Search Results

Search found 13635 results on 546 pages for 'domain policies'.

Page 46/546 | < Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >

  • Grant access for users on a separate domain to SharePoint

    - by Geo Ego
    Hello. I just completed development of a SharePoint site on a virtual server and am currently in the process of granting users from a different domain to the site. The SharePoint domain is SHAREPOINT, and the domain with the users I want to give access to is COMPANY. I have provided them with a link to the site and added them as users via SharePoint, which is all I thought I would need to do. However, when they go to the link, the site shows them a SharePoint error page. In the security event log, I am showing the following: Event Type: Failure Audit Event Source: Security Event Category: Object Access Event ID: 560 Date: 3/18/2010 Time: 11:11:49 AM User: COMPANY\ThisUser Computer: SHAREPOINT Description: Object Open: Object Server: Security Account Manager Object Type: SAM_ALIAS Object Name: DOMAINS\Account\Aliases\00000404 Handle ID: - Operation ID: {0,1719489} Process ID: 416 Image File Name: C:\WINDOWS\system32\lsass.exe Primary User Name: SHAREPOINT$ Primary Domain: COMPANY Primary Logon ID: (0x0,0x3E7) Client User Name: ThisUser Client Domain: PRINTRON Client Logon ID: (0x0,0x1A3BC2) Accesses: AddMember RemoveMember ListMembers ReadInformation Privileges: - Restricted Sid Count: 0 Access Mask: 0xF Then, four of these in a row: Event Type: Failure Audit Event Source: Security Event Category: Object Access Event ID: 560 Date: 3/18/2010 Time: 11:12:08 AM User: NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE Computer: SHAREPOINT Description: Object Open: Object Server: SC Manager Object Type: SERVICE OBJECT Object Name: WinHttpAutoProxySvc Handle ID: - Operation ID: {0,1727132} Process ID: 404 Image File Name: C:\WINDOWS\system32\services.exe Primary User Name: SHAREPOINT$ Primary Domain: COMPANY Primary Logon ID: (0x0,0x3E7) Client User Name: NETWORK SERVICE Client Domain: NT AUTHORITY Client Logon ID: (0x0,0x3E4) Accesses: Query status of service Start the service Query information from service Privileges: - Restricted Sid Count: 0 Access Mask: 0x94 Any ideas what permissions I need to grant to the user to get them access to SharePoint?

    Read the article

  • getting "No LoginModules configured" for JAAS login under WebSphere security domain

    - by user1739040
    I have a JAX-RPC web service running on WebSphere V7. It requires a UserNameToken for security. I have a custom login module (MyLoginModule) which extracts the username and password, and that module is defined as a JAAS application login in the websphere admin console. Using IBM RAD 8.0, I have bound the token consumer to the login module using the JAAS config name of the module. This all works fine and happy on my development server. Now I realize, that for deployment to another server, I am required to move the JAAS login from global security to a security domain. When I do that, it breaks my web service. I get this SOAP Fault message: com.ibm.wsspi.wssecurity.SoapSecurityException: WSEC6520E: Construction of the login context failed. The exception is : javax.security.auth.login.LoginException: No LoginModules configured for MyLoginModule According to the IBM docs: The JAAS application logins, the JAAS system logins, and the JAAS J2C authentication data aliases can all be configured at the domain level. By default, all of the applications in the system have access to the JAAS logins configured at the global level. The security runtime first checks for the JAAS logins at the domain level. If it does not find them, it then checks for them in the global security configuration. Configure any of these JAAS logins at a domain only when you need to specify a login that is used exclusively by the applications in the security domain. So I am looking to make sure my application is in the domain, and I have tried everything I can think of. (I have assigned the domain to "all scopes", to the entire cell, etc.) No luck, I keep getting the same error response to my web service client. Any help or hints are appreciated.

    Read the article

  • E-Business Suite Technology Stack Roadmap (April 2010) Now Available

    - by Steven Chan
    Keeping up with our E-Business Suite technology stack roadmap can be challenging.  Regular readers of this blog know that we certify new combinations and versions of Oracle products with the E-Business Suite every few weeks.  We also update our certification plans and roadmap as new third-party products like Microsoft Office 2010 and Firefox are announced or released.  Complicating matters further, various Oracle products leave Premier Support or are superceded by more-recent versions.This constant state of change means that any static representation of our roadmap is really a snapshot in time, and a snapshot that might begin to yellow and fade fairly quickly.  With that caveat in mind, here's this month's snapshot that I presented at the OAUG/Collaborate 2010 conference in Las Vegas last week:EBS Technology Stack Roadmap (April 2010)

    Read the article

  • Time not propagating to machines on Windows domain

    - by rbeier
    We have a two-domain Active Directory forest: ourcompany.com at the root, and prod.ourcompany.com for production servers. Time is propagating properly through the root domain, but servers in the child domain are unable to sync via NTP. So the time on these servers is starting to drift, since they're relying only on the hardware clock. WHen I type "net time" on one of the production servers, I get the following error: Could not locate a time-server. More help is available by typing NET HELPMSG 3912. When I type "w32tm /resync", i get the following: Sending resync command to local computer The computer did not resync because no time data was available. "w32tm /query /source" shows the following: Free-running System Clock We have three domain controllers in the prod.ourcompany.com subdomain (overkill, but the result of a migration - we haven't gotten rid of one of the old ones yet.) To complicate matters, the domain controllers are all virtualized, running on two different physical hosts. But the time on the domain controllers themselves is accurate - the servers that aren't DCs are the ones having problems. Two of the DCs are running Server 2003, including the PDC emulator. The third DC is running Server 2008. (I could move the PDC emulator role to the 2008 machine if that would help.) The non-DC servers are all running Server 2008. All other Active Directory functionality works fine in the production domain - we're only seeing problems with NTP. I can manually sync each machine to the time source (the PDC emulator) by doing the following: net time \\dc1.prod.ourcompany.com /set /y But this is just a one-off, and it doesn't cause automated time syncing to start working. I guess I could create a scheduled task which runs the above command periodically, but I'm hoping there's a better way. Does anyone have any ideas as to why this isn't working, and what we can do to fix it? Thanks for your help, Richard

    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

  • EU Digital Agenda scores 85/100

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    If the Digital Agenda was a bottle of wine and I were wine critic Robert Parker, I would say the Digital Agenda has "a great bouquet, many good elements, with astringent, dry and puckering mouth feel that will not please everyone, but still displaying some finesse. A somewhat controlled effort with no surprises and a few noticeable flaws in the delivery. Noticeably shorter aftertaste than advertised by the producers. Score: 85/100. Enjoy now". The EU Digital Agenda states that "standards are vital for interoperability" and has a whole chapter on interoperability and standards. With this strong emphasis, there is hope the EU's outdated standardization system finally is headed for reform. It has been 23 years since the legal framework of standardisation was completed by Council Decision 87/95/EEC8 in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector. Standardization is market driven. For several decades the IT industry has been developing standards and specifications in global open standards development organisations (fora/consortia), many of which have transparency procedures and practices far superior to the European Standards Organizations. The Digital Agenda rightly states: "reflecting the rise and growing importance of ICT standards developed by certain global fora and consortia". Some fora/consortia, of course, are distorted, influenced by single vendors, have poor track record, and need constant vigilance, but they are the minority. Therefore, the recognition needs to be accompanied by eligibility criteria focused on openness. Will the EU reform its ICT standardization by the end of 2010? Possibly, and only if DG Enterprise takes on board that Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) have driven half of the productivity growth in Europe over the past 15 years, a prominent fact in the EU's excellent Digital Competitiveness report 2010 published on Monday 17 May. It is ok to single out the ICT sector. It simply is the most important sector right now as it fuels growth in all other sectors. Let's not wait for the entire standardization package which may take another few years. Europe does not have time. The Digital Agenda is an umbrella strategy with deliveries from a host of actors across the Commission. For instance, the EU promises to issue "guidance on transparent ex-ante disclosure rules for essential intellectual property rights and licensing terms and conditions in the context of standard setting", by 2011 in the Horisontal Guidelines now out for public consultation by DG COMP and to some extent by DG ENTR's standardization policy reform. This is important. The EU will issue procurement guidance as interoperability frameworks are put into practice. This is a joint responsibility of several DGs, and is likely to suffer coordination problems, controversy and delays. We have seen plenty of the latter already and I have commented on the Commission's own interoperability elsewhere, with mixed luck. :( Yesterday, I watched the cartoonesque Korean western film The Good, the Bad and the Weird. In the movie (and I meant in the movie only), a bandit, a thief, and a bounty hunter, all excellent at whatever they do, fight for a treasure map. Whether that is a good analogy for the situation within the Commission, others are better judges of than I. However, as a movie fanatic, I still await the final shoot-out, and, as in the film, the only certainty is that "life is about chasing and being chased". The missed opportunity (in this case not following up the push from Member States to better define open standards based interoperability) is a casualty of the chaos ensued in the European Wild West (and I mean that in the most endearing sense, and my excuses beforehand to actors who possibly justifiably cannot bear being compared to fictional movie characters). Instead of exposing the ongoing fight, the EU opted for the legalistic use of the term "standards" throughout the document. This is a term that--to the EU-- excludes most standards used by the IT industry world wide. So, while it, for a moment, meant "weapon down", it will not lead to lasting peace. The Digital Agenda calls for the Member States to "Implement commitments on interoperability and standards in the Malmö and Granada Declarations by 2013". This is a far cry from the actual Ministerial Declarations which called upon the Commission to help them with this implementation by recognizing and further defining open standards based interoperability. Unless there is more forthcoming from the Commission, the market's judgement will be: you simply fall short. Generally, I think the EU focus now should be "from policy to practice" and the Digital Agenda does indeed stop short of tackling some highly practical issues. There is need for progress beyond the Digital Agenda. Here are some suggestions that would help Europe re-take global leadership on openness, public sector reform, and economic growth: A strong European software strategy centred around open standards based interoperability by 2011. An ambitious new eCommission strategy for 2011-15 focused on migration to open standards by 2015. Aligning the IT portfolio across the Commission into one Digital Agenda DG by 2012. Focusing all best practice exchange in eGovernment on one social networking site, epractice.eu (full disclosure: I had a role in getting that site up and running) Prioritizing public sector needs in global standardization over European standardization by 2014.

    Read the article

  • Interim Update #1: Microsoft Office 2010 and E-Business Suite

    - by Steven Chan
    Congratulations to my colleagues at Microsoft on their launch of Microsoft Office 2010 yesterday.  Questions about our certification plans for Office 2010 are filling my inbox, so here's an interim update on our plans.  If you've reached this article via a search engine, it's possible that a later update on our status is available.  For our latest status, please check the Desktop Client Certifications section of our one-page Certifications summary.Our current plans for Office 2010We plan to certify Oracle E-Business Suite Release 11i and 12 with Microsoft Office 2010.When will Office 2010 be certified with EBS?Oracle's Revenue Recognition rules prohibit us from discussing certification and release dates, but you're welcome to monitor or subscribe to this blog for updates, which I'll post as soon as soon as they're available.    How does the E-Business Suite work with Microsoft Office?The Oracle E-Business Suite is comprised of several product families such as Financials, Supply Chain Management, Human Resources, and so on.  These product families group together collections of individual products.  Some of these products may be optionally integrated with one or more Microsoft Office components such as Excel, Word, and Projects.Individual E-Business Suite product teams have the option of building integrations between their products and one or more Microsoft Office components.  This is not mandatory.  Over forty E-Business Suite teams offer these kinds of Office integrations today.

    Read the article

  • SEO consequences for merging country sites in a .com

    - by Pekka
    I am in the process of refactoring a number of rental portals I've built for a company with locations in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Instead of the current setting of each country site running under its own domain name: www.companyname.de www.companyname.ch www.companyname.at I would love to merge them all in this way: www.companyname.com/de www.companyname.com/ch www.companyname.com/at with the country TLDs doing a 301 redirect to the respective .com address. However, I have been repeatedly told not to do this due to likely problems with SEO - the business is very SEO dependent, and being a rental chain, needs to be strong in local results. So the question is: Is there an unavoidable hit in Search Engine Optimization when redirecting to a central .com domain? What measures can be taken to soften the blow? What comes to my mind is explicitly specifying a lang attribute in the html tag. Are there any other ways to specifically point out geographical location for sub-directories?

    Read the article

  • Managing the Domino Effect (with Tutor Publisher Reports)

    - by [email protected]
    When an organization upgrades their business application or improves a process, it triggers changes that will reverberate throughout an organization, like a falling row of dominoes standing on end. A tangible and repeatable way to communicate change is with updated process documentation. But how do organizations get their arms around all the documents that are impacted by an application upgrade or process improvement? A small change in one place will trigger subsequent changes in other areas. A simple domino chain of questions can go like this. What screens have changed? Do the new screens change the process in place? In what procedural documents are the screens referenced? Who uses the screens and must be notified of the changes? What other documents are affected? Will the change affect current company policy? Tutor Publisher compiles focused, easy to read impact analysis reports of your process documentation library that answer these tough questions. Tutor reports make it easy to quickly target the information and documents that require updating. In turn, the updated documents are used to communicate the change. The Tutor writing methodology and Publisher reports provide organizations the means to confidently keep documentation in sync with the way the business runs. Start managing the domino effect in your organization. Get a grip on it here!

    Read the article

  • DDD and filtering

    - by tikhop
    I am developing an app in ddd maner. So I have a complex domain model. Suppose I have a Fare object and Airline. Each Airline should contain several or much more Fares. My UI should represent Model (only small part of complex model) as a list of Airline, when the user select the Airline, I must show the list of Fares. User can filtering the Fares (by travel time, cost, etc.). What is the appropriate place for filtering Fares and Airlines? I am assuming that I should do it in ViewModel. Like: My domain model has wrapped with Service Layer - UI works with ViewModel - ViewModel obtain data from Service Layer filtering it and create DTO objects for UI. Or I'm wrong?

    Read the article

  • Multiple sites redirected to one main site

    - by mattgcon
    I have a client who insists of having multiple website domains all being redirected to one main website domain. It is getting out of hand and his server has become conveluted and riddled with garbage because of it, not to mention confusing at times. Each of these domains that he is setting up has no content, they simply redirect the user to the main website domain. Is this practice of having multiple domains pointing to one main website common? And does anyone know where I can get information to give to this client to let him know this is a bad practice if it is a bad practice?

    Read the article

  • How to use TFS as a query tracking system?

    - by deostroll
    We already use tfs for managing defects in code etc, etc. We additionally need a way to "understand the domain & requirements of the products". Normally, without tfs we exchange emails with the consultants and have the questions/queries answered. If it is a feature implementation we sometimes "find" conflicts in the implementation itself. And when that happens the userstory is modified and the enhancement/bug as per that is raised in TFS. Sometimes it is critical we come back to decisions we made or questions we wanted answers to. Hence we need to be able to track how that "requirement idea" or that "query in concern" evolved. Hence how is it that we can use TFS to track all of this? Do we raise an "issue" item for this? Or do we raise a "bug" item? The main things we'd ideally look in a query tracking system are as follows: Area: Can be a module, submodule, domain. Sometimes this may be "General" - to address domain related stuff, or, event more granular to address modules, sub-modules. Take the case for the latter, if we were tracking this in excel sheets, we'd just write module1,submodule2; i.e. in a comma separated fashion. The things I would like here is to be able search for all queries relating to submodule2 sometime in the future. Responses: This is a record of conversations between the consultant and any other stakeholder. For a simple case, it would just be paragraphs. Each para would start with a name and date enclosed in brackets and the response following that...each para would be like a thread - much like a forum thread Action taken: We'd want to know how the query was closed, what was the input given, what were the changes that took place because of that, etc etc. These are fields I think I would need in such a system apart from some obvious ones like status, address to, resovled by, etc. I am open for any other fields which are sort of important. To summarise my question: how can we manage "queries" in the system? Where should we ideally store data pertaining to those three fields I have mentioned above (for e.g. is it wise to store responses in the history tag assuming we are opening a bug for the query)?

    Read the article

  • Running a service with a user from a different domain not working

    - by EWood
    I've been stuck on this for a while, not sure what permission I'm missing. I've got domain A and domain B, A trusts B, but B does not trust A. I'm trying to run a service in domain A with a user account from domain B and I keep getting Access is Denied. I'm using the FQDN after the username and the password is correct. The user account from domain B is a local administrator on the domain A server, the user account has the logon locally, and as a service permissions. Must. Get. This. Working. Update: I found something interesting in the logs I must have missed. This ought to get me pointed in the right direction. Event ID: 40961 - LsaSrv : The Security System could not establish a secured connection with the server ldap/{server fqdn/fqdn@fqdn} No authentication protocol was available. I've found a few fixes for 40961 but nothing has worked so far. I've verified reverse lookup zones. nslookup resolves the correct dc properly. still workin' at it. Upadte: In response to Evan; I ran " runas /env /user:ftp_user@fqdn "notepad" " then entered the users password and notepad came up. It seems to work successfully. This issue is now resolved. The problem is visible in the screenshot. Windows tries to use the UPN for the user account if you dig your user out of AD with the Browse button. This fails every time even with the right user and password. Simply using the SAM format (Domain\User) works. So simple, yet so annoying. Can't believe I missed this. Thanks to everyone who helped.

    Read the article

  • Can I use Ubuntu Server to replace our Windows environment?

    - by Aaron English
    I have recently been put in charge of a network overhaul for our company. I have done plenty with Ubuntu in school but it has been a few years. I would like to replace our current servers with Ubuntu, although I am unaware if it will work. Our current environment runs a Domain, Exchange, and VPN. I know there are solutions capable for this. I guess my man worry is will windows 7 and windows XP be able to use Ubuntu as a Domain Controller? If anyone has had success with this I would love some input. I have a meeting in a couple months that I am suppose to explain our plan. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Moving from one DNS provider to another

    - by Senthil Kumaran
    I had registered with a particular DNS provider X and I have been unhappy with their services and now when the time for renewal came, I did not renew and I let it expire. I am hoping that once it is expired from this provider, I would be able to sign up for the same domain name from an alternative provider which I have tested and I am satisfied. What kind of precautions should I take? The domain name is not a critical one, it is of a NGO and we prefer to own it again without any change in the name. The information given by the expiry notice says Domains can be renewed between 90 days before and 14 days after the expiry date. If domains are not renewed they will be removed from the account and set for deletion. Should I wait for time till gets deleted at their end so that I can sign up for the same from another provider?

    Read the article

  • Domain Trust 2008 to 2003

    - by nick3216
    I'm having trouble setting up the trust relationship between a Windows Server 2003 and a Windows Server 2008 AD. Domain a is Windows Server 2003 Forest functional level. Domain b is a Windows Server 2008 Forest functional level. I can set up the incoming side of the trust relationship on domain "a" so that it trusts domain "b". Try as I might on domain "b" I can't set up the outgoing side of the trust relationship to domain "a". The GUI interface gives an unhelpful 'The request is not supported'. I'm not sure netdom is being more or less helpful as it refers me to FilterSIDs netdom trust /add b /uo:b\admin /po:* /d:a /ud:a\admin /pd:* /oneside:trusting To improve the security of this external trust, security identifier (SID) filtering is enabled, however, if users have been migrated to the trusted domain and their SID histories have been preserved, you may choose to turn off this feature. For more information about SID filtering and how to turn it off, see the help for netdom trust /FilterSids or see Help and Support. The request is not supported. The command failed to complete succesfully. I say 'less helpful' because Windows Server 2008 doesn't support the /FilterSIDs option. How can we force creation of this trust? Edit: Just to clarify I've checked that the [Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options] "Network access: Allow anonymous SID/Name translation” is enabled on both sides of the trust as per http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/winserverDS/thread/cc61fc25-3569-4413-bbfd-92390eb31118

    Read the article

  • Office 365 domain federation conversion failed

    - by Matt Bear
    We're doing things backwards, we have an established o365 domain, with 400+ users, and are just now deploying local AD, and ADFS for SSO. Last night, after configuring my servers, I ran the powershell command convert-MSOLdomaintofederated to convert the xxx.com vanity domain to federated, it errored out with an unspecified error(Microsoft ADFS support said the error has to do with the default password settings being changed.) And when I run convert-MSOLdomaintostandard, it comes back with the domain is already standard. Also in the o365 portal it shows the domain as standard, however it is trying to process login attempts as if it were a federated domain. I've spent 5 hours total on the phone with Microsoft, and it has been escalated to their engineering department for resolution, sometime within the next few days... I need it yesterday. From what we can gather, the conversion process started, error out, changed some of the internal configurations to federated, but left the description as standard.(if that makes since). So its in a weird limbo, where its in both modes but neither at the same time. Currently, the only way to fix it is to remove the vanity domain, and re-add it. I need a way to dissociate the user accounts from xxx.com domain to allow its removal. Removal of all the users themselves is not an option.

    Read the article

  • Does spreading content across domains improve ranking? [closed]

    - by usertest
    Possible Duplicate: The SEO Benefit of Breaking Up Content Onto Different Websites I was wondering if (assuming all your content is related) it would be better to put all your content under a single domain or multiple domains that link to each other. Lets say I have Site A which doesn't have a good search ranking. If I have a new product that I'm sure could get a good ranking on its own would I get a better search ranking for Site A if I - Add the new product as a new section to Site A. Or put the product on new Site B and link back to Site A. To give you an example if you were developing a few browser plugins would it be better (in terms of ranking) to showcase them all in the same site, or would you give them each their own domain's that link to each other? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Accounts in Work Items after migration to TFS 2010 and to new domain

    - by Clara Oscura
    Lately I’ve been doing some tests on migrating our TFS 2008 installation to TFS 2010, coupled with a machine and domain change. One particular topic that was tricky is user accounts. We installed first a new machine with TFS 2010 and then migrated the projects in the old server. The work items were migrated with the projects. Great, but if I try to edit one of the old work items I cannot save it anymore because some fields contain old user names (ex. OLDDOMAIN\user) which are not known in the new domain (it should be NEWDOMAIN\user). The errors look like this: When I correct the ‘Assigned To’ field value, I get another error regarding another field: Before TFS 2010, we had TFSUsers power tool. It allow you to map an old user name to a new user name. This is not available anymore because WI fields with user accounts are now synchronized with AD display names changes (explained here). The correct way to go about this in TFS 2010 is to use TFSConfig Identities before adding the new domain accounts into the TFS groups (documented here). So, too late for us. I’ve found a (tedious) workaround to change those old account in work items in order to allow people to keep working with them. 1. Install TFS 2010 power tools 2. Export WIT from your project (VS | Tools | Process Editor | Work Item Types). Save the definition, for example: Original_MyProject_Task.xml 3. Copy the xml (NoReadOnly_MyProject_Task.xml) and edit it. From the field definition of ‘Activated By’, ‘Closed By’ and ‘Resolved By’, remove the following:        <WHENNOTCHANGED field="System.State">           <READONLY />         </WHENNOTCHANGED> 4. Import WIT in VS. Choose the new file (NoReadOnly_MyProject_Task.xml) and import it in MyProject 5. Open all tasks in Excel (flat list). Display the following columns: Asssigned To Activated By Closed By Resolved By Change the user accounts to the new ones (I usually sort each column alphabetically to make it easier). 6. Publish. If you get a conflict on a field, tough luck. You will have to manually choose “Local version” for each work item. I told you it was a tedious process. 7. Import original WIT (Original_MyProject_Task.xml) in MyProject. We only changed the WI definition so that we could change some fields. The original definition should be put back. And what about these other fields? Created By Authorized As These fields are not editable by definition (VS | Tools | Process Editor | Work Item Fields Explorer), even if they are not marked as read-only in the WIT. You can leave the old values. It doesn’t seem to matter to TFS. The other four fields are editable by definition, so only the WIT readonly rule prevents us from changing them. Technorati Tags: TFS,Team Foundation Server 2010,Work Item,Domain change

    Read the article

  • DTO or Domain Model Object in the View Layer?

    - by smayers81
    I know this is probably an age-old question, but what is the better practice? Using a domain model object throughout all layers of your application, and even binding values directly to them on the JSP (I'm using JSF). Or convert a domain model object into a DTO in the DAO or Service layer and send a lightweight DTO to the presentation layer. I have been told it makes no sense to use DTOs because changes to the database will result in changes to all your DTOs whereas using Model Objects everywhere will just require changes to the affected model object. However, the ease of use and the lightweight nature of DTOs seems to outweigh that. I should note that my app uses Hibernate Model Objects AND uses its own custom-created model objects (meaning not bound to any DB session, always detached). Is either of the above scenarios more beneficial to a strict Model Object pattern? Using Hibernate has been a huge PITA with regards to things like Lazy Initialization Exceptions.

    Read the article

  • Can I improve this regex check for valid domain names?

    - by Josh
    So, I have been working on this domain name regular expression. So far, it seems to pick up domain names with SLDs and TLDs (with the optional ccTLD), but there is duplication of the TLD listing. Can this be refactored any further? params[:domain_name].downcase.strip.match(/^[a-z0-9\-]{2,63} \.((a[cdefgilmnoqrstuwxz]|aero|arpa)|(b[abdefghijmnorstvwyz]|biz)| (c[acdfghiklmnorsuvxyz]|cat|com|coop)|d[ejkmoz]|(e[ceghrstu]|edu)|f[ijkmor]| (g[abdefghilmnpqrstuwy]|gov)|h[kmnrtu]|(i[delmnoqrst]|info|int)| (j[emop]|jobs)|k[eghimnprwyz]|l[abcikrstuvy]| (m[acdghklmnopqrstuvwxyz]|me|mil|mobi|museum)|(n[acefgilopruz]|name|net)|(om|org)| (p[aefghklmnrstwy]|pro)|qa|r[eouw]|s[abcdeghijklmnortvyz]| (t[cdfghjklmnoprtvwz]|travel)|u[agkmsyz]|v[aceginu]|w[fs]|y[etu]|z[amw]) (\.((a[cdefgilmnoqrstuwxz]|aero|arpa)|(b[abdefghijmnorstvwyz]|biz)| (c[acdfghiklmnorsuvxyz]|cat|com|coop)|d[ejkmoz]|(e[ceghrstu]|edu)|f[ijkmor]| (g[abdefghilmnpqrstuwy]|gov)|h[kmnrtu]|(i[delmnoqrst]|info|int)| (j[emop]|jobs)|k[eghimnprwyz]|l[abcikrstuvy]| m[acdghklmnopqrstuvwxyz]|mil|mobi|museum)| (n[acefgilopruz]|name|net)|(om|org)| (p[aefghklmnrstwy]|pro)|qa|r[eouw]|s[abcdeghijklmnortvyz]| (t[cdfghjklmnoprtvwz]|travel)|u[agkmsyz]|v[aceginu]|w[fs]|y[etu]|z[amw]))?$/)

    Read the article

  • execute javascript function in a another iframe when parent is from different domain.

    - by Frushko
    The page A.com has 2 iframes B.com/page1 and B.com/page2. This is the code of A.com: <html><body> <iframe src="b.com/page1" name="iframe1" id="iframe1"> <iframe src="b.com/page2"> </body></html> I want to execute js function on B.com/page1 from B.com/page2. Both examples below works well when the parent is from the same domain but not in cross domain scenario: parent.window.frames['iframe1'].SomeFunction(args); or parent.document.getElementById('iframe1').contentWindow.SomeFunction(args); Is there any way to do it?

    Read the article

  • What is the proper way to handle a fully qualified domain in a GET request?

    - by Mark P Neyer
    I'm writing a proxy server. When I use curl to fetch a page, say http://www.foo.com/pants, curl makes the following request: GET /pants HTTP/1.1 When I have curl send that request through my local proxy, curl changes the GET request to: GET http://www.foo.com/pants HTTP/1.1 This change causes the foo.com server return a 404. Is foo.com broken? Or is the fully qualified domain name only meaningful to proxy servers? Should I always strip http://domain from the requests I send out? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Adding Windows 2008 R2 Standard 64 bit DC to Windows 2008 Standard 32 bit Domain

    - by user137652
    All of our domain controllers (2) are Windows 2008 Standard 32 bit. We are trying to add a Standard 2008 R2 64 bit domain controller to the forest but for some reason during DCPROMO, we receive the following error: "to install a domain controller into this active directory forest,you must first prepare the forest using "adprep/forestprep" etc We went ahead an ran adprep /forestprep on our established domain controller and allowed time to replicate. When attempting to execute dcpromo again, we receive the same error. What gives?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >