Search Results

Search found 1041 results on 42 pages for 'jon ericson'.

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 3/42 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to start / stop internet sharing using apple script

    - by jon
    i dont have a wifi router, so when at home i need to turn my laptop into a wifi source so that both myself and my partner can access the internet. however during the days i work at a coffee shop and require the use of their wifi. i'm running snow leopard and i find it stupidly cumbersome to constantly be turning off and on, first internet sharing and then my wifi. any ideas for a quick n dirty applescript solution? thanks a bajillion! Jon

    Read the article

  • When to write an iterator?

    - by Jon
    I know this is probably a silly question.. When would I need to write my own iterator? Is it just when designing my own container class? Are there any other times when I would want to create my own iterator? Examples would be appropriated. -Jon

    Read the article

  • Understanding evaluation of expressions containing '++' and '->' operators in C.

    - by Leif Ericson
    Consider this example: struct { int num; } s, *ps; s.num = 0; ps = &s; ++ps->num; printf("%d", s.num); /* Prints 1 */ It prints 1. So I understand that it is because according to operators precedence, -> is higher than ++, so the value ps->num (which is 0) is firstly fetched and then the ++ operator operates on it, so it increments it to 1. struct { int num; } s, *ps; s.num = 0; ps = &s; ps++->num; printf("%d", s.num); /* Prints 0 */ In this example I get 0 and I don't understand why; the explanation of the first example should be the same for this example. But it seems that this expression is evaluated as follows: At first, the operator ++ operates, and it operates on ps, so it increments it to the next struct. Only then -> operates and it does nothing because it just fetches the num field of the next struct and does nothing with it. But it contradicts the precedence of operators, which says that -> have higher precedence than ++. Can someone explain this behavior? Edit: After reading two answers which refer to a C++ precedence tables which indicate that a prefix ++/-- operators have lower precedence than ->, I did some googling and came up with this link that states that this rule applies also to C itself. It fits exactly and fully explains this behavior, but I must add that the table in this link contradicts a table in my own copy of K&R ANSI C. So if you have suggestions as to which source is correct I would like to know. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How do you read a file line by line in your language of choice?

    - by Jon Ericson
    I got inspired to try out Haskell again based on a recent answer. My big block is that reading a file line by line (a task made simple in languages such as Perl) seems complicated in a functional language. How do you read a file line by line in your favorite language? So that we are comparing apples to other types of apples, please write a program that numbers the lines of the input file. So if your input is: Line the first. Next line. End of communication. The output would look like: 1 Line the first. 2 Next line. 3 End of communication. I will post my Haskell program as an example. Ken commented that this question does not specify how errors should be handled. I'm not overly concerned about it because: Most answers did the obvious thing and read from stdin and wrote to stdout. The nice thing is that it puts the onus on the user to redirect those streams the way they want. So if stdin is redirected from a non-existent file, the shell will take care of reporting the error, for instance. The question is more aimed at how a language does IO than how it handles exceptions. But if necessary error handling is missing in an answer, feel free to either edit the code to fix it or make a note in the comments.

    Read the article

  • What's your experience with Flash drives?

    - by Jon Ericson
    EMC is marketing Solid State Flash Drives and my project is thinking about moving that direction in the future. Does anyone have any experience with replacing traditional disk storage with flash drives? Besides price, have you experienced any downsides to the technology?

    Read the article

  • Style question about existing piece of code (C/C++)

    - by Leif Ericson
    I just hope the following doesn't seem to you like redundant jabber :) Anyway, there is that: for (p = fmt; *p; p++) { if (*p != '%') { putchar(*p); continue; } switch (*++p) { /* Some cases here */ ... } } And I wondered why the writer (Kernighan / Ritchie) used the continue in the if statement. I thought it was for the mere reason that he deemed it would be more elegant than indenting the whole switch under an else statement, what do you think?

    Read the article

  • SimpleMembership, Membership Providers, Universal Providers and the new ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms and ASP.NET MVC 4 templates

    - by Jon Galloway
    The ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet template adds some new, very useful features which are built on top of SimpleMembership. These changes add some great features, like a much simpler and extensible membership API and support for OAuth. However, the new account management features require SimpleMembership and won't work against existing ASP.NET Membership Providers. I'll start with a summary of top things you need to know, then dig into a lot more detail. Summary: SimpleMembership has been designed as a replacement for traditional the previous ASP.NET Role and Membership provider system SimpleMembership solves common problems people ran into with the Membership provider system and was designed for modern user / membership / storage needs SimpleMembership integrates with the previous membership system, but you can't use a MembershipProvider with SimpleMembership The new ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet application template AccountController requires SimpleMembership and is not compatible with previous MembershipProviders You can continue to use existing ASP.NET Role and Membership providers in ASP.NET 4.5 and ASP.NET MVC 4 - just not with the ASP.NET MVC 4 AccountController The existing ASP.NET Role and Membership provider system remains supported as is part of the ASP.NET core ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms does not use SimpleMembership; it implements OAuth on top of ASP.NET Membership The ASP.NET Web Site Administration Tool (WSAT) is not compatible with SimpleMembership The following is the result of a few conversations with Erik Porter (PM for ASP.NET MVC) to make sure I had some the overall details straight, combined with a lot of time digging around in ILSpy and Visual Studio's assembly browsing tools. SimpleMembership: The future of membership for ASP.NET The ASP.NET Membership system was introduces with ASP.NET 2.0 back in 2005. It was designed to solve common site membership requirements at the time, which generally involved username / password based registration and profile storage in SQL Server. It was designed with a few extensibility mechanisms - notably a provider system (which allowed you override some specifics like backing storage) and the ability to store additional profile information (although the additional  profile information was packed into a single column which usually required access through the API). While it's sometimes frustrating to work with, it's held up for seven years - probably since it handles the main use case (username / password based membership in a SQL Server database) smoothly and can be adapted to most other needs (again, often frustrating, but it can work). The ASP.NET Web Pages and WebMatrix efforts allowed the team an opportunity to take a new look at a lot of things - e.g. the Razor syntax started with ASP.NET Web Pages, not ASP.NET MVC. The ASP.NET Web Pages team designed SimpleMembership to (wait for it) simplify the task of dealing with membership. As Matthew Osborn said in his post Using SimpleMembership With ASP.NET WebPages: With the introduction of ASP.NET WebPages and the WebMatrix stack our team has really be focusing on making things simpler for the developer. Based on a lot of customer feedback one of the areas that we wanted to improve was the built in security in ASP.NET. So with this release we took that time to create a new built in (and default for ASP.NET WebPages) security provider. I say provider because the new stuff is still built on the existing ASP.NET framework. So what do we call this new hotness that we have created? Well, none other than SimpleMembership. SimpleMembership is an umbrella term for both SimpleMembership and SimpleRoles. Part of simplifying membership involved fixing some common problems with ASP.NET Membership. Problems with ASP.NET Membership ASP.NET Membership was very obviously designed around a set of assumptions: Users and user information would most likely be stored in a full SQL Server database or in Active Directory User and profile information would be optimized around a set of common attributes (UserName, Password, IsApproved, CreationDate, Comment, Role membership...) and other user profile information would be accessed through a profile provider Some problems fall out of these assumptions. Requires Full SQL Server for default cases The default, and most fully featured providers ASP.NET Membership providers (SQL Membership Provider, SQL Role Provider, SQL Profile Provider) require full SQL Server. They depend on stored procedure support, and they rely on SQL Server cache dependencies, they depend on agents for clean up and maintenance. So the main SQL Server based providers don't work well on SQL Server CE, won't work out of the box on SQL Azure, etc. Note: Cory Fowler recently let me know about these Updated ASP.net scripts for use with Microsoft SQL Azure which do support membership, personalization, profile, and roles. But the fact that we need a support page with a set of separate SQL scripts underscores the underlying problem. Aha, you say! Jon's forgetting the Universal Providers, a.k.a. System.Web.Providers! Hold on a bit, we'll get to those... Custom Membership Providers have to work with a SQL-Server-centric API If you want to work with another database or other membership storage system, you need to to inherit from the provider base classes and override a bunch of methods which are tightly focused on storing a MembershipUser in a relational database. It can be done (and you can often find pretty good ones that have already been written), but it's a good amount of work and often leaves you with ugly code that has a bunch of System.NotImplementedException fun since there are a lot of methods that just don't apply. Designed around a specific view of users, roles and profiles The existing providers are focused on traditional membership - a user has a username and a password, some specific roles on the site (e.g. administrator, premium user), and may have some additional "nice to have" optional information that can be accessed via an API in your application. This doesn't fit well with some modern usage patterns: In OAuth and OpenID, the user doesn't have a password Often these kinds of scenarios map better to user claims or rights instead of monolithic user roles For many sites, profile or other non-traditional information is very important and needs to come from somewhere other than an API call that maps to a database blob What would work a lot better here is a system in which you were able to define your users, rights, and other attributes however you wanted and the membership system worked with your model - not the other way around. Requires specific schema, overflow in blob columns I've already mentioned this a few times, but it bears calling out separately - ASP.NET Membership focuses on SQL Server storage, and that storage is based on a very specific database schema. SimpleMembership as a better membership system As you might have guessed, SimpleMembership was designed to address the above problems. Works with your Schema As Matthew Osborn explains in his Using SimpleMembership With ASP.NET WebPages post, SimpleMembership is designed to integrate with your database schema: All SimpleMembership requires is that there are two columns on your users table so that we can hook up to it – an “ID” column and a “username” column. The important part here is that they can be named whatever you want. For instance username doesn't have to be an alias it could be an email column you just have to tell SimpleMembership to treat that as the “username” used to log in. Matthew's example shows using a very simple user table named Users (it could be named anything) with a UserID and Username column, then a bunch of other columns he wanted in his app. Then we point SimpleMemberhip at that table with a one-liner: WebSecurity.InitializeDatabaseFile("SecurityDemo.sdf", "Users", "UserID", "Username", true); No other tables are needed, the table can be named anything we want, and can have pretty much any schema we want as long as we've got an ID and something that we can map to a username. Broaden database support to the whole SQL Server family While SimpleMembership is not database agnostic, it works across the SQL Server family. It continues to support full SQL Server, but it also works with SQL Azure, SQL Server CE, SQL Server Express, and LocalDB. Everything's implemented as SQL calls rather than requiring stored procedures, views, agents, and change notifications. Note that SimpleMembership still requires some flavor of SQL Server - it won't work with MySQL, NoSQL databases, etc. You can take a look at the code in WebMatrix.WebData.dll using a tool like ILSpy if you'd like to see why - there places where SQL Server specific SQL statements are being executed, especially when creating and initializing tables. It seems like you might be able to work with another database if you created the tables separately, but I haven't tried it and it's not supported at this point. Note: I'm thinking it would be possible for SimpleMembership (or something compatible) to run Entity Framework so it would work with any database EF supports. That seems useful to me - thoughts? Note: SimpleMembership has the same database support - anything in the SQL Server family - that Universal Providers brings to the ASP.NET Membership system. Easy to with Entity Framework Code First The problem with with ASP.NET Membership's system for storing additional account information is that it's the gate keeper. That means you're stuck with its schema and accessing profile information through its API. SimpleMembership flips that around by allowing you to use any table as a user store. That means you're in control of the user profile information, and you can access it however you'd like - it's just data. Let's look at a practical based on the AccountModel.cs class in an ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet project. Here I'm adding a Birthday property to the UserProfile class. [Table("UserProfile")] public class UserProfile { [Key] [DatabaseGeneratedAttribute(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)] public int UserId { get; set; } public string UserName { get; set; } public DateTime Birthday { get; set; } } Now if I want to access that information, I can just grab the account by username and read the value. var context = new UsersContext(); var username = User.Identity.Name; var user = context.UserProfiles.SingleOrDefault(u => u.UserName == username); var birthday = user.Birthday; So instead of thinking of SimpleMembership as a big membership API, think of it as something that handles membership based on your user database. In SimpleMembership, everything's keyed off a user row in a table you define rather than a bunch of entries in membership tables that were out of your control. How SimpleMembership integrates with ASP.NET Membership Okay, enough sales pitch (and hopefully background) on why things have changed. How does this affect you? Let's start with a diagram to show the relationship (note: I've simplified by removing a few classes to show the important relationships): So SimpleMembershipProvider is an implementaiton of an ExtendedMembershipProvider, which inherits from MembershipProvider and adds some other account / OAuth related things. Here's what ExtendedMembershipProvider adds to MembershipProvider: The important thing to take away here is that a SimpleMembershipProvider is a MembershipProvider, but a MembershipProvider is not a SimpleMembershipProvider. This distinction is important in practice: you cannot use an existing MembershipProvider (including the Universal Providers found in System.Web.Providers) with an API that requires a SimpleMembershipProvider, including any of the calls in WebMatrix.WebData.WebSecurity or Microsoft.Web.WebPages.OAuth.OAuthWebSecurity. However, that's as far as it goes. Membership Providers still work if you're accessing them through the standard Membership API, and all of the core stuff  - including the AuthorizeAttribute, role enforcement, etc. - will work just fine and without any change. Let's look at how that affects you in terms of the new templates. Membership in the ASP.NET MVC 4 project templates ASP.NET MVC 4 offers six Project Templates: Empty - Really empty, just the assemblies, folder structure and a tiny bit of basic configuration. Basic - Like Empty, but with a bit of UI preconfigured (css / images / bundling). Internet - This has both a Home and Account controller and associated views. The Account Controller supports registration and login via either local accounts and via OAuth / OpenID providers. Intranet - Like the Internet template, but it's preconfigured for Windows Authentication. Mobile - This is preconfigured using jQuery Mobile and is intended for mobile-only sites. Web API - This is preconfigured for a service backend built on ASP.NET Web API. Out of these templates, only one (the Internet template) uses SimpleMembership. ASP.NET MVC 4 Basic template The Basic template has configuration in place to use ASP.NET Membership with the Universal Providers. You can see that configuration in the ASP.NET MVC 4 Basic template's web.config: <profile defaultProvider="DefaultProfileProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultProfileProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultProfileProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" applicationName="/" /> </providers> </profile> <membership defaultProvider="DefaultMembershipProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultMembershipProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultMembershipProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" enablePasswordRetrieval="false" enablePasswordReset="true" requiresQuestionAndAnswer="false" requiresUniqueEmail="false" maxInvalidPasswordAttempts="5" minRequiredPasswordLength="6" minRequiredNonalphanumericCharacters="0" passwordAttemptWindow="10" applicationName="/" /> </providers> </membership> <roleManager defaultProvider="DefaultRoleProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultRoleProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultRoleProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" applicationName="/" /> </providers> </roleManager> <sessionState mode="InProc" customProvider="DefaultSessionProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultSessionProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultSessionStateProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" /> </providers> </sessionState> This means that it's business as usual for the Basic template as far as ASP.NET Membership works. ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet template The Internet template has a few things set up to bootstrap SimpleMembership: \Models\AccountModels.cs defines a basic user account and includes data annotations to define keys and such \Filters\InitializeSimpleMembershipAttribute.cs creates the membership database using the above model, then calls WebSecurity.InitializeDatabaseConnection which verifies that the underlying tables are in place and marks initialization as complete (for the application's lifetime) \Controllers\AccountController.cs makes heavy use of OAuthWebSecurity (for OAuth account registration / login / management) and WebSecurity. WebSecurity provides account management services for ASP.NET MVC (and Web Pages) WebSecurity can work with any ExtendedMembershipProvider. There's one in the box (SimpleMembershipProvider) but you can write your own. Since a standard MembershipProvider is not an ExtendedMembershipProvider, WebSecurity will throw exceptions if the default membership provider is a MembershipProvider rather than an ExtendedMembershipProvider. Practical example: Create a new ASP.NET MVC 4 application using the Internet application template Install the Microsoft ASP.NET Universal Providers for LocalDB NuGet package Run the application, click on Register, add a username and password, and click submit You'll get the following execption in AccountController.cs::Register: To call this method, the "Membership.Provider" property must be an instance of "ExtendedMembershipProvider". This occurs because the ASP.NET Universal Providers packages include a web.config transform that will update your web.config to add the Universal Provider configuration I showed in the Basic template example above. When WebSecurity tries to use the configured ASP.NET Membership Provider, it checks if it can be cast to an ExtendedMembershipProvider before doing anything else. So, what do you do? Options: If you want to use the new AccountController, you'll either need to use the SimpleMembershipProvider or another valid ExtendedMembershipProvider. This is pretty straightforward. If you want to use an existing ASP.NET Membership Provider in ASP.NET MVC 4, you can't use the new AccountController. You can do a few things: Replace  the AccountController.cs and AccountModels.cs in an ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet project with one from an ASP.NET MVC 3 application (you of course won't have OAuth support). Then, if you want, you can go through and remove other things that were built around SimpleMembership - the OAuth partial view, the NuGet packages (e.g. the DotNetOpenAuthAuth package, etc.) Use an ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet application template and add in a Universal Providers NuGet package. Then copy in the AccountController and AccountModel classes. Create an ASP.NET MVC 3 project and upgrade it to ASP.NET MVC 4 using the steps shown in the ASP.NET MVC 4 release notes. None of these are particularly elegant or simple. Maybe we (or just me?) can do something to make this simpler - perhaps a NuGet package. However, this should be an edge case - hopefully the cases where you'd need to create a new ASP.NET but use legacy ASP.NET Membership Providers should be pretty rare. Please let me (or, preferably the team) know if that's an incorrect assumption. Membership in the ASP.NET 4.5 project template ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms took a different approach which builds off ASP.NET Membership. Instead of using the WebMatrix security assemblies, Web Forms uses Microsoft.AspNet.Membership.OpenAuth assembly. I'm no expert on this, but from a bit of time in ILSpy and Visual Studio's (very pretty) dependency graphs, this uses a Membership Adapter to save OAuth data into an EF managed database while still running on top of ASP.NET Membership. Note: There may be a way to use this in ASP.NET MVC 4, although it would probably take some plumbing work to hook it up. How does this fit in with Universal Providers (System.Web.Providers)? Just to summarize: Universal Providers are intended for cases where you have an existing ASP.NET Membership Provider and you want to use it with another SQL Server database backend (other than SQL Server). It doesn't require agents to handle expired session cleanup and other background tasks, it piggybacks these tasks on other calls. Universal Providers are not really, strictly speaking, universal - at least to my way of thinking. They only work with databases in the SQL Server family. Universal Providers do not work with Simple Membership. The Universal Providers packages include some web config transforms which you would normally want when you're using them. What about the Web Site Administration Tool? Visual Studio includes tooling to launch the Web Site Administration Tool (WSAT) to configure users and roles in your application. WSAT is built to work with ASP.NET Membership, and is not compatible with Simple Membership. There are two main options there: Use the WebSecurity and OAuthWebSecurity API to manage the users and roles Create a web admin using the above APIs Since SimpleMembership runs on top of your database, you can update your users as you would any other data - via EF or even in direct database edits (in development, of course)

    Read the article

  • Hyper-V Guests Dying

    - by Jon Rauschenberger
    I just hit my THIRD instance of a Hyper-V guest machine dying with the exact same behavior. In all three instances we are hosting WS2008 guests on a WS2008 host. AFter a config change, we reboot the guest and the guest OS comes up but in a very cripled state. Specifically, we are able to log into the guest, but can't launch any apps and the guest never comes active on the network. I opened a support ticket with MS the second time this happened and they focused in on the DCOM subsystem not coming up...best explanation they could provide was that permissions on key system files got corrupted. I eventually gave up on the ticket after close to 10 hours on the phone trying different things that were going no where. What really concerns me is that we have now seen the exact same thing happen to a guest hosted on a completly differet host machine. There is zero hardware overlap between the two. Has anyone seen this before?? It's really odd behavior, but it also seems like there's a pattern here that's concerning me. Thanks, jon

    Read the article

  • Weird permission issue with POSIX ACLs, NFS v3 on Linux

    - by jon
    I have two Linux systems, both running Debian Squeeze. Versions of (I think) the stuff involved are: kernel: 2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 ii nfs-kernel-server 1:1.2.2-4squeeze2 support for NFS kernel server ii libnfsidmap2 0.23-2 An nfs idmapping library ii nfs-common 1:1.2.2-4squeeze2 NFS support files common to client and server ii portmap 6.0.0-2 RPC port mapper (The client doesn't have nfs-kernel-server involved.) I have a directory with ACLs: # file: dirname # owner: jon # group: foogroup # flags: -s- user::rwx user:www-data:rwx group::r-x group:foogroup:rwx mask::rwx other::r-x default:... There are two users, neither one of which owns the directory: uid=3001(jake) gid=3001(jake) groups=3001(jake),104(wheel),3999(foogroup) uid=3005(nic) gid=3005(nic) groups=3005(nic),3999(foogroup) The jake user can create files in the directory without issues. The nic user can't. All UIDs/GIDs are the same on the client and server. I've verified (packet sniffing) that the right uids/gids get sent via AUTH_UNIX are correct-- uid=gid=3005, auxiliary gids=3005,3999-- and that the server replies with NFS3ERR_ACCESS, which the kernel on the client maps to EACCES (Permission denied). Can anyone help me here?

    Read the article

  • filter / directing URLs coming onto a network

    - by Jon
    Hi all, I an not sure if this is possible or not but what i would like to do is as follows: I have one IP address (dynamic using zoneedit.com to keep it upto date). I have one webserver running my main site which is an Ubuntu machine running Apache. I also have a windows 2008 server running another site. Just to confuse things I also run part of my Apache site on the windows server, currently using proxypassreverse to get the information from it. So it looks something like this: IP 1.2.3.4 maps to mydomain.com as well as myotherdomain.com All requests that come into port 80 are forwarded to the Apache box and I use Virtualhost settings to proxy the windows sites where needed. so mydomain.com is an Apache site mydomain.com/mywindowssection is the Apache server using proxypassreverse to get part of the site from the Windows server myotherdomain.com uses Apache and proxypassreverse to get the whole site. What I would like to be able to do is forward all http requests that come into my network to one machine that figures out who should be serving that content. so: mydomain.com would go to the Apache machine myotherdomain.com would go the windows machine. I am just in the process of setting up an Astaro gateway (never done this before so taking a while to configure) as my firewall, dns, dhcp etc, don't know if this can handle it. I have the capacity to run a VM on the network if a seperate box would be needed for this process as well. Thanks for any and all feedback. Jon

    Read the article

  • Silverlight Cream for November 26, 2011 -- #1175

    - by Dave Campbell
    In this Issue: Michael Washington, Manas Patnaik, Jeff Blankenburg, Doug Mair, Jon Galloway, Richard Bartholomew, Peter Bromberg, Joel Reyes, Zeben Chen, Navneet Gupta, and Cathy Sullivan. Above the Fold: Silverlight: "Using ASP.NET PageMethods With Silverlight" Peter Bromberg WP7: "Leveraging Background Services and Agents in Windows Phone 7 (Mango)" Jon Galloway Metro/WinRT/Windows8: "Debugging Contracts using Windows Simulator" Cathy Sullivan LightSwitch: "LightSwitch: It Is About The Money (It Is Always About The Money)" Michael Washington Shoutouts: Michael Palermo's latest Desert Mountain Developers is up Michael Washington's latest Visual Studio #LightSwitch Daily is up From SilverlightCream.com:LightSwitch: It Is About The Money (It Is Always About The Money)Michael Washington has a very nice post up about LightSwitch apps in general and his opinion about the future use... based on what he and I have been up to, I tend to agree on all counts!Accessing Controls from DataGrid ColumnHeader – SilverlightManas Patnaik's latest post is about using the VisualTreeHelper class to iterate through the visual tree to find the controls you need ... including sample code31 Days of Mango | Day #18: Using Sample DataJeff Blankenburg's Day 18 in his 31-Day Mango quest is on Sample Data using Expression Blend, and he begins with great links to his other Blend posts followed by a nice sample data tutorial and source31 Days of Mango | Day #19: Tilt EffectsDoug Mair returns to the reigns of Jeff's 31-Days series with number 19 which is all about Tilt Effects ... as seen in the Phone application when you select a user... Doug shows how to add this effect to your appLeveraging Background Services and Agents in Windows Phone 7 (Mango)Jon Galloway has a WP7 post up discussing Background Services and how they all fit together... he's got a great diagram of that as an overview then really nice discussion of each followed up by his slides from DevConnections, and codeNetflix on Windows 8This one isn't C#/XAML, but Richard Bartholomew has a Netflix on Windows 8 app running that bears noticeUsing ASP.NET PageMethods With SilverlightPeter Bromberg has a post up demonstrating calling PageMethods from a Silverlight app using the ScriptManager controlAWESOME Windows Phone Power ToolJoel Reyes announced the release of a full-featured tool for side-loading apps to your WP7 device... available at codeplexMicrosoft Windows Simulator Rotation and Resolution EmulationZeben Chen discusses the Windows 8 Simulator a bit deeper with this code-laden post showing how to look at roation and orientation-aware apps and resolution.First look at Windows SimulatorNavneet Gupta has a great into post to using the simulator in VS2011 for Windows 8 apps. Four things you really need this for: Touch Emulation, Rotation, Different target resolutions, and ContractsDebugging Contracts using Windows SimulatorCathy Sullivan shows how to debug W8 Contracts in VS2011... why you ask? because when you hit one in the debugger, the target app disappears.. but enter the simulator... check it outStay in the 'Light!Twitter SilverlightNews | Twitter WynApse | WynApse.com | Tagged Posts | SilverlightCreamJoin me @ SilverlightCream | Phoenix Silverlight User GroupTechnorati Tags:Silverlight    Silverlight 3    Silverlight 4    Windows PhoneMIX10

    Read the article

  • Proper fstab entry to mount a samba share in 12.04

    - by JPbuntu
    I am a little confused on the proper fstab entry for a samba share in Ubuntu 12.04 I can get the drive to mount manually by using: sudo mount -t cifs //192.168.2.2/raid_drive /mnt/homeserver -o username=jon,password=password So I tried putting this in fstab: //192.168.2.2/raid_drive /mnt/homeserver cifs username=jon,password=password,iocharset=utf8,mode=0777,dir_mode=07??77 0 0 Which gives me this error in syslog: kernel: [ 2217.925354] CIFS: Unknown mount option mode kernel: [ 2217.936345] CIFS VFS: default security mechanism requested. The default security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.3 This guide says to use smbfs although I believe smbfs is deprecated? What is a common fstab configuration for a samba share in Ubuntu 12.04? EDIT: Using the accepted answer below I was initially getting this error message (from dmesg): [ 45.520883] CIFS VFS: Error connecting to socket. Aborting operation [ 45.520990] CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -115 although it turns out this was due to network connectivity issues, and not related to improper fstab entry.

    Read the article

  • Why does this static field always get initialized over-eagerly?

    - by TheSilverBullet
    I am looking at this excellent article from Jon Skeet. While executing the demo code, Jon Skeet says that we can expect three different kinds of behaviours. To quote that article: The runtime could decide to run the type initializer on loading the assembly to start with... Or perhaps it will run it when the static method is first run... Or even wait until the field is first accessed... When I try this out (on framework 4), I always get the first result. That is, the static method is initialized before the assembly is loaded. I have tried running this multiple times and get the same result. (I tried both the debug and release versions) Why is this so? Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • C#4: Why does this static field always get initialized over-eagerly?

    - by TheSilverBullet
    I am looking at this excellent article from Jon Skeet at this location: http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/General/Beforefieldinit.aspx While executing the demo code, Jon Skeet says that we can expect three different kinds of behaviours. To quote that article: The runtime could decide to run the type initializer on loading the assembly to start with... Or perhaps it will run it when the static method is first run... Or even wait until the field is first accessed... When I try this out (on framework 4), I always get the first result. That is, the static method is initialized before the assembly is loaded. I have tried running this multiple times and get the same result. (I tried both the debug and release versions) Why is this so? Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Wcf IInstanceProvider Behaviour never calling Realease() ?

    - by Jon
    Hi, I'm implementing my own IInstanceProvider class to override the creation and realease of new service instances but the Release() method never gets called on my implemented class? It's implemented using an IServiceBehavior to attach to the exposed endpoint. No matter how hard we hammer the service the Relaease() method nevers gets called. We have the service running a per call instanceContext mode with 50 instance max. The deconstruct of the service instance gets called but not on all created instance and this looks like the gargageCollection rather than wcf realeasing and disposing. Any ideas why the Release() method never gets called? Thanks in Advance, Jon

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET radiobuttonlist onclientclick

    - by Jon
    I've noticed there is no OnClientClick() property for the radiobuttonlist in the ASP.NET control set. Is this a purposeful omissiong on Microsoft's part? Anyway, I've tried to add OnClick to the radio button list like so: For Each li As ListItem In rblSearch.Items li.Attributes.Add("OnClick", "javascript:alert('jon');") Next But alas, it doesn't work. I've even checked the source in firebug, and there is no javascript shown in the radiobuttonlist. Does anyone know how to get this very simple thing working? I'm using ASP.NET control adpaters so don't know if that has anything to do with it. (I wish asp.net/javascript would just work out the box!!!)

    Read the article

  • Clear validation on textInput when validation is not enabled

    - by Jon
    Hi, I've created a custom textInput componenet that handles it's own validation using a private validator. The validation is enabled depending on the state of the component i.e. validation is enable when the components state is "edit". However, when the state changes from edit the internal validator is set to not enabled but the validation errors on the textbox do not clear - the textInput still has the red border and on mouseover the validation errors come up. What I want to happen is that when a validator is disabled the error formatting and error messages clear from the text input control. Does anyone have any idea how to do this I tried setting the internal validator instance to enabled = false and dispatching a new focusOutEvent as below but the validation error formatting is still applied to the textInput contrl. _validatorInstance.enabled = false; //clear the validation errors if any dispatchEvent(new FocusEvent(FocusEvent.FOCUS_OUT)); Any ideas? Thanks Jon

    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 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >