|
His question was about passing credentials (username and password). Depending on the authentication type, cookies won't help this. This is a case where the HTTP daemon sends a WWW-Authenticate header with a 401 status code to prompt for authentication that's given in the aforementioned header. The client must pass credentials. This won't work with Forms Authentication in .NET, however, because you are redirected to a page. In that case a cookie will work, but it won't solve his problem. The server is asking for credentials, not redirecting the user.
The HttpWebRequest.Credentials property must be used to pass credentials when the server requires authentication in the way I mentioned above.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
Based on how he phrased it in the other thread and the fact he's clicking a checkbox called "keep me signed in" (which doesn't show up on the authentication dialog box, only "remember my password"), I think he's talking about a site that saves your login session with cookies.
I could be wrong though.
I, for one, do not think the problem was that the band was down. I think that the problem may have been that there was a Stonehenge monument on the stage that was in danger of being crushed by a dwarf.
-David St. Hubbins
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am implementing a application that uses remoting that is generating some doubts as to best practices, scalability possibility, round trips on the net and things like this. I would like to know which the "better" form of doing what needed.
(I am afraid of giving a shot in my foot! )
Grossly, I have the following assemblies (scenery for questions):
--------------------------
Model.dll - It contains the classes that model tables for classes and lines for collections - Distributed in the client and server.
IRules.dll - Interface for the rules that will be activated in the server (that accesses a DAL, and so, so...) - Distributed in the client and server.
Rules.dll - Implementation of the defined interfaces in IRules - Distributed in the server.
--------------------------
Considering these components, the classes would be something as:
[Serializable()]
public class ModelCustomer
{
public string Code;
public string Name;
}
public interface IRulesCustomer
{
bool Insert(Model.ModelCustomer customer);
}
public class RulesCustomer : MarshalByRefObject, IRules.IRulesCustomer
{
public virtual bool Insert(Model.ModelCustomer customer)
{
}
}
--------------------------
In the server, my configuration file is it something as:
<configuration>
<system.runtime.remoting>
<application>
<channels>
<channel ref="http">
<serverProviders>
<formatter ref="binary" typeFilterLevel="Full"/>
</serverProviders>
</channel>
</channels>
<service>
<wellknown
mode="SingleCall" objectUri="RulesCustomer.rem"
type="Rules.RulesCustomer, Rules" />
<activated type="Model.ModelCustomer, Model" />
</service>
</application>
</system.runtime.remoting>
</configuration>
--------------------------
In the client, he resembles with:
<configuration>
<system.runtime.remoting>
<application>
<channels>
<channel ref="http">
<clientProviders>
<formatter ref="binary" />
</clientProviders>
<serverProviders>
<formatter ref="binary" typeFilterLevel="Full"/>
</serverProviders>
</channel>
</channels>
<client>
<wellknown type="IRules.IRulesCustomer, IRules"
url="http://server:80/App/RulesCustomer.rem"
/>
</client>
<client url="http://server:80/App">
<activated type="Model.ModelCustomer, Model" />
</client>
</application>
</system.runtime.remoting>
</configuration>
--------------------------
Finally, what happens following: I am activating the model object in the "client" (it will receive yours state of UI/UserProcess) and the rules object in the "server". After passing the values of UI for properties of model object, I call the method insert of rule object passing the model object as parameter.
The doubts can be summarized like this:
1 - Will it be that to activate the model object in the client it harms the scalability of the application?
2 - Will it be that to activate the model object in the client it will force more round trip trips to the server of the one what the necessary (or advisable)?
3 - Will it be that a collection to come back (CollectionBase) for one of the methods of the class of rules it is viable?
4 - Will it be that I should activate everything in the server?
Thank you in advance and excuse me for the VERY long question,
Marcelo Palladino
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
Marcelo
The first thing you should be aware of: by making your object Single Call, the object will be created and destroyed each time it is called. If you expect to have a high volume of calls made, you may consider establishing it as a Singleton and create a custom lease time.
For scalability it is VERY important that you always consider your deployment from the aspect of what is called 'chunky calls'. If you have two processes as such:
1. create HTTP channel
2. call Activator.GetObject
3. call to init
4. call to get first info
5. call to get second piece
6. call to get third piece
7. display information
-VS-
1. create HTTP channel
2. call Activator.GetObject
3. call to get large object -- server object does 3-6 of prior process
4. display information
you will find the second process to SCREAM while the first process will crawl like a snail.
Secondly, your use of BinarySerializer is good. The SOAP serializer is horrible. However if is at all possible to remove the server from HTTP and make it a pure TCP client, you will have even faster throughput and better results.
There are several other considerations to make as well as determining if remoting is truly the best implementation for you solution. If you read the FAQ here[^], then you can check it out.
_____________________________________________
Of all the senses I could possibly lose, It is most often the one called 'common' that gets lost.
|
|
|
|
|
By the way....there is one problem with using a BinaryClientFormatterSink in your application: any fault that occurs on the server side during initialization will return the error that the remoting version is wrong version, expected 1.0 and received (an ugly number)
This is due to the exception being sent out in text and the client is expecting a return of the version number. To get around this, I had to incorporate the ability to put the application into debug state. So my code is as follows during init time:
try
{
if (DebugState == false)
{
channel = new HttpChannel(null,new BinaryClientFormatterSinkProvider(),new BinaryServerFormatterSinkProvider());
}
else
{
channel = new HttpChannel(null,null,null);
runningInDebugMode = true;
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("TCA Navigator has been requested to run in debug mode.", "Remote Communication Manager");
}
channel.Properties["proxyName"] = null;
channel.Properties["useDefaultCredentials"] = "true";
ChannelServices.RegisterChannel(channel);
}
...
Also : setting the channel properties is required to keep the code from trying to locate a proxy server and use that to navigate to the site. This is used assuming your application is internal (though you really would not want to do remoting in the open on the internet).
Michael
_____________________________________________
Of all the senses I could possibly lose, It is most often the one called 'common' that gets lost.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Michael,
Before anything else, thank you for the answers. They helped a lot! In relation to the informed problems in my previous post, your answers took me to do the following:
1 - My model objects don't inherit more of MarshalByRefObject. (only the rules objects inherit now)
2 - My model objects now are marked as [Serializable ()] and they implement the interface ISerializable.
3 - I am not more using CAO. The model object is created in the client and gone by value through methods in my classes of rules.
To use "chunky interfaces": Excellent touch, thank you very much! This solves the problem of the roundtrips.
To use "Singleton" instead of "SingleCall": humm.... I am still forming an opinion to respect, but own Ingo (in the link that you indicated ) says that SingleCall turns easier to make a scalability application. But I understood your point, that is gone back more to performance and use of resources. On the other hand, if I am in an environment with load balance...
Now another question: Did I understand certain with relationship to the fact of implementing ISerializable in my model objects? This way they are gone by value, they are not? (like a DataSet, for example)
A great hug and thank you very much again,
Marcelo Palladino
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
The only item that I would say you should make an adjustment to is the ISerializable implementation. The reason I say so is that you have to implement your own serializer/deserializer!!!
Just add the [Serializable] attribute. The process of 'going remote' goes through several SinkProviders including the BinarySerializer. So implementing the ISerializable interface just creates redundancy.
Now ---> once you get everything set to run with SAO instead of CAO, all you need to do is the following:
1) Get your app finished and working so your server objects
are stabilized
2) Set up a stress test if possible
3) Now you can compare the impacts to your app on whether or
not you should be Singleton or SingleCall.
IMHO -- this ends being based on application process and design rather than just a cookie-cutter decision. For my app, I found that having the objects there was great and the Singletons will eventually be flushed if no activity occurs, but remain when activity is high.
For me, I was initializing collections of objects remotely and passing single instances back to the caller. Great setup for a Singleton. If I did not need the populated collections, I probably could get away with the SingleCall.
Enjoy!
Michael
_____________________________________________
Of all the senses I could possibly lose, It is most often the one called 'common' that gets lost.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi again Michael,
Unintentionally to abuse, but already abusing am not sure if I understood what you wanted to say below sentence:
theRealCondor wrote:
The only item that I would say you should make an adjustment to is the ISerializable implementation. The reason I say so is that you have to implement your own serializer/deserializer!!!
The one that I thought about doing is something of the type:
[Serializable()]
public class MyModelObject : ISerializable
{
private int a;
private string b;
public MyModelObject()
{
}
public MyModelObject(int a, string b):base()
{
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
protected MyModelObject(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
{
this.A = info.GetInt32("A");
this.B = info.GetString("B");
}
public int A
{
get {return this.a;}
set {this.a = value;}
}
public string B
{
get {return this.b;}
set {this.b = value;}
}
void ISerializable.GetObjectData(SerializationInfo info,
StreamingContext context)
{
info.AddValue("A", this.a);
info.AddValue("B", this.b);
}
}
For the what could understand I should not make this?! Only use [Serializable()] it didn't work. Can you feel a light (larger still)?
Greetings,
Marcelo Palladino
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
Pallidino said:
Michael responds:
Here is what I did that worked and is very simple:
using System.Runtime.Remoting;
using System.Collections;
[Serializable]
public class WidgetCollection:CollectionBase
{
public WidgetItem this[int index]
{
get{return (WidgetItem)this.List[index]; }
set{this.List[index] = value; }
}
public void Add(WidgetItem item)
{List.Add(item)}
public WidgetItem this(string key)
{return (WidgetItem) List(key)}
}
[Serializable]
public class WidgetItem
{
Sprocket internalSprocket
Spoke internalSpoke
DooHickey internalDooHickey
...
}
This construct is used by both the client and server objects.
Server creates the WidgetCollection and populates it with Widgets.
Both the WidgetCollection and the Widget are marked [Serializable].
So your server object could be like this assuming that you had a server object instance named Server that handled the population of the WidgetCollection, and you already created the Interface object that defines your WidgetManager for your client use:
public class WidgetManager:MarshalByRefObject, IWidgetManager
{
public Widget GetWidget(WidgetKey item)
{
WidgetCollection itemList = Server.PopulateWidgets();
return itemList[item];
}
}
Now.....if you do this, run your remote objects, and get an error that says that {some object} cannot be serialized , then {some object} has not been marked [Serializable].
In my example, WidgetItem uses a unique object type of Sprocket, Spoke, and DooHickey. I must make certain that all three object type definitions are marked as [Serializable]. You must keep iterating through your object tree until you finally succeed without the 'cannot be serialized' error. So I'm required to add:
[Serializable]
public class Sprocket()
{
...existing definition
}
[Serializable]
public class Spoke()
{
...existing definition
}
[Serializable]
public class DooHickey()
{
...existing definition
}
The advantage of this approach.....
You can construct your client and use the remote object as a local object while developing and testing without any serialization occuring.
Once you are ready to make the move, you change the local object to a MarshalByRefObject object and mark the objects being returned as [Serializable] and your client use is almost identical with the exception of how the objects are initialized.
We established the standard that if you have objects that are local and MIGHT become remote, that the object initialization be isolated in a method. That way all remote objects are isolated and easy to change from new Object to Activator.GetObject() with the beginning of the method altered to first initialize the channel.
Voila, remoting at it's simplest.
_____________________________________________
Of all the senses I could possibly lose, It is most often the one called 'common' that gets lost.
|
|
|
|
|
Marcelo,
Putting this another way:
"With the exception of earlier TCP/IP RPC implementations, in which you even had to worry about little-endian/big-endian conversions,
all current remoting frameworks support the automatic encoding of simple data types into th echosen transfer format.
The problem starts when you want to pass a copy of an object from server to client. Java RMI and EJB support these requirements, but COM+ for example, did not.
The commonly used serializable objects within COM+ were PropertyBags and ADO Recordsets -- but there was no easy way of passing large object structs around.
In .NET Remoting the encoding/decoding of objects is natively supported.
You just need to mark such objects with the [Serializable] attribute -OR- implement the interface ISerializable and the rest will be taken care of by the framework.
This even allows you to pass your objects cross-platform via XML.
The serialization mechanism marshal simple data types and subobjects (which have to be serializable or exist as remote objects),
and even ensures that circular references (which could result in endless loops when not discovered) don't do any harm.
<sub> -- Ingo Rammer, Advanced .NET Remoting </sub>
_____________________________________________
Of all the senses I could possibly lose, It is most often the one called 'common' that gets lost.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael,
I don't have as thanking for this "chat" that we had. For this first moment it is everything OK, thank you very much (really)! With relationship to the Ingo book´s, I tried to buy for here but I didn't get (still)...
It was worth,
Marcelo Palladino
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
How to debug JavaScript code in C#.
|
|
|
|
|
You have to attach a JavaScript debugger to the C# application. If you're using JScript.NET, you can attach the Managed Debugger to the code. If not, you'll have to find some proprietary JavaScript debugger capable of this but I know of none that can attach to running processes.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all.
Is there an easy way to retrieve the names of all the local user accounts on a computer? If it is possible to get additional information about the accounts that would be great, but it is not absolutely necessary...
Thanks
/EnkelIk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your answer.
This also works (putting the names of the accounts into a datatable):
string strHost=Environment.MachineName;
DirectoryEntry vscDirEnt=new DirectoryEntry("WinNT://" + strHost + ",computer");
DataTable vscDT=new DataTable();
DataRow vscDR;
vscDT.Columns.Add("names",System.Type.GetType("System.String"));
foreach(DirectoryEntry vscAccount in vscDirEnt.Children)
{
if(string.Compare(vscAccount.SchemaClassName,"User",true)==0)
{
vscDR=vscDT.NewRow();
vscDR["names"]=vscAccount.Name;
vscDT.Rows.Add(vscDR);
}
}
Thanks
/EnkelIk
|
|
|
|
|
Yes,but only works when you working wiht Active Directory.
Mazy
No sig. available now.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello!
I want to draw a reversible frame on my windows form. I have found the method ControlPaint.DrawReversibleFrame, but this method is not, what I'm looking for.
I need a dotted frame like a fokus rectangle.
Is there somebody who can tell me, how I can draw such a frame or how I can draw dashed lines with a XOR combination of colors?
Thanks
Björn
|
|
|
|
|
If you need a focus rectangle, why not use ControlPaint.DrawFocusRectangle ? You can specify both the foreground and background colors. If you need to invert the colors, you can create a new Color by XOR'ing each of the R, G, and B components with 0 or 0xfff.
If you want to draw a rectangle around the bounds of the control itself use the Control.Bounds property for the rectangle param of the DrawFocusRectangle method.
If neither of these approaches is quite what you want, you can draw dotted lines by using a custom Pen with the Pen.DashStyle property set in calls to Graphics.DrawLine or Graphics.DrawRectangle and similar methods.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
I follow all ms treeview document steps, There need to copy webcontrls.dll to app's direction,but i can't find this file.
|
|
|
|
|
You have to download it from http://asp.net/ControlGallery/default.aspx?Category=38&tabindex=2[^]. Follow the directions to properly install the client files and ASP.NET assemblies in the appropriate directories. Unfortunatley, this is a manual installation for each Web Application in which you want to use these controls.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't necessarily need to be configured per app. In our configuration the dll is loaded into the GAC on the webserver and the webctrl_client folder is under the webroot.
|
|
|
|
|
sharing internet offline files between two OS?
which i mean if i have two OS Win 98 and 2000 Pro
and each one on different partition
and i connect to the internet using win 98 i want to see
the offline files win i'm using win 2000
i want to write program that do this or if there are solution at the windows
please tell me
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you posting this in the C# forum? This is a Windows question and should be directed to the appropriate forum or the Lounge. I will answer anyway, but please do not post in an inappropriate forum again.
There is a solution in Windows already. Add a favorite to a web site and check the "Offline" check box (or something like that) to download a cached copy. This will be limited to the current OS unless you share the same Internet Cache folder for Internet Explorer in both operating systems, but remember that Windows 9x/ME cannot access NTFS so you'll either have to format your Win2K partition as FAT32 (not a good idea because you loose file security features) or have Win2K access the FAT/FAT32 partition in Windows.
If you're talking about offline network share files, only Windows NT (which includes 2000, XP, and 2003) supports this so your Win98 installation will have to access that folder, which means you'll have to format the partition as FAT32 (again, a bad idea).
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
|
sorry for posting in wrong forum
but i did that in case that i have to write application to do this
in all cases thanks for your help
|
|
|
|
|