An SSL certificate will usually have the "key usage" restricted to "server authentication" (and possibly "client authentication"). That means you can't use it for code-signing, email protection, time-stamping or OCSP signing.
In theory a SSL certificate can be used to digitally sign files/code, however it depends on the properties of that SSL certificate...
The SSL have to have keyUsage.digitalSignature flag to set to use it for file signing, and extendedKeyUsage.codeSigning for code signing...
As you bought the SSL for web site (probably via your host) you will not have these flags set...
You may ask to extend the certificate or get a new one for file/code signing...
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
It's a lot of verbose HTML to write...
(not to mention the need to write unique id by hand)
Really what I would like to, is torture KnockoutJS[^] or VueJS[^] (please, no AngularJS... unless you have a fully working sample! ) so that I can create some sort of component that I can initialize like that (i.e. data binding optional! i.e. not mandatory! inline html in my sample!)
then put those header/content template somewhere else....
then make sure somehow, that the argument interface is easy to guess / know (for my future self) (maybe WebComponent + TypeScipt can help? such as with my Knockout Grid[^]?)
While acceptable... it's a little cumbersome...
my challenge today was to improve those tools, to implement an elegant (and NOT particularly data bound) declarative markup like:
I got it working! yoohoo!
I still dunno how I could create such component in a stream lined fashion... That is the question I would like to resolve!
But KnockoutJS templating is NOT the way to implement this elegant markup syntax!
I've converted to writing all of my applications for my company as web applications because:
1) Much easier to deploy. (Just update the website)
2) Works out better for remote users
3) More secure. If a laptop is stolen, lost or employee is terminated, their network access is denied so they can no longer access corporate data.
I'm sure there are other "pros" you can think of ...
Regarding developing "rich" user experience, have you considered using 3rd party controls ?
I have been using WinForms controls from Developer Express for the past 6 years and found that their products and support are excellent.
I have attended 2 of their Road Shows and met with their engineers and they are very friendly and helpful.
I don't want to violate and posting rules and I do not work for DevExpress, but I do highly recommend looking into their tools.
Here is an argument from the other side - I prefer desktop applications.
I took our organisation to Silverlight because the result was almost as rich as winforms which we were using. This was a brilliant move right up till Microsoft killed Silverlight. Do NOT get me started on that decision!
Since then we have had a senior dev trying to duplicate the functionality of one of our apps using MVC/SP and Telerik controls. He is failing.
He is also of the opinion that development time will be at least double using the current web stack (we have excellent Silverlight skills that transfer directly to WPF).
Web deployment is simpler and if you have remote or international users it makes sense to use a web platform but for local, internal apps I would use desktop and clickonce.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
Thanks for your reply. Very interesting to hear, because from some idealistic point of view I can understand that people can say that web is better, but in my experience comparing asp webforms and mvc compared to wpf, is that you can just do things so much more easily with wpf and have no irritations to deal with. Also, I've considered, how about having a shared code base, then you can create an application with wpf, make a win 8 version of it and a phone version of it (but sadly not many smart phones are windows ones).
I believe this can work if you use JSon as your data format from the service. Also I would us an MVC dataservice rather than a WCF, your mobile platforms may balk at talking to a WCF whereas OData is more acceptable.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
Hi Guys any help on this? I have a dialog box triggered by a button click that calls my php script to generate a form which needs to be filled and submitted. I want to do the sending and conformation via Ajax. I have been recoding and researching for a few days but nothing on StackExchange or other websites help me with it. Here's the code:
Dialog box snippet;
var Call = $k('#CreateTable').attr('value');//.attr('id');
For some reason its not working nothing showing up in the console as well. again: i have a dialog box that gets populated via Ajax with a php generated from that needs to get submitted to another php script that is to process it and reply to the dialogs. Any suggestions?
I have been delving into web development quite heavily recently. I have searched all over the internet for what is the best framework to use. I know that what would be considered the "best" can be affected by what I want to do, specifically.
I want to create websites that are easily to update (minimal code changes), looks great, and is relatively easy to code with. It's basic desires that any website should need at least sometime.
Based on what my desire is, what would be the best framework (if that's even the right term for this) to learn and use?
Would I be better off using Microsoft Visual Studio to code in as well using Microsoft specific frameworks like MVC, or would a open source provide better and more functionality?
I know many beginning web developers would benefit from this as well.
There really is no answer. What might be easy to learn for one may not be for another. If you already have some experience in web development and you can do what you need to do in that language you already know, stick with that.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 5-Aug-21 13:11