Search Results

Search found 3281 results on 132 pages for 'headers'.

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 7/132 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Passing Custom Headers to Ajax request on Select2

    - by Sutikshan Dubey
    We are trying to implement Ajax Remote data loading in Select2:- $scope.configPartSelect2 = { minimumInputLength: 3, ajax: { url: "/api/Part", // beforeSend: function (xhr) { xhr.setRequestHeader('Authorization-Token', http.defaults.headers.common['Authorization-Token']); }, // headers: {'Authorization-Token': http.defaults.headers.common['Authorization-Token']}, data: function (term, page) { return {isStockable: true}; }, results: function (data, page) { // parse the results into the format expected by Select2. // since we are using custom formatting functions we do not need to alter remote JSON data return { results: data }; } } }; We are using AngularJS. With each Http request we have set it's default to have our Authtoken as header. But somehow it is not working in conjunction with Select2 Ajax request. In above code, commented code are my failed attempts.

    Read the article

  • Passing Custom headers from .Net 1.1 client to a WCF service

    - by sreejith
    I have a simple wcf service which uses basicHttp binding, I want to pass few information from client to this service via custom SOAP header. My client is a .net application targetting .Net 1.1, using visual studio I have created the proxy( Added a new web reference pointing to my WCF service) I am able to call methods in the WCF service but not able to pass the data in message header. Tried to override "GetWebRequest" and added custom headers in the proxy but for some reason when I tried to access the header using "OperationContext.Current.IncomingMessageHeaders.FindHeader" it is not thier. Any idea how to solve this prob? This is how I added the headers protected override System.Net.WebRequest GetWebRequest(Uri uri) { HttpWebRequest request; request = (HttpWebRequest)base.GetWebRequest(uri); request.Headers.Add("tesData", "test"); return request; }

    Read the article

  • X-Domain and P3P Headers

    - by Jackson
    Hi, I have a website A.com and a domain at B.com with a widget inside an iframe getting data from A.com. I want to allow x-domain cookies to be passed from a.com to inside the iframe using ASP.NET My understanding is that - I can do this in IE using P3P Headers - such that the A.com cookie is passed to the iframe and session | cookie data is preserved. The P3P headers have to be sent from the A.com and from the iframe. Is this correct ? In dev, my understanding is if I "accept all cookies" in IE - then P3P headers won't matter anyway and so this should all just work. If I put on Medium Security then P3P is required.

    Read the article

  • C++/MFC: Handling multiple CListCtrl's headers HDN_ITEMCLICK events

    - by raph.amiard
    I'm coding an MFC application in which i have a dialog box with multiple CListCtrls in report view. I want one of them to be sortable. So i handled the HDM_ITEMCLICK event, and everything works just fine .. Except that if i click on the headers of another CListCtrl, it does sort the OTHER CListCtrl, which does look kind of dumb. This is apparently due to the fact that headers have an ID of 0, which make the entry in the message map look like this : ON_NOTIFY(HDN_ITEMCLICK, 0, &Ccreationprogramme::OnHdnItemclickList5) But since all the headers have an id of zero, apparently every header of my dialog sends the message. Is there an easy way around this problem ?

    Read the article

  • Interpreting Accept Headers as intended in IE and Webkit

    - by Jrgns
    I developed a web app that responds with data in the format as specified by the client in the HTTP Accept Headers. Everything worked fine while using Firefox, but when I wanted to check my CSS / HTML on Chrome and IE, both of them wanted to download the index page, as if it's an unknown content type. After some research I found this article, which states that IE sends out a lot of crud in it's HTTP Accept headers, amongst others a list of image/* content types right at the start. This caused my web app to try to send the index page as an image/jpeg. So how do I know when to ignore and when to use the Accept Headers?

    Read the article

  • What does it mean when a User-Agent has another User-Agent inside it?

    - by Erx_VB.NExT.Coder
    Basically, sometimes the user-agent will have its normal user-agent displayed, then at the end it will have teh "User-Agent: " tag displayed, and right after it another user-agent is shown. Sometimes, the second user-agent is just appended to the first one without the "User-Agent: " tag. Here are some samples I've seen: The first few contain the "User-Agent: " tag in the middle somewhere, and I've changed its font to make it easier to to see. Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; GTB6; User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506) Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6; MRA 5.10 (build 5339); User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729) Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152) Here are some without the "User-Agent: " tag in the middle, but just two user agents that seem stiched together. Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); .NET CLR 3.5.30729) Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6; IPMS/6568080A-04A5AD839A9; TCO_20090713170733; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); InfoPath.2) Now, just to add a few notes to this. I understand that the "User-Agent: " tag is normally a header, and what follows a typical "User-Agent: " string sequence is the actual user agent that is sent to servers etc, but normally the "User-Agent: " string should not be part of the actual user agent, that is more like the pre-fix or a tag indicating that what follows will be the actual user agent. Additionally, I may have thought, hey, these are just two user agents pasted together, but on closer inspection, you realize that they are not. On all of these dual user agent listings, if you look at the opening bracket "(" just before the "compatible" keyword, you realize the pair to that bracket ")" is actually at the very end, the end of the second user agent. So, the first user agents closing bracket ")" never occurs before the second user agent begins, it's always right at the end, and therefore, the second user agent is more like one of the features of the first user agent, like: "Trident/4.0" or "GTB6" etc etc... The other thing to note that the second user agent is always MSIE 6.0 (Internet Explorer 6.0), interesting. What I had initially thought was it's some sort of Virtual Machine displaying the browser in use & the browser that is installed, but then I thought, what'd be the point in that? Finally, right now, I am thinking, it's probably soem sort of "Compatibility View" type thing, where even if MSIE 7.0 or 8.0 is installed, when my hypothetical the "Display In Internet Explorer 6.0" mode is turned on, the user agent changes to something like this. That being, IE 8.0 is installed, but is rendering everything as IE 6.0 would. Is there or was there such a feature in Internet Explorer? Am I on to something here? What are your thoughts on this? If you have any other ideas, please feel free to let us know. At the moment, I'm just trying to understand if these are valid User Agents, or if they are invalid. In a list of about 44,000 User Agents, I've seen this type of Dual User Agent about 400 times. I've closely inspected 40 of them, and every single one had MSIE 6.0 as the "second" user agent (and the first user agent a higher version of MSIE, such as 7 or 8). This was true for all except one, where both user agents were MSIE 8.0, here it is: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Win32; GMX); GTB0.0) This occured once in my 40 "close" inspections. I've estimated the 400 in 44,000 by taking a sample of the first 4,400 user agents, and finding 40 of these in the MSIE/Windows user agents, and extrapolated that to estimate 40. There were also similar things occuring for non MSIE user agents where there were two Mozilla's in one user agent, the non MSIE ones would probably add another 30% on top of the ones I've noted. I can show you samples of them if anyone would like. There we have it, this is where I'm at, what do you guys think?

    Read the article

  • What is recommended minimum object size for gzip performance benefits?

    - by utt73
    I'm working on improving page speed display times, and one of the methods is to gzip content from the webserver. Google recommends: Note that gzipping is only beneficial for larger resources. Due to the overhead and latency of compression and decompression, you should only gzip files above a certain size threshold; we recommend a minimum range between 150 and 1000 bytes. Gzipping files below 150 bytes can actually make them larger. We serve our content through Akamai, using their network for a proxy and CDN. What they've told me: Following up on your question regarding what is the minimum size Akamai will compress the requested object when sending it to the end user: The minimum size is 860 bytes. My reply: What is the reason(s) for why Akamai's minimum size is 860 bytes? And why, for example, is this not the case for files Akamai serves for facebook? (see below) Google recommends to gzip more agressively. And that seems appropriate on our site where the most frequent hits, by far, are AJAX calls that are <860 bytes. Akamai's response: The reasons 860 bytes is the minimum size for compression is twofold: (1) The overhead of compressing an object under 860 bytes outweighs performance gain. (2) Objects under 860 bytes can be transmitted via a single packet anyway, so there isn't a compelling reason to compress them. So I'm here for some fact checking. Is the 860 byte limit due to packet size the end of this reasoning? Why would high traffic sites push this down to the 150 byte limit... just to save on bandwidth costs (since CDNs base their charges on bandwith offloaded from origin), or is there a performance gain in doing so?

    Read the article

  • Common header file for C++ and JavaScipt

    - by paperjam
    I have an app that runs a C++ server backend and Javascript on the client. I would like to define certain strings once only, for both pieces of code. For example, I might have a CSS class "row-hover" - I want to define this class name in one place only in case I change it later. Is there an easy way to include, or read, some sort of common definitions file into both C++ and JavaScript? Ideally as a compile / preprocessing step but any neat approach good.

    Read the article

  • Ways to organize interface and implementation in C++

    - by Felix Dombek
    I've seen that there are several different paradigms in C++ concerning what goes into the header file and what to the cpp file. AFAIK, most people, especially those from a C background, do: foo.h class foo { private: int mem; int bar(); public: foo(); foo(const foo&); foo& operator=(foo); ~foo(); } foo.cpp #include foo.h foo::bar() { return mem; } foo::foo() { mem = 42; } foo::foo(const foo& f) { mem = f.mem; } foo::operator=(foo f) { mem = f.mem; } foo::~foo() {} int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { foo f; } However, my lecturers usually teach C++ to beginners like this: foo.h class foo { private: int mem; int bar() { return mem; } public: foo() { mem = 42; } foo(const foo& f) { mem = f.mem; } foo& operator=(foo f) { mem = f.mem; } ~foo() {} } foo.cpp #include foo.h int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { foo f; } // other global helper functions, DLL exports, and whatnot Originally coming from Java, I have also always stuck to this second way for several reasons, such as that I only have to change something in one place if the interface or method names change, and that I like the different indentation of things in classes when I look at their implementation, and that I find names more readable as foo compared to foo::foo. I want to collect pro's and con's for either way. Maybe there are even still other ways? One disadvantage of my way is of course the need for occasional forward declarations.

    Read the article

  • What is recommended minimum object size for gzip benefits?

    - by utt73
    I'm working on improving page speed display times, and one of the methods is to gzip content from the webserver. Google recommends: Note that gzipping is only beneficial for larger resources. Due to the overhead and latency of compression and decompression, you should only gzip files above a certain size threshold; we recommend a minimum range between 150 and 1000 bytes. Gzipping files below 150 bytes can actually make them larger. We serve our content through Akamai, using their network for a proxy and CDN. What they've told me: Following up on your question regarding what is the minimum size Akamai will compress the requested object when sending it to the end user: The minimum size is 860 bytes. My reply: What is the reason(s) for why Akamai's minimum size is 860 bytes? And why, for example, is this not the case for files Akamai serves for facebook? (see below) Google recommends to gzip more agressively. And that seems appropriate on our site where the most frequent hits, by far, are AJAX calls that are <860 bytes. Akamai's response: The reasons 860 bytes is the minimum size for compression is twofold: (1) The overhead of compressing an object under 860 bytes outweighs performance gain. (2) Objects under 860 bytes can be transmitted via a single packet anyway, so there isn't a compelling reason to compress them. So I'm here for some fact checking. Is the 860 byte limit due to packet size the end of this reasoning? Why would high traffic sites push this lower/closer to the 150 byte limit... just to save on bandwidth costs, or is there a performance gain in doing so?

    Read the article

  • Link tags in iframe widget

    - by john Smith
    I have a rating community-site and I´m offering little iframe widgets with the average rating and some little other info. Does it make sense (for visibility, SEO) to add link tags to the head like: <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS 2.0" href="rssfeed" /> <link rel="index" title="main-profile" href="main-profile"> To get a logical association of the widget to relating pages? How would you do this?

    Read the article

  • Google crawler not found an error inside of the <head> tag

    - by inckka
    I've found a crawler error in my site and it is listed as a page not found(404) link. Heres the broken link http://mydomain.com/blog/comments/feed/ I'm using Google web master tools and found that broken link coming from my web site pages' head tag. here's actual code where that link situated. <head> <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="My Domain Blog &raquo; Feed" href="http://www.my-domain.com/blog/feed/" /> </head> So Google report this link as a not found. Actually this link target is not an exact page or a location. But essential for the blog feeds. Anyway I have to fix this and remove from the Google crawler error's list. But haven't got any idea, because cannot redirect or do a 404 header with this link target. Have anyone got an idea of fixing this?

    Read the article

  • Finding header files

    - by rwallace
    A C or C++ compiler looks for header files using a strict set of rules: relative to the directory of the including file (if "" was used), then along the specified and default include paths, fail if still not found. An ancillary tool such as a code analyzer (which I'm currently working on) has different requirements: it may for a number of reasons not have the benefit of the setup performed by a complex build process, and have to make the best of what it is given. In other words, it may find a header file not present in the include paths it knows, and have to take its best shot at finding the file itself. I'm currently thinking of using the following algorithm: Start in the directory of the including file. Is the header file found in the current directory or any subdirectory thereof? If so, done. If we are at the root directory, the file doesn't seem to be present on this machine, so skip it. Otherwise move to the parent of the current directory and go to step 2. Is this the best algorithm to use? In particular, does anyone know of any case where a different algorithm would work better?

    Read the article

  • Ways to organize interface and implementation in C++

    - by Felix Dombek
    I've seen that there are several different paradigms in C++ concerning what goes into the header file and what to the cpp file. AFAIK, most people, especially those from a C background, do: foo.h class foo { private: int mem; int bar(); public: foo(); foo(const foo&); foo& operator=(foo); ~foo(); } foo.cpp #include foo.h foo::bar() { return mem; } foo::foo() { mem = 42; } foo::foo(const foo& f) { mem = f.mem; } foo::operator=(foo f) { mem = f.mem; } foo::~foo() {} int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { foo f; } However, my lecturers usually teach C++ to beginners like this: foo.h class foo { private: int mem; int bar() { return mem; } public: foo() { mem = 42; } foo(const foo& f) { mem = f.mem; } foo& operator=(foo f) { mem = f.mem; } ~foo() {} } foo.cpp #include foo.h int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { foo f; } // other global helper functions, DLL exports, and whatnot Originally coming from Java, I have also always stuck to this second way for several reasons, such as that I only have to change something in one place if the interface or method names change, that I like the different indentation of things in classes when I look at their implementation, and that I find names more readable as foo compared to foo::foo. I want to collect pro's and con's for either way. Maybe there are even still other ways? One disadvantage of my way is of course the need for occasional forward declarations.

    Read the article

  • Question aboud Headings For Professionals <H1>... <H9> in SEO & Browsercompatibility Differences

    - by Sam
    We all know the importance ans significance of Headings for Professional Webmasters. These were known for professional developers as <h1>Heading 1</h1> h2 ... h6. As a daring webdeveloper I lately needed more short headings for complex structured document and i thought what the hell and went ahead and used in css h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6{ } h7{ } h8{ } h9{ } My experiment turned out to pay back. But only in Firefox, Safari, Chrome etc, not in Internet Explorer 8. Q1. Who(&When) decided that All headings should go upto h6, and not h4 or h7? Q2. Why h7 -h9 work perfect in all major browsers, except IE8? Q3. What is the significance for Bing,Yahoo and Googld in terms of recognition or headings h1 ~ h9? obviously h1 is more important than 2, but do they differentiate between h5 and h6? or not anymore after h3?

    Read the article

  • What is best practice for search engines when a website is under maintenance?

    - by jamescridland
    I need around a week to transition a heavily data-driven website from one back end to another. During that time I do plan to attempt to keep some pages live, but they won't all work well or look brilliant. Some pages won't work at all. What is the best way to ensure I don't scare Google? Should I hide everything from robots.txt, or mark everything that doesn't work as "503", or are there other things that I should be considering?

    Read the article

  • Verifying that a user comes from a 'partner' site?

    - by matt_tm
    We're building a Drupal module that is going to be given to trusted 'corporate partners'. When a user clicks on a link, he should be redirected to our site as if he's a logged in user. How should I verify that the user is indeed coming from that site? It does not look like 'HTTP_REFERER' is enough because it appears it can be faked. We are providing these partner sites with API Keys. If I receive the API-key as a POST value, sent over https, would that be a sufficient indicator that the user is a genuine partner-site user?

    Read the article

  • Why do we need to include the .h while everything works when including only the .cpp file?

    - by reaffer
    Why do we need to include both the .h and .cpp files , while we can make it works with making just a .cpp file and then including it . For example, Creating a file.h containing declarations, then creating a file.cpp containing definitions and including both on the main.cpp. Or, creating a file.cpp containing declaration/definitions ( no prototypes ) Including it on the main.cpp. Both worked for me , but still can't the difference since i do not have a background on the compiling and linking process .

    Read the article

  • What's special in July 26th and why is it used in examples for Expires header so often?

    - by zerkms
    I've noticed that July 26th (my birthday) is used really often in various examples related to preventing http caching using Expires header, like: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12398714/cache-issue-with-private-networking-stream http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2833305/how-to-expire-page-in-php-when-user-logout http://expressionengine.com/archived_forums/viewthread/81945/ What's special in that date? PS: couldn't add conspiracy tag to the tags because of lack of rep points

    Read the article

  • C/C++ : Why do we need to include the .h while everything works when including only the .cpp file?

    - by reaffer
    Hi , Why do we need to include both the .h and .cpp files , while we can make it works with making just a .cpp file and then including it . Case one : Creating a file.h containing declarations . Creating a file.cpp containing definitions . Including both on the main.cpp . Case two : Creating a file.cpp containing declaration/definitions ( no prototypes ) Including it on the main.cpp . Both worked for me , but still can't the difference since i do not have a background on the compiling and linking process .

    Read the article

  • C++ linkage error . What am I doing wrong ? [migrated]

    - by nashmaniac
    So, this is the first time I actually separated a single program into a header and two .cpp files . But I think I am getting an linkage error . Heres how the directory looks . (heres a link to my image I dont have enough rep to post image in the question) http://i.stack.imgur.com/sbT4V.png The main.cpp is my main source file where all the calling functions and other important stuff goes . In functions.cpp I have all my functions , in the coordin.h file I have the function prototypes and structures and Constants . Everything is ok no typo nothing I have checked everything . But I am getting an undefined reference to function error. I have included the coordin.h file too . Do you think the functions.cpp file needs to go somewhere else I mean is the compiler not looking inside that file ? Thanks !

    Read the article

  • Requiring a specific order of compilaiton

    - by Aber Kled
    When designing a compiled programming language, is it a bad idea to require a specific order of compilation of separate units, according to their dependencies? To illustrate what I mean, consider C. C is the opposite of what I'm suggesting. There are multiple .c files, that can all depend on each other, but all of these separate units can be compiled on their own, in no particular order - only to be linked together into a final executable later. This is mostly due to header files. They enable separate units to share information with each other, and thus the units are able to be compiled independently. If a language were to dispose of header files, and only keep source and object files, then the only option would be to actually include the unit's meta-information in the unit's object file. However, this would mean that if the unit A depends on the unit B, then the unit B would need to be compiled before unit A, so unit A could "import" the unit B's object file, thus obtaining the information required for its compilation. Am I missing something here? Is this really the only way to go about removing header files in compiled languages?

    Read the article

  • Problem with #ifndef and #pragma once

    - by Xaver
    I want write the program with next struct stdafx.h - contains some #define defenitions of program constants and #include of headers wich uses in all project. frmMain.h - contatins code of Form1 also can Show form2 and uses some code from BckHeadr.h and some functions call that headers included in stdafx.h. frmIniPrgs.h - contatins code of Form2 and uses some code from BckHeadr.h and some functions call that headers included in stdafx.h. BckHeadr.h - contatins some definitions of functions and some functions call that headers included in stdafx.h. I know what i must use #ifndef or #pragma once directives. But i can not decided this problem. I included in stdafx.h: frmIniPrgs.H, BckHeadr.h, frmMain.h. And use #ifndef in all modules. I uset it like this: #ifndef MYMODULE_H #define MYMODULE_H //module code #endif

    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 | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >