Search Results

Search found 373 results on 15 pages for 'motivation'.

Page 12/15 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• Performing an upgrade from TFS 2008 to TFS 2010

  - by Enrique Lima

  I recently had to go through the process of migrating a TFS 2008 SP1 to a TFS 2010 environment. I will go into the details of the tasks that I went through, but first I want to explain why I define it as a migration and not an upgrade. When this environment was setup, based on support and limitations for TFS 2008, we used a 32 bit platform for the TFS Application Tier and Build Servers.  The Data Tier, since we were installing SP1 for TFS 2008, was done as a 64 bit installation.  We knew at that point that TFS 2010 was in the picture so that served as further motivation to make that a 64bit install of SQL Server.  The SQL Server at that point was a single instance (Default) installation too.  We had a pretty good strategy in place for backups of the databases supporting the environment (and this made the migration so much smoother), so we were pretty familiar with the databases and the purpose they serve. I am sure many of you that have gone through a TFS 2008 installation have encountered challenges and trials.  And likely even more so if you, like me, needed to configure your deployment for SSL.  So, frankly I was a little concerned about the process of migrating.  They say practice makes perfect, and this environment I worked on is in some way my brain child, so I was not ready nor willing for this to be a failure or something that would impact my client’s work. Prior to going through the migration process, we did the install of the environment.  The Data Tier was the same, with a new Named instance in place to host the 2010 install.  The Application Tier was in place too, and we did the DefaultCollection configuration to test and validate all components were in place as they should. Anyway, on to the tasks for the migration (thanks to Martin Hinselwood for his very thorough documentation): Close access to TFS 2008, you want to make sure all code is checked in and ready to go.  We stated a difference of 8 hours between code lock and the start of migration to give time for any unexpected delay.  How do we close access?  Stop IIS. Backup your databases.  Which ones? TfsActivityLogging TfsBuild TfsIntegration TfsVersionControl TfsWorkItemTracking TfsWorkItemTrackingAttachments Restore the databases to the new Named Instance (make sure you keep the same names) Now comes the fun part! The actual import/migration of the databases.  A couple of things happen here. The TfsIntegration database will be scanned, the other databases will be checked to validate they exist.  Those databases will go through a process of data being extracted and transferred to the TfsVersionControl database to then be renamed to Tfs_<Collection>. You will be using a tool called tfsconfig and the option import. This tool is located in the TFS 2010 installation path (C:\Program Files\Microsoft Team Foundation Server 2010\Tools),  the command to use is as follows:    tfsconfig import /sqlinstance:<instance> /collectionName:<name> /confirmed Where <instance> is going to be the SQL Server instance where you restored the databases to.  <name> is the name you will give the collection. And to explain /confirmed, well this means you have done a backup of the databases, why?  well remember you are going to merge the databases you restored when you execute the tfsconfig import command. The process will go through about 200 tasks, once it completes go to Team Foundation Server Administration Console and validate your imported databases and contents. We’ll keep this manageable, so the next post is about how to complete that implementation with the SSL configuration.

  Read the article

• Two Candidates + One Job = Two Different Outcomes

  - by david.talamelli

  Recruiters have always headhunted (sidenote: I do not like this word, in general I think the type of people who use the phrase “headhunting” are the ones who are trying to sound more important than what they likely are). Any serious Recruiter engages in direct recruiting activity, it is part and parcel of the business it is not something unique. With the uptake in Social Media the past 4-5 years, we have seen an increase in the number of Recruiters proactively reaching out to people about job opportunities. We have also seen this activity increase across all levels of hire, from help desk roles to C-Level Executives. While getting approached about a role can be a nice boost to a person’s ego, do not let it give you an inflated sense of entitlement. It is The way that people handle themselves during these calls and subsequent interviews will have a large impact on their potential to land that job. Last week I spoke to two very different candidates, both about the same position and both with very different outcomes. On paper, Candidate #1 looked fantastic; they ticked many of the boxes that we were looking for. The person is working at global IT company and working in a similar role as the one we were hiring for but not in as senior as the role we had. This role would have been the perfect step to getting involved in more complex work for the person. Candidate #2 had less polished IT experience, ticked some of the boxes we were looking for and on paper in comparison to Candidate #1 was not as close a fit as Candidate #1 was. It seemed like I was comparing apples and oranges. After speaking to both candidates it turns out I was comparing apples and oranges except the person better suited for our role was not the one I was expecting it would be. The first candidate on paper looked great – they had the experience we were looking for and appeared to be just right for the role, but after talking to them, they gave me the impression that they thought the world owed them. The impression I was left with was that they did not equate success with hard work, they seemed more interested in “what is in it for me”. Rather than having a proper conversation with me, I was often cut off and asked to hurry it up when explaining our business, what we are doing, etc... . This person seemed more interested in the job title and money than how rather than think about ways to make the role successful. Candidate #2 who had limited experience, made up for any perceived lack of experience and them some with a demonstrated motivation to succeed and do the things needed to make that happen. Candidate #2 made a great first impression, they did not seem afraid of hard work and demonstrated a “team player” attitude. In talking to them they kept me engaged, listened and asked thoughtful questions that made me think this is the type of person who creates their own luck and who would thrive in a place like Oracle. Skills, capabilities, experience and a good resume can certainly get your foot in the door, but the wrong attitude or approach to work can close those opportunities just as easily. On the other hand, hard work, effort and a genuine work ethic may help open those doors that would otherwise closed for you. A resume with all the credentials gets you in the front door but that is just the beginning of the process. It is not how we start the race that is important, it’s how things end that matter most.

  Read the article

• Hell and Diplomacy: Notes on Software Integration

  - by ericajanine

  Well, I'm getting cabin fever and short-timer's ADD all at the same time. I haven't been anywhere outside of my greater city area in FOREVER and I'm only days away from my vacation. I have brainlock because the last few days have been non-stop diffusing amazingly hostile conversations. I think I'll write about that. So then, I "do" software. At the end of the day, software is pretty straightforward. Software is that thing we love and try to make do things not currently in play, in existence. If a process around getting software to do something is broken (like most actually are), then we should acknowledge it and move on. We are professional. We are helpful beyond the normal call of duty. We live and breathe making the lives better for those apps being active in the world. But above all--the shocker: We are SERVICE. In a service frame of mind, all perspectives shift to what is best overall for system stabilization vs. what must be in production to meet business objectives. It doesn't matter how much you like or dislike the creator of said software. It doesn't matter what time you went to bed last night or if your mate appreciates your Death March attitude. Getting a product in and when is an age-old dilemma in a software environment where more than, say, 3 people are involved. We know this. Taking a servant's perspective eliminates the drama surrounding what a group of half-baked developers forgot to tell each other in the 11th hour about their trampling changes before check-in. We, my counterparts in society, get paid to deal with that drama. I get paid to diffuse that drama and make everything integrate as smoothly as possible. At the end of the day, attacking someone over a minor detail not only makes things worse, it's against the whole point of our real existence. Being in support or software integration means you are to keep your eyes on the end game. That end game? It's making a solution work for all stakeholders, not just you or your immediate superior. Development and technology groups exist because business groups need them to exist and solve their issues. The end game? Doing what is best for those business groups ultimately. Period. Note: That does not mean you let your business users solely dictate when and if something gets changed in an environment you ultimately own. That's just crazy. Software and its environments are legitimately owned by those who manage it directly, no matter how important a business group believes it is to the existence of mankind. So, you both negotiate the terms of changing that environment and only do so upon that negotiation. Diplomacy is in order. So, to finish my thoughts: If you have no ability to keep your mouth shut in a situation where a business or development group truly need your help to make something work even beyond a deadline, find another profession. Beating up someone verbally because they screw up means a service attitude is not at the forefront of your motivation for doing what is ultimately their work and their product. Software, especially integration, requires a strong will and a soft touch to keep it on track. Not a hammer covered in broken glass.

  Read the article

• Minimum team development sizes

  - by MarkPearl

  Disclaimer - these are observations that I have had, I am not sure if this follows the philosophy of scrum, agile or whatever, but most of these insights were gained while implementing a scrum scenario. Two is a partnership, three starts a team For a while I thought that a team was anything more than one and that scrum could be effective methodology with even two people. I have recently adjusted my thinking to a scrum team being a minimum of three, so what happened to two and what do you call it? For me I consider a group of two people working together a partnership - there is value in having a partnership, but some of the dynamics and value that you get from having a team is lost with a partnership. Avoidance of a one on one confrontation The first dynamic I see missing in a partnership is the team motivation to do better and how this is delivered to individuals that are not performing. Take two highly motivated individuals and put them together and you will typically see them continue to perform. Now take a situation where you have two individuals, one performing and one not and the behaviour is totally different compared to a team of three or more individuals. With two people, if one feels the other is not performing it becomes a one on one confrontation. Most people avoid confrontations and so nothing changes. Compare this to a situation where you have three people in a team, 2 performing and 1 not the dynamic is totally different, it is no longer a personal one on one confrontation but a team concern and people seem more willing to encourage the individual not performing and express their dissatisfaction as a team if they do not improve. Avoiding the effects of Tuckman’s Group Development Theory If you are not familiar with Tuckman’s group development theory give it a read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuckman's_stages_of_group_development) In a nutshell with Tuckman’s theory teams go through these stages of Forming, Storming, Norming & Performing. You want your team to reach and remain in the Performing stage for as long as possible - this is where you get the most value. When you have a partnership of two and you change the individuals in the partnership you basically do a hard reset on the partnership and go back to the beginning of Tuckman’s model each time. This has a major effect on the performance of a team and what they can deliver. What I have seen is that you reduce the effects of Tuckman's theory the more individuals you have in the team (until you hit the maximum team size in which other problems kick in). While you will still experience Tuckman's theory with a team of three, the impact will be greatly reduced compared to two where it is guaranteed every time a change occurs. It's not just in the numbers, it's in the people One final comment - while the actual numbers of a team do play a role, the individuals in the team are even more important - ideally you want to keep individuals working together for an extended period. That doesn't mean that you never change the individuals in a team, or that once someone joins a team they are stuck there - there is value in an individual moving from team to team and getting cross pollination, but the period of time that an individual moves should be in month's or years, not days or weeks. Why? So why is it important to know this? Why is it important to know how a team works and what motivates them? I have been asking myself this question for a while and where I am at right now is this… the aim is to achieve the stage where the sum of the total (team) is greater than the sum of the parts (team members). This is why we form teams and why understanding how they work is a challenge and also extremely stimulating.

  Read the article

• Application Logging needs work

  Application Logging Application logging is the act of logging events that occur within an application much like how a court report documents what happens in court case. Application logs can be useful for several reasons, but the most common use for logs is to recreate steps to find the root cause of applications errors. Other uses can include the detection of Fraud, verification of user activity, or provide audits on user/data interactions. “Logs can contain different kinds of data. The selection of the data used is normally affected by the motivation leading to the logging. “ (OWASP, 2009) OWASP also stats that logging include applicable debugging information like the event date time, responsible process, and a description of the event. “There are many reasons why a logging system is a necessary part of delivering a distributed application. One of the most important is the ability to track exactly how many users are using the application during different time periods.” (Hatton, 2000) Hatton also states that application logging helps system designers determine whether parts of an application aren't being used as designed. He implies that low usage can be used to identify if users like or do not like aspects of a system based on user usage of the application. This enables application designers to extract why users don't like aspects of an application so that changes can be made to increase its usefulness and effectiveness. “Logging memory usage can also assist you in tuning up the internals of your application. If you're experiencing a randomly occurring problem, being able to match activities performed with the memory status at the time may enable you to discover the cause of the problem. It also gives you a good indication of the health of the distributed server machine at the time any activity is performed. “ (Hatton, 2000) Commonly Logged Application Events (Defined by OWASP) Access of Data Creation of Data Modification of Data in any form Administrative Functions  Configuration Changes Debugging Information(Application Events)  Authorization Attempts  Data Deletion Network Communication  Authentication Events  Errors/Exceptions Application Error Logging The functionality associated with application error logging is actually the combination of proper error handling and applications logging.  If we look back at Figure 4 and Figure 5, these code examples allow developers to handle various types of errors that occur within the life cycle of an application’s execution. Application logging can be applied within the Catch section of the TryCatch statement allowing for the errors to be logged when they occur. By placing the logging within the Catch section specific error details can be accessed that help identify the source of the error, the path to the error, what caused the error and definition of the error that occurred. This can then be logged and reviewed at a later date in order recreate the error that was received based data found in the application log. By allowing applications to log errors developers IT staff can use them to recreate errors that are encountered by end-users or other dependent systems.

  Read the article

• How to introduce a computer illiterate 50-year old to programming [closed]

  - by sunday

  The other day my dad asked me a question that I would have never expected from him. "How can I learn C++?" My dad is turning 56 this year and computers are a distant concept for him. He doesn't know how to use a phone very well besides calling numbers (no speed dial or contacts); though he has started to learn computers a little better - to the point that he knows how to open the internet (in Windows) and browse around (and has successfully completed several job applications entirely on his own online, of which he was offered positions too). But still, these are too narrow-windowed experiences to mean much, really. While he may not have the background, my dad knows how to read. And I mean reading as a skill, not just an ability. He has little to no college education (financial problems, family, etc.) and was fortunate enough to finish high school, but still taught himself to become a master electrician and has been one for almost 30 years now. He did the same with guitar, learning to play at a very professional level and has been praised for his skill. In high school, he picked up a weight lifting book - and was the only person in his high school at the time to qualify officially as an "athlete" by national standards. In all cases, he just needed something to read. Something to teach him. He absorbs information like a sponge. I have no doubt in my dad's motivation or capability of doing this, so my general goal is simply: Get my dad into the world of computers, and get him on the road to programming. I strongly believe that once I get him through the fundamentals, his drive and reading skill will keep him going on this own. So I'm asking you all: where should I start with all this? And what are the best resources out there? Should I get him to start Linux instead of Windows? Is C++ a bad idea? Remember, he needs to (IMO) learn computers first, and then get that first grasp (the "Hello world" experience) of programming. For money's sake and at top preference, I'd like free online resources that he can read, but by all means any good suggestions in print or paid-for-online are welcome (that I could possibly look into later to purchase). And also, I intend to start him off with C++ (no Python, Java, etc.), because I know it the best and will be able to help him along the way with code. (I have minimal knowledge right now in other languages). Edit: I'm getting a lot of persistent suggestions to use Python. The only reason I wanted to do C++ is that I KNOW it and can be THERE when my dad needs help. My VERY FIRST exposure to programming ever was Java. I learned Java, and I got good at it. I open to other suggestions, but please provide an effective application of your suggestions. EDIT #2: I understand my approach/thinking/knowledge could be lacking here. I'm a sophomore level undergraduate CS major. If you don't agree with anything in my post, tell me why - give me ideas, information - that's why I'm asking in the first place. To narrow down my general goal to specific reachable goals.

  Read the article

• WCF: Per-Call and Per-Session services...need convincing that Per-Call is worthwhile

  - by mrlane

  Hello all. We are currently doing a review of our WCF service design and one thing that is bothering me is the decision between Per-Call and Per-Session services. I believe I understand the concept behind both, but I am not really seeing the advantage of Per-Call services. I understand that the motivation for using Per-Call services is that a WCF services only holds a servier object for the life of a call thereby restricting the time that an expensive resource is held by the service instance, but to me its much simpler to use the more OO like Per-Session model where your proxy object instance always corrisponds to the same server object instance and just handle any expensive resources manually. For example, say I have a CRUD Service with Add, Update, Delete, Select methods on it. This could be done as a Per-Call service with database connection (the "expensive resource") instanciated in the server object constructor. Alternately it could be a Per-Session service with a database connection instanciated and closed within each CRUD method exposed. To me it is no different resource wise and it makes the programming model simpler as the client can be assured that they always have the same server object for their proxies: any in-expensive state that there may be between calls is maintained and no extra parameters are needed on methods to identify what state data must be retrieved by the service when it is instanciating a new server object again (as in the case of Per-Call). Its just like using classes and objects, where the same resource management issues apply, but we dont create new object instances for each method call we have on an object! So what am I missing with the Per-Call model? Thanks

  Read the article

• .NET4: In-Process Side-by-Side Execution Explained

  - by emptyset

  Overview: I'm interested in learning more about the .NET4 "In-Process Side-by-Side Execution" of assemblies, and need additional information to help me demystify it. Motivation: The application in question is built against .NET2, and uses two third-party libraries that also work against .NET2. The application is deployed (via file copy) to client machines in a virtual environment that includes .NET2. Not my architecture, please bear with me. Goal: To see if it's possible to rebuild the application assemblies (or a subset) against .NET4, and ship the application as before, without changing the third-party libraries and including the .NET4 Client Profile (as described here) in the deployment. Steps Taken: The following articles were read, but didn't quite provide me enough information: In-Process Side-by-Side Execution: Browsed this article, and Scenario Two is the closest it comes to describing something that resembles my situation, but doesn't really cover it with any depth. ASP.NET Side-by-Side Execution Overview: This article covers a web application, but I'm dealing with a client WinForms application. CLR Team Blog: In-Process Side-by-Side: This is useful to explain how plug-ins to host processes function under .NET4, but I don't know if this applies to the third-party libraries. Further Steps: I'm also unclear on how to proceed upgrading a single .NET2 assembly to .NET4, with the overall application remaining in .NET2 (i.e. how to configure the solution/project files, if any special code needs to be included, etc.).

  Read the article

• Explicit behavior with checks vs. implicit behavior

  - by Silviu

  I'm not sure how to construct the question but I'm interested to know what do you guys think of the following situations and which one would you prefer. We're working at a client-server application with winforms. And we have a control that has some fields automatically calculated upon filling another field. So we're having a field currency which when filled by the user would determine an automatic filling of another field, maybe more fields. When the user fills the currency field, a Currency object would be retrieved from a cache based on the string introduced by the user. If entered currency is not found in the cache a null reference is returned by the cache object. Further down when asking the application layer to compute the other fields based on the currency, given a null currency a null specific field would be returned. This way the default, implicit behavior is to clear all fields. Which is the expected behavior. What i would call the explicit implementation would be to verify that the Currency object is null in which case the depending fields are cleared explicitly. I think that the latter version is more clear, less error prone and more testable. But it implies a form of redundancy. The former version is not as clear and it implies a certain behavior from the application layer which is not expressed in the tests. Maybe in the lower layer tests but when the need arises to modify the lower layers, so that given a null currency something else should be returned, i don't think a test that says just that without a motivation is going to be an impediment for introducing a bug in upper layers. What do you guys think?

  Read the article

• Getting browser to make an AJAX call ASAP, while page is still loading

  - by Chris

  I'm looking for tips on how to get the browser to kick off an AJAX call as soon as possible into processing a web page, ideally before the page is fully downloaded. Here's my approximate motivation: I have a web page that takes, say, 5 seconds to load. It calls a web service that takes, say, 10 seconds to load. If loading the page and calling the web service happened sequentially, the user would have to wait 15 seconds to see all the information. However, if I can get the web service call started before the 5 second page load is complete, then at least some of the work can happened in parallel. Ideally I'd like as much of the work to happen in parallel as possible. My initial theory was that I should place the AJAX-calling javascript as high up as possible in the web page HTML source (being mindful of putting it after the jquery.js include, because I'm making the call using jquery ajax). I'm also being mindful not to wrap the AJAX call in a jquery ready event handler. (I mention this because ready events are popular in a lot of jquery example code.) However, the AJAX call still doesn't seem to get kicked off as early as I'm hoping (at least as judged by the Google Chrome "Timeline" feature), so I'm wondering what other considerations apply. One thing that might potentially be detrimental is that the AJAX call is back to the same web server that's serving the original web page, so I might be in danger of hitting a browser limit on the # of HTTP connections back to that one machine? (The HTML page loads a number of images, css files, etc..)

  Read the article

• Source Control Checkin Comments at Top Of Source Files

  - by James Wiseman

  I've noticed a discrepancy with some source files in our system whereby some contain source-control checkin comments, and some do not. These comments are added automatically to the top of the file when it is checked in: * $Log: //vm1/Projects/Morpheus/Sleep.bdy-arc $ -- -- Rev 1.14 Apr 14 2009 15:32:52 John Smith --Fixed bugs 2292 and 2230. This seems to have been quite prevelant in all the compainies with which I have worked, but I must confess that I struggle to see the point. Generally the comments aren't that good, are ofen left by people who have long since departed, and even when they are of a high standard it is difficult to tie them to physical code changes. It also strikes me, that you are physically changing the file that you are checking in. Now, this may not be such a problem with files that will be compiled, but could be a disaster with others, e.g. JavaScript files. So really, my query is what was the motivation in concept behind providing this functionality in the first instance? Does anyone actually find these comments useful? Also, I would be curious to know if this was feature that is commonly supported within Source Control systems. I am aware of it with PVCS, VSS and Subversion (Subversion Keyword Substitution), however I wonder if it is also available in some of the more popular DVCSs. Your help, as always is much appreciated.

  Read the article

• Organizing code, logical layout of segmented files

  - by David H

  I have known enough about programming to get me in trouble for about 10 years now. I have no formal education, though I've read many books on the subject for various languages. The language I am primarily focused on now would be php, atleast for the scale of things I am doing now. I have used some OOP classes for a while, but never took the dive into understanding principals behind the scenes. I am still not at the level I would like to be expression-wise...however my recent reading into a book titled The OOP Thought Process has me wanting to advance my programming skills. With motivation from the new concepts, I have started with a new project that I've coded some re-usable classes that deal with user auth, user profiles, database interfacing, and some other stuff I use regularly on most projects. Now having split my typical garbled spaghetti bowl mess of code into somewhat organized files, I've come into some problems when it comes to making sure files are all included when they need to be, and how to logically divide the scripts up into classes, aswell as how segmented I should be making each class. I guess I have rambled on enough about much of nothing, but what I am really asking for is advise from people, or suggested reading that focuses not on specific functions and formats of code, but the logical layout of projects that are larger than just a hobby project. I want to learn how to do things proper, and while I am still learning in some areas, this is something that I have no clue about other than just being creative, and trial/error. Mostly error. Thanks for any replies. This place is great.

  Read the article

• Should I map a domain object to a view model using an optional constructor?

  - by Byron Sommardahl

  I'd like to be able to map a domain model to a view model by newing up a view model and passing in the contributing domain model as a parameter (like the code below). My motivation is to keep from re-using mapping code AND to provide a simple way to map (not using automapper yet). A friend says the view model should not know anything about the "payment" domain model that's being passed into the optional constructor. What do you think? public class LineItemsViewModel { public LineItemsViewModel() { } public LineItemsViewModel(IPayment payment) { LineItemColumnHeaders = payment.MerchantContext.Profile.UiPreferences.LineItemColumnHeaders; LineItems = LineItemDomainToViewModelMapper.MapToViewModel(payment.LineItems); ConvenienceFeeAmount = payment.ConvenienceFee.Fee; SubTotal = payment.PaymentAmount; Total = payment.PaymentAmount + payment.ConvenienceFee.Fee; } public IEnumerable<Dictionary<int, string>> LineItems { get; set; } public Dictionary<int, string> LineItemColumnHeaders { get; set; } public decimal SubTotal { get; set; } public decimal ConvenienceFeeAmount { get; set; } public decimal Total { get; set; } }

  Read the article

• Use of const double for intermediate results

  - by Arne

  Hi, I a writing a Simulation program and wondering if the use of const double is of any use when storing intermediate results. Consider this snippet: double DoSomeCalculation(const AcModel &model) { (...) const double V = model.GetVelocity(); const double m = model.GetMass(); const double cos_gamma = cos(model.GetFlightPathAngleRad()); (...) return m*V*cos_gamma*Chi_dot; } Note that the sample is there only to illustrate -- it might not make to much sense from the engineering side of things. The motivation of storing for example cos_gamma in a variable is that this cosine is used many time in other expressions covered by (...) and I feel that the code gets more readable when using cos_gamma rather than cos(model.GetFlightPathAngleRad()) in various expressions. Now the actual is question is this: since I expect the cosine to be the same througout the code section and I actually created the thing only as a placeholder and for convenience I tend to declare it const. Is there a etablished opinion on wether this is good or bad practive or whether it might bite me in the end? Does a compiler make any use of this additional information or am I actually hindering the compiler from performing useful optimizations? Arne

  Read the article

• Best way to enforce inter-table constraints inside database

  - by FerranB

  I looking for the best way to check for inter-table constraints an step forward of foreing keys. For instance, to check if a date child record value is between a range date on two parent rows columns. For instance: Parent table ID DATE_MIN DATE_MAX ----- ---------- ---------- 1 01/01/2009 01/03/2009 ... Child table PARENT_ID DATE ---------- ---------- 1 01/02/2009 1 01/12/2009 <--- HAVE TO FAIL! ... I see two approaches: Create materialized views on-commit as shown in this article (or other equivalent on other RDBMS). Use stored-procedures and triggers. Any other approach? Which is the best option? UPDATE: The motivation of this question is not about "putting the constraints on database or on application". I think this is a tired question and anyone does the way she loves. And, I'm sorry for detractors, I'm developing with constraints on database. From here, the question is "which is the best option to manage inter-table constraints on database?". I'm added "inside database" on the question title. UPDATE 2: Some one added the "oracle" tag. Of course materialized views are oracle-tools but I'm interested on any option regardless it's on oracle or others RDBMSs.

  Read the article

• Getting Argument Names In Ruby Reflection

  - by Joe Soul-bringer

  I would like to do some fairly heavy-duty reflection in the Ruby programming language. I would like to create a function which would return the names of the arguments of various calling functions higher up the call stack (just one higher would be enough but why stop there?). I could use Kernel.caller go to the file and parse the argument list but that would be ugly and unreliable. The function that I would like would work in the following way: module A def method1( tuti, fruity) foo end def method2(bim, bam, boom) foo end def foo print caller_args[1].join(",") #the "1" mean one step up the call stack end end A.method1 #prints "tuti,fruity" A.method2 #prints "bim, bam, boom" I would not mind using ParseTree or some similar tool for this task but looking at Parsetree, it is not obvious how to use it for this purpose. Creating a C extension like this is another possibility but it would be nice if someone had already done it for me. Edit2: I can see that I'll probably need some kind of C extension. I suppose that means my question is what combination of C extension would work most easily. I don't think caller+ParseTree would be enough by themselves. As far as why I would like to do this goes, rather than saying "automatic debugging", perhaps I should say that I would like to use this functionality to do automatic checking of the calling and return conditions of functions. Say def add x, y check_positive return x + y end Where check_positive would throw an exception if x and y weren't positive (obviously, there would be more to it than that but hopefully this gives enough motivation)

  Read the article

• Is this a good or bad way to use constructor chaining? (... to allow for testing).

  - by panamack

  My motivation for chaining my class constructors here is so that I have a default constructor for mainstream use by my application and a second that allows me to inject a mock and a stub. It just seems a bit ugly 'new'-ing things in the ":this(...)" call and counter-intuitive calling a parametrized constructor from a default constructor , I wondered what other people would do here? (FYI - SystemWrapper) using SystemWrapper; public class MyDirectoryWorker{ // SystemWrapper interface allows for stub of sealed .Net class. private IDirectoryInfoWrap dirInf; private FileSystemWatcher watcher; public MyDirectoryWorker() : this( new DirectoryInfoWrap(new DirectoryInfo(MyDirPath)), new FileSystemWatcher()) { } public MyDirectoryWorker(IDirectoryInfoWrap dirInf, FileSystemWatcher watcher) { this.dirInf = dirInf; if(!dirInf.Exists){ dirInf.Create(); } this.watcher = watcher; watcher.Path = dirInf.FullName; watcher.NotifyFilter = NotifyFilters.FileName; watcher.Created += new FileSystemEventHandler(watcher_Created); watcher.Deleted += new FileSystemEventHandler(watcher_Deleted); watcher.Renamed += new RenamedEventHandler(watcher_Renamed); watcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true; } public static string MyDirPath{get{return Settings.Default.MyDefaultDirPath;}} // etc... }

  Read the article

• Using ScriptingBridge framework for communicating with Entourage

  - by Subramanian Ganapathy

  Hi, The motivation for my question is the following doc, which describes how mail.app could be integrated using ScriptingBridge: http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/samplecode/SBSendEmail/Introduction/Intro.html I tried to apply a similar technique with Entourage as well but could not get any results so far. I understand that using AppleScript would help me solve my problem and mactech.com has extensive documentation for doing so. But i find this ScriptingBridge technique elegant and want to figure why it is not working for me with Entourage. The biggest problem seems to be my inability to create Scripting classes based on their names as it happens in Mail because Entourage has a different interface than Mail as their headers indicate. Could someone please tell me what I am missing or provide any sort of hint on why this wont work? I am also adding sample code ` MicrosoftEntourageApplication * mail = [SBApplication applicationWithBundleIdentifier:@"com.Microsoft.Entourage"]; MicrosoftEntourageOutgoingEmailMessage * emailMessage = [[[mail classForScriptingClass:@"outgoing message"] alloc] initWithProperties: [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys: @"my sample subject", @"subject", @"my sample body", @"content", nil]]; //then i create a set of recipients and try to use "to recipient" as the string scripting class id, but MicrosoftEntourageRecipient is returned as nil MicrosoftEntourageRecipient * theRecipient = [[[mail classForScriptingClass:@"to recipient"] alloc] initWithProperties: [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys: @"[email protected]", @"address", nil]]; ` I am trying to make the simple thing work, I am not even concentrating on the task I am supposed to do now. I am a Cocoa beginner( and willing to learn ), please excuse an syntactic naivetes and do point them out in the sample code, in addition to answering my question. Best Regards, Subramanian

  Read the article

• My chance to shape our development process/policy

  - by Matt Luongo

  Hey guys, I'm sorry if this is a duplicate, but the question search terms are pretty generic. I work at a small(ish) development firm. I say small, but the company is actually a fair size; however, I'm only the second full-time developer, as most past work has been organized around contractors. I'm in a position to define internal project process and policy- obvious stuff like SCM and unit-testing. Methodology is outside the scope of the document I'm putting together, but I'd really like to push us in a leaner (and maybe even Agile?) direction. I feel like I have plenty of good practice recommendations, but not enough solid motivation to make my document the spirit guide I'd like it to be. I've separated the document into "principles" and "recommendations". Recommendations have been easy to come up with. Use SCM, strive for 1-step, regularly scheduled builds, unit test first, document as you go... Listing the principles that are supposed to be informing these recommendations, though, has been rough. I've come up with "tools work for us; we should never work for tools" and a hazy clause aimed at our QA (which has been overly manual) that I'd like to read "tedium is the root of all evil". I don't want to miss an opportunity with this document to give us a good in-house start and maybe even push us toward Agile. What principles am I missing?

  Read the article

• Programming time schedule for porting a program.

  - by Lothar

  I'm working on a large program which has an abstracted GUI API. It is very GUI based, many dialogs and a few nasty features which rely heavily on the message flow of the GUI (correct sequences of focus/mouse/active handling etc.) - not easy to port I now want to port it from the currently used FOX Toolkit to native Cocoa/MFC. I give myself a timeframe until the end of the year but my main work will be to continue development work with the existing toolkit, but there is no planned release for end customers before both tasks are done. My question is how should i spend my time? Stop working on the main program and do a 90% port (about 3 month) of the GUI first Splitting everything into smaller sessions of one month each. Assigning Monday/Tuesday to the GUI project and the rest of the week for the app. Finishing the App first, then port. I think there are three arguments which i need to balance. Motivation, i want to see something going on on both projects Brain Input Overflow, both tasks require a lot of detail information in my brain and sometimes enough is just enough. I guess the porting is intervowen so porting would also require a lot of code changes in the existing code and the new code that will be written in the meantime.

  Read the article

• about c# OBJECTS and the Possibilties it has.

  - by user527825

  As a novice programmer and i always wonder about c# capabilities.i know it is still early to judge that but all i want to know is can c# do complex stuffs or something outside windows OS. 1- I think c# is a proprietary language (i don't know if i said that right) meaning you can't do it outside visual studio or windows. 2-also you cant create your own controller(called object right?) like you are forced to use these available in toolbox and their properties and methods. 3-can c# be used with openGL API or DirectX API . 4-Finally it always bothers me when i think i start doing things in visual studio, i know it sounds arrogant to say but sometimes i feel that i don't like to be forced to use something even if its helpful, like i feel (do i have the right to feel?) that i want to do all things by myself? don't laugh i just feel that this will give me a better understanding. 5- is visual c# is like using MaxScript inside 3ds max in that c# is exclusive to do windows and forms and components that are windows related and maxscript is only for 3d editing and manipulation for various things in the software. If it is too difficult for a beginner i hope you don't answer the fourth question as i don't have enough motivation and i want to keep the little i have. thank you for your time. Note: 1-sorry for my English, i am self taught and never used the language with native speakers so expect so errors. 2-i have a lot of questions regarding many things, what is the daily ratio you think for asking (number of questions) that would not bother the admins of the site and the members here. thank you for your time.

  Read the article

• C headers: compiler specific vs library specific?

  - by leonbloy

  Is there some clear-cut distinction between standard C *.h header files that are provided by the C compiler, as oppossed to those which are provided by a standard C library? Is there some list, or some standard locations? Motivation: int this answer I got a while ago, regarding a missing unistd.h in the latest TinyC compiler, the author argued that unistd.h (contrarily to sys/unistd.h) should not be provided by the compiler but by your C library. I could not make much sense of that response (for one thing shouldn't that also apply to, say, stdio.h?) but I'm still wondering about it. Is that correct? Where is some authoritative reference for this? Looking in other compilers, I see that other "self contained" POSIX C compilers that are hosted in Windows (like the GCC toolchain that comes with MinGW, in several incarnations; or Digital Mars compiler), include all header files. And in a standard Linux distribution (say, Centos 5.10) I see that the gcc package provides a few header files (eg, stdbool.h, syslimits.h) in /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.1/include/, and the glibc-headers package provides the majority of the headers in /usr/include/ (including stdio.h, /usr/include/unistd.h and /usr/include/sys/unistd.h). So, in neither case I see support for the above claim.

  Read the article

• How to encapsulate a third party complex object structure?

  - by tangens

  Motivation Currently I'm using the java parser japa to create an abstract syntax tree (AST) of a java file. With this AST I'm doing some code generation (e.g.: if there's an annotation on a method, create some other source files, ...) Problem When my code generation becomes more complex, I've to dive deeper into the structure of the AST (e.g. I have to use visitors to extract some type information of method parameters). But I'm not sure if I want to stay with japa or if I will change the parser library later. Because my code generator uses freemarker (which isn't good at automatic refactoring) I want the interface that it uses to access the AST information to be stable, even if I decide to change the java parser. Question What's the best way to encapsulate complex datastructures of third party libraries? I could create my own datatypes and copy the parts of the AST that I need into these. I could create lots of specialized access methods that work with the AST and create exactly the infos I need (e.g. the fully qualified return type of a method as one string, or the first template parameter of a class). I could create wrapper classes for the japa datastructures I currently need and embed the japa types inside, so that I can delegate requests to the japa types and transform the resulting japa types to my wrapper classes again. Which solution should I take? Are there other (better) solutions to this problem?

  Read the article

• What can a company possibly gain by making Android phones hard to root?

  - by Chinmay Kanchi

  As someone who recently got a HTC Hero, I had to jump through several hoops to get root access on the phone to install custom firmware. Now, Android is open-source and fairly easy to build and hack on an emulator. It seems to be against the spirit of open-source to lock down a phone so you can't hack the phone itself. Now, often, there are understandable (though not always justifiable) reasons for locking a device down. For example, it might have proprietary software on it or you might want to retain control of the platform. However, Android by its open-source nature makes such concerns moot. Everyone and their dog has access to the userland code, and HTC is forced by the GPL to release kernel sources for each of their devices. So, I fail to see any motivation for alienating the hackers, when there is no possible benefit (in my mind) to be had from doing this. Any idea why a company would want to do this? Is it just short-sightedness or am I missing possible commercial implications of this?

  Read the article

• Java Input/Output streams for unnamed pipes created in native code?

  - by finrod

  Is there a way to easily create Java Input/Output streams for unnamed pipes created in native code? Motivation: I need my own implementation of the Process class. The native code spawns me a new process with subprocess' IO streams redirected to unnamed pipes. Problem: The file descriptors for correct ends of those pipes make their way to Java. At this point I get stuck as I cannot create a new FileDescriptor which I could pass to FileInput/FileOutput stream. I have used reflection to get around the problem and got communication with a simple bouncer sub-process running. However I have a notion that it is not the cleanest way to go. Have you used this approach? Do you see any problems with this approach? (the platform will never change) Searching around the internets revealed similar solution using native code. Any thoughts before I dive into heavy testing of this approach are very welcome. I would like to give a shot to existing code before writing my own IO stream implementations... Thank you.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >