Search Results

Search found 1399 results on 56 pages for 'separation of concerns'.

Page 8/56 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• Why have or haven't you moved to ASP.NET MVC yet?

  - by Jason

  I find myself on the edge of trying out ASP.NET MVC but there is still "something" holding me back. Are you still waiting to try it, and if so, why? If you finally decided to use it, what helped you get over your hesitation? I'm not worried about it from a technical point of view; I know the pros and cons of web forms vs MVC. My concerns are more on the practical side. Will Microsoft continue to support ASP.NET MVC if they don't reach some critical threshold of developers/customers using it? Are customers willing to try ASP.NET MVC? Have you had to convince a customer to use it? How did that go? Are there major sites using ASP.NET MVC (besides SO)? Could you provide links if you have them? Did you try ASP.NET MVC and found yourself regretting it? If so, what do you regret? If you have any other concerns preventing you from using MVC.NET, what are they? If you had concerns but felt they were addressed and now use MVC.NET, could you list them as well? Thanks

  Read the article

• Pitfalls of the Architecture - Database based HTTP Request/Response Parsing

  - by Sam

  We have a current eCommerce Site that runs on ASP.NET and we hired a consultant to develop an new site bases on SOA. The new site architecture is as follows Web Application : Single Page Web Application (built on javascript/jquery templates - do not use any MVVM frameworks) that uses some javascript thrown all over the place. Service Layer : Very very light Service Layer that does not do anything other than calling a single stored procedure and pass in the entire http request. Database : The entire site content is in the database. The database does the heavy lifting of parsing the request and based on the HTTP method and some input parameter calls the appropriate Store Procedures or views and renders the result in JSON/XML. We have been told by them that this is built on latest and greatest technologies. I have a lot of concerns and of them given are the few Load on the Database SEO concerns for single page application as this is a public facing website Scalablity? Is this SOA? Cross Browser compatability (Site does not work in < IE9) Realistic implementaion of Single page application I know something is not right but I just need to validate my concerns here. Please help me.

  Read the article

• How secure is Windows IPSec VPN?

  - by sergeb

  I know the answer is, depends on how you configure it... But bare with me - our IPSec Site-to-Site VPN is configured by one of the most trusted hosting companies. One of our clients expressed concerns that "Windows Server 2008 Server IPSEC is not ICSA certified and lacks some of the common features for maintaining VPN stability" (they refer to the lack of "auto keep live" feature). They also are saying that "Windows platforms are not recommended as VPN endpoints due to security concerns and this is one reason that the ICSA testing labs will not certify it as a valid IPSEC solution" (I couldn't find a proof to this one) Are there any whitepapers or references that can prove the security of Windows IPSec implementation? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Copyrights concerning code snippets and larger amounts of code

  - by JustcallmeDrago

  I am designing a public code repository. Users will be allowed to post and edit whatever amount of code they want, from code snippets to entire multi-file projects. I have a few major legal concerns about this: Not getting sued/shut down - I feel the site would be a much easier target than tracking down an individual user to sue. I have looked around a bit and see links to legal info in the footer of each page is common. What specific things should I do--and what does does a site such as YouTube (which I see copyrighted material on all the time) do--for protection? Citing sources and editing sourced code - If a user wants to post code that isn't theirs, what concerns/safeguards should I have? Will a link suffice, and what do I need further to allow the code to be edited (to improve it for example)? What can happen if a user posts copyrighted code without citing it? Large chunks of code - What legal differences should I look out for as the amount grows? Not having a mess of licenses for the site - I would like to have a single license (like RosettaCode) that keeps things simple for interaction on the site. I want the code to be postable and editable. I have looked into StackOverflow's CreativeCommons license a little and it says that If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. And on RosettaCode: All software found on Rosetta Code should be considered potentially hazardous. Use at your own risk. Be aware that all code on Rosetta Code is under the GNU Free Documentation License, as are any edits made by contributors. See Rosetta Code:Copyrights for details. What other licenses are like this? Commercializing the site - In what ways can I and can't I make money off of a site that contains code like this? All code will be publicly visible. Initial thoughts are having ads or making money by charging for advanced features.

  Read the article

• pros and cons of taking an ABAP job

  - by sJhonny

  I'm a programmer with 3 years of .NET experience under my belt, and am currently looking for a new job. One of the options I'm considering is as an OO ABAP developer position with SAP. However, I have several concerns about taking an ABAP job: as ABAP is used exclusively by SAP, any experience in ABAP that I have would be irrelevant in the outside world. I'm also worried that I wouldn't be exposed to new technologies while working in ABAP, and ultimately I would lose touch with what's going on in the world. This is a real sore point, since I really enjoy exploring and learning new & cool stuff. (*note: Yes, I could experiment with other technologies & trends on my own time, but this is much harder to do, and isn't really the same as working full-time with them) One of the nicest things about programming, for me, is finding a great OO architecture / design (I'm really into object-oriented :)). I know that ABAP is a procedural language, and I'm not certain how 'OO' it's OO version is. This leads me to the conclusion that, unless I stay with SAP to the end of my career, any time spent there would be professionaly unbenificial. Is there anyone who can shed some light on these opinions? are my concerns founded? Are there any advantages (career and technology-wise) to ABAP that I'm missing?

  Read the article

• Sprite and Physics components or sub-components?

  - by ashes999

  I'm taking my first dive into creating a very simple entity framework. The key concepts (classes) are: Entity (has 0+ components, can return components by type) SpriteEntity (everything you need to draw on screen, including lighting info) PhysicsEntity (velocity, acceleration, collision detection) I started out with physics notions in my sprite component, and then later removed them to a sub-component. The separation of concerns makes sense; a sprite is enough information to draw anything (X, Y, width, height, lighting, etc.) and physics piggybacks (uses the parent sprite to get X/Y/W/H) while adding physics notions of velocity and collisions. The problem is that I would like collisions to be on an entity level -- meaning "no matter what your representation is (be it sprites, text, or something else), collide against this entity." So I refactored and redirected collision handling from entities to sprite.physics, while mapping and returning the right entity on physics collisions. The problem is that writing code like this.GetComponent<SpriteComponent>().physics is a violation of abstraction. Which made me think (this is the TLDR): should I keep physics as a separate component from sprites, or a sub-component, or something else? How should I share data and separate concerns?

  Read the article

• Thread safe GUI programming

  - by James

  I have been programming Java with swing for a couple of years now, and always accepted that GUI interactions had to happen on the Event Dispatch Thread. I recently started to use GTK+ for C applications and was unsurprised to find that GUI interactions had to be called on gtk_main. Similarly, I looked at SWT to see in what ways it was different to Swing and to see if it was worth using, and again found the UI thread idea, and I am sure that these 3 are not the only toolkits to use this model. I was wondering if there is a reason for this design i.e. what is the reason for keeping UI modifications isolated to a single thread. I can see why some modifications may cause issues (like modifying a list while it is being drawn), but I do not see why these concerns pass on to the user of the API. Is there a limit imposed by an operating system? Is there a good reason these concerns are not 'hidden' (i.e. some form of synchronization that is invisible to the user)? Is there any (even purely conceptual) way of creating a thread safe graphics library, or is such a thing actually impossible? I found this http://blogs.operationaldynamics.com/andrew/software/gnome-desktop/gtk-thread-awareness which seems to describe GTK differently to how I understood it (although my understanding was the same as many people's) How does this differ to other toolkits? Is it possible to implement this in Swing (as the EDT model does not actually prevent access from other threads, it just often leads to Exceptions)

  Read the article

• Why is a small fixed vocabulary seen as an advantage to RESTful services?

  - by Matt Esch

  So, a RESTful service has a fixed set of verbs in its vocabulary. A RESTful web service takes these from the HTTP methods. There are some supposed advantages to defining a fixed vocabulary, but I don't really grasp the point. Maybe someone can explain it. Why is a fixed vocabulary as outlined by REST better than dynamically defining a vocabulary for each state? For example, object oriented programming is a popular paradigm. RPC is described to define fixed interfaces, but I don't know why people assume that RPC is limited by these contraints. We could dynamically specify the interface just as a RESTful service dynamically describes its content structure. REST is supposed to be advantageous in that it can grow without extending the vocabulary. RESTful services grow dynamically by adding more resources. What's so wrong about extending a service by dynamically specifying a per-object vocabulary? Why don't we just use the methods that are defined on our objects as the vocabulary and have our services describe to the client what these methods are and whether or not they have side effects? Essentially I get the feeling that the description of a server side resource structure is equivalent to the definition of a vocabulary, but we are then forced to use the limited vocabulary in which to interact with these resources. Does a fixed vocabulary really decouple the concerns of the client from the concerns of the server? I surely have to be concerned with some configuration of the server, this is normally resource location in RESTful services. To complain at the use of a dynamic vocabulary seems unfair because we have to dynamically reason how to understand this configuration in some way anyway. A RESTful service describes the transitions you are able to make by identifying object structure through hypermedia. I just don't understand what makes a fixed vocabulary any better than any self-describing dynamic vocabulary, which could easily work very well in an RPC-like service. Is this just a poor reasoning for the limiting vocabulary of the HTTP protocol?

  Read the article

• Are certain problems solved more elegantly with AOP?

  - by Winston Ewert

  I've come across the idea of Aspect Oriented Programming, and I have some concerns with it. The basic idea seems to be that we want to take cross-cutting concerns which aren't well modularized using object and modularize them. That is all very fine and well. But the implementation of AOP seems to be that of modifying code from outside of the module. So, for example, an aspect could be written that changes what happens when a particular object is passed as a parameter in a function. This seems to go directly against the idea of modules. I should not be able to modify a module's behavior from outside of that module, otherwise the whole point of modules are overturned. But aspects seem to be doing exactly that! Basically, aspects seems to be a form of code patching. It may useful for some quick hacks; but, as a general principle perhaps its not something you want to do. Aspect Oriented Programming seems to me taking a bad practice and raising to a general design principle. Is AOP a good practice? Are certain programming problems solved more elegantly with AOP?

  Read the article

• Who should be the architect in an agile project?

  - by woni

  We are developing the agile way for a few months now and I have some troubles understanding the agile manifesto as interpreted by my colleagues. The project we are developing is a framework for future projects and will be reused many times in the next years. Code is only written to fulfill the needs of the current user story. The product owner tells us what to do, but not how to do it. What would be right, in my opinion, because he is not implicitly a programmer. The project advanced and in my eyes it messed up a little bit. After I recognized an assembly that was responsible for 3 concerns (IoC-Container, communication layer and project internal things), I tried to address this to my colleagues. They answered that this would be the result of applying YAGNI, because know one told them to respect that functionalities have to be split up in different assemblies for further use. In my opinion no one has to tell us that we should respect the Separation of Concerns principle. On the other side, they mentioned to prefer YAGNI over SoC because it is less effort to implement and therefore faster and cheaper. We had changing requirements a lot at the beginning of the project and ended up in endless refactoring sessions, because to much has to be adapted. Is it better to make such rather simple design decisions up front, even there is no need in the current situation, or do we have to change a lot in the later progress of the project?

  Read the article

• two-part dice pool mechanic

  - by bythenumbers

  I'm working on a dice mechanic/resolution system based off of the Ghost/Echo (hereafter shortened to G/E) tabletop RPG. Specifically, since G/E can be a little harsh with dealing out consequences and failure, I was hoping to soften the system and add a little more player control, as well as offer the chance for players to evolve their characters into something unique, right from creation. So, here's the mechanic: Players roll 2d12 against the two statistics for their character (each is a number from 2-11, and may be rolled above or below depending on the nature of the action attempted, rolling your stat exactly always fails). Depending on the success for that roll, they add dice to the pool rolled for a modified G/E style action. The acting player gets two dice anyhow, and I am debating offering a bonus die for each success, or a single bonus die for succeeding on both of the statistic-compared rolls. One the size of the dice pool is set, the entire pool is rolled, and the players are allowed to assign rolled dice to a goal and a danger. Assigned results are judged as follows: 1-4 means the attempted goal fails, or the danger comes true. 5-8 is a partial success at the goal, or partially avoiding the danger. 9-12 means the goal is achieved, or the danger avoided. My concerns are twofold: Firstly, that the two-stage action is too complicated, with two rolls to judge separately before anything can happen. Secondly, that the statistics involved go too far in softening the game. I've run some basic simulations, and the approximate statistics follow: 2 dice (up to) 3 dice (up to) 4 dice failure ~33% ~25% ~20% partial ~33% ~35% ~35% success ~33% ~40% ~45% I'd appreciate any advice that addresses my concerns or offers to refine my simulation (right now the first roll is statistically modeled as sign(1d12-1d12), where 0 is a success).

  Read the article

• Which approach is the most maintainable?

  - by 2rs2ts

  When creating a product which will inherently suffer from regression due to OS updates, which of these is the preferable approach when trying to reduce maintenance cost and the likelihood of needing refactoring, when considering the task of interpreting system state and settings for a lay user? Delegate the responsibility of interpreting the results of inspecting the system to the modules which perform these tasks, or, Separate the concerns of interpretation and inspection into two modules? The first obviously creates a blob in which a lot of code would be verbose, redundant, and hard to grok; the second creates a strong coupling in which the interpretation module essentially has to know what it expects from inspection routines and will have to adapt to changes to the OS just as much as the inspection will. I would normally choose the second option for the separation of concerns, foreseeing the possibility that inspection routines could be re-used, but a developer updating the product to deal with a new OS feature or something would have to not only write an inspection routine but also write an interpretation routine and link the two correctly - and it gets worse for a developer who has to change which inspection routines are used to get a certain system setting, or worse yet, has to fix an inspection routine which broke after an OS patch. I wonder, is it better to have to patch one package a lot or two packages, each somewhat less so?

  Read the article

• SEO and external sites that serve responsive images (like Re-SRC)

  - by Baumr

  Re-SRC is a tool that allows you to automatically serve responsive images for your website from their cloud servers. It delivers a new image file each time the browser window (viewport) is resized. To use it in your HTML when linking to an image, you would do the following: <img src="http://app.resrc.it//www.your-domain.com/img/img001.jpg"/> Some more background for SEO considerations: As an example, looking at their demo page's code, the src of the Arc de Triomphe photo — when the browser window is resized to be at a tablet-width — shows this particular file at it's widest. It is found under the following URL: http://app4-uk.resrc.it/s=w560,pd1/ro=h//www.resrc.it/img/demo/demo-image-1.jpg If the viewport is increased to desktop-width, then a smaller image is served in line with the design; see this URL: http://app4-uk.resrc.it/s=w320,pd1/ro=h//www.resrc.it/img/demo/demo-image-1.jpg If I change the viewport to be about half-way between those two, then the image's URL is: http://app4-uk.resrc.it/s=w240,pd1/ro=h//www.resrc.it/img/demo/demo-image-1.jpg In other words, I found that there is a separate file for every 10-pixel increment of the image width. Very cool for saving bandwidth on mobile devices and service responsive/retina images on others, but... Here are two problems I see for SEO: The img on your site, part of your semantic markup, will not be hosted on your site at all, or even a server you control. Any links to these images will pass on "link juice" to Re-SRC's site instead. You are serving a vast array of different image files to different people — some may link to one, others to another size. Then there's the question of what different search engine crawlers will see. Also: There seems to be no fallback option if their servers are down. Do you see any other concerns? Or, perhaps, do you not see those as concerns?

  Read the article

• SQL Azure Book

  - by ScottKlein

  One of the hotest technology topics of the day is Azure. Being a SQL guy, I am all over this technology, especially SQL Azure. So much so that Herve Roggero and I are currently writing a book for APress on SQL Azure. This book will be out in September and will include deep and thorough coverage of SQL Azure, best practices, and how-to's. We are excited about this book and the technology. However, we'd like to hear from you. As we go around evangelizing SQL Azure at user groups, code camps, and SQL Saturday's, we see the range of "heard of it" to "experimenting with it". Very few are actually doing something with Azure. I'd like to know what your concerns/questions are regarding Azure.  More specifically, what functionality do you think is cool as well as what is lacking, and what would be your list of "must have's" to do something with Azure. We hear a lot regarding security concerns, lack of backup/restore, etc. Is there more? Herve and I will be posting frequently as we write to let you know what we find, what is cool, and what you can look forward to. I'm heading to Tech-Ed in June and hopefully will come back with some great things to tell you!

  Read the article

• SQL Azure Book

  - by ScottKlein

  One of the hotest technology topics of the day is Azure. Being a SQL guy, I am all over this technology, especially SQL Azure. So much so that Herve Roggero and I are currently writing a book for APress on SQL Azure. This book will be out in September and will include deep and thorough coverage of SQL Azure, best practices, and how-to's. We are excited about this book and the technology. However, we'd like to hear from you. As we go around evangelizing SQL Azure at user groups, code camps, and SQL Saturday's, we see the range of "heard of it" to "experimenting with it". Very few are actually doing something with Azure. I'd like to know what your concerns/questions are regarding Azure.  More specifically, what functionality do you think is cool as well as what is lacking, and what would be your list of "must have's" to do something with Azure. We hear a lot regarding security concerns, lack of backup/restore, etc. Is there more? Herve and I will be posting frequently as we write to let you know what we find, what is cool, and what you can look forward to. I'm heading to Tech-Ed in June and hopefully will come back with some great things to tell you!

  Read the article

• Leadership Tip&ndash;Vent Up!

  - by D'Arcy Lussier

  Leadership is difficult, for many reasons. One of those reasons is that we not only need to keep ourselves motivated when difficult or challenging times come, but we also need to motivate our teams and keep them focussed on the tasks at hand regardless of the mortars being rained down around them. Inexperienced (and experienced) leaders can fall into the “me-too” mentality – that is, the leader sees themselves as part of the team member instead of the leader of the team. Once a leader changes the teams view that he/she is a peer and not the leader, dynamics can change on the team. One of the biggest dangers is that the leader starts sharing frustrations, fears, concerns, etc. with the team that they’re supposed to be leading on to victory. This can destroy a team’s morale and productivity. One simple thing you can do to counter this is remember this rule when it comes to venting: Vent Up! Don’t vent sideways or down, vent up. Vent to the people above you – they’re the ones that tend to have the power to actually change things anyway. You as a leader stay healthy by getting your frustrations and concerns off your chest, your team is still insulated from it, and your superiors are aware of issues that need to be addressed or can coach you through the obstacles. D

  Read the article

• How to define implementation details?

  - by woni

  In our project, an assembly combines logic for the IoC-Container, the project internals and the communication layer. The current version evolved to have only internal classes in addin assemblies. My main problem with this approach is, that the entry point is only available over the IoC-Container. It is not possible to use anything else than reflection to initialize the assembly. Everything behind the IoC-Interface is defined as implementation detail and therefore not intended for usages outside. It is well known that you should not test implementation detail (such as private and internal methods), because they should be tested through the public interface. It is also well known, that your tests should not use the IoC-Container to setup the SUTs, because that would result in too much dependencies. So we are using the InternalsVisibleTo-Attribute to make internals visible to our test assemblies and test the so called implementation details. I recognized that one problem could be the mixup between different concerns in that assembly, changing this would make this discussion useless, because classes have to be defined public. Ignoring my concerns with this, isn't the need to test a class enough reason to make it public, the usages of InternalsVisibleTo seems unintended, and a little bit "hacky". The approach to test only against the publicly available IoC-Container is too costly and would result in integration style tests. The pros of using internals are, that the usages are well known and do not have to be implemented like a public method would have to be (documentation, completeness, versioning,...). Is there a solution, to not test against internals, but keep their advantages over public classes, or do we have to redefine what an implementation detail is.

  Read the article

• Storing revisions of a document

  - by dev.e.loper

  This is a follow up question to my original question. I'm thinking of going with generating diffs and storing those diffs in the database 'History' table. I'm using diff-match-patch library to generate what is called a 'patch'. On every save, I compare previous and new version and generate this patch. The patch could be used to generate a document at specific point in time. My dilemma is how to store this data. Should I: a Insert a new database record for every patch? b. Store these patches in javascript array and store that array in history table. So there is only one db History record for document with an array of all the patches. Concerns with: a. Too many db records generated. Will be slow and CPU intensive to query. b. Only one record. If record is somehow corrupted/deleted. Entire revision history is gone. I'm looking for suggestions, concerns with either approach.

  Read the article

• Cygwin in Windows 7

  - by Algorist

  Hi, I am a fan of linux but due to worst intel wireless drivers in linux, I had to switch to windows 7. I have installed cygwin in windows and want to configure ssh, to remotely connect to my laptop. I googled and found this webpage, http://art.csoft.net/2009/09/02/cygwin-ssh-server-and-windows-7/ I am getting the following error when running ssh-host-config. bala@bala-PC ~ $ ssh-host-config yes *** Info: Creating default /etc/ssh_config file *** Query: Overwrite existing /etc/sshd_config file? (yes/no) yes *** Info: Creating default /etc/sshd_config file *** Info: Privilege separation is set to yes by default since OpenSSH 3.3. *** Info: However, this requires a non-privileged account called 'sshd'. *** Info: For more info on privilege separation read /usr/share/doc/openssh/READ ME.privsep. *** Query: Should privilege separation be used? (yes/no) no *** Info: Updating /etc/sshd_config file *** Warning: The following functions require administrator privileges! *** Query: Do you want to install sshd as a service? *** Query: (Say "no" if it is already installed as a service) (yes/no) yes *** Query: Enter the value of CYGWIN for the daemon: [] *** Info: On Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, and above, the *** Info: SYSTEM account cannot setuid to other users -- a capability *** Info: sshd requires. You need to have or to create a privileged *** Info: account. This script will help you do so. *** Warning: The owner and the Administrators need *** Warning: to have .w. permission to /var/run. *** Warning: Here are the current permissions and ACLS: *** Warning: drwxr-xr-x 1 bala None 0 2010-01-17 22:34 /var/run *** Warning: # file: /var/run *** Warning: # owner: bala *** Warning: # group: None *** Warning: user::rwx *** Warning: group::r-x *** Warning: other:r-x *** Warning: mask:rwx *** Warning: *** Warning: Please change the user and/or group ownership, *** Warning: permissions, or ACLs of /var/run. *** ERROR: Problem with /var/run directory. Exiting. The permissions of this folder are shown as Read-only(Only applies to this folder) checked in gray. I tried to uncheck, but after I open the properties again, the box is again checked. Is there a way to change the permissions of this folder. Thank you

  Read the article

• Is N-Tier Architecture only the physical seperation of code or there is something more to it?

  - by Starx

  Is N-Tier Architecture only the physical separation of code or there is something more to it? What sorts of coding do we put in Presentation Layer, Application Layer, Business Logic Layer, User Interface Logic, Data Access Layer, Data Access Object,? Can all the layers mentioned above give a fully functional N-tier architecture? For example: Whenever a user clicks a button to load a content via AJAX, they we do coding to fetch a particular HTML output and then update the element, so does this JavaScript coding also lie on a different tier? Because If N-tier Architecture is really about physical separation of code, than i think Its better to separate the JavaScript coding also.

  Read the article

• Cisco VPNClient from Mac won't connect using iPhone Tethering

  - by Dan Short

  I just set up iPhone tethering from my Snow Leopard Macbook Pro to my iPhone 3GS with the Datapro 4GB plan from AT&T. When attempting to connect to my corporate VPN from the MacBook Pro with Cisco VPNClient 4.9.01 (0100) I get the following log information: Cisco Systems VPN Client Version 4.9.01 (0100) Copyright (C) 1998-2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Client Type(s): Mac OS X Running on: Darwin 10.6.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.6.0: Wed Nov 10 18:13:17 PST 2010; root:xnu-1504.9.26~3/RELEASE_I386 i386 Config file directory: /etc/opt/cisco-vpnclient 1 13:02:50.791 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 CM/0x43100002 Begin connection process 2 13:02:50.791 02/22/2011 Sev=Warning/2 CVPND/0x83400011 Error -28 sending packet. Dst Addr: 0x0AD337FF, Src Addr: 0x0AD33702 (DRVIFACE:1158). 3 13:02:50.791 02/22/2011 Sev=Warning/2 CVPND/0x83400011 Error -28 sending packet. Dst Addr: 0x0A2581FF, Src Addr: 0x0A258102 (DRVIFACE:1158). 4 13:02:50.792 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 CM/0x43100004 Establish secure connection using Ethernet 5 13:02:50.792 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 CM/0x43100024 Attempt connection with server "209.235.253.115" 6 13:02:50.792 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 CVPND/0x43400019 Privilege Separation: binding to port: (500). 7 13:02:50.793 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 CVPND/0x43400019 Privilege Separation: binding to port: (4500). 8 13:02:50.793 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/6 IKE/0x4300003B Attempting to establish a connection with 209.235.253.115. 9 13:02:51.293 02/22/2011 Sev=Warning/2 CVPND/0x83400018 Output size mismatch. Actual: 0, Expected: 237. (DRVIFACE:1319) 10 13:02:51.894 02/22/2011 Sev=Warning/2 CVPND/0x83400018 Output size mismatch. Actual: 0, Expected: 237. (DRVIFACE:1319) 11 13:02:52.495 02/22/2011 Sev=Warning/2 CVPND/0x83400018 Output size mismatch. Actual: 0, Expected: 237. (DRVIFACE:1319) 12 13:02:53.096 02/22/2011 Sev=Warning/2 CVPND/0x83400018 Output size mismatch. Actual: 0, Expected: 237. (DRVIFACE:1319) 13 13:02:53.698 02/22/2011 Sev=Warning/2 CVPND/0x83400018 Output size mismatch. Actual: 0, Expected: 237. (DRVIFACE:1319) 14 13:02:54.299 02/22/2011 Sev=Warning/2 CVPND/0x83400018 Output size mismatch. Actual: 0, Expected: 237. (DRVIFACE:1319) 15 13:02:54.299 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 IKE/0x43000075 Unable to acquire local IP address after 5 attempts (over 5 seconds), probably due to network socket failure. 16 13:02:54.299 02/22/2011 Sev=Warning/2 IKE/0xC300009A Failed to set up connection data 17 13:02:54.299 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 CM/0x4310001C Unable to contact server "209.235.253.115" 18 13:02:54.299 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/5 CM/0x43100025 Initializing CVPNDrv 19 13:02:54.300 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 CVPND/0x4340001F Privilege Separation: restoring MTU on primary interface. 20 13:02:54.300 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 IKE/0x43000001 IKE received signal to terminate VPN connection 21 13:02:54.300 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 IPSEC/0x43700008 IPSec driver successfully started 22 13:02:54.300 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 IPSEC/0x43700014 Deleted all keys 23 13:02:54.300 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 IPSEC/0x4370000D Key(s) deleted by Interface (192.168.0.171) 24 13:02:54.300 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 IPSEC/0x43700014 Deleted all keys 25 13:02:54.300 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 IPSEC/0x43700014 Deleted all keys 26 13:02:54.300 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 IPSEC/0x43700014 Deleted all keys 27 13:02:54.300 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 IPSEC/0x4370000A IPSec driver successfully stopped The key line is 15: 15 13:02:54.299 02/22/2011 Sev=Info/4 IKE/0x43000075 Unable to acquire local IP address after 5 attempts (over 5 seconds), probably due to network socket failure. I can't find anything online about this. I found a single entry for the error message in Google, and it was a swedish (or some other nordic language site) that didn't have an answer to the question. I've tried connecting through both USB and Bluetooth tethering to the iPhone, and they both return the exact same results. I don't have direct control over the firewall, but if changes are necessary to make it work, I may be able to get the powers-that-be to make adjustments. A solution that doesn't require reconfiguring the firewall would be far better of course... Does anyone know what I can do to make this behave? Thanks, Dan

  Read the article

• MVC Architecture

  Model-View-Controller (MVC) is an architectural design pattern first written about and implemented by  in 1978. Trygve developed this pattern during the year he spent working with Xerox PARC on a small talk application. According to Trygve, “The essential purpose of MVC is to bridge the gap between the human user's mental model and the digital model that exists in the computer. The ideal MVC solution supports the user illusion of seeing and manipulating the domain information directly. The structure is useful if the user needs to see the same model element simultaneously in different contexts and/or from different viewpoints.”  Trygve Reenskaug on MVC The MVC pattern is composed of 3 core components. Model View Controller The Model component referenced in the MVC pattern pertains to the encapsulation of core application data and functionality. The primary goal of the model is to maintain its independence from the View and Controller components which together form the user interface of the application. The View component retrieves data from the Model and displays it to the user. The View component represents the output of the application to the user. Traditionally the View has read-only access to the Model component because it should not change the Model’s data. The Controller component receives and translates input to requests on the Model or View components. The Controller is responsible for requesting methods on the model that can change the state of the model. The primary benefit to using MVC as an architectural pattern in a project compared to other patterns is flexibility. The flexibility of MVC is due to the distinct separation of concerns it establishes with three distinct components.  Because of the distinct separation between the components interaction is limited through the use of interfaces instead of classes. This allows each of the components to be hot swappable when the needs of the application change or needs of availability change. MVC can easily be applied to C# and the .Net Framework. In fact, Microsoft created a MVC project template that will allow new project of this type to be created with the standard MVC structure in place before any coding begins. The project also creates folders for the three key components along with default Model, View and Controller classed added to the project. Personally I think that MVC is a great pattern in regards to dealing with web applications because they could be viewed from a myriad of devices. Examples of devices include: standard web browsers, text only web browsers, mobile phones, smart phones, IPads, IPhones just to get started. Due to the potentially increasing accessibility needs and the ability for components to be hot swappable is a perfect fit because the core functionality of the application can be retained and the View component can be altered based on the client’s environment and the View component could be swapped out based on the calling device so that the display is targeted to that specific device.

  Read the article

• Free E-book - Ignore ASP.NET MVC at Your Own Peril: Lessons Learned from the Trenches

  - by TATWORTH

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TATWORTH/archive/2013/06/22/free-e-book---ignore-asp.net-mvc-at-your-own-peril.aspxAt http://www.syncfusion.com/resources/techportal/whitepapers/aspnet-mvc, Syncfusion are offering a free E-Book "Ignore ASP.NET MVC at Your Own Peril: Lessons Learned from the Trenches"Using code examples and a side-by-side comparison with Web Forms, this white paper details:Separation of concerns: UI code and business logicAJAX and the server–side lifecycleJQuery & client-side scriptingPerformance issues and the impact on end–usersBrowser compatibility issuesI will in due course be doing a review of this book

  Read the article

• Security in Software

  The term security has many meanings based on the context and perspective in which it is used. Security from the perspective of software/system development is the continuous process of maintaining confidentiality, integrity, and availability of a system, sub-system, and system data. This definition at a very high level can be restated as the following: Computer security is a continuous process dealing with confidentiality, integrity, and availability on multiple layers of a system. Key Aspects of Software Security Integrity Confidentiality Availability Integrity within a system is the concept of ensuring only authorized users can only manipulate information through authorized methods and procedures. An example of this can be seen in a simple lead management application.  If the business decided to allow each sales member to only update their own leads in the system and sales managers can update all leads in the system then an integrity violation would occur if a sales member attempted to update someone else’s leads. An integrity violation occurs when a team member attempts to update someone else’s lead because it was not entered by the sales member.  This violates the business rule that leads can only be update by the originating sales member. Confidentiality within a system is the concept of preventing unauthorized access to specific information or tools.  In a perfect world the knowledge of the existence of confidential information/tools would be unknown to all those who do not have access. When this this concept is applied within the context of an application only the authorized information/tools will be available. If we look at the sales lead management system again, leads can only be updated by originating sales members. If we look at this rule then we can say that all sales leads are confidential between the system and the sales person who entered the lead in to the system. The other sales team members would not need to know about the leads let alone need to access it. Availability within a system is the concept of authorized users being able to access the system. A real world example can be seen again from the lead management system. If that system was hosted on a web server then IP restriction can be put in place to limit access to the system based on the requesting IP address. If in this example all of the sales members where accessing the system from the 192.168.1.23 IP address then removing access from all other IPs would be need to ensure that improper access to the system is prevented while approved users can access the system from an authorized location. In essence if the requesting user is not coming from an authorized IP address then the system will appear unavailable to them. This is one way of controlling where a system is accessed. Through the years several design principles have been identified as being beneficial when integrating security aspects into a system. These principles in various combinations allow for a system to achieve the previously defined aspects of security based on generic architectural models. Security Design Principles Least Privilege Fail-Safe Defaults Economy of Mechanism Complete Mediation Open Design Separation Privilege Least Common Mechanism Psychological Acceptability Defense in Depth Least Privilege Design PrincipleThe Least Privilege design principle requires a minimalistic approach to granting user access rights to specific information and tools. Additionally, access rights should be time based as to limit resources access bound to the time needed to complete necessary tasks. The implications of granting access beyond this scope will allow for unnecessary access and the potential for data to be updated out of the approved context. The assigning of access rights will limit system damaging attacks from users whether they are intentional or not. This principle attempts to limit data changes and prevents potential damage from occurring by accident or error by reducing the amount of potential interactions with a resource. Fail-Safe Defaults Design PrincipleThe Fail-Safe Defaults design principle pertains to allowing access to resources based on granted access over access exclusion. This principle is a methodology for allowing resources to be accessed only if explicit access is granted to a user. By default users do not have access to any resources until access has been granted. This approach prevents unauthorized users from gaining access to resource until access is given. Economy of Mechanism Design PrincipleThe Economy of mechanism design principle requires that systems should be designed as simple and small as possible. Design and implementation errors result in unauthorized access to resources that would not be noticed during normal use. Complete Mediation Design PrincipleThe Complete Mediation design principle states that every access to every resource must be validated for authorization. Open Design Design PrincipleThe Open Design Design Principle is a concept that the security of a system and its algorithms should not be dependent on secrecy of its design or implementation Separation Privilege Design PrincipleThe separation privilege design principle requires that all resource approved resource access attempts be granted based on more than a single condition. For example a user should be validated for active status and has access to the specific resource. Least Common Mechanism Design PrincipleThe Least Common Mechanism design principle declares that mechanisms used to access resources should not be shared. Psychological Acceptability Design PrincipleThe Psychological Acceptability design principle refers to security mechanisms not make resources more difficult to access than if the security mechanisms were not present Defense in Depth Design PrincipleThe Defense in Depth design principle is a concept of layering resource access authorization verification in a system reduces the chance of a successful attack. This layered approach to resource authorization requires unauthorized users to circumvent each authorization attempt to gain access to a resource. When designing a system that requires meeting a security quality attribute architects need consider the scope of security needs and the minimum required security qualities. Not every system will need to use all of the basic security design principles but will use one or more in combination based on a company’s and architect’s threshold for system security because the existence of security in an application adds an additional layer to the overall system and can affect performance. That is why the definition of minimum security acceptably is need when a system is design because this quality attributes needs to be factored in with the other system quality attributes so that the system in question adheres to all qualities based on the priorities of the qualities. Resources: Barnum, Sean. Gegick, Michael. (2005). Least Privilege. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/bsi/articles/knowledge/principles/351-BSI.html Saltzer, Jerry. (2011). BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION PROTECTION. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from  http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/protection/Basic.html Barnum, Sean. Gegick, Michael. (2005). Defense in Depth. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from  https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/bsi/articles/knowledge/principles/347-BSI.html Bertino, Elisa. (2005). Design Principles for Security. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from  http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~bhargav/cs526/security-9.pdf

  Read the article

• Which design pattern to use when using ORM?

  - by RPK

  I am writing a small ASP.NET Web Forms application. In my solution explorer, I added various class library projects to define layers, viz: Model Repository Presentation WebUI Someone suggested me that this layered approach is not of much sense if I am using ORM tool like PetaPoco, which itself takes care of separation of data access layer. I want to use PetaPoco micro-ORM and want to know which design pattern is suitable with ORM tools. Do I still need several class library projects to separate the concerns?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >