Cant keep my JApplet from being cached

Hi everybody,
I haven't done a lot in Applet programming yet. My problem is with the programs that display applets, IExplorer and the appletviewer. I've tried everything I found on the internet to clear all caches I could find, but still my JApplet doesn't change when I change and recompile its code. My JApplet consists of 3 small classes:
// class Inposter
import java.applet.*;
import javax.swing.*;
import java.awt.*;
public class Inposter extends JApplet {
     public Inposter() {}
     public void init() {
          setLayout(null);
          new InpressionInterfaceMain(this);
     public String getParameter(String name) {
          if(name.equals("docname")) return "InPoster";
          return super.getParameter(name);
// class InpressionInterfaceMain
import java.awt.*;
import javax.swing.*;
public class InpressionInterfaceMain {
     private JApplet inpression=null;
     private Container contentpane=null;
     public InpressionInterfaceHeadbar headbar=null;
     public InpressionInterfaceMain(JApplet inpression) {
          this.inpression=inpression;
          contentpane=inpression.getContentPane();
          headbar=new InpressionInterfaceHeadbar(inpression.getWidth(),
          inpression.getParameter("docname"));
          contentpane.add(headbar);
          headbar.setVisible(true);
// class InpressionInterfaceHeadbar
import javax.swing.*;
import java.awt.*;
public class InpressionInterfaceHeadbar extends JPanel {
     public InpressionInterfaceHeadbar(int width,String title) {
          setBounds(0,0,width,300);
          setBackground(Color.black);
The changes I make are in the last class, the InpressionInterfaceHeadbar. I change the parameters for the methods setBounds and setBackground, but the applet programs keep displaying the situation of the first time it ran the applet, no matter how many program stores I clear. I hope someone can help me with this.
Thanks in advance,
Klaas

That's easily said - it just doesn't workyeah, it doesn't. it really sucks. may try closing all your browsers and loading it again. perhaps try the java applet viewer instead of the browser (unless it needs to interact with the page somehow). or just try another browser (firefox or mozilla or opera) and if none of those work just try t

Similar Messages

  • How do I keep my Imessages from being viewed on other devices under my apple ID?

    How do I keep my Imessages from being viewed on other devices under my apple ID?

    No, you can authorize any number of email addresses on your Apple Id and then select one of those to use as an alternate Send and Recieve for Messages. It isn't necessary to use seperate AppleIDs. I use my phone number on my iPhone and an email address on the iPad.

  • Trouble with slow Macbook Air. I have first generation MacBook Air and have a hard time keeping hard drive from being full. Right now, I have almost 5 gigs available, but mac is slow and I keep getting color wheel when I use Mail. Any suggestions?

    Trouble with slow Macbook Air. I have first generation MacBook Air and have a hard time keeping hard drive from being full. After trashing many docs, I have almost 5 gigs available, but mac is slow and I keep getting color wheel when I use Mail. I'd like to install Lion, but now I'm afraid it will slow down my machine even further. Do I have enough free hard disc space? Is Mail problem related to free hard disc space? Thanks for your help!

    7gb of free disc space is required to install Lion.  Read this about how to free up disc space: http://pondini.org/OSX/DiskSpace.html.  Also, advice on how to speed up your mac: http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/25_ways_speed_your_mac

  • HT4906 Is there a way to keep certain pictures from being sent to iCloud?

    Is there a way to keep certain pictures from being sent to iCloud?

    Sorry, I meant from my Mac. I have pictures on my Mac that I don't want sent to my other devices.

  • Prevent JNLP from being cached in the Java Web Start cache

    Hi,
    when i launch a JNLP it's always being cached in the Java Web Start cache. Is there a way to prevent it from being cached? Some attribute/property inside it?
    Thanks!

    Set the http headers in the response from the server when the client downloads the jnlp file.
    eg Cache-control no-cache
    Expires (use same date as "date" header)
    Note that over SSL on Internet Explorer 8 this will not work. All other configurations should be ok.

  • Re: How do I keep an application from being started morethan once?

    Here are some quick ideas. None of them should be too hard to implement,
    although each has some drawbacks.
    1. Have a login server track who is logged on, and if there is already a
    logon for a given user or a given machine, then deny the application
    startup. The nice thing about this is that a user will not be able to have
    multiple logins even by going to another machine. Then again, this may not
    be so nice, and you also get a possible single point of failure on the
    login server for which you will have to prepare.
    2. Drop to the operating system, and get a list of processes for the client
    machine. If the name of one of them matches the name of application that
    is being run, then deny startup. This avoids a network hit, but requires
    some OS specific code. Also, a clever user could change the name of an
    executable to get around this. Note that a user could have another login
    on another machine.
    3. Write to a file on the local machine. You can hide the file in some
    suitable place, and can also scramble some information so that a user
    cannot get around having this file present by reading from the file at
    startup and then writing to it. Based on the state of your application,
    the file will have some scrambled information indicating if an instance of
    an application can be started. If you retain the write lock (i.e. do not
    close) the file for the duration of the application, you increase your
    security at the risk of a confused user if the application gets terminated
    without releasing the lock. Depending on the OS where the client will run,
    this could be an issue. If you like this option, perform some experiments
    first on all configurations of an example client machine to determine the
    behavior. Again, this only works to prevent an extra login on a single
    machine, not system wide.
    If you are not concerned about your users hacking around too much and don't
    care about a login on another machine, I would opt for some version of
    number 3. Otherwise, I would venture number 1.
    Regards
    CSB
    At 07:47 AM 2/18/98 -0500, Martin G Nystrom wrote:
    A user can launch an application, then launch it again. How do we make it so
    that the user can only run one instance of the application?
    Martin Nystrom
    Eli Lilly and Company
    ([email protected])
    Curtis Bragdon, Senior Consultant, Forte Software
    [email protected]
    Voice Mail: (510) 986-3807
    Paging: (888) 687-6723
    "I've seen dozens of triggering towns." - Richard Hugo

    Yet another quick and dirty solution is to use local ExternalConnections.
    This is a single instance per machine solution.
    Example is attached.
    (See attached file: TestOne.pex)
    [email protected] on 02/18/98 10:01:07 PM
    Please respond to [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    cc: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: How do I keep an application from being started more than
    once?
    Martin,
    there are two ways to read your question
    (a) no more than one instance of an application per machine
    (b) no more than one instance of an application per "user"
    now if a user has only one machine, and your system has "userids" and you
    only want
    one active "session" per "user" then the distinction is irrelevant.
    However, many systems
    let people share logins, so a token based thing enforcing one login will be
    problematic.
    The downside of #1 approach suggested by Curtis happens when a machine gets
    hosed without "logging" the user off the security system, then they can't
    get in until their ticket expires or a sysadmin gets involved. Should be
    manageable, however. But this enforces one application
    instance per user, unless you check both for the presence of an active
    token for that user as well as the presence of a token tied to that
    particular node name. Otherwise there is nothing to prevent the same user
    from launching the app again and logging in as a different user. This is
    definitely the best approach of the bunch, and can be adapted for either
    (a) or (b).
    Suggestion # 2 won't work unless the application is built as a compiled
    client,
    since the process name will be 'ftexec' and not the "name" of the
    application. And it doesn't
    prevent a user from launching the app from a different machine (or people
    sharing logins). So again it depends on what you are trying to achieve.
    #3 also only prevents multiple instances per machine, not necessarily by
    user. Of course
    most people don't have multiple machines. The point is that you may be
    trying to
    prevent your users from sharing logins. In which case the file thing won't
    do it.
    Some other ideas:
    1. You could, however, enforce one application per machine using the
    installed partition agent's ExecutingPartition instrument name. As long as
    the user doesn't run the app in a different environment, you can have the
    app check at startup time if there is another
    ActivePartition running under the same InstalledPartition name.
    (ActivePartitions are child agents
    of InstalledPartitions).
    2. use the ObjectLocationManager and bind a simple object into the naming
    system using a naming scheme such as
    /MyApplication/MyNode or
    /MyApplication/MyUserId
    the presence of either one would indicate that another instance of that
    application is running on either that machine or that user. Of course
    these have to be cleaned out, and subject to similar downside as
    alternative #1. So you'd essentially be using the forte naming system as a
    distributed lock manager (ouch).
    3. Have the application remove the shortcut to launch it upon startup, and
    recreate it when it is finished, or move it to a hidden place. There it
    is - the worst idea I've ever come up with. Don't
    do this!
    Regards,
    John
    From: Curtis Bragdon <[email protected]>
    Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 16:36:58 -0500
    Subject: Re: How do I keep an application from being started more than
    once?
    Here are some quick ideas. None of them should be too hard to implement,
    although each has some drawbacks.
    1. Have a login server track who is logged on, and if there is already a
    logon for a given user or a given machine, then deny the application
    startup. The nice thing about this is that a user will not be able to have
    multiple logins even by going to another machine. Then again, this may not
    be so nice, and you also get a possible single point of failure on the
    login server for which you will have to prepare.
    2. Drop to the operating system, and get a list of processes for the client
    machine. If the name of one of them matches the name of application that
    is being run, then deny startup. This avoids a network hit, but requires
    some OS specific code. Also, a clever user could change the name of an
    executable to get around this. Note that a user could have another login
    on another machine.
    3. Write to a file on the local machine. You can hide the file in some
    suitable place, and can also scramble some information so that a user
    cannot get around having this file present by reading from the file at
    startup and then writing to it. Based on the state of your application,
    the file will have some scrambled information indicating if an instance of
    an application can be started. If you retain the write lock (i.e. do not
    close) the file for the duration of the application, you increase your
    security at the risk of a confused user if the application gets terminated
    without releasing the lock. Depending on the OS where the client will run,
    this could be an issue. If you like this option, perform some experiments
    first on all configurations of an example client machine to determine the
    behavior. Again, this only works to prevent an extra login on a single
    machine, not system wide.
    If you are not concerned about your users hacking around too much and don't
    care about a login on another machine, I would opt for some version of
    number 3. Otherwise, I would venture number 1.
    Regards
    CSB
    At 07:47 AM 2/18/98 -0500, Martin G Nystrom wrote:
    A user can launch an application, then launch it again. How do we make itso
    that the user can only run one instance of the application?
    Martin Nystrom
    Eli Lilly and Company
    ([email protected])
    Curtis Bragdon, Senior Consultant, Forte Software
    [email protected]
    Voice Mail: (510) 986-3807
    Paging: (888) 687-6723
    "I've seen dozens of triggering towns." - Richard Hugo
    John Jamison
    Vice President of Technology
    Sage IT Partners, Inc.
    415 392 7243 x 306
    [email protected]

  • Is internet security required to keep my email from being hacked?

    Is any type of Internet Security required to  keep my email from being hacked?

    No not needed for a non jailbroken apple device. 

  • How do i keep certain songs from being uploaded from my library to my ipod

    how do i keep certain songs form being uploaded from itunes to my ipod the check button does nothing
    30gig ipod   Windows 98  

    Set your iPod so you can manually manage your songs, see here for details:http://www.apple.com/support/ipod/tutorial/ipgettingstartedt3.html

  • Keeping my applet from being downloaded

    Hello. I have a question. In order to put an applet in my web page, I have to link to my applet. This works great for normal people viewing my page, and they can use my applet just fine. However, I don't like the idea of people being able to look at the source code, get the link to the applet location, enter it into their browser, and then download my jar file because then they can hack into the jar, decompile, and steal my code (not that it is worth stealing, but still). How can I keep people from being able to download my jar file? My guess is to have the applet some kind of folder options that only allow web-server be able to access it if that is possible. I tried messing with the folder security settings but either the jar was still able to downloaded by entering the link in the browser, or the jar file wasn't able to be read by the web-server. Please help me out. Thank you.

    Code obfuscators can help. But that would only rename the methods and fields and stuff, such that it makes the decompiled code hard to read. Anyone determined enough would figure it out.
    But you should honestly ask yourself one question: Would someone really bother? Cuz it many cases, the answer is no. Except maybe for learning reasons, and not so much for theft.
    Of course, certainly hackers could look for vulnerabilities in your website via your applet code, depending on what your applet does. Which is probably why most banks don't provide applet interfaces to their systems. But then again, a properly secure system would be able to publish the applet code without fear of it being hacked into.
    You should absolutely not include the source itself in the compiled jar file. But otherwise, you can't hide the jar files or class files... Unless you don't want people to see the applet... in which case, don't waste time creating said applet in the first place and go fishing instead.

  • Keeping flash player from being uninstalled

    I thimk that registry Mechanic is causing me to have to
    reinstall Flash Player everytime I use it. They say I can add a key
    or number to exclude it from being changed or erased each time-
    What do I use to identify and add to their exclude list?I am
    running Flash Player 9 active x-

    Flash Player is a plugin, and typically used by browsers (and sometimes other software.)  Flash, by itself, won't open flv files.  Instead you'd load those files into your web browser and it would load Flash to render them.
    I don't know if Rhapsody uses the ActiveX or NPAPI versions of Flash Player.  Which do you have installed?  You can check this by going into the Programs and Features control panel and looking for the Adobe Flash Player entry(s).  It'll say NPAPI, PPAPI, or ActiveX at the end.

  • How to keep a subject from being affected by a mask

    i have a shot in an office where i have a subject walking in front of some really bright windows.  i added an adjustment layer and made 6 mask squares over the windows and brought down the brightness a bit.  of course when the subject walks in front of those windows you can see the shaded mask on him.
    im not sure what you call it but what do i do to him to keep the mask from showing on him? 
    not sure if i should make another thread but ill ask this as well in here...in the same shot because of the bright windows originally the rest of the scene inside the office is dark.  how do i brighten the rest of the scene without affecting the windows?  i tried duplicating the adjustment layer with the 6 masks and inverting them so i can brighten everything but windows but no matter what i did i couldnt get it to work. 
    TIA

    think layers... you need to separate the person from the background on another layer with an animated mask. This is called Rotoscoping. RotoBrush is a tool that may work.
    Same thing for your second question, LAYERS, not duplicate adjustment layers, but duplicate your scene, do your masking, apply adjustments and you will be OK.

  • Can a PDF prevent itself from being cached locally?

    Hi folks -
    I work for an non-profit organization that provides retirement/medical benefits. There are a number of PDF fillable forms that we would like to provide access to via our portal, forms that may require our users to enter sensitive information such as Social Security Number, etc. This isn't really a pressing concern for our users on their home computers, but we are concerned about caching of this kind of data on a borrowed machine or a public machine.
    I know that Reader local caching can be avoided via deselection of the "Use Page Cache" setting. However, we'd like to take this concern out of the equation from the start and avoid having the users themselves being required to stop the local caching. Is there any way to create a PDF that will not be eligible for local caching? Does anyone have any suggestions other than that for how we can avoid this situation?
    Thanks in advance!
    Frank

    Thanks for the reply, Michael.
    I understand what you are saying, and was aware of those aspects of PDF usage, but let me re-phrase what I am asking: if a user looks at a fillable form, fills out their info, prints the completed PDF form, and closes either Adobe Reader or their browser session that presented the PDF (more likely the latter scenario), how can we ensure that none of the information they entered remains accessible on the computer that person was using?
    Thanks -
    Frank

  • App or podcast downloaded to iphone is deleted from iphone and transferred to iTunes 11.  How can I keep the file from being deleted from the iPhone?

    I recently updated iTunes from version 10.x to 11.  In version 10, I could download a podcast or an app to my iPhone from the app store, then the app or podcast would co COPIED to iTunes during a sync.  Now with version 11, when I sync, the app or podcast is deleted from my iPhone and MOVED to iTunes.  How can I get back the old feature of making a copy?  This is a very dumb thing that happens in iTunes and I can not believe that I am the only one to complain abou this.  Please help me.  What do I need to change in iTunes to keep my copy on the iPhone.
    Thanks to all you geniouses out there!
    Doug

    Not 100% sure of your question.  If you are wanting to delete apps from itunes just right click then delete then empty recycle bin.

  • How do I keep iPhone Contacts from being visible in iMessage on MacBook?

    I've disabled iMessage, but if you open it and try to type a message, you can easily see all the Contacts from my iPhone. How do I prevent that?

    HI,
    When I have turned Off the Contacts app part of my iCloud account it asks me whethr I want to keep them on my Mac (and not whether I want to delete them from all devices).
    They always stay on my iPhone.
    7:36 pm      Sunday; June 1, 2014
    ​  iMac 2.5Ghz i5 2011 (Mavericks 10.9)
     G4/1GhzDual MDD (Leopard 10.5.8)
     MacBookPro 2Gb (Snow Leopard 10.6.8)
     Mac OS X (10.6.8),
     Couple of iPhones and an iPad

  • VERIZON - What's keeping the Bootloader from being unlocked.

    I speak for a growing mass of consumers concerned over the Bootloader still being locked for the RAZR
    I purchased my RAZR under the impression that it'd be unlocked by the end of 2011..."where operator and channel partners will allow it." - as told by a sales rep and confirmed on various online sources, HTC, Samsung and even OTHER Motorola phones all have unlocked bootloaders. So, unlocking the bootloader for the RAZR doesn't really seem that far-fetched of a concept.
    Like many others out there, I do base my buying decision based on the open-source and flexibility of the device. I left Apple for the very facts that A) their hardware is subpar and B) a combination of CARRIERS and MANUFACTURERS constricting device usage to that of a drone-like state.
    I want to know WHEN and IF you're planning on unlocking the bootloader. And if not - what are you going to do to compensate myself and a huge community that was falsely led into thinking that we were getting a device that would have an unlocked bootloader. I would gladly have waited for the Galaxy Nexus for such privlidges. But I was mislead into buying a phone that's turning out to be a deadend for me.
    "Wouldn't it be great if Motorola has the same committment to the open source nature of Android and the requests of their customers.  I am going to be trading in my Droid RAZR (3rd replacement) for the HTC so I can enjoy an unlocked bootloader (among other technical issues), and support a company that actually listens to its customers.  I am hoping with the acquisitions of Motorola by Google the devices release by Motorola will support open source, and the developer community.
    The Droid RAZR is a great phone (aside from the data drops I have experienced), and with an unlocked bootloader this phone would surpass the Galaxy Nexus easily.  Motorola needs to realize that when they meant this phone is too powerful to fall into the wrong hands it shouldn't have meant the developer communtiy.  Those would be the right hands that would save this device.  "  -  Chris
    I agree with the above quote - while aimed at Motorola, I think the same holds true to Verizon. I've always considered Verizon superior in customer service and quality. And I would like to think they'd work with their customers to provide the same service I've grown to love.

    This is a quote from "Droid Life" forums. It sums it up better than I ever can say it.
    First let’s look at what the piece of this open access provision states that has everyone all heated:
    “Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee’s C Block network, except…”
    And that exception reads as follows:
    Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee’s network…
    So this may just be my negativity, but I would put money on Verizon arguing and producing a document having to do with security and bootloader unlocking. You see, it states right there that they cannot limit the use of one’s phone unless they deem that service to be a liability to the protection of their network. Since we all know that “security” seems to be the reason for locking up a phone, then there is your exception to the rule. Remember that these things are vague and companies like Verizon use that to their advantage.
    The second part of this story has to do with “locking” of phones and reads as follows:
    Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee’s standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers’ networks.
    I hate to break this to everyone, but “locking” in this scenario has nothing to do with bootloaders. We are talking network access here which means they are referencing a phone that can access multiple frequencies or another carrier’s network. “Locking” and “unlocked” mean two different things these days. For most people, an unlocked phone has to do with one that works on another carrier’s network (like my Euro Galaxy S2 that works on U.S. AT&T). To hackers and ROM developers, it means a bootloader. Everyone is just confused here.  An “unlocked” phone in this situation falls under that first category and means that Verizon cannot lock its phones from working on another network (this is not a bootloader situation). Since their are currently no other networks to my knowledge that have access to their LTE frequency, they shouldn’t have a problem doing that.
    Everyone follow that? Now, as I stated above, these things are vague and I’m pretty sure my interpretation is about the 4th or 5th different take. What I would say, is that if you are angry with the whole situation, then feel free to submit a complaint to the FCC as has been suggested. Who knows, maybe they will end up siding with the bootloader crowd at some point.

Maybe you are looking for