Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "inteact".
Did you mean:
intact
2006 Feb 07
0
Rendering objects directly via <%= render @some_object %>
...hich allows rendering of objects directly via the
render method:
<%= render @some_object %> which would actuall render the @some_object
object (the object is even able to handle the options hash.
Rendering would actually be handeled by the object itself, by leaving it
up to the object to inteact with the template and parse the wished for
options hash back to the ActionView render method. This way the object
could descide to render nothing depending on internal state. The plugin
even allow the object being used as mere container of commonly used
:locals hashes set by the controller (as...
2018 Dec 12
5
Problem after upgrading to 4.9
Thanks Louis;
/etc/krb5.conf
[libdefaults]
default_realm = EXAMPLE.COM
dns_lookup_realm = false
dns_lookup_kdc = true
/etc/resolv.conf
search example.com
nameserver 192.168.50.40
/etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 localhost samba4.example.com
192.168.50.40 samba4.example.com samba4 ldap.example.com
Output off:
samba-tool dbcheck --cross-ncs
NOTE: old (due to rename
2018 Dec 12
0
Problem after upgrading to 4.9
...o make sure your all ok.
Greetz,
Louis
Van: Sergio Belkin [mailto:sebelk at gmail.com]
Verzonden: woensdag 12 december 2018 14:16
Aan: L.P.H. van Belle
CC: samba at lists.samba.org
Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] Problem after upgrading to 4.9
Well, really weird for me. I've interruped the inteactive samba, run again with systemd, and now it works.... hehehe, don't now why.... happy, but I don't know why now it works again....
El mié., 12 dic. 2018 a las 10:07, Sergio Belkin (<sebelk at gmail.com>) escribió:
Thanks Louis;
/etc/krb5.conf
[libdefaults]
default_re...
2015 Feb 18
4
Different serialization of functions in interactive vs. batch mode
...ive R session. The
>> hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on
>> serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the
>> reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the
>> function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions.
>>
>> I was wondering if someone knows if
>> 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the
>> inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as
>> well. Is there something I am overlooking?
>> 2. Is there a wa...
2015 Feb 18
2
Different serialization of functions in interactive vs. batch mode
...ce copying the code into an interactive R session. The
hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on
serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the
reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the
function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions.
I was wondering if someone knows if
1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the
inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as
well. Is there something I am overlooking?
2. Is there a way to get consistent hash-values for functions between...
2015 Feb 18
1
Different serialization of functions in interactive vs. batch mode
...hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on
>> >> serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the
>> >> reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the
>> >> function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions.
>> >>
>> >> I was wondering if someone knows if
>> >> 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the
>> >> inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as
>> >> well. Is there somethin...
2015 Feb 18
0
Different serialization of functions in interactive vs. batch mode
...into an interactive R session. The
> hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on
> serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the
> reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the
> function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions.
>
> I was wondering if someone knows if
> 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the
> inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as
> well. Is there something I am overlooking?
> 2. Is there a way to get consistent hash...
2015 Feb 18
0
Different serialization of functions in interactive vs. batch mode
...he
>>> hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on
>>> serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the
>>> reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the
>>> function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions.
>>>
>>> I was wondering if someone knows if
>>> 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the
>>> inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as
>>> well. Is there something I am overlooking?
>&...
2015 Feb 18
0
Different serialization of functions in interactive vs. batch mode
...gt; >> hash-values of the functions differ. As digest internally relies on
> >> serialize, I also checked there and found that digest is not the
> >> reason for the discrepancy. Instead, the serialized value of the
> >> function already differs between the BATCH and inteactive sessions.
> >>
> >> I was wondering if someone knows if
> >> 1. Is this a feature or a bug? It feels like a bug to me as all the
> >> inputs are identical, I would expect that the output is identical as
> >> well. Is there something I am overlooking?...