Search Results

Search found 5084 results on 204 pages for 'policy routing'.

Page 3/204 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• How can I erase the traces of Folder Redirection from the Default Domain Policy

  - by bruor

  I've taken over from an IT outsourcer and have found a struggle now that we're starting a migration to windows 7. Someone decided that they would setup Folder redirection in the Default Domain Policy. I've since configured redirection in another policy at an OU level. No matter what I do, the windows 7 systems pick up the Default Domain Policy folder redirection settings only. I keep getting entries in the event log showing that the previously redirected folders "need to be redirected" with a status of 0x80000004. From what I can tell this just means that it's redirecting them locally. Is there a way I can wipe that section of the GPO clean so it's no longer there? I'm hesitant to try to reset the default domain policy to complete defaults. ***UPDATE 6-26 I found that the following condition occurred and was causing the grief here. I've already implemented the new policies for clients, and for some reason, XP was working great, 7 was refusing to process. The DDP was enforced. Because of this, and the fact that the folder redirection policies were set to redirect back to the local profile upon removal, it was forcing clients to pick up it's "redirect to local" settings. Requirements for to recreate the issue. -Create a new test OU and policy. -Create some folder redirection settings, set them to redirect to local upon removal -Remove settings on that GPO -Refresh your view of the GPO and check the settings. -You'll notice that the settings show "not configured" entries for folder redirection. -Enforce this GPO -Create another sub-OU -Create a GPO linked to this sub-ou and configure some folder redirection settings. -Watch as the enforced GPOs "not configured" setting overrides the policy you just defined. I've had to relink the DDP to all OU's that have "block inheritance" enabled, and disable the "enforced" option on the DDP as a workaround. I'd love to re-enable enforcement of the DDP, but until I can erase the traces of folder redirection settings from the DDP, I think I'm stuck.

  Read the article

• How can I edit local security policy from a batch file?

  - by Stephen Jennings

  I am trying to write a utility as a batch file that, among other things, adds a user to the "Deny logon locally" local security policy. This batch file will be used on hundreds of independent computers (not on a domain and aren't even on the same network). I assumed one of the following were my options, but perhaps there's one I haven't thought of. A command line utility similar to net.exe which can modify local security policy. A VBScript sample to do the same. Write my own using some WMI or Win32 calls. I'd rather not do this one if I don't have to.

  Read the article

• how do i automatically add a new route to the routing table?

  - by Robbie Mckennie

  I'm looking at linking two networks with a long range Ethernet bridge. I know I can connect my two networks with a router, but my problem is how will my computers know where to send packets if I don't add the route manually? I COULD add them manually, but it seems like a hassle. I have very very limited knowledge of RIP (I know it has something to do with routing), but I don't know how to use it. edit: My vision for the network would be the 2 networks (which are currently independent home networks), connected by a microwave Ethernet link. I assumed i'd need a router on one end of the bridge, to handle communication between the 2 networks.

  Read the article

• Policy Administration is the Top 2011 IT Priority for Insurers

  - by helen.pitts(at)oracle.com

  The current issue of Insurance Networking News includes an interesting column by Novarica's Matt Josefowicz.  Recent research by the firm revealed that policy administration replacement or extension is the most common strategic IT project for insurers this year.  The article goes on to note that insurers are keenly focused on the business capabilities that can be delivered once the system is in production as well as the ability to leverage agile development methodologies and true business/IT collaboration during implementation. The results are not too surprising given that policy administration is a mission-critical system for life and annuity insurers.  As Josefowicz notes, "Core systems are called core for a reason--they are at the heart of the insurer's ability to function.  Replacing them is not to be done lightly, but failing to replace them can mean diminishing the ability to compete or function effectively as a company." Insurers can no longer rely on inflexible policy administration systems that impede their ability to rapidly configure and bring to innovative new products, add riders, support changing business processes and take advantage of market opportunities.  The ability to leverage the policy administration systems to better service customers and distribution channels by providing real-time access to policy information throughout the policy lifecycle is also critical to sustain loyalty and further fuel growth.Insurers can benefit from a modern, adaptive policy administration system, like Oracle Insurance Policy Administration for Life and Annuity.  You can learn more about the industry's most highly advanced, rules-based system, which is unmatched for its highly flexible, rules-based configurability, performance and extensibility, as well as global market industry trends by viewing a complimentary, on-demand Webcast, Adapt, Transform and Grow:  Accelerate Speed to Market with Adaptive Insurance Policy Administration.Data conversions can be a daunting process for many insurers when deciding to modernize, in particular when consolidating from multiple, disparate legacy policy administration systems to a single new platform.  Migrating from a legacy system requires a well-thought out approach that builds on the industry's best thinking from previous modernization efforts and takes data migration off the critical path by leveraging proven methodology and tools to capitalize on the new system's capabilities.  We'll discuss more about this approach in a future Oracle Insurance blog.Helen Pitts is senior product marketing manager for Oracle Insurance's life and annuities solutions.

  Read the article

• Routing Internet traffic over specific network interfaces [on hold]

  - by dipamchang

  I want to route my internet traffic over all my available connections (like LAN and Data card(3G)), based on conditions like, if a website is blocked over LAN, that traffic goes through Data Card (or other available internet connection). My ultimate motive is to integrate this feature in my web browser which I have already built using C# and .Net framework. I have found that one can add a route by using the following cmd command - route add DestinationIP mask subnet InterfaceGatewayIP but I am stuck as to how should it be implemented using C#?

  Read the article

• Problem with network policy rule in Network Policy Server

  - by Robert Moir

  Trying to configure RADIUS for a college network, and have run into the following frustration: I can't set an "AND" condition for group membership of authenticated objects in the network policy rules, e.g. I'm trying to create a NPS rule that says, essentially "IF user is a member of [list of user groups] And is authenticating from a computer in [wireless computer group] then allow access. The screenshot above is the rule I am having trouble with. It does not work as written. The rule underneath it, which is identical in every aspect except the conditions rule, does work. I've tried changing the non-working rule to define each set of groups as "Windows group" rather than specifically as machine and user groups, with no change. With the "faulty" rule enabled and the working one disabled, any attempt to login with a valid account from a machine that is in the wireless computers group gives a 6273 audit event in the windows event log: Reason code 66 - "the user attempted to use an authentication method that is not enabled on the matching network policy". Disabling the "faulty" rule, enabling the other rule and logging in with the same account and computer works just fine.

  Read the article

• Policy based design and defaults.

  - by Noah Roberts

  Hard to come up with a good title for this question. What I really need is to be able to provide template parameters with different number of arguments in place of a single parameter. Doesn't make a lot of sense so I'll go over the reason: template < typename T, template <typename,typename> class Policy = default_policy > struct policy_based : Policy<T, policy_based<T,Policy> > { // inherits R Policy::fun(arg0, arg1, arg2,...,argn) }; // normal use: policy_base<type_a> instance; // abnormal use: template < typename PolicyBased > // No T since T is always the same when you use this struct custom_policy {}; policy_base<type_b,custom_policy> instance; The deal is that for many abnormal uses the Policy will be based on one single type T, and can't really be parameterized on T so it makes no sense to take T as a parameter. For other uses, including the default, a Policy can make sense with any T. I have a couple ideas but none of them are really favorites. I thought that I had a better answer--using composition instead of policies--but then I realized I have this case where fun() actually needs extra information that the class itself won't have. This is like the third time I've refactored this silly construct and I've got quite a few custom versions of it around that I'm trying to consolidate. I'd like to get something nailed down this time rather than just fish around and hope it works this time. So I'm just fishing for ideas right now hoping that someone has something I'll be so impressed by that I'll switch deities. Anyone have a good idea? Edit: You might be asking yourself why I don't just retrieve T from the definition of policy based in the template for default_policy. The reason is that default_policy is actually specialized for some types T. Since asking the question I have come up with something that may be what I need, which will follow, but I could still use some other ideas. template < typename T > struct default_policy; template < typename T, template < typename > class Policy = default_policy > struct test : Policy<test<T,Policy>> {}; template < typename T > struct default_policy< test<T, default_policy> > { void f() {} }; template < > struct default_policy< test<int, default_policy> > { void f(int) {} }; Edit: Still messing with it. I wasn't too fond of the above since it makes default_policy permanently coupled with "test" and so couldn't be reused in some other method, such as with multiple templates as suggested below. It also doesn't scale at all and requires a list of parameters at least as long as "test" has. Tried a few different approaches that failed until I found another that seems to work so far: template < typename T > struct default_policy; template < typename T, template < typename > class Policy = default_policy > struct test : Policy<test<T,Policy>> {}; template < typename PolicyBased > struct fetch_t; template < typename PolicyBased, typename T > struct default_policy_base; template < typename PolicyBased > struct default_policy : default_policy_base<PolicyBased, typename fetch_t<PolicyBased>::type> {}; template < typename T, template < typename > class Policy > struct fetch_t< test<T,Policy> > { typedef T type; }; template < typename PolicyBased, typename T > struct default_policy_base { void f() {} }; template < typename PolicyBased > struct default_policy_base<PolicyBased,int> { void f(int) {} };

  Read the article

• WCF Routing Service Filter Generator

  - by Michael Stephenson

  Recently I've been working with the WCF routing service and in our case we were simply routing based on the SOAP Action. This is a pretty good approach for a standard redirection of the message when all messages matching a SOAP Action will go to the same endpoint. Using the SOAP Action also lets you be specific about which methods you expose via the router. One of the things which was a pain was the number of routing rules I needed to create because we were routing for a lot of different methods. I could have explored the option of using a regular expression to match the message to its routing but I wanted to be very specific about what's routed and not risk exposing methods I shouldn't via the router. I decided to put together a little spreadsheet so that I can generate part of the configuration I would need to put in the configuration file rather than have to type this by hand. To show how this works download the spreadsheet from the following url: https://s3.amazonaws.com/CSCBlogSamples/WCF+Routing+Generator.xlsx In the spreadsheet you will see that the squares in green are the ones which you need to amend. In the below picture you can see that you specify a prefix and suffix for the filter name. The core namespace from the web service your generating routing rules for and the WCF endpoint name which you want to route to. In column A you will see the green cells where you add the list of method names which you want to include routing rules for. The spreadsheet will workout what the full SOAP Action would be then the name you will use for that filter in your WCF Routing filters. In column D the spreadsheet will have generated the XML snippet which you can add to the routing filters section in your configuration file. In column E the spreadsheet will have created the XML snippet which you can add to the routing table to send messages matching each filter to the appropriate WCF client endpoint to forward the message to the required destination. Hopefully you can see that with this spreadsheet it would be very easy to produce accurate XML for the WCF Routing configuration if you had a large number of routing rules. If you had additional methods in other services you can simply copy the worksheet and add multiple copies to the Excel workbook. One worksheet per service would work well.

  Read the article

• How do i remove a password expiration policy?

  - by jimmygee

  We had a password expiration policy recently removed from our AD but some users continued to get the "..your password will expire in x days. would you like to change it now?" message. So we added a reverse/undo policy to correct the local registry settings Maximum password age = 0 days Minimum password age = 0 days This hasn't worked as new users still seem to encounter the above "change password" message sporadically. We have now removed all custom password policy GPOs and are left with the "Default Domain Policy". Still no good. Can someone point me in the direction to fix this? And an explanation into what i was doing wrong (/how password expiration policies apply) would be useful too. thanks Environment is 2k3 server with mostly XPsp2 clients.

  Read the article

• Windows 7 Group Policy blocking Adobe Reader

  - by Danny Chia

  A few weeks ago, my company blocked Adobe Reader due to an unpatched security issue. However, we recently moved one of our computers to a project that didn't require access to the corporate network, and IT gave us the green light to override Group Policy and re-enable Adobe Reader. However, this is something we've been unable to achieve. We've tried the following (in no particular order), all to no avail: Ran the program as administrator Renamed the program (the blocking is likely signature-based) Deleted registry.pol Changed the value of "Start" in \HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\CurrentControlSet\services\gpsvc to "4" (to prevent group policy from applying, even though it's no longer on the corporate domain) Checked SRP settings under Local Security Policy - nothing was there Checked AppLocker settings under Local Security Policy - nothing there either Incidentally, I found a few registry keys with descriptions referring to Adobe Reader being blocked. I deleted all of them, but it didn't help. Changed the permission settings of the program Re-installed Adobe Reader Is there anything I missed, short of doing a clean install?

  Read the article

• Cannot seem to disable ability to view temporary internet files via group policy

  - by user162707

  Windows XP Pro SP3, IE8 (8.0.6001.18702), within local gpedit.msc I did the below: User Config/Admin Temp/Windows Comp/IE enabled: disable changing temporary internet file settings User Config/Admin Temp/Windows Comp/IE/Delete Browsing History enabled all (11 items) However there is a loophole that lets me still wipe history & other files via: Tools, Internet Options, Browsing History, Settings, View Objects, delete everything, hit up arrow, go to History (hidden folders has to be on), delete everything Only way around this I can see is to disable General Internet Options Page via group policy, setup NTFS folder restrictions on that temp internet files (worried about adverse affects like not being able to store them), or further grind-down group policy somewhere else to prevent deleting files. Just odd group policy wouldn't have a settings to simply disable the Browser History Settings button (as it further shows the location which a user could just go to). So just curious if someone can confirm maybe this is simply not available in group policy & their suggested action

  Read the article

• disable possword policy using command prompt in Server 2008

  - by user50273

  Is there a way to disable password policy in Windows Server 2008 using command prompt. I know how to do it using Local Security Policy in Administrative Tools. I was wondering if there is a way to change using command prompt. I guess there must be some registry settings that needs to be changed but I do not know which entry in registry will disable the password policy. If you can tell me which registry entry I can write the command prompt myself. Thanks

  Read the article

• Deploying Windows Service through group policy fails with Event ID 102

  - by Sören Kuklau

  I'm trying to deploy a custom Windows Service (written in C#; installed through a VS setup project) using a group policy. To help debug this, I also have two additional MSIs in the same policy. All three packages are deployed as a machine policy, not a user one. On one machine (runs Windows Server 2008; no UAC), all three deploy fine. The service is set to Automatic, as expected. On two machines (run Windows 7; UAC), the two other MSIs deploy fine, but my service fails to install. The event log gives an event ID of 102, which appears to be a permissions problem: The install of application "Package Name" from policy "Policy Name" failed. The error was The installation source for this product is not available. Verify that the source exists and that you can access it. However, all three packages come from the same share linked through UNC, so this is unlikely. My guess is that UAC is the problem; that the service requires additional permissions. Do I need to alter the MSI somehow?

  Read the article

• Export local security policy

  - by Jim B

  I am trying to export the local security policy on a number of servers into a template file which I can then import into a group policy. I cna do this manually without issue but I have been unsuccesssful in finding a way to script this process. Is is possible to script the creation of the export of local security policy?

  Read the article

• Group Policy is not being applied from Server 2003 to win7 client

  - by John Hoge

  Hi, I'm experimenting with Group Policy settings. My DC is running Server 2003, and the client I am using for this test is running Win7. I've restarted the client a few times, and tried running gpupdate/force for good measure. This machine is in it's own OU with a group policy applied to change one setting, Computer Configuration/Administrative Templates/Network/Offline Files. When I run MMC and look at Local Computer Policy on the client this setting shows up as "not configured". Thanks, John

  Read the article

• Sharepoint discussion board w/ attachments expiration policy

  - by Mike

  I want to set a retention policy (DB Settings - Information Management Policy Settings) on a discussion board, but does the attachment get deleted as well? Also, I have a discussion board retention policy right now that isn't working properly. The criteria is: Last Updated + 30 days Delete There are plenty of dicussion items that are long past "Last Updated". Any ideas why?

  Read the article

• Config Time Service on Server 2008 DC using Group Policy Only

  - by Ed Fries

  I want to configure the Time Service using only GP in a Server 2008 R2 domain. I have created a GP as follows: Computer Config, Policies, Administrative Templates, System, Windows Time Policy: =Global Configuration Settings -Enabled w/ default settings. Computer Config, Policies, Administrative Templates, System, Windows Time Policy,Time Providers: =Configure Windows NTP Client -Enabled w/ default settings. =Enable Windows NTP Client -Enabled w/ default settings. =Enable Windows NTP Server -Enabled w/ default settings. The policy is linked, enforced and applied to Domain Controllers OU. The GP modeling results shows the policy is in effect on the DC (Single DC domain) and the DC is recognized as the PDC emulator. I have run gpupdate /force and logged off/on. The issue is that the DC shows the time source as internal. I understand I can force this at the cmd line using w32tm to set the peer but I would like to understand what is missing in the GP. The default NTP Client GP setting includes time.windows.com,0x9 as the source but it does not appear to be taking effect.

  Read the article

• BizTalk &ndash; Routing failure on Delivery Notifications (BizTalk 2006 R2 to 2013)

  - by S.E.R.

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/SERivas/archive/2013/11/11/biztalk-routing-failure-on-delivery-notifications.aspxThis is a detailed explanation of a something I posted a few month ago on stackoverflow, concerning a weird behavior (a bug, really…) of the delivery notifications in BizTalk. Reminder: what are delivery notifications Mechanism BizTalk has the ability to automatically publish positive acknowledgments (ACK) when it has succeeded transmitting a message or negative acknowledgments (NACK) in case of a transmission failure. Orchestrations can use delivery notifications to subscribe to those ACKs and NACKs in order to know if a message sent on a one-way send port has been successfully transmitted. Delivery Notifications can be “activated” in two ways: The most common and easy way is to set the Delivery Notification property of a logical send port (in the orchestration designer) to Transmitted: Another way is to set the BTS.AckRequired context property of the message to be sent to true: NOTE: fundamentally, those methods are strictly equivalent since the fact of setting the Delivery Notification to Transmitted on the send port only tells BizTalk the BTS.AckRequired context property has to be set to true on the outgoing message. Related context properties ACKs and NACKs have a common set of propoted context properties, which are : Propriété Description AckType Equals ACK when successful or NACK otherwise AckID MessageID of the message concerned by the acknowledgment AckOwnerID InstanceID of the instance associated with the acknowledgment AckSendPortID ID of the send port AckSendPortName Name of the send port AckOutboundTransportLocation URI of the send port AckReceivePortID ID of the port the message came from AckReceivePortName Name of the port the message came from AckInboundTransportLocation URI of the port the message came from Detailed behavior The way Delivery Notifications are handled by BizTalk is peculiar compared to the standard behavior of the Message Box: if no active subscription exists for the acknowledgment, it is simply discarded. The direct consequence of this is that there can be no routing failure for an acknowledgment, and an acknowledgment cannot be suspended. Moreover, when a message is sent to a send port where Delivery Notification = Transmitted, a correlation set is initialized and a correlation token is attached to the message (Context property: CorrelationToken). This correlation token will also be attached to the acknowledgment. So when the acknowledgment is issued, it is automatically routed to the source orchestration. Finally, when a NACK is received by the source orchestration, a DeliveryFailureException is thrown, which can be caught in Catch section. Context of the problem Consider this scenario: In an orchestration, Delivery Notifications are activated on a One-Way send port In case of a transmission failure, the messaging instance is suspended and the orchestration catches an exception (DeliveryFailureException). When the exception is caught, the orchestration does some logging and then terminates (thanks to a Terminate shape). So that leaves only the suspended messaging instance, waiting to be resumed. Symptoms Once the problem that caused the transmission failure is solved, the messaging instance is resumed. Considering what was said in the reminder, we would expect the instance to complete, leaving no active or suspended instance. Nevertheless, the result is that the messaging instance is once more suspended, this time because of a routing failure: The routing failure report shows that the suspended message has the following attached properties: Explanation Those properties clearly indicate that the message being suspended is an acknowledgment (ACK in this case), which was published in the message box and was supended because no subscribers were found. This makes sense, since the source orchestration was terminated before we resumed the messaging instance. So its subscription to the acknowledgments was no longer active when the ACK was published, which explains the routing failure. But this behavior is in direct contradiction with what was said earlier: an acknowledgment must be discarded when no subscriber is found and therefore should not be suspended. Cause It is indeed an outright bug, which appeared with the SP1 of BizTalk 2006 R2 and was never corrected since then: not in the next 4 CUs, not in BizTalk 2009, not in 2010 and not event in 2013 – though I haven’t tested CU1 and CU2 for this last edition, but I bet there is nothing to be expected from those CUs (on this particular point). Side effects This bug can have pretty nasty side effects: this behavior can be propagated to other ports, due to routing mechanisms. For instance: you have configured the ESB Toolkit and have activated the “Enable routing failure for failed messages”. The result will be that the ESB Exception SQL send port will also try and publish ACKs or NACKs concerning its own messaging instances. In itself, this is already messy, but remember that those acknowledgments will also have the source correlation token attached to them… See how far it goes? Well, actually there is more: in SQL send ports, transactions will be rolled back because of the routing failure (I guess it also happens with other adapters - like Oracle, but I haven’t tested them). Again, think of what happens when the send port is the ESB Exception send port: your BizTalk box is going mad, but you have no idea since no exception can be written in the exception database! All of this can be tricky to diagnose, I can tell you that… Solution There is no real solution, only a work-around, but it won’t solve all of the problems and side effects. The idea is to create an orchestration which subscribes to all acknowledgments. That is to say: The message type of the incoming message will be XmlDocument The BTS.AckType property exists The logical receive port will use direct binding By doing so, all acknowledgments will be consumed by an instance of this orchestration, thus avoiding the routing failure. Here is an example of what this orchestration could look like: In order not to pollute the HAT and the DTA Db (after all, this orchestration is only meant to be a palliative to some faulty internal BizTalk mechanism, so there should be no trace of its execution), all tracking must be deactivated:

  Read the article

• Routing WIFI and LAN for specific traffic

  - by jakebird451

  I have two network devices aboard my macbook pro: WIFI (en1): Used for general traffic. Connects to an ip of 192.168.19.* via DHCP LAN (en0): Used for specific traffic. Connects to an ip of 192.168.2.10 as a static IP. Does not connect to a router, only a switch for direct routing connection. I have 4 IP addresses I need to access on the LAN: 192.168.2.1 192.168.2.21 192.168.2.20 192.168.2.30 The rest of the traffic needs to go to WIFI. I have tried setting up a routing table for the specific ip addresses, but I only managed to mess up my network. I do not venture out into the world of networking too often, but this was the latest command I have been trying: sudo route add -host 192.168.2.30 -interface en0 This command killed my ability to use ping. It told me that ping could not allocate memory (is that even possible)? It also killed my wifi access. Logging out and back in fixed the issue. I really do not mind to make this solution permanent, so I am fine with a temporary routing. EDIT: If I currently have been trying: sudo route flush sudo route add default 192.168.19.1 This gets everything to work for about a minute. But after such minute it "forgets" the routing to WiFi while retaining LAN's (en0) routing. If I unplug and replug my LAN (en0) cable, the process works for another minute.

  Read the article

• routing based on source IP

  - by user1977050

  I am trying to do source-based routing, following the question http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/131527/routing-based-on-source-ip. The source IP floating one and assigned to a cluster (consists from 2 servers). Let's say that the physical IP on server1 is 192.0.2.1, on server2 192.0.2.2, and the virtual IP is 192.0.2.3 (and this should be the source IP for outgoing traffic). How can I configure static source IP routing for this in RHEL?

  Read the article

• How to prevent asymmetric routing with multiple eBGP routers?

  - by Andy Shinn

  I have 2 routers announcing a /22 subnet to different providers (one providers connects to each of the 2 routers). I have split the /22 in two /23 to announce one /23 on each of the routers plus the /22 (the providers will take the more specific route). This allows me to fail over and keep traffic inside the /23 in and out the same provider. What are other ways in which I could announce just the /22 with both routers and have packets from servers on the network behind the routers go back out the same router in which they came in from? EDIT: The main problem I come across, which end users and clients complain about the most, is that the least hop route is sometimes not the "optimal" route. In my case, I know that Provider B may have better latency to X nation. But when packets come in from provider B, they may go out Provider A or provider B. The reverse is also true. If I send a packet to X nation out provider A, even though it may have more hops back, the packet will likely come in from Provider B (which may have higher latency, packet loss, etc. to this nation)

  Read the article

• ASP MVC - Routing Required?

  - by evo_9

  I've been reading up on MVC2 which came in VS2010 and it sounds pretty interesting. I'm actually in the middle of a large multi-tenant application project, and have just started coding the UI. I'm considering changing to MVC as I'm not that far along at this point. I have some questions about the Routing capabilities, namely are they required to use MVC or can I more or less ignore Routing? Or do I have to setup a default routing record that will make things work like standard ASPX (as far as routing alone is concerned)? The reason why I don't want to use Routing is because I've already defined a custom URL 'rewrite' mechanism of my own (which fires on session_start). In addition, I'm using jquery and opens-standards for the entire UI, and MVC's aspx overhead-free approach seems like a better fit based on how I've already started to build the application (I am not using viewstate at all, for example). I guess my big concern is whether the routing can be ignored, of if I will have to re-implement my custom URL rewriting to work with MVC, and if that's the case, how would I do that? As a new Routing routine, or stick with the session_start (if that's even possible?). Lastly, I don't want to use anything even remotely 'intelligent/readable' for the url - for a site like StackOverflow, the readability of the URL is a positive, but the opposite is true if it's not a public website like this one. In fact, it would seem to me that the more friendly MVC routing URL (which indirectly show method names) could pose a security risk on a private, non-public website app like I'm developing. For all these reasons I would love to use the lightweight aspects of MVC but skip the Routing entirely - is this possible?

  Read the article

• Linux TC / Policy Routing tools

  - by Zoredache

  In addition to a really good firewall Linux has a builtin advanced routing and traffic shaping (lartc). There are many applications (firehol, firestarter, etc) to make the creation of iptables firewall easier, what similar to tools exist to make working with the policy routing and traffic control easy?

  Read the article

• Is Openness at the heart of the EU Digital Agenda?

  - by trond-arne.undheim

  At OpenForum Europe Summit 2010, to be held in Brussels, Autoworld, 11 Parc du Cinquantenaire on Thursday 10 June 2010, a number of global speakers will discuss whether it indeed provides an open digital market as a catalyst for economic growth and if it will deliver a truly open e-government and digital citizenship (see Summit 2010). In 2008, OpenForum Europe, a not-for-profit champion of openness through open standards, hosted one of the most cited speeches by Neelie Kroes, then Commissioner of Competition. Her forward-looking speech on openness and interoperability as a way to improve the competitiveness of ICT markets set the EU on a path to eradicate lock-in forever. On the two-year anniversary of that event, Vice President Kroes, now the first-ever Commissioner of the Digital Agenda, is set to outline her plans for delivering on that vision. Much excitement surrounds open standards, given that Kroes is a staunch believer. The EU's Digital Agenda promises IT standardization reform in Europe and vows to recognize global standards development organizations (fora/consortia) by 2010. However, she avoided the term "open standards" in her new strategy. Markets are, of course, asking why she is keeping her cards tight on this crucial issue. Following her speech, Professor Yochai Benkler, award-winning author of "The Wealth of Networks", and Professor Nigel Shadbolt, appointed by the UK Government to work alongside Sir Tim Berners-Lee to help transform public access to UK Government information join dozens of speakers in the quest to analyse, entertain and challenge European IT policy, people, and documents. Speakers at OFE Summit 2010 include David Drummond, Senior VP Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Google; Michael Karasick, VP Technology and Strategy, IBM; Don Deutsch, Vice President, Standards Strategy and Architecture for Oracle Corp; Thomas Vinje, Partner Clifford Chance; Jerry Fishenden, Director, Centre for Policy Research, and Rishab Ghosh, head, collaborative creativity group, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht (see speakers). Will openness stay at the heart of EU Digital Agenda? Only time will show.

  Read the article

• ASP.NET JavaScript Routing for ASP.NET MVC–Constraints

  - by zowens

  If you haven’t had a look at my previous post about ASP.NET routing, go ahead and check it out before you read this post: http://weblogs.asp.net/zowens/archive/2010/12/20/asp-net-mvc-javascript-routing.aspx And the code is here: https://github.com/zowens/ASP.NET-MVC-JavaScript-Routing   Anyways, this post is about routing constraints. A routing constraint is essentially a way for the routing engine to filter out route patterns based on the day from the URL. For example, if I have a route where all the parameters are required, I could use a constraint on the required parameters to say that the parameter is non-empty. Here’s what the constraint would look like: Notice that this is a class that inherits from IRouteConstraint, which is an interface provided by System.Web.Routing. The match method returns true if the value is a match (and can be further processed by the routing rules) or false if it does not match (and the route will be matched further along the route collection). Because routing constraints are so essential to the route matching process, it was important that they be part of my JavaScript routing engine. But the problem is that we need to somehow represent the constraint in JavaScript. I made a design decision early on that you MUST put this constraint into JavaScript to match a route. I didn’t want to have server interaction for the URL generation, like I’ve seen in so many applications. While this is easy to maintain, it causes maintenance issues in my opinion. So the way constraints work in JavaScript is that the constraint as an object type definition is set on the route manager. When a route is created, a new instance of the constraint is created with the specific parameter. In its current form the constraint function MUST return a function that takes the route data and will return true or false. You will see the NotEmpty constraint in a bit. Another piece to the puzzle is that you can have the JavaScript exist as a string in your application that is pulled in when the routing JavaScript code is generated. There is a simple interface, IJavaScriptAddition, that I have added that will be used to output custom JavaScript. Let’s put it all together. Here is the NotEmpty constraint. There’s a few things at work here. The constraint is called “notEmpty” in JavaScript. When you add the constraint to a parameter in your C# code, the route manager generator will look for the JsConstraint attribute to look for the name of the constraint type name and fallback to the class name. For example, if I didn’t apply the “JsConstraint” attribute, the constraint would be called “NotEmpty”. The JavaScript code essentially adds a function to the “constraintTypeDefs” object on the “notEmpty” property (this is how constraints are added to routes). The function returns another function that will be invoked with routing data. Here’s how you would use the NotEmpty constraint in C# and it will work with the JavaScript routing generator. The only catch to using route constraints currently is that the following is not supported: The constraint will work in C# but is not supported by my JavaScript routing engine. (I take pull requests so if you’d like this… go ahead and implement it).   I just wanted to take this post to explain a little bit about the background on constraints. I am looking at expanding the current functionality, but for now this is a good start. Thanks for all the support with the JavaScript router. Keep the feedback coming!

  Read the article

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