Search Results

Search found 31625 results on 1265 pages for 'private network'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 293/1265 | < Previous Page | 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300  | Next Page >

  • Customer Feature - "Test for Success"

    To compete, companies need to deploy their applications sooner, at lower cost, and without service interruption—and the way to do that is through rigorous testing in real-world conditions. Find out how Oracle can ensure bulletproof application quality and help organizations meet their mission-critical operational goals with new testing solutions.

    Read the article

  • Why / When / How is this Android serviceBinder resetting to null?

    - by GaZ
    I've written a ListActivity for Android 2.1 which is used to display a list of event categories. As the user selects a category, the program calls a web service to retrieve a list of sub-events. For example, a top level event might be "soccer" and when the user selects this the web service would return various soccer associations (e.g. "english", "french", "german", etc.) and display them in a new list. The following code seems to work occasionally, however sometimes the call to the service (in EventsListTask) fails because the serviceBinder is null. How/Why does this happen? public class EventListsActivity extends ListActivity { private static final String EVENT_ID = "EventId"; private List<ListItem> eventList; private ArrayAdapter<ListItem> listItemArrayAdapter; private static final int LOADING_DIALOG = 1; private EventsListTask eventsListTask = null; private BFService serviceBinder; private ServiceConnection mConnection = new ServiceConnection() { public void onServiceConnected(ComponentName componentName, IBinder iBinder) { Log.i("EventListsActivity", "service connected"); serviceBinder = ((BFService.BFBinder)iBinder).getService(); } public void onServiceDisconnected(ComponentName componentName) { Log.i("EventListsActivity", "service disconnected"); serviceBinder = null; } }; @Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { Log.i("EventListsActivity", "onCreate"); super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.list); eventList = new ArrayList<ListItem>(); listItemArrayAdapter = new ArrayAdapter<ListItem>(this, R.layout.row, eventList); setListAdapter(listItemArrayAdapter); Intent bindIntent = new Intent(this, BFService.class); bindService(bindIntent, mConnection, Context.BIND_AUTO_CREATE); int eventId = getIntent().getIntExtra(EVENT_ID, -1); if (eventsListTask == null || eventsListTask.getStatus() == AsyncTask.Status.FINISHED) { eventsListTask = new EventsListTask(); eventsListTask.execute(eventId); } } @Override protected void onDestroy() { Log.i("EventListsActivity", "destroyed"); super.onDestroy(); unbindService(mConnection); } @Override protected void onListItemClick(ListView listView, View view, int position, long id) { super.onListItemClick(listView, view, position, id); ListItem selectedItem = (ListItem) listView.getAdapter().getItem(position); Intent intent; if (selectedItem.getMarketType() != null) { intent = new Intent(this, MarketActivity.class); intent.putExtra(EVENT_ID, selectedItem.getId()); startActivityIfNeeded(intent, -1); } else if (selectedItem.getId() != -1) { intent = new Intent(this, EventListsActivity.class); intent.putExtra(EVENT_ID, selectedItem.getId()); startActivityIfNeeded(intent, -1); } else { Log.e("EventListsActivity", "unexpected item selected!"); } } @Override protected Dialog onCreateDialog(int id) { switch (id) { case (LOADING_DIALOG) : AlertDialog.Builder loadingDialog = new AlertDialog.Builder(this); loadingDialog.setTitle("Please Wait..."); loadingDialog.setMessage("Communicating with remote service."); return loadingDialog.create(); } return null; } private class EventsListTask extends AsyncTask<Integer, Void, LoginStatusEnum> { @Override protected void onPreExecute() { showDialog(LOADING_DIALOG); } @Override protected void onPostExecute(LoginStatusEnum loginStatusEnum) { dismissDialog(LOADING_DIALOG); if (loginStatusEnum != null) { switch (loginStatusEnum) { case OK: for (ListItem item : eventList) { listItemArrayAdapter.add(item); } listItemArrayAdapter.notifyDataSetChanged(); break; } } } @Override protected LoginStatusEnum doInBackground(Integer... params) { LoginStatusEnum result = LoginStatusEnum.OK; Integer eventId = params[0]; if (serviceBinder != null) { try { if (eventId == null || eventId == -1) { eventList = serviceBinder.getActiveEventTypes(); } else { eventList = serviceBinder.getEvents(eventId); } } catch (WebServiceException wse) { result = LoginStatusEnum.valueOf(wse.getMessage()); } } else { Log.e("EventListsActivity", "serviceBinder is null!"); } return result; } } } EDIT: The serviceBinder appears to be set to null when I reach the bottom of a list, when I change the target intent to go to a different activity: intent = new Intent(this, MarketActivity.class); intent.putExtra(EVENT_ID, selectedItem.getId()); startActivity(intent); This new activity also uses the same background service (binds in the same way, etc.). Is there anything I need to watch out for when doing this? Am I calling the target intent incorrectly? EDIT2: Here's the output from LogCat when I start the activity which calls the service (this time the service failed straight away!): 04-02 07:02:49.147: INFO/ActivityManager(61): Starting activity: Intent { cmp=net.foobar.activity/.EventListsActivity } 04-02 07:02:49.257: INFO/EventListsActivity(353): onCreate 04-02 07:02:49.426: INFO/EventListsActivity(353): service connected 04-02 07:02:49.437: ERROR/EventListsActivity(353): serviceBinder is null!

    Read the article

  • confusion about transactions and msdtc

    - by muhan
    I have some basic confusion about how transactions and msdtc work together. I have a basic server/client winforms app. The app uses transactionscope to encapsulate several sql commands that are executed on the sql server. The app seemed to work fine when I enabled msdtc network access on the server only. Then one day it stopped working saying network access was not enabled. Now it seems that I have to enable msdtc network access on both the client computer and server for transactionscope to work. Does the client or server msdtc service do the transaction work? Or maybe its both? Does anyone have guidance on whether msdtc network access is needed on both client and server or just server?

    Read the article

  • Storing entity in XML, using MVVM to read/write in WPF Application

    - by Christian
    Say I've a class (model) called Instance with Properties DatbaseHostname, AccessManagerHostname, DatabaseUsername and DatabasePassword public class Instance { private string _DatabaseHostname; public string DatabaseHostname { get { return _DatabaseHostname; } set { _DatabaseHostname = value; } } private string _AccessManagerHostname; public string AccessManagerHostname { get { return _AccessManagerHostname; } set { _AccessManagerHostname = value; } } private string _DatabaseUsername; public string DatabaseUsername { get { return _DatabaseUsername; } set { _DatabaseUsername = value; } } private string _DatabasePassword; public string DatabasePassword { get { return _DatabasePassword; } set { _DatabasePassword = value; } } } I'm looking for a sample code to read/write this Model to XML (preferably linq2XML) = storing 1:n instances in XML. i can manage the the view and ViewModel part myself, although it would be nice if someone had a sample of that part too..

    Read the article

  • "Interview"

    Thomas Kurian, senior vice president, Oracle Fusion Middleware, talks about Oracle’s acquisition of BEA.

    Read the article

  • Interview

    Duncan Mills, senior director of product management at Oracle, talks about the recent release of Oracle Enterprise Pack for Eclipse 11g.

    Read the article

  • Interview

    OTN's Justin Kestelyn talks with Richard Sarwal and Leng Leng Tan of Oracle product development about Oracle Enterprise Manager 10g Release 5.

    Read the article

  • JPA Cascading Delete: Setting child FK to NULL on a NOT NULL column

    - by JBristow
    I have two tables: t_promo_program and t_promo_program_param. They are represented by the following JPA entities: @Entity @Table(name = "t_promo_program") public class PromoProgram { @Id @Column(name = "promo_program_id") private Long id; @OneToMany(cascade = {CascadeType.REMOVE}) @JoinColumn(name = "promo_program_id") private List<PromoProgramParam> params; } @Entity @Table(name = "t_promo_program_param") public class PromoProgramParam { @Id @Column(name = "promo_program_param_id") private Long id; //@NotNull // This is a Hibernate annotation so that my test db gets created with the NOT NULL attribute, I'm not married to this annotation. @ManyToOne @JoinColumn(name = "PROMO_PROGRAM_ID", referencedColumnName = "promo_program_id") private PromoProgram promoProgram; } When I delete a PromoProgram, Hibernate hits my database with: update T_PROMO_PROGRAM_PARAM set promo_program_id=null where promo_program_id=? delete from t_promo_program where promo_program_id=? and last_change=? I'm at a loss for where to start looking for the source of the problem.

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice for using lock within inherited classes

    - by JDMX
    I want to know if one class is inheriting from another, is it better to have the classes share a lock object that is defined at the base class or to have a lock object defined at each inheritance level. A very simple example of a lock object on each level of the class public class Foo { private object thisLock = new object(); private int ivalue; public int Value { get { lock( thisLock ) { return ivalue; } } set { lock( thisLock ) { ivalue= value; } } } } public class Foo2: Foo { private object thisLock2 = new object(); public int DoubleValue { get { lock( thisLock2 ) { return base.Value * 2; } } set { lock( thisLock2 ) { base.Value = value / 2; } } } } public class Foo6: Foo2 { private object thisLock6 = new object(); public int TripleDoubleValue { get { lock( thisLock6 ) { return base.DoubleValue * 3; } } set { lock( thisLock6 ) { base.DoubleValue = value / 3; } } } } A very simple example of a shared lock object public class Foo { protected object thisLock = new object(); private int ivalue; public int Value { get { lock( thisLock ) { return ivalue; } } set { lock( thisLock ) { ivalue= value; } } } } public class Foo2: Foo { public int DoubleValue { get { lock( thisLock ) { return base.Value * 2; } } set { lock( thisLock ) { base.Value = value / 2; } } } } public class Foo6: Foo2 { public int TripleDoubleValue { get { lock( thisLock ) { return base.DoubleValue * 3; } } set { lock( thisLock ) { base.DoubleValue = value / 3; } } } } Which example is the preferred way to manage locking within an inherited class?

    Read the article

  • Enable File sharing in Windows Vista

    - by LiveEn
    There seems to be a problem in my Windows Vista.. In the network and sharing centre only the network discovery is visible. I cant find a option for file sharing as mentions in other websites. There is no folder sharing option on any folder. Can someone please tell me how to enable file sharing in my Windows Visa? i cant share any of my file in the network.

    Read the article

  • Why is XmlSerializer so hard to use?

    - by mafutrct
    I imagine to use XML serialization like this: class Foo { public Foo (string name) { Name1 = name; Name2 = name; } [XmlInclude] public string Name1 { get; private set; } [XmlInclude] private string Name2; } StreamWriter wr = new StreamWriter("path.xml"); new XmlSerializer<Foo>().Serialize (wr, new Foo ("me")); But this does not work at all: XmlSerializer is not generic. I have to cast from and to object on (de)serialization. Every property has to be fully public. Why aren't we just using Reflection to access private setters? Private fields cannot be serialized. I'd like to decorate private fields with an attribute to have XmlSerializer include them. Did I miss something and XmlSerializer is actually offering the described possibilities? Are there alternate serializers to XML that handle these cases more sophisticatedly? If not: We're in 2010 after all, and .NET has been around for many years. XML serialization is often used, totally standard and should be really easy to perform. Or is my understanding possibly wrong and XML serialization ought not to expose the described features for a good reason? (Feel free to adjust caption or tags. If this should be CW, please just drop a note.)

    Read the article

  • Regex is capturing the whole string

    - by M28
    I am using the following regex: (public|private +)?function +([a-zA-Z_$][0-9a-zA-Z_$]*) *\\(([0-9a-zA-Z_$, ]*)\\) *{(.*)} To match the following string: public function messenger(text){ sendMsg(text); } private function sendMsg(text){ alert(text); } (There is no line breaks in the string, they are converted to whitespaces before the regex runs) I wanted it to capture both functions, but it is capturing: $1: "" $2: "messenger" $3: "text" $4: " sendMsg(text); } private function sendMsg(text){ alert(text); " By the way, I am using Javascript.

    Read the article

  • Specification Pattern and Boolean Operator Precedence

    - by Anders Nielsen
    In our project, we have implemented the Specification Pattern with boolean operators (see DDD p 274), like so: public abstract class Rule { public Rule and(Rule rule) { return new AndRule(this, rule); } public Rule or(Rule rule) { return new OrRule(this, rule); } public Rule not() { return new NotRule(this); } public abstract boolean isSatisfied(T obj); } class AndRule extends Rule { private Rule one; private Rule two; AndRule(Rule one, Rule two) { this.one = one; this.two = two; } public boolean isSatisfied(T obj) { return one.isSatisfied(obj) && two.isSatisfied(obj); } } class OrRule extends Rule { private Rule one; private Rule two; OrRule(Rule one, Rule two) { this.one = one; this.two = two; } public boolean isSatisfied(T obj) { return one.isSatisfied(obj) || two.isSatisfied(obj); } } class NotRule extends Rule { private Rule rule; NotRule(Rule obj) { this.rule = obj; } public boolean isSatisfied(T obj) { return !rule.isSatisfied(obj); } } Which permits a nice expressiveness of the rules using method-chaining, but it doesn't support the standard operator precedence rules of which can lead to subtle errors. The following rules are not equivalent: Rule<Car> isNiceCar = isRed.and(isConvertible).or(isFerrari); Rule<Car> isNiceCar2 = isFerrari.or(isRed).and(isConvertible); The rule isNiceCar2 is not satisfied if the car is not a convertible, which can be confusing since if they were booleans isRed && isConvertible || isFerrari would be equivalent to isFerrari || isRed && isConvertible I realize that they would be equivalent if we rewrote isNiceCar2 to be isFerrari.or(isRed.and(isConvertible)), but both are syntactically correct. The best solution we can come up with, is to outlaw the method-chaining, and use constructors instead: OR(isFerrari, AND(isConvertible, isRed)) Does anyone have a better suggestion?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300  | Next Page >