mvc/tdd the dev process is going to hinder us or help us, as I don't see many game examples that use this or much push for better architectural practices it in the community. The following is an extract from a great article on prototyping games, though to me it seemed exactly the attitude many game devs seem to use when writing production game code: Mistake #4: Building a system, not a game ...if you ever find yourself working on something that isn’t directly moving your forward, stop right there. As programmers, we have a tendency to try to generalize our code, and make it elegant and be able to handle every situation. We find that an itch terribly hard not scratch, but we need to learn how. It took me many years to realize that it’s not about the code, it’s about the game you ship in the end. Don’t write an elegant game component system, skip the editor completely and hardwire the state in code, avoid the data-driven, self-parsing, XML craziness, and just code the damned thing. ... Just get stuff on the screen as quickly as you can. And don’t ever, ever, use the argument “if we take some extra time and do this the right way, we can reuse it in the game”. EVER. is it because games are (mostly) visually oriented so it makes sense that the code will be weighted heavily in the view, thus any benefits from moving stuff out to models/controllers, is fairly minimal, so why bother? I've heard the argument that MVC introduces a performance overhead, but this seems to me to be a premature optimisation, and that there'd more important performance issues to tackle before you worry about MVC overheads (eg render pipeline, AI algorithms, datastructure traversal, etc). Same thing regarding TDD. It's not often I see games employing test cases, but perhaps this is due to the design issues above (mixed view/business) and the fact that it's difficult to test visual components, or components that rely on probablistic results (eg operate within physics simulations). Perhaps I'm just looking at the wrong source code, but why do we not see more of these 'enterprise' practices employed in game design? Are games really so different in their requirements, or is a people/culture issue (ie game devs come from a different background and thus have different coding habits)?

    Read the article

  • How are the conceptual pairs Abstract/Concrete, Generic/Specific, and Complex/Simple related to one another in software architecture?

    - by tjb1982
    (= 2 (+ 1 1)) take the above. The requirement of the '=' predicate is that its arguments be comparable. Any two structures are comparable in this case, and so the contract/requirement is pretty generic. The '+' predicate requires that its arguments be numbers. That's more specific. (socket domain type protocol) the arguments here are much more specific (even though the arguments are still just numbers and the function itself returns a file descriptor, which is itself an int), but the arguments are more abstract, and the implementation is built up from other functions whose abstractions are less abstract, which are themselves built from less and less abstract abstractions. To the point where the requirements are something like move from one location to another, observe whether the switch at that location is on or off, turn the switch on or off, or leave it the same, etc. But are functions also less and less complex the less abstract they are? And is there a relationship between the number and range of arguments of a function and the complexity of its implementation, as you go from more abstract to less abstract, and vice versa? (= 2 (+ 1 1) 2r10) the '=' predicate is more generic than the '+' predicate, and thus could be more complex in its implementation. The '+' predicate's contract is less generic, and so could be less complex in its implementation. Is this even a little correct? What about the 'socket' function? Each of those arguments is a number of some kind. What they represent, though, is something more elaborate. It also returns a number (just like the others do), which is also a representation of something conceptually much more elaborate than a number. To boil it down, I'm asking if there is a relationship between the following dimensions, and why: Abstract/Concrete Complex/Simple Generic/Specific And more specifically, do different configurations of these dimensions have a specific, measurable impact on the number and range of the arguments (i.e., the contract) of a function?

    Read the article

  • Is it hacky to manually construct JSON and manually handle GET, POST instead of using a proper RESTful API for AJAX functionality?

    - by kliao
    I started building a Django app, but this probably applies to other frameworks as well. In Backbone.js methods that call the server (fetch(), create(), destroy(), etc.), should you be using a proper RESTful API such as one provided by Tastypie or Django-Piston? I've founded it easier and more flexible to just construct the JSON in my Django Views, which are mapped to some URLs that Backbone.js can use. Then again, I'm probably not leveraging Tastypie/Django-Piston functionality to the fullest. I'm not ready to make a full-fledged RESTful API for my app yet. I simply would like to use some of the AJAXy functionality that Backbone.js supports. Pros/Cons of doing this?

    Read the article

  • How can I quickly set up a RESTful site using PHP without a Framework?

    - by Sanoj
    I would like to quickly set up a RESTful site using PHP without learning a PHP Framework. I would like to use a single .htaccess-file in Apache (no mod_rewrite) or a single rule using Nginx, so I easyli can change web server without changing my code. So I want to direct all requests to a single PHP-file, and that file takes care of the RESTful-handling and call the right PHP-file. In example: The user request http://mysite.com/test The server sends all requests to rest.php The rest.php call test.php (maybe with a querystring). If this can be done, is there a free PHP-script that works like my rest.php? or how can I do this PHP-script?

    Read the article

  • ADF updates: mobile virtual developer day & ADF Mobile 1 day Workshop & ADF Architecture TV

    - by JuergenKress
    ADF Mobile Virtual Developer Day Sessions - YouTube ADF Architecture TV – flows WebLogic Partner Community For regular information become a member in the WebLogic Partner Community please visit: http://www.oracle.com/partners/goto/wls-emea ( OPN account required). If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Mix Forum WikiTechnorati Tags: adf,ADF Architecture,ADF education,virtual developer day,WebLogic,WebLogic Community,Oracle,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • Des chercheurs dévoilent un prototype d'Internet du futur, reposant sur une architecture sans serveur, complètement décentralisée

    Des chercheurs développent un prototype de réseau d'architecture complètement décentralisée qui fera passer les attaques DoS pour des mauvais souvenirsUne équipe de chercheur de l'université de Cambridge a pour intention de remplacer le modèle relationnel client-serveur dont dépendent de nombreux services, applications et protocoles d'internet, par une architecture complètement décentralisée du réseau des réseaux. Le projet ambitieux se nomme Pursuit, et un prototype de l'internet de demain conçu...

    Read the article

  • Stuck with foreign-architecture=i386 when using apt-get

    - by avilella
    I installed some packages a while ago and for some reason, they would only install with a special set of parameters that I used as recommended on a website (can't remember which one). Now, although harmless, I am stuck with these warnings every time I run apt-get: dpkg: warning: ignoring option --foreign-architecture=i386: this architecture cannot be foreign Any idea where is this lying around? How can I clean this up?

    Read the article

  • ExtJS 5.0 : amélioration de l'aspect tactile et architecture MVVM, Sencha consolide son framework JavaScript

    Sortie de ExtJS 5.0 : amélioration de l'aspect tactile et architecture MVVML'équipe Sencha annonce la sortie de ExtJS 5.0 !Parmi les nouveautés et les améliorations, nous pouvons découvrir :le support des plateformes tactiles ;une architecture MVVM et la liaison des données à deux sens ;la possibilité d'ajouter des composants dans les cellules d'une grille pour la visualisation des données ;un système de mise en page responsive ; Code javasctipt : Sélectionner tout...

    Read the article

  • Evolving Architectures Part I Whats Software Architecture

    Im writing a short series of posts for MS Israel MCS blog (in Hebrew) and Id thought Id translate them to English, as it seems to me they are interesting enough.In this series I am going to talk about Evolutionary Architecture or , some of the aspect of dealing with software architecture [...]...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • DAL, Session, Cache architecture

    - by subt13
    I'm attempting to create Data Access Layer for my web application. Currently, all datatables are stored in the session. When I am finished the DAL will populate and return datatables. Is it a good idea to store the returned datatables in the session? A distributed/shared cache? Or just ping the database each time? Note: generally the number of rows in the datatable will be small < 2000. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Design/Architecture Advice Needed

    - by Rachel
    Summary: I have different components on homepage and each components shows some promotion to the user. I have Cart as one Component and depending upon content of the cart promotion are show. I have to track user online activities and send that information to Omniture for Report Generation. Now my components are loaded asynchronously basically are loaded when AjaxRequest is fired up and so there is not fix pattern or rather information on when components will appear on the webpages. Now in order to pass information to Omniture I need to call track function on $(document).(ready) and append information for each components(7 parameters are required by Omniture for each component). So in the init:config function of each component am calling Omniture and passing paramters but now no. of Omniture calls is directly proportional to no. of Components on the webpage but this is not acceptable as each call to Omniture is very expensive. Now I am looking for a way where in I can club the information about 7 parameters and than make one Call to Omniture wherein I pass those information. Points to note is that I do not know when the components are loaded and so there is no pre-defined time or no. of components that would be loaded. The thing is am calling track function when document is ready but components are loaded after call to Omniture has been made and so my question is Q: How can I collect the information for all the components and than just make one call to Omniture to send those information ? As mentioned, I do not know when the components are loaded as they are done on the Ajax Request. Hope I am able to explain my challenge and would appreciate if some one can provide from Design/Architect Solutions for the Challenge.

    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 | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >