Search Results

Search found 3574 results on 143 pages for 'nautilus actions'.

Page 23/143 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • How costly performance-wise are these actions in iPhone objective-C?

    - by Alex Gosselin
    This is really a few questions in one, I'm wondering what the performance cost is for these things, as I haven't really been following a best practice of any sort for these. The answers may also be useful to other readers, if somebody knows these. (1) If I need the core data managed object context, is it bad to use #import "myAppDelegate.h" //farther down in the code: NSManagedObjectContext *context = [(myAppDelegate.h*)[[UIApplication sharedApplication] delegate] managedObjectContext]; as opposed to leaving the warning you get if you don't cast the delegate? (2) What is the cheapest way to hard-code a string? I have been using return @"myString"; on occasion in some functions where I need to pass it to a variety of places, is it better to do it this way: static NSString *str = @"myString"; return str; (3) How costly is it to subclass an object i wrote vs. making a new one, in general? (4) When I am using core data and navigating through a hierarchy of some sort, is it necessary to turn things back into faults somehow after I read some info from them? or is this done automatically? Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Perform SilkTest actions on an Eclipse that's always already open?

    - by Tom
    I want to be able to recognize the Eclipse window, which is always already open, so I won't ever need to open it with SilkTest. Is there a way that I can set the base state to be a window that's always going to be open? It seems the way to set the base state also designates the executable for it to open. The executable won't necessarily always be in the same location, and it would be a pain to configure that. Is this possible? I've already tried desktop.<Window>find("//Window[@caption='Java EE*']");, which doesn't work.

    Read the article

  • Javascript, jQuery - how signed actions to just created object?

    - by sebap123
    I am trying to make simple list with ability to add and delete elements. For now I am working on adding and performing a simple action on each of list elements object (existing and added). Unfortunately I have met some difficulties with that. I am able to modify objects that are created at the beginning, but not one added during "webpage working". First of all my idea was to add AJAX to this, but I don't think it is the easiest way. I think that some time ago (I don't remember where) I read how to make this work, but now I don't know. I would be really glad if someone would help me with this or at least give a link to good explanation of this. There is what I have done so far (well this is mostly just a scratch, but the main idea is in it): http://jsfiddle.net/sebap123/pAZ7H/ Thank you for all responses.

    Read the article

  • How can I remove gradients from Elementary theme?

    - by John
    I really don't like the gradients in the Elementary theme and I was wondering if there is a way to remove them from applications like Nautilus-Elementary, Postler, Dexter, etc. I've tried commenting out the Apps/[Application].rc in /usr/share/themes/elementary/gtk-2.0/gtkrc but it doesn't work. It still leaves the gradients in their place. I'm a big fan of the other controls in the theme: the scroll bar, the way it borders gedit and the buttons, and I'd like to keep these features, but I don't like the way it styles its windows. EDIT: The gradients I'm talking about are the ones at the top of the window. Some examples: Nautilus-Elementary: Postler: Rhythmbbox: Transmission: I'd like to create a sort of matte look, similar to this, which was done using Orta: Nautilus-Elementary: Postler: Rhythmbox: Transmission: I'd like a flat color, preferably without the line separating the top part of the application with the bottom.

    Read the article

  • Terminal as desktop background instead of wallper

    - by Janis Erdmanis
    I have come to conclusion that all my needs from nautilus is satisfied with terminal and last file manager. It also dismisses the need for multiple nautilus instances, which makes mess when I forgot how I meant to use different workspaces. The next step for my simplification would be to get rid of any possibility to open nautilus. Also I thought that my interaction with computer is file centred, therefore it makes sense to leave file manager in background of applications. Are there any ways to make terminal as desktop background with which I could interact?

    Read the article

  • How to automatically mount a Windows shared folder on every boot up?

    - by Zabba
    I am able to access Windows' shared folder from Ubuntu 10.10 Nautilus like so: Type into the Location Bar : smb://box/projects Now, I can see the folder in Nautilus, create/read files in it. Also, on desktop I get a folder called "projects on box". But, that folder on the desktop goes away when I reboot. So, I thought that I can automount the Windows' shared projects folder by adding this to my fstab: //box/Projects /home/base/Projects smbfs rw,user,username=jack,password=www222,fmask=666,dmask=777 0 0 (base is my user name on Ubuntu) Now, I get a folder called "Projects" in my home folder after boot up, but it is empty (cannot see the same files that I can see in Nautilus). What's am I doing wrong? Some more detail: This is what I see of the Projects folder when I do ls -l in my home folder: ... drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2011-01-01 10:22 Projects drwxr-xr-x 2 base base 4096 2011-01-01 09:06 Public ... Note the two "roots". Is that somehow the problem?

    Read the article

  • How can I disable all images for an JFace menu but leave them enabled in the toolbar

    - by David
    If I create a set of actions to be used in a JFace application and I assign images to those actions, those images show up in both the toolbar (where I want them) and in the menus (where I don't want them). Other than supplying two completely separate sets of actions (which eliminates part of the point of actions in the first place), how can I arrange to have those images displayed ONLY in the toolbar, and have the menus display only text?

    Read the article

  • Coding solution to WAR installation error (Websphere Portal 6.0) ?

    - by Scott Leis
    I have a Websphere Portal application containing several portlets for which I'm currently working on some changes. A week ago, the WAR file produced by Rational Application Developer could be installed on the Portal server with no problems. Yesterday I made some seemingly minor changes to two JSP files and their associated "pagecode" Java files, and attempting to update the WAR on the server (using the Portal Administration web interface) now produces an error message. The WAR upload works, and the system shows me the correct list of portlets in the WAR file, but clicking "Finish" gives me a page with the error message "EJPAQ1319E: Cannot install the selected WAR file. View Details". Clicking the "View Details" link gives me a page with the following text: EJPAQ1319E: Cannot install the selected WAR file. com.ibm.portal.WpsException: EJPAQ1319E: Cannot install the selected WAR file. at com.ibm.wps.portlets.portletmanager.actions.DoInstallWebModuleAction.installPortletFromFormFile(DoInstallWebModuleAction.java:633) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.portletmanager.actions.DoInstallWebModuleAction.doExecute(DoInstallWebModuleAction.java:159) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.adminstruts.actions.BaseAction.execute(BaseAction.java:64) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.struts.WpsRequestProcessor.processActionPerform(WpsRequestProcessor.java:338) at org.apache.struts.action.RequestProcessor.process(RequestProcessor.java:274) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.struts.WpsStrutsPortlet.processActionPerformed(WpsStrutsPortlet.java:1947) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.struts.WpsStrutsPortlet.actionPerformed(WpsStrutsPortlet.java:1637) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.adminstruts.WpsAdminStrutsPortlet.actionPerformed(WpsAdminStrutsPortlet.java:261) at com.ibm.wps.pe.pc.legacy.SPIPortletInterceptorImpl.handleEvents(SPIPortletInterceptorImpl.java:323) EJPPE0020E: It is not allowed to install a JSR 168 compliant over a 4.x portlet application. com.ibm.wps.command.applications.AppWarFileException: EJPPE0020E: It is not allowed to install a JSR 168 compliant over a 4.x portlet application. WrappedException is: com.ibm.wps.pe.mgr.exceptions.InvalidWarFileException: EJPPE0020E: It is not allowed to install a JSR 168 compliant over a 4.x portlet application. at com.ibm.wps.command.applications.AbstractApplicationsCommand.throwAppMgrException(AbstractApplicationsCommand.java:492) at com.ibm.wps.command.applications.UpdatePortletApplicationCommand.execute(UpdatePortletApplicationCommand.java:165) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.portletmanager.actions.DoInstallWebModuleAction.installPortletFromFormFile(DoInstallWebModuleAction.java:510) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.portletmanager.actions.DoInstallWebModuleAction.doExecute(DoInstallWebModuleAction.java:159) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.adminstruts.actions.BaseAction.execute(BaseAction.java:64) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.struts.WpsRequestProcessor.processActionPerform(WpsRequestProcessor.java:338) at org.apache.struts.action.RequestProcessor.process(RequestProcessor.java:274) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.struts.WpsStrutsPortlet.processActionPerformed(WpsStrutsPortlet.java:1947) EJPPE0020E: It is not allowed to install a JSR 168 compliant over a 4.x portlet application. com.ibm.wps.pe.mgr.exceptions.InvalidWarFileException: EJPPE0020E: It is not allowed to install a JSR 168 compliant over a 4.x portlet application. at com.ibm.wps.pe.mgr.AbstractApplicationManagerImpl.updateWebModule(AbstractApplicationManagerImpl.java:1338) at com.ibm.wps.pe.mgr.AbstractApplicationManagerImpl.updateWebModule(AbstractApplicationManagerImpl.java:1255) at com.ibm.wps.command.applications.UpdatePortletApplicationCommand.execute(UpdatePortletApplicationCommand.java:135) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.portletmanager.actions.DoInstallWebModuleAction.installPortletFromFormFile(DoInstallWebModuleAction.java:510) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.portletmanager.actions.DoInstallWebModuleAction.doExecute(DoInstallWebModuleAction.java:159) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.adminstruts.actions.BaseAction.execute(BaseAction.java:64) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.struts.WpsRequestProcessor.processActionPerform(WpsRequestProcessor.java:338) at org.apache.struts.action.RequestProcessor.process(RequestProcessor.java:274) at com.ibm.wps.portlets.struts.WpsStrutsPortlet.processActionPerformed(WpsStrutsPortlet.java:1947) All I've been able to find about this error via Google is the following in the Websphere Portal documentation: EJPPE0020E: It is not allowed to install a {0} over a {1} portlet application. Explanation: A portlet application containing legacy portlets can only be updated with another portlet application that contains legacy portlets. The same is true for standard portlet applications. User Response: Modify the portlet.xml of the application such that it matches the original API type, standard or legacy and try again. However, the "portlet.xml" file has not changed in about a month, and I've done several WAR updates for this application in that time with no problems. The problem seems to be caused by the code changes I did yesterday, but I have no clue why a few lines of code would do this. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request Helpers for ASP.NET MVC and jQuery AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, this is a little crazy Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Submit token via AJAX The browser side problem is, if server side turns on anti-forgery validation for POST, then AJAX POST requests will fail be default. Problem For AJAX scenarios, when request is sent by jQuery instead of form:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution The tokens are printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token. Here $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is provided:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Creating a context in custom shoulda macro does not work.

    - by Honza
    I have a custom should macro in my test_helper.rb which looks like this. def self.should_require_login(actions = [:index]) if (actions.is_a? Symbol) actions = [actions] end context "without user" do actions.each do |action| should "redirect #{action.to_s} away" do get action assert_redirected_to login_path end end end if block_given? context "active user logged in" do setup do @user = Factory.create(:user) @user.register! @user.activate! login_as(@user) end yield end end end I would like to use it like this: should_require_login(:protected_action) do should "do something" do ... end end And I am expecting the "do something" test to run in the "active user logged in" context, but the test executes in the top context, like the "active user logged in" context never existed and I fail to see the reason why.

    Read the article

  • How to make sure a method returns an array, even when there is only one element in Ruby

    - by doctororange
    I have a Ruby method that searches an array of hashes and returns a subset of that array. def last_actions(type = 'all') actions = @actions if type == 'run' actions = actions.select {|a| a['type'] == "run" } end return actions end This works, except when there is only one action to return, in which case I don't think it is returning an array with one element, but just the element itself. This becomes problematic later. What's a good way to ensure it returns an array of 1 element in this case? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Solaris OpenStack Horizon customizations

    - by GirishMoodalbail-Oracle
    In Oracle Solaris OpenStack Havana, we have customized the Horizon BUI by modifying existing dashboard and panels to reflect only those features that we support. The modification mostly involves:  --  disabling an widget (checkbox, button, textarea, and so on) --  removal of a tab from a panel --  removal of options from pull-down menus The following table lists the customizations that we have made. |-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------| | Where                       | What                                                | |-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------| | Project => Instances =>     | Post-Creation tab is removed.                       | | Launch Instance             |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Project => Instances =>     | Security Groups tab is removed.                     | | Actions => Edit Instance    |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Project => Instances =>     | Console tab is removed.                             | | Instance Name               |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Project => Instances =>     | Following actions Console, Edit Security Groups,    | | Actions                     | Pause Instance, Suspend Instance, Resize Instance,  | |                             | Rebuild Instance, and Migrate Instance are removed. | |                             |                                                     | | Project =>                  | Security Groups tab is removed.                     | | Access and Security         |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Project =>                  | Create Volume action is removed.                    | | Images and Snapshots =>     |                                                     | | Images => Actions           |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Project => Networks =>      | Admin State is disabled and its value is always     | | Create Network              | true.                                               | |                             |                                                     | | Project => Networks =>      | Disable Gateway checkbox is disabled, and its       | | Create Network =>           | value is always false.                              | | Subnet                      |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Project => Networks =>      | Allocation Pools and Host Routes text area are      | | Create Network =>           | disabled.                                      | | Subnet Detail               |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Project => Networks =>      | Edit Subnet action is removed.                      | | Network Name => Subnet =>   |                                                     | | Actions                     |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Project => Networks =>      | Edit Port action is removed.                        | | Network Name => Ports =>    |                                                     | | Actions                     |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Admin => Instnaces =>       | Following actions Console, Pause Instance,          | | Actions                     | Suspend Instance, and Migrate Instance are removed. | |                             |                                                     | | Admin => Networks =>        | Edit Network action is removed                      | | Actions                     |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Admin => Networks =>         | Edit Subnet action is removed                       | | Subnets => Actions          |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Admin => Networks =>         | Edit Port action is removed                         | | Ports => Actions            |                                                     | |                             |                                                     | | Admin => Networks =>         | Admin State and Shared check box are disabled.      | | Create Network              | Network's Admin State is always true, and Shared is | |                             | always false.                                       | |                             |                                                     | | Admin => Networks =>        | Admin State check box is disabled and its value     | | Network Name => Create Port | is always true.                                     | |-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------|

    Read the article

  • Nhibernate join on a table twice

    - by Zuber
    Consider the following Class structure... public class ListViewControl { public int SystemId {get; set;} public List<ControlAction> Actions {get; set;} public List<ControlAction> ListViewActions {get; set;} } public class ControlAction { public string blahBlah {get; set;} } I want to load class ListViewControl eagerly using NHibernate. The mapping using Fluent is as shown below public UIControlMap() { Id(x => x.SystemId); HasMany(x => x.Actions) .KeyColumn("ActionId") .Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan() .AsBag() .Cache.ReadWrite().IncludeAll(); HasMany(x => x.ListViewActions) .KeyColumn("ListViewActionId") .Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan() .AsBag() .Cache.ReadWrite().IncludeAll(); } This is how I am trying to load it eagerly var baseActions = DetachedCriteria.For<ListViewControl>() .CreateCriteria("Actions", JoinType.InnerJoin) .SetFetchMode("BlahBlah", FetchMode.Eager) .SetResultTransformer(new DistinctRootEntityResultTransformer()); var listViewActions = DetachedCriteria.For<ListViewControl>() .CreateCriteria("ListViewActions", JoinType.InnerJoin) .SetFetchMode("BlahBlah", FetchMode.Eager) .SetResultTransformer(new DistinctRootEntityResultTransformer()); var listViews = DetachedCriteria.For<ListViewControl>() .SetFetchMode("Actions", FetchMode.Eager) .SetFetchMode("ListViewActions",FetchMode.Eager) .SetResultTransformer(new DistinctRootEntityResultTransformer()); var result = _session.CreateMultiCriteria() .Add("listViewActions", listViewActions) .Add("baseActions", baseActions) .Add("listViews", listViews) .SetResultTransformer(new DistinctRootEntityResultTransformer()) .GetResult("listViews"); Now, my problem is that the class ListViewControl get the correct records in both Actions and ListViewActions, but there are multiple entries of the same record. The number of records is equal to the number of joins made to the ControlAction table, in this case two. How can I avoid this? If I remove the SetFetchMode from the listViews query, the actions are loaded lazily through a proxy which I don't want.

    Read the article

  • Best loose way to get objects with common base class

    - by Michael Teper
    I struggled to come up with a good title for this question, so suggestions are welcome. Let's say we have an abstract base class ActionBase that looks something like this: public abstract class ActionBase { public abstract string Name { get; } public abstract string Description { get; } // rest of declaration follows } And we have a bunch of different actions defined, like a MoveFileAction, WriteToRegistryAction, etc. These actions get attached to Worker objects: public class Worker { private IList<ActionBase> _actions = new List<ActionBase>(); public IList<ActionBase> Actions { get { return _actions; } } // worker stuff ... } So far, pretty straight-forward. Now, I'd like to have a UI for setting up Workers, assigning Actions, setting properties, and so on. In this UI, I want to present a list of all available actions, along with their properties, and for that I'd want to first gather up all the names and descriptions of available actions (plus the type) into a collection of the following type of item: public class ActionDescriptor { public string Name { get; } public string Description { get; } poblic Type Type { get; } } Certainly, I can use reflection to do this, but is there a better way? Having Name and Description be instance properties of ActionBase (as opposed to statics on derived classes) smells a bit, but there isn't an abstract static in C#. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Improving WIF&rsquo;s Claims-based Authorization - Part 3 (Usage)

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    In the previous posts I showed off some of the additions I made to WIF’s authorization infrastructure. I now want to show some samples how I actually use these extensions. The following code snippets are from Thinktecture.IdentityServer on Codeplex. The following shows the MVC attribute on the WS-Federation controller: [ClaimsAuthorize(Constants.Actions.Issue, Constants.Resources.WSFederation)] public class WSFederationController : Controller or… [ClaimsAuthorize(Constants.Actions.Administration, Constants.Resources.RelyingParty)] public class RelyingPartiesAdminController : Controller In other places I used the imperative approach (e.g. the WRAP endpoint): if (!ClaimsAuthorize.CheckAccess(principal, Constants.Actions.Issue, Constants.Resources.WRAP)) {     Tracing.Error("User not authorized");     return new UnauthorizedResult("WRAP", true); } For the WCF WS-Trust endpoints I decided to use the per-request approach since the SOAP actions are well defined here. The corresponding authorization manager roughly looks like this: public class AuthorizationManager : ClaimsAuthorizationManager {     public override bool CheckAccess(AuthorizationContext context)     {         var action = context.Action.First();         var id = context.Principal.Identities.First();         // if application authorization request         if (action.ClaimType.Equals(ClaimsAuthorize.ActionType))         {             return AuthorizeCore(action, context.Resource, context.Principal.Identity as IClaimsIdentity);         }         // if ws-trust issue request         if (action.Value.Equals(WSTrust13Constants.Actions.Issue))         {             return AuthorizeTokenIssuance(new Collection<Claim> { new Claim(ClaimsAuthorize.ResourceType, Constants.Resources.WSTrust) }, id);         }         return base.CheckAccess(context);     } } You see that it is really easy now to distinguish between per-request and application authorization which makes the overall design much easier. HTH

    Read the article

  • The Social Business Thought Leaders - Ray Wang

    - by kellsey.ruppel
    It seems both consumers and businesses are at the peak of the social hype. Overwhelmed by social media channels, platforms, and processes both in their private and professional life, many early adopters are starting to feel the social fatigue. Mirroring what happened with email and web sites during the late 1990's - early 2000's, more and more managers are looking to move from ubiquitous social media tactics to the most appropriate business use case and processes. This step becomes even more important considering the year over year contraction in IT budgets and the consequent need to maximize return on every dollar spent in new technologies. Ray Wang, CEO and Principal Analyst at Constellation Research, suggests engagement through collaborative technologies both as a conceptual model and a transformational tool for enterprises to reap business value. Without participation - the reasoning goes - there is no value and good technology alone is not enough to guarantee employee and customer adoption. Enterprise gamification is a new lever to succeed with Social Business by directing a critical mass of participation towards desired outcomes. What kind of outcomes? A recent study from Constellation Research (see 2012 Q1 Gamification Early Adopters Best Practices) highlights how Marketing, Customer Service and HR are leading the pack with gamification in processes such as: Sustaining long term customer loyalty (76.4%) Improving response in campaign to lead (74.5%) Right channeling incidents for resolution in social media (67.3%) Growing the number service and support incidents resolved by the community (63.6%) Improving employee referral rates and effective recruiting (43.6%) Driving on-boarding success with new hires (20%) More than simply adding badges, points and leaderboards to existing processes, enterprise gamification should be holistically embedded into employee and customer experience to stimulate specific behaviors. According to Ray Wang this can be done at three core levels: Measurable actions. The behaviors we want to facilitate consist of granular actions (i.e likes, comments, posts, recommendations, etc) and more complex actions (i.e projects, initiatives, programmes) attributed to individuals, groups and/or external actors  Reputation. The reputation an individual has earned through his actions is a key factor in building motivation among others and it is determined by its identity, social standing status and competitiveness Incentives or the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards that motivate behaviors and drive actions Listen to Ray Wang's video-interview to learn more about the dynamics that are shaping the future of collaboration and how gamification can help organizations attain new levels of engagement.

    Read the article

  • Can I define keyboard shortcuts using the Super key?

    - by Rasmus
    In 10.04, I had a lot of keyboard shortcuts defined using Super/Mod4 and one single other key, Super+O ran Opera Super+W opened Nautilus pointing to my Work folder, etc. In 11.04, these do not seem to work -- only Super+R works to run the terminal, and Super+Shift+W successfully runs Nautilus. Is there some way I can get these to function again? Adding them in Keyboard Shortcuts does not work, and neither does adding commands in CompizConfig Settings Manager.

    Read the article

  • root access on my own server

    - by Dimitris Sapikas
    i have an Ubuntu Server (from virtual server proviler) and i am connecting on it ussing SSH. Ussing PuTTY i have to type sudo su and my password first in order to get full access. But when i am connecting using WinSCP , i dont have permission on my own files. Do you know how i could deal with this ? If i would been using nautilus , i could call sudo nautilus but in this case it does not seem like it could work like that Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Opening a NTFS partition fails with report: Not authorised

    - by Dugi
    Besides lesser errors on 11.10, I ran into a more annoying one: I cannot access NTFS partitions. No matter whether I use nautilus, dolphin, tux commander or archive manager, always does the same thing, could not mount 'disc name': Not authorised' There were several fixes of problems with access to NTFS partitions, but none of them helped. When I used nautilus in sudo mode, the partition looked empty, although when I booted on windows, there were files. It was reported as a bug somewhere. Can anyone help me?

    Read the article

  • How to keep a data structure synchronized over a network?

    - by David Gouveia
    Context In the game I'm working on (a sort of a point and click graphic adventure), pretty much everything that happens in the game world is controlled by an action manager that is structured a bit like: So for instance if the result of examining an object should make the character say hello, walk a bit and then sit down, I simply spawn the following code: var actionGroup = actionManager.CreateGroup(); actionGroup.Add(new TalkAction("Guybrush", "Hello there!"); actionGroup.Add(new WalkAction("Guybrush", new Vector2(300, 300)); actionGroup.Add(new SetAnimationAction("Guybrush", "Sit")); This creates a new action group (an entire line in the image above) and adds it to the manager. All of the groups are executed in parallel, but actions within each group are chained together so that the second one only starts after the first one finishes. When the last action in a group finishes, the group is destroyed. Problem Now I need to replicate this information across a network, so that in a multiplayer session, all players see the same thing. Serializing the individual actions is not the problem. But I'm an absolute beginner when it comes to networking and I have a few questions. I think for the sake of simplicity in this discussion we can abstract the action manager component to being simply: var actionManager = new List<List<string>>(); How should I proceed to keep the contents of the above data structure syncronized between all players? Besides the core question, I'm also having a few other concerns related to it (i.e. all possible implications of the same problem above): If I use a server/client architecture (with one of the players acting as both a server and a client), and one of the clients has spawned a group of actions, should he add them directly to the manager, or only send a request to the server, which in turn will order every client to add that group? What about packet losses and the like? The game is deterministic, but I'm thinking that any discrepancy in the sequence of actions executed in a client could lead to inconsistent states of the world. How do I safeguard against that sort of problem? What if I add too many actions at once, won't that cause problems for the connection? Any way to alleviate that?

    Read the article

  • Icons of external devices not appearing on Desktop in 12.04

    - by harisibrahimkv
    In 10.04 and all, when a pen drive or as for that matter, when any external devices are connected, their icons are shown on the desktop and nautilus pops up automatically too. But in my 12.04 Gnome classic, when I connect an external device, nothing happens. I have to open nautilus manually and then click on the icon in the left panel to access the folder of the device. Is there any way to rectify this and restore the old trait as in 10.04?

    Read the article

  • Custom Rule Action in Outlook

    - by Zee99
    How to create my own custom action in Microsoft Outlook Rules? In Outlook, when creating a rule in the Rules wizard, we set first the conditions and then set the actions that we choose from a list of predefined actions. Is there a way to add my own action to the existing actions programmatically? I also see an action called custom action, when i click it it opens up a small window with an empty combobox, can i add my custom action there, and how?

    Read the article

  • SCCM - How to make new deployed applications appear in Software Center faster?

    - by icehac
    I am trying to make the process between SCCM deployments and the Software Center (configmgr) faster, if not seamless. Right now, applications generally take about 1-2 hours to populate properly. However, by going to the "Configuration Manager" under the Windows Control Panel, there is an "Actions" tab. Generally 5 minutes after running these "Actions", the software will populate inside the Software Center. The downside of this is the user interaction with the "Actions" pane...I can't have a user going through this process when they request a new application that needs to be deployed through SCCM. I have have played around with using "net stop ccmexec" and "net start ccmexec" to manually run all of these "Actions" on the start command, but it feels a bit archaic. Does anyone have any suggestions how to speed this process up? I feel there is something simple I am missing.

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request Recipes For ASP.NET MVC And AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, the work would be a little crazy. Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Specify Non-constant salt in runtime By default, the salt should be a compile time constant, so it can be used for the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] or [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute. Problem One Web product might be sold to many clients. If a constant salt is evaluated in compile time, after the product is built and deployed to many clients, they all have the same salt. Of course, clients do not like this. Even some clients might want to specify a custom salt in configuration. In these scenarios, salt is required to be a runtime value. Solution In the above [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] and [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute, the salt is passed through constructor. So one solution is to remove this parameter:public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = AntiForgeryToken.Value }; } // Other members. } But here the injected dependency becomes a hard dependency. So the other solution is moving validation code into controller to work around the limitation of attributes:public abstract class AntiForgeryControllerBase : Controller { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; protected AntiForgeryControllerBase(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } protected override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { base.OnAuthorization(filterContext); string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } Then make controller classes inheriting from this AntiForgeryControllerBase class. Now the salt is no long required to be a compile time constant. Submit token via AJAX For browser side, once server side turns on anti-forgery validation for HTTP POST, all AJAX POST requests will fail by default. Problem In AJAX scenarios, the HTTP POST request is not sent by form. Take jQuery as an example:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution Basically, the tokens must be printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() need to be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in both HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token, where $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is useful:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by an iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here, token's container window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >