Search Results

Search found 11 results on 1 pages for 'tags2k'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • "Server Unavailable" and removed permissions on .NET sites after Windows Update

    - by tags2k
    Our company has five almost identical Windows 2003 servers with the same host, and all but one performed an automatic Windows Update last night without issue. The one that had problems, of course, was the one which hosts the majority of our sites. What the update appeared to do was cause the NETWORK user to stop having access to the .NET Framework 2.0 files, as the event log was complaining about not being able to open System.Web. This resulted in every .NET site on the server returning "Server Unavailable" as the App Domains failed to be initialise. I ran aspnet_regiis which didn't appear to fix the problem, so I ran FileMon which revealed that nobody but the Administrators group had access to any files in any of the website folders! After resetting the permissions, things appear to be fine. I was wondering if anyone had an idea of what could have caused this to go wrong? As I say, the four other servers updated without a problem. Are there any known issues involved with any of the following updates? My major suspect at the moment is the 3.5 update as all of the sites on the server are running in 3.5. Windows Server 2003 Update Rollup for ActiveX Killbits for Windows Server 2003 (KB960715) Windows Server 2003 Security Update for Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Server 2003 (KB960714) Windows Server 2003 Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update (KB959209) x86 Windows Server 2003 Security Update for Windows Server 2003 (KB958687) Thanks for any light you can shed on this.

    Read the article

  • "Server Unavailable" and removed permissions on .NET sites after Windows Update

    - by tags2k
    Our company has five almost identical Windows 2003 servers with the same host, and all but one performed an automatic Windows Update last night without issue. The one that had problems, of course, was the one which hosts the majority of our sites. What the update appeared to do was cause the NETWORK user to stop having access to the .NET Framework 2.0 files, as the event log was complaining about not being able to open System.Web. This resulted in every .NET site on the server returning "Server Unavailable" as the App Domains failed to be initialise. I ran aspnet_regiis which didn't appear to fix the problem, so I ran FileMon which revealed that nobody but the Administrators group had access to any files in any of the website folders! After resetting the permissions, things appear to be fine. I was wondering if anyone had an idea of what could have caused this to go wrong? As I say, the four other servers updated without a problem. Are there any known issues involved with any of the following updates? My major suspect at the moment is the 3.5 update as all of the sites on the server are running in 3.5. Windows Server 2003 Update Rollup for ActiveX Killbits for Windows Server 2003 (KB960715) Windows Server 2003 Security Update for Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Server 2003 (KB960714) Windows Server 2003 Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update (KB959209) x86 Windows Server 2003 Security Update for Windows Server 2003 (KB958687) Thanks for any light you can shed on this.

    Read the article

  • Using Linq to concatenate strings

    - by tags2k
    What is the most efficient way to write the old-school: StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); if (strings.Count > 0) { foreach (string s in strings) { sb.Append(s + ", "); } sb.Remove(sb.Length - 2, 2); } return sb.ToString(); ...in Linq?

    Read the article

  • Assembly unavailable after Web.config change

    - by tags2k
    I'm using a custom framework that uses reflection to do a GetTypeByName(string fullName) on the fully-qualified type name that it gets from the database, to create an instance of said type and add it to the page, resulting in a standard modular kind of thing. GetTypeByName is a utility function of mine that simply iterates through Thread.GetDomain().GetAssemblies(), then performs an assembly.GetType(fullName) to find the relevant type. Obviously this result gets cached for future reference and speed. However, I'm experiencing some issues whereby if the web.config gets updated (and, in some scarier instances if the application pool gets recycled) then it will lose all knowledge of certain assemblies, resulting in the inability to render an instance of the module type. Debugging shows that the missing assembly literally does not exist in the current thread assemblies list. To get around this I added a second check which is a bit dirty but recurses through the /bin/ directory's DLLs and checks that each one exists in the assemblies list. If it doesn't, it loads it using Assembly.Load and fixing the context issue thanks to 'Solving the Assembly Load Context Problem'. This would work, only it seems that (and I'm aware this shouldn't be possible) some projects still have access to the missing assembly, for example my actual web project rather than the framework itself - and it then complains that duplicate references have been added! Has anyone ever heard of anything like this, or have any ideas why an assembly would simply drop out of existence on a config change? Short of a solution, what is the most elegant workaround to get all the assemblies in the bin to reload? It needs to be all in one "hit" so that the site visitors don't see any difference other than a small delay, so an app_offline.htm file is out of the question. Programatically renaming a DLL in the bin and then naming it back does work, but requires "modify" permissions for the IIS user account, which is insane. Thanks for any pointers the community can gather!

    Read the article

  • Direct web URL to PayPal transaction

    - by tags2k
    Having implemented PayPal's Website Payments Standard, I'd like to link to the details view of a transaction from my site's back end - just a simple direct web URL to the PayPal side. I don't know why this is tricky but when I try to get it from being logged in to the PayPal system it seems very obfuscated, in this form: history.paypal.com/uk/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_history-details&info=[looks like some kind of GUID]&ptype=4&history_cache=[huge encoded string] I'm guessing it's by design but it's not very helpful if you want a quick way to jump to a transaction's details. I've tried the https://www.paypal.com/vst/id=1234 form (also with co.uk as I am UK-based) recommended on a few sites I saw in my search, but I am told that: The transaction ID in your link is invalid. This happens even when copying the transaction ID directly from PayPal's back-end order listing. Is there a reliable way to directly link to an order / transaction details page in PayPal?

    Read the article

  • "Most popular" GROUP BY in LINQ?

    - by tags2k
    Assuming a table of tags like the stackoverflow question tags: TagID (bigint), QuestionID (bigint), Tag (varchar) What is the most efficient way to get the 25 most used tags using LINQ? In SQL, a simple GROUP BY will do: SELECT Tag, COUNT(Tag) FROM Tags GROUP BY Tag I've written some LINQ that works: var groups = from t in DataContext.Tags group t by t.Tag into g select new { Tag = g.Key, Frequency = g.Count() }; return groups.OrderByDescending(g => g.Frequency).Take(25); Like, really? Isn't this mega-verbose? The sad thing is that I'm doing this to save a massive number of queries, as my Tag objects already contain a Frequency property that would otherwise need to check back with the database for every Tag if I actually used the property. So I then parse these anonymous types back into Tag objects: groups.OrderByDescending(g => g.Frequency).Take(25).ToList().ForEach(t => tags.Add(new Tag() { Tag = t.Tag, Frequency = t.Frequency })); I'm a LINQ newbie, and this doesn't seem right. Please show me how it's really done.

    Read the article

  • Has Google introduced a system that allows multiple "keyword-only" domains per site?

    - by tags2k
    I've been told by a client that "a friend" told them that as of January 2010, Google allows multiple domain names that have keywords in them to be associated with a single site. To be honest this sounds rather April-foolish but I'm not sure when his "friend" told him so for the time being I have to take it at face value. I've heard nothing of this and have searched for such a thing this morning, to find nothing but warnings against this practice. Said client seems keen on buying up lots of domains today, so before he insists upon it I just want to be absolutely sure - has Google silently introduced such an allowance, or is there something else they introduced earlier this year that he could be getting confused with? Thanks for any light you can shine on this!

    Read the article

1