Singleton VS ServletContext VS Inheritance

I just poseted this in a reply to another thread, but I think it deservs its own.
I'm confused on how to implemente something like a database access between two servlets, say a Login Servlet and a Registration Servlet. Both need to access cuncurrently to the database using the same connection.
So three ways of doing this are with a Singleton Object, which handles database access. Sharing that same Object through the ServletContext and instead of having an object to handle database access, handle it in a Servlet which will then be inherited by both the Login a Registration Servlets...
I was looking for your opinion on which would be the best way to implement this...?

BalusC, I agree with you on all that. The thing is that I need to use a file...So I need the accesses to be handled concurrently..I do realy wish I could you a DB as it would save me all this trouble with concurrency on reads and writes...
Here is a piece of my code:
The object I'm using as a Singleton:
public class Users {
     private static Users ref;
     private static final String FILENAME = "users.xml";
     private static Hashtable users = new Hashtable();
     private ReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
     private static XMLDecoder dec;
     private static XMLEncoder enc;
     private static int id;
     private Users() {}
     public static synchronized Users getUsers()
          if(ref == null) {
               ref = new Users();
               try {
                    dec = new XMLDecoder(new BufferedInputStream(new FileInputStream(FILENAME)));
                    dec.close();
               catch(FileNotFoundException e) {
                    System.out.println("Vou criar um file novo");
                    try {
                         enc = new XMLEncoder(new BufferedOutputStream(new FileOutputStream(FILENAME)));
                         enc.writeObject(new Hashtable());
                         id = 0;
                         enc.writeObject(id);
                         enc.close();
                    } catch(Exception ex) {ex.printStackTrace();}
          return ref;
     public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException
          throw new CloneNotSupportedException();
     public User findUser(String username)
          try {
               lock.readLock().lock();
               dec = new XMLDecoder(new BufferedInputStream(new FileInputStream(FILENAME)));
               users = (Hashtable) dec.readObject();
               dec.close();
               lock.readLock().unlock();
               return (User)users.get(username);
          } catch(Exception e) {
               System.out.println("There was a problem decoding XML");
               return null;
     public boolean saveUser(String username, String password)
          try {
               lock.readLock().lock();
               dec = new XMLDecoder(new BufferedInputStream(new FileInputStream(FILENAME)));
               users = (Hashtable) dec.readObject();
               id = (Integer)dec.readObject();
               dec.close();
               lock.readLock().unlock();
               User u = new User();
               u.setUsername(username);
               u.setPassword(password);
               u.setId(id+1);
               users.put(username, u);
               lock.writeLock().lock();
               enc = new XMLEncoder(new BufferedOutputStream(new FileOutputStream(FILENAME)));
               enc.writeObject(users);
               enc.writeObject(id+1);
               enc.close();
               lock.writeLock().unlock();
               System.out.println("save done");
               return true;
          } catch(Exception e) {
               System.out.println("There was a problem decoding XML [save fail]");
               System.out.println(e.getMessage());
               return false;
}And the Login servlet
protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException {
          // TODO Auto-generated method stub
          String username = request.getParameter("login");
          String password = request.getParameter("pass");
          User usr = authenticate(username, password);
          if(usr != null)
               HttpSession session = request.getSession(true);
               session.setAttribute("user", usr);
               response.sendRedirect("Home");
          else
               response.setContentType("text/html");
             PrintWriter out = response.getWriter();
             out.println("<html>");
             out.println("<head>");
             out.println("<title>Hello World!</title>");
             out.println("</head>");
             out.println("<body>");
             out.println("<h2>El username/password no es valido!</h2>");
             out.println("<a href=\"Login\">Ententar otra vez!</a>");
             out.println("</body>");
             out.println("</html>");
     private User authenticate(String username, String password)
          Users tmp = Users.getUsers();
          User usr = tmp.findUser(username);
          if(usr != null)
               if(usr.getPassword().equals(password))
                    return usr;
          return null;
     }

Similar Messages

  • Singleton vs ServletContext for storing application scope objects

    Hi all,
    I would like to share some bean objects between all sessions inside the same web application, i.e. all users should access the same beans.
    Which is the best way, to store the beans, use a singleton ore put them into the ServletContent vs get/setAttribute?
    How about large objects, are there any limitations?
    Thanks
    Mert
    Edited by: mahmut1 on Oct 22, 2009 3:32 AM

    I must confess I am a heretic. I would use a singleton. I try to use as few servlet services as possible when working with servlets; that way the code has a fighting chance of being reusable outside the servlet system.
    As to "singletons are evil": well, if we are talking about ServletContext.setAttribute(), that is a singleton. It is a singleton hash table. The difference between the attribute hash table and a hash table singleton you write yourself is with attributes you don't automatically see the source code that defines the singleton, so you get to pretend you are not using a singleton.
        protected Hashtable myAttributes;Haha! There, I just showed how the singleton hash table is implemented in a popular web server!

  • Singleton or servletcontext??

    Hi,
    For my web app I have a class, NoticeManager, that maintains a hashMap of users and notices. The hashMap key is a unique user id and the object is a Vector of Notice objects. I want all clients to be able to use the same noticeManager instance and all notice objects must have a unique ID.
    I'm not sure how to implement this correctly - my current thinking is
    - Make NoticeManager a singleton
    - Make the noticeManager instance available to all clients using the servletContext getAttribute and setAttribute methods.
    - implement the uniqueID as a class variable that gets implemented using a synchronized method
    Any thoughts/suggestions would be much appreciated
    regards
    Richard

    Implementing a singleton in J2EE is difficult (probably impossible) to do in a manner consistent with the standard in practice. A Singleton is only a unique to a single JVM. However the clustering requirement of a scalable App Server typically bring with it multiple JVM's. This results in multiple Singletons. Now depending on your detailed requirements (for example your choice of a Singleton may be pragmatic rather than absolute) this may or may not cause a problem in practice.
    The Servlet Context offer an excellent alternative. However I think this issue is likely to be resolved (standardised) in latter versions of the J2EE standard. I would therefore hide this behind a ScopeHandler facade, that supports Application, Session, Request and Page Scopes. This will minimise the impact of likely future changes and provides an elegant interface.

  • Singleton Methods @nd Inheritance

    Can you inherit a singleton class? If so how? I don't think that you can b/c there is no public constructor to be called impliclitly. Any ideas on how to get around this?

    So you want B to be a subclass of A, and you want both of them to be singletons? So if your program creates the single allowable instance of A, it logically can't create any instances of B, because a B is an A. I don't understand why you would want this. Or alternatively, you are allowed to create a single instance of B, in which case you now have two A objects. I don't understand why you would want this either. Would you care to explain what this inheritance is meant to achieve?

  • Singletons and Inheritance

    Hello all,
    I want to write a set of classes in the following way. Say I have a class called Base from which SubX, SubY, and SubZ are derived. I would like Base to be a singleton class, with a getInstance() method, so that one and only one of the subclasses can ever be instantiated. Which particular subclass to instantiate is determined at run time.
    // Create (or load or initialize...) subclass dynamically at run time (let's say SubY)
    // From now on, I cannot instantiate any more classes derived from Base in this VM (i.e. no instances of SubX, SubY, or SubZ).
    // Base.getInstance() now always returns the SubY singleton.
    Anyone have ideas on how to do this?
    Thanks in advance...
    Matt

    I think the main problem here is that to do this within the hierarchy is that it means a base class must have knowledge of its derrived classes. This is a pretty big OO no no (one reason for this is that it makes extending your hierarchy pretty difficult).
    I think that what you want is a third party who manages your constraint (i.e, only one translator should be used, and should be available to everyone).
    Ive got a couple of solutions - the first one would leave your translators not being singletons, the other one would.......
    Solution one:
    Have a singleton TranslatorFactory who provides you with a single translator:
    Heres some classes/interfaces we need to know about:
    public interface Translator
      // Your translation stuff:
      public void doTranslate();
    public class ConcreteTranslatorA
      public ConcreteTranslatorA()
        // Allow construction....
      public void doTranslate()
        // Some Translation stuff
    // The manager - exceptions dealt with in terms of Exception in this example just for clarity:
    public class TranslatorFactory
      private TranslatorFactory mInstance;
      private Translator mTranslator;
      private static final String TRANSLATOR_PROPERTY="TRANSLATOR";
      public static TranslatorFactory GetInstance() throws Exception
        // usuall singleton stuff - create/provide instance
      public TranslatorFactory throws Exception
        // Create the translator here. You might do this by getting the class name from system properties, or by any other method you like  
       String aClassName=System.getProperty(TRANSLATOR_PROPERTY);
        mTranslator=(Translator)(Class.forName(aClassName).newInstance());
      public Translator getTranslator()
        return mTranslator;
    }If you really want to prevent your translator instances being instantiated, you can do this another way:
    1) Make their constructors private.
    2) Make the TranslatorFactory a registry of Translators. Each translator uses a static initialiser to make itself known to the registry (in terms of a Translator). The registry caches each instance against its class name. The factory can then configure which translator to use based on some property. This is a good approach to take if the property can change: I.e, different translators can be provided at different times without incurring extra creation.
    public class TranslatorRegistry
      private Map mTranslatorMap;
      public TranslatorRegistry GetInstance()
        // usual singleton stuff....
      public void register(Translator aTranslator)
        // cache the instance against its class name in the mTranslatorMap.
      public Translator getTranslator()
        // decide which translator to use from the cache, and supply it.
    public class ConcreteRegisteringTranslatorA
      static
        // perform automatic registration:
        TranslatorRegsitry.GetInstance().register(new ConcreteRegisteringTranslatorA());
      protected ConcreteRegisteringTranslatorA
        // cant be constructed externally, but allow derrivation by keeping constructor protected
      public void doTranslation()
        // translation
    }

  • Updating a database using EJB Inheritance

    I am new to EJB's, so please forgive my ignorance. I creating the following classes that inherit from each other along with a method to update my database:
    @Entity
    @Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
    @DiscriminatorColumn(name="TYPE", discriminatorType=DiscriminatorType.STRING)
    public abstract class ObjectA implements java.io.Serializable {
         protected String name;
         protected String desc;
         protected String type;
    @Entity
    @DiscriminatorValue("OBJECTB")
    public class ObjectB extends ObjectA implements java.io.Serializable {
         protected String str_b;
         public ObjectB(String name, String desc, String type, String str_b) {
              this.name = name;
              this.desc = desc;
              this.type = type;
              this.str_b = str_b;
    @Entity
    @DiscriminatorValue("OBJECTC")
    public class ObjectC extends ObjectB implements java.io.Serializable {
         private String str_c;
         public ObjectC(String name, String desc, String type, String str_b, String str_c) {
              this.name = name;
              this.desc = desc;
              this.type = type;
              this.str_b = str_b;
              this.str_c = str_c;
    public class MyFacade implements ServletContextListener {
         @PersistenceUnit(unitName="Pu")
        private EntityManagerFactory emf;
        @Resource
        private UserTransaction utx;
        public MyFacade() { }
        public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent sce) {
            if (emf.isOpen()) emf.close();
        public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent sce) {
            ServletContext context = sce.getServletContext();
            context.setAttribute("MyFacade", this);
         public void updateObject(ObjectA obj) {
            EntityManager em = emf.createEntityManager();
            try{
                utx.begin();
                em.merge(obj);
                utx.commit();
            } catch(Exception exe){
                try {
                    utx.rollback();
                } catch (Exception e) {}
                throw new RuntimeException("Error updating obj", exe);
            } finally {
                em.close();
    }If I do the following:
         String name = "test name";
         String desc = "updating object c";
         String type = "OBJECTC";
         String b = "b";
         String c = "c";
         MyFacade myf = new MyFacade();
         ObjectC objC = new ObjectC(name, desc, type, b, c);
         myf.updateObject(objC);
         .....In my database, only the values associated with ObjectC get updated and nothing from ObjectA or ObjectB get updated in the database. Does the "merge" method not work on inheritance. How do I update my database using inheritance?
    Thanks!
    Message was edited by:
    FourierXForm

    did you only have ISQL for testing it?
    Can you debug the form and look, if someone happens - exceptions, ... ?
    after the update you can use
    message (SQL%ROWCOUNT); pause ;
    to look, how many records were updated

  • Per Web Application singleton pattern

    Hello
    I have a application (ear) file that look something like this:
    App.ear
    -- Web_1.war
    ----- WEB-INF/lib/helper.jar
    -- Web_2.war
    ----- WEB-INF/lib/helper.jar
    -- Web_3.war
    ----- WEB-INF/lib/helper.jar
    inside helper.jar there is a singleton class., which get initialised differently depending on which Web_<X> it is loaded in. This currently works because each lib directory get loaded by each own classloader.
    I would really like to move the helper.jar up to the <ear file>/lib directory, but that means it is only loaded by the classloaders once anf thus the 3 singletons break as there is now only one.
    I would like to have some sort of "Per Web application" globally reachable "singleton".
    I have thought about using ServletContext, but it appears that there is no easy ways for helper classes to look it up, unless it is passed as a parameter.
    A second idea would be to use ThreadLocals, but that would rely on the Web container not reusing threads accross web applications. I am not sure if this is guranteed not to happen ...
    In any case, what is the best way to handle this ? is there any standard way or a design pattern to follow...

    I suppose another way of asking this question is this:
    is there a way to use the singleton pattern on a
    per-web-application basis without storing the
    singleton in the ServletContext? If I can find a way
    to do that, I can solve my initial problem.Some web application servers run each webapp in a separate JVM, or at least a separate classloader. If yours does either of those, then each webapp will have its own instance of the singleton. Try it.

  • Inherit Singleton class?

    hi there,
    We are learning Java at University and are supposed to develop a program to manage an art exhibition.
    The art exhibition is limited to 100 Objects (paintings and sculptures). Every object has a name, a value, an insurance, etc. and type specific attributes.
    So basically I've got three classes: Object, Painting extends Object and Sculpture extends Object.
    Now the easy way to limit the number of Objects to 100 would be to store them in an array with 100 fields.
    My idea was, that its way more elegant to have Object as a singleton class with 100 instances. But since I made the Object constructor private I cant extend Painting and Sculpture to Object any more.
    Is there a way round that?
    My singleton class is based on this example: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/2001-11/01-qa-1102-singleton.html

    100 really puts the 'multi' in multi-ton, no? :^)
    And the "ton" as well :o)
    But it doesn't solve my problem of inheritance since the constructor is private.
    You don't need a multiton. It's inappropriate. You need a restricted collection.
    Let's imagine a few scenarios for a moment.
    You have an exhibition with a capacity of 100 artefacts, and it is fully populated. Now let's say someone submits an artefact for the exhibition, and if it's more interesting than the current least interesting artefact, the old one is removed and the new one is added in its plaace.
    Your 100-instance multiton can't cope with that: the additional artefact simply cannot exist.
    Let's also imagine that you want to open a second exhibition. Your multiton can't cope with that: at the most they will have 100 artefacts to share between them.
    Does that make sense?
    Think about the real world. There are lots of artefacts. Exhibitions are of limited size.

  • Clustering and Application/Servlet Singletons...Replicated?

    Are static servlet and instance attributes replicated to servlet instances
              in cluster?
              We have seen some behavior which suggest no?
              Assuming all instance and static variables are serializable or atomic types,
              are they replicated?
              If not, how is application/servlet level state replicated? servletcontext?
              -phil ([email protected])
              [Phillip A. Lindsay.vcf]
              

    "Phillip A. Lindsay" wrote:
              > Are static servlet and instance attributes replicated to servlet instances
              > in cluster?
              Each node will have its own class/classloader tuple and therefore its own set
              of static and instance attributes. The singleton effect can be achieved by
              binding
              an object into a namespace at a well-known point. It can be argued that a
              singleton
              should be replicated but then it wouldn't be a "single" singleton.
              Cheers
              Alex
              mailto:[email protected] // Consulting services available
              

  • Migratable targets for singleton implementations

    Hi,
    I require some help regarding the use of migratable targets with singleton implementations
    We have a WebLogic 11g environment comprising several managed servers in a cluster. Migratable Targets are also been defined for JMS and JTA services.
    The deployment includes two EARs which may only be deployed to a single server at any one time. The first EAR contains JARs, a WAR and a RAR. The second contains JARs and EJBs. We wish to implement a fail-over solution for these "singleton" EARs on the cluster so that everything would get migrated to another server in the cluster if the initial pinned server fails.
    We had hoped to use the same mechanism as for JMS and JTA services whereby the EARs would simply assigned to a migratable target (with a defined user preferred server and constraint candidate servers). However from reading the documentation and trying out some deployments this scenario does not seem to be supported by WebLogic. For example, a migratable target may not be given as a target during EAR deployment.
    The only option for the singleton services seems to be inheriting from the SingletonService and deploying this to preferred- and candiates servers but this would mean changing quite a few services and we are not sure how to manage the "singleton" RAR.
    Does Weblogic 11g offer a way to deploy a complete EAR to a deployable target? If not, could you please suggest an alternative way of implementing a fail-over solution for our EARs.
    Thanks in advance for your help.
    Regards. Ian.

    I tried deleting and creating them anew but it then messes up the configuration of the migratable targets. What seems to work now is to delete them, create new ones with DIFFERENT names and then updateDomain(). In this case the old ones get really deleted. Really messy stuff.

  • Abstract Singleton Class?

    hi all
    i have an abstract class and i want to extend it such that it becomes a singleton. However i wish i can also gain the benefits of abstraction so that i can reference the abstract class whatever the concrete class that extends it
    so how can i write the "getInstance()" method in both the abstract and concrete classes knowing that i can't create an abstract static method?!
    thanks in advance

    this has nothing to do with my question
    my question is:
    if you have class A abstract and class B inherits from class A
    then i want to make class A a singleton with a single underlaying instance of class B
    such that when i call A.getInstance() it first checks if the instance it has is null it creates a new object from class B and use it as an instance but ofcourse it has to be general to all several subclasses to be used according to each case.

  • XSL, XSQL, ServletContext

    I'm using the XSQL framework to send XML to a stylesheet. The stylesheet includes java extensions and has been able to access my objects no problem but one of them was a singleton, which, I'm told is a no-no in web container land.
    I'm now in the midst of changing my singleton so that it more properly conforms to this: http://wiki.apache.org/tomcat/OutOfMemory suggestion (3rd one down).
    Problem is, now I need access to the ServletContext. Does anyone know if the ServletContext is exposed to the stylesheets processing under xsql?

    XSQLServletPageRequest xspr = (XSQLServletPageRequest)getPageRequest();
    ServletContext cont = xspr.getServletContext();

  • Issues About Subclassing Singleton

    Need some feedback whether my thinking is true. The issue is on what to do when I need to extend a singleton class.
    For a typical singleton like following:
    public class SingletonRoot{
       private sitatic SingletonRoot instance=null;
       protected void SingletonRoot();
       public static SingletonRoot getInstance() {
          if (instance==null)
             instance=new SingletonRoot();
          return instance;
       public void otherMethods(){}
    }Because I need to extend the class so to override otherMethods(), I will extend it:
    public class SingletonSub extends SingletonRoot {
    }In this subclass, I will not not declare another private static variable of instance to hide the one in the super class. I think this is for sure. Then the question is whether I need to override the getInstance(). If I do not override it, the first time I call it like SingletonSub.getInstance() will cause an instance of SingletonRoot instantiated. The subsequent calls to otherMethods() will always be the version in the base class, right?
    So, I will have to override it with following?
    public class SingletonSub extends SingletonRoot {
       private void SingletonSub();
       public static SingletonRoot getInstance() {
          if (instance==null)
             instance=new SingletonSub();
          return instance;
       public void otherMethods(){}
    }Is this right?
    But we know that we can not override static methods. So, my writing above is hiding the getInstance() in the base class. Then, depending on which class the client class will use as the qualifier of the method to call it, it will have different effects?

    Thanks for all the answers. Let me elaborate more below:
    To address those from DrClap: if I create another static variable instance in the SingletonSub class, it means that I will have one object for SingletonSub and one object for SingletonRoot. This is caused by this new static variable of instance in sub will hide the one in root, right? If I keep it as-is, there should be only one object for both classes.
    If I choose extending the root one with a new static variable of instance, it means that I like to keep all existing calls to the other non-static methods in the root one still calling the existing methods and only new reference or calls to the methods with the new SingletonSub instance will go to the sub one's overriden methods. For that purpose, I do need to have two separate instances for the two classes. Old code will keep using old methods and new code will use the new overriden methods (non-static other methods).
    But with my current code, there can only be one object for both classes. Depending on who is the first call to the getInstance(), the instance will be initialized to either SingletonRoot or SingletonSub. Then depending on which class it is initialized to, ALL the calls to those non-static overriden methods can be either the old one in the root or the new one in sub. But for the whole program, they will consistently call the same methods and there will be no case of calling old methods with old code referring to SingletonRoot and calling to new overriden methods for new code referring to SingletonSub.
    My needs are like following: there is a singleton class in this program and there are quite some calls related to this class. The class has quite a few non-static methods dealing with some business logics. Most methods are fine and we will keep as-is. But a couple of those non-static methods do not really fit our business logics. (Sorry, in my original example, I used otherMethods() to stand for all other non-static methods for business logics both fine or not fine. From now on, I will use otherMethod1() for all fine and otherMethod2() for all those need correction).
    So, we like to make minimum changes so that all calls to those otherMethod2() will be updated with new logics. If we had the source code of the SingletonRoot, we can simply go to those otherMethod2() to change all the logics. But even if we had the source code, better way might be to keep it as-is in case others may need those methods in that way in the future. So, I think a better way is to extend it with SingletonSub and override otherMethod2() in the sub-class. In this way, by just making this extension, we have made all existing calls to those otherMethod2() going to the overriden methods in the sub-class without touch any existing code any where. But I just realized when answering your question that if I do not make sure I have a call to SingletonSub.getInstance() before any other similar attempts against SingletonRoot, nothing will be pointing to the overriden methods in the sub-class. Basically, I am trying to use polymophism to achieve the changes without touching any existing code while only adding one new sub class extending the singleton class.
    I think even if I had the source code of the SingletonRoot, this might be better way to do it since you do not need to touch original code. If I do not do inheritance, how could I make changes so that the program will follow the new business logics in the otherMethod2() instead of those in the old otherMethod2() in the old singleton class. At the same time, any calls to otherMethod1() should remain unchanged. But having to make sure calling SingletonSub.getInstance() has to be the very first call to avoid uncertain instantiation might not be intuitive to other developers in the future when taking over the program. Any good solution for that?

  • Forcing singleton on inharitance

    I am trying to create an inheritance structure, so that each inheritor implementation would be forced to be a singleton. so:
    public interface Singleton{
        ...method definitions...
    public abstract class AbsSingleton implements Singleton{
       ..common method implementation...
    public class SingletonImpl extends AbsSingleton{
       private static SingletonImpl me = null;
       public static SingletonImpl instance{
            if (me == null){
                 me = new SingletonImpl();
            return me;
       private SingletonImpl(){}I thought initially to create the instance method in the abstract and use reflection to instantiate the implementer, but that need the implementers' constructor to be public, which looses the point of forcing. is there a way I can enforce that?
    thank you,
    Ehud
    Edited by: Kaldor on Jul 2, 2009 12:08 AM

    Hi Tom,
    Try: butt.doclick();
    JButton butt=new JButton();
    butt.doClick();
    BR
    Mohit

  • Singleton vs application attribute?

    Hi
    I am sure most of you solved this problem. Actually it is not a problem but just wanted to know which is the best way.
    How do you store the database connection all the time.
    Case 1): Store the connection in a singleton
    case 2): When the context is initialized, Store the connection object in the application context.
    Which is the better way in web app?
    thanks

    Hi vpalkonda,
    If you implement an object/resource as a Singleton, it can be referenced by other non-web-tier objects (must be within the same Java VM though).
    If you store an object/resource in the ServletContext, it can only be referenced by web-tier objects having access to the ServletContext.
    Hope this clarifies.

Maybe you are looking for

  • Can no longer turn Wi-Fi on

    My older MacBook running 10.7.4 can no longer connect to my Wi-Fi using Time Capsule.  Two other Macs, an iPad and two iPhones have no problem.  Latest Firmware installed.  I've tried connecting from menu bar.  Select Turn Wi-Fi On.  Nothing happens.

  • Xi 3.0: Mail adapter fails with "exception in method process"

    Hi. I configured the dynamic address for mail adapter following the fantastic-as-always weblog from michalgh. Althou everything seems to work fine (that is, i send correctly the email message) the A.F. returns an error with "exception in method proce

  • Ipod won't play through headphones anymore... and I JUST bought it!

    I just bought my 5th Gen. ipod nano a week ago and was working fine. After I had used it on my ihome docking station, it won't play through my headphones anymore.... I use the ear buds that came with it- all the player does is imediatly play through

  • Box won't go away

    How do I get the allow and deny box to go away so I can see live tv

  • Report on planned overheads

    Hi Experts I have used dedicated costing sheets for calculation of overhead costs on material. Ex: Freight 10%, Insurance 1%. However, these costs are added to basic cost in all the reports. Is there any report where i can see break up of overheads?