Need same user of metalink to be the user of OTN

I am the DBA of a group. I created a generic user for metalink to everybody enters with this user. And I wanted to do the same with OTN, I created the OTN account with my own mail, but the only way to enter to OTN is with my email. And I don't want everybody has to know my email to enter to OTN.
What I don't know is how to relate the metalink user with the OTN user, and not to enter to OTN with the email anymore. This is the way I have my own userid, in both systems is the same.
Can someone help me?
Thank you

Unfortunately, these logins are different and OTN login is in the format of email address.
OTN

Similar Messages

System needs to approve automatically when the same user has different role

Hi Gurus,
My issue relates to approval in Shopping cart.
Say this is my Issue.
This is the Approval detemined by the system.
1 - X
2 - Y
3- Z
4- X
5- Y
X & Y are the Same user but with different role in the Approvals.
First time 'X' would get the cart to approve it manually but second time system should automatically approve it. Same should happen for 'Y' as well. So now both X & Y needs to approve the cart only once.
Please advice me how to approach this issue or If anyone experience the same kind of issue please let me know how to resolve.
Thanks for your time to spend on it.
Thanks,
SNMPkumar

Hi,
You can handle it with N-Step BADI Workflow.
Regards,
Masa

Is it possible to override the SecurityFilter class so that I can use it for my external app which is deployed in ToolsAndFramework and needs to validate for same user/password as is being used to log in experience manager?

I have created a java app and deployed in ToolsAndFramework of endeca and since that app can be accessed through a directl url so want to implement an security filter which will use the same user validation as is used in experience manager.

Sorry to hear that, but this forum is for us, users, and what you need is someone from Xperia Care to find your motherboard and send it back, I don't think it'll be possible to retrieve any data from a broken motherboard.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." Kurt Cobain (1967-1994)

HT4910 I have 5 apple devices that are using the cloud. Do i need to have ALL of the devices backing up to the cloud since they are all on the same USER LOGIN or do i just need to buy more space?

I have multiple aple devices ( Ipad2, Ipad3, Iphone 4, Iphone 4s, Mac Mini, and Apple TV) I am using the same apple login to sync to the cloud. My question is do I need to sync ALL of them to the cloud or just one of the devices since I have them set up to sync anyway, or do i just need to buy more cloud space. Thanks

Welcome to the Apple Community.
You should sync all of them, if you want them all to share the same information.
Syncing is not the same as backing up. I suggest you continue to back up your mobile devices to your computer, unless you have a good reason to do otherwise.

How to conf in Hyperion, so the system couldn't login with the same user

Hai.....
how to configure in Hyperion, so the system couldn't login with the same user id in different machine ? (could you please provide me with detail step by step ? )
rgds
uka fp

fane_j wrote:
Sally R. wrote:
Someone gave me a suggestion to go to the terminal and type in the following:
ls /Users/Shared/.*.so
This was published on MacWorld's site, and it's not a very good tip. Try this instead
ls -la /Users/Shared/*.so
Turns out I was wrong about that. Somebody else suggested something even more complicated and got this reply:
By bastion
Fri Feb 24 08:49:05 PST 2012
PeterSParker said
Your terminal statement has an extra "." in it that prevents it from working.
Also, you should add the options -alR to show what is happening, and to search subdirectories.
The revised command looks like this:
ls -alR /Users/Shared/*.so
The above is completely wrong. The command as shown in the article is appropriate.
The "." is not extra and doesn't prevent the command from working. It's specifying that you're listing files that start with a period and end with ".so" with anything in between being matched.
Because you're explicitly searching for things that start with "." you don't need the -a flag.
Because you only care about simple existence and not any metadata you don't need -l.
Because the files of interest are installed in /Users/Shared directly, and not subfolders thereof, you don't need -R.

Multiple instances of the same BSP app for the same user

Hi,
I currently have a BSP application which has a main page which consists of three frames. Each of the frames within the page is linked to its own controller, with one other controller controlling the whole page.
due to the nature of the program i need to access information from one controller in another. To do this I create a reference to the controller whose data I want within the controller that needs access to it. This works fine under normal processing, however when the application is executed / called up twice by the same user, the controllers for the initial instance of the application are de-referenced...
Does anybody know why this may be occurring...and how to get around it?
Thanks
Mike Law.

Whenever you open a browser anew, then there is no session data that the browser can send in any way whatsoever, therefor a new session on the server is started.
If you open a new window from within the first session this might not be the case, you can run multiple windows in the same session.
Either way, I would recommend to search the forum, there have been discussion about this (or a similar) topic, e.g. accessing the same model instance - it would be best if you look for them, read them, and if you have any questions left come back for more
Cheers,
Max

Need help in setting up Group Policy for same user in local system and Terminal server

Hi All,
Currently our remote users are using our network using VPN client over internet.
They are generally at their home computer and doing VPN as they have to work only in one RDP server for application.
We actually have a OU created for these RDP users and assign then some strict policy like they can not use any other .exe,they can not user any explorer ,they can not even use windows explorer when they are on RDP they just use one exe of their application.
Now what my management want is they want their home computers in Domain and want them to login via their same credentials they are using for RDP but they don't want them to restrict in their home computers with any strict policy.
Now my confusion is how can I configure different policies for same users or same OU.
Can any one guide me please...

you can achieve this fairly easily with group policy.
create an OU and put your remote desktop servers in that OU.
configure both user and computer policies in a group policy and link it to that ou.
you need to enable loopback mode - you may want it in merge or replace depending on your other policies you have. Probably replace though I would guess. this is set in the computer configuration > admin templates > system / group policy section.
now remove the policy you have currently setup for your users on the users OU containing the rdp users. If you want you can move these users back to your main users OU.
when your users login to the RDP server the settings in the user section of the GPO linked to the RDP Servers OU will apply.
when the user logs in to their own computer the policies from the user OU and computer OU will apply - but not the more restrictive RDP OU.
hope that makes sense.
Regards,
Denis Cooper
MCITP EA - MCT
Help keep the forums tidy, if this has helped please mark it as an answer
My Blog
LinkedIn:

Is a Servlet-Filter which serializes requests in the same user session ok?

The Servelt specification states that the Web-Application is itself responsible for synchronizing access to HttpSessions. It is from the serversite not possible to prevent multiple threads to access the same HttpSession (i.e. the user could always open a second window, retransmit a form etc). My assumption is that while this does not happen often it can happen and therefore I think each access to the HttpSession must be synchronized. For a further discussion see http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jsp?forum=4&thread=169872 .
Concurrent programming is generally complicated and errorprone. At least in developing JSPs it is inconvenient and easy to forget. My Web-App uses often HttpSession and it can be used in different not predefined places, so I had the idea to implement a ServletFilter which serializes threads which happen in the same session. This involves certainly some overhead. However for the advantages of easier code maintains and higher consistency I am ready to pay this overhead.
My question is generally what you think of this approach and second whether the way I implemented the Filter works.
The Filter actually generates for each Request an HttpServletRequestWrapper which intercepts calls to getSession and on call aquires a Lock so that other threads have to wait for the same Session. The lock is released when the doFilter method of the Filter returns. So threads run concurrently until the first access to the Session and from there they are serialized until the end of the Request.
For the details I will give the code for the Filter and the Wrapper (that?s all the code needed except the ReentrantLock which is Doug Lea?s implementation http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/intro.html )
the Filter
public class SessionThreadFilter implements Filter
public static final String MUTEXT_IN_SESSION_KEY = "org.jaul.filter.SessionThreadFilter.MUTEX";
//constructor, init, destroy methods do nothing
public void doFilter(ServletRequest reqIn,ServletResponse res,FilterChain filterChain)
    throws IOException, ServletException
    //if req not instanceof of HttpRequest don't do anything
    if (!(reqIn instanceof HttpServletRequest))
      filterChain.doFilter(reqIn, res);
    } else
      HttpServletRequest req = (HttpServletRequest) reqIn;
      //We use a HttpRequestWrapper each time a user accesses
      //through this
      //Wrapper a Session is Lock is aquired. The filter method returns
      //the lock if it exists is released
      //each thread needs it's own wrapper so the wrapper itself
      //doesn't have to be synchronized
      SessionThreadRequestWrapper wrapper = new SessionThreadRequestWrapper(req);
      try{
        filterChain.doFilter(wrapper, res);
      }finally{
        ReentrantLock lock = wrapper.getLock();
        if (lock != null && lock.holds() != 0)
                   lock.release(lock.holds());
the Wrapper
final public class SessionThreadRequestWrapper extends HttpServletRequestWrapper {
private ReentrantLock lock = null;
   * Constructor for SessionThreadRequestWrapper.
   * @param arg0
public SessionThreadRequestWrapper(HttpServletRequest req){
    super(req);
   * @see javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest#getSession()
public HttpSession getSession(){
    return getSession(true);
   * @see javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest#getSession(boolean)
public HttpSession getSession(boolean construct){
    //this will get the session an the lock
    HttpSession session = getLockFromSession(construct);
    if (session == null) return null;
    //get a lock on the mutex
    try{
      lock.acquire();
    } catch (InterruptedException e){
      throw new IllegalStateException("Interrupted while thread waiting for session");
    //now we check again if the session is still valid
    try{
      session.getAttribute(SessionThreadFilter.MUTEXT_IN_SESSION_KEY);
    } catch (IllegalStateException e){
      //again we go recusively but first release the lock
      lock.release();
      lock = null;
      return getSession(construct);
    //after you got the lock you can return the session
    return session;
   * gets the lock from the session
   * @param construct
   * @return HttpSession
private HttpSession getLockFromSession(boolean construct){
    //test if it is a new Session
    HttpSession session = super.getSession(construct);
    //if is null no session was realy requested
    if (session == null) return null;
    //otherwise try to get the lock if necessery construct it
    //syncrhonized over session
    synchronized (session){
      //this migth throw an Exception if the session has been
      //invalidated in the mean time
      try{
        lock = (ReentrantLock) session.getAttribute(SessionThreadFilter.MUTEXT_IN_SESSION_KEY);
        if (lock == null){
          lock = new ReentrantLock();
          session.setAttribute (SessionThreadFilter.MUTEXT_IN_SESSION_KEY, lock);
        return session;
      } catch (IllegalStateException e){
        //the session has been invalidated before we tried to get the
        //lock we recursively call getLockFromSession
        //( assumption checked with Jetty: if the session is invalidated
        //and getSession is called on the thread a new valid session
        // should is returend)
        //I hope sometime you should get a valid session but I am not
        //sure. This is crucial for breaking of the recursion
        lock = null;
        return this.getLockFromSession(construct);
/** used by the Filter to get the lock so that it can release it
ReentrantLock getLock(){
     return this.lock;
}As stated I would be very thankful if you could check the code and give some commends.

synchronized (session){Are you sure that the session instance returned by two
concurrent calls to getSession(...) are the same? I
think that tomcat for instance may return different
instances for the same "logical " session, which would
break your scheme I think... Thank you (I did not know that on Tomcat). The same thing could also occur if another filter wrapped the Session.
That's indeed a problem,which I have already adressed in another thread, but did not get an answer. ( http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jsp?forum=33&thread=412380). The already cited thread http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jsp?forum=4&thread=169872 adresses the same problem, but the discussion there ends with the recomandation that you should synchronize on HttpSession as I did it. Also in other forums I've read so.
However like you I've at least strong doubts in this approach, so now my question is on what should I than generally for any access in any web-app syncrhonize the access to Http-Session as demanded by the Servlet specs.
A few not realy satisfying answers:
Synchronize on the HttpSession itself: I think still the best approach, but as you say is it guaranteed that the same instance of an HttpSession is given to each Request (in one Session)?
Synchronized on the HttpServlet: This only works if no other servlet (or jsp) accesses in the session the value with the same key ( of course only if the session itself is threadsave). In case of ThingleThread it is not possible at all there can be multiple instances (you could use a static variable)
Holding the object to synchronize on in applicaton scope or session scope: This obiously doesn't help, because somehow you have to obtain the lock and at least there you need another synchronize.Holding in application socpe is slow a static variable lock would be better there.
Synchronize on some static variable: This will work, but is very slow (each request not only in the same session would synchronize on this).
Hold a map in application scope, which holds for each Session-key a lock: Is probably faster than the static variable thing. However the access and the management of the Map (removing of unused locks etc.- Mabe you could use a WeakHashMap to collect the locks for not used keys anymore) is time consuming too and again the map must be accessed syncrhonasly by all requests.
Syncrhonize on the Filter (only in my case): This is as slow as the static variable approach because each request will use the same lock the one instance of the Filter.
So synchronizing on the session is propably the best approach if the same attribute name is accesed by different servlets. However if you say that some Web-Containers return different HttpSession instances for the same Session (which is legal according to the specification) this of course does not work.
So I have realy no clue on what to syncrhonize than. Now help is not only neede on my Thread serialization filter but on my generally Servlet prgromming.
May be you could help me for another synchronization aproach.

How to revoke the ddl statements in the same user's objects

anyone pls,
I need to restrict ddl on the same user's objects.
means, i'm having a user common. my developers are keep on creating tables and alter the existing tables. Even if they are the owner of the objects, can possible to revoke the create and alter only?
if possible means, could u advice with queries.. because now only i'm learning dba sides.
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
RengarajR

Hi Vadim.
GREAT! Our requirement is fulfilled by that way you described. Special thanks for your help!!!
Best regards,
Masa

Three tables with the same table name in the same user account

Windows XP with 10.2.0.1.0
What is the best strategy to handle the following tasks? Thanks in advance.
I need to have three different version of database with the same tablename and under the same user name.
So, I can choose which version of table I need.
For instance:
version1:
create table history(col1 varchar2(20),col2 varchar2(10) ,col3 varchar2(30));
with data:
version2:
create table history(col1 varchar2(20),col2 varchar2(10), col3 varchar2(30) ,col4 number ,col5 number);
version3:
history is an union by version1 and version2

782150 wrote:
Windows XP with 10.2.0.1.0
What is the best strategy to handle the following tasks? Thanks in advance.
I need to have three different version of database with the same tablename and under the same user name.
So, I can choose which version of table I need.
For instance:
version1:
create table history(col1 varchar2(20),col2 varchar2(10) ,col3 varchar2(30));
with data:
version2:
create table history(col1 varchar2(20),col2 varchar2(10), col3 varchar2(30) ,col4 number ,col5 number);
version3:
history is an union by version1 and version2You can't unless you delete the previous table one table only with the same name

Exchange 2010 disconnect AD user from mailbox and reconnect the mailbox to a new copy of the same user with a different username

How can i get the following done:
Exchange 2010 disconnect AD user from mailbox and reconnect the mailbox to a new copy of the same user with a different username?
i nmust do this for 16 users TODAY, SO PLEASE HELP ME OUT HERE.
Thanks in advance!!
kind regards,
Rene Veldman
System Administrator Teidem bv, The Netherlands.

Rene,
Why are you not changing the username of the existing account, instead of deleting the existing one and creating a new one?
If you truly need to delete and create new, you can save the GUID for the mailbox (Get-MailboxStatistics <mailbox alias> | Fl MailboxGuid), mail disable the existing account (Disable-Mailbox <mailbox alias>
will work), clean the mailbox database it was hosted on (Clean-MailboxDatabase
<database name>), then create your new account and recover the existing mailbox to that new account (Connect-Mailbox -Identity <Guid from before> -Database <Database name> -User <SAM account name of new account> -Alias
<what you wish to set the alias to>). In PowerShell, for all steps, you would do the following:
$MbxAlias = <mailbox alias>
$NewMbxAcct = <SAM Account Name for new account>
$NewMbxAlias = <new alias for mailbox>
$DomCtrl = (dir env:\LOGONSERVER).Value.Substring(2)
$MbxGuid = (Get-MailboxStatistics $MbxAlias -DomainController $DomCtrl).MailboxGuid
$MbxDb = (Get-Mailbox $MbxAlias -DomainController $DomCtrl).Database
Disable-Mailbox $MbxAlias
Clean-MailboxDatabase $MbxDb
Connect-Mailbox -Identity $MbxGuid -Database $MbxDb -User $NewMbxAcct -Alias $NewMbxAlias -DomainController $DomCtrl
You will need to supply the information in bold in the above commands, and you will need to create the new account before you run the above commands. I include direct use of a specific domain controller so you won't need to worry about replication.
If you are changing the account from one domain to another, this will not help, and you will need to wait for replication throughout the process, running the commands individually.

Can Mac OS 10.8.3 and 10.6.8 share the same User/Home folder?

I use both OS 10.6.8 on HD and 10.8.3 (on a SSD). Most of my User data is on the 10.6.8 drives.
Presently I manually save data when using 10.8.3 to the 10.6.8 User folder. I know I can select Advanced Options in System Prefs in my Accounts folder to make the 10.6.8 User folder the User folder that 10.8.3 uses.
If I do that can I alternate booting from one OS to the other using the same User folder? Or is there a problem with both OS's writing stuff to the
~/Home/Library folder that may be incompatible? Or to other places I'm not aware of?
I have more than enough space on the SSD to partition it for both OS's (now only 10.8.3) and both Applications folders - to speedup whichever OS I need to use.
To have one User folder for both OS's would save a lot of drive space and make backing up much easier and faster. But I'm also not sure how I'd use Time machine with such a set up. Presently I backup with Time machine plus clones to other HD's. I'm totally confused by all this and wonder if someone out there has used the same User folder for different OS's.
Grateful for any advise.
Thanks,
MartyP

MartyP wrote:
Or is there a problem with both OS's writing stuff to the
~/Home/Library folder that may be incompatible?
Yes, big time. Mail, for sure, has a different file/folder structure, and would not be happy.
Plus, a number of apps (Apple and 3rd-party) are "Sandboxed." That's a security feature, to prevent malware or bad coding from affecting things it shouldn't. Some of their files, including the preferences files, aren't even stored in the same places!
Or to other places I'm not aware of?
Probably. If you have two versions of the same app, they may or may not expect the same data setup.
To have one User folder for both OS's would save a lot of drive space
Not if you use some or all of woodmeister50's suggestions.
But I'm also not sure how I'd use Time machine with such a set up.
Just as you do now. By default, Time Machine backs-up everything (except things like system work files, most caches and logs, trash) for all users and all internal drives & partitions. By default, it excludes external drives.
You can change those defaults, of course, via TM Preferences > Options.
See Time Machine - Frequently Asked Question #32 for details and considerations of multiple drives.
Presently I backup with . . . clones to other HD's
Good. Yes, clones are different. You need multiple "tasks" to back up multiple drives/partitions. But once set up, that shouldn't be a big deal.

Check-out button is not disable after the check out request from the same user

HI all,
I want to use check out/ in procedure in solution manager along with email notification. For that, I have maintained required settings and maintenance project for the intended solution. I want to implement a team leader- manger hiearchy for any changes to the solution. When a team member requests for the check out for any process scenario/ step, the status goes to check out requested. But, the problem is, check-out button is not disable and same user can do the check out which I want to restrict. The check out can be done only by the project manger. I guess, this is related to authorization roles for both team member and manger. But I am not able to find out. Please help me to have the authorization roles for this.
Thanks,
Rutvik Upadhyay.

Why not putting a af:fileDownloadActionListener inside the command button. In the bean you need an method like
public void exportExcel(FacesContext aFacesContext, OutputStream aOutputStream)
} You can use the output stream and when you finished just flush it. Don't close the stream and don't complete the response.
Timo

Can you give me a paper or document related to this phone was changed since it was broken down? I need IMEI numbers of two Iphones on the same page. Because I don't wanna save this Iphone again in my country. I paid one time for my old Iphone.

My Iphone was changed because of broken down thanks to its warranty. I am from Turkey and I paid one time for my old Iphone to save. Can you give me a paper or document related to this phone was changed since it was broken down? I need IMEI numbers of two Iphones on the same page. Because I don't wanna save this Iphone again in my country. I paid one time for my old Iphone. If you give me a document, I don't need to save my Iphone5 and also I don't need to pay again to save in my country.

this forum is made up of users like you, not apple employees. We can not help you with that kind of request.

Auth: Restrict Infoobject for Queries differently for the same user

Hi guys,
I need to restrict an infoobject differently for some queries (analysis authorization). For example, I need to give full hierarchie access for query 1 to user 1. But for another query for the same user I need to restrict the hierarchie authorization. Furthermore, both queries are based on the same multi provider. It is not possible to use different multi provider ... the adjustment effort is to high (to many queries).
I have set up an authorization with rsecadmin
QUERY1:
ZHier1     Hyrarchie 1
ZHier2     Hyrarchie 2
0TCAACTVT     Activity in Analysis Authorizations
0TCAIPROV     Authorizations for InfoProvider
0TCAVALID     Validity of an Authorization
0TCTQUERY     Query
-->I added the respective values for the queries, the used multiprovider, hierarchies, etc.
I have set up the same for QUERY 2 with different Hierarchy and Query values, but it does not work correctly. The user is always authorized for the hierarchie values of both queries.
Thanks foryour helpin advance!!
Regards,
Sven

Hi Sankar,
Sorry for the confusion. Lets focus only one hierarchy ... ZHier1.
QUERY1:
ZHier1     -> value: node2
0TCAACTVT     -> value: 2 & 3
0TCAIPROV -> value: multiprovider1
0TCAVALID     -> value: *
0TCTQUERY     -> value: query1 (based on multiprovider1)
QUERY2:
ZHier1     -> value: node2.1 (sub node of node 2)
0TCAACTVT     -> value: 2 & 3
0TCAIPROV -> value: multiprovider1
0TCAVALID     -> value: *
0TCTQUERY     -> value: query2 (based on multiprovider1)
But this does not work. When I use query2 in reports the user has access to node2 and not only to node2.1.
Any idea?
Thanks again!
Sven

Need same user of metalink to be the user of OTN

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for