Search Results

Search found 73253 results on 2931 pages for 'enterprise data quality solutions and news'.

Page 112/2931 | < Previous Page | 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119  | Next Page >

• In Enterprise Architect I modified an interface, how to update the realizing classes?

  - by Timo

  I've created an interface in a class model. This interface has two methods, A and B and method A takes an argument (a) and method B does not take an argument (yet). Additionally I've created a class that implements this interface, overriding both methods. After a discussing the model method B now should also take a parameter (b), so I modified the interface to reflect this change. However the class realizing this interface is not updated automatically. For one class it's possible to add the method by re-creating the link between the interface, specify the which method should be implemented and deleting this link again. Then the OLD method signature has to be removed as well. This is a lot of work if there is more then one class implementing the modified interface, not to mention error-prone. Does anybody know how to make an entire class model update this type of dependency?

  Read the article

• Getting out of my head

  - by BenCole

  (I put this on SO, but it got a couple close votes saying it belonged here instead...) I've spent the last year as a single person team developing a rich-client application (35,000+ LoC, for what it's worth). It's currently stable and in production. However, I know that my skills were rusty at the beginning of the project, so without a doubt there are major issues to the code. At this point, most of the issues are in architecture, structure, or interactions - the easy problems, even architecture/design problems, have already been weeded out. Unfortunately, I've spent so much time with this project that I'm having a hard time thinking outside of it - approaching it from a new perspective to see the flaws deeply buried or inherent in the design. How do I step outside my head and outside my code so I can get a fresh look at this code so I can make it better? Is this less of an issue than I think it is, or is this a problem for other people as well?

  Read the article

• How can I sell a legacy program rewrite to the business?

  - by Wil

  We have a legacy classic ASP application that's been around since 2001. It badly needs to be re-written, but it's working fine from an end user perspective. The reason I feel like a rewrite is necessary is that when we need to update it (which is admittedly not that often) then it takes forever to go through all the spaghetti code and fix problems. Also, adding new features is also a pain since it was architect-ed and coded badly. I've run cost analysis for them on maintenance but they are willing to spend more for the small maintenance jobs than a rewrite. Any suggestions on convincing them otherwise?

  Read the article

• Mail Scanning System

  - by Mr D

  In the same way gmail can generate ads based on email content, I am looking for a way to develop a system which can: Allow users to connect their email address to our site It then would continously monitor all incomming emails From the incomming emails there would be a critera(e.g. a certain address or subject) if any of the emails matched the critea it would would be saved to a database Then once a new email had been found the users would receive an email notification will tells them to log back into the site to see it. My questions are: Would this be possible? What would be a good language to use(generally I like php, python and java) Are there any frameworks which would help do this? How would I connect the users email account to allow access to their emails(do I need a mail server?) Any advice? Thank you! If you need more information please let me know.

  Read the article

• Is it OK to use dynamic typing to reduce the amount of variables in scope?

  - by missingno

  Often, when I am initializing something I have to use a temporary variable, for example: file_str = "path/to/file" file_file = open(file) or regexp_parts = ['foo', 'bar'] regexp = new RegExp( regexp_parts.join('|') ) However, I like to reduce the scope my variables to the smallest scope possible so there is less places where they can be (mis-)used. For example, I try to use for(var i ...) in C++ so the loop variable is confined to the loop body. In these initialization cases, if I am using a dynamic language, I am then often tempted to reuse the same variable in order to prevent the initial (and now useless) value from being used latter in the function. file = "path/to/file" file = open(file) regexp = ['...', '...'] regexp = new RegExp( regexp.join('|') ) The idea is that by reducing the number of variables in scope I reduce the chances to misuse them. However this sometimes makes the variable names look a little weird, as in the first example, where "file" refers to a "filename". I think perhaps this would be a non issue if I could use non-nested scopes begin scope1 filename = ... begin scope2 file = open(filename) end scope1 //use file here //can't use filename on accident end scope2 but I can't think of any programming language that supports this. What rules of thumb should I use in this situation? When is it best to reuse the variable? When is it best to create an extra variable? What other ways do we solve this scope problem?

  Read the article

• Method flags as arguments or as member variables?

  - by Martin

  I think the title "Method flags as arguments or as member variables?" may be suboptimal, but as I'm missing any better terminology atm., here goes: I'm currently trying to get my head around the problem of whether flags for a given class (private) method should be passed as function arguments or via member variable and/or whether there is some pattern or name that covers this aspect and/or whether this hints at some other design problems. By example (language could be C++, Java, C#, doesn't really matter IMHO): class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff(FlagType calcSelect) { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (calcSelect == typeA) { ... } else if (calcSelect == typeX) { ... } else if ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker(FlagType calcSelect) { ... DoInternalStuff(calcSelect); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... InternalStuffInvoker(typeA); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(typeX); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } What we see above is that the method InternalStuffInvoker takes an argument that is not used inside this function at all but is only forwarded to the other private method DoInternalStuff. (Where DoInternalStuffwill be used privately at other places in this class, e.g. in the DoThatStuff (public) method.) An alternative solution would be to add a member variable that carries this information: class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff() { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (m_calcSelect == typeA) { ... } ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker() { ... DoInternalStuff(); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeA; InternalStuffInvoker(); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeX; ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } Especially for deep call chains where the selector-flag for the inner method is selected outside, using a member variable can make the intermediate functions cleaner, as they don't need to carry a pass-through parameter. On the other hand, this member variable isn't really representing any object state (as it's neither set nor available outside), but is really a hidden additional argument for the "inner" private method. What are the pros and cons of each approach?

  Read the article

• Is 'Protection' an acceptable Java class name

  - by jonny

  This comes from a closed thread at stack overflow, where there are already some useful answers, though a commenter suggested I post here. I hope this is ok! I'm trying my best to write good readable, code, but often have doubts in my work! I'm creating some code to check the status of some protected software, and have created a class which has methods to check whether the software in use is licensed (there is a separate Licensing class). I've named the class 'Protection', which is currently accessed, via the creation of an appProtect object. The methods in the class allow to check a number of things about the application, in order to confirm that it is in fact licensed for use. Is 'Protection' an acceptable name for such a class? I read somewhere that if you have to think to long in names of methods, classes, objects etc, then perhaps you may not be coding in an Object Oriented way. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this before making this post, which has lead me to doubt the suitability of the name! In creating (and proof reading) this post, I'm starting to seriously doubt my work so far. I'm also thinking I should probably rename the object to applicationProtection rather than appProtect (though am open to any comments on this too?). I'm posting non the less, in the hope that I'll learn something from others views/opinions, even if they're simply confirming I've "done it wrong"!

  Read the article

• On Adopting the Mindset of an Enterprise DBA

  Although many of the important tasks a DBA has to perform should be done 'by hand', keying in commands or using SSMS, the canny DBA with a heavy workload will always have an eye to automating routine tasks wherever possible, or using a tool. 24% of devs don’t use database source control – make sure you aren’t one of themVersion control is standard for application code, but databases haven’t caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out…

  Read the article

• Self-Scaling Architecture for Group and Enterprise Computing

  Better computing and communication for emergency personnel at disaster sites Computing - Business - Computer Science - Distributed Computing - Cloud computing

  Read the article

• Verification of requirements question

  - by user970696

  Doing a lot of reading about V&V, I would need to clarify the following. A lot of definitons (less formal ones found in books) define verification like that: Verification: The software should conform to its specification. But then they speak about requirement verification, design verification etc. If I say that these items are "software" in terms of applying the definitons, what should I checked them against, what specification should requirements, which is the basic information, conform to? And one more thing: shouldnt be requirements also validated? To make sure they meets the customer needs? All texts I have speak only about SW validation on the end of the dev.process..

  Read the article

• What is the politically correct way of refactoring other's code?

  - by dukeofgaming

  I'm currently working in a geographically distributed team in a big company. Everybody is just focused on today's tasks and getting things done, however this means sometimes things have to be done the quick way, and that causes problems... you know, same old, same old. I'm bumping into code with several smells such as: big functions pointless utility functions/methods (essentially just to save writing a word), overcomplicated algorithms, extremely big files that should be broken down into different files/classes (1,500+ lines), etc. What would be the best way of improving code without making other developers feel bad/wrong about any proposed improvements?

  Read the article

• After how much line of code a function should be break down?

  - by Sumeet

  While working on existing code base, I usually come across procedures that contain Abusive use of IF and Switch statements. The procedures consist of overwhelming code, which I think require re-factoring badly. The situation gets worse when I identify that some of these are recursive as well. But this is always a matter of debate as the code is working fine and no one wants to wake up the dragon. But, everyone accepts it is very expensive code to manage. I am wondering if are any recommendations to determine if a particular Method is a culprit and needs a revisit/rewrite , so that it can broken down or polymophized in an effective manner. Are there any Metrics (like no. of lines in procedure) that can be used to identify such segment of code. The checklist or advice to convince everyone, will be great!

  Read the article

• Swiss Re increases data warehouse performance and deploys in record time

  - by KLaker

  Great information on yet another data warehouse deployment on Exadata. A little background on Swiss Re: In 2002, Swiss Re established a data warehouse for its client markets and products to gather reinsurance information across all organizational units into an integrated structure. The data warehouse provided the basis for reporting at the group level with drill-down capability to individual contracts, while facilitating application integration and data exchange by using common data standards. Initially focusing on property and casualty reinsurance information only, it now includes life and health reinsurance, insurance, and nonlife insurance information. Key highlights of the benefits that Swiss Re achieved by using Exadata: Reduced the time to feed the data warehouse and generate data marts by 58% Reduced average runtime by 24% for standard reports comfortably loading two data warehouse refreshes per day with incremental feeds Freed up technical experts by significantly minimizing time spent on tuning activities Most importantly this was one of the fastest project deployments in Swiss Re's history. They went from installation to production in just four months! What is truly surprising is the that it only took two weeks between power-on to testing the machine with full data volumes! Business teams at Swiss Re are now able to fully exploit up-to-date analytics across property, casualty, life, health insurance, and reinsurance lines to identify successful products. These points are highlighted in the following quotes from Dr. Stephan Gutzwiller, Head of Data Warehouse Services at Swiss Re:  "We were operating a complete Oracle stack, including servers, storage area network, operating systems, and databases that was well optimized and delivered very good performance over an extended period of time. When a hardware replacement was scheduled for 2012, Oracle Exadata was a natural choice—and the performance increase was impressive. It enabled us to deliver analytics to our internal customers faster, without hiring more IT staff" “The high quality data that is readily available with Oracle Exadata gives us the insight and agility we need to cater to client needs. We also can continue re-engineering to keep up with the increasing demand without having to grow the organization. This combination creates excellent business value.” Our full press release is available here: http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/customers/customersearch/swiss-re-1-exadata-ss-2050409.html. If you want more information about how Exadata can increase the performance of your data warehouse visit our home page: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/database/exadata-database-machine/overview/index.html

  Read the article

• Targeting the Enterprise with ASP.NET MVC 2.0

  The benefits of using an MVC Framework is that it helps enforce a clean separation between the models, views, and controllers within a Web application.

  Read the article

• Targeting the Enterprise with ASP.NET MVC 2.0

  The benefits of using an MVC Framework is that it helps enforce a clean separation between the models, views, and controllers within a Web application.

  Read the article

• How come verification does not include actual testing?

  - by user970696

  Having read a lot about this topic, I still did not get it. Verification should prove that you are building the product right, while validation you build the right product. But only static techniques are mentioned as being verification methods (code reviews, requirements checks...). But how can you say if its implemented correctly if you do not test it? It is said that verification checks e.g. code for its correctnes. Verification - ensure that the product meet specified requirements. Again, if the function is specified to work somehow, only by testing I can say that it does. Could anyone explain this to me please? EDIT: As Wiki says: Verification:Preparing of the test cases (based on the analysis of the requireemnts) Validation: Running of the test cases

  Read the article

• Does using structure data semantic LocalBusiness schema markup work for local EMD URL's?

  - by ElHaix

  Based on what I have read about Google's recent Panda and Penguin updates, I'm getting the impression that using semantic markup may help improve SEO results. On a EMD (exact match domain) site, that may have been hit, we list location-based products. We are now going to be adding a itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" to each product, with relevant details. However, that product may be available in Los Angeles and also in appear in a Seattle results page. We could add a LocalBusiness item type on each geo page to define the geo location for that page. While the definition states: A particular physical business or branch of an organization. Examples of LocalBusiness include a restaurant, a particular branch of a restaurant chain, a branch of a bank, a medical practice, a club, a bowling alley, etc. We could add use the location property which would simply include the city/state details. I realize that this looks like it is meant for a physical location, however could this be done without seeming black-hat?

  Read the article

• Code structure for multiple applications with a common core

  - by Azrael Seraphin

  I want to create two applications that will have a lot of common functionality. Basically, one system is a more advanced version of the other system. Let's call them Simple and Advanced. The Advanced system will add to, extend, alter and sometimes replace the functionality of the Simple system. For instance, the Advanced system will add new classes, add properties and methods to existing Simple classes, change the behavior of classes, etc. Initially I was thinking that the Advanced classes simply inherited from the Simple classes but I can see the functionality diverging quite significantly as development progresses, even while maintaining a core base functionality. For instance, the Simple system might have a Project class with a Sponsor property whereas the Advanced system has a list of Project.Sponsors. It seems poor practice to inherit from a class and then hide, alter or throw away significant parts of its features. An alternative is just to run two separate code bases and copy the common code between them but that seems inefficient, archaic and fraught with peril. Surely we have moved beyond the days of "copy-and-paste inheritance". Another way to structure it would be to use partial classes and have three projects: Core which has the common functionality, Simple which extends the Core partial classes for the simple system, and Advanced which also extends the Core partial classes for the advanced system. Plus having three test projects as well for each system. This seems like a cleaner approach. What would be the best way to structure the solution/projects/code to create two versions of a similar system? Let's say I later want to create a third system called Extreme, largely based on the Advanced system. Do I then create an AdvancedCore project which both Advanced and Extreme extend using partial classes? Is there a better way to do this? If it matters, this is likely to be a C#/MVC system but I'd be happy to do this in any language/framework that is suitable.

  Read the article

• How to recover data from NTFS partition that was made into a Swap partition?

  - by Raghav Mehta

  I have extremely important stuff on my windows partition which during the ubuntu 10.10 installation,when it said that I should create something called swap space, I selected it to be a swap space (without even knowing what it actually meant) The Grub2 doesn't show up so I don't get a choice to boot Ubuntu or Windows. I don't get my windows partition as a removable device in Ubuntu either. When I go to disk utility and select the sda2 (i.e.. my windows partition) and click edit partition and select HPFS/NTFS for the type and tick bootable and click OK the small processing sign keep on rotating on the bottom right of the sda2 in the chart and after about 10 to 15 minutes it gives an unknown error and thus, I am still unable to use my windows. I am even worse than a beginner who doesn't know a thing about Ubuntu so please be patient and help me out.

  Read the article

• Which reference provides your definition of "elegant" or "beautiful" code?

  - by Donnied

  This question is phrased in a very specific way - it asks for references. There was a similar question posted which was closed because it was considered a duplicate to a good code question. The Programmers FAQ points out that answers should have references - or its just an unproductive sharing of (seemingly) baseless opinions. There is a difference between shortest code and most elegant code. This becomes clear in several seminal texts: Dijkstra, E. W. (1972). The humble programmer. Communications of the ACM, 15(10), 859–866. Kernighan, B. W., & Plauger, P. J. (1974). Programming style: Examples and counterexamples. ACM Comput. Surv., 6(4), 303–319. Knuth, D. E. (1984). Literate programming. The Computer Journal, 27(2), 97–111. doi:10.1093/comjnl/27.2.97 They all note the importance of clarity over brevity. Kernighan & Plauger (1974) provide descriptions of "good" code, but "good code" is certainly not synonymous with "elegant". Knuth (1984) describes the impo rtance of exposition and "excellence of style" to elegant programs. He cites Hoare - who describes that code should be self documenting. Dijkstra (1972) indicates that beautiful programs optimize efficiency but are not opaque. This sort of conversation is qulaitatively different than a random sharing of opinions. Therefore, the question - Which reference provides your definition of "elegant" or "beautiful" code? "Which *reference*" is not subjective - anything else will most likely shut the thread down, so please supply *references* not opinions.

  Read the article

• Are flag variables an absolute evil?

  - by dukeofgaming

  I remember doing a couple of projects where I totally neglected using flags and ended up with better architecture/code; however, it is a common practice in other projects I work at, and when code grows and flags are added, IMHO code-spaghetti also grows. Would you say there are any cases where using flags is a good practice or even necessary?, or would you agree that using flags in code are... red flags and should be avoided/refactored; me, I just get by with doing functions/methods that check for states in real time instead. Edit: Not talking about compiler flags

  Read the article

• Modular enterprise architecture using MVC and Orchard CMS

  - by MrJD

  I'm making a large scale MVC application using Orchard. And I'm going to be separating my logic into modules. I'm also trying to heavily decouple the application for maximum extensibility and testability. I have a rudimentary understanding of IoC, Repository Pattern, Unit of Work pattern and Service Layer pattern. I've made myself a diagram. I'm wondering if it is correct and if there is anything I have missed regarding an extensible application. Note that each module is a separate project. Update So I have many UI modules that use the db module, that's why they've been split up. There are other services the UI modules will use. The UI modules have been split up because they will be made over time, independent of each other.

  Read the article

• Functional testing in the verification

  - by user970696

  Yesterday my question How come verification does not include actual testing? created a lot of controversy, yet did not reveal the answer for related and very important question: does black box functional testing done by testers belong to verification or validation? ISO 12207:12208 here mentiones testing explicitly only as a validation activity, however, it speaks about validation of requirements of the intended use. For me its more high level, like UAT test cases written by business users ISO mentioned above does not mention any specific verification (7.2.4.3.2)except for Requirement verification, Design verification, Document and Code & Integration verification. The last two can be probably thought as unit and integrated testing. But where is then the regular testing done by testers at the end of the phase? The book I mentioned in the original question mentiones that verification is done by static techniques, yet on the V model graph it describes System testing against high level description as a verification, mentioning it includes all kinds of testing like functional, load etc. In the IEEE standard for V&V, you can read this: Even though the tests and evaluations are not part of the V&V processes, the techniques described in this standard may be useful in performing them. So that is different than in ISO, where validation mentiones testing as the activity. Not to mention a lot of contradicting information on the net. I would really appreciate a reference to e.g. a standard in the answer or explanation of what I missed in the ISO. For me, I am unable to tell where the testers work belong.

  Read the article

• System testing - making sure the system conforms to specification. Validation?

  - by user970696

  After weeks of research I have nearly completed my thesis, yet I am unable to clear up my confusion contained in all previous threads here (and in many books): During system testing, we check the system function against system analysis (functional system design) - but that would fit to a definition of verification according to many books. But I follow ISO12207, which considers all testing as validation (making sure work product meets requirement for intended use). How can I justify that unit testing or system testing is validation, even though when I check it against specification? Which fullfils the definiton of verification? When testing that e.g. "Save button" works, is it validation? This picture shows my understanding of V&V, so different from many other sources, including ISTQB etc. Essential problem I have is that a book using the same picture also states on another place that: test activities in the area of validation are usability, alpha and beta testing. For verification, testable system requirements are defined whose correct implementation can be tested through system tests. Isn't that the opposite of what the picture says? Most books present the following picture, where validation is just making sure that customer needs are satisfied. Mind you that according to ISO, validation activity is testing.

  Read the article

• C: What is a good source to teach standard/basic code conventions to someone newly learning the language ?

  - by shan23

  I'm tutoring someone who can be described as a rank newcomer in C. Understandably, she does not know much about coding conventions generally practiced, and hence all her programs tend to use single letter vars, mismatched spacing/indentation and the like, making it very difficult to read/debug her endeavors. My question is, is there a link/set of guidelines and examples which she can use for adopting basic code conventions ? It should not be too arcane as to scare her off, yet inclusive enough to have the basics covered (so that no one woulc wince looking at the code). Any suggestions ?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119  | Next Page >