Search Results

Search found 1112 results on 45 pages for 'intertable constraints'.

Page 15/45 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

• why when I delete a parent on a one to many relationship on grails the beforeInsert event is called

  - by nico

  hello, I have a one to many relationship and when I try to delete a parent that haves more than one child the berforeInsert event gets called on the frst child. I have some code in this event that I mean to call before inserting a child, not when i'm deleting the parent! any ideas on what might be wrong? the entities: class MenuItem { static constraints = { name(blank:false,maxSize:200) category() subCategory(nullable:true, validator:{ val, obj -> if(val == null){ return true }else{ return obj.category.subCategories.contains(val)? true : ['invalid.category.no.subcategory'] } }) price(nullable:true) servedAtSantaMonica() servedAtWestHollywood() highLight() servedAllDay() dateCreated(display:false) lastUpdated(display:false) } static mapping = { extras lazy:false } static belongsTo = [category:MenuCategory,subCategory:MenuSubCategory] static hasMany = [extras:MenuItemExtra] static searchable = { extras component: true } String name BigDecimal price Boolean highLight = false Boolean servedAtSantaMonica = false Boolean servedAtWestHollywood = false Boolean servedAllDay = false Date dateCreated Date lastUpdated int displayPosition void moveUpDisplayPos(){ def oldDisplayPos = MenuItem.get(id).displayPosition if(oldDisplayPos == 0){ return }else{ def previousItem = MenuItem.findByCategoryAndDisplayPosition(category,oldDisplayPos - 1) previousItem.displayPosition += 1 this.displayPosition = oldDisplayPos - 1 this.save(flush:true) previousItem.save(flush:true) } } void moveDownDisplayPos(){ def oldDisplayPos = MenuItem.get(id).displayPosition if(oldDisplayPos == MenuItem.countByCategory(category) - 1){ return }else{ def nextItem = MenuItem.findByCategoryAndDisplayPosition(category,oldDisplayPos + 1) nextItem.displayPosition -= 1 this.displayPosition = oldDisplayPos + 1 this.save(flush:true) nextItem.save(flush:true) } } String toString(){ name } def beforeInsert = { displayPosition = MenuItem.countByCategory(category) } def afterDelete = { def otherItems = MenuItem.findAllByCategoryAndDisplayPositionGreaterThan(category,displayPosition) otherItems.each{ it.displayPosition -= 1 it.save() } } } class MenuItemExtra { static constraints = { extraOption(blank:false, maxSize:200) extraOptionPrice(nullable:true) } static searchable = true static belongsTo = [menuItem:MenuItem] BigDecimal extraOptionPrice String extraOption int displayPosition void moveUpDisplayPos(){ def oldDisplayPos = MenuItemExtra.get(id).displayPosition if(oldDisplayPos == 0){ return }else{ def previousExtra = MenuItemExtra.findByMenuItemAndDisplayPosition(menuItem,oldDisplayPos - 1) previousExtra.displayPosition += 1 this.displayPosition = oldDisplayPos - 1 this.save(flush:true) previousExtra.save(flush:true) } } void moveDownDisplayPos(){ def oldDisplayPos = MenuItemExtra.get(id).displayPosition if(oldDisplayPos == MenuItemExtra.countByMenuItem(menuItem) - 1){ return }else{ def nextExtra = MenuItemExtra.findByMenuItemAndDisplayPosition(menuItem,oldDisplayPos + 1) nextExtra.displayPosition -= 1 this.displayPosition = oldDisplayPos + 1 this.save(flush:true) nextExtra.save(flush:true) } } String toString(){ extraOption } def beforeInsert = { if(menuItem){ displayPosition = MenuItemExtra.countByMenuItem(menuItem) } } def afterDelete = { def otherExtras = MenuItemExtra.findAllByMenuItemAndDisplayPositionGreaterThan(menuItem,displayPosition) otherExtras.each{ it.displayPosition -= 1 it.save() } } }

  Read the article

• using spring, hibernate and scala, is there a better way to load test data than dbunit?

  - by egervari

  Here are some things I really dislike about dbunit: 1) You cannot specify the exact ordering the inserts because dbunit likes to group your inserts by table name, and not by the order you define them in the XML file. This is a problem when you have records depending on other records in other tables, so you have to disable foreign key constraints during your tests... which actually sucks because these foreign key constraints will get fired in production while your tests won't be aware of them! 2) They seem hellbent on forcing you to use an xml namespace to define your xml... and I honestly can't be bothered to do this. I like the data.xml without any namespace. It works. But they are so hellbent on deprecating it. 3) Creating different xml files is hard on a per test basis, so it actually encourages creating data for your entire app. Unfortunately, this process is a little bloated too once the data grows in size and things get inter tangled. There has got to be a better way to split up your test data into chunks without having to copy/paste a lot of the test data across all of your tests. 4) Keeping track of id references in a big xml file is just impossible. If you have 130 domain classes, it just gets bewildering. This model simply does not scale. Is there something less bloated and better in the Spring/Hibernate space? db unit has worn out its welcome and I'm really looking for something better.

  Read the article

• Fix DB duplicate entries (MySQL bug)

  - by Silence

  I'm using MySQL 4.1. Some tables have duplicates entries that go against the constraints. When I try to group rows, MySQL doesn't recognise the rows as being similar. Example: Table A has a column "Name" with the Unique proprety. The table contains one row with the name 'Hach?' and one row with the same name but a square at the end instead of the '?' (which I can't reproduce in this textfield) A "Group by" on these 2 rows return 2 separate rows This cause several problems including the fact that I can't export and reimport the database. On reimporting an error mentions that a Insert has failed because it violates a constraint. In theory I could try to import, wait for the first error, fix the import script and the original DB, and repeat. In pratice, that would take forever. Is there a way to list all the anomalies or force the database to recheck constraints (and list all the values/rows that go against them) ? I can supply the .MYD file if it can be helpful.

  Read the article

• Questions on Juval Lowy's IDesign C# Coding Standard

  - by Jan

  We are trying to use the IDesign C# Coding standard. Unfortunately, I found no comprehensive document to explain all the rules that it gives, and also his book does not always help. Here are the open questions that remain for me (from chapter 2, Coding Practices): No. 26: Avoid providing explicit values for enums unless they are integer powers of 2 No. 34: Always explicitly initialize an array of reference types using a for loop No. 50: Avoid events as interface members No. 52: Expose interfaces on class hierarchies No. 73: Do not define method-specific constraints in interfaces No. 74: Do not define constraints in delegates Here's what I think about those: I thought that providing explicit values would be especially useful when adding new enum members at a later point in time. If these members are added between other already existing members, I would provide explicit values to make sure the integer representation of existing members does not change. No idea why I would want to do this. I'd say this totally depends on the logic of my program. I see that there is alternative option of providing "Sink interfaces" (simply providing already all "OnXxxHappened" methods), but what is the reason to prefer one over the other? Unsure what he means here: Could this mean "When implementing an interface explicitly in a non-sealed class, consider providing the implementation in a protected virtual method that can be overridden"? (see Programming .NET Components 2nd Edition, end of chapter “Interfaces and Class Hierarchies”). I suppose this is about providing a "where" clause when using generics, but why is this bad on an interface? I suppose this is about providing a "where" clause when using generics, but why is this bad on a delegate?

  Read the article

• Why in the world is this Moq + NUnit test failing?

  - by Dave Falkner

  I have this dataAccess mock object and I'm trying to verify that one of its methods is being invoked, and that the argument passed into this method fulfills certain constraints. As best I can tell, this method is indeed being invoked, and with the constraints fulfilled. This line of the test throws a MockException: data.Verify(d => d.InsertInvoice(It.Is<Invoice>(i => i.TermPaymentAmount == 0m)), Times.Once()); However, removing the constraint and accepting any invoice passes the test: data.Verify(d => d.InsertInvoice(It.IsAny<Invoice>()), Times.Once()); I've created a test windows form that instantiates this test class, runs its .Setup() method, and then calls the method which I am wishing to test. I insert a breakpoint on the line of code where the mock object is failing the test data.InsertInvoice(invoice); to actually hover over the invoice, and I can confirm that its .TermPaymentAmount decimal property is indeed zero at the time the method is invoked. Out of desperation, I even added a call back to my dataAccess mock: data.Setup(d => d.InsertInvoice(It.IsAny<Invoice>())).Callback((Invoice inv) => System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(inv.TermPaymentAmount.ToString("G17"))); And this gives me a message box showing "0". This is really baffling me, and no one else in my shop has been able to figure this out. Any help would be appreciated. A barely related question, which I should probably ask independently, is whether it is preferable to use Mock.Verify(...) as I have here, or to use Mock.Expect(...).Verifiable followed by Mock.VerifyAll() as I have seen other people doing? If the answer is situational, which situations would warrent the use of one over the other?

  Read the article

• Saving associated domain classes in Grails

  - by Cesar

  I'm struggling to get association right on Grails. Let's say I have two domain classes: class Engine { String name int numberOfCylinders = 4 static constraints = { name(blank:false, nullable:false) numberOfCylinders(range:4..8) } } class Car { int year String brand Engine engine = new Engine(name:"Default Engine") static constraints = { engine(nullable:false) brand(blank:false, nullable:false) year(nullable:false) } } The idea is that users can create cars without creating an engine first, and those cars get a default engine. In the CarController I have: def save = { def car = new Car(params) if(!car.hasErrors() && car.save()){ flash.message = "Car saved" redirect(action:index) }else{ render(view:'create', model:[car:car]) } } When trying to save, I get a null value exception on the Car.engine field, so obviously the default engine is not created and saved. I tried to manually create the engine: def save = { def car = new Car(params) car.engine = new Engine(name: "Default Engine") if(!car.hasErrors() && car.save()){ flash.message = "Car saved" redirect(action:index) }else{ render(view:'create', model:[car:car]) } } Didn't work either. Is Grails not able to save associated classes? How could I implement such feature?

  Read the article

• Inheritance Mapping Strategies with Entity Framework Code First CTP5: Part 3 – Table per Concrete Type (TPC) and Choosing Strategy Guidelines

  - by mortezam

  This is the third (and last) post in a series that explains different approaches to map an inheritance hierarchy with EF Code First. I've described these strategies in previous posts: Part 1 – Table per Hierarchy (TPH) Part 2 – Table per Type (TPT)In today’s blog post I am going to discuss Table per Concrete Type (TPC) which completes the inheritance mapping strategies supported by EF Code First. At the end of this post I will provide some guidelines to choose an inheritance strategy mainly based on what we've learned in this series. TPC and Entity Framework in the Past Table per Concrete type is somehow the simplest approach suggested, yet using TPC with EF is one of those concepts that has not been covered very well so far and I've seen in some resources that it was even discouraged. The reason for that is just because Entity Data Model Designer in VS2010 doesn't support TPC (even though the EF runtime does). That basically means if you are following EF's Database-First or Model-First approaches then configuring TPC requires manually writing XML in the EDMX file which is not considered to be a fun practice. Well, no more. You'll see that with Code First, creating TPC is perfectly possible with fluent API just like other strategies and you don't need to avoid TPC due to the lack of designer support as you would probably do in other EF approaches. Table per Concrete Type (TPC)In Table per Concrete type (aka Table per Concrete class) we use exactly one table for each (nonabstract) class. All properties of a class, including inherited properties, can be mapped to columns of this table, as shown in the following figure: As you can see, the SQL schema is not aware of the inheritance; effectively, we’ve mapped two unrelated tables to a more expressive class structure. If the base class was concrete, then an additional table would be needed to hold instances of that class. I have to emphasize that there is no relationship between the database tables, except for the fact that they share some similar columns. TPC Implementation in Code First Just like the TPT implementation, we need to specify a separate table for each of the subclasses. We also need to tell Code First that we want all of the inherited properties to be mapped as part of this table. In CTP5, there is a new helper method on EntityMappingConfiguration class called MapInheritedProperties that exactly does this for us. Here is the complete object model as well as the fluent API to create a TPC mapping: public abstract class BillingDetail {     public int BillingDetailId { get; set; }     public string Owner { get; set; }     public string Number { get; set; } }          public class BankAccount : BillingDetail {     public string BankName { get; set; }     public string Swift { get; set; } }          public class CreditCard : BillingDetail {     public int CardType { get; set; }     public string ExpiryMonth { get; set; }     public string ExpiryYear { get; set; } }      public class InheritanceMappingContext : DbContext {     public DbSet<BillingDetail> BillingDetails { get; set; }              protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)     {         modelBuilder.Entity<BankAccount>().Map(m =>         {             m.MapInheritedProperties();             m.ToTable("BankAccounts");         });         modelBuilder.Entity<CreditCard>().Map(m =>         {             m.MapInheritedProperties();             m.ToTable("CreditCards");         });                 } } The Importance of EntityMappingConfiguration ClassAs a side note, it worth mentioning that EntityMappingConfiguration class turns out to be a key type for inheritance mapping in Code First. Here is an snapshot of this class: namespace System.Data.Entity.ModelConfiguration.Configuration.Mapping {     public class EntityMappingConfiguration<TEntityType> where TEntityType : class     {         public ValueConditionConfiguration Requires(string discriminator);         public void ToTable(string tableName);         public void MapInheritedProperties();     } } As you have seen so far, we used its Requires method to customize TPH. We also used its ToTable method to create a TPT and now we are using its MapInheritedProperties along with ToTable method to create our TPC mapping. TPC Configuration is Not Done Yet!We are not quite done with our TPC configuration and there is more into this story even though the fluent API we saw perfectly created a TPC mapping for us in the database. To see why, let's start working with our object model. For example, the following code creates two new objects of BankAccount and CreditCard types and tries to add them to the database: using (var context = new InheritanceMappingContext()) {     BankAccount bankAccount = new BankAccount();     CreditCard creditCard = new CreditCard() { CardType = 1 };                      context.BillingDetails.Add(bankAccount);     context.BillingDetails.Add(creditCard);     context.SaveChanges(); } Running this code throws an InvalidOperationException with this message: The changes to the database were committed successfully, but an error occurred while updating the object context. The ObjectContext might be in an inconsistent state. Inner exception message: AcceptChanges cannot continue because the object's key values conflict with another object in the ObjectStateManager. Make sure that the key values are unique before calling AcceptChanges. The reason we got this exception is because DbContext.SaveChanges() internally invokes SaveChanges method of its internal ObjectContext. ObjectContext's SaveChanges method on its turn by default calls AcceptAllChanges after it has performed the database modifications. AcceptAllChanges method merely iterates over all entries in ObjectStateManager and invokes AcceptChanges on each of them. Since the entities are in Added state, AcceptChanges method replaces their temporary EntityKey with a regular EntityKey based on the primary key values (i.e. BillingDetailId) that come back from the database and that's where the problem occurs since both the entities have been assigned the same value for their primary key by the database (i.e. on both BillingDetailId = 1) and the problem is that ObjectStateManager cannot track objects of the same type (i.e. BillingDetail) with the same EntityKey value hence it throws. If you take a closer look at the TPC's SQL schema above, you'll see why the database generated the same values for the primary keys: the BillingDetailId column in both BankAccounts and CreditCards table has been marked as identity. How to Solve The Identity Problem in TPC As you saw, using SQL Server’s int identity columns doesn't work very well together with TPC since there will be duplicate entity keys when inserting in subclasses tables with all having the same identity seed. Therefore, to solve this, either a spread seed (where each table has its own initial seed value) will be needed, or a mechanism other than SQL Server’s int identity should be used. Some other RDBMSes have other mechanisms allowing a sequence (identity) to be shared by multiple tables, and something similar can be achieved with GUID keys in SQL Server. While using GUID keys, or int identity keys with different starting seeds will solve the problem but yet another solution would be to completely switch off identity on the primary key property. As a result, we need to take the responsibility of providing unique keys when inserting records to the database. We will go with this solution since it works regardless of which database engine is used. Switching Off Identity in Code First We can switch off identity simply by placing DatabaseGenerated attribute on the primary key property and pass DatabaseGenerationOption.None to its constructor. DatabaseGenerated attribute is a new data annotation which has been added to System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace in CTP5: public abstract class BillingDetail {     [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGenerationOption.None)]     public int BillingDetailId { get; set; }     public string Owner { get; set; }     public string Number { get; set; } } As always, we can achieve the same result by using fluent API, if you prefer that: modelBuilder.Entity<BillingDetail>()             .Property(p => p.BillingDetailId)             .HasDatabaseGenerationOption(DatabaseGenerationOption.None); Working With The Object Model Our TPC mapping is ready and we can try adding new records to the database. But, like I said, now we need to take care of providing unique keys when creating new objects: using (var context = new InheritanceMappingContext()) {     BankAccount bankAccount = new BankAccount()      {          BillingDetailId = 1                          };     CreditCard creditCard = new CreditCard()      {          BillingDetailId = 2,         CardType = 1     };                      context.BillingDetails.Add(bankAccount);     context.BillingDetails.Add(creditCard);     context.SaveChanges(); } Polymorphic Associations with TPC is Problematic The main problem with this approach is that it doesn’t support Polymorphic Associations very well. After all, in the database, associations are represented as foreign key relationships and in TPC, the subclasses are all mapped to different tables so a polymorphic association to their base class (abstract BillingDetail in our example) cannot be represented as a simple foreign key relationship. For example, consider the the domain model we introduced here where User has a polymorphic association with BillingDetail. This would be problematic in our TPC Schema, because if User has a many-to-one relationship with BillingDetail, the Users table would need a single foreign key column, which would have to refer both concrete subclass tables. This isn’t possible with regular foreign key constraints. Schema Evolution with TPC is Complex A further conceptual problem with this mapping strategy is that several different columns, of different tables, share exactly the same semantics. This makes schema evolution more complex. For example, a change to a base class property results in changes to multiple columns. It also makes it much more difficult to implement database integrity constraints that apply to all subclasses. Generated SQLLet's examine SQL output for polymorphic queries in TPC mapping. For example, consider this polymorphic query for all BillingDetails and the resulting SQL statements that being executed in the database: var query = from b in context.BillingDetails select b; Just like the SQL query generated by TPT mapping, the CASE statements that you see in the beginning of the query is merely to ensure columns that are irrelevant for a particular row have NULL values in the returning flattened table. (e.g. BankName for a row that represents a CreditCard type). TPC's SQL Queries are Union Based As you can see in the above screenshot, the first SELECT uses a FROM-clause subquery (which is selected with a red rectangle) to retrieve all instances of BillingDetails from all concrete class tables. The tables are combined with a UNION operator, and a literal (in this case, 0 and 1) is inserted into the intermediate result; (look at the lines highlighted in yellow.) EF reads this to instantiate the correct class given the data from a particular row. A union requires that the queries that are combined, project over the same columns; hence, EF has to pad and fill up nonexistent columns with NULL. This query will really perform well since here we can let the database optimizer find the best execution plan to combine rows from several tables. There is also no Joins involved so it has a better performance than the SQL queries generated by TPT where a Join is required between the base and subclasses tables. Choosing Strategy GuidelinesBefore we get into this discussion, I want to emphasize that there is no one single "best strategy fits all scenarios" exists. As you saw, each of the approaches have their own advantages and drawbacks. Here are some rules of thumb to identify the best strategy in a particular scenario: If you don’t require polymorphic associations or queries, lean toward TPC—in other words, if you never or rarely query for BillingDetails and you have no class that has an association to BillingDetail base class. I recommend TPC (only) for the top level of your class hierarchy, where polymorphism isn’t usually required, and when modification of the base class in the future is unlikely. If you do require polymorphic associations or queries, and subclasses declare relatively few properties (particularly if the main difference between subclasses is in their behavior), lean toward TPH. Your goal is to minimize the number of nullable columns and to convince yourself (and your DBA) that a denormalized schema won’t create problems in the long run. If you do require polymorphic associations or queries, and subclasses declare many properties (subclasses differ mainly by the data they hold), lean toward TPT. Or, depending on the width and depth of your inheritance hierarchy and the possible cost of joins versus unions, use TPC. By default, choose TPH only for simple problems. For more complex cases (or when you’re overruled by a data modeler insisting on the importance of nullability constraints and normalization), you should consider the TPT strategy. But at that point, ask yourself whether it may not be better to remodel inheritance as delegation in the object model (delegation is a way of making composition as powerful for reuse as inheritance). Complex inheritance is often best avoided for all sorts of reasons unrelated to persistence or ORM. EF acts as a buffer between the domain and relational models, but that doesn’t mean you can ignore persistence concerns when designing your classes. SummaryIn this series, we focused on one of the main structural aspect of the object/relational paradigm mismatch which is inheritance and discussed how EF solve this problem as an ORM solution. We learned about the three well-known inheritance mapping strategies and their implementations in EF Code First. Hopefully it gives you a better insight about the mapping of inheritance hierarchies as well as choosing the best strategy for your particular scenario. Happy New Year and Happy Code-Firsting! References ADO.NET team blog Java Persistence with Hibernate book a { color: #5A99FF; } a:visited { color: #5A99FF; } .title { padding-bottom: 5px; font-family: Segoe UI; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 15px; } .code, .typeName { font-family: consolas; } .typeName { color: #2b91af; } .padTop5 { padding-top: 5px; } .padTop10 { padding-top: 10px; } .exception { background-color: #f0f0f0; font-style: italic; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-top: 5px; padding-right: 5px; }

  Read the article

• Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture (EA)

  - by TedMcLaughlan

  Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture A taxonomy of subject areas, from which to develop a prioritized marketing and communications plan to evangelize EA activities within and among US Federal Government organizations and constituents. Any and all feedback is appreciated, particularly in developing and extending this discussion as a tool for use – more information and details are also available. "Selling" the discipline of Enterprise Architecture (EA) in the Federal Government (particularly in non-DoD agencies) is difficult, notwithstanding the general availability and use of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) for some time now, and the relatively mature use of the reference models in the OMB Capital Planning and Investment (CPIC) cycles. EA in the Federal Government also tends to be a very esoteric and hard to decipher conversation – early apologies to those who agree to continue reading this somewhat lengthy article. Alignment to the FEAF and OMB compliance mandates is long underway across the Federal Departments and Agencies (and visible via tools like PortfolioStat and ITDashboard.gov – but there is still a gap between the top-down compliance directives and enablement programs, and the bottom-up awareness and effective use of EA for either IT investment management or actual mission effectiveness. "EA isn't getting deep enough penetration into programs, components, sub-agencies, etc.", verified a panelist at the most recent EA Government Conference in DC. Newer guidance from OMB may be especially difficult to handle, where bottom-up input can't be accurately aligned, analyzed and reported via standardized EA discipline at the Agency level – for example in addressing the new (for FY13) Exhibit 53D "Agency IT Reductions and Reinvestments" and the information required for "Cloud Computing Alternatives Evaluation" (supporting the new Exhibit 53C, "Agency Cloud Computing Portfolio"). Therefore, EA must be "sold" directly to the communities that matter, from a coordinated, proactive messaging perspective that takes BOTH the Program-level value drivers AND the broader Agency mission and IT maturity context into consideration. Selling EA means persuading others to take additional time and possibly assign additional resources, for a mix of direct and indirect benefits – many of which aren't likely to be realized in the short-term. This means there's probably little current, allocated budget to work with; ergo the challenge of trying to sell an "unfunded mandate". Also, the concept of "Enterprise" in large Departments like Homeland Security tends to cross all kinds of organizational boundaries – as Richard Spires recently indicated by commenting that "...organizational boundaries still trump functional similarities. Most people understand what we're trying to do internally, and at a high level they get it. The problem, of course, is when you get down to them and their system and the fact that you're going to be touching them...there's always that fear factor," Spires said. It is quite clear to the Federal IT Investment community that for EA to meet its objective, understandable, relevant value must be measured and reported using a repeatable method – as described by GAO's recent report "Enterprise Architecture Value Needs To Be Measured and Reported". What's not clear is the method or guidance to sell this value. In fact, the current GAO "Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0)", a.k.a. the "EAMMF", does not include words like "sell", "persuade", "market", etc., except in reference ("within Core Element 19: Organization business owner and CXO representatives are actively engaged in architecture development") to a brief section in the CIO Council's 2001 "Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture", entitled "3.3.1. Develop an EA Marketing Strategy and Communications Plan." Furthermore, Core Element 19 of the EAMMF is advised to be applied in "Stage 3: Developing Initial EA Versions". This kind of EA sales campaign truly should start much earlier in the maturity progress, i.e. in Stages 0 or 1. So, what are the understandable, relevant benefits (or value) to sell, that can find an agreeable, participatory audience, and can pave the way towards success of a longer-term, funded set of EA mechanisms that can be methodically measured and reported? Pragmatic benefits from a useful EA that can help overcome the fear of change? And how should they be sold? Following is a brief taxonomy (it's a taxonomy, to help organize SME support) of benefit-related subjects that might make the most sense, in creating the messages and organizing an initial "engagement plan" for evangelizing EA "from within". An EA "Sales Taxonomy" of sorts. We're not boiling the ocean here; the subjects that are included are ones that currently appear to be urgently relevant to the current Federal IT Investment landscape. Note that successful dialogue in these topics is directly usable as input or guidance for actually developing early-stage, "Fit-for-Purpose" (a DoDAF term) Enterprise Architecture artifacts, as prescribed by common methods found in most EA methodologies, including FEAF, TOGAF, DoDAF and our own Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework (OEAF). The taxonomy below is organized by (1) Target Community, (2) Benefit or Value, and (3) EA Program Facet - as in: "Let's talk to (1: Community Member) about how and why (3: EA Facet) the EA program can help with (2: Benefit/Value)". Once the initial discussion targets and subjects are approved (that can be measured and reported), a "marketing and communications plan" can be created. A working example follows the Taxonomy. Enterprise Architecture Sales Taxonomy Draft, Summary Version 1. Community 1.1. Budgeted Programs or Portfolios Communities of Purpose (CoPR) 1.1.1. Program/System Owners (Senior Execs) Creating or Executing Acquisition Plans 1.1.2. Program/System Owners Facing Strategic Change 1.1.2.1. Mandated 1.1.2.2. Expected/Anticipated 1.1.3. Program Managers - Creating Employee Performance Plans 1.1.4. CO/COTRs – Creating Contractor Performance Plans, or evaluating Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP) 1.2. Governance & Communications Communities of Practice (CoP) 1.2.1. Policy Owners 1.2.1.1. OCFO 1.2.1.1.1. Budget/Procurement Office 1.2.1.1.2. Strategic Planning 1.2.1.2. OCIO 1.2.1.2.1. IT Management 1.2.1.2.2. IT Operations 1.2.1.2.3. Information Assurance (Cyber Security) 1.2.1.2.4. IT Innovation 1.2.1.3. Information-Sharing/ Process Collaboration (i.e. policies and procedures regarding Partners, Agreements) 1.2.2. Governing IT Council/SME Peers (i.e. an "Architects Council") 1.2.2.1. Enterprise Architects (assumes others exist; also assumes EA participants aren't buried solely within the CIO shop) 1.2.2.2. Domain, Enclave, Segment Architects – i.e. the right affinity group for a "shared services" EA structure (per the EAMMF), which may be classified as Federated, Segmented, Service-Oriented, or Extended 1.2.2.3. External Oversight/Constraints 1.2.2.3.1. GAO/OIG & Legal 1.2.2.3.2. Industry Standards 1.2.2.3.3. Official public notification, response 1.2.3. Mission Constituents Participant & Analyst Community of Interest (CoI) 1.2.3.1. Mission Operators/Users 1.2.3.2. Public Constituents 1.2.3.3. Industry Advisory Groups, Stakeholders 1.2.3.4. Media 2. Benefit/Value (Note the actual benefits may not be discretely attributable to EA alone; EA is a very collaborative, cross-cutting discipline.) 2.1. Program Costs – EA enables sound decisions regarding... 2.1.1. Cost Avoidance – a TCO theme 2.1.2. Sequencing – alignment of capability delivery 2.1.3. Budget Instability – a Federal reality 2.2. Investment Capital – EA illuminates new investment resources via... 2.2.1. Value Engineering – contractor-driven cost savings on existing budgets, direct or collateral 2.2.2. Reuse – reuse of investments between programs can result in savings, chargeback models; avoiding duplication 2.2.3. License Refactoring – IT license & support models may not reflect actual or intended usage 2.3. Contextual Knowledge – EA enables informed decisions by revealing... 2.3.1. Common Operating Picture (COP) – i.e. cross-program impacts and synergy, relative to context 2.3.2. Expertise & Skill – who truly should be involved in architectural decisions, both business and IT 2.3.3. Influence – the impact of politics and relationships can be examined 2.3.4. Disruptive Technologies – new technologies may reduce costs or mitigate risk in unanticipated ways 2.3.5. What-If Scenarios – can become much more refined, current, verifiable; basis for Target Architectures 2.4. Mission Performance – EA enables beneficial decision results regarding... 2.4.1. IT Performance and Optimization – towards 100% effective, available resource utilization 2.4.2. IT Stability – towards 100%, real-time uptime 2.4.3. Agility – responding to rapid changes in mission 2.4.4. Outcomes –measures of mission success, KPIs – vs. only "Outputs" 2.4.5. Constraints – appropriate response to constraints 2.4.6. Personnel Performance – better line-of-sight through performance plans to mission outcome 2.5. Mission Risk Mitigation – EA mitigates decision risks in terms of... 2.5.1. Compliance – all the right boxes are checked 2.5.2. Dependencies –cross-agency, segment, government 2.5.3. Transparency – risks, impact and resource utilization are illuminated quickly, comprehensively 2.5.4. Threats and Vulnerabilities – current, realistic awareness and profiles 2.5.5. Consequences – realization of risk can be mapped as a series of consequences, from earlier decisions or new decisions required for current issues 2.5.5.1. Unanticipated – illuminating signals of future or non-symmetric risk; helping to "future-proof" 2.5.5.2. Anticipated – discovering the level of impact that matters 3. EA Program Facet (What parts of the EA can and should be communicated, using business or mission terms?) 3.1. Architecture Models – the visual tools to be created and used 3.1.1. Operating Architecture – the Business Operating Model/Architecture elements of the EA truly drive all other elements, plus expose communication channels 3.1.2. Use Of – how can the EA models be used, and how are they populated, from a reasonable, pragmatic yet compliant perspective? What are the core/minimal models required? What's the relationship of these models, with existing system models? 3.1.3. Scope – what level of granularity within the models, and what level of abstraction across the models, is likely to be most effective and useful? 3.2. Traceability – the maturity, status, completeness of the tools 3.2.1. Status – what in fact is the degree of maturity across the integrated EA model and other relevant governance models, and who may already be benefiting from it? 3.2.2. Visibility – how does the EA visibly and effectively prove IT investment performance goals are being reached, with positive mission outcome? 3.3. Governance – what's the interaction, participation method; how are the tools used? 3.3.1. Contributions – how is the EA program informed, accept submissions, collect data? Who are the experts? 3.3.2. Review – how is the EA validated, against what criteria?  Taxonomy Usage Example:   1. To speak with: a. ...a particular set of System Owners Facing Strategic Change, via mandate (like the "Cloud First" mandate); about... b. ...how the EA program's visible and easily accessible Infrastructure Reference Model (i.e. "IRM" or "TRM"), if updated more completely with current system data, can... c. ...help shed light on ways to mitigate risks and avoid future costs associated with NOT leveraging potentially-available shared services across the enterprise... 2. ....the following Marketing & Communications (Sales) Plan can be constructed: a. Create an easy-to-read "Consequence Model" that illustrates how adoption of a cloud capability (like elastic operational storage) can enable rapid and durable compliance with the mandate – using EA traceability. Traceability might be from the IRM to the ARM (that identifies reusable services invoking the elastic storage), and then to the PRM with performance measures (such as % utilization of purchased storage allocation) included in the OMB Exhibits; and b. Schedule a meeting with the Program Owners, timed during their Acquisition Strategy meetings in response to the mandate, to use the "Consequence Model" for advising them to organize a rapid and relevant RFI solicitation for this cloud capability (regarding alternatives for sourcing elastic operational storage); and c. Schedule a series of short "Discovery" meetings with the system architecture leads (as agreed by the Program Owners), to further populate/validate the "As-Is" models and frame the "To Be" models (via scenarios), to better inform the RFI, obtain the best feedback from the vendor community, and provide potential value for and avoid impact to all other programs and systems. --end example -- Note that communications with the intended audience should take a page out of the standard "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO) playbook, using keywords and phrases relating to "value" and "outcome" vs. "compliance" and "output". Searches in email boxes, internal and external search engines for phrases like "cost avoidance strategies", "mission performance metrics" and "innovation funding" should yield messages and content from the EA team. This targeted, informed, practical sales approach should result in additional buy-in and participation, additional EA information contribution and model validation, development of more SMEs and quick "proof points" (with real-life testing) to bolster the case for EA. The proof point here is a successful, timely procurement that satisfies not only the external mandate and external oversight review, but also meets internal EA compliance/conformance goals and therefore is more transparently useful across the community. In short, if sold effectively, the EA will perform and be recognized. EA won’t therefore be used only for compliance, but also (according to a validated, stated purpose) to directly influence decisions and outcomes. The opinions, views and analysis expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Oracle.

  Read the article

• Linux Software RAID-1 in production environment

  - by Gareth

  Is it recommended to use software RAID-1 in a production environment? Due to budget constraints, I cannot get a hardware RAID controller for a new server. While I'm aware of a slight performance decrease, is it really that much of a difference?

  Read the article

• Puppet's automatically generated certificates failing

  - by gparent

  I am running a default configuration of Puppet on Debian Squeeze 6.0.4. The server's FQDN is master.example.com. The client's FQDN is client.example.com. I am able to contact the puppet master and send a CSR. I sign it using puppetca -sa but the client will still not connect. Date of both machines is within 2 seconds of Tue Apr 3 20:59:00 UTC 2012 as I wrote this sentence. This is what appears in /var/log/syslog: Apr 3 17:03:52 localhost puppet-agent[18653]: Reopening log files Apr 3 17:03:52 localhost puppet-agent[18653]: Starting Puppet client version 2.6.2 Apr 3 17:03:53 localhost puppet-agent[18653]: Could not retrieve catalog from remote server: SSL_connect returned=1 errno=0 state=SSLv3 read server certificate B: certificate verify failed Apr 3 17:03:53 localhost puppet-agent[18653]: Using cached catalog Apr 3 17:03:53 localhost puppet-agent[18653]: Could not retrieve catalog; skipping run Here is some interesting output: OpenSSL client test: client:~# openssl s_client -host master.example.com -port 8140 -cert /var/lib/puppet/ssl/certs/client.example.com.pem -key /var/lib/puppet/ssl/private_keys/client.example.com.pem -CAfile /var/lib/puppet/ssl/certs/ca.pem CONNECTED(00000003) depth=1 /CN=Puppet CA: master.example.com verify return:1 depth=0 /CN=master.example.com verify error:num=7:certificate signature failure verify return:1 depth=0 /CN=master.example.com verify return:1 18509:error:1409441B:SSL routines:SSL3_READ_BYTES:tlsv1 alert decrypt error:s3_pkt.c:1102:SSL alert number 51 18509:error:140790E5:SSL routines:SSL23_WRITE:ssl handshake failure:s23_lib.c:188: client:~# master's certificate: root@master:/etc/puppet# openssl x509 -text -noout -in /etc/puppet/ssl/certs/master.example.com.pem Certificate: Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Serial Number: 2 (0x2) Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption Issuer: CN=Puppet CA: master.example.com Validity Not Before: Apr 2 20:01:28 2012 GMT Not After : Apr 2 20:01:28 2017 GMT Subject: CN=master.example.com Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption RSA Public Key: (1024 bit) Modulus (1024 bit): 00:a9:c1:f9:4c:cd:0f:68:84:7b:f4:93:16:20:44: 7a:2b:05:8e:57:31:05:8e:9c:c8:08:68:73:71:39: c1:86:6a:59:93:6e:53:aa:43:11:83:5b:2d:8c:7d: 54:05:65:c1:e1:0e:94:4a:f0:86:58:c3:3d:4f:f3: 7d:bd:8e:29:58:a6:36:f4:3e:b2:61:ec:53:b5:38: 8e:84:ac:5f:a3:e3:8c:39:bd:cf:4f:3c:ff:a9:65: 09:66:3c:ba:10:14:69:d5:07:57:06:28:02:37:be: 03:82:fb:90:8b:7d:b3:a5:33:7b:9b:3a:42:51:12: b3:ac:dd:d5:58:69:a9:8a:ed Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical CA:FALSE Netscape Comment: Puppet Ruby/OpenSSL Internal Certificate X509v3 Key Usage: critical Digital Signature, Key Encipherment X509v3 Subject Key Identifier: 8C:2F:14:84:B6:A1:B5:0C:11:52:36:AB:E5:3F:F2:B9:B3:25:F3:1C X509v3 Extended Key Usage: critical TLS Web Server Authentication, TLS Web Client Authentication Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption 7b:2c:4f:c2:76:38:ab:03:7f:c6:54:d9:78:1d:ab:6c:45:ab: 47:02:c7:fd:45:4e:ab:b5:b6:d9:a7:df:44:72:55:0c:a5:d0: 86:58:14:ae:5f:6f:ea:87:4d:78:e4:39:4d:20:7e:3d:6d:e9: e2:5e:d7:c9:3c:27:43:a4:29:44:85:a1:63:df:2f:55:a9:6a: 72:46:d8:fb:c7:cc:ca:43:e7:e1:2c:fe:55:2a:0d:17:76:d4: e5:49:8b:85:9f:fa:0e:f6:cc:e8:28:3e:8b:47:b0:e1:02:f0: 3d:73:3e:99:65:3b:91:32:c5:ce:e4:86:21:b2:e0:b4:15:b5: 22:63 root@master:/etc/puppet# CA's certificate: root@master:/etc/puppet# openssl x509 -text -noout -in /etc/puppet/ssl/certs/ca.pem Certificate: Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Serial Number: 1 (0x1) Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption Issuer: CN=Puppet CA: master.example.com Validity Not Before: Apr 2 20:01:05 2012 GMT Not After : Apr 2 20:01:05 2017 GMT Subject: CN=Puppet CA: master.example.com Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption RSA Public Key: (1024 bit) Modulus (1024 bit): 00:b5:2c:3e:26:a3:ae:43:b8:ed:1e:ef:4d:a1:1e: 82:77:78:c2:98:3f:e2:e0:05:57:f0:8d:80:09:36: 62:be:6c:1a:21:43:59:1d:e9:b9:4d:e0:9c:fa:09: aa:12:a1:82:58:fc:47:31:ed:ad:ad:73:01:26:97: ef:d2:d6:41:6b:85:3b:af:70:00:b9:63:e9:1b:c3: ce:57:6d:95:0e:a6:d2:64:bd:1f:2c:1f:5c:26:8e: 02:fd:d3:28:9e:e9:8f:bc:46:bb:dd:25:db:39:57: 81:ed:e5:c8:1f:3d:ca:39:cf:e7:f3:63:75:f6:15: 1f:d4:71:56:ed:84:50:fb:5d Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical CA:TRUE Netscape Comment: Puppet Ruby/OpenSSL Internal Certificate X509v3 Key Usage: critical Certificate Sign, CRL Sign X509v3 Subject Key Identifier: 8C:2F:14:84:B6:A1:B5:0C:11:52:36:AB:E5:3F:F2:B9:B3:25:F3:1C Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption 1d:cd:c6:65:32:42:a5:01:62:46:87:10:da:74:7e:8b:c8:c9: 86:32:9e:c2:2e:c1:fd:00:79:f0:ef:d8:73:dd:7e:1b:1a:3f: cc:64:da:a3:38:ad:49:4e:c8:4d:e3:09:ba:bc:66:f2:6f:63: 9a:48:19:2d:27:5b:1d:2a:69:bf:4f:f4:e0:67:5e:66:84:30: e5:85:f4:49:6e:d0:92:ae:66:77:50:cf:45:c0:29:b2:64:87: 12:09:d3:10:4d:91:b6:f3:63:c4:26:b3:fa:94:2b:96:18:1f: 9b:a9:53:74:de:9c:73:a4:3a:8d:bf:fa:9c:c0:42:9d:78:49: 4d:70 root@master:/etc/puppet# Client's certificate: client:~# openssl x509 -text -noout -in /var/lib/puppet/ssl/certs/client.example.com.pem Certificate: Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Serial Number: 3 (0x3) Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption Issuer: CN=Puppet CA: master.example.com Validity Not Before: Apr 2 20:01:36 2012 GMT Not After : Apr 2 20:01:36 2017 GMT Subject: CN=client.example.com Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption RSA Public Key: (1024 bit) Modulus (1024 bit): 00:ae:88:6d:9b:e3:b1:fc:47:07:d6:bf:ea:53:d1: 14:14:9b:35:e6:70:43:e0:58:35:76:ac:c5:9d:86: 02:fd:77:28:fc:93:34:65:9d:dd:0b:ea:21:14:4d: 8a:95:2e:28:c9:a5:8d:a2:2c:0e:1c:a0:4c:fa:03: e5:aa:d3:97:98:05:59:3c:82:a9:7c:0e:e9:df:fd: 48:81:dc:33:dc:88:e9:09:e4:19:d6:e4:7b:92:33: 31:73:e4:f2:9c:42:75:b2:e1:9f:d9:49:8c:a7:eb: fa:7d:cb:62:22:90:1c:37:3a:40:95:a7:a0:3b:ad: 8e:12:7c:6e:ad:04:94:ed:47 Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical CA:FALSE Netscape Comment: Puppet Ruby/OpenSSL Internal Certificate X509v3 Key Usage: critical Digital Signature, Key Encipherment X509v3 Subject Key Identifier: 8C:2F:14:84:B6:A1:B5:0C:11:52:36:AB:E5:3F:F2:B9:B3:25:F3:1C X509v3 Extended Key Usage: critical TLS Web Server Authentication, TLS Web Client Authentication Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption 33:1f:ec:3c:91:5a:eb:c6:03:5f:a1:58:60:c3:41:ed:1f:fe: cb:b2:40:11:63:4d:ba:18:8a:8b:62:ba:ab:61:f5:a0:6c:0e: 8a:20:56:7b:10:a1:f9:1d:51:49:af:70:3a:05:f9:27:4a:25: d4:e6:88:26:f7:26:e0:20:30:2a:20:1d:c4:d3:26:f1:99:cf: 47:2e:73:90:bd:9c:88:bf:67:9e:dd:7c:0e:3a:86:6b:0b:8d: 39:0f:db:66:c0:b6:20:c3:34:84:0e:d8:3b:fc:1c:a8:6c:6c: b1:19:76:65:e6:22:3c:bf:ff:1c:74:bb:62:a0:46:02:95:fa: 83:41 client:~#

  Read the article

• MSMQ Resilience

  - by Paddy Carroll

  I have a requirement for a resilient MSMQ setup on VMWare ESX5. I am aware that we cannot allow the queue storage to be shared as it must be installed on physical disk mount, e.g. it cant be an CIFS or DFS Share. The following constraints apply: We don't use windows clustering We dont't rely on hot standbys Is there a way I can replicate the queue storage to another platform so that it can assume MSMQ duties on failure of the primary platforms using any method including queue forwarding?

  Read the article

• Migrating SQL server 2000 database to SQL server 2005

  - by rboorgapally

  Can any one suggest variou ways of migrating a database from SQL server 2000 to 2005. How do I make sure all constraints, primary keys and indexes are preserved. Is there any migration tool that preserves them.

  Read the article

• With modern PC systems, what less-than-optimal designs have we inherited?

  - by Rob Kam

  What have been less than optimal design choices, that are now (almost) immutable features of the modern PC system, and what constraints led to these choices? There have been a great many of these. For example the qwerty keyboard is widespread although the Dvorak keyboard might be a better choice. I guess this is something to do with the teletypes that were used as early computer keyboards, which had originally been modified from typewriters.

  Read the article

• SSL certificate for Oracle Application Server 11g

  - by Easter Sunshine

  I was asked to get an SSL certificate for an "Oracle Application Server 11g" which has a soon-to-expire certificate. Brushing aside the fact that 10g seems to be the newest version, I got a certificate from InCommon, as I usually do without problem (except this is the first time I supplied Oracle Application Server 11g as the software type on the CSR form). On the email containing links to download the certificate, it mentioned: Certificate Details: SSL Type : InCommon SSL Server : OTHER I forwarded the email over to the person responsible for installing it and got a reply that the server type must be Oracle Application Server for the certificate to work (the CN is the same as before). They were unable to install this certificate (no details provided to me) and mentioned they had this issue previously with Thawte when they didn't supply Oracle Application Server as the server type. I don't see any significant difference between the currently installed certificate (working) and the new one I just got signed by InCommon (not working). $ openssl x509 -in sso-current.cer -text shows, with irrelevant information ommitted. Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption Issuer: C=ZA, ST=Western Cape, L=Cape Town, O=Thawte Consulting cc, OU=Certification Services Division, CN=Thawte Premium Server CA/[email protected] Validity Not Before: Oct 1 00:00:00 2009 GMT Not After : Nov 28 23:59:59 2012 GMT Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption Public-Key: (2048 bit) Modulus: Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical CA:FALSE X509v3 CRL Distribution Points: Full Name: URI:http://crl.thawte.com/ThawteServerPremiumCA.crl X509v3 Extended Key Usage: TLS Web Server Authentication, TLS Web Client Authentication Authority Information Access: OCSP - URI:http://ocsp.thawte.com Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption and $ openssl x509 -in sso-new.cer -text shows Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption Issuer: C=US, O=Internet2, OU=InCommon, CN=InCommon Server CA Validity Not Before: Nov 8 00:00:00 2012 GMT Not After : Nov 8 23:59:59 2014 GMT Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption Public-Key: (2048 bit) Modulus: Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Authority Key Identifier: keyid:48:4F:5A:FA:2F:4A:9A:5E:E0:50:F3:6B:7B:55:A5:DE:F5:BE:34:5D X509v3 Subject Key Identifier: 18:8D:F6:F5:87:4D:C4:08:7B:2B:3F:02:A1:C7:AC:6D:A7:90:93:02 X509v3 Key Usage: critical Digital Signature, Key Encipherment X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical CA:FALSE X509v3 Extended Key Usage: TLS Web Server Authentication, TLS Web Client Authentication X509v3 Certificate Policies: Policy: 1.3.6.1.4.1.5923.1.4.3.1.1 CPS: https://www.incommon.org/cert/repository/cps_ssl.pdf X509v3 CRL Distribution Points: Full Name: URI:http://crl.incommon.org/InCommonServerCA.crl Authority Information Access: CA Issuers - URI:http://cert.incommon.org/InCommonServerCA.crt OCSP - URI:http://ocsp.incommon.org Nothing jumps out at me as the reason one would not work so I don't have a specific request for the signer for what to do differently when re-signing.

  Read the article

• Disable Device Stage Capability

  - by coelhudo

  Is it possible to prevent or disable autorun/autoplay/device-stage by modifying regedit? Because of some constraints, I cannot disable by Control Panel options. I found some related questions here, for example, and some solutions provided by Microsoft, mainly involving this key on regedit: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\policies\Explorer\NoDriveTypeAutorun But none of these solutions worked, neither after rebooting. Is there any other key or value that controls this kind of property?

  Read the article

• FTP passive mode with limited port range?

  - by Phil Keeling

  I am running FileZilla FTP Server with passive mode enabled, and due to firewall constraints I have to limit the passive mode port range to only 6 ports. My question is how would FileZilla handle any situation where more than 6 concurrent FTP connections are active and want to passively upload a file. Would it queue the connections and prioritise them in a first in, first out manner? I'm not too familiar with FTP so any insight would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• How do I change colors on-the-fly in mintty?

  - by Thomas L Holaday

  How do I change the colors in a Cygwin mintty session which is already open? Is it possible? Use case: Under environment-imposed time constraints, multiple terminal windows have been opened without forethought. In order to reduce the risk of typing the commands for system A into the terminal for system B, it would be nice if they were different colors. Is there some escape sequence or whatnot that can change the color scheme for a running session?

  Read the article

• Capture VNC server packets and transfer to and fro to routing server using C#.net

  - by Renuka

  We are using Tight VNC server in our project for screen sharing, due to some security constraints we cannot directly install Tight VNC server on clients machine. So through .net windows applicaton we are invoking Tight VNC. Now this windows application should capture the screens(packets) that VNC server passes to VNC client and transfer them to and fro to routing server, routing server will inturn transfers these packets to VNC client, which is on another network. Is there any way that VNC server packets are caputured through .Net.

  Read the article

• How can I specify rules for foreign keys in Microsoft Access using SQL?

  - by Genba

  I have to create some tables in Microsoft Access using SQL sentences, and some of the tables have foreign keys. I would like to specify the constraints and rules for foreign keys using SQL: Whether null is allowed or not Delete rule Update rule How can I specify rules for foreign keys in Microsoft Access using SQL?

  Read the article

• Generating wildcard SSL certificate

  - by Xiè Jìléi

  I can make a single SSL certificate for several different domain names: www1.example.com www2.example.com www3.example.com But *.example.com doesn't work. How can I make a single SSL certificate for all sub domains within .example.com? P.S. Here is the extension part of the generated certificate: X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Basic Constraints: CA:FALSE X509v3 Key Usage: Digital Signature, Non Repudiation, Key Encipherment X509v3 Subject Alternative Name: DNS:*.example.com It's simply not matched by any sub-domain under example.com by the browser.

  Read the article

• EF4 generates invalid script

  - by Jaxidian

  When I right-click in a .EDMX file and click Generate Database From Model, the resulting script is obviously wrong because of the table names. What it generates is the following script. Note the table names in the DROP TABLE part versus the CREATE TABLE part. Why is this inconsistent? This is obviously not a reusable script. What I created was an Entity named "Address" and an Entity named "Company", etc (all singular). The EntitySet names are pluralized. The "Pluralize New Objects" boolean does not change this either. So what's the deal? For what it's worth, I originally generated the EDMX by pointing it to a database that had tables with non-pluralized names and now that I've made some changes, I want to go back the other way. I'd like to have the option to go back and forth as neither the db-first nor the model-first model is ideal in all scenarios, and I have the control to ensure that there will be no merging issues from multiple people going both ways at the same time. -- -------------------------------------------------- -- Dropping existing FOREIGN KEY constraints -- NOTE: if the constraint does not exist, an ignorable error will be reported. -- -------------------------------------------------- ALTER TABLE [Address] DROP CONSTRAINT [FK_Address_StateID-State_ID]; GO ALTER TABLE [Company] DROP CONSTRAINT [FK_Company_AddressID-Address_ID]; GO ALTER TABLE [Employee] DROP CONSTRAINT [FK_Employee_BossEmployeeID-Employee_ID]; GO ALTER TABLE [Employee] DROP CONSTRAINT [FK_Employee_CompanyID-Company_ID]; GO ALTER TABLE [Employee] DROP CONSTRAINT [FK_Employee_PersonID-Person_ID]; GO ALTER TABLE [Person] DROP CONSTRAINT [FK_Person_AddressID-Address_ID]; GO -- -------------------------------------------------- -- Dropping existing tables -- NOTE: if the table does not exist, an ignorable error will be reported. -- -------------------------------------------------- DROP TABLE [Address]; GO DROP TABLE [Company]; GO DROP TABLE [Employee]; GO DROP TABLE [Person]; GO DROP TABLE [State]; GO -- -------------------------------------------------- -- Creating all tables -- -------------------------------------------------- -- Creating table 'Addresses' CREATE TABLE [Addresses] ( [ID] int IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [StreetAddress] nvarchar(100) NOT NULL, [City] nvarchar(100) NOT NULL, [StateID] int NOT NULL, [Zip] nvarchar(10) NOT NULL ); GO -- Creating table 'Companies' CREATE TABLE [Companies] ( [ID] int IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [Name] nvarchar(100) NOT NULL, [AddressID] int NOT NULL ); GO -- Creating table 'People' CREATE TABLE [People] ( [ID] int IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [FirstName] nvarchar(100) NOT NULL, [LastName] nvarchar(100) NOT NULL, [AddressID] int NOT NULL ); GO -- Creating table 'States' CREATE TABLE [States] ( [ID] int IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [Name] nvarchar(100) NOT NULL, [Abbreviation] nvarchar(2) NOT NULL ); GO -- Creating table 'Employees' CREATE TABLE [Employees] ( [ID] int IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [PersonID] int NOT NULL, [CompanyID] int NOT NULL, [Position] nvarchar(100) NOT NULL, [BossEmployeeID] int NULL ); GO -- -------------------------------------------------- -- Creating all PRIMARY KEY constraints -- -------------------------------------------------- -- Creating primary key on [ID] in table 'Addresses' ALTER TABLE [Addresses] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_Addresses] PRIMARY KEY ([ID] ); GO -- Creating primary key on [ID] in table 'Companies' ALTER TABLE [Companies] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_Companies] PRIMARY KEY ([ID] ); GO -- Creating primary key on [ID] in table 'People' ALTER TABLE [People] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_People] PRIMARY KEY ([ID] ); GO -- Creating primary key on [ID] in table 'States' ALTER TABLE [States] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_States] PRIMARY KEY ([ID] ); GO -- Creating primary key on [ID] in table 'Employees' ALTER TABLE [Employees] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_Employees] PRIMARY KEY ([ID] ); GO -- -------------------------------------------------- -- Creating all FOREIGN KEY constraints -- -------------------------------------------------- -- Creating foreign key on [StateID] in table 'Addresses' ALTER TABLE [Addresses] ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_Address_StateID_State_ID] FOREIGN KEY ([StateID]) REFERENCES [States] ([ID]) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; -- Creating non-clustered index for FOREIGN KEY 'FK_Address_StateID_State_ID' CREATE INDEX [IX_FK_Address_StateID_State_ID] ON [Addresses] ([StateID]); GO -- Creating foreign key on [AddressID] in table 'Companies' ALTER TABLE [Companies] ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_Company_AddressID_Address_ID] FOREIGN KEY ([AddressID]) REFERENCES [Addresses] ([ID]) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; -- Creating non-clustered index for FOREIGN KEY 'FK_Company_AddressID_Address_ID' CREATE INDEX [IX_FK_Company_AddressID_Address_ID] ON [Companies] ([AddressID]); GO -- Creating foreign key on [AddressID] in table 'People' ALTER TABLE [People] ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_Person_AddressID_Address_ID] FOREIGN KEY ([AddressID]) REFERENCES [Addresses] ([ID]) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; -- Creating non-clustered index for FOREIGN KEY 'FK_Person_AddressID_Address_ID' CREATE INDEX [IX_FK_Person_AddressID_Address_ID] ON [People] ([AddressID]); GO -- Creating foreign key on [CompanyID] in table 'Employees' ALTER TABLE [Employees] ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_Employee_CompanyID_Company_ID] FOREIGN KEY ([CompanyID]) REFERENCES [Companies] ([ID]) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; -- Creating non-clustered index for FOREIGN KEY 'FK_Employee_CompanyID_Company_ID' CREATE INDEX [IX_FK_Employee_CompanyID_Company_ID] ON [Employees] ([CompanyID]); GO -- Creating foreign key on [BossEmployeeID] in table 'Employees' ALTER TABLE [Employees] ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_Employee_BossEmployeeID_Employee_ID] FOREIGN KEY ([BossEmployeeID]) REFERENCES [Employees] ([ID]) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; -- Creating non-clustered index for FOREIGN KEY 'FK_Employee_BossEmployeeID_Employee_ID' CREATE INDEX [IX_FK_Employee_BossEmployeeID_Employee_ID] ON [Employees] ([BossEmployeeID]); GO -- Creating foreign key on [PersonID] in table 'Employees' ALTER TABLE [Employees] ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_Employee_PersonID_Person_ID] FOREIGN KEY ([PersonID]) REFERENCES [People] ([ID]) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; -- Creating non-clustered index for FOREIGN KEY 'FK_Employee_PersonID_Person_ID' CREATE INDEX [IX_FK_Employee_PersonID_Person_ID] ON [Employees] ([PersonID]); GO -- -------------------------------------------------- -- Script has ended -- --------------------------------------------------

  Read the article

• Performance Gains using Indexed Views and Computed Columns

  - by NeilHambly

  Hello This is a quick follow-up blog to the Presention I gave last night @ the London UG Meeting ( 17th March 2010 ) It was a great evening and we had a big full house (over 120 Registered for this event), due to time constraints we had I was unable to spend enough time on this topic to really give it justice or any the myriad of questions that arose form the session, I will be gathering all my material and putting a comprehensive BLOG entry on this topic in the next couple of days.. In the meantime here is the slides from last night if you wanted to again review it or if you where not @ the meeting If you wish to contact me then please feel free to send me emails @ [email protected] Finally  - a quick thanks to Tony Rogerson for allowing me to be a Presenter last night (so we know who we can blame !)  and all the other presenters for thier support Watch this space Folks more to follow soon.. 

  Read the article

• Animations in FBX exported from Maya are anchored in the wrong place

  - by Simon P Stevens

  We are trying to export a model and animation from Maya into Unity3d. In Maya, the model is anchored (pivot point) at the feet (and the body moves up and down). However after we have performed the FBX export, and imported the file into Unity the model is now appears to be anchored by the waist/head and the feet move. These example videos probably help explain the problem more clearly: Example video - Maya - Correct Example video - Unity - Wrong We have also noticed that if we take the FBX file and import it back into Maya we have exactly the same problem. It seems to be that the constraints no longer work after the FBX is reimported back to Maya, which just kills the connection between the joints and the control objects. When we exported the FBX we have tried checking the 'bake animations' check box. The fact that the same problem exist when importing the FBX back into both Maya and Unity suggests that the source of the problem is most likely with the Maya FBX export. Has anyone encountered this problem before and have any ideas how to fix it?

  Read the article

• How do tight timelines and scheduling pressure affect TCO and delivery time?

  - by JonathanHayward

  A friend's father, who is a software engineering manager, said, emphatically, "The number one cause of scheduling overruns is scheduling pressure." Where does the research stand? Is a moderate amount of scheduling pressure invigorating, or is the manager I mentioned right or wrong, or is it a matter of "the more scheduling pressure you have, the longer the delivery time and the more TCO?" Is it one of those things where ideally software engineering would work without scheduling pressure but practically we have to work with constraints of real-world situations? Any links to software engineering literature would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Online Introduction to Relational Databases (and not only) with Stanford University!

  - by Luca Zavarella

  How many of you know exactly the definition of "relational database"? What exactly the adjective "relational" refers to? Many of you allow themselves to be deceived, thinking this adjective is related to foreign key constraints between tables. Instead this adjective lurks in a world based on set theory, relational algebra and the concept of relationship intended as a table.Well, for those who want to deep the fundamentals of relational model, relational algebra, XML, OLAP and emerging "NoSQL" systems, Stanford University School of Engineering offers a public and free online introductory course to databases. This is the related web page: http://www.db-class.com/ The course will last 2 months, after which there will be a final exam. Passing the final exam will entitle the participants to receive a statement of accomplishment. A syllabus and more information is available here. Happy eLearning to you!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >