Search Results

Search found 4935 results on 198 pages for 'organizational unit'.

Page 137/198 | < Previous Page | 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144  | Next Page >

  • Happy Tau Day! (Or: How Some Mathematicians Think We Should Retire Pi) [Video]

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    When you were in school you learned all about Pi and its relationship to circles and turn-based geometry. Some mathematicians are rallying for a new lesson, on about Tau. Michael Hartl is a mathematician on a mission, a mission to get people away from using Pi and to start using Tau. His manifesto opens: Welcome to The Tau Manifesto. This manifesto is dedicated to one of the most important numbers in mathematics, perhaps the most important: the circle constant relating the circumference of a circle to its linear dimension. For millennia, the circle has been considered the most perfect of shapes, and the circle constant captures the geometry of the circle in a single number. Of course, the traditional choice of circle constant is p—but, as mathematician Bob Palais notes in his delightful article “p Is Wrong!”,1 p is wrong. It’s time to set things right. Why is Pi wrong? Among the arguments is that Tau is the ration of a circumference to the radius of a circle and defining circles by their radius is more natural and that Pi is a 2-factor number but with Tau everything is based of a single unit–three quarters of a turn around a Tau-defined circle is simply three quarters of a Tau radian. Watch the video above to see the Tau sequence (which begins 6.2831853071…) turned into a musical composition. For more information about Tau hit up the link below to read the manifesto. The Tau Manifesto [TauDay] HTG Explains: Photography with Film-Based CamerasHow to Clean Your Dirty Smartphone (Without Breaking Something)What is a Histogram, and How Can I Use it to Improve My Photos?

    Read the article

  • Are R&D mini-projects a good activity for interns?

    - by dukeofgaming
    I'm going to be in charge of hiring some interns for our software department soon (automotive infotainment systems) and I'm designing an internship program. The main productive activity "menu" I'm planning for them consists of: Verification testing Writing Unit Tests (automated, with an xUnit-compliant framework [several languages in our projects]) Documenting Code Updating wiki Updating diagrams & design docs Helping with low priority tickets (supervised/mentored) Hunting down & cleaning compiler/run-time warnings Refactoring/cleaning code against our coding standards But I also have this idea that having them do small R&D projects would be good to test their talent and get them to have fun. These mini-projects would be: Experimental implementations & optimizations Proof of concept implementations for new technologies Small papers (~2-5 pages) doing formal research on the previous two points Apps (from a mini-project pool) These kinds of projects would be pre-defined and very concrete, although new ideas from the interns themselves would be very welcome. Even if a project is too big or is abandoned, the idea would also be to lay the ground work so they can be retaken by another intern or intern team. While I think this is good in concept, I don't know if it could be good in practice, as obviously this would diminish their productivity on "real work" (work with immediate value to the company), but I think it could help bring aboard very bright people and get them to want to stay in the future (which, I think, is the end goal for any internship program). My question here is if these activities are too open ended or difficult for the average intern to accomplish and if R&D is an efficient use of an interns time or if it makes more sense for to assign project work to interns instead.

    Read the article

  • How to add a new developer to the team

    - by lortabac
    I run a small company composed of only 2 developers. For one of our clients we are building a very big application, whose development has gone on for 1.5 years. Now this client has found an important sponsorship, and they are organizing some events related to this project, so we have a deadline in 2 months and we can't miss it. We are thinking of adding a new developer to the team, and I am wondering what we can do to help his integration. This is the situation: We are approaching the threshhold of Brooks's law, the point when adding new developers will be counter-productive. The application is relatively well designed, but the implementation is chaotic in some points (especially older code). There are unit tests only for more recent code. When this project started, we didn't have the habit of doing tests. Documentation and comments are incomplete. The application is both large and complex. The client has written down almost every detail about his project, in a very clear and "programmer-friendly" way. Is it a good idea to add a person now? If so, what can we do in order to help the new developer integrate into the team?

    Read the article

  • TDD with SQL and data manipulation functions

    - by Xophmeister
    While I'm a professional programmer, I've never been formally trained in software engineering. As I'm frequently visiting here and SO, I've noticed a trend for writing unit tests whenever possible and, as my software gets more complex and sophisticated, I see automated testing as a good idea in aiding debugging. However, most of my work involves writing complex SQL and then processing the output in some way. How would you write a test to ensure your SQL was returning the correct data, for example? Then, say if the data wasn't under your control (e.g., that of a 3rd party system), how can you efficiently test your processing routines without having to hand write reams of dummy data? The best solution I can think of is making views of the data that, together, cover most cases. I can then join those views with my SQL to see if it's returning the correct records and manually process the views to see if my functions, etc. are doing what they're supposed to. Still, it seems excessive and flakey; particularly finding data to test against...

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2010 Service Pack 1 Released

    - by krislankford
    The VS 2010 SP 1 release was simultaneous to the release of TFS 2010 SP1 and includes support for the Project Server Integration Feature Pack and updates to .NET Framework 4.0. The complete Visual Studio SP1 list including Test and Lab Manager: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/983509 The release addresses some of the most requested features from customers of Visual Studio 2010 like better help support IntelliTrace support for 64bit and SharePoint Silverlight 4 Tools in the box unit testing support on .NET 3.5 a new performance wizard for Silverlight Another major addition is the announcement of Unlimited Load Testing for Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate with MSDN Subscribers! The benefits of Visual Studio 2010 Load Test Feature Pack and useful links: Improved Overall Software Quality through Early Lifecycle Performance Testing: Lets you stress test your application early and throughout its development lifecycle with realistically modeled simulated load. By integrating performance validations early into your applications, you can ensure that your solution copes with real-world demands and behaves in a predictable manner, effectively increasing overall software quality. Higher Productivity and Reduced TCO with the Ability to Scale without Incremental Costs: Development teams no longer have to purchase Visual Studio Load Test Virtual User Pack 2010. Download the Visual Studio 2010 Load Test Feature Pack Deployment Guide Get started with stress and performance testing with Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate: Quality Solutions Best Practice: Enabling Performance and Stress Testing throughout the Application Lifecycle Hands-On-Lab: Introduction to Load Testing with ASP.NET Profile in Visual Studio 2010 How-Do-I videos: Use ASP.NET Profiler in Load Tests Use Network Emulation in Load Tests VHD/VPC walkthrough: Getting Started with Load and Performance Testing Best Practice guidance: Visual Studio Performance Testing Quick Reference Guide

    Read the article

  • Project freezed - what should I leave to the people after me?

    - by Maistora
    So the project I've been working on is now going to be freezed for unknown period of time. May be when the project unfreezes it won't be assigned to me or anybody of the current team. Actually we did also inherit the project after it had been freezed but there was nothing left by the team before us to help us understand even the basic needs of the project, so plenty of time passed by until we got to know the project well. My question is what do you think we should do to help people after us to best understand the needs of the project, what we have done, why we've done it, etc. I am open to other ideas of why should we leave some tracks to the others that will work on this project also. Some steps we already have taken: technical documentation (not full but at least there is some); source-control system history; estimations on which parts of the project need improvement and why we think so; bunch of unit tests. What do you think of what we've already prepared and what else could we do?

    Read the article

  • Changes to the LINQ-to-StreamInsight Dialect

    - by Roman Schindlauer
    In previous versions of StreamInsight (1.0 through 2.0), CepStream<> represents temporal streams of many varieties: Streams with ‘open’ inputs (e.g., those defined and composed over CepStream<T>.Create(string streamName) Streams with ‘partially bound’ inputs (e.g., those defined and composed over CepStream<T>.Create(Type adapterFactory, …)) Streams with fully bound inputs (e.g., those defined and composed over To*Stream – sequences or DQC) The stream may be embedded (where Server.Create is used) The stream may be remote (where Server.Connect is used) When adding support for new programming primitives in StreamInsight 2.1, we faced a choice: Add a fourth variety (use CepStream<> to represent streams that are bound the new programming model constructs), or introduce a separate type that represents temporal streams in the new user model. We opted for the latter. Introducing a new type has the effect of reducing the number of (confusing) runtime failures due to inappropriate uses of CepStream<> instances in the incorrect context. The new types are: IStreamable<>, which logically represents a temporal stream. IQStreamable<> : IStreamable<>, which represents a queryable temporal stream. Its relationship to IStreamable<> is analogous to the relationship of IQueryable<> to IEnumerable<>. The developer can compose temporal queries over remote stream sources using this type. The syntax of temporal queries composed over IQStreamable<> is mostly consistent with the syntax of our existing CepStream<>-based LINQ provider. However, we have taken the opportunity to refine certain aspects of the language surface. Differences are outlined below. Because 2.1 introduces new types to represent temporal queries, the changes outlined in this post do no impact existing StreamInsight applications using the existing types! SelectMany StreamInsight does not support the SelectMany operator in its usual form (which is analogous to SQL’s “CROSS APPLY” operator): static IEnumerable<R> SelectMany<T, R>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, IEnumerable<R>> collectionSelector) It instead uses SelectMany as a convenient syntactic representation of an inner join. The parameter to the selector function is thus unavailable. Because the parameter isn’t supported, its type in StreamInsight 1.0 – 2.0 wasn’t carefully scrutinized. Unfortunately, the type chosen for the parameter is nonsensical to LINQ programmers: static CepStream<R> SelectMany<T, R>(this CepStream<T> source, Expression<Func<CepStream<T>, CepStream<R>>> streamSelector) Using Unit as the type for the parameter accurately reflects the StreamInsight’s capabilities: static IQStreamable<R> SelectMany<T, R>(this IQStreamable<T> source, Expression<Func<Unit, IQStreamable<R>>> streamSelector) For queries that succeed – that is, queries that do not reference the stream selector parameter – there is no difference between the code written for the two overloads: from x in xs from y in ys select f(x, y) Top-K The Take operator used in StreamInsight causes confusion for LINQ programmers because it is applied to the (unbounded) stream rather than the (bounded) window, suggesting that the query as a whole will return k rows: (from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from x in win orderby x.A select x.B).Take(k) The use of SelectMany is also unfortunate in this context because it implies the availability of the window parameter within the remainder of the comprehension. The following compiles but fails at runtime: (from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from x in win orderby x.A select win).Take(k) The Take operator in 2.1 is applied to the window rather than the stream: Before After (from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from x in win orderby x.A select x.B).Take(k) from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from b in     (from x in win     orderby x.A     select x.B).Take(k) select b Multicast We are introducing an explicit multicast operator in order to preserve expression identity, which is important given the semantics about moving code to and from StreamInsight. This also better matches existing LINQ dialects, such as Reactive. This pattern enables expressing multicasting in two ways: Implicit Explicit var ys = from x in xs          where x.A > 1          select x; var zs = from y1 in ys          from y2 in ys.ShiftEventTime(_ => TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1))          select y1 + y2; var ys = from x in xs          where x.A > 1          select x; var zs = ys.Multicast(ys1 =>     from y1 in ys1     from y2 in ys1.ShiftEventTime(_ => TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1))     select y1 + y2; Notice the product translates an expression using implicit multicast into an expression using the explicit multicast operator. The user does not see this translation. Default window policies Only default window policies are supported in the new surface. Other policies can be simulated by using AlterEventLifetime. Before After xs.SnapshotWindow(     WindowInputPolicy.ClipToWindow,     SnapshotWindowInputPolicy.Clip) xs.SnapshotWindow() xs.TumblingWindow(     TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1),     HoppingWindowOutputPolicy.PointAlignToWindowEnd) xs.TumblingWindow(     TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)) xs.TumblingWindow(     TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1),     HoppingWindowOutputPolicy.ClipToWindowEnd) Not supported … LeftAntiJoin Representation of LASJ as a correlated sub-query in the LINQ surface is problematic as the StreamInsight engine does not support correlated sub-queries (see discussion of SelectMany). The current syntax requires the introduction of an otherwise unsupported ‘IsEmpty()’ operator. As a result, the pattern is not discoverable and implies capabilities not present in the server. The direct representation of LASJ is used instead: Before After from x in xs where     (from y in ys     where x.A > y.B     select y).IsEmpty() select x xs.LeftAntiJoin(ys, (x, y) => x.A > y.B) from x in xs where     (from y in ys     where x.A == y.B     select y).IsEmpty() select x xs.LeftAntiJoin(ys, x => x.A, y => y.B) ApplyWithUnion The ApplyWithUnion methods have been deprecated since their signatures are redundant given the standard SelectMany overloads: Before After xs.GroupBy(x => x.A).ApplyWithUnion(gs => from win in gs.SnapshotWindow() select win.Count()) xs.GroupBy(x => x.A).SelectMany(     gs =>     from win in gs.SnapshotWindow()     select win.Count()) xs.GroupBy(x => x.A).ApplyWithUnion(gs => from win in gs.SnapshotWindow() select win.Count(), r => new { r.Key, Count = r.Payload }) from x in xs group x by x.A into gs from win in gs.SnapshotWindow() select new { gs.Key, Count = win.Count() } Alternate UDO syntax The representation of UDOs in the StreamInsight LINQ dialect confuses cardinalities. Based on the semantics of user-defined operators in StreamInsight, one would expect to construct queries in the following form: from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from y in MyUdo(win) select y Instead, the UDO proxy method is referenced within a projection, and the (many) results returned by the user code are automatically flattened into a stream: from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() select MyUdo(win) The “many-or-one” confusion is exemplified by the following example that compiles but fails at runtime: from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() select MyUdo(win) + win.Count() The above query must fail because the UDO is in fact returning many values per window while the count aggregate is returning one. Original syntax New alternate syntax from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() select win.UdoProxy(1) from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from y in win.UserDefinedOperator(() => new Udo(1)) select y -or- from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from y in win.UdoMacro(1) select y Notice that this formulation also sidesteps the dynamic type pitfalls of the existing “proxy method” approach to UDOs, in which the type of the UDO implementation (TInput, TOuput) and the type of its constructor arguments (TConfig) need to align in a precise and non-obvious way with the argument and return types for the corresponding proxy method. UDSO syntax UDSO currently leverages the DataContractSerializer to clone initial state for logical instances of the user operator. Initial state will instead be described by an expression in the new LINQ surface. Before After xs.Scan(new Udso()) xs.Scan(() => new Udso()) Name changes ShiftEventTime => AlterEventStartTime: The alter event lifetime overload taking a new start time value has been renamed. CountByStartTimeWindow => CountWindow

    Read the article

  • What can be the cause of new bugs appearing somewhere else when a known bug is solved?

    - by MainMa
    During a discussion, one of my colleagues told that he has some difficulties with his current project while trying to solve bugs. "When I solve one bug, something else stops working elsewhere", he said. I started to think about how this could happen, but can't figure it out. I have sometimes similar problems when I am too tired/sleepy to do the work correctly and to have an overall view of the part of the code I was working on. Here, the problem seems to be for a few days or weeks, and is not related to the focus of my colleague. I can also imagine this problem arising on a very large project, very badly managed, where teammates don't have any idea of who does what, and what effect on other's work can have a change they are doing. This is not the case here neither: it's a rather small project with only one developer. It can also be an issue with old, badly maintained and never documented codebase, where the only developers who can really imagine the consequences of a change had left the company years ago. Here, the project just started, and the developer doesn't use anyone's codebase. So what can be the cause of such issue on a fresh, small-size codebase written by a single developer who stays focused on his work? What may help? Unit tests (there are none)? Proper architecture (I'm pretty sure that the codebase has no architecture at all and was written with no preliminary thinking), requiring the whole refactoring? Pair programming? Something else?

    Read the article

  • design in agile process

    - by ying
    Recently I had an interview with dev team in a company. The team uses agile + TDD. The code exercise implements a video rental store which generates statement to calc total rental fee for each type of video (new release, children, etc) for a customer. The existing code use object like: Statement to generate statement and calc fee where big switch statement sits to use enum to determine how to calc rental fee customer holds a list of rentals movie base class and derived class for each type of movie (NEW, CHILDREN, ACTION, etc) The code originally doesn't compile as the owner was assumed to be hit by a bus. So here is what I did: outlined the improvement over object model to have better responsibility for each class. use strategy pattern to replace switch statement and weave them in config But the team says it's waste of time because there is no requirement for it and UAT test suite works and is the only guideline goes into architecture decision. The underlying story is just to get pricing feature out and not saying anything about how to do it. So the discussion is focused on why should time be spent on refactor the switch statement. In my understanding, agile methodology doesn't mean zero design upfront and such code smell should be avoided at the beginning. Also any unit/UAT test suite won't detect such code smell, otherwise sonar, findbugs won't exist. Here I want to ask: is there such a thing called agile design in the agile methodology? Just like agile documentation. how to define agile design upfront? how to know enough is enough? In my understanding, ballpark architecture and data contract among components should be defined before/when starting project, not the details. Am I right? anyone can explain what the team is really looking for in this kind of setup? is it design aspect or agile aspect? how to implement minimum viable product concept in the agile process in the real world project? Is it must that you feel embarrassed to be MVP?

    Read the article

  • Name for Osherove's modified singleton pattern?

    - by Kazark
    I'm pretty well sold on the "singletons are evil" line of thought. Nevertheless, there are limited occurrences when you want to limit the creation of an object. Roy Osherove advises, If you're planning to use a singleton in your design, separate the logic of the singleton class and the logic that makes it a singleton (the part that initializes a static variables, for example) into two separate classes. That way, you can keep the single responsibility principle (SRP) and also have a way to override singleton logic. (The Art of Unit Testing 261-262) This pattern still perpetuates the global state. However, it does result in a testable design, so it seems to me to be a good pattern for mitigating the damage of a singleton. However, Osherove does not give a name to this pattern; but naming a pattern, according to the Gang of Four, is important: Naming a pattern immediately increases our design vocabulary. It lets us design at a higher level of abstraction. (3) Is there a standard name for this pattern? It seems different enough from a standard singleton to deserve a separate name. Decoupled Singleton, perhaps?

    Read the article

  • Balancing dependency injection with public API design

    - by kolektiv
    I've been contemplating how to balance testable design using dependency injection with providing simple fixed public API. My dilemma is: people would want to do something like var server = new Server(){ ... } and not have to worry about creating the many dependencies and graph of dependencies that a Server(,,,,,,) may have. While developing, I don't worry too much, as I use an IoC/DI framework to handle all that (I'm not using the lifecycle management aspects of any container, which would complicate things further). Now, the dependencies are unlikely to be re-implemented. Componentisation in this case is almost purely for testability (and decent design!) rather than creating seams for extension, etc. People will 99.999% of the time wish to use a default configuration. So. I could hardcode the dependencies. Don't want to do that, we lose our testing! I could provide a default constructor with hard-coded dependencies and one which takes dependencies. That's... messy, and likely to be confusing, but viable. I could make the dependency receiving constructor internal and make my unit tests a friend assembly (assuming C#), which tidies the public API but leaves a nasty hidden trap lurking for maintenance. Having two constructors which are implicitly connected rather than explicitly would be bad design in general in my book. At the moment that's about the least evil I can think of. Opinions? Wisdom?

    Read the article

  • Supporting and testing multiple versions of a software library in a Maven project

    - by Duncan Jones
    My company has several versions of its software in use by our customers at any one time. My job is to write bespoke Java software for the customers based on the version of software they happen to be running. I've created a Java library that performs many of the tasks I regularly require in a normal project. This is a Maven project that I deploy to our local Artifactory and pull down into other Maven projects when required. I can't decide the best way to support the range of software versions used by our customers. Typically, we have about three versions in use at any one time. They are normally backwards compatible with one another, but that cannot be guaranteed. I have considered the following options for managing this issue: Separate editions for each library version I make a separate release of my library for each version of my company software. Using some Maven cunningness I could automatically produce a tested version linked to each of the then-current company software versions. This is feasible, but not without its technical challenges. The advantage is that this would be fairly automatic and my unit tests have definitely executed against the correct software version. However, I would have to keep updating the versions supported and may end up maintaining a large collection of libraries. One supported version, but others tested I support the oldest software version and make a release against that. I then perform tests with the newer software versions to ensure it still works. I could try and make this testing automatic by having some non-deployed Maven projects that import the software library, the associated test JAR and override the company software version used. If those projects build, then the library is compatible. I could ensure these meta-projects are included in our CI server builds. I welcome comments on which approach is better or a suggestion for a different approach entirely. I'm leaning towards the second option.

    Read the article

  • How to promote an open-source project?

    - by Shehi
    First of all, I apologize if this is the wrong section of network to post this question. If it is, please feel free to move it to more appropriate location... Question: I would like to hear your ideas regarding the ways of open source projects being started and run. I have an open-source content management system project and here some questions arise: How should I act? Shall I come up with a viable pre-alpha edition with working front- and back-ends first and then announce the project publicly? Or shall I announce it right away from the scratch? As a developer I know that one should use versioning system like Git or SVN, which I do, no problems there. And the merit of unit-testing is also something to remember, which, to be frank, I am not into at all... Project management - I am a beginner in that, at best. Coding techniques and experiences such as Agile development is something I want to explore... In short, any ideas for a developer who is new to open-source world, is most welcome.

    Read the article

  • Hybrid IT or Cloud Initiative – a Perfect Enterprise Architecture Maturation Opportunity

    - by Ted McLaughlan
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} All too often in the growth and maturation of Enterprise Architecture initiatives, the effort stalls or is delayed due to lack of “applied traction”. By this, I mean the EA activities - whether targeted towards compliance, risk mitigation or value opportunity propositions – may not be attached to measurable, active, visible projects that could advance and prove the value of EA. EA doesn’t work by itself, in a vacuum, without collaborative engagement and a means of proving usefulness. A critical vehicle to this proof is successful orchestration and use of assets and investment resources to meet a high-profile business objective – i.e. a successful project. More and more organizations are now exploring and considering some degree of IT outsourcing, buying and using external services and solutions to deliver their IT and business requirements – vs. building and operating in-house, in their own data centers. The rapid growth and success of “Cloud” services makes some decisions easier and some IT projects more successful, while dramatically lowering IT risks and enabling rapid growth. This is particularly true for “Software as a Service” (SaaS) applications, which essentially are complete web applications hosted and delivered over the Internet. Whether SaaS solutions – or any kind of cloud solution - are actually, ultimately the most cost-effective approach truly depends on the organization’s business and IT investment strategy. This leads us to Enterprise Architecture, the connectivity between business strategy and investment objectives, and the capabilities purchased or created to meet them. If an EA framework already exists, the approach to selecting a cloud-based solution and integrating it with internal IT systems (i.e. a “Hybrid IT” solution) is well-served by leveraging EA methods. If an EA framework doesn’t exist, or is simply not mature enough to address complex, integrated IT objectives – a hybrid IT/cloud initiative is the perfect project to advance and prove the value of EA. Why is this? For starters, the success of any complex IT integration project - spanning multiple systems, contracts and organizations, public and private – depends on active collaboration and coordination among the project stakeholders. For a hybrid IT initiative, inclusive of one or more cloud services providers, the IT services, business workflow and data governance challenges alone can be extremely complex, requiring many diverse layers of organizational expertise and authority. Establishing subject matter expertise, authorities and strategic guidance across all the disciplines involved in a hybrid-IT or hybrid-cloud system requires top-level, comprehensive experience and collaborative leadership. Tools and practices reflecting industry expertise and EA alignment can also be very helpful – such as Oracle’s “Cloud Candidate Selection Tool”. Using tools like this, and facilitating this critical collaboration by leading, organizing and coordinating the input and expertise into a shared, referenceable, reusable set of authority models and practices – this is where EA shines, and where Enterprise Architects can be most valuable. The “enterprise”, in this case, becomes something greater than the core organization – it includes internal systems, public cloud services, 3rd-party IT platforms and datacenters, distributed users and devices; a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Through facilitated project collaboration, leading to identification or creation of solid governance models and processes, a durable and useful Enterprise Architecture framework will usually emerge by itself, if not actually identified and managed as such. The transition from planning collaboration to actual coordination, where the program plan, schedule and resources become synchronized and aligned to other investments in the organization portfolio, is where EA methods and artifacts appear and become most useful. The actual scope and use of these artifacts, in the context of this project, can then set the stage for the most desirable, helpful and pragmatic form of the now-maturing EA framework and community of practice. Considering or starting a hybrid-IT or hybrid-cloud initiative? Running into some complex relationship challenges? This is the perfect time to take advantage of your new, growing or possibly latent Enterprise Architecture practice.

    Read the article

  • Concurrency pattern of logger in multithreaded application

    - by Dipan Mehta
    The context: We are working on a multi-threaded (Linux-C) application that follows a pipeline model. Each module has a private thread and encapsulated objects which do processing of data; and each stage has a standard form of exchanging data with next unit. The application is free from memory leak and is threadsafe using locks at the point where they exchange data. Total number of threads is about 15- and each thread can have from 1 to 4 objects. Making about 25 - 30 odd objects which all have some critical logging to do. Most discussion I have seen about different levels as in Log4J and it's other translations. The real big questions is about how the overall logging should really happen? One approach is all local logging does fprintf to stderr. The stderr is redirected to some file. This approach is very bad when logs become too big. If all object instantiate their individual loggers - (about 30-40 of them) there will be too many files. And unlike above, one won't have the idea of true order of events. Timestamping is one possibility - but it is still a mess to collate. If there is a single global logger (singleton) pattern - it indirectly blocks so many threads while one is busy putting up logs. This is unacceptable when processing of the threads are heavy. So what should be the ideal way to structure the logging objects? What are some of the best practices in actual large scale applications? I would also love to learn from some of the real designs of large scale applications to get inspirations from!

    Read the article

  • When module calling gets ugly

    - by Pete
    Has this ever happened to you? You've got a suite of well designed, single-responsibility modules, covered by unit tests. In any higher-level function you code, you are (95% of the code) simply taking output from one module and passing it as input to the next. Then, you notice this higher-level function has turned into a 100+ line script with multiple responsibilities. Here is the problem. It is difficult (impossible) to test that script. At least, it seems so. Do you agree? In my current project, all of the bugs came from this script. Further detail: each script represents a unique solution, or algorithm, formed by using different modules in different ways. Question: how can you remedy this situation? Knee-jerk answer: break the script up into single-responsibility modules. Comment on knee-jerk answer: it already is! Best answer I can come up with so far: create higher-level connector objects which "wire" modules together in particular ways (take output from one module, feed it as input to another module). Thus if our script was: FooInput fooIn = new FooInput(1, 2); FooOutput fooOutput = fooModule(fooIn); Double runtimevalue = getsomething(fooOutput.whatever); BarInput barIn = new BarInput( runtimevalue, fooOutput.someOtherValue); BarOutput barOut = barModule(BarIn); It would become with a connector: FooBarConnectionAlgo fooBarConnector = new fooBarConnector(fooModule, barModule); FooInput fooIn = new FooInput(1, 2); BarOutput barOut = fooBarConnector(fooIn); So the advantage is, besides hiding some code and making things clearer, we can test FooBarConnectionAlgo. I'm sure this situation comes up a lot. What do you do?

    Read the article

  • Extract all related class type aliasing and enum into one file or not

    - by Chen OT
    I have many models in my project, and some other classes just need the class declaration and pointer type aliasing. It does not need to know the class definition, so I don't want to include the model header file. I extract all the model's declaration into one file to let every classes reference one file. model_forward.h class Cat; typedef std::shared_ptr<Cat> CatPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Cat> CatConstPointerType; class Dog; typedef std::shared_ptr<Dog> DogPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Dog> DogConstPointerType; class Fish; typedef std::shared_ptr<Fish> FishPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Fish> FishConstPointerType; enum CatType{RED_CAT, YELLOW_CAT, GREEN_CAT, PURPLE_CAT} enum DogType{HATE_CAT_DOG, HUSKY, GOLDEN_RETRIEVER} enum FishType{SHARK, OCTOPUS, SALMON} Is it acceptable practice? Should I make every unit, which needs a class declaration, depends on one file? Does it cause high coupling? Or I should put these pointer type aliasing and enum definition inside the class back? cat.h class Cat { typedef std::shared_ptr<Cat> PointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Cat> ConstPointerType; enum Type{RED_CAT, YELLOW_CAT, GREEN_CAT, PURPLE_CAT} ... }; dog.h class Dog { typedef std::shared_ptr<Dog> PointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Dog> ConstPointerType; enum Type{HATE_CAT_DOG, HUSKY, GOLDEN_RETRIEVER} ... } fish.h class Fish { ... }; Any suggestion will be helpful.

    Read the article

  • How to Reap Anticipated ROI in Large-Scale Capital Projects

    - by Sylvie MacKenzie, PMP
    Only a small fraction of companies in asset-intensive industries reliably achieve expected ROI for major capital projects 90 percent of the time, according to a new industry study. In addition, 12 percent of companies see expected ROIs in less than half of their capital projects. The problem: no matter how sophisticated and far-reaching the planning processes are, many organizations struggle to manage risks or reap the expected value from major capital investments. The data is part of the larger survey of companies in oil and gas, mining and metals, chemicals, and utilities industries. The results appear in Prepare for the Unexpected: Investment Planning in Asset-Intensive Industries, a comprehensive new report sponsored by Oracle and developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Analysts say the shortcomings in large-scale, long-duration capital-investments projects often stem from immature capital-planning processes. The poor decisions that result can lead to significant financial losses and disappointing project benefits, which are particularly harmful to organizations during economic downturns. The report highlights three other important findings. Teaming the right data and people doesn’t guarantee that ROI goals will be achieved. Despite involving cross-functional teams and looking at all the pertinent data, executives are still failing to identify risks and deliver bottom-line results on capital projects. Effective processes are the missing link. Project-planning processes are weakest when it comes to risk management and predicting costs and ROI. Organizations participating in the study said they fail to achieve expected ROI because they regularly experience unexpected events that derail schedules and inflate budgets. But executives believe that using more-robust risk management and project planning strategies will help avoid delays, improve ROI, and more accurately predict the long-term cost of initiatives. Planning for unexpected events is a key to success. External factors, such as changing market conditions and evolving government policies are difficult to forecast precisely, so organizations need to build flexibility into project plans to make it easier to adapt to the changes. The report outlines a series of steps executives can take to address these shortcomings and improve their capital-planning processes. Read the full report or take the benchmarking survey and find out how your organization compares.

    Read the article

  • Understanding Application binary interface (ABI)

    - by Tim
    I am trying to understand the concept of Application binary interface (ABI). From The Linux Kernel Primer: An ABI is a set of conventions that allows a linker to combine separately compiled modules into one unit without recompilation, such as calling conventions, machine interface, and operating-system interface. Among other things, an ABI defines the binary interface between these units. ... The benefits of conforming to an ABI are that it allows linking object files compiled by different compilers. From Wikipedia: an application binary interface (ABI) describes the low-level interface between an application (or any type of) program and the operating system or another application. ABIs cover details such as data type, size, and alignment; the calling convention, which controls how functions' arguments are passed and return values retrieved; the system call numbers and how an application should make system calls to the operating system; and in the case of a complete operating system ABI, the binary format of object files, program libraries and so on. I was wondering whether ABI depends on both the instruction set and the OS. Are the two all that ABI depends on? What kinds of role does ABI play in different stages of compilation: preprocessing, conversion of code from C to Assembly, conversion of code from Assembly to Machine code, and linking? From the first quote above, it seems to me that ABI is needed for only linking stage, not the other stages. Is it correct? When is ABI needed to be considered? Is ABI needed to be considered during programming in C, Assembly or other languages? If yes, how are ABI and API different? Or is it only for linker or compiler? Is ABI specified for/in machine code, Assembly language, and/or of C?

    Read the article

  • Strategy for versioning on a public repo

    - by biril
    Suppose I'm developing a (javascript) library which is hosted on a public repo (e.g. github). My aim in terms of how version numbers are assigned and incremented is to follow the guidelines of semantic versioning. Now, there's a number of files in my project which compose the actual lib and a number of files that 'support it', the latter being docs, a test suite, etc. My perspective this far has been that version numbers should only apply to the actual lib - not the project as a whole - since the lib alone is 'the unit' that defines the public API. However I'm not satisfied with this approach as, for example, a fix in the test suite constitutes an 'improvement' in my project, which will not be reflected in the version number (or the docs which contain a reference to it). On a more practical level, various tools, such as package managers, may (understandably) not play along with this strategy. For example, when trying to publish a change which is not reflected in the version number, npm publish fails with the suggestion "Bump the 'version' field set the --force flag, or npm unpublish". Am I doing it wrong?

    Read the article

  • Project frozen - what should I leave to the people after me?

    - by Maistora
    So the project I've been working on is now going to be frozen indefinitely. It is possible that if and when the project unfreezes again, it won't be assigned to me or anybody from the current team. Actually, we inherited the project after it had been frozen before, but there was nothing left by the prior team to help us understand even the basic needs of the project, so we wasted a lot of time getting to know the project well. My question is what do you think we should do to help the people after us to best understand the needs of the project, what we have done, why we've done it, etc. I am open to other ideas of why should we leave some tracks to the others that will work on this project also. Some steps we already have taken: technical documentation (not full but at least there is some); source-control system history; estimations on which parts of the project need improvement and why we think so; bunch of unit tests. issue tracker with all the tickets we've done (EDIT) What do you think of what we've already prepared and what else can we do?

    Read the article

  • How to approach scrum task burn down when tasks have multiple peoples involvement?

    - by AgileMan
    In my company, a single task can never be completed by one individual. There is going to be a separate person to QA and Code Review each task. What this means is that each individual will give their estimates, per task, as to how much time it will take to complete. The problem is, how should I approach burn down? If I aggregate the hours together, assume the following estimate: 10 hrs - Dev time 4 hrs - QA 4 hrs - Code Review. Task Estimate = 18hrs At the end of each day I ask that the task be updated with "how much time is left until it is done". However, each person generally just thinks about their part of it. Should they mark the effort remaining, and then ADD the effort estimates to that? How are you guys doing this? UPDATE To help clarify a few things, at my organization each Task within a story requires 3 people. Someone to develop the task. (do unit tests, ect...) A QA specialist to review task (they primarily do integration and regression tests) A Tech lead to do code review. I don't think there is a wrong way or a right way, but this is our way ... and that won't be changing. We work as a team to complete even the smallest level of a story whenever possible. You cannot actually test if something works until it is dev complete, and you cannot review the quality of the code either ... so the best you can do is split things up into small logical slices so that the bare minimum functionality can be tested and reviewed as early into the process as possible. My question to those that work this way would be how to burn down a "task" when they are setup this way. Unless a Task has it's own sub-tasks (which JIRA doesn't allow) ... I'm not sure the best way to accomplish tracking "what's left" on a daily basis.

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't unity show icons or panel after installing numix theme?

    - by Sid
    I'm a beginner to Ubuntu/Linux and I have a problem: Unity is not loading! When I choose Unity in the log-in screen, I get notifications and I can see the mouse, but that's it. I have Ubuntu 14.04 installed, along with Bumblebee/Primus. I had no issues whatsoever, until I decided to try the numix-theme and the numix icon pack. I added the PPA and installed it, but when I logged off and logged back on, nothing showed up. I panicked, and in tty1, I purged numix-* but that did not solve the issue. To get by day-to-day use, I installed gnome-flashback, and among those environments, only the metacity one works. (The compiz one does not.) I've tried installing the unity-tweak-tool to reset unit, installing dconf and doing: dconf reset -f /org/compiz/ but that didn't work either. One site even told me to delete /org/compiz/, but that did not resolve the issue. When I checked ccsm, the Unity plugin had a check to it. I also tried with Unity doesn't load, no Launcher, no Dash appears, but it gets stuck on "loading icons". Any help will be awesome!

    Read the article

  • Java Components Landing Page and Documentation Updates

    - by joni g.
    The new Java Components page provides access to the documentation for tools that are available for monitoring, managing, and testing Java applications. Documentation for the new versions of the following tools is available: JavaTest Harness 4.6. The JavaTest harness is a general purpose, fully-featured, flexible, and configurable test harness that is suited for most types of unit testing. See the JavaTest tab for documentation. SigTest 3.1. SigTest is a collection of tools that can be used to compare APIs and to measure the test coverage of an API. See the SigTest tab for documentation. The following tools are part of Oracle Java SE Advanced and Oracle Java SE Suite. Java Mission Control and Java Flight Control 5.4 are supported in JDK 8u20. Java Flight Recorder and Java Mission Control together create a complete tool chain to continuously collect low level and detailed runtime information enabling after-the-fact incident analysis. See the JMC tab for documentation. Advanced Management Console 1.0 is a new tool that is now available. AMC can be used to view information about the Java applets and Java Web Start applications running in your enterprise, and create deployment rules and rule sets to manage the execution of these applications. See the AMC tab for documentation. Usage Tracker tracks how Java Runtime Environments (JREs) are being used in your systems. See the Usage Tracker tab for documentation.

    Read the article

  • Is there really anything to gain with complex design? [duplicate]

    - by SB2055
    This question already has an answer here: What is enterprise software, exactly? 8 answers I've been working for a consulting firm for some time, with clients of various sizes, and I've seen web applications ranging in complexity from really simple: MVC Service Layer EF DB To really complex: MVC UoW DI / IoC Repository Service UI Tests Unit Tests Integration Tests But on both ends of the spectrum, the quality requirements are about the same. In simple projects, new devs / consultants can hop on, make changes, and contribute immediately, without having to wade through 6 layers of abstraction to understand what's going on, or risking misunderstanding some complex abstraction and costing down the line. In all cases, there was never a need to actually make code swappable or reusable - and the tests were never actually maintained past the first iteration because requirements changed, it was too time-consuming, deadlines, business pressure, etc etc. So if - in the end - testing and interfaces aren't used rapid development (read: cost-savings) is a priority the project's requirements will be changing a lot while in development ...would it be wrong to recommend a super-simple architecture, even to solve a complex problem, for an enterprise client? Is it complexity that defines enterprise solutions, or is it the reliability, # concurrent users, ease-of-maintenance, or all of the above? I know this is a very vague question, and any answer wouldn't apply to all cases, but I'm interested in hearing from devs / consultants that have been in the business for a while and that have worked with these varying degrees of complexity, to hear if the cool-but-expensive abstractions are worth the overall cost, at least while the project is in development.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144  | Next Page >