Dynamic Content on Per User Basis

Guys,
Beginning my own start up company and cant afford a designer
to do the dirty work, so here I am. I have a number of on-line
members who can each select an avatar .... each avatar can be
customised with certain items ... e.g hats, different hairstyles,
etc.
Since I have only ever built simple flash animations this
seems to be a whole new level. I have been reading up on a few
things .. namely ActionScript, Flash XML and Database connectivity
but am not sure where to go ....
In my head I would like certain flash pictures (example a
flora hat?) to be stored via an id in a database ... I assume the
flash image representation will be Flash XML? and I will use Action
Script to load the hat on to the User Mrs Floral?
Is my thinking way off? have I absolutely no idea? haha ...
any guidance would be appreciated ... I am a programmer so
technical solutions are fine ... if I know what I am looking for I
can read .. that I dont mind ... I just dont want to read "how to
breed elephants" when I want to breed pink flamingos.
thanks

There are many ways to approach this. One way:
The images for various avatar items could be imported into
Flash at author time, converted to MovieClips, set their Linkage in
the Library, and then attach using attachMovie when needed.

Similar Messages

  • CUPS 8.6 - Supporting Multiple SIP Domains on a per-user basis

    Working on a CUPS 8.6 PoC with a customer who currently is running a deployed OCS environment. 
    Users all sign into a single domain internally but have multiple SMTP domains for email as this customer has many different companies they have aquired.
    OCS  is able to support and route multiple SIP domains by specifing the SIP address under AD User settings such that two users both signed into the same OCS server can send IM's to each other even though they have different SIP addresses.  sip:[email protected] , sip:[email protected]
    CUPS on the other hand does not seem to allow this on a per-user basis.  It places every user in the sip domain that the server is a member of.
    The Jabber client allows you to specify a domain but I am not how this is used as the actual user account in CUPS is only ever the one domain and if you try and specify a different domain in the Jabber Connection Settings, it will not allow you to login.
    It is not a big deal for internal communications if everyone is on the same domain, but where it is important is for future B2B IM.  Users need to be able to give out THEIR IM address with THEIR respective domain.
    Does anyone else know for a fact that I will only be able to have one domain per CUP cluster?
    Any thoughts on this design?

    Not sure on the design perspective but as for CUPS Domain, we can only have single domain per cluster. As you have already found out that for any user licensed for CUPS, their IM address would be userid@CUPSDomain
    CUPS does have funtionality of federating with foreign domains such as AOL/GoogleTalk/WebEx Connect.

  • Restrict access to buttons, regions, etc. on a per user basis?

    My application restricts access to buttons, regions, etc. on a per user basis.
    Here is my application logic...
    1. A User can only edit items they own.
    2. A Super-User can edit all items
    So, when a user logs in, I use a post-authentication process to set the user ID to an application level item.
    Now, for example, to have an edit button display on a page, I need to check the item's owner ID against the application level user ID...and check to see if this user is on the Super User list via a query.(which could be set to another application level item upon login...I guess)
    Question...What is the best way to do this? Conditional display? Authorization scheme?
    Would something like the following work for a Conditional Display?
    Condition: SQL Expression
    &USER_ID.=&P6_ITEM_OWNER_ID. OR USER_ID in (select USER_ID from table where USER_ID=&USER_ID.)
    How would I do this with an Authorization Scheme? (I like the idea of updating the logic in single location...but I'm not sure if it is possible because I have to check PX_OWNER_ID would be different on each page.)

    Hi Denes,
    Thanks for your code which allows user to edit (if authorized) and view (if not).
    But some how - I do not get the image to show up - instead it show a small underline.
    From SQL point of view - here is what I get - when i run the sql
    '<img src="/i/ed-item.gif">',2,CR TEST,,,,dune2.cit.cornell.edu,CRDMTEST.CIT.CORNELL.EDU,PSPROD,,,CRDMTEST
    Here is my wrap_image function
    create or replace function wrap_image(p_user_name in varchar2,p_dm_name_id in number)
    return varchar2 IS
    v boolean := False;
    ret_val varchar2(1000);
    begin
    dbms_output.put_line('user='||p_user_name);
    dbms_output.put_line('dm_name='||p_dm_name_id);
    -- Check authorization if the user is super user - return true, else if he has edit priv on dm_name_id - return true - else false
    v:=ACL_DMTOOLS_DM_PRIV(p_user_name,p_dm_name_id);
    if v then
    ret_val := '<img src="/i/ed-item.gif">';
    ret_val := ''''||ret_val||'''';
    dbms_output.put_line('TRUE');
    else
    ret_val := '';
    dbms_output.put_line('FALSE');
    end if;
    return ret_val;
    end;
    Thanks for your great educational site.
    Regards
    atul

  • How to use a particular GWIA on a per user basis

    Have recently had to enable the /flatforward and /realmailfrom switches on our primary GWIA, with interoperability with another in-house mail system. This has caused some "reply looping" issues from our groupwise users when then enable a "Out of office" rule to notify people they are not in the office. There is only one destination domain (internal.companyname.com) that we need the /flatforward & /realmail switches impletmented for.
    I think we can get around the problem with a 2nd GWIA. We turn off the /flatforward & /realmail switches on our primary GWIA. On the 2nd GWIA we enable those switches.
    Now I just need to figure out if there is a way to either
    1. Send all mail from GroupWise to internal.companyname.com thru the 2nd GWIA or
    2. All mail sent from a particular GW user (those who have a foward rule to internal.companyname.com) needs to be send thru the 2nd GWIA.
    Is there any easy way to do that? I know I can change each user's mail to in the forwarding rule from [email protected] to 2ndGWIA:[email protected], but I would rather be able to do it thru C1 or on admin utilitily, rather then having to login to each users GW mailbox to change the forwarding rule. Thanks for any help.

    On 26.02.2012 20:06, Mikemad wrote:
    > Is there any easy way to do that? I know I can change each user's mail
    > to in the forwarding rule from [email protected] to
    > 2ndGWIA:[email protected],
    That's the only way there is.
    CU,
    Massimo Rosen
    Novell Knowledge Partner
    No emails please!
    http://www.cfc-it.de

  • Need to create userdefined groups on per user basis in LMS 4.2 .

    Hi all,
    I am having some 20 nos switches that are monitored by LMS and I have created  2 users and 2 user defined device groups in LMS .
    I have allocated 10 switches to one user defined group and remaining to another group.
    And Is it possible to assign a user defined group to a particular user .
    I want user A to monitor devices only user group A .
    Is it possible ? Any comment will be highly appreciated.
    Thanks in advance
    Selva

    Unfortunately LMS doesn't have this option where it can send approval request to only that approvar who is also in the same group of the Job initiator.
    Currently all Approvers on the Approver list receive an automatic email notification where the job Approvers approve or reject the job.
    You can check this under Job Approval Workflow.
    -Thanks

  • ISE 1.2 & AD & Meraki - Per User Group Policy ?

    I am working on a PoC for a deployment in an MDU. We are using Meraki switches and access points. There are 250 units in the building, each unit will have it's own subnet. The goal is to have the tenant be able to connect to a common building SSID and be placed into their assigned VLAN. There will also be physical ports in each unit that will need to do the same. I am trying to figure out a way to use ISE to authorize on a per user basis and not based on groups of users. On the Meraki system there are group policies that will assign the VLAN for the user as well as any type of layer 7 firewalling and bandwidth control. So there will be 250 group policies, one for each unit. There is a deployment guide that shows how to setup ISE for use with Meraki and it is great but it assumes that there will be large groups like Employees, Contractors, etc.. that will be used. This is where I'm being tripped up, also... this is my first swing at a NAC deployment so I have a lot to learn.
    1.Can I setup each user in Active Directory to have a tag that ISE can then forward on to Meraki for the group policy? Say it's unit 101 and I have a group policy called 101 in Meraki, Meraki documentation says to use the Airespace-ACL-Name attribute in ISE to indicate the group policy to use. This gives me the ability to place a group into that policy but not an individual. Or would this be better done by creating the users in ISE directly? Omit AD entirely?
    2. Each unit will have devices that will need MAB because they are not 802.1x compatible. I need to do the same as above with them. I would create a separate SSID for these devices but then use the MAC address to authenticate them but will need to authorize them to go into a specific group policy.
    I know this isn't a typical ISE application but I think that this will work really well in the end, just need to iron out these details and get a test system functioning. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!
    Thanks,
    Nathan

    Please find the Meraki_ISE integration doc. in attachment.
    When VLAN tagging is configured per user, multiple users can be associated to the same SSID, but their traffic is tagged with different VLAN IDs. This configuration is achieved by authenticating wireless devices or users against a customer-premise RADIUS server, which can return RADIUS attributes that convey the VLAN ID that should be assigned to a particular user’s traffic.
    In order to perform per-user VLAN tagging, a RADIUS server must be used with one of the following settings:
    MAC-based access control (no encryption)
    WPA2-Enterprise with 802.1x authentication
    A per-user VLAN tag can be applied in 3 different ways:
    The RADIUS server returns a Tunnel-Private-Group-ID attribute in the Access-Accept message, which specifies the VLAN ID that should be applied to the wireless user. This VLAN ID could override whatever may be configured in the MCC (which could be no VLAN tagging, or a per-SSID VLAN tag). To have this VLAN ID take effect, “RADIUS override” must be set to “RADIUS response can override VLAN tag” under the Configure tab on the Access Control page in the “VLAN setup” section.
    The RADIUS server returns a group policy attribute (e.g., Filter-ID) in the Access-Accept message. The group policy attribute specifies a group policy that should be applied to the wireless user, overriding the policy configured on the SSID itself. If the group policy includes a VLAN ID, the group policy’s VLAN ID will be applied to the user.
    On the Client Details page, a client can be manually assigned a group policy. If the group policy includes a VLAN ID, the group policy’s VLAN ID will be applied to the user. 

  • No per user setting for JRE in Internet Explorer on W2K/W2K3 term. server

    After installing Sun Java SE on terminal servers (both 2000 &
    2003) you have an additional option within Internet Explorer 5.5 & 6.x under tools, intenet options, advanced; called "Java (Sun) Use JRE
    XXX (applet) requires restart". This option cannot be set on a per user base. When a user changes this setting, it is changed for ALL terminal server users immediately. This is a big problem.
    It should be able to set this on a per user base.
    Current key is located at: HLKM\SOFWTARE\Microsoft\Internet
    Explorer\AdvancedOptions\JAVA_SUN\SELECT
    As some websites require Sun_Java and others won't work at all
    when the Sun Java options is selected each user should be able
    to select or disable this option on a per user base.
    How can we accomplish this?

    Hello. Sorry, don't have an answer for your issue. Just wondering whether you've experienced this issue in your Windows Server 2003 envionmnet.
    We're running Windows 2000 Server (SP4) (and Citrix Presentation Server 4.0). We typically have 20+ concurrent users logged on to a server. Since JRE 1.5.0_7, we've had issues with Internet Explorer taking upwards of 15 seconds to display even though Iexplore.exe appears in Task Manager almost immediately. If we uninstall JRE 1.5.0_7 and use 1.4.2_6, Internet Explorers displays fine. We've tried JRE 1.5.0_11 and 1.6.0_3, and Internet displays slowly. Has anyone else experienced this issue? Any thoughts of why this is occuring? Thanks.

  • TV Access Connection​s per-user settings?

    I needed to set up a 2nd user acct profile on my T500 (Win XP Pro) to use for a special purpose and need for the Wireless Radio to be powered off when this user's desktop loads (same as clicking the TVAC icon in the system tray and choosing Power Off Wireless Radio).
    So far my experience has been that any TVAC changes made while using the 2nd user account are carried over to the 1st user acct, and vice-versa.  I would like settings to be on a per-user basis and not applied globally to all users.  Is this possible, and if so how can I do it?
    Using the system tray icon, I was able to have the radio powered off in the 2nd acct and powered on in the 1st acct.  And when the 2nd user's desktop loads the icon is in fact powered off, at least initially, but then the auto-connect popup appears and automatically powers on the radio.  If I could configure the 2nd acct to not attempt to connect automatically that would work for me, but I can't figure out how that is possible.
    Any help is appreciated.
    Regards,
    Frank

    It is not possible to do per user setting in Access Connections.

  • Providing a unique RemoteObject per user

    I'm trying to setup a simple multi-user client server in BlazeDS and provide each Flex client its own unique RemoteObject.
    I set up the Java object in remoting-config.xml. But the object is only being created once and every user afterwords has access to the same object. I have to restart Catalina if I want a new user. What is the right/simplest way of providing each user access to thier own object?

    I don't think you can create remote objects on a per user basis. However you could create user-specific objects from within your remote object methods and store them between requests on the FlexSession (which is roughly equivalent to an HttpSession object in J2EE).

  • Additional runtime license fees per user in order to use the Java connector

    Hi All,
    I have one question.
    Do we require to pay additional runtime license fees per user in order to use the Java connector (Jco) supplied by SAP?
    We're currently not using the Jco but are looking into the possibility of using it.
    Thank in Advance.

    Hi All,
    Please answer my question
    We need to use Jco to connect to our 4.6C SAP production system. We do not have Portal or any other components. It's just a plain 4.6C system, service pack level is 23.
    We are currently paying license fees for using the system on a per user basis.
    Thank You.

  • Suggested User base on Adobe Content Server

    I was trying to get some statistics for the supported user base for Adobe Content server 4.01. We have one server Dual Core processor with 4 GB RAM on windows 2008 server. I would like to know what is the load that this server can support during document fulfilment process. We are expecting around 300000 users to download documents from Adobe Content Server in next couple of years and we are trying to see what are ways that we can scaleup the infrastructure to support huge user downloads.
    It would be really helpful if some one shares us the concurrent user load supported by Adobe Content Server

    We configured Adobe Content Server 3.0.1 and created one store and one library, when we want to lend a eBook i am unable to locate the option for lending the eBook in "Availbility" tag page of "Books" Tab when i set the "Adjust" option to value "Loan".
    Please let me know whether my version of content server allows us to package a eBook for lending if so where can i find the option for lending the eBook.

  • URL links for Workflow Approval Email per user & others

    Hi all, we have upgraded to SRM7 and understand that we have to switch to using program /SAPSRM/OFFLINEAPPROVALSEND to generate the workflow notification emails. We have maintained the portal information in the SRM configuration to build the link. However, we have 2 issues here
    1. We currently output collective email so emails are sent out at specific timing on a per user rather than per work item basis. The URL link does not seem to work in this case (for shopping cart approval example) and we get an object GUID error. The URL looks something like this
    http://sap-ped.dev.xyz.com/irj/portal/?navigationtarget=obn://BOSystemAlias=SAP_SRM/BOTechnicalName=sc/Operation=detailprof&NavMode=3
    Also, even if I run the program for a PO approval example, the BOTechnicalName is still pointing to sc.
    However, if I do it on a per work item basis, the URL works.
    Does anyone know where the control this setting?
    2. External and internal portal
    We have some users connecting to the portal through more secured channel (external portal). In this case, I couldn't find a way to generate the appropriate URL for the external. In the past in the older SRM version, the program was using the attribute ITS_DEST in PPOPMA_BBP to build the URL link. Now, I do not know how the system knows which portal URL to take if the control is no longer at user level.
    Has anyone ever had this requirement before?
    My worse case scenario to resolve the above issues would be to use the BADI to alter the content of the email notification. The purpose of posting this message here is to ensure that I am not missing out any standard SAP functionality which could meet our requirements.
    Cheers!
    SF

    Hello,
    See hyper-links below:
    [How-To: Offline approval - Logon link does not work|http://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/display/SRM/Offlineapproval-Logonlinkdoesnot+work]
    [KBA 1511180 - The hyperlink in the offline approval email is incorrect|https://service.sap.com/sap/support/notes/1511180]
    Regards.
    Laurent.

  • Is there a way to disable the option to save files in the cloud for a companies user base in the new subscription model??

    Our corporation is mandated by privacy laws within provincial legislation that prevents us from using cloud based storage outside of our province for the storage of data.  We are unable to continue using Adobe products based on the new subscription based model due to the inclusion of cloud based storage.  We need to have a way to disable the ability/option for our large corporate user base to store data files in the cloud.  Merely having the "option" to store files in a location of one's choice is not sufficient based on the policies we are legally forced to adhere to.  Without the option of disabling the cloud storage for our user base we will be forced to look at other vendors products to fill the needs we have that are currently filled by the Adobe line of products.  We would prefer to stay with Adobe products...so if someone knows how to disable this option (via registry edits, etc.), please advise.

    hi Nikolay,
    there is no clean solution for your problem. Browsers cache files by url, you can avoid caching appending in query string unique value per deployment. For example
    _layouts/my_js_file.js?v=<current date> - will be refreshed from cache when day changes
    _layouts/my_js_file.js?v=<GUID> - if guid is generated on every request, this file should never cache
    _layouts/my_js_file.js?v=<product version> - more preferable solution, browser will update cache on every new version that was deployed
    Actually, ScriptLink should take care about this, internally it has a method that appends unique id into query string based on js file content, if content changed, hash is also changed and new unique id is generated.
    Check Below link for more information
    http://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/57874/how-to-avoid-caching-issue-when-using-custom-javascript-and-css-deployed-under
    You can also check this link
    http://www.sharepointnutsandbolts.com/2011/11/avoiding-bugs-from-cached-javascript.html
    Please mark the Answer and Vote if it will help to resolved your issue

  • Print PLSQL Dynamic content region in PDF format in Oracle Apex

    Hi All,
    I have created a report region by selecting "PLSQL Dynamic Content".This region calls the procedure with some parameters.So i want this plsql dynamic content to be in PDF format.
    For an easy understanding, I have created an application in Apex.Oracle.Com where i have created a Plsql Dynamic content which calls procedure do display in region.
    Step 1: http://apex.oracle.com/pls/apex/f?p=4550:1:15635986742760:::::
    Step 2: Workspace : dev_dilip
    Username: [email protected]
    Pwd : 123456
    Step 3: Open PRINT_PDF application and Run the application.
    Step 4: Username: [email protected]
    Pwd : 123456
    The procedure code can be viewed by object browser.
    Once user cliks PDF (button inapplication) a new tab should open and that plsql region should in PDF format.
    I kindly request all to check and advice me with your valuable suggestion.
    regards,
    Doddi Dilip.

    SO, you want to print the output of the procedure in pdf format? If so, you can try apex Report Query feature. You can find a number of examples for the same in this forum and in the internet:
    http://www.oracle.com/webfolder/technetwork/tutorials/obe/db/hol08/apexprnt/apexprnt_otn.htm
    Or, have a IR based on a collection; the collection based on a function returning query. And then, use the IR's generic download option to print reports.
    http://www.oracleapplicationexpress.com/tutorials/71

  • Payment Distribution to Artists by per user plays, rather than total plays

    Hello!
    I just had a thought about how payment is distributed to artists that I wanted to see if anyone might have some thoughts on. Spotify still does come under criticism on occasion for artist payment distribution - I've seen a couple of instances of people citing iTunes as providing more monetary compensation to artists since it is per download, rather than per play, among other things. This seems to be especially true for independent artists, and artists who are generally less well-known.
    I was wondering if Spotify has ever considered doing payment distributions using the
         sum[ (total artist streams per user) / (total streams per user) ] across all users
    ratio for payment calculation, rather than the currently used
         (total artist streams across Spotify) / (total streams across Spotify)
    approach, i.e. calculating the artists' play ratio by user, rather than in one giant pool. If you have considered this, I would love to hear why the current payment implementation was chosen rather than a per user method, such as the one listed above. But... 
    If a per user method has not been considered by Spotify previously, I think it would be nice - while I'm not an analyst myself, I imagine that it could lead to more revenue for independent artists, and maybe even less famous artists that are still beholden to rights owners for distribution of payment. I think it would do this because it could account for differences in number of plays per user - rather than users who tend to play more music over the course of a month contributing more all artists' payout, each user has an equal voice in how money gets distributed to artists.
    I understand that such a switch would be difficult, and possibly insurmountable in the instance of free users - so, I am positing this as an idea not for all users, but for Premium users only. With Premium, it is a feasible goal, since you have a finite number of plays, and a finite amount of money coming directly from that user, and do not have to worry about trying to calculate differences in advertisement impact for different users. Doing that ratio calculation would be relatively straightforward of a switch computationally (though quite a large change in the system nonetheless, of course). 
    I think this type of change would empower both users and artists to use Spotify more. Firstly, it would empower artists to allow Spotify to play their music because the metrics they would get per month would be more reflective of the size of their fan base, and how much importance that fan base puts on the artists' music than current metrics.
    Secondly, it would empower users more, which I think is especially important for users between 18-32 years of age. While I am not an expert on the subject, I often find that users in this age group (my age group) care a great deal about having control over where their money ends up, which in this case means knowing which rights holders and/or artists are getting the money they are spending. I know I do. Switching to this system, while still not addressing the injustices that are felt within the relationship between rights holders and artists by many, would still allow users to have more of a say in who gets their money than the current system. On top of that, it might be helpfult for Spotify itself - if using Premium is the only way for users to feel empowered by knowing how their money is distributed, it may encourage people in the free tier to upgrade to Premium in order to feel empowered.
    Just a thought. I'd love to hear what you and others have to say about this idea. 

    @Merik thanks for the warm welcome, and for the quick, informative response!
    I had the chance to take a look at that page you linked to before my original post, and saw that paragraph you quoted, as well as the bullet point about paid users having a higher "per stream" rate. I guess what I was more interested in (and perhaps this is not the right place to ask this question?) was if there was more of an in-depth "why" behind their decision (and thanks again for linking to it!) documented anywhere that I might be able to read more about. Maybe I was missing something on that page (and please let me know if so!), but the only "why" that I could find was a sentence in the paragraph you quote above:
    "We believe, however, that our service and the lives of artists will both be best if the World’s music fans enjoy more music than ever before in a legal, paid manner".
    While it's great to see their opinion, I was more curious about the line of reasoning behind that position is all. Because I do wonder whether empowering premium users to have more fine-grained control over how their money is allocated, such as by doing pay "per user", might lead to both more paid users and more revenue for independent and/or lesser-known artists - and if that's something that Spotify has researched already, I would love to hear more about the pros and cons behind such an approach!
    Thanks!

Maybe you are looking for