Search Results

Search found 11672 results on 467 pages for 'formal methods'.

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 6/467 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Formal separation marker of syslog events?

    - by Server Horror
    I've been looking at RFC5424 to find the formally specified marker that will end a syslog event. Unfortunately I couldn't find it. So If I wanted to implement some small syslog server that reacts on certain messages what is the marker that ends a message (yes commonly an event is a single line, but I just couldn't find it in the specification) Clarification: I call it event because I associate a message with a single line. An event could possibly be some thing like Type: foo Source: webservers whereas a message to me is this: Type: foo Source: webservers http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5424#section-6 defines: SYSLOG-MSG = HEADER SP STRUCTURED-DATA [SP MSG] neither STRUCTURED-DATA nor MSG tell me how these fields end. Especially MSG is defined as as MSG-ANY / MSG-UTF8 which expands to virtually anything. There's nothing that says a newline marks the end (or an 8 or an a for that matter). Given the example messages (section 6.5): This is one valid message, or 2 valid messages depending on wether you say that a HEADER element must never occur in any MSG element: literal whitespace <34>1 2003-10-11T22:14:15.003Z mymachine.example.com su - ID47 - <34>1 2003-10-11T22:14:15.003Z mymachine.example.com su - ID47 | is this an end marker? \t stands for a tab <34>1 2003-10-11T22:14:15.003Z mymachine.example.com su - ID47 -\t<34>1 2003-10-11T22:14:15.003Z mymachine.example.com su - ID47 | is this an end marker? \n stands for a newline <34>1 2003-10-11T22:14:15.003Z mymachine.example.com su - ID47 -\n<34>1 2003-10-11T22:14:15.003Z mymachine.example.com su - ID47 | is this an end marker? Either I'm misreading the RFC or there just isn't any mention. The sizes specified in the RFC just say what the minimum length is expected that I can work with...

    Read the article

  • Configuring Fed Authentication Methods in OIF / IdP

    - by Damien Carru
    In this article, I will provide examples on how to configure OIF/IdP to map OAM Authentication Schemes to Federation Authentication Methods, based on the concepts introduced in my previous entry. I will show examples for the three protocols supported by OIF: SAML 2.0 SSO SAML 1.1 SSO OpenID 2.0 Enjoy the reading! Configuration As I mentioned in my previous article, mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes is protocol dependent, since the methods are defined in the various protocols (SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1, OpenID 2.0). As such, the WLST commands to set those mappings will involve: Either the SP Partner Profile and affect all Partners referencing that profile, which do not override the Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings Or the SP Partner entry, which will only affect the SP Partner It is important to note that if an SP Partner is configured to define one or more Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings, then all the mappings defined in the SP Partner Profile will be ignored. WLST Commands The two OIF WLST commands that can be used to define mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes are: addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() to define a mapping on an SP Partner Profile, taking as parameters: The name of the SP Partner Profile The Federation Authentication Method The OAM Authentication Scheme name addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() to define a mapping on an SP Partner , taking as parameters: The name of the SP Partner The Federation Authentication Method The OAM Authentication Scheme name Note: I will discuss in a subsequent article the other parameters of those commands. In the next sections, I will show examples on how to use those methods: For SAML 2.0, I will configure the SP Partner Profile, that will apply all the mappings to SP Partners referencing this profile, unless they override mapping definition For SAML 1.1, I will configure the SP Partner. For OpenID 2.0, I will configure the SP/RP Partner SAML 2.0 Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP and is integrated with a remote SAML 2.0 SP partner identified by AcmeSP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Use BasicScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map BasicSessionScheme  to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password Federation Authentication Method Use OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. Also the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> BasicScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner Profile to BasicScheme instead of LDAPScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner Profile referenced by AcmeSP (which is saml20-sp-partner-profile in this case: getFedPartnerProfile("AcmeSP", "sp") ): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "BasicScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will now be challenged via HTTP Basic Authentication defined in the BasicScheme for AcmeSP. Also, as noted earlier, the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via HTTP Basic Authentication, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping BasicScheme To change the Federation Authentication Method mapping for the BasicScheme to urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password instead of urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport for the saml20-sp-partner-profile SAML 2.0 SP Partner Profile (the profile to which my AcmeSP Partner is bound to), I will execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password", "BasicScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via HTTP Basic Authentication, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the AuthnContextClassRef was changed from PasswordProtectedTransport to Password): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner Profile to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme instead of BasicScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner Profile referenced by AcmeSP (which is saml20-sp-partner-profile in this case: getFedPartnerProfile("AcmeSP", "sp") ): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will now be challenged via FORM defined in the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme for AcmeSP. Contrarily to LDAPScheme and BasicScheme, the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme is not mapped by default to any Federation Authentication Methods. As such, OIF/IdP will not be able to find a Federation Authentication Method and will set the method in the SAML Assertion to the OAM Authentication Scheme name. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthnContextClassRef set to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme To add the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport mapping, I will execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to PasswordProtectedTransport): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> SAML 1.1 Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP and is integrated with a remote SAML 1.1 SP partner identified by AcmeSP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Use OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map LDAPScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. Also the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme instead of LDAPScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerDefaultScheme("AcmeSP", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will be challenged via FORM defined in the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme for AcmeSP. Contrarily to LDAPScheme, the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme is not mapped by default to any Federation Authentication Methods (in the SP Partner Profile). As such, OIF/IdP will not be able to find a Federation Authentication Method and will set the method in the SAML Assertion to the OAM Authentication Scheme name. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthenticationMethod set to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme To map the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password for this SP Partner only, I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeSP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to password): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme I will now show that by defining a Federation Authentication Mapping at the Partner level, this now ignores all mappings defined at the SP Partner Profile level. For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for this SP Partner back to LDAPScheme, and the Assertion issued by OIF/IdP will not be able to map this LDAPScheme to a Federation Authentication Method anymore, since A Federation Authentication Method mapping is defined at the SP Partner level and thus the mappings defined at the SP Partner Profile are ignored The LDAPScheme is not listed in the mapping at the Partner level I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for this SP Partner: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerDefaultScheme("AcmeSP", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthenticationMethod set to LDAPScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="LDAPScheme">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping LDAPScheme at Partner Level To fix this issue, we will need to add the LDAPScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password mapping for this SP Partner only. I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeSP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from LDAPScheme to password): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OpenID 2.0 In the OpenID 2.0 flows, the RP must request use of PAPE, in order for OIF/IdP/OP to include PAPE information. For OpenID 2.0, the configuration will involve mapping a list of OpenID 2.0 policies to a list of Authentication Schemes. The WLST command will take a list of policies, delimited by the ',' character, instead of SAML 2.0 or SAML 1.1 where a single Federation Authentication Method had to be specified. Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP/OP and is integrated with a remote OpenID 2.0 SP/RP partner identified by AcmeRP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map LDAPScheme to  the http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant and http://openid-policies/password-protected policies Federation Authentication Methods (the second one is a custom for this use case) LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. No Federation Authentication Method is defined OOTB for OpenID 2.0, so if the IdP/OP issue an SSO response with a PAPE Response element, it will specify the scheme name instead of Federation Authentication Methods After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an SSO Response similar to: https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=LDAPScheme&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D Mapping LDAPScheme To map the LDAP Scheme to the http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant and http://openid-policies/password-protected policies Federation Authentication Methods, I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method (the policies will be comma separated): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeRP", "http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant,http://openid-policies/password-protected", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from LDAPScheme to the two policies): https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fphishing-resistant+http%3A%2F%2Fopenid-policies%2Fpassword-protected&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D In the next article, I will cover how OIF/IdP can be configured so that an SP can request a specific Federation Authentication Method to challenge the user during Federation SSO.Cheers,Damien Carru

    Read the article

  • Strategies for invoking subclass methods on generic objects

    - by Brad Patton
    I've run into this issue in a number of places and have solved it a bunch of different ways but looking for other solutions or opinions on how to address. The scenario is when you have a collection of objects all based off of the same superclass but you want to perform certain actions based only on instances of some of the subclasses. One contrived example of this might be an HTML document made up of elements. You could have a superclass named HTMLELement and subclasses of Headings, Paragraphs, Images, Comments, etc. To invoke a common action across all of the objects you declare a virtual method in the superclass and specific implementations in all of the subclasses. So to render the document you could loop all of the different objects in the document and call a common Render() method on each instance. It's the case where again using the same generic objects in the collection I want to perform different actions for instances of specific subclass (or set of subclasses). For example (an remember this is just an example) when iterating over the collection, elements with external links need to be downloaded (e.g. JS, CSS, images) and some might require additional parsing (JS, CSS). What's the best way to handle those special cases. Some of the strategies I've used or seen used include: Virtual methods in the base class. So in the base class you have a virtual LoadExternalContent() method that does nothing and then override it in the specific subclasses that need to implement it. The benefit being that in the calling code there is no object testing you send the same message to each object and let most of them ignore it. Two downsides that I can think of. First it can make the base class very cluttered with methods that have nothing to do with most of the hierarchy. Second it assumes all of the work can be done in the called method and doesn't handle the case where there might be additional context specific actions in the calling code (i.e. you want to do something in the UI and not the model). Have methods on the class to uniquely identify the objects. This could include methods like ClassName() which return a string with the class name or other return values like enums or booleans (IsImage()). The benefit is that the calling code can use if or switch statements to filter objects to perform class specific actions. The downside is that for every new class you need to implement these methods and can look cluttered. Also performance could be less than some of the other options. Use language features to identify objects. This includes reflection and language operators to identify the objects. For example in C# there is the is operator that returns true if the instance matches the specified class. The benefit is no additional code to implement in your object hierarchy. The only downside seems to be the lack of using something like a switch statement and the fact that your calling code is a little more cluttered. Are there other strategies I am missing? Thoughts on best approaches?

    Read the article

  • What is the motivation behind "Use Extension Methods Sparingly?"

    - by Robert Harvey
    I find them a very natural way to extend existing classes, especially when you just need to "spot-weld" some functionality onto an existing class. Microsoft says, "In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to." And yet extension methods form the foundation of Linq; in fact, Linq was the reason extension methods were created. Are there specific design criteria where using extension methods are perferred over inheritance or composition? Under what criteria are they discouraged?

    Read the article

  • Various Methods of Building a Website - Things to Consider Before Getting Started

    Building a website doesn't have to be difficult. There are many different types of websites and various methods of making them. A site can be a simple blog, personal web page, online store, a professional, business website, and so forth. Read on to learn about all the different ways you can make a site. Even if you're completely new to web development, you can try some of these methods.

    Read the article

  • LINQ – TakeWhile and SkipWhile methods

    - by nmarun
    I happened to read about these methods on Vikram's blog and tried testing it. Somehow when I saw the output, things did not seem to add up right. I’m writing this blog to show the actual workings of these methods. Let’s take the same example as showing in Vikram’s blog and I’ll build around it. 1: int[] numbers = { 5, 4, 1, 3, 9, 8, 6, 7, 2, 0 }; 2:  3: foreach(var number in numbers.TakeWhile(n => n < 7)) 4: { 5: Console.WriteLine(number); 6: } Now, the way I (incorrectly) read the upper bound condition in the foreach loop was: ‘Give me all numbers that pass the condition of n<7’. So I was expecting the answer to be: 5, 4, 1, 3, 2, 0. But when I run the application, I see only: 5, 4, 1,3. Turns out I was wrong (happens at least once a day). The documentation on the method says ‘Returns elements from a sequence as long as a specified condition is true. To show in code, my interpretation was the below code’: 1: foreach (var number in numbers) 2: { 3: if (number < 7) 4: { 5: Console.WriteLine(number); 6: } 7: } But the actual implementation is: 1: foreach(var number in numbers) 2: { 3: if(number < 7) 4: { 5: Console.WriteLine(number); 6: break; 7: } 8: } So there it is, another situation where one simple word makes a difference of a whole world. The SkipWhile method has been implemented in a similar way – ‘Bypasses elements in a sequence as long as a specified condition is true and then returns the remaining elements’ and not ‘Bypasses elements in a sequence where a specified condition is true and then returns the remaining elements’. (Subtle.. very very subtle). It’s feels strange saying this, but hope very few require to read this article to understand these methods.

    Read the article

  • Deprecated Methods in Code Base

    - by Jamie Taylor
    A lot of the code I've been working on recently, both professionally (read: at work) and in other spheres (read: at home, for friends/family/etc, or NOT FOR WORK), has been worked on, redesigned and re-implemented several times - where possible/required. This has been in an effort to make things smaller, faster more efficient, better and closer to spec (when requirements have changed). A down side to this is that I now have several code bases that have deprecated method blocks (and in some places small objects). I'm looking at making this code maintainable and easy to roll back on changes. I'm already using version control software in both instances, but I'm left wondering if there are any specific techniques that have been used by others for keeping the superseded methods without increasing the size of compiled outputs? At the minute, I'm simply wrapping the old code in C style multi line comments. Here's an example of what I mean (C style, psuedo-code): void main () { //Do some work //Foo(); //Deprecated method call Bar(); //New method } /***** Deprecated code ***** /// Summary of Method void Foo() { //Do some work } ***** Deprecated Code *****/ /// Summary of method void Bar() { //Do some work } I've added a C style example, simply because I'm more confident with the C style languages. I'm trying to put this question across as language agnostic (hence the tag), and would prefer language agnostic answers, if possible - since I see this question as more of a techniques and design question. I'd like to keep the old methods and blocks for a bunch of reasons, chief amongst them being the ability to quickly restore an older working method in the case of some tests failing, or some unforeseen circumstance. Is there a better way to do this (that multi line comments)? Are there any tools that will allow me to store these old methods in separate files? Is that even a good idea?

    Read the article

  • Extension Methods in Dot Net 2.0

    - by Tom Hines
    Not that anyone would still need this, but in case you have a situation where the code MUST be .NET 2.0 compliant and you want to use a cool feature like Extension methods, there is a way.  I saw this article when looking for ways to create extension methods in C++, C# and VB:  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163317.aspx The author shows a simple  way to declare/define the ExtensionAttribute so it's available to 2.0 .NET code. Please read the article to learn about the when and why and use the content below to learn HOW. In the next post, I'll demonstrate cross-language calling of extension methods. Here is a version of it in C# First, here's the project showing there's no VOODOO included: using System; namespace System.Runtime.CompilerServices {    [       AttributeUsage(          AttributeTargets.Assembly          | AttributeTargets.Class          | AttributeTargets.Method,       AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = false)    ]    class ExtensionAttribute : Attribute{} } namespace TestTwoDotExtensions {    public static class Program    {       public static void DoThingCS(this string str)       {          Console.WriteLine("2.0\t{0:G}\t2.0", str);       }       static void Main(string[] args)       {          "asdf".DoThingCS();       }    } }   Here is the C++ version: // TestTwoDotExtensions_CPP.h #pragma once using namespace System; namespace System {        namespace Runtime {               namespace CompilerServices {               [                      AttributeUsage(                            AttributeTargets::Assembly                             | AttributeTargets::Class                            | AttributeTargets::Method,                      AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = false)               ]               public ref class ExtensionAttribute : Attribute{};               }        } } using namespace System::Runtime::CompilerServices; namespace TestTwoDotExtensions_CPP { public ref class CTestTwoDotExtensions_CPP {    public:            [ExtensionAttribute] // or [Extension]            static void DoThingCPP(String^ str)    {       Console::WriteLine("2.0\t{0:G}\t2.0", str);    } }; }

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Tuples and Tuple Factory Methods

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can really help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain.  This week, we look at the System.Tuple class and the handy factory methods for creating a Tuple by inferring the types. What is a Tuple? The System.Tuple is a class that tends to inspire a reaction in one of two ways: love or hate.  Simply put, a Tuple is a data structure that holds a specific number of items of a specific type in a specific order.  That is, a Tuple<int, string, int> is a tuple that contains exactly three items: an int, followed by a string, followed by an int.  The sequence is important not only to distinguish between two members of the tuple with the same type, but also for comparisons between tuples.  Some people tend to love tuples because they give you a quick way to combine multiple values into one result.  This can be handy for returning more than one value from a method (without using out or ref parameters), or for creating a compound key to a Dictionary, or any other purpose you can think of.  They can be especially handy when passing a series of items into a call that only takes one object parameter, such as passing an argument to a thread's startup routine.  In these cases, you do not need to define a class, simply create a tuple containing the types you wish to return, and you are ready to go? On the other hand, there are some people who see tuples as a crutch in object-oriented design.  They may view the tuple as a very watered down class with very little inherent semantic meaning.  As an example, what if you saw this in a piece of code: 1: var x = new Tuple<int, int>(2, 5); What are the contents of this tuple?  If the tuple isn't named appropriately, and if the contents of each member are not self evident from the type this can be a confusing question.  The people who tend to be against tuples would rather you explicitly code a class to contain the values, such as: 1: public sealed class RetrySettings 2: { 3: public int TimeoutSeconds { get; set; } 4: public int MaxRetries { get; set; } 5: } Here, the meaning of each int in the class is much more clear, but it's a bit more work to create the class and can clutter a solution with extra classes. So, what's the correct way to go?  That's a tough call.  You will have people who will argue quite well for one or the other.  For me, I consider the Tuple to be a tool to make it easy to collect values together easily.  There are times when I just need to combine items for a key or a result, in which case the tuple is short lived and so the meaning isn't easily lost and I feel this is a good compromise.  If the scope of the collection of items, though, is more application-wide I tend to favor creating a full class. Finally, it should be noted that tuples are immutable.  That means they are assigned a value at construction, and that value cannot be changed.  Now, of course if the tuple contains an item of a reference type, this means that the reference is immutable and not the item referred to. Tuples from 1 to N Tuples come in all sizes, you can have as few as one element in your tuple, or as many as you like.  However, since C# generics can't have an infinite generic type parameter list, any items after 7 have to be collapsed into another tuple, as we'll show shortly. So when you declare your tuple from sizes 1 (a 1-tuple or singleton) to 7 (a 7-tuple or septuple), simply include the appropriate number of type arguments: 1: // a singleton tuple of integer 2: Tuple<int> x; 3:  4: // or more 5: Tuple<int, double> y; 6:  7: // up to seven 8: Tuple<int, double, char, double, int, string, uint> z; Anything eight and above, and we have to nest tuples inside of tuples.  The last element of the 8-tuple is the generic type parameter Rest, this is special in that the Tuple checks to make sure at runtime that the type is a Tuple.  This means that a simple 8-tuple must nest a singleton tuple (one of the good uses for a singleton tuple, by the way) for the Rest property. 1: // an 8-tuple 2: Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, double, char, Tuple<string>> t8; 3:  4: // an 9-tuple 5: Tuple<int, int, int, int, double, int, char, Tuple<string, DateTime>> t9; 6:  7: // a 16-tuple 8: Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, Tuple<int,int>>> t14; Notice that on the 14-tuple we had to have a nested tuple in the nested tuple.  Since the tuple can only support up to seven items, and then a rest element, that means that if the nested tuple needs more than seven items you must nest in it as well.  Constructing tuples Constructing tuples is just as straightforward as declaring them.  That said, you have two distinct ways to do it.  The first is to construct the tuple explicitly yourself: 1: var t3 = new Tuple<int, string, double>(1, "Hello", 3.1415927); This creates a triple that has an int, string, and double and assigns the values 1, "Hello", and 3.1415927 respectively.  Make sure the order of the arguments supplied matches the order of the types!  Also notice that we can't half-assign a tuple or create a default tuple.  Tuples are immutable (you can't change the values once constructed), so thus you must provide all values at construction time. Another way to easily create tuples is to do it implicitly using the System.Tuple static class's Create() factory methods.  These methods (much like C++'s std::make_pair method) will infer the types from the method call so you don't have to type them in.  This can dramatically reduce the amount of typing required especially for complex tuples! 1: // this 4-tuple is typed Tuple<int, double, string, char> 2: var t4 = Tuple.Create(42, 3.1415927, "Love", 'X'); Notice how much easier it is to use the factory methods and infer the types?  This can cut down on typing quite a bit when constructing tuples.  The Create() factory method can construct from a 1-tuple (singleton) to an 8-tuple (octuple), which of course will be a octuple where the last item is a singleton as we described before in nested tuples. Accessing tuple members Accessing a tuple's members is simplicity itself… mostly.  The properties for accessing up to the first seven items are Item1, Item2, …, Item7.  If you have an octuple or beyond, the final property is Rest which will give you the nested tuple which you can then access in a similar matter.  Once again, keep in mind that these are read-only properties and cannot be changed. 1: // for septuples and below, use the Item properties 2: var t1 = Tuple.Create(42, 3.14); 3:  4: Console.WriteLine("First item is {0} and second is {1}", 5: t1.Item1, t1.Item2); 6:  7: // for octuples and above, use Rest to retrieve nested tuple 8: var t9 = new Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, 9: Tuple<int, int>>(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,Tuple.Create(8,9)); 10:  11: Console.WriteLine("The 8th item is {0}", t9.Rest.Item1); Tuples are IStructuralComparable and IStructuralEquatable Most of you know about IComparable and IEquatable, what you may not know is that there are two sister interfaces to these that were added in .NET 4.0 to help support tuples.  These IStructuralComparable and IStructuralEquatable make it easy to compare two tuples for equality and ordering.  This is invaluable for sorting, and makes it easy to use tuples as a compound-key to a dictionary (one of my favorite uses)! Why is this so important?  Remember when we said that some folks think tuples are too generic and you should define a custom class?  This is all well and good, but if you want to design a custom class that can automatically order itself based on its members and build a hash code for itself based on its members, it is no longer a trivial task!  Thankfully the tuple does this all for you through the explicit implementations of these interfaces. For equality, two tuples are equal if all elements are equal between the two tuples, that is if t1.Item1 == t2.Item1 and t1.Item2 == t2.Item2, and so on.  For ordering, it's a little more complex in that it compares the two tuples one at a time starting at Item1, and sees which one has a smaller Item1.  If one has a smaller Item1, it is the smaller tuple.  However if both Item1 are the same, it compares Item2 and so on. For example: 1: var t1 = Tuple.Create(1, 3.14, "Hi"); 2: var t2 = Tuple.Create(1, 3.14, "Hi"); 3: var t3 = Tuple.Create(2, 2.72, "Bye"); 4:  5: // true, t1 == t2 because all items are == 6: Console.WriteLine("t1 == t2 : " + t1.Equals(t2)); 7:  8: // false, t1 != t2 because at least one item different 9: Console.WriteLine("t2 == t2 : " + t2.Equals(t3)); The actual implementation of IComparable, IEquatable, IStructuralComparable, and IStructuralEquatable is explicit, so if you want to invoke the methods defined there you'll have to manually cast to the appropriate interface: 1: // true because t1.Item1 < t3.Item1, if had been same would check Item2 and so on 2: Console.WriteLine("t1 < t3 : " + (((IComparable)t1).CompareTo(t3) < 0)); So, as I mentioned, the fact that tuples are automatically equatable and comparable (provided the types you use define equality and comparability as needed) means that we can use tuples for compound keys in hashing and ordering containers like Dictionary and SortedList: 1: var tupleDict = new Dictionary<Tuple<int, double, string>, string>(); 2:  3: tupleDict.Add(t1, "First tuple"); 4: tupleDict.Add(t2, "Second tuple"); 5: tupleDict.Add(t3, "Third tuple"); Because IEquatable defines GetHashCode(), and Tuple's IStructuralEquatable implementation creates this hash code by combining the hash codes of the members, this makes using the tuple as a complex key quite easy!  For example, let's say you are creating account charts for a financial application, and you want to cache those charts in a Dictionary based on the account number and the number of days of chart data (for example, a 1 day chart, 1 week chart, etc): 1: // the account number (string) and number of days (int) are key to get cached chart 2: var chartCache = new Dictionary<Tuple<string, int>, IChart>(); Summary The System.Tuple, like any tool, is best used where it will achieve a greater benefit.  I wouldn't advise overusing them, on objects with a large scope or it can become difficult to maintain.  However, when used properly in a well defined scope they can make your code cleaner and easier to maintain by removing the need for extraneous POCOs and custom property hashing and ordering. They are especially useful in defining compound keys to IDictionary implementations and for returning multiple values from methods, or passing multiple values to a single object parameter. Tweet Technorati Tags: C#,.NET,Tuple,Little Wonders

    Read the article

  • Functional Methods on Collections

    - by GlenPeterson
    I'm learning Scala and am a little bewildered by all the methods (higher-order functions) available on the collections. Which ones produce more results than the original collection, which ones produce less, and which are most appropriate for a given problem? Though I'm studying Scala, I think this would pertain to most modern functional languages (Clojure, Haskell) and also to Java 8 which introduces these methods on Java collections. Specifically, right now I'm wondering about map with filter vs. fold/reduce. I was delighted that using foldRight() can yield the same result as a map(...).filter(...) with only one traversal of the underlying collection. But a friend pointed out that foldRight() may force sequential processing while map() is friendlier to being processed by multiple processors in parallel. Maybe this is why mapReduce() is so popular? More generally, I'm still sometimes surprised when I chain several of these methods together to get back a List(List()) or to pass a List(List()) and get back just a List(). For instance, when would I use: collection.map(a => a.map(b => ...)) vs. collection.map(a => ...).map(b => ...) The for/yield command does nothing to help this confusion. Am I asking about the difference between a "fold" and "unfold" operation? Am I trying to jam too many questions into one? I think there may be an underlying concept that, if I understood it, might answer all these questions, or at least tie the answers together.

    Read the article

  • Why you shouldn't add methods to interfaces in APIs

    - by Simon Cooper
    It is an oft-repeated maxim that you shouldn't add methods to a publically-released interface in an API. Recently, I was hit hard when this wasn't followed. As part of the work on ApplicationMetrics, I've been implementing auto-reporting of MVC action methods; whenever an action was called on a controller, ApplicationMetrics would automatically report it without the developer needing to add manual ReportEvent calls. Fortunately, MVC provides easy hook when a controller is created, letting me log when it happens - the IControllerFactory interface. Now, the dll we provide to instrument an MVC webapp has to be compiled against .NET 3.5 and MVC 1, as the lowest common denominator. This MVC 1 dll will still work when used in an MVC 2, 3 or 4 webapp because all MVC 2+ webapps have a binding redirect redirecting all references to previous versions of System.Web.Mvc to the correct version, and type forwards taking care of any moved types in the new assemblies. Or at least, it should. IControllerFactory In MVC 1 and 2, IControllerFactory was defined as follows: public interface IControllerFactory { IController CreateController(RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); void ReleaseController(IController controller); } So, to implement the logging controller factory, we simply wrap the existing controller factory: internal sealed class LoggingControllerFactory : IControllerFactory { private readonly IControllerFactory m_CurrentController; public LoggingControllerFactory(IControllerFactory currentController) { m_CurrentController = currentController; } public IController CreateController( RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName) { // log the controller being used FeatureSessionData.ReportEvent("Controller used:", controllerName); return m_CurrentController.CreateController(requestContext, controllerName); } public void ReleaseController(IController controller) { m_CurrentController.ReleaseController(controller); } } Easy. This works as expected in MVC 1 and 2. However, in MVC 3 this type was throwing a TypeLoadException, saying a method wasn't implemented. It turns out that, in MVC 3, the definition of IControllerFactory was changed to this: public interface IControllerFactory { IController CreateController(RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); SessionStateBehavior GetControllerSessionBehavior( RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); void ReleaseController(IController controller); } There's a new method in the interface. So when our MVC 1 dll was redirected to reference System.Web.Mvc v3, LoggingControllerFactory tried to implement version 3 of IControllerFactory, was missing the GetControllerSessionBehaviour method, and so couldn't be loaded by the CLR. Implementing the new method Fortunately, there was a workaround. Because interface methods are normally implemented implicitly in the CLR, if we simply declare a virtual method matching the signature of the new method in MVC 3, then it will be ignored in MVC 1 and 2 and implement the extra method in MVC 3: internal sealed class LoggingControllerFactory : IControllerFactory { ... public virtual SessionStateBehaviour GetControllerSessionBehaviour( RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName) {} ... } However, this also has problems - the SessionStateBehaviour type only exists in .NET 4, and we're limited to .NET 3.5 by support for MVC 1 and 2. This means that the only solutions to support all MVC versions are: Construct the LoggingControllerFactory type at runtime using reflection Produce entirely separate dlls for MVC 1&2 and MVC 3. Ugh. And all because of that blasted extra method! Another solution? Fortunately, in this case, there is a third option - System.Web.Mvc also provides a DefaultControllerFactory type that can provide the implementation of GetControllerSessionBehaviour for us in MVC 3, while still allowing us to override CreateController and ReleaseController. However, this does mean that LoggingControllerFactory won't be able to wrap any calls to GetControllerSessionBehaviour. This is an acceptable bug, given the other options, as very few developers will be overriding GetControllerSessionBehaviour in their own custom controller factory. So, if you're providing an interface as part of an API, then please please please don't add methods to it. Especially if you don't provide a 'default' implementing type. Any code compiled against the previous version that can't be updated will have some very tough decisions to make to support both versions.

    Read the article

  • How can an amateur programmer become professional without formal education (college) outside the US

    - by AlexRednic
    What is the path? Do I get certified (Microsoft,Sun,etc)? How do I build reputation? How do I make myself valuable without a college degree? How do I make others recognize my value? These are just a few questions but all point in the same direction. Are any of you in the same situation? What paths did you follow to become a successful programmer without the need of formal education?

    Read the article

  • Avoid warning 'Unreferenced Formal Parameter'

    - by bdhar
    I have a super class like this: class Parent { public: virtual void Function(int param); }; void Parent::Function(int param) { std::cout << param << std::endl; } ..and a sub-class like this: class Child : public Parent { public: void Function(int param); }; void Child::Function(int param) { ;//Do nothing } When I compile the sub-class .cpp file, I get this error warning C4100: 'param' : unreferenced formal parameter As a practise, we used to treat warnings as errors. How to avoid the above warning? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Formal name of Magento’s Class Override Design Pattern?

    - by Alan Storm
    Magento is a newish (past 5 years) PHP based Ecommerce system with an architecture that's similar to the Java Spring framework (or so I've been told) One of the features of the Framework is certain classes are not directly instantiated. Rather than do something like $model = new Mage_Foo_Model_Name(); you pass an identifier into a static method on a global application object $model = Mage::getModel('foo/name'); and this instantiates the class for you. One of the wins with this approach is getModel checks a global configuration system for the foo/name identifier, and instantiates the class name it finds in the configuration system. This allows you to change the behavior of a Model system wide with a single configuration change. Is there a formal, Gang of Four or otherwise, name that describes this system/design pattern? The instantiation itself looks like a classic Factory pattern, but I'm specifically interested in the whole "override a class in the system via configuration" aspect. Is there a name/concept that covers this, or is it contained within the worldview of a Factory?

    Read the article

  • Can static methods be called using object/instance in .NET

    Ans is Yes and No   Yes in C++, Java and VB.NET No in C#   This is only compiler restriction in c#. You might see in some websites that we can break this restriction using reflection and delegates, but we can’t, according to my little research J I shall try to explain you…   Following is code sample to break this rule using reflection, it seems that it is possible to call a static method using an object, p1 using System; namespace T {     class Program     {         static void Main()         {             var p1 = new Person() { Name = "Smith" };             typeof(Person).GetMethod("TestStatMethod").Invoke(p1, new object[] { });                     }         class Person         {             public string Name { get; set; }             public static void TestStatMethod()             {                 Console.WriteLine("Hello");             }         }     } } but I do not think so this method is being called using p1 rather Type Name “Person”. I shall try to prove this… look at another example…  Test2 has been inherited from Test1. Let’s see various scenarios… Scenario1 using System; namespace T {     class Program     {         static void Main()         {             Test1 t = new Test1();            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").Invoke(t,                                  new object[] { });         }     }     class Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method1");         }     }       class Test2 : Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method2");         }     } } Output:   At test1::Method2 Scenario2         static void Main()         {             Test2 t = new Test2();            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").Invoke(t,                                          new object[] { });         }   Output:   At test1::Method2   Scenario3         static void Main()         {             Test1 t = new Test2();            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").Invoke(t,                             new object[] { });         }   Output: At test1::Method2 In all above scenarios output is same, that means, Reflection also not considering the object what you pass to Invoke method in case of static methods. It is always considering the type which you specify in typeof(). So, what is the use passing instance to “Invoke”. Let see below sample using System; namespace T {     class Program     {         static void Main()         {            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").                Invoke(null, new object[] { });         }     }       class Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method1");         }     }     class Test2 : Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method2");         }     } }   Output is   At test1::Method2   I was able to call Invoke “Method1” of Test2 without any object.  Yes, there no wonder here as Method1 is static. So we may conclude that static methods cannot be called using instances (only in c#) Why Microsoft has restricted it in C#? Ans: Really there Is no use calling static methods using objects because static methods are stateless. but still Java and C++ latest compilers allow calling static methods using instances. Java sample class Test {      public static void main(String str[])      {            Person p = new Person();            System.out.println(p.GetCount());      } }   class Person {   public static int GetCount()   {      return 100;   } }   Output          100 span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • System.Reflection - Global methods aren't available for reflection

    - by mrjoltcola
    I have an issue with a semantic gap between the CLR and System.Reflection. System.Reflection does not (AFAIK) support reflecting on global methods in an assembly. At the assembly level, I must start with the root types. My compiler can produce assemblies with global methods, and my standard bootstrap lib is a dll that includes some global methods. My compiler uses System.Reflection to import assembly metadata at compile time. It seems if I depend on System.Reflection, global methods are not a possibility. The cleanest solution is to convert all of my standard methods to class static methods, but the point is, my language allows global methods, and the CLR supports it, but System.Reflection leaves a gap. ildasm shows the global methods just fine, but I assume it does not use System.Reflection itself and goes right to the metadata and bytecode. Besides System.Reflection, is anyone aware of any other 3rd party reflection or disassembly libs that I could make use of (assuming I will eventually release my compiler as free, BSD licensed open source).

    Read the article

  • When should a method of a class return the same instance after modifying itself?

    - by modiX
    I have a class that has three methods A(), B() and C(). Those methods modify the own instance. While the methods have to return an instance when the instance is a separate copy (just as Clone()), I got a free choice to return void or the same instance (return this;) when modifying the same instance in the method and not returning any other value. When deciding for returning the same modified instance, I can do neat method chains like obj.A().B().C();. Would this be the only reason for doing so? Is it even okay to modify the own instance and return it, too? Or should it only return a copy and leave the original object as before? Because when returning the same modified instance the user would maybe admit the returned value is a copy, otherwise it would not be returned? If it's okay, what's the best way to clarify such things on the method?

    Read the article

  • Why is it impossible to declare extension methods in a generic static class?

    - by Hun1Ahpu
    I'd like to create a lot of extension methods for some generic class, e.g. for public class SimpleLinkedList<T> where T:IComparable And I've started creating methods like this: public static class LinkedListExtensions { public static T[] ToArray<T>(this SimpleLinkedList<T> simpleLinkedList) where T:IComparable { //// code } } But when I tried to make LinkedListExtensions class generic like this: public static class LinkedListExtensions<T> where T:IComparable { public static T[] ToArray(this SimpleLinkedList<T> simpleLinkedList) { ////code } } I get "Extension methods can only be declared in non-generic, non-nested static class". And I'm trying to guess where this restriction came from and have no ideas.

    Read the article

  • Simple way to reorder methods of a Java class in IntelliJ?

    - by Péter Török
    Is there a simpler way of reordering methods within a class source file in IntelliJ than cutting and pasting the code manually? Nowadays I often need this while refactoring legacy code, e.g. to move related methods close to each other in the source code. In Eclipse AFAIK there is a view similar to the Structure view of IntelliJ, where I can drag and drop methods around. However, this does not work in IntelliJ and I couldn't find any hints from its help either. I am using IntelliJ 9.0.2 to be specific.

    Read the article

  • Background & Research Methods section (Writing an Article)

    - by sterz
    It is my first time writing an article on a software project. I am supposed to use ACM UbiComp paper format. I already have a structure that I should follow and there is a Background & Research Methods section after Abstract, Introduction, Related Work sections. I have browser through several articles, but some of them either dont have it, have only background section or have only research methods section. I am having hard time to find an article that has this section and moreover what I must write on here. My project is about Bluetooth location tracking and I do have the implementation and evaluation, so it is not something theoretical.

    Read the article

  • Use Extension Methods to find first and last day of the month

    - by Tim Hibbard
    A lot of reports work on data from last month.  It is a nice touch to have these dates pre-populated for your users.  Using extension methods, the code can look cleaner too. Extension Methods: public static class DateHelper { public static DateTime FirstOfTheMonth(this DateTime dt) { return new DateTime(dt.Year, dt.Month, 1); }   public static DateTime LastOfTheMonth(this DateTime dt) { return dt.FirstOfTheMonth().AddMonths(1).AddDays(-1); } } Consuming Code: void Prepopulate() { startDateBox.CurrentlySelectedDate = DateTime.Now.AddMonths(-1).FirstOfTheMonth(); endDateBox.CurrentlySelectedDate = DateTime.Now.AddMonths(-1).LastOfTheMonth(); }

    Read the article

  • Advantages to Multiple Methods over Switch

    - by tandu
    I received a code review from a senior developer today asking "By the way, what is your objection to dispatching functions by way of a switch statement?" I have read in many places about how pumping an argument through switch to call methods is bad OOP, not as extensible, etc. However, I can't really come up with a definitive answer for him. I would like to settle this for myself once and for all. Here are our competing code suggestions (php used as an example, but can apply more universally): class Switch { public function go($arg) { switch ($arg) { case "one": echo "one\n"; break; case "two": echo "two\n"; break; case "three": echo "three\n"; break; default: throw new Exception("Unknown call: $arg"); break; } } } class Oop { public function go_one() { echo "one\n"; } public function go_two() { echo "two\n"; } public function go_three() { echo "three\n"; } public function __call($_, $__) { throw new Exception("Unknown call $_ with arguments: " . print_r($__, true)); } } Part of his argument was "It (switch method) has a much cleaner way of handling default cases than what you have in the generic __call() magic method." I disagree about the cleanliness and in fact prefer call, but I would like to hear what others have to say. Arguments I can come up with in support of Oop scheme: A bit cleaner in terms of the code you have to write (less, easier to read, less keywords to consider) Not all actions delegated to a single method. Not much difference in execution here, but at least the text is more compartmentalized. In the same vein, another method can be added anywhere in the class instead of a specific spot. Methods are namespaced, which is nice. Does not apply here, but consider a case where Switch::go() operated on a member rather than a parameter. You would have to change the member first, then call the method. For Oop you can call the methods independently at any time. Arguments I can come up with in support of Switch scheme: For the sake of argument, cleaner method of dealing with a default (unknown) request Seems less magical, which might make unfamiliar developers feel more comfortable Anyone have anything to add for either side? I'd like to have a good answer for him.

    Read the article

  • How to design 2D collision callback methods?

    - by Ahmed Fakhry
    In a 2D game where you have a lot of possible combination of collision between objects, such as: object A vs object B = object B vs A; object A vs object C = object C vs A; object A vs object D = object D vs A; and so on ... Do we need to create callback methods for all single type of collision? and do we need to create the same method twice? Like, say a bullet hits a wall, now I need a method to penetrate the wall for the wall, and a method to destroy the bullet for the bullet!! At the same time, a bullet can hit many objects in the game, and hence, more different callback methods!!! Is there a design pattern for that?

    Read the article

  • Using extension methods to decrease the surface area of a C# interface

    - by brian_ritchie
    An interface defines a contract to be implemented by one or more classes.  One of the keys to a well-designed interface is defining a very specific range of functionality. The profile of the interface should be limited to a single purpose & should have the minimum methods required to implement this functionality.  Keeping the interface tight will keep those implementing the interface from getting lazy & not implementing it properly.  I've seen too many overly broad interfaces that aren't fully implemented by developers.  Instead, they just throw a NotImplementedException for the method they didn't implement. One way to help with this issue, is by using extension methods to move overloaded method definitions outside of the interface. Consider the following example: .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: Consolas, "Courier New", Courier, Monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } 1: public interface IFileTransfer 2: { 3: void SendFile(Stream stream, Uri destination); 4: } 5:   6: public static class IFileTransferExtension 7: { 8: public static void SendFile(this IFileTransfer transfer, 9: string Filename, Uri destination) 10: { 11: using (var fs = File.OpenRead(Filename)) 12: { 13: transfer.SendFile(fs, destination); 14: } 15: } 16: } 17:   18: public static class TestIFileTransfer 19: { 20: static void Main() 21: { 22: IFileTransfer transfer = new FTPFileTransfer("user", "pass"); 23: transfer.SendFile(filename, new Uri("ftp://ftp.test.com")); 24: } 25: } In this example, you may have a number of overloads that uses different mechanisms for specifying the source file. The great part is, you don't need to implement these methods on each of your derived classes.  This gives you a better interface and better code reuse.

    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 | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >