Search Results

Search found 2322 results on 93 pages for 'joe fair'.

Page 12/93 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • SQL help on a name dilemma

    - by Ardman
    I have a column which has surname and firstname plus salutation in. e.g. Bloggs,Joe,Mr I need to break this out into Bloggs Joe Mr as 3 seperate columns. Any ideas appreciated. How, the other thing is I won't know how many commas are in the initial column.

    Read the article

  • C Programming - My program is good enough for my assignment but I know its not good

    - by Joe
    Hi there I'm just starting an assignment for uni and it's raised a question for me. I don't understand how to return a string from a function without having a memory leak. char* trim(char* line) { int start = 0; int end = strlen(line) - 1; /* find the start position of the string */ while(isspace(line[start]) != 0) { start++; } //printf("start is %d\n", start); /* find the position end of the string */ while(isspace(line[end]) != 0) { end--; } //printf("end is %d\n", end); /* calculate string length and add 1 for the sentinel */ int len = end - start + 2; /* initialise char array to len and read in characters */ int i; char* trimmed = calloc(sizeof(char), len); for(i = 0; i < (len - 1); i++) { trimmed[i] = line[start + i]; } trimmed[len - 1] = '\0'; return trimmed; } as you can see I am returning a pointer to char which is an array. I found that if I tried to make the 'trimmed' array by something like: char trimmed[len]; then the compiler would throw up a message saying that a constant was expected on this line. I assume this meant that for some reason you can't use variables as the array length when initialising an array, although something tells me that can't be right. So instead I made my array by allocating some memory to a char pointer. I understand that this function is probably waaaaay sub-optimal for what it is trying to do, but what I really want to know is: 1. Can you normally initialise an array using a variable to declare the length like: char trimmed[len]; ? 2. If I had an array that was of that type (char trimmed[]) would it have the same return type as a pointer to char (ie char*). 3. If I make my array by callocing some memory and allocating it to a char pointer, how do I free this memory. It seems to me that once I have returned this array, I can't access it to free it as it is a local variable. Many thanks in advance Joe

    Read the article

  • How to specify the order of XmlAttributes, using XmlSerializer

    - by demoncodemonkey
    XmlElement has an "Order" attribute which you can use to specify the precise order of your properties (in relation to each other anyway) when serializing using XmlSerializer. Is there a similar thing for XmlAttribute? I just want to set the order of the attributes from something like <MyType end="bob" start="joe" /> to <MyType start="joe" end="bob" /> This is just for readability, my own benefit really.

    Read the article

  • Convert json data to javascript array - in multi-dimensional sense

    - by AW-GWTF899
    I have a json array say { "People": { "Person": [ {"FirstName": "John", "LastName": "Smith"} {"FirstName": "Joe", "LastName": "Bloggs"} {"FirstName": "Wendy", "LastName": "Deng"} ] } } And I want to convert this into a javascript array (something like this) var persons = [ ["FirstName", "John", "LastName", "Smith"], ["FirstName", "Joe", "LastName", "Bloggs"], ["FirstName", "Wendy", "LastName": "Deng"] ]; How do I accomplish this? Hope my question makes sense and I realise the javascript array initialization may not be the correct way to put it. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Create a binary indicator matrix in R

    - by Brian Vanover
    I have a list of data indicating attendance to conferences like this: Event Participant ConferenceA John ConferenceA Joe ConferenceA Mary ConferenceB John ConferenceB Ted ConferenceC Jessica I would like to create a binary indicator attendance matrix of the following format: Event John Joe Mary Ted Jessica ConferenceA 1 1 1 0 0 ConferenceB 1 0 0 1 0 ConferenceC 0 0 0 0 1 Is there a way to do this in R? Sorry for the poor formatting.

    Read the article

  • SQL Reset Identity ID in already populated table

    - by rockinthesixstring
    hey all. I have a table in my DB that has about a thousand records in it. I would like to reset the identity column so that all of the ID's are sequential again. I was looking at this but I'm ASSuming that it only works on an empty table Current Table ID | Name 1 Joe 2 Phil 5 Jan 88 Rob Desired Table ID | Name 1 Joe 2 Phil 3 Jan 4 Rob Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Cucumber Failing with Nokogiri

    - by Paul
    I just started using Cucumber and in the simplest of scenarios I throw the following error: undefined method has_key?' for #<Nokogiri::XML::Element:0x10677a400> (NoMethodError) ./features/step_definitions/web_steps.rb:36:in/^(?:|I )fill in "([^"])" with "([^"])"$/' features/authentication.feature:9:in `When I fill in "user_name" with "Joe User"' The Scenario is as follows... Scenario: Signup Given I go to the signup page When I fill in "user_name" with "Joe User" Is this a problem in the Scenario, Cucumber, or Nokogiri? Any Solutions?

    Read the article

  • javascript simple object creation test: opera leaks?

    - by joe
    Hi, I am trying to figure out certain memory leak conditions in javascript on a few browsers. Currently I'm only testing FF 3.6, Opera 10.10, and Safari 4.0.3. I've started with a fairly simple test, and can confirm no memory leaks in Firefox and Safari. But Opera just takes memory and never gives it back. What gives? Here's the test: <html> <head> <script type="text/javascript"> window.onload = init; //window.onunload = cleanup; var a=[]; function init() { var d = document.createElement('div'); d.innerHTML = "page loading..."; document.body.appendChild(d); for (var i=0; i<400000; i++) { a[i] = new Obj("xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"); } d.innerHTML = "PAGE LOADED"; } function cleanup() { for (var i=0; i<400000; i++) { a[i] = null; } } function Obj(msg) { this.msg=msg; } </script> </head> <body> </body> </html> I shouldn't need the cleanup() call on window.unload, but tried that also. No luck. As you can see this is simple JS, no circular DOM links, no closures. I monitor the memory usage using 'top' on Mac 10.4.11. Memory usage spikes up on page load, as expected. In FF and Safari reloading the page does not use any further memory, and all memory is returned when the window (tab) is closed. In Opera, memory spikes on load, and seems to also spike further on each reload (but not always...). But regardless of reload, memory never goes back down below the initial load spike. I had hoped this was a no-brainer test that all browsers would pass, so I could move on to more "interesting" conditions. Am I doing something wrong here? Or is this a known Opera issue? Thanks! -joe

    Read the article

  • c++, object life-time of anonymous (unnamed) variables

    - by Joe Steeve
    In the following code, the object constructed in the last line of 'main()', seems to be destroyed before the end of the expression. The destructor is called before the '<<' is executed. Is this how it is supposed to be? #include <string> #include <sstream> #include <iostream> using std::string; using std::ostringstream; using std::cout; class A : public ostringstream { public: A () {} virtual ~A () { string s; s = str(); cout << "from A: " << s << std::endl; } }; int main () { string s = "Hello"; A os; os << s; cout << os.str() << std::endl; A() << "checking this"; } This is the output: Hello from A: 0x80495f7 from A: Hello This is the gdb log: (gdb) b os.cxx : 18 Breakpoint 1 at 0x80492b1: file os.cxx, line 18. (2 locations) (gdb) r Starting program: /home/joe/sandbox/test/os Hello Breakpoint 1, ~A (this=0xbffff37c, __in_chrg=<value optimized out>, __vtt_parm=<value optimized out>) at os.cxx:18 18 cout << "from A: " << s << std::endl; (gdb) p s.c_str () $1 = 0x804b45c "0x80495f7" (gdb) p *s.c_str () $2 = 48 '0' (gdb) c Continuing. from A: 0x80495f7 Breakpoint 1, ~A (this=0xbffff2bc, __in_chrg=<value optimized out>, __vtt_parm=<value optimized out>) at os.cxx:18 18 cout << "from A: " << s << std::endl; (gdb) p s.c_str () $3 = 0x804b244 "Hello" (gdb) p *s.c_str () $4 = 72 'H' (gdb) c Continuing. from A: Hello Program exited normally. (gdb)

    Read the article

  • Agile Development

    - by James Oloo Onyango
    Alot of literature has and is being written about agile developement and its surrounding philosophies. In my quest to find the best way to express the importance of agile methodologies, i have found Robert C. Martin's "A Satire Of Two Companies" to be both the most concise and thorough! Enjoy the read! Rufus Inc Project Kick Off Your name is Bob. The date is January 3, 2001, and your head still aches from the recent millennial revelry. You are sitting in a conference room with several managers and a group of your peers. You are a project team leader. Your boss is there, and he has brought along all of his team leaders. His boss called the meeting. "We have a new project to develop," says your boss's boss. Call him BB. The points in his hair are so long that they scrape the ceiling. Your boss's points are just starting to grow, but he eagerly awaits the day when he can leave Brylcream stains on the acoustic tiles. BB describes the essence of the new market they have identified and the product they want to develop to exploit this market. "We must have this new project up and working by fourth quarter October 1," BB demands. "Nothing is of higher priority, so we are cancelling your current project." The reaction in the room is stunned silence. Months of work are simply going to be thrown away. Slowly, a murmur of objection begins to circulate around the conference table.   His points give off an evil green glow as BB meets the eyes of everyone in the room. One by one, that insidious stare reduces each attendee to quivering lumps of protoplasm. It is clear that he will brook no discussion on this matter. Once silence has been restored, BB says, "We need to begin immediately. How long will it take you to do the analysis?" You raise your hand. Your boss tries to stop you, but his spitwad misses you and you are unaware of his efforts.   "Sir, we can't tell you how long the analysis will take until we have some requirements." "The requirements document won't be ready for 3 or 4 weeks," BB says, his points vibrating with frustration. "So, pretend that you have the requirements in front of you now. How long will you require for analysis?" No one breathes. Everyone looks around to see whether anyone has some idea. "If analysis goes beyond April 1, we have a problem. Can you finish the analysis by then?" Your boss visibly gathers his courage: "We'll find a way, sir!" His points grow 3 mm, and your headache increases by two Tylenol. "Good." BB smiles. "Now, how long will it take to do the design?" "Sir," you say. Your boss visibly pales. He is clearly worried that his 3 mms are at risk. "Without an analysis, it will not be possible to tell you how long design will take." BB's expression shifts beyond austere.   "PRETEND you have the analysis already!" he says, while fixing you with his vacant, beady little eyes. "How long will it take you to do the design?" Two Tylenol are not going to cut it. Your boss, in a desperate attempt to save his new growth, babbles: "Well, sir, with only six months left to complete the project, design had better take no longer than 3 months."   "I'm glad you agree, Smithers!" BB says, beaming. Your boss relaxes. He knows his points are secure. After a while, he starts lightly humming the Brylcream jingle. BB continues, "So, analysis will be complete by April 1, design will be complete by July 1, and that gives you 3 months to implement the project. This meeting is an example of how well our new consensus and empowerment policies are working. Now, get out there and start working. I'll expect to see TQM plans and QIT assignments on my desk by next week. Oh, and don't forget that your crossfunctional team meetings and reports will be needed for next month's quality audit." "Forget the Tylenol," you think to yourself as you return to your cubicle. "I need bourbon."   Visibly excited, your boss comes over to you and says, "Gosh, what a great meeting. I think we're really going to do some world shaking with this project." You nod in agreement, too disgusted to do anything else. "Oh," your boss continues, "I almost forgot." He hands you a 30-page document. "Remember that the SEI is coming to do an evaluation next week. This is the evaluation guide. You need to read through it, memorize it, and then shred it. It tells you how to answer any questions that the SEI auditors ask you. It also tells you what parts of the building you are allowed to take them to and what parts to avoid. We are determined to be a CMM level 3 organization by June!"   You and your peers start working on the analysis of the new project. This is difficult because you have no requirements. But from the 10-minute introduction given by BB on that fateful morning, you have some idea of what the product is supposed to do.   Corporate process demands that you begin by creating a use case document. You and your team begin enumerating use cases and drawing oval and stick diagrams. Philosophical debates break out among the team members. There is disagreement as to whether certain use cases should be connected with <<extends>> or <<includes>> relationships. Competing models are created, but nobody knows how to evaluate them. The debate continues, effectively paralyzing progress.   After a week, somebody finds the iceberg.com Web site, which recommends disposing entirely of <<extends>> and <<includes>> and replacing them with <<precedes>> and <<uses>>. The documents on this Web site, authored by Don Sengroiux, describes a method known as stalwart-analysis, which claims to be a step-by-step method for translating use cases into design diagrams. More competing use case models are created using this new scheme, but again, people can't agree on how to evaluate them. The thrashing continues. More and more, the use case meetings are driven by emotion rather than by reason. If it weren't for the fact that you don't have requirements, you'd be pretty upset by the lack of progress you are making. The requirements document arrives on February 15. And then again on February 20, 25, and every week thereafter. Each new version contradicts the previous one. Clearly, the marketing folks who are writing the requirements, empowered though they might be, are not finding consensus.   At the same time, several new competing use case templates have been proposed by the various team members. Each template presents its own particularly creative way of delaying progress. The debates rage on. On March 1, Prudence Putrigence, the process proctor, succeeds in integrating all the competing use case forms and templates into a single, all-encompassing form. Just the blank form is 15 pages long. She has managed to include every field that appeared on all the competing templates. She also presents a 159- page document describing how to fill out the use case form. All current use cases must be rewritten according to the new standard.   You marvel to yourself that it now requires 15 pages of fill-in-the-blank and essay questions to answer the question: What should the system do when the user presses Return? The corporate process (authored by L. E. Ott, famed author of "Holistic Analysis: A Progressive Dialectic for Software Engineers") insists that you discover all primary use cases, 87 percent of all secondary use cases, and 36.274 percent of all tertiary use cases before you can complete analysis and enter the design phase. You have no idea what a tertiary use case is. So in an attempt to meet this requirement, you try to get your use case document reviewed by the marketing department, which you hope will know what a tertiary use case is.   Unfortunately, the marketing folks are too busy with sales support to talk to you. Indeed, since the project started, you have not been able to get a single meeting with marketing, which has provided a never-ending stream of changing and contradictory requirements documents.   While one team has been spinning endlessly on the use case document, another team has been working out the domain model. Endless variations of UML documents are pouring out of this team. Every week, the model is reworked.   The team members can't decide whether to use <<interfaces>> or <<types>> in the model. A huge disagreement has been raging on the proper syntax and application of OCL. Others on the team just got back from a 5-day class on catabolism, and have been producing incredibly detailed and arcane diagrams that nobody else can fathom.   On March 27, with one week to go before analysis is to be complete, you have produced a sea of documents and diagrams but are no closer to a cogent analysis of the problem than you were on January 3. **** And then, a miracle happens.   **** On Saturday, April 1, you check your e-mail from home. You see a memo from your boss to BB. It states unequivocally that you are done with the analysis! You phone your boss and complain. "How could you have told BB that we were done with the analysis?" "Have you looked at a calendar lately?" he responds. "It's April 1!" The irony of that date does not escape you. "But we have so much more to think about. So much more to analyze! We haven't even decided whether to use <<extends>> or <<precedes>>!" "Where is your evidence that you are not done?" inquires your boss, impatiently. "Whaaa . . . ." But he cuts you off. "Analysis can go on forever; it has to be stopped at some point. And since this is the date it was scheduled to stop, it has been stopped. Now, on Monday, I want you to gather up all existing analysis materials and put them into a public folder. Release that folder to Prudence so that she can log it in the CM system by Monday afternoon. Then get busy and start designing."   As you hang up the phone, you begin to consider the benefits of keeping a bottle of bourbon in your bottom desk drawer. They threw a party to celebrate the on-time completion of the analysis phase. BB gave a colon-stirring speech on empowerment. And your boss, another 3 mm taller, congratulated his team on the incredible show of unity and teamwork. Finally, the CIO takes the stage to tell everyone that the SEI audit went very well and to thank everyone for studying and shredding the evaluation guides that were passed out. Level 3 now seems assured and will be awarded by June. (Scuttlebutt has it that managers at the level of BB and above are to receive significant bonuses once the SEI awards level 3.)   As the weeks flow by, you and your team work on the design of the system. Of course, you find that the analysis that the design is supposedly based on is flawedno, useless; no, worse than useless. But when you tell your boss that you need to go back and work some more on the analysis to shore up its weaker sections, he simply states, "The analysis phase is over. The only allowable activity is design. Now get back to it."   So, you and your team hack the design as best you can, unsure of whether the requirements have been properly analyzed. Of course, it really doesn't matter much, since the requirements document is still thrashing with weekly revisions, and the marketing department still refuses to meet with you.     The design is a nightmare. Your boss recently misread a book named The Finish Line in which the author, Mark DeThomaso, blithely suggested that design documents should be taken down to code-level detail. "If we are going to be working at that level of detail," you ask, "why don't we simply write the code instead?" "Because then you wouldn't be designing, of course. And the only allowable activity in the design phase is design!" "Besides," he continues, "we have just purchased a companywide license for Dandelion! This tool enables 'Round the Horn Engineering!' You are to transfer all design diagrams into this tool. It will automatically generate our code for us! It will also keep the design diagrams in sync with the code!" Your boss hands you a brightly colored shrinkwrapped box containing the Dandelion distribution. You accept it numbly and shuffle off to your cubicle. Twelve hours, eight crashes, one disk reformatting, and eight shots of 151 later, you finally have the tool installed on your server. You consider the week your team will lose while attending Dandelion training. Then you smile and think, "Any week I'm not here is a good week." Design diagram after design diagram is created by your team. Dandelion makes it very difficult to draw these diagrams. There are dozens and dozens of deeply nested dialog boxes with funny text fields and check boxes that must all be filled in correctly. And then there's the problem of moving classes between packages. At first, these diagram are driven from the use cases. But the requirements are changing so often that the use cases rapidly become meaningless. Debates rage about whether VISITOR or DECORATOR design patterns should be used. One developer refuses to use VISITOR in any form, claiming that it's not a properly object-oriented construct. Someone refuses to use multiple inheritance, since it is the spawn of the devil. Review meetings rapidly degenerate into debates about the meaning of object orientation, the definition of analysis versus design, or when to use aggregation versus association. Midway through the design cycle, the marketing folks announce that they have rethought the focus of the system. Their new requirements document is completely restructured. They have eliminated several major feature areas and replaced them with feature areas that they anticipate customer surveys will show to be more appropriate. You tell your boss that these changes mean that you need to reanalyze and redesign much of the system. But he says, "The analysis phase is system. But he says, "The analysis phase is over. The only allowable activity is design. Now get back to it."   You suggest that it might be better to create a simple prototype to show to the marketing folks and even some potential customers. But your boss says, "The analysis phase is over. The only allowable activity is design. Now get back to it." Hack, hack, hack, hack. You try to create some kind of a design document that might reflect the new requirements documents. However, the revolution of the requirements has not caused them to stop thrashing. Indeed, if anything, the wild oscillations of the requirements document have only increased in frequency and amplitude.   You slog your way through them.   On June 15, the Dandelion database gets corrupted. Apparently, the corruption has been progressive. Small errors in the DB accumulated over the months into bigger and bigger errors. Eventually, the CASE tool just stopped working. Of course, the slowly encroaching corruption is present on all the backups. Calls to the Dandelion technical support line go unanswered for several days. Finally, you receive a brief e-mail from Dandelion, informing you that this is a known problem and that the solution is to purchase the new version, which they promise will be ready some time next quarter, and then reenter all the diagrams by hand.   ****   Then, on July 1 another miracle happens! You are done with the design!   Rather than go to your boss and complain, you stock your middle desk drawer with some vodka.   **** They threw a party to celebrate the on-time completion of the design phase and their graduation to CMM level 3. This time, you find BB's speech so stirring that you have to use the restroom before it begins. New banners and plaques are all over your workplace. They show pictures of eagles and mountain climbers, and they talk about teamwork and empowerment. They read better after a few scotches. That reminds you that you need to clear out your file cabinet to make room for the brandy. You and your team begin to code. But you rapidly discover that the design is lacking in some significant areas. Actually, it's lacking any significance at all. You convene a design session in one of the conference rooms to try to work through some of the nastier problems. But your boss catches you at it and disbands the meeting, saying, "The design phase is over. The only allowable activity is coding. Now get back to it."   ****   The code generated by Dandelion is really hideous. It turns out that you and your team were using association and aggregation the wrong way, after all. All the generated code has to be edited to correct these flaws. Editing this code is extremely difficult because it has been instrumented with ugly comment blocks that have special syntax that Dandelion needs in order to keep the diagrams in sync with the code. If you accidentally alter one of these comments, the diagrams will be regenerated incorrectly. It turns out that "Round the Horn Engineering" requires an awful lot of effort. The more you try to keep the code compatible with Dandelion, the more errors Dandelion generates. In the end, you give up and decide to keep the diagrams up to date manually. A second later, you decide that there's no point in keeping the diagrams up to date at all. Besides, who has time?   Your boss hires a consultant to build tools to count the number of lines of code that are being produced. He puts a big thermometer graph on the wall with the number 1,000,000 on the top. Every day, he extends the red line to show how many lines have been added. Three days after the thermometer appears on the wall, your boss stops you in the hall. "That graph isn't growing quickly enough. We need to have a million lines done by October 1." "We aren't even sh-sh-sure that the proshect will require a m-million linezh," you blather. "We have to have a million lines done by October 1," your boss reiterates. His points have grown again, and the Grecian formula he uses on them creates an aura of authority and competence. "Are you sure your comment blocks are big enough?" Then, in a flash of managerial insight, he says, "I have it! I want you to institute a new policy among the engineers. No line of code is to be longer than 20 characters. Any such line must be split into two or more preferably more. All existing code needs to be reworked to this standard. That'll get our line count up!"   You decide not to tell him that this will require two unscheduled work months. You decide not to tell him anything at all. You decide that intravenous injections of pure ethanol are the only solution. You make the appropriate arrangements. Hack, hack, hack, and hack. You and your team madly code away. By August 1, your boss, frowning at the thermometer on the wall, institutes a mandatory 50-hour workweek.   Hack, hack, hack, and hack. By September 1st, the thermometer is at 1.2 million lines and your boss asks you to write a report describing why you exceeded the coding budget by 20 percent. He institutes mandatory Saturdays and demands that the project be brought back down to a million lines. You start a campaign of remerging lines. Hack, hack, hack, and hack. Tempers are flaring; people are quitting; QA is raining trouble reports down on you. Customers are demanding installation and user manuals; salespeople are demanding advance demonstrations for special customers; the requirements document is still thrashing, the marketing folks are complaining that the product isn't anything like they specified, and the liquor store won't accept your credit card anymore. Something has to give.    On September 15, BB calls a meeting. As he enters the room, his points are emitting clouds of steam. When he speaks, the bass overtones of his carefully manicured voice cause the pit of your stomach to roll over. "The QA manager has told me that this project has less than 50 percent of the required features implemented. He has also informed me that the system crashes all the time, yields wrong results, and is hideously slow. He has also complained that he cannot keep up with the continuous train of daily releases, each more buggy than the last!" He stops for a few seconds, visibly trying to compose himself. "The QA manager estimates that, at this rate of development, we won't be able to ship the product until December!" Actually, you think it's more like March, but you don't say anything. "December!" BB roars with such derision that people duck their heads as though he were pointing an assault rifle at them. "December is absolutely out of the question. Team leaders, I want new estimates on my desk in the morning. I am hereby mandating 65-hour work weeks until this project is complete. And it better be complete by November 1."   As he leaves the conference room, he is heard to mutter: "Empowermentbah!" * * * Your boss is bald; his points are mounted on BB's wall. The fluorescent lights reflecting off his pate momentarily dazzle you. "Do you have anything to drink?" he asks. Having just finished your last bottle of Boone's Farm, you pull a bottle of Thunderbird from your bookshelf and pour it into his coffee mug. "What's it going to take to get this project done? " he asks. "We need to freeze the requirements, analyze them, design them, and then implement them," you say callously. "By November 1?" your boss exclaims incredulously. "No way! Just get back to coding the damned thing." He storms out, scratching his vacant head.   A few days later, you find that your boss has been transferred to the corporate research division. Turnover has skyrocketed. Customers, informed at the last minute that their orders cannot be fulfilled on time, have begun to cancel their orders. Marketing is re-evaluating whether this product aligns with the overall goals of the company. Memos fly, heads roll, policies change, and things are, overall, pretty grim. Finally, by March, after far too many sixty-five hour weeks, a very shaky version of the software is ready. In the field, bug-discovery rates are high, and the technical support staff are at their wits' end, trying to cope with the complaints and demands of the irate customers. Nobody is happy.   In April, BB decides to buy his way out of the problem by licensing a product produced by Rupert Industries and redistributing it. The customers are mollified, the marketing folks are smug, and you are laid off.     Rupert Industries: Project Alpha   Your name is Robert. The date is January 3, 2001. The quiet hours spent with your family this holiday have left you refreshed and ready for work. You are sitting in a conference room with your team of professionals. The manager of the division called the meeting. "We have some ideas for a new project," says the division manager. Call him Russ. He is a high-strung British chap with more energy than a fusion reactor. He is ambitious and driven but understands the value of a team. Russ describes the essence of the new market opportunity the company has identified and introduces you to Jane, the marketing manager, who is responsible for defining the products that will address it. Addressing you, Jane says, "We'd like to start defining our first product offering as soon as possible. When can you and your team meet with me?" You reply, "We'll be done with the current iteration of our project this Friday. We can spare a few hours for you between now and then. After that, we'll take a few people from the team and dedicate them to you. We'll begin hiring their replacements and the new people for your team immediately." "Great," says Russ, "but I want you to understand that it is critical that we have something to exhibit at the trade show coming up this July. If we can't be there with something significant, we'll lose the opportunity."   "I understand," you reply. "I don't yet know what it is that you have in mind, but I'm sure we can have something by July. I just can't tell you what that something will be right now. In any case, you and Jane are going to have complete control over what we developers do, so you can rest assured that by July, you'll have the most important things that can be accomplished in that time ready to exhibit."   Russ nods in satisfaction. He knows how this works. Your team has always kept him advised and allowed him to steer their development. He has the utmost confidence that your team will work on the most important things first and will produce a high-quality product.   * * *   "So, Robert," says Jane at their first meeting, "How does your team feel about being split up?" "We'll miss working with each other," you answer, "but some of us were getting pretty tired of that last project and are looking forward to a change. So, what are you people cooking up?" Jane beams. "You know how much trouble our customers currently have . . ." And she spends a half hour or so describing the problem and possible solution. "OK, wait a second" you respond. "I need to be clear about this." And so you and Jane talk about how this system might work. Some of her ideas aren't fully formed. You suggest possible solutions. She likes some of them. You continue discussing.   During the discussion, as each new topic is addressed, Jane writes user story cards. Each card represents something that the new system has to do. The cards accumulate on the table and are spread out in front of you. Both you and Jane point at them, pick them up, and make notes on them as you discuss the stories. The cards are powerful mnemonic devices that you can use to represent complex ideas that are barely formed.   At the end of the meeting, you say, "OK, I've got a general idea of what you want. I'm going to talk to the team about it. I imagine they'll want to run some experiments with various database structures and presentation formats. Next time we meet, it'll be as a group, and we'll start identifying the most important features of the system."   A week later, your nascent team meets with Jane. They spread the existing user story cards out on the table and begin to get into some of the details of the system. The meeting is very dynamic. Jane presents the stories in the order of their importance. There is much discussion about each one. The developers are concerned about keeping the stories small enough to estimate and test. So they continually ask Jane to split one story into several smaller stories. Jane is concerned that each story have a clear business value and priority, so as she splits them, she makes sure that this stays true.   The stories accumulate on the table. Jane writes them, but the developers make notes on them as needed. Nobody tries to capture everything that is said; the cards are not meant to capture everything but are simply reminders of the conversation.   As the developers become more comfortable with the stories, they begin writing estimates on them. These estimates are crude and budgetary, but they give Jane an idea of what the story will cost.   At the end of the meeting, it is clear that many more stories could be discussed. It is also clear that the most important stories have been addressed and that they represent several months worth of work. Jane closes the meeting by taking the cards with her and promising to have a proposal for the first release in the morning.   * * *   The next morning, you reconvene the meeting. Jane chooses five cards and places them on the table. "According to your estimates, these cards represent about one perfect team-week's worth of work. The last iteration of the previous project managed to get one perfect team-week done in 3 real weeks. If we can get these five stories done in 3 weeks, we'll be able to demonstrate them to Russ. That will make him feel very comfortable about our progress." Jane is pushing it. The sheepish look on her face lets you know that she knows it too. You reply, "Jane, this is a new team, working on a new project. It's a bit presumptuous to expect that our velocity will be the same as the previous team's. However, I met with the team yesterday afternoon, and we all agreed that our initial velocity should, in fact, be set to one perfectweek for every 3 real-weeks. So you've lucked out on this one." "Just remember," you continue, "that the story estimates and the story velocity are very tentative at this point. We'll learn more when we plan the iteration and even more when we implement it."   Jane looks over her glasses at you as if to say "Who's the boss around here, anyway?" and then smiles and says, "Yeah, don't worry. I know the drill by now."Jane then puts 15 more cards on the table. She says, "If we can get all these cards done by the end of March, we can turn the system over to our beta test customers. And we'll get good feedback from them."   You reply, "OK, so we've got our first iteration defined, and we have the stories for the next three iterations after that. These four iterations will make our first release."   "So," says Jane, can you really do these five stories in the next 3 weeks?" "I don't know for sure, Jane," you reply. "Let's break them down into tasks and see what we get."   So Jane, you, and your team spend the next several hours taking each of the five stories that Jane chose for the first iteration and breaking them down into small tasks. The developers quickly realize that some of the tasks can be shared between stories and that other tasks have commonalities that can probably be taken advantage of. It is clear that potential designs are popping into the developers' heads. From time to time, they form little discussion knots and scribble UML diagrams on some cards.   Soon, the whiteboard is filled with the tasks that, once completed, will implement the five stories for this iteration. You start the sign-up process by saying, "OK, let's sign up for these tasks." "I'll take the initial database generation." Says Pete. "That's what I did on the last project, and this doesn't look very different. I estimate it at two of my perfect workdays." "OK, well, then, I'll take the login screen," says Joe. "Aw, darn," says Elaine, the junior member of the team, "I've never done a GUI, and kinda wanted to try that one."   "Ah, the impatience of youth," Joe says sagely, with a wink in your direction. "You can assist me with it, young Jedi." To Jane: "I think it'll take me about three of my perfect workdays."   One by one, the developers sign up for tasks and estimate them in terms of their own perfect workdays. Both you and Jane know that it is best to let the developers volunteer for tasks than to assign the tasks to them. You also know full well that you daren't challenge any of the developers' estimates. You know these people, and you trust them. You know that they are going to do the very best they can.   The developers know that they can't sign up for more perfect workdays than they finished in the last iteration they worked on. Once each developer has filled his or her schedule for the iteration, they stop signing up for tasks.   Eventually, all the developers have stopped signing up for tasks. But, of course, tasks are still left on the board.   "I was worried that that might happen," you say, "OK, there's only one thing to do, Jane. We've got too much to do in this iteration. What stories or tasks can we remove?" Jane sighs. She knows that this is the only option. Working overtime at the beginning of a project is insane, and projects where she's tried it have not fared well.   So Jane starts to remove the least-important functionality. "Well, we really don't need the login screen just yet. We can simply start the system in the logged-in state." "Rats!" cries Elaine. "I really wanted to do that." "Patience, grasshopper." says Joe. "Those who wait for the bees to leave the hive will not have lips too swollen to relish the honey." Elaine looks confused. Everyone looks confused. "So . . .," Jane continues, "I think we can also do away with . . ." And so, bit by bit, the list of tasks shrinks. Developers who lose a task sign up for one of the remaining ones.   The negotiation is not painless. Several times, Jane exhibits obvious frustration and impatience. Once, when tensions are especially high, Elaine volunteers, "I'll work extra hard to make up some of the missing time." You are about to correct her when, fortunately, Joe looks her in the eye and says, "When once you proceed down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."   In the end, an iteration acceptable to Jane is reached. It's not what Jane wanted. Indeed, it is significantly less. But it's something the team feels that can be achieved in the next 3 weeks.   And, after all, it still addresses the most important things that Jane wanted in the iteration. "So, Jane," you say when things had quieted down a bit, "when can we expect acceptance tests from you?" Jane sighs. This is the other side of the coin. For every story the development team implements,   Jane must supply a suite of acceptance tests that prove that it works. And the team needs these long before the end of the iteration, since they will certainly point out differences in the way Jane and the developers imagine the system's behaviour.   "I'll get you some example test scripts today," Jane promises. "I'll add to them every day after that. You'll have the entire suite by the middle of the iteration."   * * *   The iteration begins on Monday morning with a flurry of Class, Responsibilities, Collaborators sessions. By midmorning, all the developers have assembled into pairs and are rapidly coding away. "And now, my young apprentice," Joe says to Elaine, "you shall learn the mysteries of test-first design!"   "Wow, that sounds pretty rad," Elaine replies. "How do you do it?" Joe beams. It's clear that he has been anticipating this moment. "OK, what does the code do right now?" "Huh?" replied Elaine, "It doesn't do anything at all; there is no code."   "So, consider our task; can you think of something the code should do?" "Sure," Elaine said with youthful assurance, "First, it should connect to the database." "And thereupon, what must needs be required to connecteth the database?" "You sure talk weird," laughed Elaine. "I think we'd have to get the database object from some registry and call the Connect() method. "Ah, astute young wizard. Thou perceives correctly that we requireth an object within which we can cacheth the database object." "Is 'cacheth' really a word?" "It is when I say it! So, what test can we write that we know the database registry should pass?" Elaine sighs. She knows she'll just have to play along. "We should be able to create a database object and pass it to the registry in a Store() method. And then we should be able to pull it out of the registry with a Get() method and make sure it's the same object." "Oh, well said, my prepubescent sprite!" "Hay!" "So, now, let's write a test function that proves your case." "But shouldn't we write the database object and registry object first?" "Ah, you've much to learn, my young impatient one. Just write the test first." "But it won't even compile!" "Are you sure? What if it did?" "Uh . . ." "Just write the test, Elaine. Trust me." And so Joe, Elaine, and all the other developers began to code their tasks, one test case at a time. The room in which they worked was abuzz with the conversations between the pairs. The murmur was punctuated by an occasional high five when a pair managed to finish a task or a difficult test case.   As development proceeded, the developers changed partners once or twice a day. Each developer got to see what all the others were doing, and so knowledge of the code spread generally throughout the team.   Whenever a pair finished something significant whether a whole task or simply an important part of a task they integrated what they had with the rest of the system. Thus, the code base grew daily, and integration difficulties were minimized.   The developers communicated with Jane on a daily basis. They'd go to her whenever they had a question about the functionality of the system or the interpretation of an acceptance test case.   Jane, good as her word, supplied the team with a steady stream of acceptance test scripts. The team read these carefully and thereby gained a much better understanding of what Jane expected the system to do. By the beginning of the second week, there was enough functionality to demonstrate to Jane. She watched eagerly as the demonstration passed test case after test case. "This is really cool," Jane said as the demonstration finally ended. "But this doesn't seem like one-third of the tasks. Is your velocity slower than anticipated?"   You grimace. You'd been waiting for a good time to mention this to Jane but now she was forcing the issue. "Yes, unfortunately, we are going more slowly than we had expected. The new application server we are using is turning out to be a pain to configure. Also, it takes forever to reboot, and we have to reboot it whenever we make even the slightest change to its configuration."   Jane eyes you with suspicion. The stress of last Monday's negotiations had still not entirely dissipated. She says, "And what does this mean to our schedule? We can't slip it again, we just can't. Russ will have a fit! He'll haul us all into the woodshed and ream us some new ones."   You look Jane right in the eyes. There's no pleasant way to give someone news like this. So you just blurt out, "Look, if things keep going like they're going, we're not going to be done with everything by next Friday. Now it's possible that we'll figure out a way to go faster. But, frankly, I wouldn't depend on that. You should start thinking about one or two tasks that could be removed from the iteration without ruining the demonstration for Russ. Come hell or high water, we are going to give that demonstration on Friday, and I don't think you want us to choose which tasks to omit."   "Aw forchrisakes!" Jane barely manages to stifle yelling that last word as she stalks away, shaking her head. Not for the first time, you say to yourself, "Nobody ever promised me project management would be easy." You are pretty sure it won't be the last time, either.   Actually, things went a bit better than you had hoped. The team did, in fact, have to drop one task from the iteration, but Jane had chosen wisely, and the demonstration for Russ went without a hitch. Russ was not impressed with the progress, but neither was he dismayed. He simply said, "This is pretty good. But remember, we have to be able to demonstrate this system at the trade show in July, and at this rate, it doesn't look like you'll have all that much to show." Jane, whose attitude had improved dramatically with the completion of the iteration, responded to Russ by saying, "Russ, this team is working hard, and well. When July comes around, I am confident that we'll have something significant to demonstrate. It won't be everything, and some of it may be smoke and mirrors, but we'll have something."   Painful though the last iteration was, it had calibrated your velocity numbers. The next iteration went much better. Not because your team got more done than in the last iteration but simply because the team didn't have to remove any tasks or stories in the middle of the iteration.   By the start of the fourth iteration, a natural rhythm has been established. Jane, you, and the team know exactly what to expect from one another. The team is running hard, but the pace is sustainable. You are confident that the team can keep up this pace for a year or more.   The number of surprises in the schedule diminishes to near zero; however, the number of surprises in the requirements does not. Jane and Russ frequently look over the growing system and make recommendations or changes to the existing functionality. But all parties realize that these changes take time and must be scheduled. So the changes do not cause anyone's expectations to be violated. In March, there is a major demonstration of the system to the board of directors. The system is very limited and is not yet in a form good enough to take to the trade show, but progress is steady, and the board is reasonably impressed.   The second release goes even more smoothly than the first. By now, the team has figured out a way to automate Jane's acceptance test scripts. The team has also refactored the design of the system to the point that it is really easy to add new features and change old ones. The second release was done by the end of June and was taken to the trade show. It had less in it than Jane and Russ would have liked, but it did demonstrate the most important features of the system. Although customers at the trade show noticed that certain features were missing, they were very impressed overall. You, Russ, and Jane all returned from the trade show with smiles on your faces. You all felt as though this project was a winner.   Indeed, many months later, you are contacted by Rufus Inc. That company had been working on a system like this for its internal operations. Rufus has canceled the development of that system after a death-march project and is negotiating to license your technology for its environment.   Indeed, things are looking up!

    Read the article

  • How to bill a client for frequently-interrupted time

    - by Greg
    I find that when I'm working on hourly-billable projects (in particular, those that are research/design/architecture-oriented as opposed to straight coding) that I'm easily distracted by any number of things (email, grab a drink (loss of focus, but nature happens), link off the webpage I was reading, wandering mind (easy when the job calls for a lot of thinking), etc.) This results in very fragmented time, far too incremental IMO to accurately track with a timeclock, and some time very gray. I frequently end up billing for only some fraction of the elapsed time I spent in order to feel fair, but sometimes it takes a really long time to put in an 8-hour day. By contrast, when I've worked for salary I've not worried about whether I'm actively working at any given minute, I just get the job done, and I've never had anything but stellar reviews/feedback from past salaried employers, so I think I get the job done well. I personally believe in an 80/20 cycle: I get 80% of my work done during an inspired 20% of my time. But I have to screw around the other 80% of the time in order to get that first 20%. So the question: what billing/time-tracking policy can I adopt in order to be fair to my hourly customers without having to write off my own less-productive 80% that a salaried employer is willing to overlook in light of the complete package? Note: This question is not about how to be more productive or focused. It's about how to work around whatever salient limitations that I have in a way that's both fair to me and to my customers. Update: A little clarification (to pre-emptively stop some righteous indignation): I currently have a half dozen different project/client groups. It's not a great situation and I'm working at reducing it down to two, but that's my current reality. It's very easy to get off on a thread related to a different project than the one I'm clocking, and I'm not always conscious of it at the time. [I did not intend the question to mean that I was off playing games or making personal calls, etc., and have adjusted wording above to be clearer. Most of the time. I am only human, and sometimes the mind does force you to take a break! :-)]

    Read the article

  • Are Language Comparisons Meaningful?

    - by Prasoon Saurav
    Dr Bjarne Stroustrup in his book D&E says Several reviewers asked me to compare C++ to other languages. This I have decided against doing. Thereby, I have reaffirmed a long-standing and strongly held view: "Language comparisons are rarely meaningful and even less often fair" . A good comparison of major programming languages requires more effort than most people are willing to spend, experience in a wide range of application areas, a rigid maintenance of a detached and impartial point of view, and a sense of fairness. I do not have the time, and as the designer of C++, my impartiality would never be fully credible. -- The Design and Evolution of C++(Bjarne Stroustrup) Do you people agree with his this statement "Language comparisons are rarely meaningful and even less often fair"? Personally I think that comparing a language X with Y makes sense because it gives many more reasons to love/despise X/Y :-P What do you people think?

    Read the article

  • IBM "per core" comparisons for SPECjEnterprise2010

    - by jhenning
    I recently stumbled upon a blog entry from Roman Kharkovski (an IBM employee) comparing some SPECjEnterprise2010 results for IBM vs. Oracle. Mr. Kharkovski's blog claims that SPARC delivers half the transactions per core vs. POWER7. Prior to any argument, I should say that my predisposition is to like Mr. Kharkovski, because he says that his blog is intended to be factual; that the intent is to try to avoid marketing hype and FUD tactic; and mostly because he features a picture of himself wearing a bike helmet (me too). Therefore, in a spirit of technical argument, rather than FUD fight, there are a few areas in his comparison that should be discussed. Scaling is not free For any benchmark, if a small system scores 13k using quantity R1 of some resource, and a big system scores 57k using quantity R2 of that resource, then, sure, it's tempting to divide: is  13k/R1 > 57k/R2 ? It is tempting, but not necessarily educational. The problem is that scaling is not free. Building big systems is harder than building small systems. Scoring  13k/R1  on a little system provides no guarantee whatsoever that one can sustain that ratio when attempting to handle more than 4 times as many users. Choosing the denominator radically changes the picture When ratios are used, one can vastly manipulate appearances by the choice of denominator. In this case, lots of choices are available for the resource to be compared (R1 and R2 above). IBM chooses to put cores in the denominator. Mr. Kharkovski provides some reasons for that choice in his blog entry. And yet, it should be noted that the very concept of a core is: arbitrary: not necessarily comparable across vendors; fluid: modern chips shift chip resources in response to load; and invisible: unless you have a microscope, you can't see it. By contrast, one can actually see processor chips with the naked eye, and they are a bit easier to count. If we put chips in the denominator instead of cores, we get: 13161.07 EjOPS / 4 chips = 3290 EjOPS per chip for IBM vs 57422.17 EjOPS / 16 chips = 3588 EjOPS per chip for Oracle The choice of denominator makes all the difference in the appearance. Speaking for myself, dividing by chips just seems to make more sense, because: I can see chips and count them; and I can accurately compare the number of chips in my system to the count in some other vendor's system; and Tthe probability of being able to continue to accurately count them over the next 10 years of microprocessor development seems higher than the probability of being able to accurately and comparably count "cores". SPEC Fair use requirements Speaking as an individual, not speaking for SPEC and not speaking for my employer, I wonder whether Mr. Kharkovski's blog article, taken as a whole, meets the requirements of the SPEC Fair Use rule www.spec.org/fairuse.html section I.D.2. For example, Mr. Kharkovski's footnote (1) begins Results from http://www.spec.org as of 04/04/2013 Oracle SUN SPARC T5-8 449 EjOPS/core SPECjEnterprise2010 (Oracle's WLS best SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS/core result on SPARC). IBM Power730 823 EjOPS/core (World Record SPECjEnterprise2010 EJOPS/core result) The questionable tactic, from a Fair Use point of view, is that there is no such metric at the designated location. At www.spec.org, You can find the SPEC metric 57422.17 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS for Oracle and You can also find the SPEC metric 13161.07 SPECjEnterprise2010 EjOPS for IBM. Despite the implication of the footnote, you will not find any mention of 449 nor anything that says 823. SPEC says that you can, under its fair use rule, derive your own values; but it emphasizes: "The context must not give the appearance that SPEC has created or endorsed the derived value." Substantiation and transparency Although SPEC disclaims responsibility for non-SPEC information (section I.E), it says that non-SPEC data and methods should be accurate, should be explained, should be substantiated. Unfortunately, it is difficult or impossible for the reader to independently verify the pricing: Were like units compared to like (e.g. list price to list price)? Were all components (hw, sw, support) included? Were all fees included? Note that when tpc.org shows IBM pricing, there are often items such as "PROCESSOR ACTIVATION" and "MEMORY ACTIVATION". Without the transparency of a detailed breakdown, the pricing claims are questionable. T5 claim for "Fastest Processor" Mr. Kharkovski several times questions Oracle's claim for fastest processor, writing You see, when you publish industry benchmarks, people may actually compare your results to other vendor's results. Well, as we performance people always say, "it depends". If you believe in performance-per-core as the primary way of looking at the world, then yes, the POWER7+ is impressive, spending its chip resources to support up to 32 threads (8 cores x 4 threads). Or, it just might be useful to consider performance-per-chip. Each SPARC T5 chip allows 128 hardware threads to be simultaneously executing (16 cores x 8 threads). The Industry Standard Benchmark that focuses specifically on processor chip performance is SPEC CPU2006. For this very well known and popular benchmark, SPARC T5: provides better performance than both POWER7 and POWER7+, for 1 chip vs. 1 chip, for 8 chip vs. 8 chip, for integer (SPECint_rate2006) and floating point (SPECfp_rate2006), for Peak tuning and for Base tuning. For example, at the 8-chip level, integer throughput (SPECint_rate2006) is: 3750 for SPARC 2170 for POWER7+. You can find the details at the March 2013 BestPerf CPU2006 page SPEC is a trademark of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation, www.spec.org. The two specific results quoted for SPECjEnterprise2010 are posted at the URLs linked from the discussion. Results for SPEC CPU2006 were verified at spec.org 1 July 2013, and can be rechecked here.

    Read the article

  • Lag compensation of projectile shooting game

    - by Denis Ermolin
    I'm thinking about an algorithm for firing projectiles with lag compensation. Now I did find only one descent solution: Player hits fire button. Client sends input "fire". Client waits for server response. Server generates bullet then sends response to client. Client recieves response and finally fires projectile. Is this solution only "trueway"? I find it the only one that can be fair to all of the clients. Valve in this case, doesn't compensate lag from rocket shots. I am feeling that I will not compensate it, too. I think that with today's bandwidth I can close my eyes on this problem, because I don't see any solutions with fair logic. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • c - fork() and wait()

    - by Joe
    Hi there, I need to use the fork() and wait() functions to complete an assignment. We are modelling non-deterministic behaviour and need the program to fork() if there is more than one possible transition. In order to try and work out how fork and wait work, I have just made a simple program. I think I understand now how the calls work and would be fine if the program only branched once because the parent process could use the exit status from the single child process to determine whether the child process reached the accept state or not. As you can see from the code that follows though, I want to be able to handle situations where there must be more than one child processes. My problem is that you seem to only be able to set the status using an _exit function once. So, as in my example the exit status that the parent process tests for shows that the first child process issued 0 as it's exit status, but has no information on the second child process. I tried simply not _exit()-ing on a reject, but then that child process would carry on, and in effect there would seem to be two parent processes. Sorry for the waffle, but I would be grateful if someone could tell me how my parent process could obtain the status information on more than one child process, or I would be happy for the parent process to only notice accept status's from the child processes, but in that case I would successfully need to exit from the child processes which have a reject status. My test code is as follows: #include <stdio.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <errno.h> #include <sys/wait.h> int main(void) { pid_t child_pid, wpid, pid; int status = 0; int i; int a[3] = {1, 2, 1}; for(i = 1; i < 3; i++) { printf("i = %d\n", i); pid = getpid(); printf("pid after i = %d\n", pid); if((child_pid = fork()) == 0) { printf("In child process\n"); pid = getpid(); printf("pid in child process is %d\n", pid); /* Is a child process */ if(a[i] < 2) { printf("Should be accept\n"); _exit(1); } else { printf("Should be reject\n"); _exit(0); } } } if(child_pid > 0) { /* Is the parent process */ pid = getpid(); printf("parent_pid = %d\n", pid); wpid = wait(&status); if(wpid != -1) { printf("Child's exit status was %d\n", status); if(status > 0) { printf("Accept\n"); } else { printf("Complete parent process\n"); if(a[0] < 2) { printf("Accept\n"); } else { printf("Reject\n"); } } } } return 0; } Many thanks Joe

    Read the article

  • c - dereferencing issue

    - by Joe
    Hi, I have simplified an issue that I've been having trying to isolate the problem, but it is not helping. I have a 2 dimensional char array to represent memory. I want to pass a reference to that simulation of memory to a function. In the function to test the contents of the memory I just want to iterate through the memory and print out the contents on each row. The program prints out the first row and then I get seg fault. My program is as follows: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <ctype.h> #include <string.h> void test_memory(char*** memory_ref) { int i; for(i = 0; i < 3; i++) { printf("%s\n", *memory_ref[i]); } } int main() { char** memory; int i; memory = calloc(sizeof(char*), 20); for(i = 0; i < 20; i++) { memory[i] = calloc(sizeof(char), 33); } memory[0] = "Mem 0"; memory[1] = "Mem 1"; memory[2] = "Mem 2"; printf("memory[1] = %s\n", memory[1]); test_memory(&memory); return 0; } This gives me the output: memory[1] = Mem 1 Mem 0 Segmentation fault If I change the program and create a local version of the memory in the function by dereferencing the memory_ref, then I get the right output: So: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <ctype.h> #include <string.h> void test_memory(char*** memory_ref) { char** memory = *memory_ref; int i; for(i = 0; i < 3; i++) { printf("%s\n", memory[i]); } } int main() { char** memory; int i; memory = calloc(sizeof(char*), 20); for(i = 0; i < 20; i++) { memory[i] = calloc(sizeof(char), 33); } memory[0] = "Mem 0"; memory[1] = "Mem 1"; memory[2] = "Mem 2"; printf("memory[1] = %s\n", memory[1]); test_memory(&memory); return 0; } gives me the following output: memory[1] = Mem 1 Mem 0 Mem 1 Mem 2 which is what I want, but making a local version of the memory is useless because I need to be able to change the values of the original memory from the function which I can only do by dereferencing the pointer to the original 2d char array. I don't understand why I should get a seg fault on the second time round, and I'd be grateful for any advice. Many thanks Joe

    Read the article

  • Cakephp - Banner Problem

    - by Joe Elliott
    Hi guys I have a banner rotator on my main page and it was working but it has stopped. All I have done before it stopped was modified some of the db fields. I added to fields position and company and deleted the field 'description.' It was a friend of a friend that made this part of the site for me while i was on holiday so i dont know which files i should show you cos dont know exactly what hes done but im guessing the following ones are the ones you need. banner_view <div id="banner"> <?php if(!empty($banners) && ($banners['Banner']['position']=='Top')){ foreach($banners as $banner){ ?> <a href="<?php echo $banner['Banner']['url']; ?>"><img src="<?php echo $banner['Banner']['path']; ?>" alt="<?php echo $banner['Banner']['company']; ?>" /></a> <?php } } ?> </div> banner_controller <?php class BannersController extends AppController { var $name = 'Banners'; var $helpers = array('Html', 'Form', 'Ajax','Javascript'); var $layout = 'ajax'; var $components = array('Session', 'Cookie'); function beforeFilter() { parent::beforeFilter(); $this->Auth->allow('index','featrot'); if(strpos($this->here, 'admin')) { $this->layout = 'admin'; } } function index() { Configure::write('debug',0); $this->Banner->recursive = 0; $this->paginate['Banner']; $banners = $this->paginate(); if($banners) { $this->set('banners', $banners); } } function featrot() { Configure::write('debug',0); $this->Banner->recursive = 0; $this->paginate['Banner']; $banners = $this->paginate(); if($banners) { $this->set('banners', $banners); } } function admin_edit(){ $this->pageTitle='Admin section - .: Banners Edit:.'; $banners = $this->Banner->find('first'); $id = $banners['Banner']['id']; if (!empty($this->data)) { $this->Banner->id = $id; if ($this->Banner->save($this->data)) { $this->Session->setFlash(__('The Banner has been updated', true)); } else { $this->Session->setFlash(__('The Banner could not update. Please, try again.', true)); } } if (empty($this->data)) { $this->data = $this->Banner->read(null, $id); } } function admin_display_banners($id=null){ $this->pageTitle='Admin section - .: Banners Setting :.'; if (!empty($this->data)) { $this->Banner->id = $id; if ($this->Banner->save($this->data)) { $this->Session->setFlash(__("Banner#$id has been updated", true)); $this->Banner->id = null; } else { $this->Session->setFlash(__("Banner#$id could not update. Please, try again.", true)); } } $this->data = null; $this->Banner->recursive = -1; $this->paginate['Banner']; $banners = $this->paginate('Banner'); $this->set('banners', $banners); } } ?> banner_model <?php class Banner extends AppModel { var $name = 'Banner'; } ?> Hope this is all the details you need. Thanks in advance folks :) Joe :)

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Why Do We Need Master Data Management – Importance and Significance of Master Data Management (MDM)

    - by pinaldave
    Let me paint a picture of everyday life for you.  Let’s say you and your wife both have address books for your groups of friends.  There is definitely overlap between them, so that you both have the addresses for your mutual friends, and there are addresses that only you know, and some only she knows.  They also might be organized differently.  You might list your friend under “J” for “Joe” or even under “W” for “Work,” while she might list him under “S” for “Joe Smith” or under your name because he is your friend.  If you happened to trade, neither of you would be able to find anything! This is where data management would be very important.  If you were to consolidate into one address book, you would have to set rules about how to organize the book, and both of you would have to follow them.  You would also make sure that poor Joe doesn’t get entered twice under “J” and under “S.” This might be a familiar situation to you, whether you are thinking about address books, record collections, books, or even shopping lists.  Wherever there is a lot of data to consolidate, you are going to run into problems unless everyone is following the same rules. I’m sure that my readers can figure out where I am going with this.  What is SQL Server but a computerized way to organize data?  And Microsoft is making it easier and easier to get all your “addresses” into one place.  In the  2008 version of SQL they introduced a new tool called Master Data Services (MDS) for Master Data Management, and they have improved it for the new 2012 version. MDM was hailed as a major improvement for business intelligence.  You might not think that an organizational system is terribly exciting, but think about the kind of “address books” a company might have.  Many companies have lots of important information, like addresses, credit card numbers, purchase history, and so much more.  To organize all this efficiently so that customers are well cared for and properly billed (only once, not never or multiple times!) is a major part of business intelligence. MDM comes into play because it will comb through these mountains of data and make sure that all the information is consistent, accurate, and all placed in one database so that employees don’t have to search high and low and waste their time. MDM also has operational MDM functions.  This is not a redundancy.  Operational MDM means that when one employee updates one bit of information in the database, for example – updating a new address for a customer, operational MDM ensures that this address is updated throughout the system so that all departments will have the correct information. Another cool thing about MDM is that it features Master Data Services Configuration Manager, which is exactly what it sounds like.  It has a built-in “helper” that lets you set up your database quickly, easily, and with the correct configurations.  While talking about cool features, I can’t skip over the add-in for Excel.  This allows you to link certain data to Excel files for easier sharing and uploading. In summary, I want to emphasize that the scariest part of the database is slowly disappearing.  Everyone knows that a database – one consolidated area for all your data – is a good idea, but the idea of setting one up is daunting.  But SQL Server is making data management easier and easier with features like Master Data Services (MDS). Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology Tagged: Master Data Services, MDM

    Read the article

  • Design patter to keep track UITableView rows correspondance to underlying data in constant time.

    - by DenNukem
    When my model changes I want to animate changes in UITableView by inserting/deleting rows. For that I need to know the ordinal of the given row (so I can construct NSIndexPath), which I find hard to do in better-than-linear time. For example, consider that I have a list of addressbook entries which are manualy sorted by the user, i.e. there is no ordering "key" that represents the sort order. There is also a corresponding UITableView that shows one row per addressbook entry. When UITableView queries the datasource I query the NSMUtableArray populated with my entries and return required data in constant time for each row. However, if there is a change in underlying model I am getting a notification "Joe Smith, id#123 has been removed". Now I have a dilemma. A naive approach would be to scan the array, determine the index at which Joe Smith is and then ask UITableView to remove that precise row from the view, also removing it form the array. However, the scan will take linear time to finish. Now I could have an NSDictionary which allows me to find Joe Smith in constant time, but that doesn't do me a lot of good because I still need to find his ordinal index within the array in order to instruct UITableView to remove that row, which is again a linear search. I could further decide to store each object's ordinal inside the object itself to make it constant, but it will become outdated after first such update as all subsequent index values will have changed due to removal of an object. So what is the correct design pattern to accurately reflect model changes in the UITableView in costant (or at least logarithmic) time?

    Read the article

  • XML RPC c# Call returns array of strings and int

    - by chillconsulting
    I'm doing an XML RPC call in ASP.net with c# and the call returns an Array called userinfo with strings and integers in it and I can't seem to figure out how to parse the data and put it into string and int objects... The only thing that compiles is if I make it an Object in the struct. The int returns fines and is referenced easily. Any help would be appreciated - this is what I got. public Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e){ IValidateSSO proxy = XmlRpcProxyGen.Create<IValidateSSO>(); UserInfoSSOValue ret2 = proxy.UserInfoSSO(ssoAuth, ssoValue); int i = ret2.isonid; } public struct UserInfoSSOValue { public Object userinfo; public int isonid; } [XmlRpcUrl("host")] public interface IValidateSSO : IXmlRpcProxy { [XmlRpcMethod("sso.session_userinfo")] UserInfoSSOValue UserInfoSSO(string ssoauth, string sid); } Here is what the xml rpc calls returns (I know it's in php... I'm trying to implement in c#): sso.session_userinfo(string $ssoauth, string $sid) string $ssoauth - authentication string (assigned by ONID support) string $sid - sid to get info on Returns: Array ( [userinfo] => Array ( [lastname] => College [expire_time] => 1118688011 [osuuid] => 12345678901 [sid_length] => 3600 [ip] => 10.0.0.1 [sid] => WiT7ppAEUKS3rJ2lNz3Ue64sGPxnnLL0 [username] => collegej [firstname] => Joe [fullname] => College, Joe Student [email] => joe[email protected] [create_time] => 1118684410 ) [isonid] => 1 ) array userinfo - array containing basic user information

    Read the article

  • Prefuse: Reloading of XML files

    - by John
    Hello all, I am a new to the prefuse visualization toolkit and have a couple of general questions. For my purpose, I would like to perform an initial visualization using prefuse (graphview / graphml). Once rendered, upon a user click of a node, I would like to completely reload a new xml file for a new visualization. I want to do this in order to allow me to "pre-package" graphs for display. For example. If I search for Ted. I would like to have an xml file relating to Ted load and render a display. Now in the display I see that Ted has nodes associated called Bill and Joe. When I click Joe, I would like to clear the display and load an xml file associated with Joe. And so on. I have looked into loading one very large xml file containing all node and node relationship info and allowing prefuse to handle this using the hops from one level to another. However, eventually I am sure that system performance issues will arise due to the size of data. Thanks in advance for any help, John

    Read the article

  • Linking session state between servlets and EJBs?

    - by wilth
    Hello, I have servlets (in a web module) that access stateless EJB beans (in an EJB module). The EJB module is built using SEAM. Users can have different roles and the EJB services check this using Seam's Identity. I also use a customized Authenticator (although this might not be relevant here). I noticed problems with this approach and I'm suspecting that the session context in the servlets is not "linked" with the session context in the EJB beans. What I think happens is something like: User Joe access servlet A and is assigned Session W1. Servlet A calls a login function on an EJB, using the EJB session E1. Later, user Mary accesses servlet A and is assigned Session W2. When calling the EJBs, however, the EJB session E1 is used and therefore Mary is authenticated as Joe. What also happens is that when Joe is calling the servlet twice in rapid succession, the same session W1 is used, but two different sessions E1 and E2 in the business layer, causing errors. I might be wrong in my suspicion, but maybe I'm actually expecting these "sessions" to be linked together while they in fact are not. If this is true, is there any way of achieving this? I could - of course - use stateful beans and save the authentication information in the beans, but this would break the "Identity" concept of Seam (and in general, it would be preferable to be able to use the Session context in my EJB beans). Any help and pointers are very welcome - thanks! Technology: EJB3, Seam 2.1.2. The servlets are actually the server-side of a GWT app, although I don't think this matters much. I'm using JBoss 5.

    Read the article

  • SQL View with Data from two tables

    - by Alex
    Hello! I can't seem to crack this - I have two tables (Persons and Companies), and I'm trying to create a view that: 1) shows all persons 2) also returns companies by themselves once, regardless of how many persons are related to it 3) orders by name across both tables To clarify, some sample data: (Table: Companies) Id Name 1 Banana 2 ABC Inc. 3 Microsoft 4 Bigwig (Table: Persons) Id Name RelatedCompanyId 1 Joe Smith 3 2 Justin 3 Paul Rudd 4 4 Anjolie 5 Dustin 4 The output I'm looking for is something like this: Name PersonName CompanyName RelatedCompanyId ABC Inc. NULL ABC Inc. NULL Anjolie Anjolie NULL NULL Banana NULL Banana NULL Bigwig NULL Bigwig NULL Dustin Dustin Bigwig 4 Joe Smith Joe Smith Microsoft 3 Justin Justin NULL NULL Microsoft NULL Microsoft NULL Paul Rudd Paul Rudd Bigwig 4 As you can see, the new "Name" column is ordered across both tables (the company names appear correctly in between the person names), and each company appears exactly once, regardless of how many people are related to it. Can this even be done in SQL?! P.S. I'm trying to create a view so I can use this later for easy data retrieval, fulltext indexing and make the programming side simpler by just querying the view.

    Read the article

  • Design pattern to keep track UITableView rows correspondance to underlying data in constant time.

    - by DenNukem
    When my model changes I want to animate changes in UITableView by inserting/deleting rows. For that I need to know the ordinal of the given row (so I can construct NSIndexPath), which I find hard to do in better-than-linear time. For example, consider that I have a list of addressbook entries which are manualy sorted by the user, i.e. there is no ordering "key" that represents the sort order. There is also a corresponding UITableView that shows one row per addressbook entry. When UITableView queries the datasource I query the NSMUtableArray populated with my entries and return required data in constant time for each row. However, if there is a change in underlying model I am getting a notification "Joe Smith, id#123 has been removed". Now I have a dilemma. A naive approach would be to scan the array, determine the index at which Joe Smith is and then ask UITableView to remove that precise row from the view, also removing it form the array. However, the scan will take linear time to finish. Now I could have an NSDictionary which allows me to find Joe Smith in constant time, but that doesn't do me a lot of good because I still need to find his ordinal index within the array in order to instruct UITableView to remove that row, which is again a linear search. I could further decide to store each object's ordinal inside the object itself to make it constant, but it will become outdated after first such update as all subsequent index values will have changed due to removal of an object. So what is the correct design pattern to accurately reflect model changes in the UITableView in costant (or at least logarithmic) time?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >