|
How about encrypting the data before sending it ?
|
|
|
|
|
I did so.
Basically my concern is security. I want to be completely sure that the data is safe.
So that is why i would like to know if it is a good idea to combine both ssl and ssh.
Thanks for replying so fast...
Luis
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have much idea on using SSL on windows applications. We ensured the security by implementing encryption to data. Till now no issues happened. So I felt that's secure. SSL also doing the same job, by encrypting data.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks again for replying,
I think i am so concerned about security because i am newbie to the C# world and this application is my final step to graduate from the university and i want it to be perfect but there is still a lot to learn: SQL management from the server, client Authentification, data display on a website, reading a fingerprint reader from the client and so much more, that i just can't sleep.
So you think that just encrypting the data would be ok?
By the way let me ask this: I want to stop windows from executing any process but one service that i will develop to read the fingerprint reader and validate an user, once the verification process is completed i want to run an application only but then block it again, is there a way to do that?
If you want me i can give you the link of a few good SSL libraries for C# and Visual Basic.
Regards,
Luis
|
|
|
|
|
kingletas wrote: So you think that just encrypting the data would be ok?
I felt it will be ok.
kingletas wrote: I want to stop windows from executing any process but one service that i will develop to read the fingerprint reader and validate an user, once the verification process is completed i want to run an application only but then block it again, is there a way to do that?
Sorry I don't have much idea on this
|
|
|
|
|
I sure appreciate your help and i do thank you again.
And please allow me to ask you two more things:
Are you aware if there is or are any libraries or examples of SSL for the pocket pc? And where could i find information about remote control applications?
I want to write a few applications for my personal use and i would like to validate websites url before accesing them or sending any info.
I don't know if you have heard of it but Comodo has some sort of websites validator to prevent from phishin' and i would like to do something similar for the pocket pc.
Thanks once more for all your help,
Regards,
Luis E Tineo S
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, My knowledge is 0 in pocket pc's
|
|
|
|
|
How can I reallocate the memory for arrays. In VB I can use ReDim. The same way, is there any equal keyword in C#?
Regards,
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
string[] a;<br />
int i =10;<br />
a = new string[i];
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Thanks to reply.
The statment a=new string[i] will destroy the old values in the variable 'a'. How can I re assign memory without loosing the old memory locations?
Regards,
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
ReDim Preserve can be achieved in C# using Arry.Copy method.
Such as –
int[] i = new int[5];
i[0] = 2;
int[] temp = new int[10];
Array.Copy(i, temp, Math.Min(i.Length, temp.Length));
i = temp;
-------------------------------------------
I hope this helps .
-Dave.
Dave Traister,
ComponentOne LLC.
www.componentone.com
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it will work. Thanks for the idea . I got another idea that ArrayList class. It is also a good method. right?
Thanks & Regards,
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
Yes we may also use object of System.Collections.ArrayList class, this object acts as an array (although it is an object and not a real array) and will grow when you add new items to it.
Therefore you have both options available .
-Dave.
Dave Traister,
ComponentOne LLC.
www.componentone.com
|
|
|
|
|
Oh ok great Thanks to spend time with me.
Regards,
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
ArrayList is something we used back in the old days before .NET got the necessary features to build collections. It's still there to support old code, but it's not something you should use for anything.
The current collections are based on Generics and are much better (still severely lacking, but evetything they lack ArrayList lacks as well). You will find them in System.Collections.Generics.
Using an Array for something where the size isn't static is inefficient - both to code and for the computer to execute. There is no excuse for it, it is simply not something you should ever do.
The bottom line is that this is not a choice between an Array or an ArrayList - neither should be used in this case. Use System.Collections.Generic.List<t>
|
|
|
|
|
Thats another wonderful idea. Thank you buddy.
Regards,
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
lmoelleb wrote: still severely lacking, but evetything they lack ArrayList lacks as well
for example....
|
|
|
|
|
Events. These are critical to build ANY form of GUI on top of your domain model and they can be critical within the domain model itself as well. For example, how would you know you needed to write a new item to the database when it is added to the collection in the domain model if you do not get an event when it is added. Sure you can write your own collection class for it, but it is really something I would expect the framework to provide.
They did add the BindableList and ObservableCollection (in .NET 3.0). ObservableCollection is as such OK, but:
1) Why do we have two implementations of a list collection with events, and no events on any other collection type?
2) Why are they separate in the first place? Just add the events to the standard collections and be done with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like you are vigilant to upgrade your knowledge. Can you please refer me any articles or links which describe what is new in Framework 2.0 and 3.0?
Regards,
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
OK, fine - but I still wouldn't call that "severely lacking". You've given an example of only 1 thing that is missing from one particular use case of a List (of which there are thousands of use-cases which don't require events)
I can't say that im familiar with what you mean by "domain model", but ive used List and the other collection classes countless thousands of times without ever having the need for them to raise events when I add/remove items.
|
|
|
|
|
"Severely lacking" is pretty accurate, but a bit on the mild side. "Pathetic" is another description that springs into mind.
It does not matter how many things are missing, it matters how important the missing things are. If I gave you a collection that could do EVERYTHING except one small detail: You could never add items to it - would you then like it because it only missed one single fundamental feature?
The user case I gave are:
1) Build a user interface.
2) Persist data.
I will at any time claim that these use cases are so fundamental that it doesn't really matter it's only two (that I came up with, it's not like its the only usecases - basically you need events every single time data change).
If you are not familier with Domain Models and Observer Pattern (you might simply call it something else - Google it and see if you recognize it) you might indeed not know how badly it is missing. The Big Ball of Mud pattern works just fine without events as you can compensate for it by adding even more spaghetti code.
|
|
|
|
|
Well Observer I know well, but its rarely my collection of objects that has the observer. I guess its just a different style I use.
Still can't see how a simple object for "holding a collection of items" is severely lacking though  As far as im concerned, it has Add/Remove/Count which is exactly what I think it should have. Again, just a different way of dealing with it I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, if you just think of collections at that abstraction level you do indeed not need any events... but a framework shouldn't support lowest abstraction level only.
|
|
|
|
|
lmoelleb wrote:
They did add the BindableList and ObservableCollection (in .NET 3.0). ObservableCollection is as such OK, but:
.NET 2.0 has BindingList<>. I'm using it in an application at the moment, which is the only reason I know that
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual."
- Frank Herbert
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that was the one I ment - I just got the name wrong as I haven't touched it since 3.0 was released. The way it forces sorting on a collection simply does not make sense in a lot of cases - as not all collections can be sorted, and those that can might not have a property you can set to determine how it is sorted.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
