Search Results

Search found 584 results on 24 pages for 'steering behaviors'.

Page 6/24 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • WCF tcp.net client/server connection failing "Stream Security is required"

    - by Tom W.
    I am trying to test a simple WCF tcp.net client/server app. The WCF service is being hosted on Windows 7 IIS. I have enabled TCP.net in IIS. I granted liberal security privileges to service app by configuring an app pool with admin rights and set the IIS service application to run in the context. I enabled tracing on the service app to troubleshoot. Whenever I run a simple method call against the service from the WCF client app, I get the following exception: "Stream Security is required at http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous, but no security context was negotiated. This is likely caused by the remote endpoint missing a StreamSecurityBindingElement from its binding." Here is my client configuration: <bindings> <netTcpBinding> <binding name="InsecureTcp"> <security mode="None" /> </binding> </netTcpBinding> </bindings> Here is my service configuration: <bindings> <netTcpBinding> <binding name="InsecureTcp" > <security mode="None" /> </binding> </netTcpBinding> </bindings> <services> <service name="OrderService" behaviorConfiguration="debugServiceBehavior"> <endpoint address="" binding="netTcpBinding" bindingConfiguration="InsecureTcp" contract="ProtoBufWcfService.IOrder" /> </service> </services> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="debugServiceBehavior"> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true" /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors>

    Read the article

  • WCF 405 Method Not Allowed Crazy Error Help!

    - by devmania
    hi, i am going crazy i have read like 10s of articles also on stackoverflow about that i am calling webservice in restful way and should enable this in service and in webconfig, so i did that but as soon as i add the [WebGet()] Attribute i get this crazy error if i remove it then the service get called seamlessly i am using VS 2010 RC 1 IIS 7 Windows 7 here is my code [ServiceContract(Namespace = "")] [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode =AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] public class Service2 { [OperationContract] [WebGet()] public List<Table1> GetCustomers(string numberToFetch) { using (DataClassesDataContext context = new DataClassesDataContext()) { return context.Table1s.Take(numberToFetch).ToList( ); } } } and my ASPX page Code <body xmlns:sys="javascript:Sys" xmlns:dataview="javascript:Sys.UI.DataView"> <div id="CustomerView" class="sys-template" sys:attach="dataview" dataview:autofetch="true" dataview:dataprovider="Service2.svc" dataview:fetchParameters="{{ {numberToFetch: 2} }}" dataview:fetchoperation="GetCustomers"> <ul> <li>{{name}}</li> </ul> </div> and my Web.config code <system.serviceModel> <behaviors> <endpointBehaviors> <behavior name="Service2AspNetAjaxBehavior"> <enableWebScript /> </behavior> </endpointBehaviors> </behaviors> <serviceHostingEnvironment aspNetCompatibilityEnabled="true" multipleSiteBindingsEnabled="true" /> <services> <service name="Service2"> <endpoint address="" behaviorConfiguration="Service2AspNetAjaxBehavior" binding="webHttpBinding" contract="Service2" /> </service> </services> </system.serviceModel> totally appreciate the help

    Read the article

  • C# WCF Server retrieves 'List<T>' with 1 entry, but client doesn't receive it?! Please help Urgentl

    - by Neville
    Hi Everyone, I've been battling and trying to research this issue for over 2 days now with absolutely no luck. I am trying to retrieve a list of clients from the server (server using fluentNHibernate). The client object is as follow: [DataContract] //[KnownType(typeof(System.Collections.Generic.List<ContactPerson>))] //[KnownType(typeof(System.Collections.Generic.List<Address>))] //[KnownType(typeof(System.Collections.Generic.List<BatchRequest>))] //[KnownType(typeof(System.Collections.Generic.List<Discount>))] [KnownType(typeof(EClientType))] [KnownType(typeof(EComType))] public class Client { #region Properties [DataMember] public virtual int ClientID { get; set; } [DataMember] public virtual EClientType ClientType { get; set; } [DataMember] public virtual string RegisterID {get; set;} [DataMember] public virtual string HerdCode { get; set; } [DataMember] public virtual string CompanyName { get; set; } [DataMember] public virtual bool InvoicePerBatch { get; set; } [DataMember] public virtual EComType ResultsComType { get; set; } [DataMember] public virtual EComType InvoiceComType { get; set; } //[DataMember] //public virtual IList<ContactPerson> Contacts { get; set; } //[DataMember] //public virtual IList<Address> Addresses { get; set; } //[DataMember] //public virtual IList<BatchRequest> Batches { get; set; } //[DataMember] //public virtual IList<Discount> Discounts { get; set; } #endregion #region Overrides public override bool Equals(object obj) { var other = obj as Client; if (other == null) return false; return other.GetHashCode() == this.GetHashCode(); } public override int GetHashCode() { return ClientID.GetHashCode() | ClientType.GetHashCode() | RegisterID.GetHashCode() | HerdCode.GetHashCode() | CompanyName.GetHashCode() | InvoicePerBatch.GetHashCode() | ResultsComType.GetHashCode() | InvoiceComType.GetHashCode();// | Contacts.GetHashCode() | //Addresses.GetHashCode() | Batches.GetHashCode() | Discounts.GetHashCode(); } #endregion } As you can see, I have allready tried to remove the sub-lists, though even with this simplified version of the client I still run into the propblem. my fluent mapping is: public class ClientMap : ClassMap<Client> { public ClientMap() { Table("Clients"); Id(p => p.ClientID); Map(p => p.ClientType).CustomType<EClientType>(); ; Map(p => p.RegisterID); Map(p => p.HerdCode); Map(p => p.CompanyName); Map(p => p.InvoicePerBatch); Map(p => p.ResultsComType).CustomType<EComType>(); Map(p => p.InvoiceComType).CustomType<EComType>(); //HasMany<ContactPerson>(p => p.Contacts) // .KeyColumns.Add("ContactPersonID") // .Inverse() // .Cascade.All(); //HasMany<Address>(p => p.Addresses) // .KeyColumns.Add("AddressID") // .Inverse() // .Cascade.All(); //HasMany<BatchRequest>(p => p.Batches) // .KeyColumns.Add("BatchID") // .Inverse() // .Cascade.All(); //HasMany<Discount>(p => p.Discounts) // .KeyColumns.Add("DiscountID") // .Inverse() // .Cascade.All(); } The client method, seen below, connects to the server. The server retrieves the list, and everything looks right in the object, still, when it returns, the client doesn't receive anything (it receive a List object, but with nothing in it. Herewith the calling method: public List<s.Client> GetClientList() { try { s.DataServiceClient svcClient = new s.DataServiceClient(); svcClient.Open(); List<s.Client> clients = new List<s.Client>(); clients = svcClient.GetClientList().ToList<s.Client>(); svcClient.Close(); //when receiving focus from server, the clients object has a count of 0 return clients; } catch (Exception e) { MessageBox.Show(e.Message); } return null; } and the server method: public IList<Client> GetClientList() { var clients = new List<Client>(); try { using (var session = SessionHelper.OpenSession()) { clients = session.Linq<Client>().Where(p => p.ClientID > 0).ToList<Client>(); } } catch (Exception e) { EventLog.WriteEntry("eCOWS.Data", e.Message); } return clients; //returns a list with 1 client in it } the server method interface is: [UseNetDataContractSerializer] [OperationContract] IList<Client> GetClientList(); for final references, here is my client app.config entries: <system.serviceModel> <bindings> <netTcpBinding> <binding name="NetTcpBinding_IDataService" listenBacklog="10" maxConnections="10" transferMode="Buffered" transactionProtocol="OleTransactions" maxReceivedMessageSize="2147483647" maxBufferSize="2147483647" receiveTimeout="00:10:00" sendTimeout="00:10:00"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="51200000" maxStringContentLength="51200000" maxArrayLength="51200000" maxBytesPerRead="51200000" maxNameTableCharCount="51200000" /> <security mode="Transport"/> </binding> </netTcpBinding> </bindings> <client> <endpoint address="net.tcp://localhost:9000/eCOWS/DataService" binding="netTcpBinding" bindingConfiguration="NetTcpBinding_IDataService" contract="eCowsDataService.IDataService" name="NetTcpBinding_IDataService" behaviorConfiguration="eCowsEndpointBehavior"> </endpoint> <endpoint address="MEX" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> </client> <behaviors> <endpointBehaviors> <behavior name="eCowsEndpointBehavior"> <dataContractSerializer maxItemsInObjectGraph="2147483647"/> </behavior> </endpointBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel> and my server app.config: <system.serviceModel> <bindings> <netTcpBinding> <binding name="netTcpBinding" maxConnections="10" listenBacklog="10" transferMode="Buffered" transactionProtocol="OleTransactions" maxBufferSize="2147483647" maxReceivedMessageSize="2147483647" sendTimeout="00:10:00" receiveTimeout="00:10:00"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="51200000" maxStringContentLength="51200000" maxArrayLength="51200000" maxBytesPerRead="51200000" maxNameTableCharCount="51200000" /> <security mode="Transport"/> </binding> </netTcpBinding> </bindings> <services> <service name="eCows.Data.Services.DataService" behaviorConfiguration="eCowsServiceBehavior"> <host> <baseAddresses> <add baseAddress="http://localhost:9001/eCOWS/" /> <add baseAddress="net.tcp://localhost:9000/eCOWS/" /> </baseAddresses> </host> <endpoint address="DataService" binding="netTcpBinding" contract="eCows.Data.Services.IDataService" behaviorConfiguration="eCowsEndpointBehaviour"> </endpoint> <endpoint address="MEX" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> </service> </services> <behaviors> <endpointBehaviors> <behavior name="eCowsEndpointBehaviour"> <dataContractSerializer maxItemsInObjectGraph="2147483647" /> </behavior> </endpointBehaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="eCowsServiceBehavior"> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="True"/> <serviceThrottling maxConcurrentCalls="10" maxConcurrentSessions="10"/> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="False" /> </behavior> <behavior name="MexBehaviour"> <serviceMetadata /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel> I use to run into "socket closed / network or timeout" errors, and the trace showed clearly that on the callback it was looking for a listening endpoint, but couldn't find one. Anyway, after adding the UseNetSerializer that error went away, yet now I'm just not getting anything. Oh PS. if I add all the commented out List items, I still retrieve an entry from the DB, but also still not receive anything on the client. if I remove the [UseNetDataContractSerializer] I get the following error(s) in the svclog : WARNING: Description Faulted System.ServiceModel.Channels.ServerSessionPreambleConnectionReader+ServerFramingDuplexSessionChannel WARNING: Description Faulted System.ServiceModel.Channels.ServiceChannel ERROR: Initializing[eCows.Data.Models.Client#3]-failed to lazily initialize a collection of role: eCows.Data.Models.Client.Addresses, no session or session was closed ... ERROR: Could not find default endpoint element that references contract 'ILogbookManager' in the ServiceModel client configuration section. This might be because no configuration file was found for your application, or because no endpoint element matching this contract could be found in the client element. If I add a .Not.LazyLoad to the List mapping items, I'm back at not receiving errors, but also not receiving any client information.. Sigh! Please, if anyone can help with this I'd be extremely grateful. I'm probably just missing something small.. but... what is it :) hehe. Thanks in advance! Neville

    Read the article

  • WCF Web Service Gives 404 error in Azure

    - by landyman
    I'm new to using WCF and Azure, but I have a WCF Web Service that works correctly when debugging in Visual Studio. I set the startup project to Azure, and I get 404 errors for any URL I try related to the service. Here is what I think is relavant code: From IWebService.cs [OperationContract] [WebGet(UriTemplate = "GetData/Xml?value={value}", ResponseFormat=WebMessageFormat.Xml)] string GetDataXml(string value); and from Web.config: <system.serviceModel> <services> <service name="WebService" behaviorConfiguration="WebServiceBehavior"> <!-- Service Endpoints --> <endpoint address="" binding="webHttpBinding" contract="IWebService" behaviorConfiguration="WebEndpointBehavior"></endpoint> <endpoint address="ws" binding="wsHttpBinding" contract="IWebService"/> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange"/> </service> </services> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="WebServiceBehavior"> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true"/> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true"/> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> <endpointBehaviors> <behavior name="WebEndpointBehavior"> <webHttp/> </behavior> </endpointBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel> I have tried changing the binding to 'basicHttpBinding', but that had no luck. Thanks in advance for any help!

    Read the article

  • Multiple Base Addresses and Multiple Endpoints in WCF

    - by mnhab
    I'm using two bindings TCP and HTTP. I want to give mex data on both bindings. What I want is that the mexHttpBinding only exposes the HTTP services while the mexTcpBinding exposes TCP services only. Or is this possible that I access stats service only from HTTP binding and the eventLogging service from TCP? For Example: For TCP I should only have net.tcp://localhost:9001/ABC/mex net.tcp://localhost:9001/ABC/eventLogging For HTTP http://localhost:9002/ABC/stats http://localhost:9002/ABC/mex When I connect with any of the base address (using the WCF Test Client) I'm able to access all the services? Like when I connect with net.tcp://localhost:9001/ABC I'm able to use the services which are offered on the HTTP binding. Why is that so? <system.serviceModel> <services> <service behaviorConfiguration="ABCServiceBehavior" name="ABC.Data.DataServiceWCF"> <endpoint address="eventLogging" binding="netTcpBinding" contract="ABC.Campaign.IEventLoggingService" /> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexTcpBinding" bindingConfiguration="" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> <endpoint address="stats" binding="basicHttpBinding" contract="ABC.Data.IStatsService" /> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> <host> <baseAddresses> <add baseAddress="net.tcp://localhost:9001/ABC" /> <add baseAddress="http://localhost:9002/ABC" /> </baseAddresses> </host> </service> </services> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="ABCServiceBehavior"> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="false" /> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true" /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel>

    Read the article

  • WCF sending the same exception even if the service endpoint address is valid

    - by ALexr111
    Hi, I'm running into a really strange problem with WCF. I need to implement some recovery behavior for WCF service if not reachable endpoint IP address received or service can not bind. The flow is simple if the application fail on exception on service creation it terminate it and request from user another IP address and perform another attempt to create the service. (The code snippet below). If the address is not valid I get "A TCP error (10049: The requested address is not valid in its context) occurred while listening on IP Endpoint=.121.10.11.11" exception, but for any reason if I try the second attempt with valid address I've got the same exception with wrong IP address from previous attempt. Here is a code: ServiceHost service = null; try { Uri[] uris = { new Uri(Constants.PROTOCOL + "://" + address + ":" + port) }; service = new ServiceHost(typeof(IRemoteService), uris); NetTcpBinding tcpBinding = WcfTcpRemoteServicesManager.LessLimitedNewNetTcpBinding(int.MaxValue, int.MaxValue, int.MaxValue); ServiceEndpoint ep = service.AddServiceEndpoint(implementedContract.FullName, tcpBinding, serviceName); var throttle = service.Description.Behaviors.Find<ServiceThrottlingBehavior>(); if (throttle == null) { throttle = new ServiceThrottlingBehavior { MaxConcurrentCalls = Constants.MAX_CONCURRENT_CALLS, MaxConcurrentSessions = Constants.MAX_CONCURRENT_SESSIONS, MaxConcurrentInstances = Constants.MAX_CONCURRENT_INSTANCES }; service.Description.Behaviors.Add(throttle); } service.Open(); } catch (Exception e) { _debugLog.WriteLineMessage( "Failed to open or create service exception. Exception message:" + e.Message); if (service!=null) { try { service.Close(); } catch (Exception) { service.Abort(); service.Close(); throw e; } } } Thanks

    Read the article

  • WCF Service Impersonation

    - by robalot
    Good Day Everyone... Apparently, I'm not setting-up impersonation correctly for my WCF service. I do NOT want to set security on a method-by-method basis (in the actual code-behind). The service (at the moment) is open to be called by everyone on the intranet. So my questions are… Q: What web-config tags am I missing? Q: What do I need to change in the web-config to make impersonation work? The Service Web.config Looks Like... <configuration> <system.web> <authorization> <allow users="?"/> </authorization> <authentication mode="Windows"/> <identity impersonate="true" userName="MyDomain\MyUser" password="MyPassword"/> </system.web> <system.serviceModel> <services> <service behaviorConfiguration="wcfFISH.DataServiceBehavior" name="wcfFISH.DataService"> <endpoint address="" binding="wsHttpBinding" contract="wcfFISH.IFishData"> <identity> <dns value="localhost"/> </identity> </endpoint> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> </service> </services> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="wcfFISH.DataServiceBehavior"> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="false"/> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="false"/> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel> </configuration>

    Read the article

  • WCF ReliableMessaging method called twice

    - by Brian
    Using Fiddler, we see 3 HTTP requests (and matching responses) for each call when: WS-ReliableMessaging is enabled, and, the method returns a large amount of data (17MB) The first HTTP request is a SOAP message with the action "CreateSequence" (presumable to establish the reliable session). The second and third HTTP requests are identical SOAP messages invoking our webservice method. Why are there two identical messages? Here is our config: <system.serviceModel> <client> <endpoint address="http://server/vdir/AccountingService.svc" binding="wsHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="customWsHttpBinding" behaviorConfiguration="LargeServiceBehavior" contract="MyProject.Accounting.IAccountingService" name="BasicHttpBinding_IAccountingService" /> </client> <bindings> <wsHttpBinding> <binding name="customWsHttpBinding" maxReceivedMessageSize="90000000"> <reliableSession enabled="true"/> <security mode="None" /> </binding> </wsHttpBinding> </bindings> <behaviors> <endpointBehaviors> <behavior name="LargeServiceBehavior"> <dataContractSerializer maxItemsInObjectGraph="2147483647"/> </behavior> </endpointBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel> Thanks, Brian

    Read the article

  • WCF configuration file: why do we need clientBaseAddress in Binding section?

    - by Captain Comic
    Hi, There are three sections in WCF configuration for service client: Look at bindings = clientBaseAddress Why do we need to specify callback address? Is this field required? Why .NET is unable to determine the address of client? Does it mean that i can specify callback service that is located on some other machine? <configuration> <system.serviceModel> <client> <endpoint address= </client> <bindings> <wsDualHttpBinding> <binding name= clientBaseAddress= maxBufferPoolSize="2147483647" maxReceivedMessageSize="2147483647" </binding> </wsDualHttpBinding> </bindings> <behaviors> <endpointBehaviors> <behavior name=> </behavior> </endpointBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel>

    Read the article

  • Enable MEX in a Web.Config

    - by Conor
    Hi Folks, How do I enable/create a MEX endpoint in the below web config so I can view the service from my browser? I have tried a few variation from googling but VS always complains about it. (not a valid child element etc...) <configuration> <system.web> <compilation debug="true" targetFramework="4.0" /> </system.web> <system.serviceModel> <serviceHostingEnvironment aspNetCompatibilityEnabled="true"/> <services> <service name="MyApp.MyService" behaviorConfiguration="WebServiceBehavior"> <endpoint address="" binding="webHttpBinding" contract="MyApp.IMyService" behaviorConfiguration="JsonBehavior"> <identity> <dns value="localhost"/> </identity> </endpoint> </service> </services> <behaviors> <endpointBehaviors> <behavior name="JsonBehavior"> <webHttp/> </behavior> </endpointBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel> </configuration> Cheers, Conor

    Read the article

  • Extending timeout and message size in WCF service generated by Biztalk 2006 R2

    - by Sergej Andrejev
    Hi, I'm generating WCF service using Biztalk. The code I get is this: <system.serviceModel> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="ServiceBehaviorConfiguration"> <serviceDebug httpHelpPageEnabled="true" httpsHelpPageEnabled="false" includeExceptionDetailInFaults="false" /> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true" httpsGetEnabled="false" externalMetadataLocation="" /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> <services> <!-- Note: the service name must match the configuration name for the service implementation. --> <service name="Microsoft.BizTalk.Adapter.Wcf.Runtime.BizTalkServiceInstance" behaviorConfiguration="ServiceBehaviorConfiguration"> <endpoint name="HttpMexEndpoint" address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> <!--<endpoint name="HttpsMexEndpoint" address="mex" binding="mexHttpsBinding" bindingConfiguration="" contract="IMetadataExchange" />--> </service> </services> </system.serviceModel> Maybe it's not the most beautifull configuration, but it works. The problem is I don't know how to modify timeouts and message max size, because it has only mex endpoint. I'm surprised how this works at all with just mex endpoint. So two questions are: Why does this works at all? What should I add to extend timeouts and message size?

    Read the article

  • AspNetMembership provider with WCF service

    - by Sly
    I'm trying to configure AspNetMembershipProvider to be used for authenticating in my WCF service that is using basicHttpBinding. I have following configuration: <system.serviceModel> <serviceHostingEnvironment aspNetCompatibilityEnabled="true" /> <bindings> <basicHttpBinding> <binding name="basicSecureBinding"> <security mode="Message"></security> </binding> </basicHttpBinding> </bindings> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="MyApp.Services.ComputersServiceBehavior"> <serviceAuthorization roleProviderName="AspNetSqlRoleProvider" principalPermissionMode="UseAspNetRoles" /> <serviceCredentials> <userNameAuthentication userNamePasswordValidationMode="MembershipProvider" membershipProviderName="AspNetSqlMembershipProvider"/> </serviceCredentials> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true" /> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true" /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> <services> <service behaviorConfiguration="MyApp.Services.ComputersServiceBehavior" name="MyApp.Services.ComputersService"> <endpoint binding="basicHttpBinding" contract="MyApp.Services.IComputersService" /> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> </service> </services> </system.serviceModel> Roles are enabled and membership provider is configured (its working for web site). But authentication process is not fired at all. There is no calles to data base during request, and when I try to set following attribute on method: [PrincipalPermission(SecurityAction.Demand, Authenticated = true)] public bool Test() { return true; } I'm getting access denied exception. Any thoughts how to fix it?

    Read the article

  • WCF: Using multiple bindings for a single service.

    - by Lijo
    Hi, I have a WCF service (in 3.0) which is running fine with wsHttpBinding. I want to add netTcpBinding binding also to the same service. But the challenge that I am facing is in adding behaviorConfiguration. How should I modify the following code to enable the service for both the bindings? Please help… <service name="Lijo.Samples.WeatherService" behaviorConfiguration="WeatherServiceBehavior"> <host> <baseAddresses> <add baseAddress="http://localhost:8000/ServiceModelSamples/FreeServiceWorld"/> <add baseAddress="net.tcp://localhost:8052/ServiceModelSamples/FreeServiceWorld"/> <!-- added new baseaddress for TCP--> </baseAddresses> </host> <endpoint address="" binding="wsHttpBinding" contract="Lijo.Samples.IWeather" /> <endpoint address="" binding="netTcpBinding" contract="Lijo.Samples.IWeather" /> <!-- added new end point--> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> </service> </services> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="WeatherServiceBehavior"> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true"/> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="False"/> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> Please see the following to see further details http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2887588/wcf-using-windows-service Thanks Lijo

    Read the article

  • TimeoutException when WCF Host and Client are in the same process

    - by Pharao2k
    I've ran into a really weird problem. I am building a heavily distributed application where each app instance can either be a Host and/or Client to a WCF-Service (very p2p-like). Everything works fine, as long as the Client and the targeted Host (By which I mean the app, not the Host, since currently everything runs on a single computer (so no Firewall problems etc.)) are NOT the same. IF they are the same, then the app hangs for exactly 1 Minute and then throws a TimeoutException. WCF-Logging did not produce anything helpful. Here is a small app which demonstrates the Problem: public partial class MainWindow : Window { public MainWindow() { InitializeComponent(); } private void button1_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { var binding = new NetTcpBinding(); var baseAddress = new Uri(@"net.tcp://localhost:4000/Test"); ServiceHost host = new ServiceHost(typeof(TestService), baseAddress); host.AddServiceEndpoint(typeof(ITestService), binding, baseAddress); var debug = host.Description.Behaviors.Find<ServiceDebugBehavior>(); if (debug == null) host.Description.Behaviors.Add(new ServiceDebugBehavior { IncludeExceptionDetailInFaults = true }); else debug.IncludeExceptionDetailInFaults = true; host.Open(); var clientBinding = new NetTcpBinding(); var testProxy = new TestProxy(clientBinding, new EndpointAddress(baseAddress)); testProxy.Test(); } } [ServiceContract] public interface ITestService { [OperationContract] void Test(); } public class TestService : ITestService { public void Test() { MessageBox.Show("foo"); } } public class TestProxy : ClientBase<ITestService>, ITestService { public TestProxy(NetTcpBinding binding, EndpointAddress remoteAddress) : base(binding, remoteAddress) { } public void Test() { Channel.Test(); } } What am I doing wrong? Regards, Pharao2k

    Read the article

  • Can I split system.serviceModel into a separate .config file?

    - by Mr Bell
    I want to separate my system.serviceModel section of the web.config into a separate file to facilitate some environment settings. My efforts have been fruitless. When I attempt it using this method. The wcf code throws an exception: "The type initializer for 'System.ServiceModel.ClientBase 1 threw an exception. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? Web.config: <configuration> <system.serviceModel configSource="MyWCF.config" /> .... MyWCF.config: <system.serviceModel> <extensions> ... </extensions> <bindings> ... </bindings> <behaviors> ... </behaviors> <client> ... </client> </system.serviceModel>

    Read the article

  • Cocoa NSTextField Drag & Drop Requires Subclass... Really?

    - by ipmcc
    Until today, I've never had occasion to use anything other than an NSWindow itself as an NSDraggingDestination. When using a window as a one-size-fits-all drag destination, the NSWindow will pass those messages on to its delegate, allowing you to handle drops without subclassing NSWindow. The docs say: Although NSDraggingDestination is declared as an informal protocol, the NSWindow and NSView subclasses you create to adopt the protocol need only implement those methods that are pertinent. (The NSWindow and NSView classes provide private implementations for all of the methods.) Either a window object or its delegate may implement these methods; however, the delegate’s implementation takes precedence if there are implementations in both places. Today, I had a window with two NSTextFields on it, and I wanted them to have different drop behaviors, and I did not want to allow drops anywhere else in the window. The way I interpret the docs, it seems that I either have to subclass NSTextField, or make some giant spaghetti-conditional drop handlers on the window's delegate that hit-checks the draggingLocation against each view in order to select the different drop-area behaviors for each field. The centralized NSWindow-delegate-based drop handler approach seems like it would be onerous in any case where you had more than a small handful of drop destination views. Likewise, the subclassing approach seems onerous regardless of the case, because now the drop handling code lives in a view class, so once you accept the drop you've got to come up with some way to marshal the dropped data back to the model. The bindings docs warn you off of trying to drive bindings by setting the UI value programmatically. So now you're stuck working your way back around that too. So my question is: "Really!? Are those the only readily available options? Or am I missing something straightforward here?" Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How can i initialise a server on startup?

    - by djerry
    Hey all, I need to make some connections on startup of a server. I'm using the wcf technology for this client-server application. The problem is that the constructor of the server isn't called at any time, so for the moment, i initialize the connections when the first client makes a connection. But this generates problems in a further part. This is my server setup: private static ServiceHost _svc; static void Main(string[] args) { NetTcpBinding binding = new NetTcpBinding(SecurityMode.Message); Uri address = new Uri("net.tcp://localhost:8000"); _svc = new ServiceHost(typeof(MonitoringSystemService), address); publishMetaData(_svc, "http://localhost:8001"); _svc.AddServiceEndpoint(typeof(IMonitoringSystemService), binding, "Monitoring Server"); _svc.Open(); Console.WriteLine("Listener service gestart op net.tcp://localhost:8000/Monitoring"); Console.ReadLine(); } private static void publishMetaData(ServiceHost svc, string sEndpointAddress) { ServiceMetadataBehavior smb = svc.Description.Behaviors.Find<ServiceMetadataBehavior>(); if (smb != null) { smb.HttpGetEnabled = true; smb.HttpGetUrl = new Uri(sEndpointAddress); } else { smb = new ServiceMetadataBehavior(); smb.HttpGetEnabled = true; smb.HttpGetUrl = new Uri(sEndpointAddress); svc.Description.Behaviors.Add(smb); } } How can i start the server without waiting for a client to logon so i can initialize it. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Is your team is a high-performing team?

    As a child I can remember looking out of the car window as my father drove along the Interstate in Florida while seeing prisoners wearing bright orange jump suits and prison guards keeping a watchful eye on them. The prisoners were taking part in a prison road gang. These road gangs were formed to help the state maintain the state highway infrastructure. The prisoner’s primary responsibilities are to pick up trash and debris from the roadway. This is a prime example of a work group or working group used by most prison systems in the United States. Work groups or working groups can be defined as a collection of individuals or entities working together to achieve a specific goal or accomplish a specific set of tasks. Typically these groups are only established for a short period of time and are dissolved once the desired outcome has been achieved. More often than not group members usually feel as though they are expendable to the group and some even dread that they are even in the group. "A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they are mutually accountable." (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993) So how do you determine that a team is a high-performing team?  This can be determined by three base line criteria that include: consistently high quality output, the promotion of personal growth and well being of all team members, and most importantly the ability to learn and grow as a unit. Initially, a team can successfully create high-performing output without meeting all three criteria, however this will erode over time because team members will feel detached from the group or that they are not growing then the quality of the output will decline. High performing teams are similar to work groups because they both utilize a collection of individuals or entities to accomplish tasks. What distinguish a high-performing team from a work group are its characteristics. High-performing teams contain five core characteristics. These characteristics are what separate a group from a team. The five characteristics of a high-performing team include: Purpose, Performance Measures, People with Tasks and Relationship Skills, Process, and Preparation and Practice. A high-performing team is much more than a work group, and typically has a life cycle that can vary from team to team. The standard team lifecycle consists of five states and is comparable to a human life cycle. The five states of a high-performing team lifecycle include: Formulating, Storming, Normalizing, Performing, and Adjourning. The Formulating State of a team is first realized when the team members are first defined and roles are assigned to all members. This initial stage is very important because it can set the tone for the team and can ultimately determine its success or failure. In addition, this stage requires the team to have a strong leader because team members are normally unclear about specific roles, specific obstacles and goals that my lay ahead of them.  Finally, this stage is where most team members initially meet one another prior to working as a team unless the team members already know each other. The Storming State normally arrives directly after the formulation of a new team because there are still a lot of unknowns amongst the newly formed assembly. As a general rule most of the parties involved in the team are still getting used to the workload, pace of work, deadlines and the validity of various tasks that need to be performed by the group.  In this state everything is questioned because there are so many unknowns. Items commonly questioned include the credentials of others on the team, the actual validity of a project, and the leadership abilities of the team leader.  This can be exemplified by looking at the interactions between animals when they first meet.  If we look at a scenario where two people are walking directly toward each other with their dogs. The dogs will automatically enter the Storming State because they do not know the other dog. Typically in this situation, they attempt to define which is more dominating via play or fighting depending on how the dogs interact with each other. Once dominance has been defined and accepted by both dogs then they will either want to play or leave depending on how the dogs interacted and other environmental variables. Once the Storming State has been realized then the Normalizing State takes over. This state is entered by a team once all the questions of the Storming State have been answered and the team has been tested by a few tasks or projects.  Typically, participants in the team are filled with energy, and comradery, and a strong alliance with team goals and objectives.  A high school football team is a perfect example of the Normalizing State when they start their season.  The player positions have been assigned, the depth chart has been filled and everyone is focused on winning each game. All of the players encourage and expect each other to perform at the best of their abilities and are united by competition from other teams. The Performing State is achieved by a team when its history, working habits, and culture solidify the team as one working unit. In this state team members can anticipate specific behaviors, attitudes, reactions, and challenges are seen as opportunities and not problems. Additionally, each team member knows their role in the team’s success, and the roles of others. This is the most productive state of a group and is where all the time invested working together really pays off. If you look at an Olympic figure skating team skate you can easily see how the time spent working together benefits their performance. They skate as one unit even though it is comprised of two skaters. Each skater has their routine completely memorized as well as their partners. This allows them to anticipate each other’s moves on the ice makes their skating look effortless. The final state of a team is the Adjourning State. This state is where accomplishments by the team and each individual team member are recognized. Additionally, this state also allows for reflection of the interactions between team members, work accomplished and challenges that were faced. Finally, the team celebrates the challenges they have faced and overcome as a unit. Currently in the workplace teams are divided into two different types: Co-located and Distributed Teams. Co-located teams defined as the traditional group of people working together in an office, according to Andy Singleton of Assembla. This traditional type of a team has dominated business in the past due to inadequate technology, which forced workers to primarily interact with one another via face to face meetings.  Team meetings are primarily lead by the person with the highest status in the company. Having personally, participated in meetings of this type, usually a select few of the team members dominate the flow of communication which reduces the input of others in group discussions. Since discussions are dominated by a select few individuals the discussions and group discussion are skewed in favor of the individuals who communicate the most in meetings. In addition, Team members might not give their full opinions on a topic of discussion in part not to offend or create controversy amongst the team and can alter decision made in meetings towards those of the opinions of the dominating team members. Distributed teams are by definition spread across an area or subdivided into separate sections. That is exactly what distributed teams when compared to a more traditional team. It is common place for distributed teams to have team members across town, in the next state, across the country and even with the advances in technology over the last 20 year across the world. These teams allow for more diversity compared to the other type of teams because they allow for more flexibility regarding location. A team could consist of a 30 year old male Italian project manager from New York, a 50 year old female Hispanic from California and a collection of programmers from India because technology allows them to communicate as if they were standing next to one another.  In addition, distributed team members consult with more team members prior to making decisions compared to traditional teams, and take longer to come to decisions due to the changes in time zones and cultural events. However, team members feel more empowered to speak out when they do not agree with the team and to notify others of potential issues regarding the work that the team is doing. Virtual teams which are a subset of the distributed team type is changing organizational strategies due to the fact that a team can now in essence be working 24 hrs a day because of utilizing employees in various time zones and locations.  A primary example of this is with customer services departments, a company can have multiple call centers spread across multiple time zones allowing them to appear to be open 24 hours a day while all a employees work from 9AM to 5 PM every day. Virtual teams also allow human resources departments to go after the best talent for the company regardless of where the potential employee works because they will be a part of a virtual team all that is need is the proper technology to be setup to allow everyone to communicate. In addition to allowing employees to work from home, the company can save space and resources by not having to provide a desk for every team member. In fact, those team members that randomly come into the office can actually share one desk amongst multiple people. This is definitely a cost cutting plus given the current state of the economy. One thing that can turn a team into a high-performing team is leadership. High-performing team leaders need to focus on investing in ongoing personal development, provide team members with direction, structure, and resources needed to accomplish their work, make the right interventions at the right time, and help the team manage boundaries between the team and various external parties involved in the teams work. A team leader needs to invest in ongoing personal development in order to effectively manage their team. People have said that attitude is everything; this is very true about leaders and leadership. A team takes on the attitudes and behaviors of its leaders. This can potentially harm the team and the team’s output. Leaders must concentrate on self-awareness, and understanding their team’s group dynamics to fully understand how to lead them. In addition, always learning new leadership techniques from other effective leaders is also very beneficial. Providing team members with direction, structure, and resources that they need to accomplish their work collectively sounds easy, but it is not.  Leaders need to be able to effectively communicate with their team on how their work helps the company reach for its organizational vision. Conversely, the leader needs to allow his team to work autonomously within specific guidelines to turn the company’s vision into a reality.  This being said the team must be appropriately staffed according to the size of the team’s tasks and their complexity. These tasks should be clear, and be meaningful to the company’s objectives and allow for feedback to be exchanged with the leader and the team member and the leader and upper management. Now if the team is properly staffed, and has a clear and full understanding of what is to be done; the company also must supply the workers with the proper tools to achieve the tasks that they are asked to do. No one should be asked to dig a hole without being given a shovel.  Finally, leaders must reward their team members for accomplishments that they achieve. Awards could range from just a simple congratulatory email, a party to close the completion of a large project, or other monetary rewards. Managing boundaries is very important for team leaders because it can alter attitudes of team members and can add undue stress to the team which will force them to loose focus on the tasks at hand for the group. Team leaders should promote communication between team members so that burdens are shared amongst the team and solutions can be derived from hearing the opinions of multiple sources. This also reinforces team camaraderie and working as a unit. Team leaders must manage the type and timing of interventions as to not create an even bigger mess within the team. Poorly timed interventions can really deflate team members and make them question themselves. This could really increase further and undue interventions by the team leader. Typically, the best time for interventions is when the team is just starting to form so that all unproductive behaviors are removed from the team and that it can retain focus on its agenda. If an intervention is effectively executed the team will feel energized about the work that they are doing, promote communication and interaction amongst the group and improve moral overall. High-performing teams are very import to organizations because they consistently produce high quality output and develop a collective purpose for their work. This drive to succeed allows team members to utilize specific talents allowing for growth in these areas.  In addition, these team members usually take on a sense of ownership with their projects and feel that the other team members are irreplaceable. References: http://blog.assembla.com/assemblablog/tabid/12618/bid/3127/Three-ways-to-organize-your-team-co-located-outsourced-or-global.aspx Katzenbach, J.R. & Smith, D.K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-performance Organization. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Read the article

  • Is Social Media The Vital Skill You Aren’t Tracking?

    - by HCM-Oracle
    By Mark Bennett - Originally featured in Talent Management Excellence The ever-increasing presence of the workforce on social media presents opportunities as well as risks for organizations. While on the one hand, we read about social media embarrassments happening to organizations, on the other we see that social media activities by workers and candidates can enhance a company’s brand and provide insight into what individuals are, or can become, influencers in the social media sphere. HR can play a key role in helping organizations make the most value out of the activities and presence of workers and candidates, while at the same time also helping to manage the risks that come with the permanence and viral nature of social media. What is Missing from Understanding Our Workforce? “If only HP knew what HP knows, we would be three-times more productive.”  Lew Platt, Former Chairman, President, CEO, Hewlett-Packard  What Lew Platt recognized was that organizations only have a partial understanding of what their workforce is capable of. This lack of understanding impacts the company in several negative ways: 1. A particular skill that the company needs to access in one part of the organization might exist somewhere else, but there is no record that the skill exists, so the need is unfulfilled. 2. As market conditions change rapidly, the company needs to know strategic options, but some options are missed entirely because the company doesn’t know that sufficient capability already exists to enable those options. 3. Employees may miss out on opportunities to demonstrate how their hidden skills could create new value to the company. Why don’t companies have that more complete picture of their workforce capabilities – that is, not know what they know? One very good explanation is that companies put most of their efforts into rating their workforce according to the jobs and roles they are filling today. This is the essence of two important talent management processes: recruiting and performance appraisals.  In recruiting, a set of requirements is put together for a job, either explicitly or indirectly through a job description. During the recruiting process, much of the attention is paid towards whether the candidate has the qualifications, the skills, the experience and the cultural fit to be successful in the role. This makes a lot of sense.  In the performance appraisal process, an employee is measured on how well they performed the functions of their role and in an effort to help the employee do even better next time, they are also measured on proficiency in the competencies that are deemed to be key in doing that job. Again, the logic is impeccable.  But in both these cases, two adages come to mind: 1. What gets measured is what gets managed. 2. You only see what you are looking for. In other words, the fact that the current roles the workforce are performing are the basis for measuring which capabilities the workforce has, makes them the only capabilities to be measured. What was initially meant to be a positive, i.e. identify what is needed to perform well and measure it, in order that it can be managed, comes with the unintended negative consequence of overshadowing the other capabilities the workforce has. This also comes with an employee engagement price, for the measurements and management of workforce capabilities is to typically focus on where the workforce comes up short. Again, it makes sense to do this, since improving a capability that appears to result in improved performance benefits, both the individual through improved performance ratings and the company through improved productivity. But this is based on the assumption that the capabilities identified and their required proficiencies are the only attributes of the individual that matter. Anything else the individual brings that results in high performance, while resulting in a desired performance outcome, often goes unrecognized or underappreciated at best. As social media begins to occupy a more important part in current and future roles in organizations, businesses must incorporate social media savvy and innovation into job descriptions and expectations. These new measures could provide insight into how well someone can use social media tools to influence communities and decision makers; keep abreast of trends in fast-moving industries; present a positive brand image for the organization around thought leadership, customer focus, social responsibility; and coordinate and collaborate with partners. These measures should demonstrate the “social capital” the individual has invested in and developed over time. Without this dimension, “short cut” methods may generate a narrow set of positive metrics that do not have real, long-lasting benefits to the organization. How Workforce Reputation Management Helps HR Harness Social Media With hundreds of petabytes of social media data flowing across Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, businesses are tapping technology solutions to effectively leverage social for HR. Workforce reputation management technology helps organizations discover, mobilize and retain talent by providing insight into the social reputation and influence of the workforce while also helping organizations monitor employee social media policy compliance and mitigate social media risk.  There are three major ways that workforce reputation management technology can play a strategic role to support HR: 1. Improve Awareness and Decisions on Talent Many organizations measure the skills and competencies that they know they need today, but are unaware of what other skills and competencies their workforce has that could be essential tomorrow. How about whether your workforce has the reputation and influence to make their skills and competencies more effective? Many organizations don’t have insight into the social media “reach” their workforce has, which is becoming more critical to business performance. These features help organizations, managers, and employees improve many talent processes and decision making, including the following: Hiring and Assignments. People and teams with higher reputations are considered more valuable and effective workers. Someone with high reputation who refers a candidate also can have high credibility as a source for hires.   Training and Development. Reputation trend analysis can impact program decisions regarding training offerings by showing how reputation and influence across the workforce changes in concert with training. Worker reputation impacts development plans and goal choices by helping the individual see which development efforts result in improved reputation and influence.   Finding Hidden Talent. Managers can discover hidden talent and skills amongst employees based on a combination of social profile information and social media reputation. Employees can improve their personal brand and accelerate their career development.  2. Talent Search and Discovery The right technology helps organizations find information on people that might otherwise be hidden. By leveraging access to candidate and worker social profiles as well as their social relationships, workforce reputation management provides companies with a more complete picture of what their knowledge, skills, and attributes are and what they can in turn access. This more complete information helps to find the right talent both outside the organization as well as the right, perhaps previously hidden talent, within the organization to fill roles and staff projects, particularly those roles and projects that are required in reaction to fast-changing opportunities and circumstances. 3. Reputation Brings Credibility Workforce reputation management technology provides a clearer picture of how candidates and workers are viewed by their peers and communities across a wide range of social reputation and influence metrics. This information is less subject to individual bias and can impact critical decision-making. Knowing the individual’s reputation and influence enables the organization to predict how well their capabilities and behaviors will have a positive effect on desired business outcomes. Many roles that have the highest impact on overall business performance are dependent on the individual’s influence and reputation. In addition, reputation and influence measures offer a very tangible source of feedback for workers, providing them with insight that helps them develop themselves and their careers and see the effectiveness of those efforts by tracking changes over time in their reputation and influence. The following are some examples of the different reputation and influence measures of the workforce that Workforce Reputation Management could gather and analyze: Generosity – How often the user reposts other’s posts. Influence – How often the user’s material is reposted by others.  Engagement – The ratio of recent posts with references (e.g. links to other posts) to the total number of posts.  Activity – How frequently the user posts. (e.g. number per day)  Impact – The size of the users’ social networks, which indicates their ability to reach unique followers, friends, or users.   Clout – The number of references and citations of the user’s material in others’ posts.  The Vital Ingredient of Workforce Reputation Management: Employee Participation “Nothing about me, without me.” Valerie Billingham, “Through the Patient’s Eyes”, Salzburg Seminar Session 356, 1998 Since data resides primarily in social media, a question arises: what manner is used to collect that data? While much of social media activity is publicly accessible (as many who wished otherwise have learned to their chagrin), the social norms of social media have developed to put some restrictions on what is acceptable behavior and by whom. Disregarding these norms risks a repercussion firestorm. One of the more recognized norms is that while individuals can follow and engage with other individual’s public social activity (e.g. Twitter updates) fairly freely, the more an organization does this unprompted and without getting permission from the individual beforehand, the more likely the organization risks a totally opposite outcome from the one desired. Instead, the organization must look for permission from the individual, which can be met with resistance. That resistance comes from not knowing how the information will be used, how it will be shared with others, and not receiving enough benefit in return for granting permission. As the quote above about patient concerns and rights succinctly states, no one likes not feeling in control of the information about themselves, or the uncertainty about where it will be used. This is well understood in consumer social media (i.e. permission-based marketing) and is applicable to workforce reputation management. However, asking permission leaves open the very real possibility that no one, or so few, will grant permission, resulting in a small set of data with little usefulness for the company. Connecting Individual Motivation to Organization Needs So what is it that makes an individual decide to grant an organization access to the data it wants? It is when the individual’s own motivations are in alignment with the organization’s objectives. In the case of workforce reputation management, when the individual is motivated by a desire for increased visibility and career growth opportunities to advertise their skills and level of influence and reputation, they are aligned with the organizations’ objectives; to fill resource needs or strategically build better awareness of what skills are present in the workforce, as well as levels of influence and reputation. Individuals can see the benefit of granting access permission to the company through multiple means. One is through simple social awareness; they begin to discover that peers who are getting more career opportunities are those who are signed up for workforce reputation management. Another is where companies take the message directly to the individual; we think you would benefit from signing up with our workforce reputation management solution. Another, more strategic approach is to make reputation management part of a larger Career Development effort by the company; providing a wide set of tools to help the workforce find ways to plan and take action to achieve their career aspirations in the organization. An effective mechanism, that facilitates connecting the visibility and career growth motivations of the workforce with the larger context of the organization’s business objectives, is to use game mechanics to help individuals transform their career goals into concrete, actionable steps, such as signing up for reputation management. This works in favor of companies looking to use workforce reputation because the workforce is more apt to see how it fits into achieving their overall career goals, as well as seeing how other participation brings additional benefits.  Once an individual has signed up with reputation management, not only have they made themselves more visible within the organization and increased their career growth opportunities, they have also enabled a tool that they can use to better understand how their actions and behaviors impact their influence and reputation. Since they will be able to see their reputation and influence measurements change over time, they will gain better insight into how reputation and influence impacts their effectiveness in a role, as well as how their behaviors and skill levels in turn affect their influence and reputation. This insight can trigger much more directed, and effective, efforts by the individual to improve their ability to perform at a higher level and become more productive. The increased sense of autonomy the individual experiences, in linking the insight they gain to the actions and behavior changes they make, greatly enhances their engagement with their role as well as their career prospects within the company. Workforce reputation management takes the wide range of disparate data about the workforce being produced across various social media platforms and transforms it into accessible, relevant, and actionable information that helps the organization achieve its desired business objectives. Social media holds untapped insights about your talent, brand and business, and workforce reputation management can help unlock them. Imagine - if you could find the hidden secrets of your businesses, how much more productive and efficient would your organization be? Mark Bennett is a Director of Product Strategy at Oracle. Mark focuses on setting the strategic vision and direction for tools that help organizations understand, shape, and leverage the capabilities of their workforce to achieve business objectives, as well as help individuals work effectively to achieve their goals and navigate their own growth. His combination of a deep technical background in software design and development, coupled with a broad knowledge of business challenges and thinking in today’s globalized, rapidly changing, technology accelerated economy, has enabled him to identify and incorporate key innovations that are central to Oracle Fusion’s unique value proposition. Mark has over the course of his career been in charge of the design, development, and strategy of Talent Management products and the design and development of cutting edge software that is better equipped to handle the increasingly complex demands of users while also remaining easy to use. Follow him @mpbennett

    Read the article

  • controlling how UltraVNC handles ALT+TAB

    - by Michael
    Most of the time it ignores it and I am able to switch away from UltraVNC to another application. I like this behavior. However, occasionally it gets into a mode where - for no discernable reason - it passes the Alt+Tab to the remote host which is incredibly annoying as I am used to the other behavior and suddenly I have no keyboard shortcut to switch to a different local windows. Since it appears to exhibit both behaviors, I assume there is some way to control which behavior is in use, but I haven't been able to find it

    Read the article

  • Arp tries on various *nix based systems.

    - by salparadise
    Does anyone know what determines the amount of arp tries a router will make? I have different behaviors with two devices, if I try to traceroute to a non-existent host on a subnet that belongs to an interface on the router, a Linux box will try to arp 3 times and then return a host un-reacheable icmp message. Junos will continuosly try to arp and not return anything. Is there a sysctl value that determines this or anything at all.

    Read the article

  • GNU Emacs is crashing with -nw

    - by Jack
    When I run emacs with -nw option, the emacs really open, but I can't do more nothing. As if the user input is blocked and no keyboard signal is received and/or interpreted. I've tried run without load .emacs file and some other behaviors: emacs -nw -Q --no-desktop --debug-ini foo.c But makes no difference and strangely the GUI-version(using Gtk) is working fine. My gnu-emacs version is GNU Emacs 23.3.1 Any help to help to fix it is very appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Idempotent Powershell word search/replace across documents with headers, change tracking, etc

    - by user61633
    I've found one or two guides to doing a word search and replace across multiple documents with powershell. They work well on simple documents. However, the script ignores text in headers and footers; and if "track changes" is enabled, it replaces text which has already been replaced, resulting in multiple copies of the new text if I run the script more than once on the same file. Any clues as to how I can avoid these undesirable behaviors and make this script robust?

    Read the article

  • Idempotent Powershell word search/replace across documents with headers, change tracking, etc.

    - by user61633
    I've found one or two guides to doing a word search and replace across multiple documents with powershell. They work well on simple documents. However, the script ignores text in headers and footers; and if "track changes" is enabled, it replaces text which has already been replaced, resulting in multiple copies of the new text if I run the script more than once on the same file. Any clues as to how I can avoid these undesirable behaviors and make this script robust?

    Read the article

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