Search Results

Search found 846 results on 34 pages for 'hiding'.

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 9/34 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Difference between "Data Binding'","Data Hiding","Data Wraping" and "Encapsulation"?

    - by krishna Chandra
    I have been studying the conpects of Object oriented programming. Still I am not able to distinguish between the following concepts of object oriented programming.. a) Data Binding b) Data Hiding c) Data Wrapping d) encapsulation e) Data Abstraction I have gone through a lot of books ,and I also search the difference in google. but still I am not able to make the difference between these? Could anyone please help me ?

    Read the article

  • How to encrypt information in aspx page?

    - by Jimmyc
    Hi all, I know it's a silly question but , My client asked for encrypting some information form their payment system to prevent user stealing personal information. The system is web-base and written by ASP.NET We have tried some annoying solution such as JavaScript no right-click or css-no-print but apparently my client didn't like it. so are there any commercial solution to encrypt information in aspx produced html pages? or someone can tell me how to pursuit my client to stop these "prevent stealing" idea in a web-base system?

    Read the article

  • How can I obfuscate my Perl script to make it difficult to reverse engineer?

    - by codaddict
    I've developed a Perl script that the a confidential business logic. I have to give this script to another Perl coder to test it in his environment. He will definitely try to extract the logic in my program. So I want to make my script impossible, or at least very very hard, to understand. I've tried a few sites like liraz, but they did not work for me. The encoded Perl script does not work the same as the original one.

    Read the article

  • [NHibernate and ASP.NET MVC] How can I implement a robust session-per-request pattern in my project,

    - by Guillaume Gervais
    I'm currently building an ASP.NET MVC project, with NHibernate as its persistance layer. For now, some functionnalities have been implemented, but only use local NHibernate sessions: each method that accessed the database (read or write) needs to instanciate its own NHibernate session, with the "using()" directive. The problem is that I want to leverage NHibernate's Lazy-Loading capabilities to improve the performance of my project. This implies an open NHibernate session per request until the view is rendered. Furthermore, simultaneous request must be supported (multiple Sessions at the same time). How can I achieve that as cleanly as possible? I searched the Web a little bit and learned about the session-per-request pattern. Most of the implementations I saw used some sort of Http* (HttpContext, etc.) object to store the session. Also, using the Application_BeginRequest/Application_EndRequest functions is complicated, since they get fired for each HTTP request (aspx files, css files, js files, etc.), when I only want to instanciate a session once per request. The concern that I have is that I don't want my views or controllers to have access to NHibernate sessions (or, more generally, NHibernate namespaces and code). That means that I do not want to handle sessions at the controller level nor the view one. I have a few options in mind. Which one seems the best ? Use interceptors (like in GRAILS) that get triggered before and after the controller action. These would open and close sessions/transactions. Is it possible in the ASP.NET MVC world? Use the CurrentSessionContext Singleton provided by NHibernate in a Web context. Using this page as an example, I think this is quite promising, but that still requires filters at the controller level. Use the HttpContext.Current.Items to store the request session. This, coupled with a few lines of code in Global.asax.cs, can easily provide me with a session on the request level. However, it means that dependencies will be injected between NHibernate and my views (HttpContext). Thank you very much!

    Read the article

  • Overload and hide methods in Java

    - by Marco
    Hi, i have an abstract class BaseClass with a public insert() method: public abstract class BaseClass { public void insert(Object object) { // Do something } } which is extended by many other classes. For some of those classes, however, the insert() method must have additional parameters, so that they instead of overriding it I overload the method of the base class with the parameters required, for example: public class SampleClass extends BaseClass { public void insert(Object object, Long param){ // Do Something } } Now, if i instantiate the SampleClass class, i have two insert() methods: SampleClass sampleClass = new SampleClass(); sampleClass.insert(Object object); sampleClass.insert(Object object, Long param); what i'd like to do is to hide the insert() method defined in the base class, so that just the overload would be visible: SampleClass sampleClass = new SampleClass(); sampleClass.insert(Object object, Long param); Could this be done in OOP?

    Read the article

  • Why is the tooltip hiding Dash Search on 12.04?

    - by Anwar Shah
    Can I disable the tooltip shown at the side of the Launcher icon when hovered by the mouse. These are nice, but I want to disable them, because when I press "Dash Home" button on the launcher, then want to write something on the dash, I can't see the letters because of the tooltip. How can I disable the Unity tooltip from hiding search string in dash? I am using Ubuntu 12.04. I have given a screenshot of the launcher. My problem is basically with this Update 1 I have given advice to follow this answer in chat discussion, but nothing has changed. Update 2 As an answer suggests, I updated unity to the latest version. It is now unity 5.12.0. as the below output indicates $ unity --version unity 5.12.0

    Read the article

  • How to stop running pidgin at logins and disable window hiding feature?

    - by Behzadsh
    Every time I login into my desktop, pidgin start behind, and sometimes it's bothering me - e.g. when I'm not connected to Internet or when I don't want to be on-line - I check startup application list and there's no pidgin listed. another thing that is very bothering is hiding window feature or what ever it called. assume that you're using MusicTracker plug-in, your status is Busy and you're chatting with someone. when music change, status will change, and then buddy-list will disappear and chat window will minimize. Buddy-list is not important but minimizing chat window when you're chatting is bothering, Is there any way to make pidgin stop that?

    Read the article

  • What is the value in hiding the details through abstractions? Isn't there value in transparency?

    - by user606723
    Background I am not a big fan of abstraction. I will admit that one can benefit from adaptability, portability and re-usability of interfaces etc. There is real benefit there, and I don't wish to question that, so let's ignore it. There is the other major "benefit" of abstraction, which is to hide implementation logic and details from users of this abstraction. The argument is that you don't need to know the details, and that one should concentrate on their own logic at this point. Makes sense in theory. However, whenever I've been maintaining large enterprise applications, I always need to know more details. It becomes a huge hassle digging deeper and deeper into the abstraction at every turn just to find out exactly what something does; i.e. having to do "open declaration" about 12 times before finding the stored procedure used. This 'hide the details' mentality seems to just get in the way. I'm always wishing for more transparent interfaces and less abstraction. I can read high level source code and know what it does, but I'll never know how it does it, when how it does it, is what I really need to know. What's going on here? Has every system I've ever worked on just been badly designed (from this perspective at least)? My philosophy When I develop software, I feel like I try to follow a philosophy I feel is closely related to the ArchLinux philosophy: Arch Linux retains the inherent complexities of a GNU/Linux system, while keeping them well organized and transparent. Arch Linux developers and users believe that trying to hide the complexities of a system actually results in an even more complex system, and is therefore to be avoided. And therefore, I never try to hide complexity of my software behind abstraction layers. I try to abuse abstraction, not become a slave to it. Question at heart Is there real value in hiding the details? Aren't we sacrificing transparency? Isn't this transparency valuable?

    Read the article

  • What are some practical uses of the "new" modifier in C# with respect to hiding?

    - by Joel Etherton
    A co-worker and I were looking at the behavior of the new keyword in C# as it applies to the concept of hiding. From the documentation: Use the new modifier to explicitly hide a member inherited from a base class. To hide an inherited member, declare it in the derived class using the same name, and modify it with the new modifier. We've read the documentation, and we understand what it basically does and how it does it. What we couldn't really get a handle on is why you would need to do it in the first place. The modifier has been there since 2003, and we've both been working with .Net for longer than that and it's never come up. When would this behavior be necessary in a practical sense (e.g.: as applied to a business case)? Is this a feature that has outlived its usefulness or is what it does simply uncommon enough in what we do (specifically we do web forms and MVC applications and some small factor WinForms and WPF)? In trying this keyword out and playing with it we found some behaviors that it allows that seem a little hazardous if misused. This sounds a little open-ended, but we're looking for a specific use case that can be applied to a business application that finds this particular tool useful.

    Read the article

  • What are good reasons to use explicit interface implementation for the sole purpose of hiding members?

    - by Nathanus
    During one of my studies into the intricacies of C#, I came across an interesting passage concerning explicit interface implementation. While this syntax is quite helpful when you need to resolve name clashes, you can use explicit interface implementation simply to hide more "advanced" members from the object level. The difference between allowing the use of object.method() or requiring the casting of ((Interface)object).method() seems like mean-spirited obfuscation to my inexperienced eyes. The text noted that this will hide the method from Intellisense at the object level, but why would you want to do that if it was not necessary to avoid name conflicts?

    Read the article

  • Hiding keyboard in iPad with UITextView , can do this in iphone not iPad.

    - by user271753
    Hey the code below when written in HelloWorldAppDelegate.m in an iPhone app having UITextView hides the keyboard when the app starts : The UITextView is editable thats what I want in iPad Also But how can do the same in iPad its not working at all ! ! ! ! ! ! ! And also I have checked that I can use Subviews if I want to keep this to my app itself - (void)applicationDidFinishLaunching:(UIApplication *)application { //For hiding the Keyboard [[NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] addObserver:self selector:@selector(keyboardWillShow:) name:UIKeyboardWillShowNotification object:nil]; [window addSubview:viewController.view]; [window makeKeyAndVisible]; } /// /// Hiding the Keyboard /// - (void)keyboardWillShow:(NSNotification *)note { //The UIWindow that contains the keyboard view UIWindow* tempWindow; //Because we cant get access to the UIKeyboard throught the SDK we will just use UIView. //UIKeyboard is a subclass of UIView anyways UIView* keyboard; //Check each window in our application for(int c = 0; c < [[[UIApplication sharedApplication] windows] count]; c ++) { //Get a reference of the current window tempWindow = [[[UIApplication sharedApplication] windows] objectAtIndex:c]; //Get a reference of the current view for(int i = 0; i < [tempWindow.subviews count]; i++) { keyboard = [tempWindow.subviews objectAtIndex:i]; if (!strcmp(object_getClassName(keyboard), "UIKeyboard")) { NSLog(@"hide keyboard"); [keyboard setHidden:YES]; return; } } } } Regards

    Read the article

  • Explicit return from a Ruby method - implementation hiding, reuse and optimisations.

    - by Chris McCauley
    Hi, Rather than allowing a Ruby method to blindly return the last statement evaluated, is there any advantage to returning nil explicitly? In terms of implementation hiding and reuse, it seems dangerous to blindly allow the last expression evaluated to be returned - isn't there a danger that a user will rely on this only to get a nasty surprise when the implementation is modified? Surely returning nil would be better unless an explicit return value was given. Following on, is there an optimisation that Ruby can make when the return is a simple type rather than a reference to a more complex object? Chris

    Read the article

  • Explicit return form a Ruby method - implementation hiding, reuse and optimisations.

    - by Chris McCauley
    Hi, Rather than allowing a Ruby method to blindly return the last statement evaluated, is there any advantage to returning nil explicitly? In terms of implementation hiding and reuse, it seems dangerous to blindly allow the last expression evaluated to be returned - isn't there a danger that a user will rely on this only to get a nasty surprise when the implementation is modified? Surely returning nil would be better unless an explicit return value was given. Following on, is there an optimisation that Ruby can make when the return is a simple type rather than a reference to a more complex object? Chris

    Read the article

  • adding a column dynamically and hiding the first column like jquery slider ..

    - by paul
    I have a html page with 10 columns but I don't have show all in same page instead I have to show only 4 column moreover I have to render those column on a button click call add column. What is the best approach to render 1-4 column first ? Fist column render first and on clicking button say add will render 2nd column , than 3rd and fourth. Now when i will load 5th column ...I will have to hide 1st column so that i will accommodate 4 columns but data inside that column will stay ....my limit is to show 4 column at a time and hiding leftmost .... any helpful javascript or jquery advice will be appreciated ..thanks!

    Read the article

  • Any solution to IE8 bug rendering error when hiding elements?

    - by Magnar
    Bug: when hiding an element with JavaScript in IE8, the margin of still-visible other elements on the side is ignored. This bug has been introduced with IE8, since it works as expected in IE6+7 (and other browsers). <html> <head> <style> #a, #b, #c, #d {background: #ccf; padding: 4px; margin-bottom: 8px;} </style> </head> <body> <div id="a">a</div> <div id="b">b</div> <div id="c">c</div> <div id="d">d</div> <script> setTimeout(function () { document.getElementById("b").style.display = "none"; }, 1000); </script> </body> </html> When running this code, notice how a and c have a margin of 8 between them in normal browsers, but a margin of 0 in IE8. Remove the padding, and IE8 behaves like normal. Remove the timeout and IE8 behaves like normal. A border behaves the same way. I've been working with IE-bugs the last 10 years, but this has me stumped. The solution for now is to wrap the divs, and apply the margin to the outer element and other styles to the inner. But that's reminicent of horrible IE6-workarounds. Any better solutions?

    Read the article

  • Form wont stay on top. How do I keep my excel form from hiding behind other windows after I browse

    - by ScottK
    I have a vb.net program that opens up an excel workbook and runs a macro ("Report") in that workbook when a button is clicked. //Workbook with macro and form xlWorkbook = xlApp.Workbooks.Open("W:Data\Excel Program.xls") //Macro: xlApp.Run("Report") //Macro opens form from workbook. I browse for my two .csv files //and then click a button to run code that creates my reports. //form closes, show the excel report after its created xlApp.Visible = True After I browse my first file and select it so that its location is displayed in my text box, the excel form then hides behind any open windows. I want this form to stay on top. It is after this code executes that the form will hide behind all other open windows: Private Sub btnBrowseFile1_Click() Dim fileName1 As String fileName1 = Application.GetOpenFilename("CSV file (*.csv), *.csv") If fileName1 <> "False" Then Me.txtFileName1.text = fileName1 End If End Sub EDIT: I still have no luck with this problem. When the excel macro is opened from a vb program I have this hiding issue...but only after browsing for a file. Why does the focus leave the form and go to Windows after browsing a file? Any one have any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 task bar stuck in hiding, how to fix?

    - by Rainer Blome
    In Windows 7, I use the "Auto-hide the task bar" feature. Usually, it works fine: As soon as the pointer touches the screen bottom, the task bar pops up. However sometimes, it refuses to rise. Pressing the "Windows" key (or Ctrl-ESC) makes the start menu appear, forcing the task bar from hinding as well. Once I've done this, the task-bar auto-rises again. This is annoying, it interrupts flow. Has anyone else noticed this? How do I avoid this? Searching for "Windows 7 task bar auto-raise" shows that at least one other person experienced this problem: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-desktop/how-can-i-fix-the-taskbars-auto-hide/8cdf6369-7354-4d29-9249-b7096ed0e28b?msgId=6dac3361-9d0f-4a9e-8642-b91a72826ba4 To answer the question posed by the "helpful" support engineer on the above page, of course I am running some apps when this happens, usually Explorer, Firefox, Eclipse, Cygwin/X, Xterm, Emacs, Notes, VPN client, Firewall. If my memory serves correctly, I have seen this behavior on earlier versions of Windows as well, XP at least. To reproduce this behavior, I tried switching between apps, and bringing apps to open other windows. I am unable to reproduce this behavior so far. So far, it appears to happen out of the blue, sometimes multiple times a day. Looks like a bug to me. The task bar should raise no matter what.

    Read the article

  • Hiding a HTTP Auth-Realm by sending 404 to non-known IPs?

    - by zhenech
    I have an Apache (2.2) serving a web-app on example.com. That web-app has a debug-page reachable via example.com/debug. /debug is currently protected with a HTTP basic auth. As there is only a very small user-base who has access to the debug-page, I would like to hide it based on IP address and return 404 to clients not accessing from our VPN. Serving a 404 based on IP-address only is easy and is described in http://serverfault.com/a/13071. But as soon I add authentication, the users see a 401 instead of a 404. Basically, what I need is: if ($REMOTE_ADDR ~ 10.11.12.*): do_basic_auth (aka return 401) else: return 404

    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 | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >