Search Results

Search found 14545 results on 582 pages for 'design patterns'.

Page 122/582 | < Previous Page | 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129  | Next Page >

  • Secure an Application/Software by expiration with Date?

    - by JNL
    I have been working on some software application and I update them every 6 months. Currently, the way I track the date is by extracting the date from the system when the user installes the application, encrypt it and store it in a file locally. Whenever the application is started, it checks if 6 months have passed, then it works or it doesn't, in which case it shows an error message telling the user to update. I wonder whether there is a better way to do this. Any comments or suggestions would be highly appreciated

    Read the article

  • Product application - is it a product or product variation

    - by jamesnov
    I'm dealing with a lot of vehicle specific products, and I've been trying to determine whether to convert the variants/fit option into individual products. I currently put the vehicle specific items under a product: Product: Widget Hood Deflectors Option1: 07-11 Silverado/Sierra, SKU1 Option2: 09-11 Ram, SKU2 etc. Take a hood/bug deflector for example. They all share the same description, and specifications for the most part. They look very similar, but the shape/appearance could vary significantly depending on the vehicle it is going on. Another example could be a suspension lift kit. Each one is engineered for a specific vehicle application. What would be the product "Widget Super Duper 4 inch lift kit", or "Widget Jeep 07-11 Super Duper 4 inch lift kit"? If I converted the variants to a product, then I have a lot more products (some so called products or product lines have hundreds of applications), when no vehicle is selected, but if I require a vehicle to be selected, then the product results would be basically the same, and specific for that vehicle. The description would also be longer: Product: Widget Silverado/Sierra 07-11 Hood Deflector With the fit as a variants/option, then I have fewer products, but I could have a huge list of options. Product: Widget Hood Deflectors Options: Fit/Vehicle Am I doing things right by having product applications as variants, or am I treating a product line as a product?

    Read the article

  • The Incremental Architect&acute;s Napkin &ndash; #3 &ndash; Make Evolvability inevitable

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/06/04/the-incremental-architectacutes-napkin-ndash-3-ndash-make-evolvability-inevitable.aspxThe easier something to measure the more likely it will be produced. Deviations between what is and what should be can be readily detected. That´s what automated acceptance tests are for. That´s what sprint reviews in Scrum are for. It´s no small wonder our software looks like it looks. It has all the traits whose conformance with requirements can easily be measured. And it´s lacking traits which cannot easily be measured. Evolvability (or Changeability) is such a trait. If an operation is correct, if an operation if fast enough, that can be checked very easily. But whether Evolvability is high or low, that cannot be checked by taking a measure or two. Evolvability might correlate with certain traits, e.g. number of lines of code (LOC) per function or Cyclomatic Complexity or test coverage. But there is no threshold value signalling “evolvability too low”; also Evolvability is hardly tangible for the customer. Nevertheless Evolvability is of great importance - at least in the long run. You can get away without much of it for a short time. Eventually, though, it´s needed like any other requirement. Or even more. Because without Evolvability no other requirement can be implemented. Evolvability is the foundation on which all else is build. Such fundamental importance is in stark contrast with its immeasurability. To compensate this, Evolvability must be put at the very center of software development. It must become the hub around everything else revolves. Since we cannot measure Evolvability, though, we cannot start watching it more. Instead we need to establish practices to keep it high (enough) at all times. Chefs have known that for long. That´s why everybody in a restaurant kitchen is constantly seeing after cleanliness. Hygiene is important as is to have clean tools at standardized locations. Only then the health of the patrons can be guaranteed and production efficiency is constantly high. Still a kitchen´s level of cleanliness is easier to measure than software Evolvability. That´s why important practices like reviews, pair programming, or TDD are not enough, I guess. What we need to keep Evolvability in focus and high is… to continually evolve. Change must not be something to avoid but too embrace. To me that means the whole change cycle from requirement analysis to delivery needs to be gone through more often. Scrum´s sprints of 4, 2 even 1 week are too long. Kanban´s flow of user stories across is too unreliable; it takes as long as it takes. Instead we should fix the cycle time at 2 days max. I call that Spinning. No increment must take longer than from this morning until tomorrow evening to finish. Then it should be acceptance checked by the customer (or his/her representative, e.g. a Product Owner). For me there are several resasons for such a fixed and short cycle time for each increment: Clear expectations Absolute estimates (“This will take X days to complete.”) are near impossible in software development as explained previously. Too much unplanned research and engineering work lurk in every feature. And then pervasive interruptions of work by peers and management. However, the smaller the scope the better our absolute estimates become. That´s because we understand better what really are the requirements and what the solution should look like. But maybe more importantly the shorter the timespan the more we can control how we use our time. So much can happen over the course of a week and longer timespans. But if push comes to shove I can block out all distractions and interruptions for a day or possibly two. That´s why I believe we can give rough absolute estimates on 3 levels: Noon Tonight Tomorrow Think of a meeting with a Product Owner at 8:30 in the morning. If she asks you, how long it will take you to implement a user story or bug fix, you can say, “It´ll be fixed by noon.”, or you can say, “I can manage to implement it until tonight before I leave.”, or you can say, “You´ll get it by tomorrow night at latest.” Yes, I believe all else would be naive. If you´re not confident to get something done by tomorrow night (some 34h from now) you just cannot reliably commit to any timeframe. That means you should not promise anything, you should not even start working on the issue. So when estimating use these four categories: Noon, Tonight, Tomorrow, NoClue - with NoClue meaning the requirement needs to be broken down further so each aspect can be assigned to one of the first three categories. If you like absolute estimates, here you go. But don´t do deep estimates. Don´t estimate dozens of issues; don´t think ahead (“Issue A is a Tonight, then B will be a Tomorrow, after that it´s C as a Noon, finally D is a Tonight - that´s what I´ll do this week.”). Just estimate so Work-in-Progress (WIP) is 1 for everybody - plus a small number of buffer issues. To be blunt: Yes, this makes promises impossible as to what a team will deliver in terms of scope at a certain date in the future. But it will give a Product Owner a clear picture of what to pull for acceptance feedback tonight and tomorrow. Trust through reliability Our trade is lacking trust. Customers don´t trust software companies/departments much. Managers don´t trust developers much. I find that perfectly understandable in the light of what we´re trying to accomplish: delivering software in the face of uncertainty by means of material good production. Customers as well as managers still expect software development to be close to production of houses or cars. But that´s a fundamental misunderstanding. Software development ist development. It´s basically research. As software developers we´re constantly executing experiments to find out what really provides value to users. We don´t know what they need, we just have mediated hypothesises. That´s why we cannot reliably deliver on preposterous demands. So trust is out of the window in no time. If we switch to delivering in short cycles, though, we can regain trust. Because estimates - explicit or implicit - up to 32 hours at most can be satisfied. I´d say: reliability over scope. It´s more important to reliably deliver what was promised then to cover a lot of requirement area. So when in doubt promise less - but deliver without delay. Deliver on scope (Functionality and Quality); but also deliver on Evolvability, i.e. on inner quality according to accepted principles. Always. Trust will be the reward. Less complexity of communication will follow. More goodwill buffer will follow. So don´t wait for some Kanban board to show you, that flow can be improved by scheduling smaller stories. You don´t need to learn that the hard way. Just start with small batch sizes of three different sizes. Fast feedback What has been finished can be checked for acceptance. Why wait for a sprint of several weeks to end? Why let the mental model of the issue and its solution dissipate? If you get final feedback after one or two weeks, you hardly remember what you did and why you did it. Resoning becomes hard. But more importantly youo probably are not in the mood anymore to go back to something you deemed done a long time ago. It´s boring, it´s frustrating to open up that mental box again. Learning is harder the longer it takes from event to feedback. Effort can be wasted between event (finishing an issue) and feedback, because other work might go in the wrong direction based on false premises. Checking finished issues for acceptance is the most important task of a Product Owner. It´s even more important than planning new issues. Because as long as work started is not released (accepted) it´s potential waste. So before starting new work better make sure work already done has value. By putting the emphasis on acceptance rather than planning true pull is established. As long as planning and starting work is more important, it´s a push process. Accept a Noon issue on the same day before leaving. Accept a Tonight issue before leaving today or first thing tomorrow morning. Accept a Tomorrow issue tomorrow night before leaving or early the day after tomorrow. After acceptance the developer(s) can start working on the next issue. Flexibility As if reliability/trust and fast feedback for less waste weren´t enough economic incentive, there is flexibility. After each issue the Product Owner can change course. If on Monday morning feature slices A, B, C, D, E were important and A, B, C were scheduled for acceptance by Monday evening and Tuesday evening, the Product Owner can change her mind at any time. Maybe after A got accepted she asks for continuation with D. But maybe, just maybe, she has gotten a completely different idea by then. Maybe she wants work to continue on F. And after B it´s neither D nor E, but G. And after G it´s D. With Spinning every 32 hours at latest priorities can be changed. And nothing is lost. Because what got accepted is of value. It provides an incremental value to the customer/user. Or it provides internal value to the Product Owner as increased knowledge/decreased uncertainty. I find such reactivity over commitment economically very benefical. Why commit a team to some workload for several weeks? It´s unnecessary at beast, and inflexible and wasteful at worst. If we cannot promise delivery of a certain scope on a certain date - which is what customers/management usually want -, we can at least provide them with unpredecented flexibility in the face of high uncertainty. Where the path is not clear, cannot be clear, make small steps so you´re able to change your course at any time. Premature completion Customers/management are used to premeditating budgets. They want to know exactly how much to pay for a certain amount of requirements. That´s understandable. But it does not match with the nature of software development. We should know that by now. Maybe there´s somewhere in the world some team who can consistently deliver on scope, quality, and time, and budget. Great! Congratulations! I, however, haven´t seen such a team yet. Which does not mean it´s impossible, but I think it´s nothing I can recommend to strive for. Rather I´d say: Don´t try this at home. It might hurt you one way or the other. However, what we can do, is allow customers/management stop work on features at any moment. With spinning every 32 hours a feature can be declared as finished - even though it might not be completed according to initial definition. I think, progress over completion is an important offer software development can make. Why think in terms of completion beyond a promise for the next 32 hours? Isn´t it more important to constantly move forward? Step by step. We´re not running sprints, we´re not running marathons, not even ultra-marathons. We´re in the sport of running forever. That makes it futile to stare at the finishing line. The very concept of a burn-down chart is misleading (in most cases). Whoever can only think in terms of completed requirements shuts out the chance for saving money. The requirements for a features mostly are uncertain. So how does a Product Owner know in the first place, how much is needed. Maybe more than specified is needed - which gets uncovered step by step with each finished increment. Maybe less than specified is needed. After each 4–32 hour increment the Product Owner can do an experient (or invite users to an experiment) if a particular trait of the software system is already good enough. And if so, she can switch the attention to a different aspect. In the end, requirements A, B, C then could be finished just 70%, 80%, and 50%. What the heck? It´s good enough - for now. 33% money saved. Wouldn´t that be splendid? Isn´t that a stunning argument for any budget-sensitive customer? You can save money and still get what you need? Pull on practices So far, in addition to more trust, more flexibility, less money spent, Spinning led to “doing less” which also means less code which of course means higher Evolvability per se. Last but not least, though, I think Spinning´s short acceptance cycles have one more effect. They excert pull-power on all sorts of practices known for increasing Evolvability. If, for example, you believe high automated test coverage helps Evolvability by lowering the fear of inadverted damage to a code base, why isn´t 90% of the developer community practicing automated tests consistently? I think, the answer is simple: Because they can do without. Somehow they manage to do enough manual checks before their rare releases/acceptance checks to ensure good enough correctness - at least in the short term. The same goes for other practices like component orientation, continuous build/integration, code reviews etc. None of that is compelling, urgent, imperative. Something else always seems more important. So Evolvability principles and practices fall through the cracks most of the time - until a project hits a wall. Then everybody becomes desperate; but by then (re)gaining Evolvability has become as very, very difficult and tedious undertaking. Sometimes up to the point where the existence of a project/company is in danger. With Spinning that´s different. If you´re practicing Spinning you cannot avoid all those practices. With Spinning you very quickly realize you cannot deliver reliably even on your 32 hour promises. Spinning thus is pulling on developers to adopt principles and practices for Evolvability. They will start actively looking for ways to keep their delivery rate high. And if not, management will soon tell them to do that. Because first the Product Owner then management will notice an increasing difficulty to deliver value within 32 hours. There, finally there emerges a way to measure Evolvability: The more frequent developers tell the Product Owner there is no way to deliver anything worth of feedback until tomorrow night, the poorer Evolvability is. Don´t count the “WTF!”, count the “No way!” utterances. In closing For sustainable software development we need to put Evolvability first. Functionality and Quality must not rule software development but be implemented within a framework ensuring (enough) Evolvability. Since Evolvability cannot be measured easily, I think we need to put software development “under pressure”. Software needs to be changed more often, in smaller increments. Each increment being relevant to the customer/user in some way. That does not mean each increment is worthy of shipment. It´s sufficient to gain further insight from it. Increments primarily serve the reduction of uncertainty, not sales. Sales even needs to be decoupled from this incremental progress. No more promises to sales. No more delivery au point. Rather sales should look at a stream of accepted increments (or incremental releases) and scoup from that whatever they find valuable. Sales and marketing need to realize they should work on what´s there, not what might be possible in the future. But I digress… In my view a Spinning cycle - which is not easy to reach, which requires practice - is the core practice to compensate the immeasurability of Evolvability. From start to finish of each issue in 32 hours max - that´s the challenge we need to accept if we´re serious increasing Evolvability. Fortunately higher Evolvability is not the only outcome of Spinning. Customer/management will like the increased flexibility and “getting more bang for the buck”.

    Read the article

  • Embedded Web Server Vs External Web Server

    - by Jetti
    So I've thought of creating a web application in either Lisp or another functional language and was thinking of embedding the web server into the application (have my application handle the HTTP requests). I don't see any issues with that, however, I'm new to creating web applications (and in the grand scheme of things, programming as well). Is there any drawbacks to handling HTTP requests within your program instead of using a web server? Are there any benefits?

    Read the article

  • Do unit tests sometimes break encapsulation?

    - by user1288851
    I very often hear the following: "If you want to test private methods, you'd better put that in another class and expose it." While sometimes that's the case and we have a hiding concept inside our class, other times you end up with classes that have the same attributes (or, worst, every attribute of one class become a argument on a method in the other class) and exposes functionality that is, in fact, implementation detail. Specially on TDD, when you refactor a class with public methods out of a previous tested class, that class is now part of your interface, but has no tests to it (since you refactored it, and is a implementation detail). Now, I may be not finding an obvious better answer, but if my answer is the "correct", that means that sometimes writting unit tests can break encapsulation, and divide the same responsibility into different classes. A simple example would be testing a setter method when a getter is not actually needed for anything in the real code. Please when aswering don't provide simple answers to specific cases I may have written. Rather, try to explain more of the generic case and theoretical approach. And this is neither language specific. Thanks in advance. EDIT: The answer given by Matthew Flynn was really insightful, but didn't quite answer the question. Altough he made the fair point that you either don't test private methods or extract them because they really are other concern and responsibility (or at least that was what I could understand from his answer), I think there are situations where unit testing private methods is useful. My primary example is when you have a class that has one responsibility but the output (or input) that it gives (takes) is just to complex. For example, a hashing function. There's no good way to break a hashing function apart and mantain cohesion and encapsulation. However, testing a hashing function can be really tough, since you would need to calculate by hand (you can't use code calculation to test code calculation!) the hashing, and test multiple cases where the hash changes. In that way (and this may be a question worth of its own topic) I think private method testing is the best way to handle it. Now, I'm not sure if I should ask another question, or ask it here, but are there any better way to test such complex output (input)? OBS: Please, if you think I should ask another question on that topic, leave a comment. :)

    Read the article

  • Time based movement Vs Frame rate based movement?

    - by sil3nt
    Hello there, I'm new to Game programmming and SDL, and I have been following Lazyfoo's SDL tutorials. My question is related to time based motion and frame rate based motion, basically which is better or appropriate depending on situations?. Could you give me an example where each of these methods are used?. Another question I have is that, in lazyfoo's two Motion tutorials (FPS based and time based) The time based method showed a much smoother animation while the Frame rate based one was a little hiccupy, meaning you could clearly see the gap between the previous location of the dot and its current position when you compare the two programs. As beginner which method should I stick to?(all I want is smooth animations).

    Read the article

  • Using Lazy<T> and abstract wrapper class to lazy-load complex system parameters

    - by DigiMortal
    .NET Framework 4.0 introduced new class called Lazy<T> and I wrote blog post about it: .Net Framework 4.0: Using System.Lazy<T>. One thing is annoying for me – we have to keep lazy loaded value and its value loader as separate things. In this posting I will introduce you my Lazy<T> wrapper for complex to get system parameters that uses template method to keep lazy value loader in parameter class. Problem with original implementation Here’s the sample code that shows you how Lazy<T> is usually used. This is just sample code, don’t focus on the fact that this is dummy console application. class Program {     static void Main(string[] args)     {         var temperature = new Lazy<int>(LoadMinimalTemperature);           Console.WriteLine("Minimal room temperature: " + temperature.Value);         Console.ReadLine();     }       protected static int LoadMinimalTemperature()     {         var returnValue = 0;           // Do complex stuff here           return true;     } } The problem is that our class with many lazy loaded properties will grow messy if it has all value loading code inside it. This code may be complex for more than one parameter and in this case it is better to use separate class for this parameter. Defining base class for parameters As a first step I will define base class for all lazy-loaded parameters. This class is wrapper around Lazy<T> and it also offers one template method that parameter classes have to override to provide loaded data. public abstract class LazyParameter<T> {     private Lazy<T> _lazyParam;       public LazyParameter()     {         _lazyParam = new Lazy<T>(Load);     }       protected abstract T Load();       public T Value     {         get { return _lazyParam.Value; }     } } It is also possible to extend Lazy<T> but I don’t prefer to do it as Lazy<T> has six constructors we have to take care of. Also I don’t like to expose Lazy<T> public interface to users of my parameter classes. Creating parameter class Now it’s time to create our first parameter class. Notice how few stuff we have in this class besides overridden Load() method. public class MinimalRoomTemperature : LazyParameter<int> {     protected override int Load()     {         var returnValue = 0;           // Do complex stuff here           return returnValue;     } } Using parameter class is simple. Here’s my test code. class Program {     static void Main(string[] args)     {         var parameter = new MinimalRoomTemperature();         Console.WriteLine("Minimal room temperature: " + parameter.Value);         Console.ReadLine();     } } Conclusion Lazy<T> is useful class that you usually don’t want to use outside from API-s. I like this class but I don’t like when people are using this class directly in application code. In this posting I showed you how to use Lazy<T> with wrapper class to get complex parameter loading code out from classes that use this parameter. We ended up with generic base class for parameters that you can also use as base for other similar classes (you have to find better name to base class in this case).

    Read the article

  • How to structure a XML-based order form using ASP.NET

    - by Brendan
    First question here; please help me if I'm doing something wrong. I'm a graphic designer who's trying to teach himself ASP.NET/C#. My server-side background is PHP/WordPress and some ASP Classic, and when I do code I've hand-coded just about everything since I started learning HTML. So, as I've started to learn .NET, my code has been very manual and procedural. I'm now trying to create a really basic order form that pulls from an XML file to populate the form; there's an image, a title, a price, and selectable quantities. If I was making this form as a static HTML file, I'd have each field named manually and so on postback I could query each field to get the values. But I'm trying to do this dynamically so that I can add/remove items from the form and not have to change the code. In terms of displaying the XML, I rolled my own by loading XmlDocument and using XmlNodeList and a bunch of foreach loops to get things displayed. Then, I learned about <asp:XmlDataSource> and <asp:Repeater>, which made displaying the XML simpler by a large margin. However, I've had a really hard time getting the data that's been submitted on postback (it was implied on SO that there are better ways to get data than nested RepeaterItems). So, what I've learned so far is that you can do things a bunch of different ways in .NET. that's why I thought it'd be good to ask for answers regarding the best way to use ASP.NET to display a XML document and dynamically capture the data that's submitted. Any help is appreciated! I'm using Notepad++ to code .NET 2.0.

    Read the article

  • Should interfaces inherit interfaces

    - by dreza
    Although this is a general question it is also specific to a problem I am currently experiencing. I currently have an interface specified in my solution called public interface IContextProvider { IDataContext { get; set; } IAreaContext { get; set; } } This interface is often used throughout the program and hence I have easy access to the objects I need. However at a fairly low level of a part of my program I need access to another class that will use IAreaContext and perform some operations off it. So I have created another factory interface to do this creation called: public interface IEventContextFactory { IEventContext CreateEventContext(int eventId); } I have a class that implements the IContextProvider and is injected using NinJect. The problem I have is that the area where I need to use this IEventContextFactory has access to the IContextProvider only and itself uses another class which will need this new interface. I don't want to have to instantiate this implementation of IEventContextFactory at the low level and would rather work with the IEventContextFactory interface throughout. However I also don't want to have to inject another parameter through the constructors just to have it passed through to the class that needs it i.e. // example of problem public class MyClass { public MyClass(IContextProvider context, IEventContextFactory event) { _context = context; _event = event; } public void DoSomething() { // the only place _event is used in the class is to pass it through var myClass = new MyChildClass(_event); myClass.PerformCalculation(); } } So my main question is, would this be acceptable or is it even common or good practice to do something like this (interface inherit another an interface): public interface IContextProvider : IEventContextFactory or should I consider better alternatives to achieving what I need. If I have not provided enough information to give suggestions let me know and I can provide more.

    Read the article

  • Adobe Photoshop CS5 vs Photoshop CS5 extended

    - by Edward
    Adobe Photoshop has been an industry standard for most web designers & photographers worldwide. Photoshop CS5 has made photography editing much more refined and the composition process has become much easier than ever before.  To study the advantage of Photoshop CS5 extended over Photoshop CS5 we have written this comparison article, with both a Designer’s & Photographer’s perspective. Hopefully it shall help you in your buying/upgrade decision. Photoshop CS5 Photoshop CS5 has refining feature with powerful photography tools. It made editing process easy as fewer steps are involved to remove noise, add grain, create vignettes, correct lens distortions, sharpen, and create HDR images. It has quick image correction and color and tone control for professional purpose. Intelligent image editing and enhancement , extraordinary advanced compositing has made it a better tool than earlier versions for photographers. It allows users to accelerate workflow with fast performance on 64-bit Windows® and Mac hardware systems and smoother interactions due to more GPU-accelerated features. It also boasts of a state-of-the-art processing with Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 6 and helps to maximize creative impact. It provides for tremendous precision and freedom. It allows user to easily select intricate image elements, such as hair and create realistic painting effects. It also allows to remove any image element and see the space fill in almost magically. It has easy access to core editing and streamlined work flow and flexible work ambience. It has creative tools and contents. Photoshop CS5 Extended Photoshop CS5 extended is quite innovative and has incorporated 3D elements to 2D artwork directly within digital imaging application, which enables user to do an easy on-ramp to 3D image creation. It also provides for 3D editing. It has intelligent image editing and enhancement. It offers advance composing and has extraordinary painting and drawing toolset. It provides for video and animation designing. It helps to work with specialized images for architecture, manufacturing, engineering, science, and medicine. Where CS5 extended scores over CS5 CS5 extended has many features, which were not included in CS5. These features make it score more over CS5. These features are: Technology for creating 3D extrusion 3D material library and picker Field depth for 3D 3D merging and scene composition improvements 3D workflow improvement Customization of 3D features Image based light source Shadow catcher for shadow creation Enhanced ray tracer Context sensitive widgets, which allows easy control of objects, lights and cameras. Overlays for materials and mesh boundaries Photoshop CS5 extended is far better than CS5 as it incorporates all the features of CS5 and have more advanced features. It allows 3D creation and editing and has other advanced tools to make it better. Redefining the Image-Editing Experience  : A Photographer’s point of View Photoshop CS5 delivers amazing features and creative options so even new users can perform advanced image manipulations and compositions. Breath taking image intelligence behind Content-Aware Fill magically removes any image detail or object, examines the surroundings and seamlessly fills in the space left behind. Lighting, tone and noise of the surrounding area can be matched. New Refine Edge makes nearly-impossible image selections possible. Masking was never easier, the toughest types of edges, such as hair and foliage seem easier to fix. To sum up following are few advantages of CS5 extended over previous versions 64-bit processing Content Aware Fill Refine Edge, “makes nearly-impossible image selections impossible” HDR Pro, including ghost artifact removal and HDR toning, which gives the look of HDR with a single exposure New brush options Improved image management with enhanced Adobe Bridge Lens corrections Improved black-and-white conversions Puppet Warp: Precisely reposition or warp any image element Adobe Camera Raw 6 Upgrade Buy Online Pricing and Availability Adobe Photoshop CS5 and CS5 Extended are available through Adobe Authorized Resellers & the Adobe Store. Estimated street price for Adobe Photoshop CS5 is US$699 and US$999 for Photoshop CS5 Extended. Upgrade pricing and volume licensing are also available. Related posts:10 Free Alternatives for Adobe Photoshop Software Web based Alternatives to Photoshop 15 Useful Adobe Illustrator Tutorials For Designers

    Read the article

  • Jetzt geht’s los - speaking in Germany!

    - by Hugo Kornelis
    It feels just like yesterday that I went to Munich for the very first German edition of SQL Saturday – and it was a great event. An agenda that was packed with three tracks of great sessions, and lots of fun with the organization, attendees, and other speakers. That was such a great time that I didn’t have to hesitate long before deciding that I wanted to repeat this event this year. Especially when I heard that it will be held in Rheinland, on July 13 – that is a distance I can travel by car! The...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Storing large data in HTTP Session (Java Application)

    - by Umesh Awasthi
    I am asking this question in continuation with http-session-or-database-approach. I am planning to follow this approach. When user add product to cart, create a Cart Model, add items to cart and save to DB. Convert Cart model to cart data and save it to HTTP session. Any update/ edit update underlying cart in DB and update data snap shot in Session. When user click on view cart page, just pick cart data from Session and display to customer. I have following queries regarding HTTP Session How good is it to store large data (Shopping Cart) in Session? How scalable this approach can be ? (With respect to Session) Won't my application going to eat and demand a lot of memory? Is my approach is fine or do i need to consider other points while designing this? Though, we can control what all cart data should be stored in the Session, but still we need to have certain information in cart data being stored in session?

    Read the article

  • Sharp Architecture 1.9.5 Released

    - by AlecWhittington
    The S#arp Architecture team is proud to announce the release of version 1.9.5. This version has had the following changes: Upgraded to MVC 3 RTM Solution upgraded to .NET 4 Implementation of IDependencyResolver provided, but not implemented This marks the last scheduled release of 1.X for S#arp Architecture . The team is working hard to get the 2.0 release out the door and we hope to have a preview of that coming soon. With regards to IDependencyResolver, we have provided an implementation, but have...(read more)

    Read the article

  • How to create a legally valid timestamp of unpublished game artwork

    - by mm24
    Before publishing promotional material of my first indie game I wanted to mark all my artwork with a legally valid timestamp. There are two ways I know to do this: 1 go to a sollecitor/lawyer and pay for them to certify the document 2 use an online webservice to mark any given file/folder readable to the service Anyone has already done this and if yes how (e.g. which website have you used? which type of solecitor have you contacted? etc..)? Kind Regards PS: I know that there is always the good old "send yourself a mail with a stamp and a date" but is not very strong as proof.

    Read the article

  • What happened to Alan Cooper's Unified File Model?

    - by PAUL Mansour
    For a long time Alan Cooper (in the 3 versions of his book "About Face") has been promoting a "unified file model" to, among other things, dispense with what he calls the most idiotic message box ever invented - the one the pops up when hit the close button on an app or form saying "Do you want to discard your changes?" I like the idea and his arguments, but also have the knee-jerk reaction against it that most seasoned programmers and users have. While Cooper's book seems quite popular and respected, there is remarkably little discussion of this particular issue on the Web that I can find. Petter Hesselberg, the author of "Programming Industrial Strength Windows" mentions it but that seems about it. I have an opportunity to implement this in the (desktop) project I am working on, but face resistance by customers and co-workers, who are of course familiar with the MS Word and Excel way of doing things. I'm in a position to override their objections, but am not sure if I should. My questions are: Are there any good discussions of this that I have failed to find? Is anyone doing this in their apps? Is it a good idea that it is unfortunately not practical to implement until, say, Microsoft does it?

    Read the article

  • Should we rename overloaded methods?

    - by Mik378
    Assume an interface containing these methods : Car find(long id); List<Car> find(String model); Is it better to rename them like this? Car findById(long id); List findByModel(String model); Indeed, any developer who use this API won't need to look at the interface for knowing possible arguments of initial find() methods. So my question is more general : What is the benefit of using overloaded methods in code since it reduce readability?

    Read the article

  • When should method overloads be refactored?

    - by Ben Heley
    When should code that looks like: DoThing(string foo, string bar); DoThing(string foo, string bar, int baz, bool qux); ... DoThing(string foo, string bar, int baz, bool qux, string more, string andMore); Be refactored into something that can be called like so: var doThing = new DoThing(foo, bar); doThing.more = value; doThing.andMore = otherValue; doThing.Go(); Or should it be refactored into something else entirely? In the particular case that inspired this question, it's a public interface for an XSLT templating DLL where we've had to add various flags (of various types) that can't be embedded into the string XML input.

    Read the article

  • Advices and strategies for browser compatibility on web applications into a corporate environment

    - by TiagoBrenck
    With the new CSS 3 and HTML 5 tecnology, the web applications gained a lot of new tools for a better UI(user interface) interaction, beautifull templates and even responsive layout to fit into tablets and smartphones. Within a corporate environment, those new tecnologies are required so the company can "follow" the IT evolution and their concurrent, but they also want that those new web applications supports old browsers. How to deal with this situation? By one side we are asked to follow the news and IT evolutions, create responsive layouts and use a lot of cool jQuery's plugins. And by the other side, we are asked to support old browsers that doesn't support those new responsive features, plugins or components. I would like advices and strategies to create "modern" web applications that are also supported on old browsers. How does your company deal with this situation? Is it possible to have the same web application running good and beauty on old browsers, and responsive, interactive on actual browsers?

    Read the article

  • How to define AUTHPARAMS in Amazon EC2 API call

    - by The Joker
    I am trying to make an API call to EC2. I want to add my IP address to the security group. https://ec2.amazonaws.com/ ?Action=AuthorizeSecurityGroupIngress &GroupName=grppp20 &GroupId=sg-b2z982mq &IpPermissions.1.IpProtocol=tcp &IpPermissions.1.FromPort=3389 &IpPermissions.1.ToPort=3389 &IpPermissions.1.IpRanges.1.CidrIp=22.951.17.728/32 &&AWSAccessKeyId=AOPLDRACULALK6U7A And i get the following error. AWS was not able to validate the provided access credentials I have a secret access key & a username. I searched internet & found that we have to make a signature of the secret key & use it in the request instead of adding it directly. Can anyone tell me how to make a signature of my AWS secret key & how to use them with my API call? Let my secret key be: 2WwRiQzBs7RTFG4545PIOJ7812CXZ Username: thejoker

    Read the article

  • How to develop RPG Damage Formulas?

    - by user127817
    I'm developing a classical 2d RPG (in a similar vein to final fantasy) and I was wondering if anyone had some advice on how to do damage formulas/links to resources/examples? I'll explain my current setup. Hopefully I'm not overdoing it with this question, and I apologize if my questions is too large/broad My Characters stats are composed of the following: enum Stat { HP = 0, MP = 1, SP = 2, Strength = 3, Vitality = 4, Magic = 5, Spirit = 6, Skill = 7, Speed = 8, //Speed/Agility are the same thing Agility = 8, Evasion = 9, MgEvasion = 10, Accuracy = 11, Luck = 12, }; Vitality is basically defense to physical attacks and spirit is defense to magic attacks. All stats have fixed maximums (9999 for HP, 999 for MP/SP and 255 for the rest). With abilities, the maximums can be increased (99999 for HP, 9999 for HP/SP, 999 for the rest) with typical values (at level 100) before/after abilities+equipment+etc will be 8000/20,000 for HP, 800/2000 for SP/MP, 180/350 for other stats Late game Enemy HP will typically be in the lower millions (with a super boss having the maximum of ~12 million). I was wondering how do people actually develop proper damage formulas that scale correctly? For instance, based on this data, using the damage formulas for Final Fantasy X as a base looked very promising. A full reference here http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps2/197344-final-fantasy-x/faqs/31381 but as a quick example: Str = 127, 'Attack' command used, enemy Def = 34. 1. Physical Damage Calculation: Step 1 ------------------------------------- [{(Stat^3 ÷ 32) + 32} x DmCon ÷16] Step 2 ---------------------------------------- [{(127^3 ÷ 32) + 32} x 16 ÷ 16] Step 3 -------------------------------------- [{(2048383 ÷ 32) + 32} x 16 ÷ 16] Step 4 --------------------------------------------------- [{(64011) + 32} x 1] Step 5 -------------------------------------------------------- [{(64043 x 1)}] Step 6 ---------------------------------------------------- Base Damage = 64043 Step 7 ----------------------------------------- [{(Def - 280.4)^2} ÷ 110] + 16 Step 8 ------------------------------------------ [{(34 - 280.4)^2} ÷ 110] + 16 Step 9 ------------------------------------------------- [(-246)^2) ÷ 110] + 16 Step 10 ---------------------------------------------------- [60516 ÷ 110] + 16 Step 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ [550] + 16 Step 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- DefNum = 566 Step 13 ---------------------------------------------- [BaseDmg * DefNum ÷ 730] Step 14 --------------------------------------------------- [64043 * 566 ÷ 730] Step 15 ------------------------------------------------------ [36248338 ÷ 730] Step 16 ------------------------------------------------- Base Damage 2 = 49655 Step 17 ------------ Base Damage 2 * {730 - (Def * 51 - Def^2 ÷ 11) ÷ 10} ÷ 730 Step 18 ---------------------- 49655 * {730 - (34 * 51 - 34^2 ÷ 11) ÷ 10} ÷ 730 Step 19 ------------------------- 49655 * {730 - (1734 - 1156 ÷ 11) ÷ 10} ÷ 730 Step 20 ------------------------------- 49655 * {730 - (1734 - 105) ÷ 10} ÷ 730 Step 21 ------------------------------------- 49655 * {730 - (1629) ÷ 10} ÷ 730 Step 22 --------------------------------------------- 49655 * {730 - 162} ÷ 730 Step 23 ----------------------------------------------------- 49655 * 568 ÷ 730 Step 24 -------------------------------------------------- Final Damage = 38635 I simply modified the dividers to include the attack rating of weapons and the armor rating of armor. Magic Damage is calculated as follows: Mag = 255, Ultima is used, enemy MDef = 1 Step 1 ----------------------------------- [DmCon * ([Stat^2 ÷ 6] + DmCon) ÷ 4] Step 2 ------------------------------------------ [70 * ([255^2 ÷ 6] + 70) ÷ 4] Step 3 ------------------------------------------ [70 * ([65025 ÷ 6] + 70) ÷ 4] Step 4 ------------------------------------------------ [70 * (10837 + 70) ÷ 4] Step 5 ----------------------------------------------------- [70 * (10907) ÷ 4] Step 6 ------------------------------------ Base Damage = 190872 [cut to 99999] Step 7 ---------------------------------------- [{(MDef - 280.4)^2} ÷ 110] + 16 Step 8 ------------------------------------------- [{(1 - 280.4)^2} ÷ 110] + 16 Step 9 ---------------------------------------------- [{(-279.4)^2} ÷ 110] + 16 Step 10 -------------------------------------------------- [(78064) ÷ 110] + 16 Step 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ [709] + 16 Step 12 --------------------------------------------------------- MDefNum = 725 Step 13 --------------------------------------------- [BaseDmg * MDefNum ÷ 730] Step 14 --------------------------------------------------- [99999 * 725 ÷ 730] Step 15 ------------------------------------------------- Base Damage 2 = 99314 Step 16 ---------- Base Damage 2 * {730 - (MDef * 51 - MDef^2 ÷ 11) ÷ 10} ÷ 730 Step 17 ------------------------ 99314 * {730 - (1 * 51 - 1^2 ÷ 11) ÷ 10} ÷ 730 Step 18 ------------------------------ 99314 * {730 - (51 - 1 ÷ 11) ÷ 10} ÷ 730 Step 19 --------------------------------------- 99314 * {730 - (49) ÷ 10} ÷ 730 Step 20 ----------------------------------------------------- 99314 * 725 ÷ 730 Step 21 -------------------------------------------------- Final Damage = 98633 The problem is that the formulas completely fall apart once stats start going above 255. In particular Defense values over 300 or so start generating really strange behavior. High Strength + Defense stats lead to massive negative values for instance. While I might be able to modify the formulas to work correctly for my use case, it'd probably be easier just to use a completely new formula. How do people actually develop damage formulas? I was considering opening excel and trying to build the formula that way (mapping Attack Stats vs. Defense Stats for instance) but I was wondering if there's an easier way? While I can't convey the full game mechanics of my game here, might someone be able to suggest a good starting place for building a damage formula? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Document-oriented vs Column-oriented database fit

    - by user1007922
    I have a data-intensive application that desperately needs a database make-over. The general data model: There are records with RIDs, grouped together by group IDs (GID). The records have arbitrary data fields, (maybe 5-15) with a few of them mandatory and the rest optional, and thus sparse. The general use model: There are LOTS and LOTS of Writes. Millions to Billions of records are stored. Very often, they are associated with new GIDs, but sometimes, they are associated with existing GIDs. There aren't as many reads, but when they happen, they need to be pretty fast or at least constant speed regardless of the database size. And when the reads happen, it will need to retrieve all the records/RIDs with a certain GID. I don't have a need to search by the record field values. Primarily, I will need to query by the GID and maybe RID. What database implementation should I use? I did some initial research between document-oriented and column-oriented databases and it seems the document-oriented ones are a good fit, model-wise. I could store all the records together under the same document key using the GID. But I don't really have any use for their ability to search the document contents itself. I like the simplicity and scalability of column-oriented databases like Cassandra, but how should I model my data in this paradigm for optimal performance? Should my key be the GID and should I create a column for each record/RID? (there maybe thousands or hundreds of thousands of records in a group/GID). Or should my key be the RID and ensure each row has a column for the GID value? What results in faster writes and reads under this model?

    Read the article

  • S#arp Architecture 1.5.2 released

    - by AlecWhittington
    It has been a few weeks since S#arp Architecture 1.5 RTM has been released. While it was a major success a few issues were found that needed to be addressed. These mostly involved the Visual Studio templates. What's new in S#arp Architecture 1.5.2? Merged the SharpArch.* assemblies into a single assembly (SharpArch.dll) Updated both VS 2008 and 2010 templates to reflect the use of the merged assembly Updated SharpArch.build with custom script that allows the merging of the assemblies. Copys new merged...(read more)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129  | Next Page >