|
I browse with javascript enabled, but I disable cookies for all sites, on a prompt basis, then allow cookies for sites I trust, e.g. codeprojet.
I also clear all cookies every week or so.
This is less to do with security than invasion of provacy. It is very interesting to find out how many cookies sites want to create. Most sites work well with cookies disabled.
The main problem is every time I clear the cookes, i have to log back into some sites.
Being in a minority of one, doesn't make you insane
George Orwell
However, in my case it does
|
|
|
|
|
 Hello All,
I am trying to make a photo gallery fo rmy website. I want to upload images to a directory on the server and resize the image and bring down it's size. I can upload the image but when I try to resize it, I get an error.
Here is the code
Sub resizeImage(ByVal imagePath As String)
Dim originalImage As System.Drawing.Image = System.Drawing.Image.FromFile(imagePath)
'Create bitmap and graphics objects for the new image
Dim thumb As Bitmap = New Bitmap(imagePath)
Dim g As Graphics = Graphics.FromImage(thumb)
'set graphics parameters to optimize thumbnail image
g.CompositingMode = CompositingMode.SourceOver
g.CompositingQuality = CompositingQuality.HighQuality
g.InterpolationMode = InterpolationMode.HighQualityBicubic
g.SmoothingMode = SmoothingMode.HighQuality
g.PixelOffsetMode = PixelOffsetMode.HighQuality
'Transform image to new size and save thumbnail
g.DrawImage(originalImage, 0, 0, 400, 300)
thumb.Save("SmallImage", originalImage.RawFormat)
End Sub
I get this error.
Security Exception
Description: The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy. To grant this application the required permission please contact your system administrator or change the application's trust level in the configuration file.
Exception Details: System.Security.SecurityException: Request for the permission of type 'System.Security.Permissions.FileIOPermission, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' failed.
Source Error:
Line 91: 'Transform image to new size and save thumbnail
Line 92: g.DrawImage(originalImage, 0, 0, 400, 300)
Line 93: thumb.Save("SmallImage", originalImage.RawFormat)
Line 94: End Sub
Line 95:
Can anyone help.
Almerica
|
|
|
|
|
|
With FF I limit some Javascript functionalities. I would also recommend the FF's extension "Controle de Scripts"[^] to better tune this.
FF rules! 
It is easier to make war than to make peace.
Fold with us! ¤ flickr
|
|
|
|
|
We all already know most browsers have Javascript enabled (absolutely necessary).
The truth is that Javascript was not developed by Microsoft, nor was AJAX, PHP and many more
interesting technologies.
Things have changed quite a lot now, everything is internet based. I think "Windows-only" (Visual Basic Script...) technologies have no future at all. Many (most) web servers run on Linux/Unix, so any propietary technology only limit the web-audience. (This is the problem of many ASP webs).
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Jim wrote: so any propietary technology only limit the web-audience. (This is the problem of many ASP webs).
Only if it's client-based, which ASP is not.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
One of the most ignorant opinions I've read recently. You just missed Microsoft - it should be M$ in statements like this to complete the picture.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Jim wrote: Many (most) web servers run on Linux/Unix
you sure about that?
...yeah, i heard you.
|
|
|
|
|
WinxGuru wrote: you sure about that?
Yes and this is pretty common knowledge. Clickety[^]
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I havent seen much "OS" reports, but the reports I've read on web server technology puts the typically linux based technologies in the majority (thats not to say that all apache install's run on linux).
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/index.html
across all domains:
72.95% apache
21.17% microsoft
top 5 domains:
.com - (70.27% apache) (24.20% microsoft)
.de - (92.64% apache) (5.22% microsoft)
.net - (76.35% apache) (18.22% microsoft)
.org - (73.21% apache) (22.41% microsoft)
.uk - (69.10% apache) (23.91% microsoft)
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
What was even more suprizing to me is that parts microsoft.com run on apache (at least they used to).
John
|
|
|
|
|
Curious, I thought Microsoft was the first to implement the xmlhttp control..?
Formation Technology
http://www.formation.com.au/
-- modified at 19:18 Wednesday 21st June, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Jim wrote: The truth is that Javascript was not developed by Microsoft, nor was AJAX, PHP and many more
interesting technologies.
XmlHttpRequest - the primary communication method for AJAX - was developed by MS, and MS's ASP.NET is more interesting than PHP IMO.
Jim Jim wrote: I think "Windows-only" (Visual Basic Script...) technologies have no future at all.
VBScript is pretty much dead - but ASP.NET and Atlas live on.
Jim Jim wrote: Many (most) web servers run on Linux/Unix, so any propietary technology only limit the web-audience.
Windows servers are very prevalent in the webserver arena today, and ASP.NET runs on Linux+Apache.
|
|
|
|
|
I fail to see how xhtmlhttprequest has anything to do with asp.net or php. as a client side convention I'd think it has more to do w/ client web browsers.
20% hardly seems like a prevalent percentage.
I use and love .net, but loath its implementation as a web technology.
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
MadHatter ¢ wrote: but loath its implementation as a web technology
Would you care to elaborate on why that is?
Ðavid Wulff
Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"If some individuals commit an act that is contrary to what their religion tells them to do, then the religion isn't violent... the individuals are." - espeir.
|
|
|
|
|
1. forms
2. unweildy architecture
I do asp.net for a living. I dont enjoy that aspect of my job, but my employer tries as hard as they can to keep me away from it.
microsoft has tried to put an object oriented, event driven facade on a technology to which it just doesnt stick (--my opinion).
If you look strictly at the way people use the web, it has the most simple of use case. the user sees a link they want to follow and they click. a request is made, processed, and a document is served to the client. its a 3 step process. we've added a ton of processing on both sides of the web page. asp.net adds even more "processing" on both ends where IMO it doesnt need to.
1. forms... the bain of my existance. everything aspx starts off as a form. this is a personal inconsequental complaint. I'm a tabbed browser. I cant open a javascript link up in a new window. now how's fault is that? mine, for wanting to open the link in a new tab? microsoft's for defaulting everything to a form post? mozilla's for not being able to transfer my current setup into another page so I can click and have the browser preform the action in another window? I'm not pointing blame, I'm just saying this bugs me to no end.
2. an unweildy architecture.
when you're designing a technology you have to consider everything before you make decisions. 3 of the factors MS had to have taken into consideration when they planned the system the way they did was:
1. can we get real programmers (jab. poke. wink.) to use it? they wanted the user experience of web development to be similar to windows development, so desktop developers would try to use it.
2. can we get existing web developers not to snub it like they did front page? and
3. can we integrate this expensive framework we spent so much time and effort building to drive the server side processing?
I have no problems using C# as my server side technology. actually I'd prefer it. they did an excellent job with webservices (which I do both in C# and PHP, and like C# better). but to make a big bastardized progeny of html / xml and standard "coding" (hello coldfusion for .net) resulted in this big ugly mess we call asp (--my opinion).
they could have very easily built a web based technology which was built around the DOM like winforms is built around Win32.
but they didnt.
instead they decided to build their technology around their concept of a page. lets store massive amounts of stateful data in it (for added bloat), make everything post back to the webserver (so we can overload the server & track pointless stateful client data), which makes java script a requirement (to post things back so they can look like an event), and make everyone think they're doing something "different" when all they're doing is the same old thing, its just that they're doing it somewhere where the developer doesnt see it.
events... yea not really. lets fire our web "event" in an odd sequence so we loose the page state data that got sent into the event when the page reloads.
you can implement custom themes in pure css. but wait, you cant build a technology upon that because you're own browser product doesnt fully support it, so they added their own "theme" technology that makes use of what css IE does support, and adds everything else by hand so it looks right in IE.
the designers of asp.net werent the idiots that asp.net makes them look like. I think they had a hard set of criteria (some that they shouldnt have had), and what was the most feasible from every aspect is what we ended up with (not that its the best implementation).
I use asp.net professionally, but refuse to touch it for personal stuff. I'd use .net's webservices in a heartbeat.
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
You don't have to use any of the controls in ASP.NET, and if you don't, the 'extra' serverside processing is minimal. You can write all your HTML output code in C#, either in the codebehind class, or in the page template within <% %> blocks. If you don't want any of the Page stuff at all, it is trivial to write your own HttpHandler and write your code in that.
MadHatter ¢ wrote: I'm a tabbed browser. I cant open a javascript link up in a new window. now how's fault is that?
That is something that irks me sometimes as well. But it is definitely quite possible to do a classic-style form POST in ASP.net, or have a simple link to transfer to another page.
MadHatter ¢ wrote: you can implement custom themes in pure css. but wait, you cant build a technology upon that because you're own browser product doesnt fully support it, so they added their own "theme" technology that makes use of what css IE does support, and adds everything else by hand so it looks right in IE.
I don't like this either - but there's no requirement to use it - so I don't. 
|
|
|
|
|
J. Dunlap wrote: You don't have to use any of the controls in ASP.NET, and if you don't, the 'extra' serverside processing is minimal. You can write all your HTML output code in C#, either in the codebehind class, or in the page template within <% %> blocks. If you don't want any of the Page stuff at all, it is trivial to write your own HttpHandler and write your code in that.
a saving grace IMO.
with the ability to take false path urls (searchable url's) which point to a file that doesnt actually exist, it makes no sense to write "pages" at all. why have an physical endpoint (page) if all you're going to do is do a "specific task" with it? an application with an entry point that takes all the data (path, get, post & other stuff available to it) and processes the request based on that seems more like "typical" application development. being able to serve a page w/ out having written it (dynamic controls the whle point of having a dynamic page creation engine) just makes me wonder why we continue to base our web development on the concept that we're making pages that are dynamic. the handler is a great solution for that type of thing. that takes away the pretty "designer" that everybody uses though  .
I'm not saying that would be the best way of doing things (after all, there is already a system that works here). just my druthers.
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
My impression from reading, and thinking about, what you have listed as negative points leads me to the conclusion that although you may be using ASP.NET professionally, you are not really using it effectively. There was not a single point in your explanation that could not be changed or used in a different way. That is why ASP.NET is so perfect for web development - it gives you the means to work at any level within an application - from the page as a single logicial entity right up to the bytes that are sent back and forth.
If you don't want javascript links then don't use postbacks on links. That is an application design issue not a framework one. It is down to you as the developer to implement user interface standards in your applications. Javascript links should only be used where it is logical to use them (for example, a calandar).
Unweildly page state? Then use common sense when deciding what state actually needs to be transfered. Ususually it is very little - 90% plus of the applications I've released over the past six years don't transfer any. It's a design decision you need to make when planning the application.
Regarding X/HTML and its relationship with the framework, you have to allow for this if you want an OO approach to web development. In my opinion OO is perfectly suited for web development rather than at odds with it - everything from the client end up is logically repsentable as objects. By giving us the ability to represent them the framework lets us cleanly code for and extend them as logical objects, rather than the procedural mess that we have had previously (or the limitations that the CF component model gives us). Having to thnk a bit harder when working with it is a small tradeoff for the potential it grants you.
Javascript is not a requirement for ASP.NET applications. It makes them considerably easier to develop, without doubt, but there is nothing stopping you from using other methods. This is probably even easier to do if you have come from or continue to build applications with other technologies.
Events on the server side are events. Events on the client side are triggers for events on the server side. With regards to firing events in an odd sequence that loses state, you are either listening for the wrong events or you are doing something wrong if you are handling state yourself.
Themes in ASP.NET are and always will be just a layman's addon for web design. They were put in to satisfy the considerable number of developers who don't know, or want to know, how to do things any better. We don't have to use them (I don't, and it sounds like you don't either).
You mention "they could have very easily built a web based technology which was built around the DOM like winforms is built around Win32", but I can't see the difference between the ASP.NET model and the WinForm model? They both approach their end targets in the same fashion.
Ðavid Wulff
Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"If some individuals commit an act that is contrary to what their religion tells them to do, then the religion isn't violent... the individuals are." - espeir.
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote: My impression from reading, and thinking about, what you have listed as negative points leads me to the conclusion that although you may be using ASP.NET professionally, you are not really using it effectively
I can effectively use a wrench to hammer in a nail to hang a picture of my son. that doesnt mean that the wrench is a good implementation of a hammer. thats all I was (albeit poorly) trying to say.
David Wulff wrote: You mention "they could have very easily built a web based technology which was built around the DOM like winforms is built around Win32", but I can't see the difference between the ASP.NET model and the WinForm model?
I dont see how System.Web.UI.Page was built around the DOM[^]. System.Web.UI.Page uses xml fragments to "render" "what" it is to a document instead of "being" an html document.
I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking (I try to stay silent on my opinions because I know this is a "religious" like topic, and folks have passionate feelings about it, which I'm not trying to change). I tend to go on rants about one thing or another (which is kind of what I did), but the bottom line is, I think they did a bad job at defining how how dynamic html works, and trying to make a document into something its not... which is a good asynchronous client server platform. an embeddable activeX or applet IMO is the better solution to what they're trying to get folks to do with html.
asp.nets strength is not in its implementation of the dom. its not in its compatibility with other technologies (though it is pretty good in some aspects). its strength is in being able to make people money. its a "system" that allows people to do large scale "web apps" quickly and consistently. like anything else you can do it the best it will allow you to do it, or you can do it poorly (http://usa.asus.com for instance). it pays my bills. that doesnt mean that I think they did as good a job at designing it as they did with their win32 implementation. in the end they could have done something that looks and feels just like what we have now, but they didnt, and they won't, and thats just the way it is.
if I was a highly paid architect, designing a web technology, I'd have started off with something that looked like an XmlDocument, and gone from there. made it real easy to change out a node, which would allow for additions and deletions of "controls" just like windows forms do, and when the page was sent out, all it would need to do was deserialize itself using normal xml serialization, which would end up being an html page. I would have called "events" operations, and sent that info as get parameters instead of post backs. I wouldnt have provided a bloated state system that a lot of folks abuse. and in the end, I'm sure I'd have designed something that nobody but myself would have used.
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Jim wrote: It seems Microsoft's shadow is often behind these "innocent" surveys...
Really? I love a good conspiracy theory. Care to fill me in...?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Jim wrote: The truth is that Javascript was not developed by Microsoft, nor was AJAX, PHP and many more
interesting technologies.
The fact is that M$ did develop AJAX, or at least long before XMLHTTP was called AJAX it was developed to allow the exchange team to build Outlook Web Access.
I hate this type of discussion where fanatics let loose non sensical dribble instead of discussing the merits on fact of a particular technology or issue. In any case as a developer of solutions to my clients I don't give a rats ass who developed what technology, in the end if it is going to be better for me to use that technology, for whatever reason then that is what I will do.
Makes me think of religious fanatics. No matter what the issue, they will strap a whole bunch of explosives on their bodies and blow themselves up rather than listen to and discuss different views. 
-----------------------------------
Just another rocket scientist, NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
mwdiablo wrote: I hate this type of discussion where fanatics...
Come on man! this is only a sane discussion forum, it was only my opinion.
mwdiablo wrote: Makes me think of religious fanatics.
Are you ok? Your comments are a bit exaggerated.. This has nothing to do with religion. (...I'm agnostic  ).
mwdiablo wrote: they will strap a whole bunch of explosives on their bodies and blow themselves up rather than listen
??? ...
mwdiablo wrote: Just another rocket scientist, NOT!
Seriously, just quiet yourself. Don't waste your breath, using big words needlessly makes you seem stupider, do yourself a huge favor and please make an appointment with a psychiatrist! 
|
|
|
|
|
I use Firefox and NoScripts Plugin on SuSe 10.1, and give permissions to sites selectively when needed. The result is I not need a pop-up blocker, spam killer and anti-virus, without which I can't live on windows in wlan based internet network. I don't face any problems with JS disabled
http://www.priyank.in/
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
