Search Results

Search found 37902 results on 1517 pages for 'object methods'.

Page 42/1517 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

• Is it possible to create an enum whose object can't be created but can be used for readonly purpose

  - by Shantanu Gupta

  I created an enum where I stored some table names. I want it to be used to get the name of the table like ds.Tables[BGuestInfo.TableName.L_GUEST_TYPE.ToString()]. public enum TableName : byte { L_GUEST_TYPE = 0 ,L_AGE_GROUP = 1 ,M_COMPANY = 2 ,L_COUNTRY = 3 ,L_EYE_COLOR = 4 ,L_GENDER = 5 ,L_HAIR_COLOR = 6 ,L_STATE_PROVINCE = 7 ,L_STATUS = 8 ,L_TITLE = 9 ,M_TOWER = 10 ,L_CITY = 11 ,L_REGISTER_TYPE = 12 } This is my enum. Now I have not created any object of this enum so that no one can use it for other than read only purpose. For this enum to be accessible in outer classes as well I have to make it public which means some outer class can create its object as well. So what can i do so as to restrict its object creation.

  Read the article

• How to refer to object in JavaScript event handler?

  - by George Edison

  Note: This question uses jQuery but the question has nothing to do with jQuery! Okay so I have this object: var box = new BigBox(); This object has a method named Serialize(): box.AddToPage(); Here is the method AddToPage(): function AddToPage() { $('#some_item').html("<div id='box' onclick='this.OnClick()'></div>"); } The problem above is the this.OnClick() (which obviously does not work). I need the onclick handler to invoke a member of the BigBox class. How can I do this? How can an object refer to itself in an event handler?

  Read the article

• How can I find out how much memory an object of a C++ class consumes?

  - by Shadow

  Hi, I am developing a Graph-class, based on boost-graph-library. A Graph-object contains a boost-graph, so to say an adjacency_list, and a map. When monitoring the total memory usage of my program, it consumes quite a lot (checked with pmap). Now, I would like to know, how much of the memory is exactly consumed by a filled object of this Graph-class? With filled I mean when the adjacency_list is full of vertices and edges. I found out, that using sizeof() doesn't bring me far. Using valgrind is also not an alternative as there is quite some memory allocation done previously and this makes the usage of valgrind impractical for this purpose. I'm also not interested in what other parts of the program cost in memory, I want to focus on one single object. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Understanding UML composition better

  - by Prog

  The technical difference between Composition and Aggregation in UML (and sometimes in programming too) is that with Composition, the lifetime of the objects composing the composite (e.g. an engine and a steering wheel in a car) is dependent on the composite object. While with Aggregation, the lifetime of the objects making up the composite is independent of the composite. However I'm not sure about something related to composition in UML. Say ClassA is composed of an object of ClassB: class ClassA{ ClassB bInstance; public ClassA(){ bInstance = new ClassB(); } } This is an example of composition, because bInstance is dependent on the lifetime of it's enclosing object. However, regarding UML notation - I'm not sure if I would notate the relationship between ClassA and ClassB with a filled diamond (composition) or a white diamond (aggregation). This is because while the lifetime of some ClassB instances is dependent of ClassA instances - there could be ClassB instances anywhere else in the program - not only within ClassA instances. The question is: if ClassA objects are composed of ClassB objects - but other ClassB objects are free to be used anywhere else in the program: Should the relationship between ClassA and ClassB be notated as aggregation or as composition?

  Read the article

• Formal definition for term "pure OO language"?

  - by Yauhen Yakimovich

  I can't think of a better place among SO siblings to pose such a question. Originally I wanted to ask "Is python a pure OO language?" but considering troubles and some sort of discomfort people experience while trying to define the term I decided to start with obtaining a clear definition for the term itself. It would be rather fair to start with correspondence by Dr. Alan Kay, who has coined the term (note the inspiration in biological analogy to cells or other living objects). There are following ways to approach the task: Give a comparative analysis by listing programming languages that exhibits certain properties unique and sufficient to define the term (although Smalltalk and Java are passing examples but IMO this way seems neither really complete or nor fruitful) Give a formal definition (or close to it, e.g. in more academic or mathematical style). Give a philosophical definition that would totally rely on semantical context of concrete language or a priori programming experience (there must be some chance of successful explanation by the community). My current version: "If a certain programing (formal) language that can (grammatically) differentiate between operations and operands as well as infer about the type of each operand whether this type is an object (in sense of OOP) or not then we call such a language an OO-language as long as there is at least one type in this language which is an object. Finally, if all types of the language are also objects we define such language to be pure OO-language." Would appreciate any possible improvement of it. As you can see I just made the definition dependent on the term "object" (often fully referenced as class of objects).

  Read the article

• C# vector class - Interpolation design decision

  - by Benjamin

  Currently I'm working on a vector class in C# and now I'm coming to the point, where I've to figure out, how i want to implement the functions for interpolation between two vectors. At first I came up with implementing the functions directly into the vector class... public class Vector3D { public static Vector3D LinearInterpolate(Vector3D vector1, Vector3D vector2, double factor) { ... } public Vector3D LinearInterpolate(Vector3D other, double factor { ... } } (I always offer both: a static method with two vectors as parameters and one non-static, with only one vector as parameter) ...but then I got the idea to use extension methods (defined in a seperate class called "Interpolation" for example), since interpolation isn't really a thing only available for vectors. So this could be another solution: public class Vector3D { ... } public static class Interpolation { public static Vector3D LinearInterpolate(this Vector3D vector, Vector3D other, double factor) { ... } } So here an example how you'd use the different possibilities: { var vec1 = new Vector3D(5, 3, 1); var vec2 = new Vector3D(4, 2, 0); Vector3D vec3; vec3 = vec1.LinearInterpolate(vec2, 0.5); //1 vec3 = Vector3D.LinearInterpolate(vec1, vec2, 0.5); //2 //or with extension-methods vec3 = vec1.LinearInterpolate(vec2, 0.5); //3 (same as 1) vec3 = Interpolation.LinearInterpolation(vec1, vec2, 0.5); //4 } So I really don't know which design is better. Also I don't know if there's an ultimate rule for things like this or if it's just about what someone personally prefers. But I really would like to hear your opinions, what's better (and if possible why ).

  Read the article

• About shared (static) Members and its behavior

  - by Allende

  I just realized that I can access shared members from instances of classes (probably this is not correct, but compile and run), and also learn/discover that, I can modify shared members, then create a new instance and access the new value of the shared member. My question is, what happens to the shared members, when it comes back to the "default" value (class declaration), how dangerous is it do this ? is it totally bad ? is it valid in some cases ?. If you want to test my point here is the code (console project vb.net) that I used to test shared members, as you can see/compile/run, the shared member "x" of the class "Hello" has default value string "Default", but at runtime it changes it, and after creating a new object of that class, this object has the new value of the shared member. Module Module1 Public Class hello Public Shared x As String = "Default" Public Sub New() End Sub End Class Sub Main() Console.WriteLine("hello.x=" & hello.x) Dim obj As New hello() Console.WriteLine("obj.x=" & obj.x) obj.x = "Default shared memeber, modified in object" Console.WriteLine("obj.x=" & obj.x) hello.x = "Defaul shared member, modified in class" Console.WriteLine("hello.x=" & hello.x) Dim obj2 As New hello() Console.WriteLine("obj2.x=" & obj2.x) Console.ReadLine() End Sub End Module UPDATE: First at all, thanks to everyone, each answer give feedback, I suppose, by respect I should choose one as "the answer", I don't want to be offensive to anyone, so please don't take it so bad if I didn't choose you answer.

  Read the article

• Composing programs from small simple pieces: OOP vs Functional Programming

  - by Jay Godse

  I started programming when imperative programming languages such as C were virtually the only game in town for paid gigs. I'm not a computer scientist by training so I was only exposed to Assembler and Pascal in school, and not Lisp or Prolog. Over the 1990s, Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) became more popular because one of the marketing memes for OOP was that complex programs could be composed of loosely coupled but well-defined, well-tested, cohesive, and reusable classes and objects. And in many cases that is quite true. Once I learned object-oriented programming my C programs became better because I structured them more like classes and objects. In the last few years (2008-2014) I have programmed in Ruby, an OOP language. However, Ruby has many functional programming (FP) features such as lambdas and procs, which enable a different style of programming using recursion, currying, lazy evaluation and the like. (Through ignorance I am at a loss to explain why these techniques are so great). Very recently, I have written code to use methods from the Ruby Enumerable library, such as map(), reduce(), and select(). Apparently this is a functional style of programming. I have found that using these methods significantly reduce code volume, and make my code easier to debug. Upon reading more about FP, one of the marketing claims made by advocates is that FP enables developers to compose programs out of small well-defined, well-tested, and reusable functions, which leads to less buggy code, and low code volume. QUESTIONS: Is the composition of complex program by using FP techniques contradictory to or complementary to composition of a complex program by using OOP techniques? In which situations is OOP more effective, and when is FP more effective? Is it possible to use both techniques in the same complex program? Do the techniques overlap or contradict each other?

  Read the article

• Empty interface to combine multiple interfaces

  - by user1109519

  Suppose you have two interfaces: interface Readable { public void read(); } interface Writable { public void write(); } In some cases the implementing objects can only support one of these but in a lot of cases the implementations will support both interfaces. The people who use the interfaces will have to do something like: // can't write to it without explicit casting Readable myObject = new MyObject(); // can't read from it without explicit casting Writable myObject = new MyObject(); // tight coupling to actual implementation MyObject myObject = new MyObject(); None of these options is terribly convenient, even more so when considering that you want this as a method parameter. One solution would be to declare a wrapping interface: interface TheWholeShabam extends Readable, Writable {} But this has one specific problem: all implementations that support both Readable and Writable have to implement TheWholeShabam if they want to be compatible with people using the interface. Even though it offers nothing apart from the guaranteed presence of both interfaces. Is there a clean solution to this problem or should I go for the wrapper interface? UPDATE It is in fact often necessary to have an object that is both readable and writable so simply seperating the concerns in the arguments is not always a clean solution. UPDATE2 (extracted as answer so it's easier to comment on) UPDATE3 Please beware that the primary usecase for this is not streams (although they too must be supported). Streams make a very specific distinction between input and output and there is a clear separation of responsibilities. Rather, think of something like a bytebuffer where you need one object you can write to and read from, one object that has a very specific state attached to it. These objects exist because they are very useful for some things like asynchronous I/O, encodings,...

  Read the article

• How to structure my GUI agnostic project?

  - by Nezreli

  I have a project which loads from database a XML file which defines a form for some user. XML is transformed into a collection of objects whose classes derive from single parent. Something like Control - EditControl - TextBox Control - ContainterControl - Panel Those classes are responsible for creation of GUI controls for three different enviroments: WinForms, DevExpress XtraReports and WebForms. All three frameworks share mostly the same control tree and have a common single parent (Windows.Forms.Control, XrControl and WebControl). So, how to do it? Solution a) Control class has abstract methods Control CreateWinControl(); XrControl CreateXtraControl(); WebControl CreateWebControl(); This could work but the project has to reference all three frameworks and the classes are going to be fat with methods which would support all three implementations. Solution b) Each framework implementation is done in separate projects and have the exact class tree like the Core project. All three implementations are connected using a interface to the Core class. This seems clean but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. Does anyone have a simpler solution or a suggestion how should I approach this task?

  Read the article

• Data classes: getters and setters or different method design

  - by Frog

  I've been trying to design an interface for a data class I'm writing. This class stores styles for characters, for example whether the character is bold, italic or underlined. But also the font-size and the font-family. So it has different types of member variables. The easiest way to implement this would be to add getters and setters for every member variable, but this just feels wrong to me. It feels way more logical (and more OOP) to call style.format(BOLD, true) instead of style.setBold(true). So to use logical methods insteads of getters/setters. But I am facing two problems while implementing these methods: I would need a big switch statement with all member variables, since you can't access a variable by the contents of a string in C++. Moreover, you can't overload by return type, which means you can't write one getter like style.getFormatting(BOLD) (I know there are some tricks to do this, but these don't allow for parameters, which I would obviously need). However, if I would implement getters and setters, there are also issues. I would have to duplicate quite some code because styles can also have a parent styles, which means the getters have to look not only at the member variables of this style, but also at the variables of the parent styles. Because I wasn't able to figure out how to do this, I decided to ask a question a couple of weeks ago. See Object Oriented Programming: getters/setters or logical names. But in that question I didn't stress it would be just a data object and that I'm not making a text rendering engine, which was the reason one of the people that answered suggested I ask another question while making that clear (because his solution, the decorator pattern, isn't suitable for my problem). So please note that I'm not creating my own text rendering engine, I just use these classes to store data. Because I still haven't been able to find a solution to this problem I'd like to ask this question again: how would you design a styles class like this? And why would you do that? Thanks on forehand!

  Read the article

• Functional programming compared to OOP with classes

  - by luckysmack

  I have been interested in some of the concepts of functional programming lately. I have used OOP for some time now. I can see how I would build a fairly complex app in OOP. Each object would know how to do things that object does. Or anything it's parents class does as well. So I can simply tell Person().speak() to make the person talk. But how do I do similar things in functional programming? I see how functions are first class items. But that function only does one specific thing. Would I simply have a say() method floating around and call it with an equivalent of Person() argument so I know what kind of thing is saying something? So I can see the simple things, just how would I do the comparable of OOP and objects in functional programming, so I can modularize and organize my code base? For reference, my primary experience with OOP is Python, PHP, and some C#. The languages that I am looking at that have functional features are Scala and Haskell. Though I am leaning towards Scala. Basic Example (Python): Animal(object): def say(self, what): print(what) Dog(Animal): def say(self, what): super().say('dog barks: {0}'.format(what)) Cat(Animal): def say(self, what): super().say('cat meows: {0}'.format(what)) dog = Dog() cat = Cat() dog.say('ruff') cat.say('purr')

  Read the article

• Models, collections...and then what? Processes?

  - by Dan

  I'm a LAMP-stack dev who's been more on the JavaScript side the last few years and really enjoying the Model + Collection approach to data entities that BackboneJS, etc. uses. It's helped me organize my code in such a way that it is extremely portable, keeping all my properties and methods in the scope (model, collection, etc.) in which they apply. One thing that keeps bugging me though is how to organize the next level up, the 'process layer' as you might call it, that can potentially operate on instances of either models or collections or whatever else. Where should methods like find() (which returns a collection) and create() (which returns a model) reside? I know some people would put a create() in the Collection prototype, but while a collection operates on models I don't think it's exactly right to create them. And while a find() would return a collection I don't think it correct to have that action within the collection prototype itself (it should be a layer up). Can anyone offer some examples of any patterns that employ some kind of OOP-friendly 'process' layer? I'm sorry if this is a fairly well-known discussion but I'm afraid I can't seem to find the terminology to search for.

  Read the article

• A few questions about how JavaScript works

  - by KayoticSully

  I originally posted on Stack Overflow and was told I might get some better answers here. I have been looking deeply into JavaScript lately to fully understand the language and have a few nagging questions that I can not seem to find answers to (Specifically dealing with Object Oriented programming. I know JavaScript is meant to be used in an OOP manner I just want to understand it for the sake of completeness). Assuming the following code: function TestObject() { this.fA = function() { // do stuff } this.fB = testB; function testB() { // do stuff } } TestObject.prototype = { fC : function { // do stuff } } What is the difference between functions fA and fB? Do they behave exactly the same in scope and potential ability? Is it just convention or is one way technically better or proper? If there is only ever going to be one instance of an object at any given time, would adding a function to the prototype such as fC even be worthwhile? Is there any benefit to doing so? Is the prototype only really useful when dealing with many instances of an object or inheritance? And what is technically the "proper" way to add methods to the prototype the way I have above or calling TestObject.prototype.functionName = function(){} every time? I am looking to keep my JavaScript code as clean and readable as possible but am also very interested in what the proper conventions for Objects are in the language. I come from a Java and PHP background and am trying to not make any assumptions about how JavaScript works since I know it is very different being prototype based. Also are there any definitive JavaScript style guides or documentation about how JavaScript operates at a low level? Thanks!

  Read the article

• FP for simulation and modelling

  - by heaptobesquare

  I'm about to start a simulation/modelling project. I already know that OOP is used for this kind of projects. However, studying Haskell made me consider using the FP paradigm for modelling a system of components. Let me elaborate: Let's say I have a component of type A, characterised by a set of data (a parameter like temperature or pressure,a PDE and some boundary conditions,etc.) and a component of type B, characterised by a different set of data(different or same parameter, different PDE and boundary conditions). Let's also assume that the functions/methods that are going to be applied on each component are the same (a Galerkin method for example). If I were to use an OOP approach, I would create two objects that would encapsulate each type's data, the methods for solving the PDE(inheritance would be used here for code reuse) and the solution to the PDE. On the other hand, if I were to use an FP approach, each component would be broken down to data parts and the functions that would act upon the data in order to get the solution for the PDE. This approach seems simpler to me assuming that linear operations on data would be trivial and that the parameters are constant. What if the parameters are not constant(for example, temperature increases suddenly and therefore cannot be immutable)? In OOP, the object's (mutable) state can be used. I know that Haskell has Monads for that. To conclude, would implementing the FP approach be actually simpler,less time consuming and easier to manage (add a different type of component or new method to solve the pde) compared to the OOP one? I come from a C++/Fortran background, plus I'm not a professional programmer, so correct me on anything that I've got wrong.

  Read the article

• How would you model an objects representing different phases of an entity life cycle?

  - by Ophir Yoktan

  I believe the scenario is common mostly in business workflows - for example: loan management the process starts with a loan application, then there's the loan offer, the 'live' loan, and maybe also finished loans. all these objects are related, and share many fields all these objects have also many fields that are unique for each entity the variety of objects maybe large, and the transformation between the may not be linear (for example: a single loan application may end up as several loans of different types) How would you model this? some options: an entity for each type, each containing the relevant fields (possibly grouping related fields as sub entities) - leads to duplication of data. an entity for each object, but instead of duplicating data, each object has a reference to it's predecessor (the loan doesn't contain the loaner details, but a reference to the loan application) - this causes coupling between the object structure, and the way it was created. if we change the loan application, it shouldn't effect the structure of the loan entity. one large entity, with fields for the whole life cycle - this can create 'mega objects' with many fields. it also doesn't work well when there's a one to many or many to many relation between the phases.

  Read the article

• Combinatorial explosion of interfaces: How many is too many?

  - by mga

  I'm a relative newcomer to OOP, and I'm having a bit of trouble creating good designs when it comes to interfaces. Consider a class A with N public methods. There are a number of other classes, B, C, ..., each of which interacts with A in a different way, that is, accesses some subset (<= N) of A's methods. The maximum degree of encapsulation is achieved by implementing an interface of A for each other class, i.e. AInterfaceForB, AInterfaceForC, etc. However, if B, C, ... etc. also interact with A and with each other, then there will be a combinatorial explosion of interfaces (a maximum of n(n-1), to be precise), and the benefit of encapsulation becomes outweighed by a code-bloat. What is the best practice in this scenario? Is the whole idea of restricting access to a class's public functions in different ways for other different classes just silly altogether? One could imagine a language that explicitly allows for this sort of encapsulation (e.g. instead of declaring a function public, one could specify exactly which classes it is visible to); Since this is not a feature of C++, maybe it's misguided to try to do it through the back door with interaces?

  Read the article

• Is it possible to call an object method this way in C++?

  - by Goose Bumper

  Here's my class definition: class A { public: void do_lengthy_work() { cout << "working." << endl; } }; I have an object of type A, and I want to call do_lengthy_work() on it: A a; a.do_lengthy_work(); Is it also possible to call the same method using some variant of the following? A::do_lengthy_work(a);

  Read the article

• Creating an object that is ready to be used & unset properties - with IoC

  - by GetFuzzy

  I have a question regarding the specifics of object creation and the usage of properties. A best practice is to put all the properties into a state such that the object is useful when its created. Object constructors help ensure that required dependencies are created. I've found myself following a pattern lately, and then questioning its appropriateness. The pattern looks like this... public class ThingProcesser { public List<Thing> CalculatedThings { get; set; } public ThingProcesser() { CalculatedThings = new List<Thing>(); } public double FindCertainThing() { CheckForException(); foreach (var thing in CalculatedThings) { //do some stuff with things... } } public double FindOtherThing() { CheckForException(); foreach (var thing in CalculatedThings) { //do some stuff with things... } } private void CheckForException() { if (CalculatedThings.Count < 2) throw new InvalidOperationException("Calculated things must have more than 2 items"); } } The list of items is not being changed, just looked through by the methods. There are several methods on the class, and to avoid having to pass the list of things to each function as a method parameter, I set it once on the class. While this works, does it violate the principle of least astonishment? Since starting to use IoC I find myself not sticking things into the constructor, to avoid having to use a factory pattern. For example, I can argue with myself and say well the ThingProcessor really needs a List to work, so the object should be constructed like this. public class ThingProcesser { public List<Thing> CalculatedThings { get; set; } public ThingProcesser(List<Thing> calculatedThings) { CalculatedThings = calculatedThings; } } However, if I did this, it would complicate things for IoC, and this scenario hardly seems appropriate for something like the factory pattern. So in summary, are there some good guidelines for when something should be part of the object state, vs. passed as a method parameter? When using IoC, is the factory pattern the best way to deal with objects that need created with state? If something has to be passed to multiple methods in a class, does that render it a good candidate to be part of the objects state?

  Read the article

• Elfsign Object Signing on Solaris

  - by danx

  Elfsign Object Signing on Solaris Don't let this happen to you—use elfsign! Solaris elfsign(1) is a command that signs and verifies ELF format executables. That includes not just executable programs (such as ls or cp), but other ELF format files including libraries (such as libnvpair.so) and kernel modules (such as autofs). Elfsign has been available since Solaris 10 and ELF format files distributed with Solaris, since Solaris 10, are signed by either Sun Microsystems or its successor, Oracle Corporation. When an ELF file is signed, elfsign adds a new section the ELF file, .SUNW_signature, that contains a RSA public key signature and other information about the signer. That is, the algorithm used, algorithm OID, signer CN/OU, and time stamp. The signature section can later be verified by elfsign or other software by matching the signature in the file agains the ELF file contents (excluding the signature). ELF executable files may also be signed by a 3rd-party or by the customer. This is useful for verifying the origin and authenticity of executable files installed on a system. The 3rd-party or customer public key certificate should be installed in /etc/certs/ to allow verification by elfsign. For currently-released versions of Solaris, only cryptographic framework plugin libraries are verified by Solaris. However, all ELF files may be verified by the elfsign command at any time. Elfsign Algorithms Elfsign signatures are created by taking a digest of the ELF section contents, then signing the digest with RSA. To verify, one takes a digest of ELF file and compares with the expected digest that's computed from the signature and RSA public key. Originally elfsign took a MD5 digest of a SHA-1 digest of the ELF file sections, then signed the resulting digest with RSA. In Solaris 11.1 then Solaris 11.1 SRU 7 (5/2013), the elfsign crypto algorithms available have been expanded to keep up with evolving cryptography. The following table shows the available elfsign algorithms: Elfsign Algorithm Solaris Release Comments elfsign sign -F rsa_md5_sha1   S10, S11.0, S11.1 Default for S10. Not recommended* elfsign sign -F rsa_sha1 S11.1 Default for S11.1. Not recommended elfsign sign -F rsa_sha256 S11.1 patch SRU7+   Recommended ___ *Most or all CAs do not accept MD5 CSRs and do not issue MD5 certs due to MD5 hash collision problems. RSA Key Length. I recommend using RSA-2048 key length with elfsign is RSA-2048 as the best balance between a long expected "life time", interoperability, and performance. RSA-2048 keys have an expected lifetime through 2030 (and probably beyond). For details, see Recommendation for Key Management: Part 1: General, NIST Publication SP 800-57 part 1 (rev. 3, 7/2012, PDF), tables 2 and 4 (pp. 64, 67). Step 1: create or obtain a key and cert The first step in using elfsign is to obtain a key and cert from a public Certificate Authority (CA), or create your own self-signed key and cert. I'll briefly explain both methods. Obtaining a Certificate from a CA To obtain a cert from a CA, such as Verisign, Thawte, or Go Daddy (to name a few random examples), you create a private key and a Certificate Signing Request (CSR) file and send it to the CA, following the instructions of the CA on their website. They send back a signed public key certificate. The public key cert, along with the private key you created is used by elfsign to sign an ELF file. The public key cert is distributed with the software and is used by elfsign to verify elfsign signatures in ELF files. You need to request a RSA "Class 3 public key certificate", which is used for servers and software signing. Elfsign uses RSA and we recommend RSA-2048 keys. The private key and CSR can be generated with openssl(1) or pktool(1) on Solaris. Here's a simple example that uses pktool to generate a private RSA_2048 key and a CSR for sending to a CA: $ pktool gencsr keystore=file format=pem outcsr=MYCSR.p10 \ subject="CN=canineswworks.com,OU=Canine SW object signing" \ outkey=MYPRIVATEKEY.key $ openssl rsa -noout -text -in MYPRIVATEKEY.key Private-Key: (2048 bit) modulus: 00:d2:ef:42:f2:0b:8c:96:9f:45:32:fc:fe:54:94: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . c9:c7 publicExponent: 65537 (0x10001) privateExponent: 26:14:fc:49:26:bc:a3:14:ee:31:5e:6b:ac:69:83: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . 81 prime1: 00:f6:b7:52:73:bc:26:57:26:c8:11:eb:6c:dc:cb: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . bc:91:d0:40:d6:9d:ac:b5:69 prime2: 00:da:df:3f:56:b2:18:46:e1:89:5b:6c:f1:1a:41: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . f3:b7:48:de:c3:d9:ce:af:af exponent1: 00:b9:a2:00:11:02:ed:9a:3f:9c:e4:16:ce:c7:67: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . 55:50:25:70:d3:ca:b9:ab:99 exponent2: 00:c8:fc:f5:57:11:98:85:8e:9a:ea:1f:f2:8f:df: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . 23:57:0e:4d:b2:a0:12:d2:f5 coefficient: 2f:60:21:cd:dc:52:76:67:1a:d8:75:3e:7f:b0:64: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . 06:94:56:d8:9d:5c:8e:9b $ openssl req -noout -text -in MYCSR.p10 Certificate Request: Data: Version: 2 (0x2) Subject: OU=Canine SW object signing, CN=canineswworks.com Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption Public-Key: (2048 bit) Modulus: 00:d2:ef:42:f2:0b:8c:96:9f:45:32:fc:fe:54:94: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . c9:c7 Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) Attributes: Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption b3:e8:30:5b:88:37:68:1c:26:6b:45:af:5e:de:ea:60:87:ea: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . 06:f9:ed:b4 Secure storage of RSA private key. The private key needs to be protected if the key signing is used for production (as opposed to just testing). That is, protect the key to protect against unauthorized signatures by others. One method is to use a PIN-protected PKCS#11 keystore. The private key you generate should be stored in a secure manner, such as in a PKCS#11 keystore using pktool(1). Otherwise others can sign your signature. Other secure key storage mechanisms include a SCA-6000 crypto card, a USB thumb drive stored in a locked area, a dedicated server with restricted access, Oracle Key Manager (OKM), or some combination of these. I also recommend secure backup of the private key. Here's an example of generating a private key protected in the PKCS#11 keystore, and a CSR. $ pktool setpin # use if PIN not set yet Enter token passphrase: changeme Create new passphrase: Re-enter new passphrase: Passphrase changed. $ pktool gencsr keystore=pkcs11 label=MYPRIVATEKEY \ format=pem outcsr=MYCSR.p10 \ subject="CN=canineswworks.com,OU=Canine SW object signing" $ pktool list keystore=pkcs11 Enter PIN for Sun Software PKCS#11 softtoken: Found 1 asymmetric public keys. Key #1 - RSA public key: MYPRIVATEKEY Here's another example that uses openssl instead of pktool to generate a private key and CSR: $ openssl genrsa -out cert.key 2048 $ openssl req -new -key cert.key -out MYCSR.p10 Self-Signed Cert You can use openssl or pktool to create a private key and a self-signed public key certificate. A self-signed cert is useful for development, testing, and internal use. The private key created should be stored in a secure manner, as mentioned above. The following example creates a private key, MYSELFSIGNED.key, and a public key cert, MYSELFSIGNED.pem, using pktool and displays the contents with the openssl command. $ pktool gencert keystore=file format=pem serial=0xD06F00D lifetime=20-year \ keytype=rsa hash=sha256 outcert=MYSELFSIGNED.pem outkey=MYSELFSIGNED.key \ subject="O=Canine Software Works, OU=Self-signed CA, CN=canineswworks.com" $ pktool list keystore=file objtype=cert infile=MYSELFSIGNED.pem Found 1 certificates. 1. (X.509 certificate) Filename: MYSELFSIGNED.pem ID: c8:24:59:08:2b:ae:6e:5c:bc:26:bd:ef:0a:9c:54:de:dd:0f:60:46 Subject: O=Canine Software Works, OU=Self-signed CA, CN=canineswworks.com Issuer: O=Canine Software Works, OU=Self-signed CA, CN=canineswworks.com Not Before: Oct 17 23:18:00 2013 GMT Not After: Oct 12 23:18:00 2033 GMT Serial: 0xD06F00D0 Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption $ openssl x509 -noout -text -in MYSELFSIGNED.pem Certificate: Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Serial Number: 3496935632 (0xd06f00d0) Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption Issuer: O=Canine Software Works, OU=Self-signed CA, CN=canineswworks.com Validity Not Before: Oct 17 23:18:00 2013 GMT Not After : Oct 12 23:18:00 2033 GMT Subject: O=Canine Software Works, OU=Self-signed CA, CN=canineswworks.com Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption Public-Key: (2048 bit) Modulus: 00:bb:e8:11:21:d9:4b:88:53:8b:6c:5a:7a:38:8b: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . bf:77 Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption 9e:39:fe:c8:44:5c:87:2c:8f:f4:24:f6:0c:9a:2f:64:84:d1: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . 5f:78:8e:e8 $ openssl rsa -noout -text -in MYSELFSIGNED.key Private-Key: (2048 bit) modulus: 00:bb:e8:11:21:d9:4b:88:53:8b:6c:5a:7a:38:8b: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . bf:77 publicExponent: 65537 (0x10001) privateExponent: 0a:06:0f:23:e7:1b:88:62:2c:85:d3:2d:c1:e6:6e: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . 9c:e1:e0:0a:52:77:29:4a:75:aa:02:d8:af:53:24: c1 prime1: 00:ea:12:02:bb:5a:0f:5a:d8:a9:95:b2:ba:30:15: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . 5b:ca:9c:7c:19:48:77:1e:5d prime2: 00:cd:82:da:84:71:1d:18:52:cb:c6:4d:74:14:be: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . 5f:db:d5:5e:47:89:a7:ef:e3 exponent1: 32:37:62:f6:a6:bf:9c:91:d6:f0:12:c3:f7:04:e9: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . 97:3e:33:31:89:66:64:d1 exponent2: 00:88:a2:e8:90:47:f8:75:34:8f:41:50:3b:ce:93: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . ff:74:d4:be:f3:47:45:bd:cb coefficient: 4d:7c:09:4c:34:73:c4:26:f0:58:f5:e1:45:3c:af: . . . [omitted for brevity] . . . af:01:5f:af:ad:6a:09:bf Step 2: Sign the ELF File object By now you should have your private key, and obtained, by hook or crook, a cert (either from a CA or use one you created (a self-signed cert). The next step is to sign one or more objects with your private key and cert. Here's a simple example that creates an object file, signs, verifies, and lists the contents of the ELF signature. $ echo '#include <stdio.h>\nint main(){printf("Hello\\n");}'>hello.c $ make hello cc -o hello hello.c $ elfsign verify -v -c MYSELFSIGNED.pem -e hello elfsign: no signature found in hello. $ elfsign sign -F rsa_sha256 -v -k MYSELFSIGNED.key -c MYSELFSIGNED.pem -e hello elfsign: hello signed successfully. format: rsa_sha256. signer: O=Canine Software Works, OU=Self-signed CA, CN=canineswworks.com. signed on: October 17, 2013 04:22:49 PM PDT. $ elfsign list -f format -e hello rsa_sha256 $ elfsign list -f signer -e hello O=Canine Software Works, OU=Self-signed CA, CN=canineswworks.com $ elfsign list -f time -e hello October 17, 2013 04:22:49 PM PDT $ elfsign verify -v -c MYSELFSIGNED.key -e hello elfsign: verification of hello failed. format: rsa_sha256. signer: O=Canine Software Works, OU=Self-signed CA, CN=canineswworks.com. signed on: October 17, 2013 04:22:49 PM PDT. Signing using the pkcs11 keystore To sign the ELF file using a private key in the secure pkcs11 keystore, replace "-K MYSELFSIGNED.key" in the "elfsign sign" command line with "-T MYPRIVATEKEY", where MYPRIVATKEY is the pkcs11 token label. Step 3: Install the cert and test on another system Just signing the object isn't enough. You need to copy or install the cert and the signed ELF file(s) on another system to test that the signature is OK. Your public key cert should be installed in /etc/certs. Use elfsign verify to verify the signature. Elfsign verify checks each cert in /etc/certs until it finds one that matches the elfsign signature in the file. If one isn't found, the verification fails. Here's an example: $ su Password: # rm /etc/certs/MYSELFSIGNED.key # cp MYSELFSIGNED.pem /etc/certs # exit $ elfsign verify -v hello elfsign: verification of hello passed. format: rsa_sha256. signer: O=Canine Software Works, OU=Self-signed CA, CN=canineswworks.com. signed on: October 17, 2013 04:24:20 PM PDT. After testing, package your cert along with your ELF object to allow elfsign verification after your cert and object are installed or copied. Under the Hood: elfsign verification Here's the steps taken to verify a ELF file signed with elfsign. The steps to sign the file are similar except the private key exponent is used instead of the public key exponent and the .SUNW_signature section is written to the ELF file instead of being read from the file. Generate a digest (SHA-256) of the ELF file sections. This digest uses all ELF sections loaded in memory, but excludes the ELF header, the .SUNW_signature section, and the symbol table Extract the RSA signature (RSA-2048) from the .SUNW_signature section Extract the RSA public key modulus and public key exponent (65537) from the public key cert Calculate the expected digest as follows:     signaturepublicKeyExponent % publicKeyModulus Strip the PKCS#1 padding (most significant bytes) from the above. The padding is 0x00, 0x01, 0xff, 0xff, . . ., 0xff, 0x00. If the actual digest == expected digest, the ELF file is verified (OK). Further Information elfsign(1), pktool(1), and openssl(1) man pages. "Signed Solaris 10 Binaries?" blog by Darren Moffat (2005) shows how to use elfsign. "Simple CLI based CA on Solaris" blog by Darren Moffat (2008) shows how to set up a simple CA for use with self-signed certificates. "How to Create a Certificate by Using the pktool gencert Command" System Administration Guide: Security Services (available at docs.oracle.com)

  Read the article

• Best Method of function parameter validation

  - by Aglystas

  I've been dabbling with the idea of creating my own CMS for the experience and because it would be fun to run my website off my own code base. One of the decisions I keep coming back to is how best to validate incoming parameters for functions. This is mostly in reference to simple data types since object validation would be quite a bit more complex. At first I debated creating a naming convention that would contain information about what the parameters should be, (int, string, bool, etc) then I also figured I could create options to validate against. But then in every function I still need to run some sort of parameter validation that parses the parameter name to determine what the value can be then validate against it, granted this would be handled by passing the list of parameters to function but that still needs to happen and one of my goals is to remove the parameter validation from the function itself so that you can only have the actual function code that accomplishes the intended task without the additional code for validation. Is there any good way of handling this, or is it so low level that typically parameter validation is just done at the start of the function call anyway, so I should stick with doing that.

  Read the article

• Class design issue

  - by user2865206

  I'm new to OOP and a lot of times I become stumped in situations similar to this example: Task: Generate an XML document that contains information about a person. Assume the information is readily available in a database. Here is an example of the structure: <Person> <Name>John Doe</Name> <Age>21</Age> <Address> <Street>100 Main St.</Street> <City>Sylvania</City> <State>OH</State> </Address> <Relatives> <Parents> <Mother> <Name>Jane Doe</Name> </Mother> <Father> <Name>John Doe Sr.</Name> </Father> </Parents> <Siblings> <Brother> <Name>Jeff Doe</Name> </Brother> <Brother> <Name>Steven Doe</Name> </Brother> </Siblings> </Relatives> </Person> Ok lets create a class for each tag (ie: Person, Name, Age, Address) Lets assume each class is only responsible for itself and the elements directly contained Each class will know (have defined by default) the classes that are directly contained within them Each class will have a process() function that will add itself and its childeren to the XML document we are creating When a child is drawn, as in the previous line, we will have them call process() as well Now we are in a recursive loop where each object draws their childeren until all are drawn But what if only some of the tags need to be drawn, and the rest are optional? Some are optional based on if the data exists (if we have it, we must draw it), and some are optional based on the preferences of the user generating the document How do we make sure each object has the data it needs to draw itself and it's childeren? We can pass down a massive array through every object, but that seems shitty doesnt it? We could have each object query the database for it, but thats a lot of queries, and how does it know what it's query is? What if we want to get rid of a tag later? There is no way to reference them. I've been thinking about this for 20 hours now. I feel like I am misunderstanding a design principle or am just approaching this all wrong. How would you go about programming something like this? I suppose this problem could apply to any senario where there are classes that create other classes, but the classes created need information to run. How do I get the information to them in a way that doesn't seem fucky? Thanks for all of your time, this has been kicking my ass.

  Read the article

• Debugging methods for Windows XP hangups

  - by Cooper

  I experience occasional 'freezes' on my desktop machine (Windows XP SP3). I've tried the normal debugging methods I know (watching Process Explorer, running ProcMon (hard to get a good trace because the hangups are so intermittent). Are there any additional system debugging methods that might be useful in discovering what would cause these hang ups? While this question is more about debugging methods than the actual issue itself (which is probably more of a superuser question), the symptoms of the hangup are: All windows become non-responding. Can be brought the foreground, but do not repaint. Taskbar/explorer windows are non-responsive Ctrl+Alt+Del, Ctrl+Shift+Esc, Win+L, do not do anything (though the actions are queued up, and when the system unhangs, they are performed) Oddly enough, usually I can still scroll through the current page I have open in Google Chrome, but I cannot change tabs. Hangup can happen when I have tons of apps open, but also when I only have Outlook, Chrome, and MS Communicator (plus all the corporate spyware). Usually the hang lasts between 30sec and 3 minutes or so. After which I can continue working as usual.

  Read the article

• Lifetime issue of IDisposable unmanaged resources in a complex object graph?

  - by stakx

  This question is about dealing with unmanaged resources (COM interop) and making sure there won't be any resource leaks. I'd appreciate feedback on whether I seem to do things the right way. Background: Let's say I've got two classes: A class LimitedComResource which is a wrapper around a COM object (received via some API). There can only be a limited number of those COM objects, therefore my class implements the IDisposable interface which will be responsible for releasing a COM object when it's no longer needed. Objects of another type ManagedObject are temporarily created to perform some work on a LimitedComResource. They are not IDisposable. To summarize the above in a diagram, my classes might look like this: +---------------+ +--------------------+ | ManagedObject | <>------> | LimitedComResource | +---------------+ +--------------------+ | o IDisposable (I'll provide example code for these two classes in just a moment.) Question: Since my temporary ManagedObject objects are not disposable, I obviously have no control over how long they'll be around. However, in the meantime I might have Disposed the LimitedComObject that a ManagedObject is referring to. How can I make sure that a ManagedObject won't access a LimitedComResource that's no longer there? +---------------+ +--------------------+ | managedObject | <>------> | (dead object) | +---------------+ +--------------------+ I've currently implemented this with a mix of weak references and a flag in LimitedResource which signals whether an object has already been disposed. Is there any better way? Example code (what I've currently got): LimitedComResource: class LimitedComResource : IDisposable { private readonly IUnknown comObject; // <-- set in constructor ... void Dispose(bool notFromFinalizer) { if (!this.isDisposed) { Marshal.FinalReleaseComObject(comObject); } this.isDisposed = true; } internal bool isDisposed = false; } ManagedObject: class ManagedObject { private readonly WeakReference limitedComResource; // <-- set in constructor ... public void DoSomeWork() { if (!limitedComResource.IsAlive()) { throw new ObjectDisposedException(); // ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ // is there a more suitable exception class? } var ur = (LimitedComResource)limitedComResource.Target; if (ur.isDisposed) { throw new ObjectDisposedException(); } ... // <-- do something sensible here! } }

  Read the article

• What makes the availability of both primitive and object-wrapped values in JavaScript useful?

  - by Delan Azabani

  I wrote a blog post a while ago detailing how the availability of both primitive and object-wrapped value types in JavaScript (for things such as Number, String and Boolean) causes trouble, including but not limited to type-casting to a boolean (e.g. object-wrapped NaN, "" and false actually type-cast to true). My question is, with all this confusion and problems, is there any benefit to JavaScript having both types of values for the built-in classes?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >