Search Results

Search found 13710 results on 549 pages for 'partial 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 7/549 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Generics in return types of static methods and inheritance

    - by Axel
    Generics in return types of static methods do not seem to get along well with inheritance. Please take a look at the following code: class ClassInfo<C> { public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz) { this(clazz,null); } public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz, ClassInfo<? super C> superClassInfo) { } } class A { public static ClassInfo<A> getClassInfo() { return new ClassInfo<A>(A.class); } } class B extends A { // Error: The return type is incompatible with A.getClassInfo() public static ClassInfo<B> getClassInfo() { return new ClassInfo<B>(B.class, A.getClassInfo()); } } I tried to circumvent this by changing the return type for A.getClassInfo(), and now the error pops up at another location: class ClassInfo<C> { public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz) { this(clazz,null); } public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz, ClassInfo<? super C> superClassInfo) { } } class A { public static ClassInfo<? extends A> getClassInfo() { return new ClassInfo<A>(A.class); } } class B extends A { public static ClassInfo<? extends B> getClassInfo() { // Error: The constructor ClassInfo<B>(Class<B>, ClassInfo<capture#1-of ? extends A>) is undefined return new ClassInfo<B>(B.class, A.getClassInfo()); } } What is the reason for this strict checking on static methods? And how can I get along? Changing the method name seems awkward.

    Read the article

  • Extensions methods and forward compatibilty of source code.

    - by TcKs
    Hi, I would like solve the problem (now hypothetical but propably real in future) of using extension methods and maginification of class interface in future development. Example: /* the code written in 17. March 2010 */ public class MySpecialList : IList<MySpecialClass> { // ... implementation } // ... somewhere elsewhere ... MySpecialList list = GetMySpecialList(); // returns list of special classes var reversedList = list.Reverse().ToList(); // .Reverse() is extension method /* now the "list" is unchanged and "reveresedList" has same items in reversed order */ /* --- in future the interface of MySpecialList will be changed because of reason XYZ*/ /* the code written in some future */ public class MySpecialList : IList<MySpecialClass> { // ... implementation public MySpecialList Reverse() { // reverse order of items in this collection return this; } } // ... somewhere elsewhere ... MySpecialList list = GetMySpecialList(); // returns list of special classes var reversedList = list.Reverse().ToList(); // .Reverse() was extension method but now is instance method and do something else ! /* now the "list" is reversed order of items and "reveresedList" has same items lake in "list" */ My question is: Is there some way how to prevent this case (I didn't find them)? If is now way how to prevent it, is there some way how to find possible issues like this? If is now way how to find possible issues, should I forbid usage of extension methods? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Go - Methods of an interface

    - by nevalu
    Would be correct the next way to implement the methods attached to an interface? (getKey, getData) type reader interface { getKey(ver uint) string getData() string } type location struct { reader fileLocation string err os.Error } func (self *location) getKey(ver uint) string {...} func (self *location) getData() string {...} func NewReader(fileLocation string) *location { _location := new(location) _location.fileLocation = fileLocation return _location }

    Read the article

  • About extension methods

    - by Srinivas Reddy Thatiparthy
    Shall i always need to throw ArgumentNullException(well,extension methods in Enumerable throw ArgumentNullException) when an extension method is called on null?I would like to have a clarification on this?If the answer is an Yes and No please present both the cases.

    Read the article

  • Generate set/get methods for a c++ class

    - by Narek
    Is there any tool that generates set and get methods for a class. Just I create classes very frequently and would like to have a tool which for each class-member wil generate following functions: Member_Type getMemberName() const; void setMemberName(const Member_Type & val);

    Read the article

  • conventions for friend methods in Perl

    - by xenoterracide
    Perl doesn't support a friend relationship between objects, nor does it support private or protected methods. What is usually done for private methods is to prefix the name with an underscore. I occasionally have methods that I think of as friend methods. Meaning that I expect them to be used by a specific object, or an object with a specific responsibility, but I'm not sure if I should make that method public (meaning foo ) or private ( _foo ) or if there's a better convention? is there a convention for friend methods?

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Static Char 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 help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain. The index of all my past little wonders posts can be found here. Often times in our code we deal with the bigger classes and types in the BCL, and occasionally forgot that there are some nice methods on the primitive types as well.  Today we will discuss some of the handy static methods that exist on the char (the C# alias of System.Char) type. The Background I was examining a piece of code this week where I saw the following: 1: // need to get the 5th (offset 4) character in upper case 2: var type = symbol.Substring(4, 1).ToUpper(); 3:  4: // test to see if the type is P 5: if (type == "P") 6: { 7: // ... do something with P type... 8: } Is there really any error in this code?  No, but it still struck me wrong because it is allocating two very short-lived throw-away strings, just to store and manipulate a single char: The call to Substring() generates a new string of length 1 The call to ToUpper() generates a new upper-case version of the string from Step 1. In my mind this is similar to using ToUpper() to do a case-insensitive compare: it isn’t wrong, it’s just much heavier than it needs to be (for more info on case-insensitive compares, see #2 in 5 More Little Wonders). One of my favorite books is the C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices by Sutter and Alexandrescu.  True, it’s about C++ standards, but there’s also some great general programming advice in there, including two rules I love:         8. Don’t Optimize Prematurely         9. Don’t Pessimize Prematurely We all know what #8 means: don’t optimize when there is no immediate need, especially at the expense of readability and maintainability.  I firmly believe this and in the axiom: it’s easier to make correct code fast than to make fast code correct.  Optimizing code to the point that it becomes difficult to maintain often gains little and often gives you little bang for the buck. But what about #9?  Well, for that they state: “All other things being equal, notably code complexity and readability, certain efficient design patterns and coding idioms should just flow naturally from your fingertips and are no harder to write then the pessimized alternatives. This is not premature optimization; it is avoiding gratuitous pessimization.” Or, if I may paraphrase: “where it doesn’t increase the code complexity and readability, prefer the more efficient option”. The example code above was one of those times I feel where we are violating a tacit C# coding idiom: avoid creating unnecessary temporary strings.  The code creates temporary strings to hold one char, which is just unnecessary.  I think the original coder thought he had to do this because ToUpper() is an instance method on string but not on char.  What he didn’t know, however, is that ToUpper() does exist on char, it’s just a static method instead (though you could write an extension method to make it look instance-ish). This leads me (in a long-winded way) to my Little Wonders for the day… Static Methods of System.Char So let’s look at some of these handy, and often overlooked, static methods on the char type: IsDigit(), IsLetter(), IsLetterOrDigit(), IsPunctuation(), IsWhiteSpace() Methods to tell you whether a char (or position in a string) belongs to a category of characters. IsLower(), IsUpper() Methods that check if a char (or position in a string) is lower or upper case ToLower(), ToUpper() Methods that convert a single char to the lower or upper equivalent. For example, if you wanted to see if a string contained any lower case characters, you could do the following: 1: if (symbol.Any(c => char.IsLower(c))) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Which, incidentally, we could use a method group to shorten the expression to: 1: if (symbol.Any(char.IsLower)) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Or, if you wanted to verify that all of the characters in a string are digits: 1: if (symbol.All(char.IsDigit)) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Also, for the IsXxx() methods, there are overloads that take either a char, or a string and an index, this means that these two calls are logically identical: 1: // check given a character 2: if (char.IsUpper(symbol[0])) { ... } 3:  4: // check given a string and index 5: if (char.IsUpper(symbol, 0)) { ... } Obviously, if you just have a char, then you’d just use the first form.  But if you have a string you can use either form equally well. As a side note, care should be taken when examining all the available static methods on the System.Char type, as some seem to be redundant but actually have very different purposes.  For example, there are IsDigit() and IsNumeric() methods, which sound the same on the surface, but give you different results. IsDigit() returns true if it is a base-10 digit character (‘0’, ‘1’, … ‘9’) where IsNumeric() returns true if it’s any numeric character including the characters for ½, ¼, etc. Summary To come full circle back to our opening example, I would have preferred the code be written like this: 1: // grab 5th char and take upper case version of it 2: var type = char.ToUpper(symbol[4]); 3:  4: if (type == 'P') 5: { 6: // ... do something with P type... 7: } Not only is it just as readable (if not more so), but it performs over 3x faster on my machine:    1,000,000 iterations of char method took: 30 ms, 0.000050 ms/item.    1,000,000 iterations of string method took: 101 ms, 0.000101 ms/item. It’s not only immediately faster because we don’t allocate temporary strings, but as an added bonus there less garbage to collect later as well.  To me this qualifies as a case where we are using a common C# performance idiom (don’t create unnecessary temporary strings) to make our code better. Technorati Tags: C#,CSharp,.NET,Little Wonders,char,string

    Read the article

  • Extension methods in class library project

    - by Mostafa
    I've implemented some extension methods and put those in separate Class Library project. Imagine I have a simple extension method like this in class library called MD.Utility: namespace MD.Utility { public static class ExtenMethods { public static bool IsValidEmailAddress(this string s) { Regex regex = new Regex(@"^[\w-\.]+@([\w-]+\.)+[\w-]{2,4}$"); return regex.IsMatch(s); } } } But nowhere in WebApp like App_code folder or WebFroms code-behind page I can't use this Extension method. If I do like this: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Web; using System.Web.UI; using System.Web.UI.WebControls; using MD.Utility; public partial class _Default : System.Web.UI.Page { protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { string email = "[email protected]"; if (email.IsValidEmailAddress()) { //To do } } } The compiler doesn't recognize IsValidEmailAddress() and even no intellisense support. While if I put my extension method in App_Code folder it's ok for using in another cs file in App_code Folder or Web Form code-behind pages.

    Read the article

  • Accessing "Public" methods from "Private" methods in javascript class

    - by mon4goos
    Is there a way to call "public" javascript functions from "private" ones within a class? Check out the class below: function Class() { this.publicMethod = function() { alert("hello"); } privateMethod = function() { publicMethod(); } this.test = function() { privateMethod(); } } Here is the code I run: var class = new Class(); class.test(); Firebug gives this error: publicMethod is not defined: [Break on this error] publicMethod(); Is there some other way to call publicMethod() within privateMethod() without accessing the global class variable [i.e. class.publicMethod()]?

    Read the article

  • ASP .NET MVC partial views and routing

    - by Johnny
    Hi, I have an MVC view that contains a number of partial views. These partial views are populated using partial requests so the controller for the view itself doesn't pass any data to them. Is it possible to reload the data in one of those partial views if an action was triggered in another? For example, one partial view has a jqGrid and I want to refresh the data in another partial view when a user selects a new row in this grid. Is there a code example for this scenario (in C#) that I can look at to see what am I doing wrong? I am using ajax calls to trigger a new request but non of the partial views are refreshed so I am not sure if the issue is with the routing, the controller, or if this even possible at all! Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why does python use 'magic methods'?

    - by Greg Beech
    I've been playing around with Python recently, and one thing I'm finding a bit odd is the extensive use of 'magic methods', e.g. to make its length available an object implements a method def __len__(self) and then it is called when you write len(obj). I was just wondering why objects don't simply define a len(self) method and have it called directly as a member of the object, e.g. obj.len()? I'm sure there must be good reasons for Python doing it the way it does, but as a newbie I haven't worked out what they are yet.

    Read the article

  • Size of Objects in Java Heap w/ Regards to Methods

    - by Eric
    I know about primitives and objects living on the heap, but how does the number of methods effect heap size of the object? For example: public class A { int x; public getX() { return x; } } public class B { int x; public getX() { return x; } public getXString() { return String.valueOf(x); } public doMoreInterestingStuff() { return x * 42; } //etc } When instantiated, both objects live on the heap, both have memory allocated to their primitive x, but is B allocated more heap space due to having more method signatures? Or are those ONLY on the classLoader? In this example its trivial, but when there are 100,000+ of these objects in memory at any given time I imagine it could add up.

    Read the article

  • How extension methods work in background ?

    - by Freshblood
    I am just cuirous about behind of extension method mechanism.Some questions and answer appear in my mind. MyClass.OrderBy(x=>x.a).OrderBy(x=>x.b); I was guessing that mechanism was first orderby method works and order them by a member then returns sorted items in IEnumarable interface then next Orderby method of IEnumarable Order them for b paramater.But i am wrong when i look at this linq query. MyClass.Orderby(x=>x.a).ThenOrderBy(x=>x.b); this is slightly different and tells me that i am wrong.Because this is not ordering by a then b and not possible to have such result if i was right.This get me confuse enough... Similiar structure is possible to write withot extension methods as first query but second is not possible.This prove i am wrong . Can u explain it ?

    Read the article

  • Call methods on native Javascript types without wrapping with ()

    - by Anurag
    In Javascript, we can call methods on string literals directly without enclosing it within round brackets. But not for other types such as numbers, or functions. It is a syntax error, but is there a reason as to why the Javascript lexer needs these other types to be enclosed in round brackets? For example, if we extend Number, String, and Function with an alert method and try calling this method on the literals, it's a SyntaxError for Number and Function, while it works for a String. function alertValue() { alert(this); } Number.prototype.alert = alertValue; String.prototype.alert = alertValue; Function.prototype.alert = alertValue; We can call alert directly on a string object: "someStringLiteral".alert() // alerts someStringLiteral but it's a SyntaxError on numbers, and functions. 7.alert(); function() {}.alert(); To work with these types, we have to enclose it within brackets: (7).alert(); // alerts "7" (function() {}).alert(); // alerts "function() {}"

    Read the article

  • Ruby Methods: return an usage string when insufficient arguments are given

    - by Shyam
    Hi, After creating a serious bunch of classes, with initialize methods, loading them in IRb requires to look back at the code. However, I think it should be easy enough to return a usage message, instead of: ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (0 for 9) So I prefer to return a string with the human readable arguments, by example using "puts" or just a return of a string. Now I have seen the rescue keyword inside begin-end code, but I wonder how I could catch the ArgumentError when the initialize method is called. Thank you for your answers, feedback and comments!

    Read the article

  • Differences between extension methods in C#3 & 4

    - by Buh Buh
    I think I remember reading a long time ago that in C#3 extension methods could only be applied to primitive types and interfaces; and that in C#4 they could be used to extend any type. This doesn't seam to match up with what I am seeing now and I am finding it difficult to find this documented. Is there any truth to this or did my memory make it all up? What are the rules relating to which types can be extended? Are there any differences between C# 3 and 4?

    Read the article

  • Question on Virtual Methods

    - by bobber205
    IF both methods are declared as virtual, shouldn't both instances of Method1() that are called be the derived class's Method1()? I am seeing BASE then DERIVED called each time. I am doing some review for an interview and I want to make sure I have this straight. xD class BaseClass { public: virtual void Method1() { cout << "Method 1 BASE" << endl; } }; class DerClass: public BaseClass { public: virtual void Method1() { cout << "Method 1 DERVIED" << endl; } }; DerClass myClass; ((BaseClass)myClass).Method1(); myClass.Method1(); Method 1 BASE Method 1 DERVIED

    Read the article

  • Extension methods on a static object

    - by Max Malygin
    I know (or so I hear) that writing extension methods for a single stand alone .net class (not an implementation of IEnumerable) is potential code smell. However, for the sake of making the life easier I need to attach a method to the ConfigurationManager class in asp.net. It's a static object so this won't work: public static List<string> GetSupportedDomains(this ConfigurationManager manager) { //the manager needs to be static. } So the question is - is it possible to write an extension method for a static class in .net?

    Read the article

  • Question on methods in Object Oriented Programming

    - by mal
    I’m learning Java at the minute (first language), and as a project I’m looking at developing a simple puzzle game. My question relates to the methods within a class. I have my Block type class; it has its many attributes, set methods, get methods and just plain methods. There are quite a few. Then I have my main board class. At the moment it does most of the logic, positioning of sprites collision detection and then draws the sprites etc... As I am learning to program as much as I’m learning to program games I’m curious to know how much code is typically acceptable within a given method. Is there such thing as having too many methods? All my draw functionality happens in one method, should I break this into a few ‘sub’ methods? My thinking is if I find at a later stage that the for loop I’m using to cycle through the array of sprites searching for collisions in the spriteCollision() method is inefficient I code a new method and just replace the old method calls with the new one, leaving the old code intact. Is it bad practice to have a method that contains one if statement, and place the call for that method in the for loop? I’m very much in the early stages of coding/designing and I need all the help I can get! I find it a little intimidating when people are talking about throwing together a prototype in a day too! Can’t wait until I’m that good!

    Read the article

  • Accessing Static Methods on a Generic class in c#

    - by mrlane
    Hello, I have the following situation in code, which I suspect may be a bit dodgey: I have a class: abstract class DataAccessBase<T> : IDataAccess where T : AnotherAbstractClass This class DataAccessBase also has a static factory method which creates instances of derived classes of itself using an enum value in a which statement to decide which derived type to create: static IDataAccess CreateInstance(TypeToCreateEnum) Now, the types derived from DataAccessBase<T> are themselves NOT generic, they specify a type for T: class PoLcZoneData : DataAccessBase<PoLcZone> // PoLcZone is derived from AnotherAbstractClass So far I am not sure if this is pushing the limits of good use of generics, but what I am really concerned about is how to access the static CreateInstance() method in the first place: The way I am doing this at the moment is to simply pass any type T where T : AnotherAbstractClass. In particular I am passing AnotherAbstractClass itself. This allows compilation just fine, but it does seem to me that passing any type to a generic class just to get at the statics is a bit dodgey. I have actually simplified the situation somewhat as DataAccessBase<T> is the lower level in the inheritance chain, but the static factory methods exists in a middle tier with classes such as PoLcZoneData being the most derived on the only level that is not generic. What are peoples thoughts on this arrangement?

    Read the article

  • C# ambiguity in Func + extension methods + lambdas

    - by Hobbes
    I've been trying to make my way through this article: http://blogs.msdn.com/wesdyer/archive/2008/01/11/the-marvels-of-monads.aspx ... And something on page 1 made me uncomfortable. In particular, I was trying to wrap my head around the Compose<() function, and I wrote an example for myself. Consider the following two Func's: Func<double, double> addTenth = x => x + 0.10; Func<double, string> toPercentString = x => (x * 100.0).ToString() + "%"; No problem! It's easy to understand what these two do. Now, following the example from the article, you can write a generic extension method to compose these functions, like so: public static class ExtensionMethods { public static Func<TInput, TLastOutput> Compose<TInput, TFirstOutput, TLastOutput>( this Func<TFirstOutput, TLastOutput> toPercentString, Func<TInput, TFirstOutput> addTenth) { return input => toPercentString(addTenth(input)); } } Fine. So now you can say: string x = toPercentString.Compose<double, double, string>(addTenth)(0.4); And you get the string "50%" So far, so good. But there's something ambiguous here. Let's say you write another extension method, so now you have two functions: public static class ExtensionMethods { public static Func<TInput, TLastOutput> Compose<TInput, TFirstOutput, TLastOutput>( this Func<TFirstOutput, TLastOutput> toPercentString, Func<TInput, TFirstOutput> addTenth) { return input => toPercentString(addTenth(input)); } public static Func<double, string> Compose<TInput, TFirstOutput, TLastOutput>(this Func<double, string> toPercentString, Func<double, double> addTenth) { return input => toPercentString(addTenth(input + 99999)); } } Herein is the ambiguity. Don't these two function have overlapping signatures? Yes. Does this even compile? Yes. Which one get's called? The second one (which clearly gives you the "wrong" result) gets called. If you comment out either function, it still compiles, but you get different results. It seems like nitpicking, but there's something that deeply offends my sensibilities here, and I can't put my finger on it. Does it have to do with extension methods? Does it have to do with lambdas? Or does it have to do with how Func< allows you to parameterize the return type? I'm not sure. I'm guessing that this is all addressed somewhere in the spec, but I don't even know what to Google to find this. Help!

    Read the article

  • What is New in ASP.NET 4.0 Code Access Security

    - by Xiaohong
    ASP.NET Code Access Security (CAS) is a feature that helps protect server applications on hosting multiple Web sites, ASP.NET lets you assign a configurable trust level that corresponds to a predefined set of permissions. ASP.NET has predefined ASP.NET Trust Levels and Policy Files that you can assign to applications, you also can assign custom trust level and policy files. Most web hosting companies run ASP.NET applications in Medium Trust to prevent that one website affect or harm another site etc. As .NET Framework's Code Access Security model has evolved, ASP.NET 4.0 Code Access Security also has introduced several changes and improvements. The main change in ASP.NET 4.0 CAS In ASP.NET v4.0 partial trust applications, application domain can have a default partial trust permission set as opposed to being full-trust, the permission set name is defined in the <trust /> new attribute permissionSetName that is used to initialize the application domain . By default, the PermissionSetName attribute value is "ASP.Net" which is the name of the permission set you can find in all predefined partial trust configuration files. <trust level="Something" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" /> This is ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model. For compatibility ASP.NET 4.0 also support legacy CAS model where application domain still has full trust permission set. You can specify new legacyCasModel attribute on the <trust /> element to indicate whether the legacy CAS model is enabled. By default legacyCasModel is false which means that new 4.0 CAS model is the default. <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="true|false" /> In .Net FX 4.0 Config directory, there are two set of predefined partial trust config files for each new CAS model and legacy CAS model, trust config files with name legacy.XYZ.config are for legacy CAS model: New CAS model: Legacy CAS model: web_hightrust.config legacy.web_hightrust.config web_mediumtrust.config legacy.web_mediumtrust.config web_lowtrust.config legacy.web_lowtrust.config web_minimaltrust.config legacy.web_minimaltrust.config   The figure below shows in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model what permission set to grant to code for partial trust application using predefined partial trust levels and policy files:    There also some benefits that comes with the new CAS model: You can lock down a machine by making all managed code no-execute by default (e.g. setting the MyComputer zone to have no managed execution code permissions), it should still be possible to configure ASP.NET web applications to run as either full-trust or partial trust. UNC share doesn’t require full trust with CASPOL at machine-level CAS policy. Side effect that comes with the new CAS model: processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is deprecated  in new CAS model since application domain always has partial trust permission set in new CAS model.   In ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model or ASP.NET 2.0 CAS model, even though you assign partial trust level to a application but the application domain still has full trust permission set. The figure below shows in ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model (or ASP.NET 2.0 CAS model) what permission set to grant to code for partial trust application using predefined partial trust levels and policy files:     What $AppDirUrl$, $CodeGen$, $Gac$ represents: $AppDirUrl$ The application's virtual root directory. This allows permissions to be applied to code that is located in the application's bin directory. For example, if a virtual directory is mapped to C:\YourWebApp, then $AppDirUrl$ would equate to C:\YourWebApp. $CodeGen$ The directory that contains dynamically generated assemblies (for example, the result of .aspx page compiles). This can be configured on a per application basis and defaults to %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\{version}\Temporary ASP.NET Files. $CodeGen$ allows permissions to be applied to dynamically generated assemblies. $Gac$ Any assembly that is installed in the computer's global assembly cache (GAC). This allows permissions to be granted to strong named assemblies loaded from the GAC by the Web application.   The new customization of CAS Policy in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model 1. Define which named permission set in partial trust configuration files By default the permission set that will be assigned at application domain initialization time is the named "ASP.Net" permission set found in all predefined partial trust configuration files. However ASP.NET 4.0 allows you set PermissionSetName attribute to define which named permission set in a partial trust configuration file should be the one used to initialize an application domain. Example: add "ASP.Net_2" named permission set in partial trust configuration file: <PermissionSet class="NamedPermissionSet" version="1" Name="ASP.Net_2"> <IPermission class="FileIOPermission" version="1" Read="$AppDir$" PathDiscovery="$AppDir$" /> <IPermission class="ReflectionPermission" version="1" Flags ="RestrictedMemberAccess" /> <IPermission class="SecurityPermission " version="1" Flags ="Execution, ControlThread, ControlPrincipal, RemotingConfiguration" /></PermissionSet> Then you can use "ASP.Net_2" named permission set for the application domain permission set: <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="false" permissionSetName="ASP.Net_2" /> 2. Define a custom set of Full Trust Assemblies for an application By using the new fullTrustAssemblies element to configure a set of Full Trust Assemblies for an application, you can modify set of partial trust assemblies to full trust at the machine, site or application level. The configuration definition is shown below: <fullTrustAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" version="1.1.2.3" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></fullTrustAssemblies> 3. Define <CodeGroup /> policy in partial trust configuration files ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model will retain the ability for developers to optionally define <CodeGroup />with membership conditions and assigned permission sets. The specific restriction in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model though will be that the results of evaluating custom policies can only result in one of two outcomes: either an assembly is granted full trust, or an assembly is granted the partial trust permission set currently associated with the running application domain. It will not be possible to use custom policies to create additional custom partial trust permission sets. When parsing the partial trust configuration file: Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with "PermissionSet='FullTrust'" will run at full trust. Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with "PermissionSet='Nothing'" will result in a PolicyError being thrown from the CLR. This is acceptable since it provides administrators with a way to do a blanket-deny of managed code followed by selectively defining policy in a <CodeGroup /> that re-adds assemblies that would be allowed to run. Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with other permissions sets will be interpreted to mean the assembly should run at the permission set of the appdomain. This means that even though syntactically a developer could define additional "flavors" of partial trust in an ASP.NET partial trust configuration file, those "flavors" will always be ignored. Example: defines full trust in <CodeGroup /> for my strong named assemblies in partial trust config files: <CodeGroup class="FirstMatchCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="Nothing"> <IMembershipCondition    class="AllMembershipCondition"    version="1" /> <CodeGroup    class="UnionCodeGroup"    version="1"    PermissionSetName="FullTrust"    Name="My_Strong_Name"    Description="This code group grants code signed full trust. "> <IMembershipCondition      class="StrongNameMembershipCondition" version="1"       PublicKeyBlob="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /> </CodeGroup> <CodeGroup   class="UnionCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="ASP.Net">   <IMembershipCondition class="UrlMembershipCondition" version="1" Url="$AppDirUrl$/*" /> </CodeGroup> <CodeGroup class="UnionCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="ASP.Net">   <IMembershipCondition class="UrlMembershipCondition" version="1" Url="$CodeGen$/*"   /> </CodeGroup></CodeGroup>   4. Customize CAS policy at runtime in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model allows to customize CAS policy at runtime by using custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver that overrides the ASP.NET code access security policy. Example: use custom host security policy resolver to resolve partial trust web application bin folder MyTrustedAssembly.dll to full trust at runtime: You can create a custom host security policy resolver and compile it to assembly MyCustomResolver.dll with strong name enabled and deploy in GAC: public class MyCustomResolver : HostSecurityPolicyResolver{ public override HostSecurityPolicyResults ResolvePolicy(Evidence evidence) { IEnumerator hostEvidence = evidence.GetHostEnumerator(); while (hostEvidence.MoveNext()) { object hostEvidenceObject = hostEvidence.Current; if (hostEvidenceObject is System.Security.Policy.Url) { string assemblyName = hostEvidenceObject.ToString(); if (assemblyName.Contains(“MyTrustedAssembly.dll”) return HostSecurityPolicyResult.FullTrust; } } //default fall-through return HostSecurityPolicyResult.DefaultPolicy; }} Because ASP.NET accesses the custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver during application domain initialization, and a custom policy resolver requires full trust, you also can add a custom policy resolver in <fullTrustAssemblies /> , or deploy in the GAC. You also need configure a custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver instance by adding the HostSecurityPolicyResolverType attribute in the <trust /> element: <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="false" hostSecurityPolicyResolverType="MyCustomResolver, MyCustomResolver" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" />   Note: If an assembly policy define in <CodeGroup/> and also in hostSecurityPolicyResolverType, hostSecurityPolicyResolverType will win. If an assembly added in <fullTrustAssemblies/> then the assembly has full trust no matter what policy in <CodeGroup/> or in hostSecurityPolicyResolverType.   Other changes in ASP.NET 4.0 CAS Use the new transparency model introduced in .Net Framework 4.0 Change in dynamically compiled code generated assemblies by ASP.NET: In new CAS model they will be marked as security transparent level2 to use Framework 4.0 security transparent rule that means partial trust code is treated as completely Transparent and it is more strict enforcement. In legacy CAS model they will be marked as security transparent level1 to use Framework 2.0 security transparent rule for compatibility. Most of ASP.NET products runtime assemblies are also changed to be marked as security transparent level2 to switch to SecurityTransparent code by default unless SecurityCritical or SecuritySafeCritical attribute specified. You also can look at Security Changes in the .NET Framework 4 for more information about these security attributes. Support conditional APTCA If an assembly is marked with the Conditional APTCA attribute to allow partially trusted callers, and if you want to make the assembly both visible and accessible to partial-trust code in your web application, you must add a reference to the assembly in the partialTrustVisibleAssemblies section: <partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" />/partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>   Most of ASP.NET products runtime assemblies are also changed to be marked as conditional APTCA to prevent use of ASP.NET APIs in partial trust environments such as Winforms or WPF UI controls hosted in Internet Explorer.   Differences between ASP.NET new CAS model and legacy CAS model: Here list some differences between ASP.NET new CAS model and legacy CAS model ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model  : Asp.net partial trust appdomains have full trust permission Multiple different permission sets in a single appdomain are allowed in ASP.NET partial trust configuration files Code groups Machine CAS policy is honored processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is still honored    New configuration setting for legacy model: <trust level="Something" legacyCASModel="true" ></trust><partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>   ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model: ASP.NET will now run in homogeneous application domains. Only full trust or the app-domain's partial trust grant set, are allowable permission sets. It is no longer possible to define arbitrary permission sets that get assigned to different assemblies. If an application currently depends on fine-tuning the partial trust permission set using the ASP.NET partial trust configuration file, this will no longer be possible. processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is deprecated Dynamically compiled assemblies output by ASP.NET build providers will be updated to explicitly mark assemblies as transparent. ASP.NET partial trust grant sets will be independent from any enterprise, machine, or user CAS policy levels. A simplified model for locking down web servers that only allows trusted managed web applications to run. Machine policy used to always grant full-trust to managed code (based on membership conditions) can instead be configured using the new ASP.NET 4.0 full-trust assembly configuration section. The full-trust assembly configuration section requires explicitly listing each assembly as opposed to using membership conditions. Alternatively, the membership condition(s) used in machine policy can instead be re-defined in a <CodeGroup /> within ASP.NET's partial trust configuration file to grant full-trust.   New configuration setting for new model: <trust level="Something" legacyCASModel="false" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" hostSecurityPolicyResolverType=".NET type string" ></trust><fullTrustAssemblies> <add assemblyName=”MyAssembly” version=”1.0.0.0” publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></fullTrustAssemblies><partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>     Hope this post is helpful to better understand the ASP.Net 4.0 CAS. Xiaohong Tang ASP.NET QA Team

    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 >