Search Results

Search found 16573 results on 663 pages for 'private constructor'.

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 17/663 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • Unit test complex classes with many private methods

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I've got a class with one public method and many private methods which are run depending on what parameter are passed to the public method so my code looks something like: public class SomeComplexClass { IRepository _repository; public SomeComplexClass() this(new Repository()) { } public SomeComplexClass(IRepository repository) { _repository = repository; } public List<int> SomeComplexCalcualation(int option) { var list = new List<int>(); if (option == 1) list = CalculateOptionOne(); else if (option == 2) list = CalculateOptionTwo(); else if (option == 3) list = CalculateOptionThree(); else if (option == 4) list = CalculateOptionFour(); else if (option == 5) list = CalculateOptionFive(); return list; } private List<int> CalculateOptionOne() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionTwo() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionThree() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionFour() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionFive() { // Some calculation } } I've thought of a few ways to test this class but all of them seem overly complex or expose the methods more than I would like. The options so far are: Set all the private methods to internal and use [assembly: InternalsVisibleTo()] Separate out all the private methods into a separate class and create an interface. Make all the methods virtual and in my tests create a new class that inherits from this class and override the methods. Are there any other options for testing the above class that would be better that what I've listed? If you would pick one of the ones I've listed can you explain why? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why would the assignment operator ever do something different than its matching constructor?

    - by Neil G
    I was reading some boost code, and came across this: inline sparse_vector &assign_temporary(sparse_vector &v) { swap(v); return *this; } template<class AE> inline sparse_vector &operator=(const sparse_vector<AE> &ae) { self_type temporary(ae); return assign_temporary(temporary); } It seems to be mapping all of the constructors to assignment operators. Great. But why did C++ ever opt to make them do different things? All I can think of is scoped_ptr?

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the "this." command needed in this constructor? (java)

    - by David
    I'm reading a book about java. It just got to explaining how you create a class called "deck" which contains an array of cards as its instance variable(s). Here is the code snippit: class Deck { Card[] cards; public Deck (int n) { cards = new Card[n]; } } why isn't the this. command used? for example why isn't the code this: class Deck { Card[[] cards; public Deck (int n) { this.cards = new Card[n]; } }

    Read the article

  • How can I create a generic constructor? (ie. BaseClass.FromXml(<param>)

    - by SofaKng
    I'm not sure how to describe this but I'm trying to create a base class that contains a shared (factory) function called FromXml. I want this function to instantiate an object of the proper type and then fill it via an XmlDocument. For example, let's say I have something like this: Public Class XmlObject Public Shared Function FromXml(ByVal source as XmlDocument) As XmlObject // <need code to create SPECIFIC TYPE of object and return it End Function End Class Public Class CustomObject Inherits XmlObject End Class I'd like to be able to do something like this: Dim myObject As CustomObject = CustomObject.FromXml(source) Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Definition of variables/fields type within a constructor, how is it done?

    - by elementz
    I just had a look at Suns Java tutorial, and found something that totally confused me: Given the following example: public Bicycle(int startCadence, int startSpeed, int startGear) { gear = startGear; cadence = startCadence; speed = startSpeed; } Why is it, that the types of the variables (fields?) gear, cadence and speed do not need to be defined? I would have written it as follows: public Bicycle(int startCadence, int startSpeed, int startGear) { int gear = startGear; int cadence = startCadence; int speed = startSpeed; } What would be the actual differnce?

    Read the article

  • When exactly is constructor of static local object called?

    - by Honza Bambas
    Say we have a code like this: Some class { Some() { // the ctor code } }; Some& globalFunction() { static Some gSome; return gSome; } When exactly 'the ctor code' is executed? As for normal static variables before main() or at the moment we first call to 'globalFunction()'? How is it on different platforms and different compilers (cl, gcc, ...) ? Thanks -hb-

    Read the article

  • Using an interface as a constructor parameter in Java?

    - by aperson
    How would I be able to accomplish the following: public class testClass implements Interface { public testClass(Interface[] args) { } } So that I could declare Interface testObject = new testClass(new class1(4), new class2(5)); Where class1 and class2 are also classes that implement Interface. Also, once I accomplish this, how would I be able to refer to each individual parameter taken in to be used in testClass? Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • How to implement rank structure

    - by Luke101
    What is the best way to implement a rank system: here is the code i will use public class MyRank { private int LevelOneMaxPoints = 100; private int LevelTwoMinPoints = 200; private int LevelTwoMaxPoints = 299; private int LevelThreeMinPoints = 300; private int LevelThreeMaxPoints = 399; private int LevelFourMinPoints = 400; private int LevelFourMaxPoints = 599; private int LevelFourPlusMinPoints = 600; private int LevelFourPlusMaxPoints = 999; private int LevelFiveMinPoints = 1000; private int LevelFiveMaxPoints = 1299; private int LevelSixMinPoints = 1300; private int LevelSixMaxPoints = 2699; private int LevelSevenMinPoints = 2700; private int LevelSevenMaxPoints = 3999; private int LevelEightMinPoints = 4000; private int LevelEightMaxPoints = 5499; private int LevelEightPlusMinPoints = 5500; private int LevelEightPlusMaxPoints = 7499; private int LevelNineMinPoints = 7500; private int LevelNineMaxPoints = 9999; private int LevelTenMinPoints = 10000; private string LevelOneName = "Private"; private string LevelTwoName = "PV2"; private string LevelThreeName = "Private Fist Class"; private string LevelFourName = "Specialist"; private string LevelFourPlusName = "Corporal"; private string LevelFiveName = "Sergeant"; //private string LevelSixName = "Staff Sergeant"; private string LevelSevenName = "Sergeant First Class"; private string LevelEightName = "Master Sergeant"; private string LevelEightPlusName = "First Sergeant"; private string LevelNineName = "Sergeant Major"; //private string LevelTenName = "Sergeant Major of the Answers"; private int points = 0; public string RankName { get; private set; } public MyRank(int points) { this.points = points; RankName = GetRankName(); } private string GetRankName() { if (points >= Int32.MinValue && points <= LevelOneMaxPoints) return LevelOneName; else if (points >= LevelTwoMinPoints && points <= LevelTwoMaxPoints) return LevelTwoName; else if (points >= LevelThreeMinPoints && points <= LevelThreeMaxPoints) return LevelThreeName; else if (points >= LevelFourMinPoints && points <= LevelFourMaxPoints) return LevelFourName; else if (points >= LevelFourPlusMinPoints && points <= LevelFourPlusMaxPoints) return LevelFourPlusName; else if (points >= LevelFiveMinPoints && points <= LevelFiveMaxPoints) return LevelFiveName; else if (points >= LevelSixMinPoints && points <= LevelSixMaxPoints) return LevelFiveName; else if (points >= LevelSevenMinPoints && points <= LevelSevenMaxPoints) return LevelSevenName; else if (points >= LevelEightMinPoints && points <= LevelEightMaxPoints) return LevelEightName; else if (points >= LevelEightPlusMinPoints && points <= LevelEightPlusMaxPoints) return LevelEightPlusName; else if (points >= LevelNineMinPoints && points <= LevelNineMaxPoints) return LevelNineName; else if (points >= LevelNineMinPoints && points <= LevelNineMaxPoints) return LevelNineName; else if (points >= LevelTenMinPoints) return LevelFourName; else return "No Rank"; } } Do you think this is the most efficient way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Copy Constructors and calling functions

    - by helixed
    Hello, I'm trying to call an accessor function in a copy constructor but it's not working. Here's an example of my problem: A.h class A { public: //Constructor A(int d); //Copy Constructor A(const A &rhs); //accessor for data int getData(); //mutator for data void setData(int d); private: int data; }; A.cpp #include "A.h" //Constructor A::A(int d) { this->setData(d); } //Copy Constructor A::A(const A &rhs) { this->setData(rhs.getData()); } //accessor for data int A::getData() { return data; } //mutator for data void A::setData(int d) { data = d; } When I try to compile this, I get the following error: error: passing 'const A' as 'this' argument of 'int A::getData()' discards qualifiers If I change rhs.getData() to rhs.data, then the constructor works fine. Am I not allowed to call functions in a copy constructor? Could somebody please tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks, helixed

    Read the article

  • Is it good practice to put private API in the .m files and public API in .h files in Cocoa?

    - by Paperflyer
    Many of my classes in my current project have several properties and methods that are only ever called from within the class itself. Also, they might mess with the working of the class depending on the current state of the class. Currently, all these interfaces are defined in the main interface declaration in the .h files. Is it considered good practice to put the “private” methods and properties at the top of the .m files? This won't ever affect anything since I am very likely the only person ever to look at this source code, but of course it would be interesting to know for future projects.

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Class Patterns

    - by Liam McLennan
    To write object-oriented programs we need objects, and likely lots of them. JavaScript makes it easy to create objects: var liam = { name: "Liam", age: Number.MAX_VALUE }; But JavaScript does not provide an easy way to create similar objects. Most object-oriented languages include the idea of a class, which is a template for creating objects of the same type. From one class many similar objects can be instantiated. Many patterns have been proposed to address the absence of a class concept in JavaScript. This post will compare and contrast the most significant of them. Simple Constructor Functions Classes may be missing but JavaScript does support special constructor functions. By prefixing a call to a constructor function with the ‘new’ keyword we can tell the JavaScript runtime that we want the function to behave like a constructor and instantiate a new object containing the members defined by that function. Within a constructor function the ‘this’ keyword references the new object being created -  so a basic constructor function might be: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; this.toString = function() { return this.name + " is " + age + " years old."; }; } var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that by convention the name of a constructor function is always written in Pascal Case (the first letter of each word is capital). This is to distinguish between constructor functions and other functions. It is important that constructor functions be called with the ‘new’ keyword and that not constructor functions are not. There are two problems with the pattern constructor function pattern shown above: It makes inheritance difficult The toString() function is redefined for each new object created by the Person constructor. This is sub-optimal because the function should be shared between all of the instances of the Person type. Constructor Functions with a Prototype JavaScript functions have a special property called prototype. When an object is created by calling a JavaScript constructor all of the properties of the constructor’s prototype become available to the new object. In this way many Person objects can be created that can access the same prototype. An improved version of the above example can be written: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); In this version a single instance of the toString() function will now be shared between all Person objects. Private Members The short version is: there aren’t any. If a variable is defined, with the var keyword, within the constructor function then its scope is that function. Other functions defined within the constructor function will be able to access the private variable, but anything defined outside the constructor (such as functions on the prototype property) won’t have access to the private variable. Any variables defined on the constructor are automatically public. Some people solve this problem by prefixing properties with an underscore and then not calling those properties by convention. function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { _getName: function() { return this.name; }, toString: function() { return this._getName() + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that the _getName() function is only private by convention – it is in fact a public function. Functional Object Construction Because of the weirdness involved in using constructor functions some JavaScript developers prefer to eschew them completely. They theorize that it is better to work with JavaScript’s functional nature than to try and force it to behave like a traditional class-oriented language. When using the functional approach objects are created by returning them from a factory function. An excellent side effect of this pattern is that variables defined with the factory function are accessible to the new object (due to closure) but are inaccessible from anywhere else. The Person example implemented using the functional object construction pattern is: var personFactory = function(name, age) { var privateVar = 7; return { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age * privateVar / privateVar + " years old."; } }; }; var john2 = personFactory("John Lennon", 40); console.log(john2.toString()); Note that the ‘new’ keyword is not used for this pattern, and that the toString() function has access to the name, age and privateVar variables because of closure. This pattern can be extended to provide inheritance and, unlike the constructor function pattern, it supports private variables. However, when working with JavaScript code bases you will find that the constructor function is more common – probably because it is a better approximation of mainstream class oriented languages like C# and Java. Inheritance Both of the above patterns can support inheritance but for now, favour composition over inheritance. Summary When JavaScript code exceeds simple browser automation object orientation can provide a powerful paradigm for controlling complexity. Both of the patterns presented in this article work – the choice is a matter of style. Only one question still remains; who is John Galt?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Class Patterns

    - by Liam McLennan
    To write object-oriented programs we need objects, and likely lots of them. JavaScript makes it easy to create objects: var liam = { name: "Liam", age: Number.MAX_VALUE }; But JavaScript does not provide an easy way to create similar objects. Most object-oriented languages include the idea of a class, which is a template for creating objects of the same type. From one class many similar objects can be instantiated. Many patterns have been proposed to address the absence of a class concept in JavaScript. This post will compare and contrast the most significant of them. Simple Constructor Functions Classes may be missing but JavaScript does support special constructor functions. By prefixing a call to a constructor function with the ‘new’ keyword we can tell the JavaScript runtime that we want the function to behave like a constructor and instantiate a new object containing the members defined by that function. Within a constructor function the ‘this’ keyword references the new object being created -  so a basic constructor function might be: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; this.toString = function() { return this.name + " is " + age + " years old."; }; } var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that by convention the name of a constructor function is always written in Pascal Case (the first letter of each word is capital). This is to distinguish between constructor functions and other functions. It is important that constructor functions be called with the ‘new’ keyword and that not constructor functions are not. There are two problems with the pattern constructor function pattern shown above: It makes inheritance difficult The toString() function is redefined for each new object created by the Person constructor. This is sub-optimal because the function should be shared between all of the instances of the Person type. Constructor Functions with a Prototype JavaScript functions have a special property called prototype. When an object is created by calling a JavaScript constructor all of the properties of the constructor’s prototype become available to the new object. In this way many Person objects can be created that can access the same prototype. An improved version of the above example can be written: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); In this version a single instance of the toString() function will now be shared between all Person objects. Private Members The short version is: there aren’t any. If a variable is defined, with the var keyword, within the constructor function then its scope is that function. Other functions defined within the constructor function will be able to access the private variable, but anything defined outside the constructor (such as functions on the prototype property) won’t have access to the private variable. Any variables defined on the constructor are automatically public. Some people solve this problem by prefixing properties with an underscore and then not calling those properties by convention. function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { _getName: function() { return this.name; }, toString: function() { return this._getName() + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that the _getName() function is only private by convention – it is in fact a public function. Functional Object Construction Because of the weirdness involved in using constructor functions some JavaScript developers prefer to eschew them completely. They theorize that it is better to work with JavaScript’s functional nature than to try and force it to behave like a traditional class-oriented language. When using the functional approach objects are created by returning them from a factory function. An excellent side effect of this pattern is that variables defined with the factory function are accessible to the new object (due to closure) but are inaccessible from anywhere else. The Person example implemented using the functional object construction pattern is: var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); var personFactory = function(name, age) { var privateVar = 7; return { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age * privateVar / privateVar + " years old."; } }; }; var john2 = personFactory("John Lennon", 40); console.log(john2.toString()); Note that the ‘new’ keyword is not used for this pattern, and that the toString() function has access to the name, age and privateVar variables because of closure. This pattern can be extended to provide inheritance and, unlike the constructor function pattern, it supports private variables. However, when working with JavaScript code bases you will find that the constructor function is more common – probably because it is a better approximation of mainstream class oriented languages like C# and Java. Inheritance Both of the above patterns can support inheritance but for now, favour composition over inheritance. Summary When JavaScript code exceeds simple browser automation object orientation can provide a powerful paradigm for controlling complexity. Both of the patterns presented in this article work – the choice is a matter of style. Only one question still remains; who is John Galt?

    Read the article

  • Why a "private static" is not seen in a method?

    - by Roman
    I have a class with the following declaration of the fields: public class Game { private static String outputFileName; .... } I set the value of the outputFileName in the main method of the class. I also have a write method in the class which use the outputFileName. I always call write after main sets value for outputFileName. But write still does not see the value of the outputFileName. It say that it's equal to null. Could anybody, pleas, tell me what I am doing wrong? ADDED As it is requested I post more code: In the main: String outputFileName = userName + "_" + year + "_" + month + "_" + day + "_" + hour + "_" + minute + "_" + second + "_" + millis + ".txt"; f=new File(outputFileName); if(!f.exists()){ try { f.createNewFile(); } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } } System.out.println("IN THE MAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"); System.out.println("------>" + outputFileName + "<------"); This line outputs me the name of the file. Than in the write I have: public static void write(String output) { // Open a file for appending. System.out.println("==========>" + outputFileName + "<============"); ...... } And it outputs null.

    Read the article

  • When should methods be made private?

    - by AaronSzy
    There are lots of times where i'm not sure whether a particular method should be made private or not. For example, i'm building a class right now, which, is responsible for generating a report. This class has a buildReport method and several methods which collect the necessary data for buildReport. // single public method // uses a set of helper methods public buildReport() // helper methods private avgSurveyTime() private fetchVendors() private fetchSendCounts() private ... Im debating whether i should make these helper methods public. The only method i really plan on calling outside at the moment is buildReport. However, it might be useful to get just a list of the vendors with fetchVendors etc. I see two schools of thought on this: You can always expose as little as possible. (In which case, many of my classes would only have one public method) OR you can expose all you can that might be useful to the user of the class. Is there a good rule of thumb to use for deciding when methods should be made public/private?

    Read the article

  • HowTo import Certificate (pfx) with private key in WinXP

    - by Gunther
    Hello, I tried the whole day just to import a cetrificate in winXP, but I allways failed. I did following: Create the certificate with private key (no pasword): makecert -sr LocalMachine -ss My -pe -sky exchange -n "CN=TestCert" -a sha1 -sv TestCert.pvk TestCert.cer Then put certificate and private key together into pfx file: pvk2pfx.exe -pvk TestCert.pvk -spc TestCert.cer -pfx TestCert.pfx Import pfx file with commandline tool (German System): winhttpcertcfg.exe -i TestCert.pfx -a NT-AUTORITÄT\NETZWERKDIENST -c LOCAL_MACHINE\My Error: Unable to import contents of PFX file. Please make sure the filename and path, as well as the password, are correct. Hint: "NT-AUTORITÄT\NETZWERKDIENST" -- "NT-AUTHORITY\NETWORKSERVICE" Filename is ok, password was not set. Even if I set the password (e.g. "MyPassword") in Step 1 and type at the end of step 3: ... -p MyPassword I got the same error. Then I tried to import in the certificate console (mmc with certificate snap-in). There i got following error: "Der private Schlüssel, den Sie importieren, erfordert möglicherweise einen Dienstanbieter, der nicht installiert ist." -- "The imported private key may requires a service-supplier which is not installed". But the Microsoft Crypto-Service is up and running. What else can I do? On Windows Vista and Windows 7 I got this running without these problems. I need this Certificate to run a WCF Service. Thanks in advance for any hint. Regards, Gunther

    Read the article

  • how to automatically mount ~/Private using ecryptfs when logging in via ssh pubkey

    - by andreash
    Raionale: I want to be able to automatically make backups to a remote machine, which will be encrypted with ecryptfs. The title says it all: I set up ecryptfs-utils on my Debian Squeeze box, and set up one user to use it via ecryptfs-setup-private. When I log in via SSH using password authentication, the ~/Private directory automatically gets mounted. How can I achieve that ~/Private also automatically gets mounted when logging in via SSH using public key authentication? Obviously, the best solution would be if ecryptfs could somehow 'use' the SSH public key to en/decrypt the data (I know that then using the user's password would not be able to en/decrypt the data any more; this would be acceptable). Probably, this will not work. So perhaps somehow call ecryptfs-mount-private via ssh before logging in via public key? Probably, then I would need to somehow pipe the passphrase through the SSH connection, right? So I would need to store it on the source machine's file system. Not nice either. Any other ideas?

    Read the article

  • Private subnet for VM server host-only network

    - by Derek Pressnall
    At my current job, we distribute a product based on a Linux server with multiple VMs defined (using KVM / libvirt). We are planning to expose limited ports to the customer's network, and use iptables to direct inbound traffic to the appropriate internal VM. My question: is there a class of private subnets that I can use for the internal host-only network that is least likely to conflict with a client IP subnet? Specifically, if I choose a /24 out of any of the RFC-1918 defined private subnets (such as 192.168.x.x), there is a chance of conflicting with a customer-used range. I noticed that several current VM implementations default to 192.168.122.x -- is this due to an RFC that I'm not familiar with, and therefore this is a safe range to use (that most network admins would avoid)? Or did the various VM vendors just pick that range randomly? I guess I'm looking for an IP range that is more private than the existing private (RFC1918) addresses. The only other thought I had was to use one of the "Test Net" IP ranges reserved for documentation purposes (RFC 5737). Note, that I'm not worried about a customer's network blocking these IPs, as this is only internal to our server (packets get NATted before leaving the box). However this does seem more unorthodox than just sticking with the default 192.168.122.x/24 subnet.

    Read the article

  • Loading data in constructors and not in constructors

    - by Richeve S. Bebedor
    I just want to know the difference between loading the data inside the constructor and loading the data outside the constructor but not inside any methods example: Loading inside constructor public class Model{ Object testobject; public Model(){ testobject=new Object(); } } VS example: Loading outside constructor public class Model{ Object testobject=new Object(); public Model(){ } }

    Read the article

  • In what circumstances are instance variables declared as '_var' in 'use fields' private?

    - by Pedro Silva
    I'm trying to understand the behavior of the fields pragma, which I find poorly documented, regarding fields prefixed with underscores. This is what the documentation has to say about it: Field names that start with an underscore character are made private to the class and are not visible to subclasses. Inherited fields can be overridden but will generate a warning if used together with the -w switch. This is not consistent with its actual behavior, according to my test, below. Not only are _-prefixed fields visible within a subclass, they are visible within foreign classes as well (unless I don't get what 'visible' means). Also, directly accessing the restricted hash works fine. Where can I find more about the behavior of the fields pragma, short of going at the source code? { package Foo; use strict; use warnings; use fields qw/a _b __c/; sub new { my ( $class ) = @_; my Foo $self = fields::new($class); $self->a = 1; $self->b = 2; $self->c = 3; return $self; } sub a : lvalue { shift->{a} } sub b : lvalue { shift->{_b} } sub c : lvalue { shift->{__c} } } { package Bar; use base 'Foo'; use strict; use warnings; use Data::Dumper; my $o = Bar->new; print Dumper $o; ##$VAR1 = bless({'_b' => 2, '__c' => 3, 'a' => 1}, 'Foo'); $o->a = 4; $o->b = 5; $o->c = 6; print Dumper $o; ##$VAR1 = bless({'_b' => 5, '__c' => 6, 'a' => 4}, 'Foo'); $o->{a} = 7; $o->{_b} = 8; $o->{__c} = 9; print Dumper $o; ##$VAR1 = bless({'_b' => 8, '__c' => 9, 'a' => 7}, 'Foo'); }

    Read the article

  • Binding MySQL to run from the public or private LAN IP address - which one is faster

    - by Lamin Barrow
    So we have 2 servers all running at the same web host. We have bind MySQL to listen on the public ip-address of the database server and the web server connects to it from the public ip. Both servers run on the same private network. Currently, the DB connect method from our php script takes about 3ms to connect to the MySQL database server host. My question is, would MySql data interaction from the web server be faster if we bind it to listen on the private lan address on the database server instead of the public IP? or is it the same regardless and it wont make a different. i have moved this question to server fault http://serverfault.com/questions/438156/binding-mysql-to-run-from-the-public-or-private-lan-ip-address-which-one-is-fa

    Read the article

  • CNet router - no field for private port

    - by Aadit M Shah
    I'm trying to configure port forwarding on my CNet router for a locally hosted HTTP server. The model number of my router is CQR-981 and the firmware version is 1.0.43. The problem is that there's no field to enter the private port of the HTTP server (the local port). According to the manual there should be one. Here's a picture of the manual: Here's a screenshot of my router page for port forwarding (with no field for private port): Is there some way I can circumvent this problem. Perhaps manually make an HTTP request to the HTTP server on the router to update the table with the private port number, or perhaps update my firmware to solve this problem.

    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 | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >