Search Results

Search found 5048 results on 202 pages for 'safe browsing'.

Page 17/202 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

• Thread safe lockfree mutual ByteArray queue

  - by user313421

  A byte stream should be transferred and there is one producer thread and a consumer one. Speed of producer is higher than consumer most of the time, and I need enough buffered data for QoS of my application. I read about my problem and there are solutions like shared buffer, PipeStream .NET class ... This class is going to be instantiated many times on server so I need and optimized solution. Is it good idea to use a Queue of ByteArray ? If yes, I'll use an optimization algorithm to guess the Queue size and each ByteArray capacity and theoretically it fits my case. If no, I what's the best approach ? Please let me know if there's a good lock free thread safe implementation of ByteArray Queue in C# or VB. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Type-safe, generic, empty Collections with static generics

  - by Droo

  I return empty collections vs. null whenever possible. I switch between two methods for doing so using java.util.Collections: return Collections.EMPTY_LIST; return Collections.emptyList(); where emptyList() is supposed to be type-safe. But I recently discovered: return Collections.<ComplexObject> emptyList(); return Collections.<ComplexObject> singletonList(new ComplexObject()); etc. I see this method in Eclipse Package Explorer: <clinit> () : void but I don't see how this is done in the source code (1.5). How is this magic tomfoolerie happening!!

  Read the article

• Is this code thread-safe?

  - by mafutrct

  I've got a class with several properties. On every value update, a Store method is called with stores all fields (in a file). private int _Prop1; public int Prop1 { get { return _Prop1; } set { _Prop1 = value; Store(); } } // more similar properties here... private XmlSerializer _Ser = new ...; private void Store() { lock (_Ser) { using (FileStream fs = new ...) { _Ser.Serialize (fs, this); } } } Is this design thread-safe? (Btw, if you can think of a more appropriate caption, feel free to edit.)

  Read the article

• Safe HttpContext.Current.Cache Usage

  - by Burak SARICA

  Hello there, I use Cache in a web service method like this : var pblDataList = (List<blabla>)HttpContext.Current.Cache.Get("pblDataList"); if (pblDataList == null) { var PBLData = dc.ExecuteQuery<blabla>( @"SELECT blabla"); pblDataList = PBLData.ToList(); HttpContext.Current.Cache.Add("pblDataList", pblDataList, null, DateTime.Now.Add(new TimeSpan(0, 0, 15)), Cache.NoSlidingExpiration, CacheItemPriority.Normal, null); } I wonder is it thread safe? I mean the method is called by multiple requesters And more then one requester may hit the second line at the same time while the cache is empty. So all of these requesters will retrieve the data and add to cache. The query takes 5-8 seconds. May a surrounding lock statement around this code prevent that action? (I know multiple queries will not cause error but i want to be sure running just one query.)

  Read the article

• Missing safe control entry

  - by Stefan Hennicken

  I've got a working hello-world like webpart for my SPS3.0 I can compile, pack and deploy it using VS2008, makecab.exe and stsadm. So I know the theory of deploying sharepoint webparts. My problem: After I inserted an additional .webpart file, an elements.xml and a feature.xml to deploy the .webpart file and get knowledge about adding features to my webpart, the deployed webpart is missing its safe control entry in the web.config. But the dll can be found in the gac and my features are also deployed to the right folders. I didn't change anything in my manifest.xml especially not in it's -tag, because it definitely worked before i added my additional feature files. Can anybody help me? Should i provide you some code snippets? Thanks Stefan

  Read the article

• How safe is JSONP implementation for login functionality

  - by MKS

  Hi Guys, I am using JSONP for login authentication, below is sample JQuery Code: $.ajax({ type:"GET", url: "https://staging/login/Login.aspx", // Send the login info to this page data: str, dataType: "jsonp", timeout: 200000, jsonp:"skywardDetails", success: function(result) { //Do something after the success } }); In above code, I am having HTTPS page for authentication, from my login dailog box, I am sending username and password to my login.aspx page, which calls "WEB SERVICE" taking input send by the login dialog page and return the users details as JSONP object. My question is that, how safe is above implementation and do also suggest how can I improve my security implementation. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Is this casting safe?

  - by Itsik

  I need to write a Util function (in my c++cli app) that converts a String to a Double or Float or Int. template<typename T> static T MyConvert(String^ str) { return static_cast<T>(System::Convert::ToDouble(str)); } Is this safe? Can it somehow convert 2 to 1.999 and then to 1 if I call MyConvert<int>("2") ? I was wondering why the Convert class isn't templated in the first place? (That would let me call Convert<T> instead of Convert.ToDouble() for all types) This is C++/Cli so I can use any convert methods in c++ or .net, but I only know Convert.ToDouble()|ToString()|ToInt32()) Thanks

  Read the article

• how can i use switch statement on type-safe enum pattern

  - by Fer

  I found a goodlooking example about implementation enums in a different way. That is called type-safe enum pattern i think. I started using it but i realized that i can not use it in a switch statement. My implementation looks like the following: public sealed class MyState { private readonly string m_Name; private readonly int m_Value; public static readonly MyState PASSED= new MyState(1, "OK"); public static readonly MyState FAILED= new MyState(2, "ERROR"); private MyState(int value, string name) { m_Name = name; m_Value = value; } public override string ToString() { return m_Name; } public int GetIntValue() { return m_Value; } } What can i add to my class in order to be able to use this pattern in switch statements in C#? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Is it safe to catch EXCEPTION_GUARD_PAGE

  - by Michael J

  Environment is VC++ 9 on various Win platforms (XP and later) I'm writing an unhandled exception handler. I have a vague recollection from my kernel days that it was bad to catch an EXCEPTION_GUARD_PAGE, as this was generated to tell the OS to enlarge the stack. My question is twofold: Can such an exception occur in user space? If so, is it safe to catch it? I'm not especially interested in doing anything with it. I just want to know if I need to put special code in to not catch it (as I'm catching everything at the moment).

  Read the article

• Vb6 project files and source safe

  - by Andrew

  A part of the application that I am working on is a legacy Vb6 Windows forms application. All the files in the project are under source control (VSS) except the Vb6 project file. From what I can establish from the other developers working on the project the reason for this is that the com components used in the projects have different references on each developers machine. I want to move the project files into VSS so that when files are added to the project these can be updated in the project files and other developers (and more importantly an automated build script) can get the latest project files from source safe. Does anyone know if/how I can achieve this in such a way as to not corrupt the references to other com components on different development machines?

  Read the article

• Subversion (SVN) equivalant to Visual Source Safe (VSS) "Share"

  - by CraftyFella

  Hi, I have a scenario in my project where I need to share a single file between multiple projects in the same solution. Back in my Visual Source Safe days (Shudder), I'd use the "Share" option to allow me to make changes to this file in any of the locations. Then once it was checked in I could guarantee that the other locations will get the update. I'm trying to do this in Subversion but I can't seem to find the option anywhere. I do know about svn:externals however I'm only interested in sharing a single file between multiple locations. Does anyone know how to do this in Subversion? Thanks

  Read the article

• PHP: Safe way to store decryptable passwords

  - by Jammer

  I'm making an application in PHP and there is a requirement that it must be possible to decrypt the passwords in order to avoid problems in the future with switching user database to different system. What encryption/decryption algorithm would you suggest? Is it good idea to just store the encrypted value and then compare the future authentication attempts to that value? Are the passwords still as safe as MD5/SHA1 when the private key is not available to the attacker (Hidden in USB drive for example)? I should still use salting, right? What encryption libraries should I use for PHP?

  Read the article

• Are static delegates thread-safe?

  - by leypascua

  Consider this code snippet: public static class ApplicationContext { private static Func<TService> Uninitialized<TService>() { throw new InvalidOperationException(); } public static Func<IAuthenticationProvider> AuthenticationProvider = Uninitialized<IAuthenticationProvider>(); public static Func<IUnitOfWorkFactory> UnitOfWorkFactory = Uninitialized<IUnitOfWorkFactory>(); } //can also be in global.asax if used in a web app. public static void Main(string[] args) { ApplicationContext.AuthenticationProvider = () => new LdapAuthenticationProvider(); ApplicationContext.UnitOfWorkFactory = () => new EFUnitOfWorkFactory(); } //somewhere in the code.. say an ASP.NET MVC controller ApplicationContext.AuthenticationProvider().SignIn(username, true); Are delegates in the static class ApplicationContext thread-safe in the sense that multiple-threads can invoke them? What potential problems will I face if I pursue this approach?

  Read the article

• C++ Static Initializer - Is it thread safe

  - by Yan Cheng CHEOK

  Usually, when I try to initialize a static variable class Test2 { public: static vector<string> stringList; private: static bool __init; static bool init() { stringList.push_back("string1"); stringList.push_back("string2"); stringList.push_back("string3"); return true; } }; // Implement vector<string> Test2::stringList; bool Test2::__init = Test2::init(); Is the following code thread safe, during static variable initialization? Is there any better way to static initialize stringlist, instead of using a seperate static function (init)?

  Read the article

• Is this safe on a production server?

  - by Camran

  I have a database application (or search engine) which is called Solr. I connect to it via port 8983. I do this from php code, so I add and remove records from it via php. On my server I have a firewall. I have set this firewall to only allow connections to and from this port (8983) from the ip adress of my own server. In other words, only allow servers IP to access this port. Is that safe? Or am I thinking all wrong here? Will others be able to "simulate" my ip adress and act as the server? This is because otherwise others may add/remove records as they want from their own ip adresses... Thanks

  Read the article

• Is It Safe to Cast Away volatile?

  - by Yan Cheng CHEOK

  Most of the time, I am doing this way. class a { public: ~ a() { i = 100; // OK delete (int *)j; // Compiler happy. But, is it safe? // Error : delete j; } private: volatile int i; volatile int *j; }; int main() { a aa; } However, I saw an article here: https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/seccode/EXP32-C.+Do+not+access+a+volatile+object+through+a+non-volatile+reference Casting away volatile allows access to an object through a non-volatile reference. This can result in undefined and perhaps unintended program behavior. So, what will be the workaround for my above code example?

  Read the article

• How can CopyOnWriteArrayList be thread-safe?

  - by Shooshpanchick

  I've taken a look into OpenJDK's sources of CopyOnWriteArrayList and it seems that all write operations are protected by the same lock and read operations are not protected at all. As I understand, under JMM all accesses to a variable (both read and write) should be protected by lock or reordering effects may occur. For example, set(int, E) method contains these lines (under lock): /* 1 */ int len = elements.length; /* 2 */ Object[] newElements = Arrays.copyOf(elements, len); /* 3 */ newElements[index] = element; /* 4 */ setArray(newElements); The get(int) method, on the other hand, only does return get(getArray(), index);. In my understanding of JMM, this means that get may observe the array in an inconsistent state if statements 1-4 are reordered like 1-2(new)-4-2(copyOf)-3. Do I understand JMM incorrectly or is there any other explanations on why CopyOnWriteArrayList is thread-safe?

  Read the article

• Will this make the object thread-safe?

  - by sharptooth

  I have a native Visual C++ COM object and I need to make it completely thread-safe to be able to legally mark it as "free-threaded" in th system registry. Specifically I need to make sure that no more than one thread ever accesses any member variable of the object simultaneously. The catch is I'm almost sure that no sane consumer of my COM object will ever try to simultaneously use the object from more than one thread. So I want the solution as simple as possible as long as it meets the requirement above. Here's what I came up with. I add a mutex or critical section as a member variable of the object. Every COM-exposed method will acquire the mutex/section at the beginning and release before returning control. I understand that this solution doesn't provide fine-grained access and this might slow execution down, but since I suppose simultaneous access will not really occur I don't care of this. Will this solution suffice? Is there a simpler solution?

  Read the article

• Thread-safe use of a singleton's members

  - by Anthony Mastrean

  I have a C# singleton class that multiple classes use. Is access through Instance to the Toggle() method thread-safe? If yes, by what assumptions, rules, etc. If no, why and how can I fix it? public class MyClass { private static readonly MyClass instance = new MyClass(); public static MyClass Instance { get { return instance; } } private int value = 0; public int Toggle() { if(value == 0) { value = 1; } else if(value == 1) { value = 0; } return value; } }

  Read the article

• Simple C++ container class that is thread-safe for writing

  - by conradlee

  I am writing a multi-threaded program using OpenMP in C++. At one point my program forks into many threads, each of which need to add "jobs" to some container that keeps track of all added jobs. Each job can just be a pointer to some object. Basically, I just need the add pointers to some container from several threads at the same time. Is there a simple solution that performs well? After some googling, I found that STL containers are not thread-safe. Some stackoverflow threads address this question, but none that forms a consensus on a simple solution.

  Read the article

• [C++] Needed: A simple C++ container (stack, linked list) that is thread-safe for writing

  - by conradlee

  I am writing a multi-threaded program using OpenMP in C++. At one point my program forks into many threads, each of which need to add "jobs" to some container that keeps track of all added jobs. Each job can just be a pointer to some object. Basically, I just need the add pointers to some container from several threads at the same time. Is there a simple solution that performs well? After some googling, I found that STL containers are not thread-safe. Some stackoverflow threads address this question, but none form a consensus on a simple solution.

  Read the article

• Another thread safe queue implementation

  - by jensph

  I have a class, Queue, that I tried to make thread safe. It has these three member variables: std::queue<T> m_queue; pthread_mutex_t m_mutex; pthread_cond_t m_condition; and a push and pop implemented as: template<class T> void Queue<T>::push(T value) { pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); m_queue.push(value); if( !m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_signal( &m_condition ); } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); } template<class T> bool Queue<T>::pop(T& value, bool block) { bool rtn = false; pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); if( block ) { while( m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_wait( &m_condition, &m_mutex ); } } if( !m_queue.empty() ) { value = m_queue.front(); m_queue.pop(); rtn = true; } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); return rtn; } Unfortunately there are occasional issues that may be the fault of this code. That is, there are two threads and sometimes thread 1 never comes out of push() and at other times thread 2 never comes out of pop() (the block parameter is true) though the queue isn't empty. I understand there are other implementations available, but I'd like to try to fix this code, if needed. Anyone see any issues? The constructor has the appropriate initializations: Queue() { pthread_mutex_init( &mMutex, NULL ); pthread_cond_init( &mCondition, NULL ); } and the destructor, the corresponding 'destroy' calls.

  Read the article

• Is putting $_GET in headers safe? (PHP)

  - by ggfan

  In my profile.php script, I have a flag function that allows users to flag that user. If they flag a user, it sends data (user_id, reason, etc) to a file called flag.php which does all the banning and stuff. The data is sent to flag.php through header("Location: flag.php?user_id=___&reason=___") Then in flag.php, after it does all the banning, it redirects the user back to the profile through another header. The user never sees the flag.php. Is my flag.php safe? because they never see the script?

  Read the article

• javascript : make a new safe class constructor

  - by guilin ??

  sometimes we loss the new keyword when define new object, obj = new Clazz(); //correct obj = Clazz(); //wrong, but no syntax error, hard to debug. I want to write a function to help me create Class and make it new safe. var Class = function(constructor){ //when constructor // if not call by new return new constructor(); // else constructor(); } var MyClazz = Class(function(name){ this.name = name }, SuperClazz1, SuperClass2 ) MyClazz.extend({ show: function(){console.log(this.name)} }) obj1 = new MyClazz(); obj2 = MyClazz(); // obj1 should same as obj2 Is it possible, any exists module?

  Read the article

• Optimal strategy to make a C++ hash table, thread safe

  - by Ajeet

  (I am interested in design of implementation NOT a readymade construct that will do it all.) Suppose we have a class HashTable (not hash-map implemented as a tree but hash-table) and say there are eight threads. Suppose read to write ratio is about 100:1 or even better 1000:1. Case A) Only one thread is a writer and others including writer can read from HashTable(they may simply iterate over entire hash table) Case B) All threads are identical and all could read/write. Can someone suggest best strategy to make the class thread safe with following consideration 1. Top priority to least lock contention 2. Second priority to least number of locks My understanding so far is thus : One BIG reader-writer lock(semaphore). Specialize the semaphore so that there could be eight instances writer-resource for case B, where each each writer resource locks one row(or range for that matter). (so i guess 1+8 mutexes) Please let me know if I am thinking on the correct line, and how could we improve on this solution.

  Read the article

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