Search Results

Search found 646 results on 26 pages for 'codebase'.

Page 22/26 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • Node.js Lockstep Multiplayer Architecture

    - by Wakaka
    Background I'm using the lockstep model for a multiplayer Node.js/Socket.IO game in a client-server architecture. User input (mouse or keypress) is parsed into commands like 'attack' and 'move' on the client, which are sent to the server and scheduled to be executed on a certain tick. This is in contrast to sending state data to clients, which I don't wish to use due to bandwidth issues. Each tick, the server will send the list of commands on that tick (possibly empty) to each client. The server and all clients will then process the commands and simulate that tick in exactly the same way. With Node.js this is actually quite simple due to possibility of code sharing between server and client. I'll just put the deterministic simulator in the /shared folder which can be run by both server and client. The server simulation is required so that there is an authoritative version of the simulation which clients cannot alter. Problem Now, the game has many entity classes, like Unit, Item, Tree etc. Entities are created in the simulator. However, for each class, it has some methods that are shared and some that are client-specific. For instance, the Unit class has addHp method which is shared. It also has methods like getSprite (gets the image of the entity), isVisible (checks if unit can be seen by the client), onDeathInClient (does a bunch of stuff when it dies only on the client like adding announcements) and isMyUnit (quick function to check if the client owns the unit). Up till now, I have been piling all the client functions into the shared Unit class, and adding a this.game.isServer() check when necessary. For instance, when the unit dies, it will call if (!this.game.isServer()) { this.onDeathInClient(); }. This approach has worked pretty fine so far, in terms of functionality. But as the codebase grew bigger, this style of coding seems a little strange. Firstly, the client code is clearly not shared, and yet is placed under the /shared folder. Secondly, client-specific variables for each entity are also instantiated on the server entity (like unit.sprite) and can run into problems when the server cannot instantiate the variable (it doesn't have Image class like on browsers). So my question is, is there a better way to organize the client code, or is this a common way of doing things for lockstep multiplayer games? I can think of a possible workaround, but it does have its own problems. Possible workaround (with problems) I could use Javascript mixins that are only added when in a browser. Thus, in the /shared/unit.js file in the /shared folder, I would have this code at the end: if (typeof exports !== 'undefined') module.exports = Unit; else mixin(Unit, LocalUnit); Then I would have /client/localunit.js store an object LocalUnit of client-side methods for Unit. Now, I already have a publish-subscribe system in place for events in the simulator. To remove the this.game.isServer() checks, I could publish entity-specific events whenever I want the client to do something. For instance, I would do this.publish('Death') in /shared/unit.js and do this.subscribe('Death', this.onDeathInClient) in /client/localunit.js. But this would make the simulator's event listeners list on the server and the client different. Now if I want to clear all subscribed events only from the shared simulator, I can't. Of course, it is possible to create two event subscription systems - one client-specific and one shared - but now the publish() method would have to do if (!this.game.isServer()) { this.publishOnClient(event); }. All in all, the workaround off the top of my head seems pretty complicated for something as simple as separating the client and shared code. Thus, I wonder if there is an established and simpler method for better code organization, hopefully specific to Node.js games.

    Read the article

  • The battle between Java vs. C#

    The battle between Java vs. C# has been a big debate amongst the development community over the last few years. Both languages have specific pros and cons based on the needs of a particular project. In general both languages utilize a similar coding syntax that is based on C++, and offer developers similar functionality. This being said, the communities supporting each of these languages are very different. The divide amongst the communities is much like the political divide in America, where the Java community would represent the Democrats and the .Net community would represent the Republicans. The Democratic Party is a proponent of the working class and the general population. Currently, Java is deeply entrenched in the open source community that is distributed freely to anyone who has an interest in using it. Open source communities rely on developers to keep it alive by constantly contributing code to make applications better; essentially they develop code by the community. This is in stark contrast to the C# community that is typically a pay to play community meaning that you must pay for code that you want to use because it is developed as products to be marketed and sold for a profit. This ties back into my reference to the Republicans because they typically represent the needs of business and personal responsibility. This is emphasized by the belief that code is a commodity and that it can be sold for a profit which is in direct conflict to the laissez-faire beliefs of the open source community. Beyond the general differences between Java and C#, they also target two different environments. Java is developed to be environment independent and only requires that users have a Java virtual machine running in order for the java code to execute. C# on the other hand typically targets any system running a windows operating system and has the appropriate version of the .Net Framework installed. However, recently there has been push by a segment of the Open source community based around the Mono project that lets C# code run on other non-windows operating systems. In addition, another feature of C# is that it compiles into an intermediate language, and this is what is executed when the program runs. Because C# is reduced down to an intermediate language called Common Language Runtime (CLR) it can be combined with other languages that are also compiled in to the CLR like Visual Basic (VB) .Net, and F#. The allowance and interaction between multiple languages in the .Net Framework enables projects to utilize existing code bases regardless of the actual syntax because they can be compiled in to CLR and executed as one codebase. As a software engineer I personally feel that it is really important to learn as many languages as you can or at least be open to learn as many languages as you can because no one language will work in every situation.  In some cases Java may be a better choice for a project and others may be C#. It really depends on the requirements of a project and the time constraints. In addition, I feel that is really important to concentrate on understanding the logic of programming and be able to translate business requirements into technical requirements. If you can understand both programming logic and business requirements then deciding which language to use is just basically choosing what syntax to write for a given business problem or need. In regards to code refactoring and dynamic languages it really does not matter. Eventually all projects will be refactored or decommissioned to allow for progress. This is the way of life in the software development industry. The language of a project should not be chosen based on the fact that a project will eventually be refactored because they all will get refactored.

    Read the article

  • Looking for a real-world example illustrating that composition can be superior to inheritance

    - by Job
    I watched a bunch of lectures on Clojure and functional programming by Rich Hickey as well as some of the SICP lectures, and I am sold on many concepts of functional programming. I incorporated some of them into my C# code at a previous job, and luckily it was easy to write C# code in a more functional style. At my new job we use Python and multiple inheritance is all the rage. My co-workers are very smart but they have to produce code fast given the nature of the company. I am learning both the tools and the codebase, but the architecture itself slows me down as well. I have not written the existing class hierarchy (neither would I be able to remember everything about it), and so, when I started adding a fairly small feature, I realized that I had to read a lot of code in the process. At the surface the code is neatly organized and split into small functions/methods and not copy-paste-repetitive, but the flip side of being not repetitive is that there is some magic functionality hidden somewhere in the hierarchy chain that magically glues things together and does work on my behalf, but it is very hard to find and follow. I had to fire up a profiler and run it through several examples and plot the execution graph as well as step through a debugger a few times, search the code for some substring and just read pages at the time. I am pretty sure that once I am done, my resulting code will be short and neatly organized, and yet not very readable. What I write feels declarative, as if I was writing an XML file that drives some other magic engine, except that there is no clear documentation on what the XML should look like and what the engine does except for the existing examples that I can read as well as the source code for the 'engine'. There has got to be a better way. IMO using composition over inheritance can help quite a bit. That way the computation will be linear rather than jumping all over the hierarchy tree. Whenever the functionality does not quite fit into an inheritance model, it will need to be mangled to fit in, or the entire inheritance hierarchy will need to be refactored/rebalanced, sort of like an unbalanced binary tree needs reshuffling from time to time in order to improve the average seek time. As I mentioned before, my co-workers are very smart; they just have been doing things a certain way and probably have an ability to hold a lot of unrelated crap in their head at once. I want to convince them to give composition and functional as opposed to OOP approach a try. To do that, I need to find some very good material. I do not think that a SCIP lecture or one by Rich Hickey will do - I am afraid it will be flagged down as too academic. Then, simple examples of Dog and Frog and AddressBook classes do not really connivence one way or the other - they show how inheritance can be converted to composition but not why it is truly and objectively better. What I am looking for is some real-world example of code that has been written with a lot of inheritance, then hit a wall and re-written in a different style that uses composition. Perhaps there is a blog or a chapter. I am looking for something that can summarize and illustrate the sort of pain that I am going through. I already have been throwing the phrase "composition over inheritance" around, but it was not received as enthusiastically as I had hoped. I do not want to be perceived as a new guy who likes to complain and bash existing code while looking for a perfect approach while not contributing fast enough. At the same time, my gut is convinced that inheritance is often the instrument of evil and I want to show a better way in a near future. Have you stumbled upon any great resources that can help me?

    Read the article

  • CI tests to enforce specific development rules - good practice?

    - by KeithS
    The following is all purely hypothetical and any particular portion of it may or may not accurately describe real persons or situations, whether living, dead or just pretending. Let's say I'm a senior dev or architect in charge of a dev team working on a project. This project includes a security library for user authentication/authorization of the application under development. The library must be available for developers to edit; however, I wish to "trust but verify" that coders are not doing things that could compromise the security of the finished system, and because this isn't my only responsibility I want it to be done in an automated way. As one example, let's say I have an interface that represents a user which has been authenticated by the system's security library. The interface exposes basic user info and a list of things the user is authorized to do (so that the client app doesn't have to keep asking the server "can I do this?"), all in an immutable fashion of course. There is only one implementation of this interface in production code, and for the purposes of this post we can say that all appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that this implementation can only be used by the one part of our code that needs to be able to create concretions of the interface. The coders have been instructed that this interface and its implementation are sacrosanct and any changes must go through me. However, those are just words; the security library's source is open for editing by necessity. Any of my devs could decide that this secured, private, hash-checked implementation needs to be public so that they could do X, or alternately they could create their own implementation of this public interface in a different library, exposing the hashing algorithm that provides the secure checksum, in order to do Y. I may not be made aware of these changes so that I can beat the developer over the head for it. An attacker could then find these little nuggets in an unobfuscated library of the compiled product, and exploit it to provide fake users and/or falsely-elevated administrative permissions, bypassing the entire security system. This possibility keeps me awake for a couple of nights, and then I create an automated test that reflectively checks the codebase for types deriving from the interface, and fails if it finds any that are not exactly what and where I expect them to be. I compile this test into a project under a separate folder of the VCS that only I have rights to commit to, have CI compile it as an external library of the main project, and set it up to run as part of the CI test suite for user commits. Now, I have an automated test under my complete control that will tell me (and everyone else) if the number of implementations increases without my involvement, or an implementation that I did know about has anything new added or has its modifiers or those of its members changed. I can then investigate further, and regain the opportunity to beat developers over the head as necessary. Is this considered "reasonable" to want to do in situations like this? Am I going to be seen in a negative light for going behind my devs' backs to ensure they aren't doing something they shouldn't?

    Read the article

  • Inside Red Gate - Exercising Externally

    - by simonc
    Over the next few weeks, we'll be performing experiments on SmartAssembly to confirm or refute various hypotheses we have about how people use the product, what is stopping them from using it to its full extent, and what we can change to make it more useful and easier to use. Some of these experiments can be done within the team, some within Red Gate, and some need to be done on external users. External testing Some external testing can be done by standard usability tests and surveys, however, there are some hypotheses that can only be tested by building a version of SmartAssembly with some things in the UI or implementation changed. We'll then be able to look at how the experimental build is used compared to the 'mainline' build, which forms our baseline or control group, and use this data to confirm or refute the relevant hypotheses. However, there are several issues we need to consider before running experiments using separate builds: Ideally, the user wouldn't know they're running an experimental SmartAssembly. We don't want users to use the experimental build like it's an experimental build, we want them to use it like it's the real mainline build. Only then will we get valid, useful, and informative data concerning our hypotheses. There's no point running the experiments if we can't find out what happens after the download. To confirm or refute some of our hypotheses, we need to find out how the tool is used once it is installed. Fortunately, we've applied feature usage reporting to the SmartAssembly codebase itself to provide us with that information. Of course, this then makes the experimental data conditional on the user agreeing to send that data back to us in the first place. Unfortunately, even though this does limit the amount of useful data we'll be getting back, and possibly skew the data, there's not much we can do about this; we don't collect feature usage data without the user's consent. Looks like we'll simply have to live with this. What if the user tries to buy the experiment? This is something that isn't really covered by the Lean Startup book; how do you support users who give you money for an experiment? If the experiment is a new feature, and the user buys a license for SmartAssembly based on that feature, then what do we do if we later decide to pivot & scrap that feature? We've either got to spend time and money bringing that feature up to production quality and into the mainline anyway, or we've got disgruntled customers. Either way is bad. Again, there's not really any good solution to this. Similarly, what if we've removed some features for an experiment and a potential new user downloads the experimental build? (As I said above, there's no indication the build is an experimental build, as we want to see what users really do with it). The crucial feature they need is missing, causing a bad trial experience, a lost potential customer, and a lost chance to help the customer with their problem. Again, this is something not really covered by the Lean Startup book, and something that doesn't have a good solution. So, some tricky issues there, not all of them with nice easy answers. Turns out the practicalities of running Lean Startup experiments are more complicated than they first seem! Cross posted from Simple Talk.

    Read the article

  • Server.CreateObject Fails when calling .Net object from ASP on 64-bit windows in IIS 32-bit mode

    - by DrFredEdison
    I have a server running Windows 2003 64-bit, that runs IIS in 32-bit mode. I have a COM object that was registered using the following command: C:\WINDOWS\microsoft.net\Framework\v2.0.50727>regasm D:\Path\To\MyDll.dll /tlb:MyTLB.tlb /codebase When I create the object via ASP I get: Server object error 'ASP 0177 : 8000ffff' Server.CreateObject Failed /includes/a_URLFilter.asp, line 19 8000ffff When I create the object in a vbs script and use the 32-bit version of cscript (in \Windows\syswow64) it works fine. I've checked permissions on the DLL, and the IUSR has Read/Execute. Even if I add the IUSR to the Administrators group, I get the same error. This is the log from ProcessMonitor filtering for the path of my dll (annotated with my actions): [Stop IIS] 1:56:30.0891918 PM w3wp.exe 4088 CloseFile D:\Path\To\MyDll.dll SUCCESS [Start IIS] [Refresh ASP page that uses DLL] 1:56:42.7825154 PM w3wp.exe 2196 QueryOpen D:\Path\To\MyDll.dll SUCCESS CreationTime: 8/19/2009 1:11:17 PM, LastAccessTime: 8/19/2009 1:30:26 PM, LastWriteTime: 8/18/2009 12:09:33 PM, ChangeTime: 8/19/2009 1:22:02 PM, AllocationSize: 20,480, EndOfFile: 20,480, FileAttributes: A 1:56:42.7825972 PM w3wp.exe 2196 QueryOpen D:\Path\To\MyDll.dll SUCCESS CreationTime: 8/19/2009 1:11:17 PM, LastAccessTime: 8/19/2009 1:30:26 PM, LastWriteTime: 8/18/2009 12:09:33 PM, ChangeTime: 8/19/2009 1:22:02 PM, AllocationSize: 20,480, EndOfFile: 20,480, FileAttributes: A 1:56:42.7826961 PM w3wp.exe 2196 CreateFile D:\Path\To\MyDll.dll SUCCESS Desired Access: Generic Read, Disposition: Open, Options: Synchronous IO Non-Alert, Non-Directory File, Attributes: N, ShareMode: Read, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, Impersonating: SERVER2\IUSR_SERVER2, OpenResult: Opened 1:56:42.7827194 PM w3wp.exe 2196 CreateFileMapping D:\Path\To\MyDll.dll SUCCESS SyncType: SyncTypeCreateSection, PageProtection: 1:56:42.7827546 PM w3wp.exe 2196 CreateFileMapping D:\Path\To\MyDll.dll SUCCESS SyncType: SyncTypeOther 1:56:42.7829130 PM w3wp.exe 2196 Load Image D:\Path\To\MyDll.dll SUCCESS Image Base: 0x6350000, Image Size: 0x8000 1:56:42.7830590 PM w3wp.exe 2196 Load Image D:\Path\To\MyDll.dll SUCCESS Image Base: 0x6360000, Image Size: 0x8000 1:56:42.7838855 PM w3wp.exe 2196 CreateFile D:\Webspace\SecurityDll\bin SUCCESS Desired Access: Read Data/List Directory, Synchronize, Disposition: Open, Options: Directory, Synchronous IO Non-Alert, Attributes: n/a, ShareMode: Read, Write, Delete, AllocationSize: n/a, Impersonating: SERVER2\IUSR_SERVER2, OpenResult: Opened 1:56:42.7839081 PM w3wp.exe 2196 QueryDirectory D:\Path\To\MyDll.INI NO SUCH FILE Filter: SecurityDll.INI 1:56:42.7839281 PM w3wp.exe 2196 CloseFile D:\Webspace\SecurityDll\bin SUCCESS [Refresh ASP page that uses DLL] [Refresh ASP page that uses DLL] [Refresh ASP page that uses DLL] This dll works fine on other servers, running 32-bit windows. I can't think of anything else that would make this work. Any suggestions? UPDATE The .dll is not in the GAC, it is compiled as 32-bit, and is Strongly signed.

    Read the article

  • Autoloading Development or Production configs (best practices)

    - by Xeoncross
    When programming sites you usually have one set of config files for the development environment and another set for the production server (or one file with both settings). I am assuming all projects should be handled by version control like git or svn. Manual file transfers (like FTP) is wrong on so many levels. How you enable/disable the correct settings (so that your system knows which ones to use) is a problem for me. Each system I work on just kind of jimmy-rigs a solution. Below are the 3 methods I know of and I am hoping that someone can submit a more elegant solutions. 1) File Based The system loads a folder structure based on the URL requested. /site.com /site.fakeTLD /lib index.php For example, if the url is http://site.com then the system loads the production config files located in the site.com folder. However, if I'm working on the site locally I visit http://site.fakeTLD to work on the local copy of the site. To setup this I edit my hosts file and add site.fakeTLD to point to my own computer (127.0.0.1/localhost) and then create a vhost in apache. So now I can work on the codebase locally and then push to the server without any trouble. The problem is that this is susceptible to a "host" injection attack. So someone loading site.com could set the host to site.fakeTLD and then the system would load my development config files instead of production. 2) Config Based The config files contain on section for development - and one for production. The problem is that each time you go to push your changes to the repo you have to edit the file to specify which set of config options should be used. $use = 'production'; //'development'; This leaves the repo open to human error should one of the developers forget to enable the right setting. 3) File System Check Based All the development machines have an extra empty file called "development.txt" or something. Each time the system loads it checks for this file - if found then it knows it is in development mode - if missing then it knows it is in production mode. Since the file is NEVER ADDED to the repo then it will never be pushed (and checked out) on the production machine. However, this just doesn't feel right and causes a slight slow down since all filesystem checks are slow.

    Read the article

  • Running an rsync sweep before initializing lsyncd for synchronizing instances on EC2

    - by chrisallenlane
    My company uses several EC2 servers that will scale up and down according to the load we're receiving on our sites at any given moment. For the sake of our discussion here, we're running four instances: master.ourdomain.com - the file syncing "hub" of the webservers www1/www2/www3.ourdomain.com - three webservers which turn on or off as dictated by load I'm using lsyncd to keep all of the webservers in sync, and for the most part, it's working quite well. We're using a two-way syncing scheme, such that each webserver syncs against master, and master syncs against each webserver. Thus, the webservers are kept in sync, even though they aren't syncing against each other directly. I'm having one problem that I'm having a hard time solving,though. It occurs under these circumstances: When changes are made on master (perhaps after we've pushed new code), while some of the redundant webservers are sleeping And then a sleeping webserver wakes-up to absorb load Under that circumstance, I would like the following to happen: First, the newly-awoken webserver should sync its file structure - one way - against master, to bring its web application code up-to-date. Then, and only then, should it begin pushing changes in its file structure back to master. Unfortunately, currently, when a sleeping server is started, when lsyncd starts up, it pushes changes back to master before updating its own codebase, thus overwriting new code with old. Thus, before lsyncd starts, I'd like to be able to synchronize the webservers code against master's, perhaps by running a simple one-way rsync against the two machines. We're running lsyncd v.2, and I've tried to make this happen by using the "bash" configuration options documented in the lsyncd manual. My configuration file looks like this: settings = { logfile = "/home/user/log/lsyncd/log.txt", statusFile = "/home/user/log/lsyncd/status.txt", maxProcesses = 2, nodaemon = false, } bash = { onStartup = "rsync [email protected]:/home/user/www /home/user/www" } sync{ default.rsyncssh, source="/home/user/www/", host="[email protected]", targetdir="/home/user/www/", rsyncOpts="-ltus", excludeFrom="/home/user/conf/lsyncd/exclude" } (I've obviously redacted that file somewhat to protect the identities of the guilty.) Simply put, though, this just isn't working. How else might I approach this problem? I was looking at the --delete-after option in man rsync, but I don't think that does what I'm looking for. Are there any suggestions about how I should approach this problem? Thanks for lending your time and expertise. Chris

    Read the article

  • Updating the managed debugging API for .NET v4

    - by Brian Donahue
    In any successful investigation, the right tools play a big part in collecting evidence about the state of the "crime scene" as it was before the detectives arrived. Unfortunately for the Crash Scene Investigator, we don't have the budget to fly out to the customer's site, chalk the outline, and eat their doughnuts. We have to rely on the end-user to collect the evidence for us, which means giving them the fingerprint dust and the evidence baggies and leaving them to it. With that in mind, the Red Gate support team have been writing tools that can collect vital clues with a minimum of fuss. Years ago we would have asked for a memory dump, where we used to get the customer to run CDB.exe and produce dumps that we could analyze in-house, but those dumps were pretty unwieldy (500MB files) and the debugger often didn't dump exactly where we wanted, or made five or more dumps. What we wanted was just the minimum state information from the program at the time of failure, so we produced a managed debugger that captured every first and second-chance exception and logged the stack and a minimal amount of variables from the memory of the application, which could all be exported as XML. This caused less inconvenience to the end-user because it is much easier to send a 65KB XML file in an email than a 500MB file containing all of the application's memory. We don't need to have the entire victim shipped out to us when we just want to know what was under the fingernails. The thing that made creating a managed debugging tool possible was the MDbg Engine example written by Microsoft as part of the Debugging Tools for Windows distribution. Since the ICorDebug interface is a bit difficult to understand, they had kindly created some wrappers that provided an event-driven debugging model that was perfect for our needs, but .NET 4 applications under debugging started complaining that "The debugger's protocol is incompatible with the debuggee". The introduction of .NET Framework v4 had changed the managed debugging API significantly, however, without an update for the MDbg Engine code! After a few hours of research, I had finally worked out that most of the version 4 ICorDebug interface still works much the same way in "legacy" v2 mode and there was a relatively easy fix for the problem in that you can still get a reference to legacy ICorDebug by changing the way the interface is created. In .NET v2, the interface was acquired using the CreateDebuggingInterfaceFromVersion method in mscoree.dll. In v4, you must first create IClrMetaHost, enumerate the runtimes, get an ICLRRuntimeInfo interface to the .NET 4 runtime from that, and use the GetInterface method in mscoree.dll to return a "legacy" ICorDebug interface. The rest of the MDbg Engine will continue working the old way. Here is how I had changed the MDbg Engine code to support .NET v4: private void InitFromVersion(string debuggerVersion){if( debuggerVersion.StartsWith("v1") ){throw new ArgumentException( "Can't debug a version 1 CLR process (\"" + debuggerVersion + "\"). Run application in a version 2 CLR, or use a version 1 debugger instead." );} ICorDebug rawDebuggingAPI=null;if (debuggerVersion.StartsWith("v4")){Guid CLSID_MetaHost = new Guid("9280188D-0E8E-4867-B30C-7FA83884E8DE"); Guid IID_MetaHost = new Guid("D332DB9E-B9B3-4125-8207-A14884F53216"); ICLRMetaHost metahost = (ICLRMetaHost)NativeMethods.ClrCreateInterface(CLSID_MetaHost, IID_MetaHost); IEnumUnknown runtimes = metahost.EnumerateInstalledRuntimes(); ICLRRuntimeInfo runtime = GetRuntime(runtimes, debuggerVersion); //Defined in metahost.hGuid CLSID_CLRDebuggingLegacy = new Guid(0xDF8395B5, 0xA4BA, 0x450b, 0xA7, 0x7C, 0xA9, 0xA4, 0x77, 0x62, 0xC5, 0x20);Guid IID_ICorDebug = new Guid("3D6F5F61-7538-11D3-8D5B-00104B35E7EF"); Object res;runtime.GetInterface(ref CLSID_CLRDebuggingLegacy, ref IID_ICorDebug, out res); rawDebuggingAPI = (ICorDebug)res; }elserawDebuggingAPI = NativeMethods.CreateDebuggingInterfaceFromVersion((int)CorDebuggerVersion.Whidbey,debuggerVersion);if (rawDebuggingAPI != null)InitFromICorDebug(rawDebuggingAPI);elsethrow new ArgumentException("Support for debugging version " + debuggerVersion + " is not yet implemented");} The changes above will ensure that the debugger can support .NET Framework v2 and v4 applications with the same codebase, but we do compile two different applications: one targeting v2 and the other v4. As a footnote I need to add that some missing native methods and wrappers, along with the EnumerateRuntimes method code, came from the Mindbg project on Codeplex. Another change is that when using the MDbgEngine.CreateProcess to launch a process in the debugger, do not supply a null as the final argument. This does not work any more because GetCORVersion always returns "v2.0.50727" as the function has been deprecated in .NET v4. What's worse is that on a system with only .NET 4, the user will be prompted to download and install .NET v2! Not nice! This works much better: proc = m_Debugger.CreateProcess(ProcessName, ProcessArgs, DebugModeFlag.Default,String.Format("v{0}.{1}.{2}",System.Environment.Version.Major,System.Environment.Version.Minor,System.Environment.Version.Build)); Microsoft "unofficially" plan on updating the MDbg samples soon, but if you have an MDbg-based application, you can get it working right now by changing one method a bit and adding a few new interfaces (ICLRMetaHost, IEnumUnknown, and ICLRRuntimeInfo). The new, non-legacy implementation of MDbg Engine will add new, interesting features like dump-file support and by association I assume garbage-collection/managed object stats, so it will be well worth looking into if you want to extend the functionality of a managed debugger going forward.

    Read the article

  • On Contract Employment

    - by kerry
    I am going to post about something I don’t post about a lot, the business side of development.  Scott at the antipimp does a good job of explaining how contracts work from a business perspective.  I am going to give a view from the ground. First, a little background on myself.  I have recently taken a 6 month contract after about 8 years of fulltime employment.  I have 2 kids, and a stay at home wife.  I took this contract opportunity because I wanted to try it on for size.  I have always wondered whether I would like doing contracts over fulltime employment.  So, in keeping with the theme of this blog I will write this down now so that I may reference it later. ALL jobs are temporary! Right now you may not realize it, most people simply ignore it, but EVERY job is temporary.  Everyone should be planning for life after the money stops coming in.  Sadly, most people do not.  Contracting pushes this issue to the forefront, making you deal with it.  After a month on a contract, I am happy to say that I am saving more than I ever saved in a fulltime position.  Hopefully, I will be ready in case of an extended window of unemployment between contracts. Networking I find it extremely gratifying getting to know people.  It is especially beneficial when moving to a new city.  What better way to go out and meet people in your field than to work a few contracts?  6 months of working beside someone and you get to know them pretty well.  This is one of my favorite aspects. Technical Agility Moving between IS shops takes (or molds you into) a flexible person.  You have to be able to go in and hit the ground running.  This means you need to be able to sit down and start work on a large codebase working in a language that you may or may not have that much experience in.  It is also an excellent way to learn new languages and broaden your technical skill set.  I took my current position to learn Ruby.  A month ago, I had only used it in passing, but now I am using it every day.  It’s a tragedy in this field when people start coding for the joy and love of coding, then become deeply entrenched in their companies methods and technologies that it becomes a just a job. Less Stress I am not talking about the kind of stress you get from a jackass boss.  I am talking about the kind of stress I (or others) experience about planning and future proofing your code.  Not saying I stay up at night worrying whether we have done it right, if that code I wrote today is going to bite me later, but it still creeps around in the dark recesses of my mind.  Careful though, I am not suggesting you write sloppy code; just defer any large architectural or design decisions to the ‘code owners’. Flexible Scheduling It makes me very happy to be able to cut out a few hours early on a Friday (provided the work is done) and start the weekend off early by going to the pool, or taking the kids to the park.  Contracting provides you this opportunity (mileage may vary).  Most of your fulltime brethren will not care, they will be jealous that they’re corporate policy prevents them from doing the same.  However, you must be mindful of situations where this is not appropriate, and don’t over do it.  You are there to work after all. Affirmation of Need Have you ever been stuck in a job where you thought you were underpaid?  Have you ever been in a position where you felt like there was not enough workload for you?  This is not a problem for contractors.  When you start a contract it is understood that you are needed, and the employer knows that you are happy with the terms. Contracting may not be for everyone.  But, if you develop a relationship with a good consulting firm, keep their clients happy, then they will keep you happy.  They want you to work almost as much as you do.  Just be sure and plan financially for any windows of unemployment.

    Read the article

  • Simple-Talk development: a quick history lesson

    - by Michael Williamson
    Up until a few months ago, Simple-Talk ran on a pure .NET stack, with IIS as the web server and SQL Server as the database. Unfortunately, the platform for the site hadn’t quite gotten the love and attention it deserved. On the one hand, in the words of our esteemed editor Tony “I’d consider the current platform to be a “success”; it cost $10K, has lasted for 6 years, was finished, end to end in 6 months, and although we moan about it has got us quite a long way.” On the other hand, it was becoming increasingly clear that it needed some serious work. Among other issues, we had authors that wouldn’t blog because our current blogging platform, Community Server, was too painful for them to use. Forgetting about Simple-Talk for a moment, if you ask somebody what blogging platform they’d choose, the odds are they’d say WordPress. Regardless of its technical merits, it’s probably the most popular blogging platform, and it certainly seemed easier to use than Community Server. The issue was that WordPress is normally hosted on a Linux stack running PHP, Apache and MySQL — quite a difference from our Microsoft technology stack. We certainly didn’t want to rewrite the entire site — we just wanted a better blogging platform, with the rest of the existing, legacy site left as is. At a very high level, Simple-Talk’s technical design was originally very straightforward: when your browser sends an HTTP request to Simple-Talk, IIS (the web server) takes the request, does some work, and sends back a response. In order to keep the legacy site running, except with WordPress running the blogs, a different design is called for. We now use nginx as a reverse-proxy, which can then delegate requests to the appropriate application: So, when your browser sends a request to Simple-Talk, nginx takes that request and checks which part of the site you’re trying to access. Most of the time, it just passes the request along to IIS, which can then respond in much the same way it always has. However, if your request is for the blogs, then nginx delegates the request to WordPress. Unfortunately, as simple as that diagram looks, it hides an awful lot of complexity. In particular, the legacy site running on IIS was made up of four .NET applications. I’ve already mentioned one of these applications, Community Server, which handled the old blogs as well as managing membership and the forums. We have a couple of other applications to manage both our newsletters and our articles, and our own custom application to do some of the rendering on the site, such as the front page and the articles. When I say that it was made up of four .NET applications, this might conjure up an image in your mind of how they fit together: You might imagine four .NET applications, each with their own database, communicating over well-defined APIs. Sadly, reality was a little disappointing: We had four .NET applications that all ran on the same database. Worse still, there were many queries that happily joined across tables from multiple applications, meaning that each application was heavily dependent on the exact data schema that each other application used. Add to this that many of the queries were at least dozens of lines long, and practically identical to other queries except in a few key spots, and we can see that attempting to replace one component of the system would be more than a little tricky. However, the problems with the old system do give us a good place to start thinking about desirable qualities from any changes to the platform. Specifically: Maintainability — the tight coupling between each .NET application made it difficult to update any one application without also having to make changes elsewhere Replaceability — the tight coupling also meant that replacing one component wouldn’t be straightforward, especially if it wasn’t on a similar Microsoft stack. We’d like to be able to replace different parts without having to modify the existing codebase extensively Reusability — we’d like to be able to combine the different pieces of the system in different ways for different sites Repeatable deployments — rather than having to deploy the site manually with a long list of instructions, we should be able to deploy the entire site with a single command, allowing you to create a new instance of the site easily whether on production, staging servers, test servers or your own local machine Testability — if we can deploy the site with a single command, and each part of the site is no longer dependent on the specifics of how every other part of the site works, we can begin to run automated tests against the site, and against individual parts, both to prevent regressions and to do a little test-driven development In the next part, I’ll describe the high-level architecture we now have that hopefully brings us a little closer to these five traits.

    Read the article

  • Integration Patterns with Azure Service Bus Relay, Part 2: Anonymous full-trust .NET consumer

    - by Elton Stoneman
    This is the second in the IPASBR series, see also: Integration Patterns with Azure Service Bus Relay, Part 1: Exposing the on-premise service Part 2 is nice and easy. From Part 1 we exposed our service over the Azure Service Bus Relay using the netTcpRelayBinding and verified we could set up our network to listen for relayed messages. Assuming we want to consume that service in .NET from an environment which is fairly unrestricted for us, but quite restricted for attackers, we can use netTcpRelay and shared secret authentication. Pattern applicability This is a good fit for scenarios where: the consumer can run .NET in full trust the environment does not restrict use of external DLLs the runtime environment is secure enough to keep shared secrets the service does not need to know who is consuming it the service does not need to know who the end-user is So for example, the consumer is an ASP.NET website sitting in a cloud VM or Azure worker role, where we can keep the shared secret in web.config and we don't need to flow any identity through to the on-premise service. The service doesn't care who the consumer or end-user is - say it's a reference data service that provides a list of vehicle manufacturers. Provided you can authenticate with ACS and have access to Service Bus endpoint, you can use the service and it doesn't care who you are. In this post, we’ll consume the service from Part 1 in ASP.NET using netTcpRelay. The code for Part 2 (+ Part 1) is on GitHub here: IPASBR Part 2 Authenticating and authorizing with ACS In this scenario the consumer is a server in a controlled environment, so we can use a shared secret to authenticate with ACS, assuming that there is governance around the environment and the codebase which will prevent the identity being compromised. From the provider's side, we will create a dedicated service identity for this consumer, so we can lock down their permissions. The provider controls the identity, so the consumer's rights can be revoked. We'll add a new service identity for the namespace in ACS , just as we did for the serviceProvider identity in Part 1. I've named the identity fullTrustConsumer. We then need to add a rule to map the incoming identity claim to an outgoing authorization claim that allows the identity to send messages to Service Bus (see Part 1 for a walkthrough creating Service Idenitities): Issuer: Access Control Service Input claim type: http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims/nameidentifier Input claim value: fullTrustConsumer Output claim type: net.windows.servicebus.action Output claim value: Send This sets up a service identity which can send messages into Service Bus, but cannot register itself as a listener, or manage the namespace. Adding a Service Reference The Part 2 sample client code is ready to go, but if you want to replicate the steps, you’re going to add a WSDL reference, add a reference to Microsoft.ServiceBus and sort out the ServiceModel config. In Part 1 we exposed metadata for our service, so we can browse to the WSDL locally at: http://localhost/Sixeyed.Ipasbr.Services/FormatService.svc?wsdl If you add a Service Reference to that in a new project you'll get a confused config section with a customBinding, and a set of unrecognized policy assertions in the namespace http://schemas.microsoft.com/netservices/2009/05/servicebus/connect. If you NuGet the ASB package (“windowsazure.servicebus”) first and add the service reference - you'll get the same messy config. Either way, the WSDL should have downloaded and you should have the proxy code generated. You can delete the customBinding entries and copy your config from the service's web.config (this is already done in the sample project in Sixeyed.Ipasbr.NetTcpClient), specifying details for the client:     <client>       <endpoint address="sb://sixeyed-ipasbr.servicebus.windows.net/net"                 behaviorConfiguration="SharedSecret"                 binding="netTcpRelayBinding"                 contract="FormatService.IFormatService" />     </client>     <behaviors>       <endpointBehaviors>         <behavior name="SharedSecret">           <transportClientEndpointBehavior credentialType="SharedSecret">             <clientCredentials>               <sharedSecret issuerName="fullTrustConsumer"                             issuerSecret="E3feJSMuyGGXksJi2g2bRY5/Bpd2ll5Eb+1FgQrXIqo="/>             </clientCredentials>           </transportClientEndpointBehavior>         </behavior>       </endpointBehaviors>     </behaviors>   The proxy is straight WCF territory, and the same client can run against Azure Service Bus through any relay binding, or directly to the local network service using any WCF binding - the contract is exactly the same. The code is simple, standard WCF stuff: using (var client = new FormatService.FormatServiceClient()) { outputString = client.ReverseString(inputString); } Running the sample First, update Solution Items\AzureConnectionDetails.xml with your service bus namespace, and your service identity credentials for the netTcpClient and the provider:   <!-- ACS credentials for the full trust consumer (Part2): -->   <netTcpClient identityName="fullTrustConsumer"                 symmetricKey="E3feJSMuyGGXksJi2g2bRY5/Bpd2ll5Eb+1FgQrXIqo="/> Then rebuild the solution and verify the unit tests work. If they’re green, your service is listening through Azure. Check out the client by navigating to http://localhost:53835/Sixeyed.Ipasbr.NetTcpClient. Enter a string and hit Go! - your string will be reversed by your on-premise service, routed through Azure: Using shared secret client credentials in this way means ACS is the identity provider for your service, and the claim which allows Send access to Service Bus is consumed by Service Bus. None of the authentication details make it through to your service, so your service is not aware who the consumer is (MSDN calls this "anonymous authentication").

    Read the article

  • My Red Gate Experience

    - by Colin Rothwell
    I’m Colin, and I’ve been an intern working with Mike in publishing on Simple-Talk and SQLServerCentral for the past ten weeks. I’ve mostly been working “behind the scenes”, making improvements to the spam filtering, along with various other small tweaks. When I arrived at Red Gate, one of the first things Mike asked me was what I wanted to get out of the internship. It wasn’t a question I’d given a great deal of thought to, but my immediate response was the same as almost anybody: to support my growing family. Well, ok, not quite that, but money was certainly a motivator, along with simply making sure that I didn’t get bored over the summer. Three months is a long time to fill, and many of my friends end up getting bored, or worse, knitting obsessively. With the arrogance which seems fairly common among Cambridge people, I wasn’t expecting to really learn much here! In my mind, the part of the year where I am at Uni is the part where I learn things, whilst Red Gate would be an opportunity to apply what I’d learnt. Thankfully, the opposite is true: I’ve learnt a lot during my time here, and there has been a definite positive impact on the way I write code. The first thing I’ve really learnt is that test-driven development is, in general, a sensible way of working. Before coming, I didn’t really get it: how could you test something you hadn’t yet written? It didn’t make sense! My problem was seeing a test as having to test all the behaviour of a given function. Writing tests which test the bare minimum possible and building them up is a really good way of crystallising the direction the code needs to grow in, and ensures you never attempt to write too much code at time. One really good experience of this was early on in my internship when Mike and I were working on the query used to list active authors: I’d written something which I thought would do the trick, but by starting again using TDD we grew something which revealed that there were several subtle mistakes in the query I’d written. I’ve also been awakened to the value of pair programming. Whilst I could sort of see the point before coming, I also thought that it was impossible that two people would ever get more done at the same computer than if they were working separately. I still think that this is true for projects with pieces that developers can easily work on independently, and with developers who both know the codebase, but I’ve found that pair programming can be really good for learning a code base, and for building up small projects to the point where you can start working on separate components, as well as solving particularly difficult problems. Later on in my internship, for my down tools week project, I was working on adding Python support to Glimpse. Another intern and I we pair programmed the entire project, using ping pong pair programming as much as possible. One bonus that this brought which I wasn’t expecting was that I found myself less prone to distraction: with someone else peering over my shoulder, I didn’t have the ever-present temptation to open gmail, or facebook, or yammer, or twitter, or hacker news, or reddit, and so on, and so forth. I’m quite proud of this project: I think it’s some of the best code I’ve written. I’ve also been really won over to the value of descriptive variables names. In my pre-Red Gate life, as a lone-ranger style cowboy programmer, I’d developed a tendency towards laziness in variable names, sometimes abbreviating or, worse, using acronyms. I’ve swiftly realised that this is a bad idea when working with a team: saving a few key strokes is inevitably not worth it when it comes to reading code again in the future. Longer names also mean you can do away with a majority of comments. I appreciate that if you’ve come up with an O(n*log n) algorithm for something which seemed O(n^2), you probably want to explain how it works, but explaining what a variable name means is a big no no: it’s so very easy to change the behaviour of the code, whilst forgetting about the comments. Whilst at Red Gate, I took the opportunity to attend a code retreat, which really helped me to solidify all the things I’d learnt. To be completely free of any existing code base really lets you focus on best practises and think about how you write code. If you get a chance to go on a similar event, I’d highly recommend it! Cycling to Red Gate, I’ve also become much better at fitting inner tubes: if you’re struggling to get the tube out, or re-fit the tire, letting a bit of air out usually helps. I’ve also become quite a bit better at foosball and will miss having a foosball table! I’d like to finish off by saying thank you to everyone at Red Gate for having me. I’ve really enjoyed working with, and learning from, the team that brings you this web site. If you meet any of them, buy them a drink!

    Read the article

  • Is it feasible and useful to auto-generate some code of unit tests?

    - by skiwi
    Earlier today I have come up with an idea, based upon a particular real use case, which I would want to have checked for feasability and usefulness. This question will feature a fair chunk of Java code, but can be applied to all languages running inside a VM, and maybe even outside. While there is real code, it uses nothing language-specific, so please read it mostly as pseudo code. The idea Make unit testing less cumbersome by adding in some ways to autogenerate code based on human interaction with the codebase. I understand this goes against the principle of TDD, but I don't think anyone ever proved that doing TDD is better over first creating code and then immediatly therafter the tests. This may even be adapted to be fit into TDD, but that is not my current goal. To show how it is intended to be used, I'll copy one of my classes here, for which I need to make unit tests. public class PutMonsterOnFieldAction implements PlayerAction { private final int handCardIndex; private final int fieldMonsterIndex; public PutMonsterOnFieldAction(final int handCardIndex, final int fieldMonsterIndex) { this.handCardIndex = Arguments.requirePositiveOrZero(handCardIndex, "handCardIndex"); this.fieldMonsterIndex = Arguments.requirePositiveOrZero(fieldMonsterIndex, "fieldCardIndex"); } @Override public boolean isActionAllowed(final Player player) { Objects.requireNonNull(player, "player"); Hand hand = player.getHand(); Field field = player.getField(); if (handCardIndex >= hand.getCapacity()) { return false; } if (fieldMonsterIndex >= field.getMonsterCapacity()) { return false; } if (field.hasMonster(fieldMonsterIndex)) { return false; } if (!(hand.get(handCardIndex) instanceof MonsterCard)) { return false; } return true; } @Override public void performAction(final Player player) { Objects.requireNonNull(player); if (!isActionAllowed(player)) { throw new PlayerActionNotAllowedException(); } Hand hand = player.getHand(); Field field = player.getField(); field.setMonster(fieldMonsterIndex, (MonsterCard)hand.play(handCardIndex)); } } We can observe the need for the following tests: Constructor test with valid input Constructor test with invalid inputs isActionAllowed test with valid input isActionAllowed test with invalid inputs performAction test with valid input performAction test with invalid inputs My idea mainly focuses on the isActionAllowed test with invalid inputs. Writing these tests is not fun, you need to ensure a number of conditions and you check whether it really returns false, this can be extended to performAction, where an exception needs to be thrown in that case. The goal of my idea is to generate those tests, by indicating (through GUI of IDE hopefully) that you want to generate tests based on a specific branch. The implementation by example User clicks on "Generate code for branch if (handCardIndex >= hand.getCapacity())". Now the tool needs to find a case where that holds. (I haven't added the relevant code as that may clutter the post ultimately) To invalidate the branch, the tool needs to find a handCardIndex and hand.getCapacity() such that the condition >= holds. It needs to construct a Player with a Hand that has a capacity of at least 1. It notices that the capacity private int of Hand needs to be at least 1. It searches for ways to set it to 1. Fortunately it finds a constructor that takes the capacity as an argument. It uses 1 for this. Some more work needs to be done to succesfully construct a Player instance, involving the creation of objects that have constraints that can be seen by inspecting the source code. It has found the hand with the least capacity possible and is able to construct it. Now to invalidate the test it will need to set handCardIndex = 1. It constructs the test and asserts it to be false (the returned value of the branch) What does the tool need to work? In order to function properly, it will need the ability to scan through all source code (including JDK code) to figure out all constraints. Optionally this could be done through the javadoc, but that is not always used to indicate all constraints. It could also do some trial and error, but it pretty much stops if you cannot attach source code to compiled classes. Then it needs some basic knowledge of what the primitive types are, including arrays. And it needs to be able to construct some form of "modification trees". The tool knows that it needs to change a certain variable to a different value in order to get the correct testcase. Hence it will need to list all possible ways to change it, without using reflection obviously. What this tool will not replace is the need to create tailored unit tests that tests all kinds of conditions when a certain method actually works. It is purely to be used to test methods when they invalidate constraints. My questions: Is creating such a tool feasible? Would it ever work, or are there some obvious problems? Would such a tool be useful? Is it even useful to automatically generate these testcases at all? Could it be extended to do even more useful things? Does, by chance, such a project already exist and would I be reinventing the wheel? If not proven useful, but still possible to make such thing, I will still consider it for fun. If it's considered useful, then I might make an open source project for it depending on the time. For people searching more background information about the used Player and Hand classes in my example, please refer to this repository. At the time of writing the PutMonsterOnFieldAction has not been uploaded to the repo yet, but this will be done once I'm done with the unit tests.

    Read the article

  • Wildcards in jnlp template file

    - by Andy
    Since the last security changes in Java 7u40, it is required to sign a JNLP file. This can either be done by adding the final JNLP in JNLP-INF/APPLICATION.JNLP, or by providing a template JNLP in JNLP-INF/APPLICATION_TEMPLATE.JNLP in the signed main jar. The first way works well, but we would like to allow to pass a previously unknown number of runtime arguments to our application. Therefore, our APPLICATION_TEMPLATE.JNLP looks like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <jnlp codebase="*"> <information> <title>...</title> <vendor>...</vendor> <description>...</description> <offline-allowed /> </information> <security> <all-permissions/> </security> <resources> <java version="1.7+" href="http://java.sun.com/products/autodl/j2se" /> <jar href="launcher/launcher.jar" main="true"/> <property name="jnlp...." value="*" /> <property name="jnlp..." value="*" /> </resources> <application-desc main-class="..."> * </application-desc> </jnlp> The problem is the * inside of the application-desc tag. It is possible to wildcard a fixed number of arguments using multiple argument tags (see code below), but then it is not possible to provide more or less arguments to the application (Java Webstart will no start with an empty argument tag). <application-desc main-class="..."> <argument>*</argument> <argument>*</argument> <argument>*</argument> </application-desc> Does someone can confirm this problem and/or has a solution for passing a previously undefined number of runtime arguments to the Java application? Thanks alot!

    Read the article

  • Intermittent PolicyException: Execution permission cannot be acquired.

    - by Aaron Maenpaa
    We are intermittently seeing the following exception shortly after an App Pool recycle in an ASP.NET application: System.Configuration.ConfigurationErrorsException: Could not load file or assembly 'Microsoft.Web.Mvc, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. Failed to grant permission to execute. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131418) ---> System.IO.FileLoadException: Could not load file or assembly 'Microsoft.Web.Mvc, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. Failed to grant permission to execute. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131418) File name: 'Microsoft.Web.Mvc, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' ---> System.Security.Policy.PolicyException: Execution permission cannot be acquired. at System.Security.SecurityManager.ResolvePolicy(Evidence evidence, PermissionSet reqdPset, PermissionSet optPset, PermissionSet denyPset, PermissionSet& denied, Boolean checkExecutionPermission) at System.Security.SecurityManager.ResolvePolicy(Evidence evidence, PermissionSet reqdPset, PermissionSet optPset, PermissionSet denyPset, PermissionSet& denied, Int32& securitySpecialFlags, Boolean checkExecutionPermission) at System.Reflection.Assembly._nLoad(AssemblyName fileName, String codeBase, Evidence assemblySecurity, Assembly locationHint, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean throwOnFileNotFound, Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoad(AssemblyName assemblyRef, Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoad(String assemblyString, Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.Load(String assemblyString) at System.Web.Configuration.CompilationSection.LoadAssemblyHelper(String assemblyName, Boolean starDirective) The specific DLL that fails to load varies from incident to incident, but is always one referenced by the main assembly. We're running on ASP.NET 3.5 on Windows Server 2008. This seems to happen in batches affecting some but not all of sites on the same App Pool. We have a large number of sites all running the same code. Once a site has failed to load a DLL it throws up a Yellow Screen of Death until the next App Pool recycle. We haven't been able to reproduce this behavior and the sites seem to work fine for days or weeks at a time (and many App Pool recycles) before failing. Has anybody else seen similar behavior? Update: We've tried reproducing the failure by setting up a few hundred sites and writing a script to hit them repeatedly while recycling the App Pool once every couple of minutes and were unable to accomplish much other than loading down the server's CPU for a few days straight. We then tried messing (locking one of the DLLs, changing the file permissions) with the copies of the DLLs that ASP.NET makes and managed to reproduce similar behavior but not the same exception. Does anybody have any ideas on how to adjust the security policy to get it to throw a System.Security.Policy.PolicyException: Execution permission cannot be acquired. when loading a specific DLL?

    Read the article

  • .NET Code Generataion | Unable to create a T4 template in Visual Studio 2008

    - by cedar715
    I've the Visual Studio 2008 installed on my machine(licensed one). When I try to add a new .tt(say bar.tt) file to the project, the following code is generated: I've seen in a screencast, where in an empty .tt file should be opened and the developer enters the T4 code. Even if I remove the code and enter T4 code, am getting build errors. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.ComponentModel; using System.Drawing; using System.Linq; using System.Reflection; using System.Windows.Forms; namespace Foobar { partial class bar : Form { public bar() { InitializeComponent(); this.Text = String.Format("About {0} {0}", AssemblyTitle); this.labelProductName.Text = AssemblyProduct; this.labelVersion.Text = String.Format("Version {0} {0}", AssemblyVersion); this.labelCopyright.Text = AssemblyCopyright; this.labelCompanyName.Text = AssemblyCompany; this.textBoxDescription.Text = AssemblyDescription; } #region Assembly Attribute Accessors public string AssemblyTitle { get { object[] attributes = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetCustomAttributes(typeof(AssemblyTitleAttribute), false); if(attributes.Length > 0) { AssemblyTitleAttribute titleAttribute = (AssemblyTitleAttribute)attributes[0]; if(titleAttribute.Title != "") { return titleAttribute.Title; } } return System.IO.Path.GetFileNameWithoutExtension(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().CodeBase); } } public string AssemblyVersion { get { return Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version.ToString(); } } public string AssemblyDescription { get { object[] attributes = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetCustomAttributes(typeof(AssemblyDescriptionAttribute), false); if (attributes.Length == 0) { return ""; } return ((AssemblyDescriptionAttribute)attributes[0]).Description; } } public string AssemblyProduct { get { object[] attributes = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetCustomAttributes(typeof(AssemblyProductAttribute), false); if (attributes.Length == 0) { return ""; } return ((AssemblyProductAttribute)attributes[0]).Product; } } public string AssemblyCopyright { get { object[] attributes = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetCustomAttributes(typeof(AssemblyCopyrightAttribute), false); if (attributes.Length == 0) { return ""; } return ((AssemblyCopyrightAttribute)attributes[0]).Copyright; } } public string AssemblyCompany { get { object[] attributes = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetCustomAttributes(typeof(AssemblyCompanyAttribute), false); if (attributes.Length == 0) { return ""; } return ((AssemblyCompanyAttribute)attributes[0]).Company; } } #endregion } } EDIT: I didn't download any T4 software separately as I got to know that it already ships with Visual Studio 2008.

    Read the article

  • Event not bubbling in some Browsers when clicked on Flash

    - by 166_MMX
    Environment: Windows 7, Internet Explorer 8, Flash ActiveX 10.1.53.64, wmode=transparent Just wrote a small test page that you can load in IE and Firefox or any other Browser. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <title>Event bubbling test</title> </head> <body onclick="alert('body');" style="margin:0;border-width:0;padding:0;background-color:#00FF00;"> <div onclick="alert('div');" style="margin:0;border-width:0;padding:0;background-color:#FF0000;"> <span onclick="alert('span');" style="margin:0;border-width:0;padding:0;background-color:#0000FF;"> <object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,0,0" width="159" height="91" id="flashAbout_small" align="absmiddle"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.adobe.com/swf/software/flash/about/flashAbout_info_small.swf"/> <param name="quality" value="high"/> <param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"/> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"/> <embed src="http://www.adobe.com/swf/software/flash/about/flashAbout_info_small.swf" quality="high" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" width="159" height="91" wmode="transparent" name="flashAbout_small" align="absmiddle" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"/> </object> </span> </div> </body> </html> So clicking any colored shape should produce an alert (except for the green one in IE, not sure why but I hope that's off topic and not related to my issue). Clicking the Flash container in Firefox will work Perfectly fine. You should get alert boxes in this order containing: span, div and body. Flash bubbles the event to the HTML. But this is not happening in IE. So why is Flash in IE not bubbling events to HTML? Edit: As mentioned by Andy E this behavior can also bee seen in Google Chrome which to my knowledge is not using ActiveX to embed the flash movie into the page.

    Read the article

  • dhtmlxgrid: getting an xml string of grid data

    - by user823527
    The dhtmlxgrid documentation is saying that I should be able to get a string with the grid data with the serialize feature. mygrid.setSerializationLevel(true,true); var myXmlStr = mygrid.serialize(); I'd like to use that feature to get the updated grid data. But I don't get the xml string. Is that feature not available in the open source version? If I could get a csv string, that would also be OK. But I don't get that either. var gridcsv=mygrid.serializeToCSV(); document.getElementById("mytextareax").value = gridcsv; The html information for the grid is: <a href="#" onclick="savegrid();">Save Grid</a> <textarea id="mytextareax"><rows><row id='r1'><cell>index ... </rows></textarea> <div id="mytextarea" style="width:400px; height: 400px;"> </div> <div id="gridbox" style="width:600px; height:270px; background-color:white;"></div> <a href='#alfa' onClick="ser()">Reload grid with another structure</a> <br> The script for creating the grid is: <script> mygrid = new dhtmlXGridObject('gridbox'); mygrid.setImagePath("../../codebase/imgs/"); mygrid.loadXML("../common/grid500.xml"); function ser(){ mygrid.clearAll(true); mygrid.loadXML("../common/gridH3.xml"); } function savegrid(){ alert('save grid'); mygrid.setSerializationLevel(true,true); var myXmlStr = mygrid.serialize(); /* document.getElementById("mytextarea").innerHTML = myXmlStr; */ document.getElementById("mytextareax").value = myXmlStr; alert(myXmlStr); } </script> Is there any way to get the data out of the dhtmlx grid to be able to create my own xml file from it?

    Read the article

  • Autoloading Development or Production configs (best practices)

    - by Xeoncross
    When programming sites you usually have one set of config files for the development environment and another set for the production server (or one file with both settings). I am assuming all projects should be handled by version control like git or svn. Manual file transfers (like FTP) is wrong on so many levels. How you enable/disable the correct settings (so that your system knows which ones to use) is a problem for me. Each system I work on just kind of jimmy-rigs a solution. Below are the 3 methods I know of and I am hoping that someone can submit a more elegant solutions. 1) File Based The system loads a folder structure based on the URL requested. /site.com /site.fakeTLD /lib index.php For example, if the url is http://site.com then the system loads the production config files located in the site.com folder. However, if I'm working on the site locally I visit http://site.fakeTLD to work on the local copy of the site. To setup this I edit my hosts file and add site.fakeTLD to point to my own computer (127.0.0.1/localhost) and then create a vhost in apache. So now I can work on the codebase locally and then push to the server without any trouble. The problem is that this is susceptible to a "host" injection attack. So someone loading site.com could set the host to site.fakeTLD and then the system would load my development config files instead of production. 2) Config Based The config files contain on section for development - and one for production. The problem is that each time you go to push your changes to the repo you have to edit the file to specify which set of config options should be used. $use = 'production'; //'development'; This leaves the repo open to human error should one of the developers forget to enable the right setting. 3) File System Check Based All the development machines have an extra empty file called "development.txt" or something. Each time the system loads it checks for this file - if found then it knows it is in development mode - if missing then it knows it is in production mode. Since the file is NEVER ADDED to the repo then it will never be pushed (and checked out) on the production machine. However, this just doesn't feel right and causes a slight slow down since all filesystem checks are slow. Is there anyway that the server can auto-detect wither to use the development or production configs?

    Read the article

  • How to Practice Unix Programming in C?

    - by danben
    After five years of professional Java (and to a lesser extent, Python) programming and slowly feeling my CS education slip away, I decided I wanted to broaden my horizons / general usefulness to the world and do something that feels more (to me) like I really have an influence over the machine. I chose to learn C and Unix programming since I feel like that is where many of the most interesting problems are. My end goal is to be able to do this professionally, if for no other reason than the fact that I have to spend 40-50 hours per week on work that pays the bills, so it may as well also be the type of coding I want to get better at. Of course, you don't get hired to do things you haven't dont before, so for now I am ramping up on my own. To this end, I started with K&R, which was a great resource in part due to the exercises spread throughout each chapter. After that I moved on to Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective, followed by ten chapters of Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment. When I am done with this book, I will read Unix Network Programming. What I'm missing in the Stevens books is the lack of programming problems; they mainly document functionality and provide examples, with a few end-of-chapter questions following. I feel that I would benefit much more from being challenged to use the knowledge in each chapter ala K&R. I could write some test program for each function, but this is a less desirable method as (1) I would probably be less motivated than if I were rising to some external challenge, and (2) I will naturally only think to use the function in the ways that have already occurred to me. So, I'd like to get some recommendations on how to practice. Obviously, my first choice would be to find some resource that has Unix programming challenges. I have also considered finding and attempting to contribute to some open source C project, but this is a bit daunting as there would be some overhead in learning to use the software, then learning the codebase. The only open-source C project I can think of that I use regularly is Python, and I'm not sure how easy that would be to get started on. That said, I'm open to all kinds of suggestions as there are likely things I haven't even thought of.

    Read the article

  • Contract developer trying to get outsourcing contract with current client.

    - by Mike
    I work for a major bank as a contract software developer. I've been there a few months, and without exception this place has the worst software practices I've ever seen. The software my team makes has no formal testing, terrible code (not reusable, hard to read, etc), minimal documentation, no defined development process and an absolutely sickening amount of waste due to bureaucratic overhead. Part of my contract is to maintain a group of thousands of very poorly written batch jobs. When one of the jobs fails (read: crashes), it's a developers job to look at the source, figure out what's wrong, fix it, and check it in. There is no quality assurance process or auditing of the results whatsoever. Once the developer says "it works" a manager signs off and it goes into production. What's disturbing is that these jobs essentially grab market data and put it into a third-party risk management system, which provides the bank with critical intelligence. I've discovered the disturbing truth that this has been happening since the 90s and nobody really has evidence the system is getting the correct data! Without going into details, an issue arose on Friday that was so horrible I actually stormed out of the place. I was ready to quit, but I decided to just get out to calm my nerves and possibly go back Monday. I've been reflecting today on how to handle this. I have realized that, in probably less than 6 months, I could (with 2 other developers) remake a large component of this system. The new system would provide them with, as primary benefits, a maintainable codebase less prone to error and a solid QA framework. To do it properly I would have to be outside the bank, the internal bureaucracy is just too much. And moreover, I think a bank is fundamentally not a place that can make good software. This is my plan. Write a report explaining in depth all the problems with their current system Explain why their software practices fail and generate a tremendous amount of error and waste. Use this as the basis for claiming the project must be developed externally. Write a high level development plan, including what resources I will require Hand 1,2,3 to my manager, hopefully he passes it up the chain. Worst case he fires me, but this isn't so bad. Convinced Executive decides to award my company a contract for the new system I have 8 years experience as a software contractor and have delivered my share of successful software products, but all working in-house for small/medium sized companies. When I read this over, I think I have a dynamite plan. But since this is the first time doing something this bold so I have my doubts. My question is, is this a good idea? If you think not, please spare no detail.

    Read the article

  • Which StackOverflow-style MarkDown (WMD) javascript editor should I use?

    - by Edan Maor
    Background I'm working on an application which requires user-entered content, and I've decided to use a StackOverflow-style MarkDown editor. After researching this topic for the last few days, I realize there are numerous forks of the base WMD editor, some with a few basic enhancements and some with serious differences from the StackOverflow one. Since this will be the heart of the application, I'd like to start with the best code base I can. I'd be happy if anyone can recommend which one of the many solutions out there best fits my needs. Below is requirements, plus what I've managed to find already. I'm hoping this question will help me decide which version to go with, and maybe help me discover a port out there that's an even better fit for my needs. The requirements for my project Live Preview Multiple editors on the same page (not know how many in advance, since the user can dynamically add another editing box). Ability to extend with extra buttons (I'd like a button to upload a picture, instead of just adding an img url). Ability to dynamically show/hide the edit box (and only see the preview box). Not an absolute must, but I'd prefer to stick as close to StackOverflow's look and feel, since it's well known. Don't know if this matters, but the backend is written in Django. Editors I've looked at Here are a few of the code bases I've looked at, with thoughts. Obviously, I might be missing another solution out there. The derobins version. From what I can tell, this is the official StackOverflow version. Seems like it doesn't support multiple editors on one page. JQuery.MarkEdit. Looks very good, but is pretty different from the StackOverflow version. MooWMD. Looks like the winner right now, but I'm a little concerned since it looks less active/hackable than MarkEdit. The wmd-new version. Not sure, looks like an old codebase without much use. The SocialSite branch. Seems like it's not for public use.

    Read the article

  • TFS CM resource recommendations / some questions

    - by John
    I am working with a small development shop that consists of a group of 5 developers and 1 QA person. We are using TFS and need to get more sophisticated on how we use this tool. Currently the development team checks in their code each evening. A nightly build runs and pushes the output out on a network share. Our QA person uses this build for testing the next day. Sometimes the build off the trunk codebase has issues/bugs that hinder the QA process, and it hasn’t been a giant issue in the past, but we now want to get to a state where we have our QA person testing on a stable QA build. So I believe we need to create a branch (call it QA), and the developers will continue to develop off the trunk, but the QA person will use builds created from code in the QA branch. Seems simple enough, but we have started doing code reviews as well. So we have another desire in that only code that has been code reviewed can be promoted to the QA branch. Each developer works off a TFS item, and when they check in a changeset, they do it against a TFS item which creates a link between a checked in code file and a TFS item. Eventually the TFS item becomes complete and ready for code review. All code attached to the TFS item is reviewed. How can the versions of these files get promoted to the QA branch? In the QA branch, if a bug is found, we want to fix it in the QA branch and have the changes migrated back to the trunk. I believe TFS has a way to automatically do this doesn’t it? Long story short, we want to get to a build and CM environment that I believe is pretty standard, but we are unaware of how to make this happen with TFS. Given our situation above, can someone point out a book or website(s) that would address our specific needs? We would like to make this happen without having to get too deep in CM theory or TFS. I very much appreciate any and all suggestions! Thanks, John

    Read the article

  • Window Media Player issues two requests for the audio on web page

    - by Ron Harlev
    I'm using Windows Media Player in a web page. I have version 11 installed so that is the version I'm testing with right now. The player is embedded on the page with this HTML: <OBJECT id='MS_mediaPlayer' width="400" height="45" classid='CLSID:6BF52A52-394A-11D3-B153-00C04F79FAA6' codebase='http://activex.microsoft.com/activex/controls/mplayer/en/nsmp2inf.cab#Version=5,1,52,701' standby='Loading Microsoft Windows Media Player components...' type='application/x-oleobject'> <param name='autoStart' value="false"> <param name='uiMode' value="invisible"> <param name='loop' value="false"> </OBJECT> I'm calling in JavaScript: MS_mediaPlayer.URL = "SomeAudioFile.mp3" MS_mediaPlayer.controls.play(); When I look at Fiddler I can see that the player actually downloads "SomeAudioFile.mp3" twice. Is there some setting I have wrong? I was trying to set the "autoPlay" to true and avoid calling "play()". Got the same result - two downloads. UPDATE: The first request's user-agent is "Windows-Media-Player/11.0.5721.5268". The second has "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)". Looks like the browser is running the same request the second time. No Idea why Any ideas? UPDATE (4/1/10): Still no solution. I debugged the JS thoroughly and there is only one call to MediaPlayer.URL='.....' to set the audio file. Nothing else triggers the media player to load the file and there is no other place referencing the audio file on the page. One other interesting fact is that this doesn't happen (the double loading of the audio) when I run the browser locally on my development web server. But other remote requests to the same web server generate the double audio loading. I believe I eliminated any correlation with specific IE version or media player version. This happens with IE6-8 and WM9-12

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >