Search Results

Search found 9254 results on 371 pages for 'approach'.

Page 2/371 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Calculating an orbit and approach velocties

    - by Mob
    I have drones in my game that need to approach and orbit a node and shoot at it. Problem is I want to stay away from a real physics simulation, meaning I don't want to give the node and drone a mass and the drone's thrusters' a force. I just want to find the best way to approach and then enter orbit. There was a pretty good answer about using bezier curves and doing it that way, but that is essentially a tween between two fixed points. The nodes are also moving as the drones enter orbit.

    Read the article

  • Apress Deal of the Day - 22/Feb/2010 - Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach

    - by TATWORTH
    Todays $10 deal from Apress at  http://www.apress.com/info/dailydeal is "Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach" Whilst I am still wary of using the Entity framework and I would caution against its use for updates in financial systems, unless you use a technique such as you can find on pages 509-512 of this book. This book is very impressive as I found the answer to this in about 2 minutes from the time I downloaded the e-book. Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach With this book, you will learn the core concepts of Entity Framework through a broad range of clear and concise solutions to everyday data access tasks. Armed with this experience, you will be ready to dive deep into Entity Framework, experiment with new approaches, and develop ways to solve even the most difficult data access challenges. $49.99 | Published May 2010 | Larry Tenny

    Read the article

  • Azure Table&ndash;Entities having different Schema (Implementation Approach)

    - by kaleidoscope
    Below is the approach that can be implemented whenever there is a requirement of creating an Azure Table having entities with different schema definitions.   We can have a Parent Entity defined which will hold the data common in all the entity types and then rest all entities should inherit from this parent class. There will be only on DataServiceContext class which will accept the object of the Parent class and this can be used for CRUD operations of all the entities. Hope this approach helps! Thanks. Technorati Tags: Azure Table,Geeta

    Read the article

  • Looking for best approach to create new projects for enviroment specifics files

    - by Ness
    ClearCase Question... Overview of requirements: There are 3 diff environments (DEV, TEST and PROD) which have a folder called 'common' that users across all envs. There are multiple servers in those 3 envs and we want to store their server environment specific configuration files in Clearcase. The executables files are different for each environment. Thus there will not be cross delivery require between dev/test/prod. Any thoughts on how we can approach this? Is keeping it simplest is the best approach here? One component to one vobs as (DEV_Serv1, TEST_Serv1, PROD_Serv1, Dev_Serv2, Test_Serv2 and etc)? OR Have multiple components VOB? One other thing is developers here like to use snapshots views.

    Read the article

  • Approach for packing 2D shapes while minimizing total enclosing area

    - by Dennis
    Not sure on my tags for this question, but in short .... I need to solve a problem of packing industrial parts into crates while minimizing total containing area. These parts are motors, or pumps, or custom-made components, and they have quite unusual shapes. For some, it may be possible to assume that a part === rectangular cuboid, but some are not so simple, i.e. they assume a shape more of that of a hammer or letter T. With those, (assuming 2D shape), by alternating direction of top & bottom, one can pack more objects into the same space, than if all tops were in the same direction. Crude example below with letter "T"-shaped parts: ***** xxxxx ***** x ***** *** ooo * x vs * x vs * x vs * x o * x * xxxxx * x * x o xxxxx xxx Right now we are solving the problem by something like this: using CAD software, make actual models of how things fit in crate boxes make estimates of actual crate dimensions & write them into Excel file (1) is crazy amount of work and as the result we have just a limited amount of possible entries in (2), the Excel file. The good things is that programming this is relatively easy. Given a combination of products to go into crates, we do a lookup, and if entry exists in the Excel (or Database), we bring it out. If it doesn't, we say "sorry, no data!". I don't necessarily want to go full force on making up some crazy algorithm that given geometrical part description can align, rotate, and figure out best part packing into a crate, given its shape, but maybe I do.. Question Well, here is my question: assuming that I can represent my parts as 2D (to be determined how), and that some parts look like letter T, and some parts look like rectangles, which algorithm can I use to give me a good estimate on the dimensions of the encompassing area, while ensuring that the parts are packed in a minimal possible area, to minimize crating/shipping costs? Are there approximation algorithms? Seeing how this can get complex, is there an existing library I could use? My thought / Approach My naive approach would be to define a way to describe position of parts, and place the first part, compute total enclosing area & dimensions. Then place 2nd part in 0 degree orientation, repeat, place it at 180 degree orientation, repeat (for my case I don't think 90 degree rotations will be meaningful due to long lengths of parts). Proceed using brute force "tacking on" other parts to the enclosing area until all parts are processed. I may have to shift some parts a tad (see 3rd pictorial example above with letters T). This adds a layer of 2D complexity rather than 1D. I am not sure how to approach this. One idea I have is genetic algorithms, but I think those will take up too much processing power and time. I will need to look out for shape collisions, as well as adding extra padding space, since we are talking about real parts with irregularities rather than perfect imaginary blocks. I'm afraid this can get geometrically messy fairly fast, and I'd rather keep things simple, if I can. But what if the best (practical) solution is to pack things into different crate boxes rather than just one? This can get a bit more tricky. There is human element involved as well, i.e. like parts can go into same box and are thus a constraint to be considered. Some parts that are not the same are sometimes grouped together for shipping and can be considered as a common grouped item. Sometimes customers want things shipped their way, which adds human element to constraints. so there will have to be some customization.

    Read the article

  • A Simple Approach For Presenting With Code Samples

    - by Jesse Taber
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/GruffCode/archive/2013/07/31/a-simple-approach-for-presenting-with-code-samples.aspxI’ve been getting ready for a presentation and have been struggling a bit with the best way to show and execute code samples. I don’t present often (hardly ever), but when I do I like the presentation to have a lot of succinct and executable code snippets to help illustrate the points that I’m making. Depending on what the presentation is about, I might just want to build an entire sample application that I would run during the presentation. In other cases, however, building a full-blown application might not really be the best way to present the code. The presentation I’m working on now is for an open source utility library for dealing with dates and times. I could have probably cooked up a sample app for accepting date and time input and then contrived ways in which it could put the library through its paces, but I had trouble coming up with one app that would illustrate all of the various features of the library that I wanted to highlight. I finally decided that what I really needed was an approach that met the following criteria: Simple: I didn’t want the user interface or overall architecture of a sample application to serve as a distraction from the demonstration of the syntax of the library that the presentation is about. I want to be able to present small bits of code that are focused on accomplishing a single task. Several of these examples will look similar, and that’s OK. I want each sample to “stand on its own” and not rely much on external classes or methods (other than the library that is being presented, of course). “Debuggable” (not really a word, I know): I want to be able to easily run the sample with the debugger attached in Visual Studio should I want to step through any bits of code and show what certain values might be at run time. As far as I know this rules out something like LinqPad, though using LinqPad to present code samples like this is actually a very interesting idea that I might explore another time. Flexible and Selectable: I’m going to have lots of code samples to show, and I want to be able to just package them all up into a single project or module and have an easy way to just run the sample that I want on-demand. Since I’m presenting on a .NET framework library, one of the simplest ways in which I could execute some code samples would be to just create a Console application and use Console.WriteLine to output the pertinent info at run time. This gives me a “no frills” harness from which to run my code samples, and I just hit ‘F5’ to run it with the debugger. This satisfies numbers 1 and 2 from my list of criteria above, but item 3 is a little harder. By default, just running a console application is going to execute the ‘main’ method, and then terminate the program after all code is executed. If I want to have several different code samples and run them one at a time, it would be cumbersome to keep swapping the code I want in and out of the ‘main’ method of the console application. What I really want is an easy way to keep the console app running throughout the whole presentation and just have it run the samples I want when I want. I could setup a simple Windows Forms or WPF desktop application with buttons for the different samples, but then I’m getting away from my first criteria of keeping things as simple as possible. Infinite Loops To The Rescue I found a way to have a simple console application satisfy all three of my requirements above, and it involves using an infinite loop and some Console.ReadLine calls that will give the user an opportunity to break out and exit the program. (All programs that need to run until they are closed explicitly (or crash!) likely use similar constructs behind the scenes. Create a new Windows Forms project, look in the ‘Program.cs’ that gets generated, and then check out the docs for the Application.Run method that it calls.). Here’s how the main method might look: 1: static void Main(string[] args) 2: { 3: do 4: { 5: Console.Write("Enter command or 'exit' to quit: > "); 6: var command = Console.ReadLine(); 7: if ((command ?? string.Empty).Equals("exit", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) 8: { 9: Console.WriteLine("Quitting."); 10: break; 11: } 12: 13: } while (true); 14: } The idea here is the app prompts me for the command I want to run, or I can type in ‘exit’ to break out of the loop and let the application close. The only trick now is to create a set of commands that map to each of the code samples that I’m going to want to run. Each sample is already encapsulated in a single public method in a separate class, so I could just write a big switch statement or create a hashtable/dictionary that maps command text to an Action that will invoke the proper method, but why re-invent the wheel? CLAP For Your Own Presentation I’ve blogged about the CLAP library before, and it turns out that it’s a great fit for satisfying criteria #3 from my list above. CLAP lets you decorate methods in a class with an attribute and then easily invoke those methods from within a console application. CLAP was designed to take the arguments passed into the console app from the command line and parse them to determine which method to run and what arguments to pass to that method, but there’s no reason you can’t re-purpose it to accept command input from within the infinite loop defined above and invoke the corresponding method. Here’s how you might define a couple of different methods to contain two different code samples that you want to run during your presentation: 1: public static class CodeSamples 2: { 3: [Verb(Aliases="one")] 4: public static void SampleOne() 5: { 6: Console.WriteLine("This is sample 1"); 7: } 8:   9: [Verb(Aliases="two")] 10: public static void SampleTwo() 11: { 12: Console.WriteLine("This is sample 2"); 13: } 14: } A couple of things to note about the sample above: I’m using static methods. You don’t actually need to use static methods with CLAP, but the syntax ends up being a bit simpler and static methods happen to lend themselves well to the “one self-contained method per code sample” approach that I want to use. The methods are decorated with a ‘Verb’ attribute. This tells CLAP that they are eligible targets for commands. The “Aliases” argument lets me give them short and easy-to-remember aliases that can be used to invoke them. By default, CLAP just uses the full method name as the command name, but with aliases you can simply the usage a bit. I’m not using any parameters. CLAP’s main feature is its ability to parse out arguments from a command line invocation of a console application and automatically pass them in as parameters to the target methods. My code samples don’t need parameters ,and honestly having them would complicate giving the presentation, so this is a good thing. You could use this same approach to invoke methods with parameters, but you’d have a couple of things to figure out. When you invoke a .NET application from the command line, Windows will parse the arguments and pass them in as a string array (called ‘args’ in the boilerplate console project Program.cs). The parsing that gets done here is smart enough to deal with things like treating strings in double quotes as one argument, and you’d have to re-create that within your infinite loop if you wanted to use parameters. I plan on either submitting a pull request to CLAP to add this capability or maybe just making a small utility class/extension method to do it and posting that here in the future. So I now have a simple class with static methods to contain my code samples, and an infinite loop in my ‘main’ method that can accept text commands. Wiring this all up together is pretty easy: 1: static void Main(string[] args) 2: { 3: do 4: { 5: try 6: { 7: Console.Write("Enter command or 'exit' to quit: > "); 8: var command = Console.ReadLine(); 9: if ((command ?? string.Empty).Equals("exit", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) 10: { 11: Console.WriteLine("Quitting."); 12: break; 13: } 14:   15: Parser.Run<CodeSamples>(new[] { command }); 16: Console.WriteLine("---------------------------------------------------------"); 17: } 18: catch (Exception ex) 19: { 20: Console.Error.WriteLine("Error: " + ex.Message); 21: } 22:   23: } while (true); 24: } Note that I’m now passing the ‘CodeSamples’ class into the CLAP ‘Parser.Run’ as a type argument. This tells CLAP to inspect that class for methods that might be able to handle the commands passed in. I’m also throwing in a little “----“ style line separator and some basic error handling (because I happen to know that some of the samples are going to throw exceptions for demonstration purposes) and I’m good to go. Now during my presentation I can just have the console application running the whole time with the debugger attached and just type in the alias of the code sample method that I want to run when I want to run it.

    Read the article

  • Best approach for utility class library using Visual Studio

    - by gregsdennis
    I have a collection of classes that I commonly (but not always) use when developing WPF applications. The trouble I have is that if I want to use only a subset of the classes, I have three options: Distribute the entire DLL. While this approach makes code maintenance easier, it does require distributing a large DLL for minimal code functionality. Copy the classes I need to the current application. This approach solves the problem of not distributing unused code, but completely eliminates code maintenance. Maintain each class/feature in a separate project. This solves both problems from above, but then I have dramatically increased the number of files that need to be distributed, and it bloats my VS solution with tiny projects. Ideally, I'd like a combination of 1 & 3: A single project that contains all of my utility classes but builds to a DLL containing only the classes that are used in the current application. Are there any other common approaches that I haven't considered? Is there any way to do what I want? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Variant Management– Which Approach fits for my Product?

    - by C. Chadwick
    Jürgen Kunz – Director Product Development – Oracle ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Introduction In a difficult economic environment, it is important for companies to understand the customer requirements in detail and to address them in their products. Customer specific products, however, usually cause increased costs. Variant management helps to find the best combination of standard components and custom components which balances customer’s product requirements and product costs. Depending on the type of product, different approaches to variant management will be applied. For example the automotive product “car” or electronic/high-tech products like a “computer”, with a pre-defined set of options to be combined in the individual configuration (so called “Assembled to Order” products), require a different approach to products in heavy machinery, which are (at least partially) engineered in a customer specific way (so-called “Engineered-to Order” products). This article discusses different approaches to variant management. Starting with the simple Bill of Material (BOM), this article presents three different approaches to variant management, which are provided by Agile PLM. Single level BOM and Variant BOM The single level BOM is the basic form of the BOM. The product structure is defined using assemblies and single parts. A particular product is thus represented by a fixed product structure. As soon as you have to manage product variants, the single level BOM is no longer sufficient. A variant BOM will be needed to manage product variants. The variant BOM is sometimes referred to as 150% BOM, since a variant BOM contains more parts and assemblies than actually needed to assemble the (final) product – just 150% of the parts You can evolve the variant BOM from the single level BOM by replacing single nodes with a placeholder node. The placeholder in this case represents the possible variants of a part or assembly. Product structure nodes, which are part of any product, are so-called “Must-Have” parts. “Optional” parts can be omitted in the final product. Additional attributes allow limiting the quantity of parts/assemblies which can be assigned at a certain position in the Variant BOM. Figure 1 shows the variant BOM of Agile PLM. Figure 1 Variant BOM in Agile PLM During the instantiation of the Variant BOM, the placeholders get replaced by specific variants of the parts and assemblies. The selection of the desired or appropriate variants is either done step by step by the user or by applying pre-defined configuration rules. As a result of the instantiation, an independent BOM will be created (Figure 2). Figure 2 Instantiated BOM in Agile PLM This kind of Variant BOM  can be used for „Assembled –To-Order“ type products as well as for „Engineered-to-Order“-type products. In case of “Assembled –To-Order” type products, typically the instantiation is done automatically with pre-defined configuration rules. For „Engineered- to-Order“-type products at least part of the product is selected manually to make use of customized parts/assemblies, that have been engineered according to the specific custom requirements. Template BOM The Template BOM is used for „Engineered-to-Order“-type products. It is another type of variant BOM. The engineer works in a flexible environment which allows him to build the most creative solutions. At the same time the engineer shall be guided to re-use existing solutions and it shall be assured that product variants of the same product family share the same base structure. The template BOM defines the basic structure of products belonging to the same product family. Let’s take a gearbox as an example. The customer specific configuration of the gearbox is influenced by several parameters (e.g. rpm range, transmitted torque), which are defined in the customer’s requirement document.  Figure 3 shows part of a Template BOM (yellow) and its relation to the product family hierarchy (blue).  Figure 3 Template BOM Every component of the Template BOM has links to the variants that have been engineeried so far for the component (depending on the level in the Template BOM, they are product variants, Assembly Variant or single part variants). This library of solutions, the so-called solution space, can be used by the engineers to build new product variants. In the best case, the engineer selects an existing solution variant, such as the gearbox shown in figure 3. When the existing variants do not fulfill the specific requirements, a new variant will be engineered. This new variant must be compliant with the given Template BOM. If we look at the gearbox in figure 3  it must consist of a transmission housing, a Connecting Plate, a set of Gears and a Planetary transmission – pre-assumed that all components are must have components. The new variant will enhance the solution space and is automatically available for re-use in future variants. The result of the instantiation of the Template BOM is a stand-alone BOM which represents the customer specific product variant. Modular BOM The concept of the modular BOM was invented in the automotive industry. Passenger cars are so-called „Assembled-to-Order“-products. The customer first selects the specific equipment of the car (so-called specifications) – for instance engine, audio equipment, rims, color. Based on this information the required parts will be determined and the customer specific car will be assembled. Certain combinations of specification are not available for the customer, because they are not feasible from technical perspective (e.g. a convertible with sun roof) or because the combination will not be offered for marketing reasons (e.g. steel rims with a sports line car). The modular BOM (yellow structure in figure 4) is defined in the context of a specific product family (in the sample it is product family „Speedstar“). It is the same modular BOM for the different types of cars of the product family (e.g. sedan, station wagon). The assembly or single parts of the car (blue nodes in figure 4) are assigned at the leaf level of the modular BOM. The assignment of assembly and parts to the modular BOM is enriched with a configuration rule (purple elements in figure 4). The configuration rule defines the conditions to use a specific assembly or single part. The configuration rule is valid in the context of a type of car (green elements in figure 4). Color specific parts are assigned to the color independent parts via additional configuration rules (grey elements in figure 4). The configuration rules use Boolean operators to connect the specifications. Additional consistency rules (constraints) may be used to define invalid combinations of specification (so-called exclusions). Furthermore consistency rules may be used to add specifications to the set of specifications. For instance it is important that a car with diesel engine always is build using the high capacity battery.  Figure 4 Modular BOM The calculation of the car configuration consists of several steps. First the consistency rules (constraints) are applied. Resulting from that specification might be added automatically. The second step will determine the assemblies and single parts for the complete structure of the modular BOM, by evaluating the configuration rules in the context of the current type of car. The evaluation of the rules for one component in the modular BOM might result in several rules being fulfilled. In this case the most specific rule (typically the longest rule) will win. Thanks to this approach, it is possible to add a specific variant to the modular BOM without the need to change any other configuration rules.  As a result the whole set of configuration rules is easy to maintain. Finally the color specific assemblies respective parts will be determined and the configuration is completed. Figure 5 Calculated Car Configuration The result of the car configuration is shown in figure 5. It shows the list of assemblies respective single parts (blue components in figure 5), which are required to build the customer specific car. Summary There are different approaches to variant management. Three different approaches have been presented in this article. At the end of the day, it is the type of the product which decides about the best approach.  For „Assembled to Order“-type products it is very likely that you can define the configuration rules and calculate the product variant automatically. Products of type „Engineered-to-Order“ ,however, need to be engineered. Nevertheless in the majority of cases, part of the product structure can be generated automatically in a similar way to „Assembled to Order“-tape products.  That said it is important first to analyze the product portfolio, in order to define the best approach to variant management.

    Read the article

  • The Iron Bird Approach

    - by David Paquette
    It turns out that designing software is not so different than designing commercial aircraft.  I just finished watching a video that talked about the approach that Bombardier is taking in designing the new C Series aircraft.  I was struck by the similarities to agile approaches to software design.  In the video, Bombardier describes how they are using an Iron Bird to work through a number of design questions in advance of ever having a version of the aircraft that can ever be flown.  The Iron Bird is a life size replica of the plane.  Based on the name, I would assume the plane is built in a very heavy material that could never fly.  Using this replica, Bombardier is able to valid certain assumptions such as the length of each wire in the electric system.  They are also able to confirm that some parts are working properly (like the rudders).  They even go as far as to have a complete replica of the cockpit.  This allows Bombardier to put pilots in the cockpit to run through simulated take-off and landing sequences. The basic tenant of the approach seems to be Validate your design early with working prototypes Get feedback from users early, well in advance of finishing the end product   In software development, we tend to think of ourselves as special.  I often tell people that it is difficult to draw comparisons to building items in the physical world (“Building software is nothing like building a sky scraper”).  After watching this video, I am wondering if designing/building software is actually a lot like designing/building commercial aircraft.   Watch the video here (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/video/video-selling-the-c-series/article4400616/)

    Read the article

  • How do i approach this collision model?

    - by PeeS
    this is the game level prototype i have already implemented. It has few objects per room to allow me to finally add some collision detection/response code into it. VIDEO As you can probably see, every object inside has it's own AABB, even the room itself has AABB. So a player is like 'inside the Room AABB'. My player will be exactly inside the room, so he would have to collide correctly with those AABBs, so that when he hits any of those objects inside he get's a proper collision response from those AABB's. Now i would like to hear from you what kind of collision approach should i choose in here? How do i approach this kind of stuff: AABB to AABB collision detection then when this is positive go with AABB - Tri to find proper plane normal and calculate response ? AABB to AABB then when positive go with AABB - AABB Side check to find proper proper plane normal and calculate response? Anything else? How do you do this ? Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • What is the best approach for deploying apps to companies

    - by Supercell
    What is the best approach for the following scenario: 1) A publicly available app (available in app stores) which is used by end users to make use of services offered by multiple companies. 2) These companies maintain their services also using a mobile app. I'm not sure on how to solve the second part. Having one app for both enduser and admin functionality, secured by username/password doesn't sound like a good idea. This would leave the only option of developing a separate admin application for the companies. What is the best approach to deploy "admin" like mobile apps to companies only, for Android, iOS and Windows Phone? Some additional information: Public App ---- Servers ----- Multiple Company Apps The public app shows all companies offering their services. An end user uses the public app to order something from a specific company. The order is sent to our servers. Our servers send the order to the associated company. This order is displayed on the company's admin app and given the option to accept the order.

    Read the article

  • Best method to implement a filtered search

    - by j0N45
    I would like to ask you, your opinion when it comes to implement a filtered search form. Let's imagine the following case: 1 Big table with lots of columns It might be important to say that this SQL Server You need to implement a form to search data in this table, and in this form you'll have several check boxes that allow you to costumize this search. Now my question here is which one of the following should be the best way to implement the search? Create a stored procedure with a query inside. This stored procedure will check if the parameters are given by the application and in the case they are not given a wildcard will be putted in the query. Create a dynamic query, that is built accordingly to what is given by the application. I am asking this because I know that SQL Server creates an execution plan when the stored procedure is created, in order to optimize its performance, however by creating a dynamic query inside of the stored procedure will we sacrifice the optimization gained by the execution plan? Please tell me what would be the best approach in your oppinion.

    Read the article

  • Explanation needed, for “Ask, don't tell” approach?

    - by the_naive
    I'm taking a course on design patterns in software engineering and here I'm trying to understand the good and the bad way of design relating to "coupling" and "cohesion". I could not understand the concept described in the following image. The example of code shown in the image is ambiguous to me, so I can't quite clearly get what exactly "Ask, don't tell!" approach mean. Could you please explain?

    Read the article

  • Good approach for hundreds of comsumers and big files

    - by ????? ???????
    I have several files (nearly 1GB each) with data. Data is a string line. I need to process each of these files with several hundreds of consumers. Each of these consumers does some processing that differs from others. Consumers do not write anywhere concurrently. They only need input string. After processing they update their local buffers. Consumers can easily be executed in parallel. Important: With one specific file each consumer has to process all lines (without skipping) in correct order (as they appear in file). The order of processing different files doesn't matter. Processing of a single line by one consumer is comparably fast. I expect less than 50 microseconds on Corei5. So now I'm looking for the good approach to this problem. This is going to be be a part of a .NET project, so please let's stick with .NET only (C# is preferable). I know about TPL and DataFlow. I guess that the most relevant would be BroadcastBlock. But i think that the problem here is that with each line I'll have to wait for all consumers to finish in order to post the new one. I guess that it would be not very efficient. I think that ideally situation would be something like this: One thread reads from file and writes to the buffer. Each consumer, when it is ready, reads the line from the buffer concurrently and processes it. The entry from the buffer shouldn't be deleted as one consumer reads it. It can be deleted only when all consumers have processed it. TPL schedules consumer threads itself. If one consumer outperforms the others, it shouldn't wait and can read more recent entries from the buffer. Am i right with this kind of approach? Whether yes or not, how can i implement the good solution? A bit was already discussed on StackOverflow: link

    Read the article

  • The Use-Case Driven Approach to Change Management

    - by Lauren Clark
    In the third entry of the series on OUM and PMI’s Pulse of the Profession, we took a look at the continued importance of change management and risk management. The topic of change management and OUM’s use-case driven approach has come up in few recent conversations. So I thought I would jot down a few thoughts on how the use-case driven approach aids a project team in managing the project’s scope. The use-case model is one of several tools in OUM that is used to establish and manage the project's scope.  Because a use-case model can be understood by both business and IT project team members, it can serve as a bridge for ongoing collaboration as well as a visual diagram that encapsulates all agreed-upon functionality. This makes it a vital artifact in identifying changes to the project’s scope. Here are some of the primary benefits of using the use-case model as part of the effort for establishing and managing project scope: The use-case model quickly communicates scope in a straightforward manner. All project stakeholders can have a common foundation for the decisions regarding architecture and design and how they relate to the project's objectives. Once agreed upon, the model can be put under change control and any updates to the model can then be quickly identified as potentially affecting the project’s scope.  Changes requested or discovered later in the project can be analyzed objectively for their impact on project's budget, resources and schedule. A modular foundation for the design of the software solution can be established in Elaboration.  This permits work to be divided up effectively and executed in so that the most important and riskiest use-cases can be tackled early in the project. The use-case model helps the team make informed decisions about implementation priorities, which allows effective allocation of limited project resources.  This is very helpful in not only managing scope, but in doing iterative and incremental planning which relies heavily on the ability to identify project priorities. Bottom line is that the use-case model gives the project team solid understanding of scope early in the project.  Combine this understanding with effective project management and communication and you have an effective tool for reducing the risk of overruns in budget and/or time due to out of control scope changes. Now that you’ve had a chance to read these thoughts on the use-case model and project scope, please let me know your feedback based on your experience.

    Read the article

  • How to charge in agile iterative approach?

    - by user1620696
    I have a doubt about budgeting when working with agile iterative approach. If I understood well, in agile at the end of each iteration we have usable product, so we have some of the requirements met and then some part of the software will be already working. How do we charge for our work in this methodology? Do we charge per iteration, i.e. charge per major requirements being met, or just charge the customer when the software is indeed finished and then receive for everything at once?

    Read the article

  • Microsoft (Bing) Offers Innovative Approach to Search

    In seemingly constant evolution, Microsoft's search engine has not only been desperately seeking search engine market-share; but a brand and corporate identity as well. The most recent approach from Microsoft, describes Bing as a "decision engine". Bing endeavors to be the search engine that finds and organizes the answers you need, so you can make faster; more informed decisions.

    Read the article

  • OIM 11g : Multi-thread approach for writing custom scheduled job

    - by Saravanan V S
    In this post I have shared my experience of designing and developing an OIM schedule job that uses multi threaded approach for updating data in OIM using APIs.  I have used thread pool (in particular fixed thread pool) pattern in developing the OIM schedule job. The thread pooling pattern has noted advantages compared to thread per task approach. I have listed few of the advantage here ·         Threads are reused ·         Creation and tear-down cost of thread is reduced ·         Task execution latency is reduced ·         Improved performance ·         Controlled and efficient management of memory and resources used by threads More about java thread pool http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/pools.html The following diagram depicts the high-level architectural diagram of the schedule job that process input from a flat file to update OIM process form data using fixed thread pool approach    The custom scheduled job shared in this post is developed to meet following requirement 1)      Need to process a CSV extract that contains identity, account identifying key and list of data to be updated on an existing OIM resource account. 2)      CSV file can contain data for multiple resources configured in OIM 3)      List of attribute to update and mapping between CSV column to OIM fields may vary between resources The following are three Java class developed for this requirement (I have given only prototype of the code that explains how to use thread pools in schedule task) CustomScheduler.java - Implementation of TaskSupport class that reads and passes the parameters configured on the schedule job to Thread Executor class. package com.oracle.oim.scheduler; import java.util.HashMap; import com.oracle.oim.bo.MultiThreadDataRecon; import oracle.iam.scheduler.vo.TaskSupport; public class CustomScheduler extends TaskSupport {      public void execute(HashMap options) throws Exception {             /*  Read Schedule Job Parameters */             String param1 = (String) options.get(“Parameter1”);             .             int noOfThread = (int) options.get(“No of Threads”);             .             String paramn = (int) options.get(“ParamterN”); /* Provide all the required input configured on schedule job to Thread Pool Executor implementation class like 1) Name of the file, 2) Delimiter 3) Header Row Numer 4) Line Escape character 5) Config and resource map lookup 6) No the thread to create */ new MultiThreadDataRecon(all_required_parameters, noOfThreads).reconcile();       }       public HashMap getAttributes() { return null; }       public void setAttributes() {       } } MultiThreadDataRecon.java – Helper class that reads data from input file, initialize the thread executor and builds the task queue. package com.oracle.oim.bo; import <required file IO classes>; import  <required java.util classes>; import  <required OIM API classes>; import <csv reader api>; public class MultiThreadDataRecon {  private int noOfThreads;  private ExecutorService threadExecutor = null;  public MetaDataRecon(<required params>, int noOfThreads)  {       //Store parameters locally       .       .       this.noOfThread = noOfThread;  }        /**        *  Initialize         */  private void init() throws Exception {       try {             // Initialize CSV file reader API objects             // Initialize OIM API objects             /* Initialize Fixed Thread Pool Executor class if no of threads                 configured is more than 1 */             if (noOfThreads > 1) {                   threadExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(noOfThreads);             } else {                   threadExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();             }             /* Initialize TaskProcess clas s which will be executing task                 from the Queue */                TaskProcessor.initializeConfig(params);       } catch (***Exception e) {                   // TO DO       }  }       /**        *  Method to reconcile data from CSV to OIM        */ public void reconcile() throws Exception {        try {             init();             while(<csv file has line>){                   processRow(line);             }             /* Initiate thread shutdown */             threadExecutor.shutdown();             while (!threadExecutor.isTerminated()) {                 // Wait for all task to complete.             }            } catch (Exception e) {                   // TO DO            } finally {                   try {                         //Close all the file handles                   } catch (IOException e) {                         //TO DO                   }             }       }       /**        * Method to process         */       private void processRow(String row) {             // Create task processor instance with the row data              // Following code push the task to work queue and wait for next                available thread to execute             threadExecutor.execute(new TaskProcessor(rowData));       } } TaskProcessor.java – Implementation of “Runnable” interface that executes the required business logic to update data in OIM. package com.oracle.oim.bo; import <required APIs> class TaskProcessor implements Runnable {       //Initialize required member variables       /**        * Constructor        */       public TaskProcessor(<row data>) {             // Initialize and parse csv row       }       /*       *  Method to initialize required object for task execution       */       public static void initializeConfig(<params>) {             // Process param and initialize the required configs and object       }           /*        * (non-Javadoc)        *         * @see java.lang.Runnable#run()        */            public void run() {             if (<is csv data valid>){                   processData();             }       }  /**   * Process the the received CSV input   */  private void processData() {     try{       //Find the user in OIM using the identity matching key value from CSV       // Find the account to be update from user’s account based on account identifying key on CSV       // Update the account with data from CSV       }catch(***Exception e){           //TO DO       }   } }

    Read the article

  • Real User Experience Insight: Oracle’s Approach to User Experience

    - by JuergenKress
    This self-study course is the first in a series about Oracle Real User Experience Insight. Intended for a broad, general audience, this course begins with a discussion on why user experience is important, followed by Oracle’s approach to user experience. Next, several use cases for Real User Experience Insight is presented. The course ends by showing how Real User Experience Insight is integrated with Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c. This course is a suggested prerequisite for the other two self-studies in this series, one that focuses on basic navigation, data structures and workflows, and the other that focuses on best practices in deployment. SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit  www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Mix Forum Technorati Tags: real user experience,education,training,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • General approach to isometrics

    - by MrThys
    I am currently discovering the world of isometrics, now I found out there are two approaches to creating the tilemap; Just create 2:1 ratio tile-images and draw those. Creating squares and transforming them to the 2:1 ratio. What is the general approach on developing an isometric game? Now I was wondering a few things; How do more known games like AOE1/2 do this? What are the pros/cons of both methods? Which method is preferred to be used in this day and age? Edit added more general question

    Read the article

  • Is there a best practice / standard approach to a free trial for a web app

    - by wobbily_col
    I have an idea for a web app, and would be interested in implementing it, and offering a free trial of say 5 uses before asking people to sign up. I can think of numerous ways of doing this (using cookies , logging IP adresses off the top of my head, limiting functionality). Is there a standard approach to this? Are there best practices? Are there any good tutorials on this? (I would prefer not to go the liited functionality route, as it will not show what the app is capable of).

    Read the article

  • How do you approach database design?

    - by bron
    I am primarily a web developer and I have a couple of personal projects which I want to kick off. One thing that is bugging me is database design. I have gone through in school db normalization and stuff like that but it has been a couple of years ago and I have never had experience with relational database design except for school. So how you do you approach database from a web app perspective? How do you begin and what do you look out for? What are flags for caution?

    Read the article

  • What is a non commital approach to software analysis

    - by dsjbirch
    When I think about software analysis the first thing which comes to mind is SSADM and the UML. But, what I want is a high level view of the system before I commit to a programming paradigm. Where am I going wrong? How do I approach a problem in a high level and generic way before I commit to a paradigm? What are the diagrams/tools available to support me? Edit: Some examples of tools that appear to be what I'm after are... A block diagram - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_diagram A data flow diagram - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_flow_diagram

    Read the article

  • Licensing approach for .NET library that might be used desktop / web-service / cloud environment

    - by Bobrovsky
    I am looking for advice how to architect licensing for a .NET library. I am not asking for tool/service recommendations or something like that. My library can be used in a regular desktop application, in an ASP.NET solution. And now Azure services come into play. Currently, for desktop applications the library checks if the application and company names from the version history are the same as the names the key was generated for. In other cases the library compares hardware IDs. Now there are problems: an Azure-enabled web-application can be run on different hardware each time (AFAIK) sometimes the hardware ID for the same hardware changes unexpectedly checking the hardware ID or version info might not be allowed in some circumstances (shared hosting for example) So, I am thinking about what approach I can take to architect a licensing scheme that: is friendly to customers (I do not try to fight piracy, but I do want to warn the customer if he uses the library on more servers than he paid for) can be used when there is no internet connection can be used on shared hosting What would you recommend?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >