Search Results

Search found 390 results on 16 pages for 'devs'.

Page 2/16 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • What should you bring to the table as a Software Architect?

    - by Ahmad Mageed
    There have been many questions with good answers about the role of a Software Architect (SA) on StackOverflow and Programmers SE. I am trying to ask a slightly more focused question than those. The very definition of a SA is broad so for the sake of this question let's define a SA as follows: A Software Architect guides the overall design of a project, gets involved with coding efforts, conducts code reviews, and selects the technologies to be used. In other words, I am not talking about managerial rest and vest at the crest (further rhyming words elided) types of SAs. If I were to pursue any type of SA position I don't want to be away from coding. I might sacrifice some time to interface with clients and Business Analysts etc., but I am still technically involved and I'm not just aware of what's going on through meetings. With these points in mind, what should a SA bring to the table? Should they come in with a mentality of "laying down the law" (so to speak) and enforcing the usage of certain tools to fit "their way," i.e., coding guidelines, source control, patterns, UML documentation, etc.? Or should they specify initial direction and strategy then be laid back and jump in as needed to correct the ship's direction? Depending on the organization this might not work. An SA who relies on TFS to enforce everything may struggle to implement their plan at an employer that only uses StarTeam. Similarly, an SA needs to be flexible depending on the stage of the project. If it's a fresh project they have more choices, whereas they might have less for existing projects. Here are some SA stories I have experienced as a way of sharing some background in hopes that answers to my questions might also shed some light on these issues: I've worked with an SA who code reviewed literally every single line of code of the team. The SA would do this for not just our project but other projects in the organization (imagine the time spent on this). At first it was useful to enforce certain standards, but later it became crippling. FxCop was how the SA would find issues. Don't get me wrong, it was a good way to teach junior developers and force them to think of the consequences of their chosen approach, but for senior developers it was seen as somewhat draconian. One particular SA was against the use of a certain library, claiming it was slow. This forced us to write tons of code to achieve things differently while the other library would've saved us a lot of time. Fast forward to the last month of the project and the clients were complaining about performance. The only solution was to change certain functionality to use the originally ignored approach despite early warnings from the devs. By that point a lot of code was thrown out and not reusable, leading to overtime and stress. Sadly the estimates used for the project were based on the old approach which my project was forbidden from using so it wasn't an appropriate indicator for estimation. I would hear the PM say "we've done this before," when in reality they had not since we were using a new library and the devs working on it were not the same devs used on the old project. The SA who would enforce the usage of DTOs, DOs, BOs, Service layers and so on for all projects. New devs had to learn this architecture and the SA adamantly enforced usage guidelines. Exceptions to usage guidelines were made when it was absolutely difficult to follow the guidelines. The SA was grounded in their approach. Classes for DTOs and all CRUD operations were generated via CodeSmith and database schemas were another similar ball of wax. However, having used this setup everywhere, the SA was not open to new technologies such as LINQ to SQL or Entity Framework. I am not using this post as a platform for venting. There were positive and negative aspects to my experiences with the SA stories mentioned above. My questions boil down to: What should an SA bring to the table? How can they strike a balance in their decision making? Should one approach an SA job (as defined earlier) with the mentality that they must enforce certain ground rules? Anything else to consider? Thanks! I'm sure these job tasks are easily extended to people who are senior devs or technical leads, so feel free to answer at that capacity as well.

    Read the article

  • Calling function and running it

    - by devs
    I am quite new to objects and OOP. I really don't know how to explain it well but I'll try. So I am trying to read though JSON with JS, the JSON is passed from PHP. This would be easy if all of the information was on the same html page, but I' am trying something that I am new too. So let me show my code... First is the JS which is in app.js var Donors = function(){ var api = this.list; $(document).ready(function(){ $.getJSON(api, function(){ var donorObj = api.payload; $.each(donorObj, function(i, donor){ //console.log(donor.ign); }); }); }); } What I want this part to do is read from the JSON I'm giving it and console.log each name (or donor.ign) when the document is ready. On the html page, or header.php <script> $(function(){ var list = <?php cbProxy(); ?>; var Dons = new Donors(); Dons.list = list; }); </script> the data that's in list is the below JSON. You already know what the rest does, it just passes the JSON to the Donors() function. JSON example: { "code": 0, "payload": [ { "time": 1349661897, "packages": [ "49381" ], "ign": "Notch", "price": "15.99", "currency": "USD" } I'm use to just making functions and calling it on the same page or file and this is my first doing this kind of function. How can I get the function to run with the data I sent it so it console.log() each name.

    Read the article

  • Is there a portal dedicated to HTML5 games?

    - by Bane
    Just to get something straight; by "portal", I mean a website that frequently publishes a certain type of games, has a blog, some articles, maybe some tutorials and so on. All of these things are not required (except the game publishing part, of course), for example, I consider Miniclip to be a flash game portal. The reason for defining this term is because I'm not sure if other people use it in this context. I recently (less than a year ago) got into HTML5 game development, nothing serious, just my own small projects that I didn't really show to a lot of people, and that certainly didn't end up somewhere on the web (although, I am planning to make a website for my next game). I am interested in the existence of an online portal where indie devs (or non-indie ones, doesn't really matter that much) can publish their own games, sort of like "by devs for devs", also a place where you can find some simple tutorials on basic HTML5 game development and so on... I doubt something like this exists for several reasons: You can't really commercialize an HTML5 game without a strong server-side and microtransactions The code can be easily copied HTML5 is simply new, and things need time to get their own portals somewhere... If a thing like this does not exist, I think I might get into making one some day...

    Read the article

  • Finishing an iteration early

    - by f1dave
    I'd like some input on this on those working with agile methodologies... A current project is finding that development on our planned user stories is finishing some time before the end of the iteration, and that the testing effort and business acceptance is what's actually dragging us out longer towards the end. This means that the devs in question have spare time, and they're essentially going out to the iteration+1 backlog and starting work on cards there before our current iteration cards are 'done'. As iteration manager, I want to put a stop to this - I want a more team-orientated approach where the group takes ownership of getting all the cards done, as opposed to "Well, dev's done so what do I dev next?" The problem I face is convincing the team of this. On one hand, I understand why the devs don't want to test the code they've written (there are unit tests they write of course, but the manual testing to be done could be influenced by their bias). The team sees working ahead as making our next iterations easier, because a lot of the work is done before we start. I see this as screwing with the whole system of planning/actuals - but it's difficult to convince the team as to why this matters. What advice can you guys and girls give? How do we stop devs reaching ahead? What should they be doing instead? How much of a problem is this in the scheme of things, if things are still getting done?

    Read the article

  • Robots &amp; Pencils Bring iOS Dev Camp/Dev School to Winnipeg

    - by D'Arcy Lussier
    My buddy Paul Thorsteinson from Robots and Pencils has come up with an elaborate way to collect his Mac power adaptor that I keep forgetting to mail to him – he’s coming to town with Jonathan Rasmusson to run an iPhone Dev Camp and two-day Dev School here in Winnipeg! From the email he sent me: We are going to be bringing our successful iOS dev school out to the 'Peg in October as well has hosting a dev camp on the Friday night (comparable to a .net user group type deal).  If you know any peeps in Manitoba who are interested in these, please pass along!  .Net developers are welcome to come and heckle as well ;) Winnipeg iPhone Dev Camp October 26th Marlborough Hotel, 5:30pm Cost: $10 http://ios-dev-camp-winnipeg-eorg.eventbrite.com/ ^for devs of any level interested in meeting other devs hearing talks of all levels.  Food and networking Winnipeg iPhone Dev School October 27th, 28th, Marlborough Hotel Cost: $899 + GST http://academy.robotsandpencils.com/training ^For devs looking to get their feet wet in iOS dev Paul has spoken at Prairie Dev Con before and is vastly knowledgeable in mobile development. You can see his work in Spy vs Spy, Catch the Princess, World Explorer for Minecraft, Deco Windshield (yes they run their entire business on their iPad), Anthm, Own This World and too many other apps. If you’re into iOS development, looking to get in, or wanting to improve your skills, consider these great professional development opportunities! D

    Read the article

  • creation of accounts for each users in mysql / phpmyadmin

    - by user1666411
    I am planning to create mysql accounts for each of my web devs and build their own databases. I need these devs to have accounts to access their own phpmyadmin where they can manipulate their own sets of databases. I am kind of new to web services deployment, so should this setup be configured in phpmyadmin or in mysql? Will this kind of deployment need web management like cpanel? I hope you can enlighten me with this.

    Read the article

  • Google Play: how dev can give (already purchased) app to customer as a gift?

    - by Tertium
    Yes, SO, I know, it's not a "programmer's" question:) But customers sometimes help us (devs) with our code, so we (devs) shold be grateful. I think answer to my question will be useful for all fellow android devs. User has purchased my app. Refund period (15min) is over of course. Now I'd like to return money to him as a gift, because he helped me in testing a little. If I refund the entire order in Checkout-Orders will user keep my app 'purchased'? I mean will he be able to uninstall and install it again from GooglePlay-MyApps and will app be marked "purchased"? Will Google LVL accept him to run the app? I've done such refunds before, but then they called it "Android Market", and refund was 12h, and there were no LVL. Maybe somebody know another way to make a small gift using Google Play?

    Read the article

  • How I use schemas.

    - by Alexander Kuznetsov
    I use schemas to simplify granting permissions. For tables and views, I have three schemas: Data, the actual data my customers need. Can only be modified via sprocs. Staging, only visible to data loaders and devs. Full privileges on INSERT?UPDATE/DELETE for those who see it. Config, the configuration data used in loads, only visible to data loaders and devs. Can only be modified via sprocs. For sprocs/UDFs I have the following schemas: Readers Writers ETL ConfigReaders ConfigWriters Also I have dbo...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Game Design - When to separate out pieces into static libraries?

    - by Jason
    I am developing a game that has a lot of platform generic pieces. I am wanting to separate out various pieces into static libraries and I would like to know what other devs do. I am considering targeting other platforms and I want to maintain an much platform neutrality as I can. I have a lot of generic level data in C++ classes. THinking all of the level data could go into a single static library. I have a lot of generic OpenGL code that I think could also go into a single static library. I am already using CMAKE for some and XCode 4.5 for the Apple specific pieces. What do other devs do to stay platform neutral? Does anyone use Eclipse instead of XCode and Visual Studio on Windows?

    Read the article

  • How to properly document functionality in an agile project?

    - by RoboShop
    So recently, we've just finished the first phase of our project. We used agile with fortnightly sprints. And whilst the application turned out well, we're now turning our eyes on some of the maintenance tasks. One maintenance task is that all of our documentation appears in the form of specs. These specs describe 1 or more stories and generally are a body of work which a few devs could knock over in a week. For development, that works really well - every two weeks, the devs get handed a spec and it's a nice discrete chunk of work that they can just do. From a documentation point of view, this has become a mess. The problem with writing specs that are focused on delivering just-in-time requirements to developers is we haven't placed much emphasis on the big picture. Specs come from all different angles - it could be describing a standard function, it could describing parts of a workflow, it could be describing a particular screen... And now, we have business rules about our application scattered across 120 documents. Looking for any document for a particular business rule or function in particular is quite hard because you don't know which document has this information, and making a change request is equally hard because once again, we are unsure about which spec to make the change. So we have maybe a couple of weeks of lull before it's back to specing out functionality for the next phase but in this time, I'd like to re-visit our processes. I think the way we have worked so far in terms of delivering fortnightly specs works well. But we also need a way to manage our documentation so that our business rules for a given function / workflow are easy to locate / change. I have two ideas. One is we compile all of our specs into a series of master specs broken by a few broad functional areas. The specs describe the sprint, the master spec describe the system. The only problem I can see is 1) Our existing 120 specs are not all neatly defined into broad functional areas. Some will require breaking up, merging etc. which will take a lot of time. 2) We'll be writing specs and updating master specs in each new sprint. Seems like double the work, and then do the devs look at the spec or the master spec? My other suggestion is to concede that our documentation is too big of a mess, and manage that mess going forward. So we go through each spec, assign like keywords to it, and then when we want to search for a function, we search for that keyword. Problems I can see 1) Still the problem of business rules scattered everywhere, keywords just make it easier to find it. anyway, if anyone has any decent ideas or any experience to share about how best to manage documentation, would really appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • What would be a good way to request comments?

    - by WarpEnterprises
    In the project/team I'm working the frequency of comments is a little low. One reason might be that it is not clear to the long-time devs what lines in the code really needs a comment (each part of the project has quite fixed devs). To increase this we plan to let team members review the code and check in "requests for comments", which the main dev of that part should replace with useful comments. Do you think this could work? If "yes": what tags should we use to mark? (e.g. //TODO please comment) Can you think of alternatives for this process? Edit: I appreciate your answers about best practice in commenting and writing code, and I completey agree. But my question targets the cases where refactoring is not an option (not wanting to change working code, not wanting to "accuse" main dev of producing code that needs refactoring,...) - so only more or better comments are an option (at least for this question).

    Read the article

  • How is it possible to list all folders that a particular user/group has permissions on?

    - by Lord Torgamus
    Is it possible to list all folders/files that a given group has explicit permissions on, for a machine running Windows Server 2003? If so, how? It would be nice to see inherited permissions as well, but I could do with just explicit permissions. A little background: I'm trying to update groups/permissions on a test server. One of the groups, Devs, wasn't implemented correctly when it was created, and my goal is to remove it from the system. It has been replaced by LeadDevelopers, which has permissions on many — but naturally not all — of the same folders. I want to make sure that I don't accidentally orphan any folders or cause any other issues when I remove Devs. It did have some admin-level permissions. EDIT: The answers so far — at least *cacls and AccessEnum — provide a way to find out which groups/users have permissions on known directories/files. I actually want the reverse of this behavior: I know the group, and I'm looking for the directories/files for which the group has permissions. Also, as I noted in a comment, the Devs group is not itself a member of any other group.

    Read the article

  • Too complex/too many objects?

    - by Mike Fairhurst
    I know that this will be a difficult question to answer without context, but hopefully there are at least some good guidelines to share on this. The questions are at the bottom if you want to skip the details. Most are about OOP in general. Begin context. I am a jr dev on a PHP application, and in general the devs I work with consider themselves to use many more OO concepts than most PHP devs. Still, in my research on clean code I have read about so many ways of using OO features to make code flexible, powerful, expressive, testable, etc. that is just plain not in use here. The current strongly OO API that I've proposed is being called too complex, even though it is trivial to implement. The problem I'm solving is that our permission checks are done via a message object (my API, they wanted to use arrays of constants) and the message object does not hold the validation object accountable for checking all provided data. Metaphorically, if your perm containing 'allowable' and 'rare but disallowed' is sent into a validator, the validator may not know to look for 'rare but disallowed', but approve 'allowable', which will actually approve the whole perm check. We have like 11 validators, too many to easily track at such minute detail. So I proposed an AtomicPermission class. To fix the previous example, the perm would instead contain two atomic permissions, one wrapping 'allowable' and the other wrapping 'rare but disallowed'. Where previously the validator would say 'the check is OK because it contains allowable,' now it would instead say '"allowable" is ok', at which point the check ends...and the check fails, because 'rare but disallowed' was not specifically okay-ed. The implementation is just 4 trivial objects, and rewriting a 10 line function into a 15 line function. abstract class PermissionAtom { public function allow(); // maybe deny() as well public function wasAllowed(); } class PermissionField extends PermissionAtom { public function getName(); public function getValue(); } class PermissionIdentifier extends PermissionAtom { public function getIdentifier(); } class PermissionAction extends PermissionAtom { public function getType(); } They say that this is 'not going to get us anything important' and it is 'too complex' and 'will be difficult for new developers to pick up.' I respectfully disagree, and there I end my context to begin the broader questions. So the question is about my OOP, are there any guidelines I should know: is this too complicated/too much OOP? Not that I expect to get more than 'it depends, I'd have to see if...' when is OO abstraction too much? when is OO abstraction too little? how can I determine when I am overthinking a problem vs fixing one? how can I determine when I am adding bad code to a bad project? how can I pitch these APIs? I feel the other devs would just rather say 'its too complicated' than ask 'can you explain it?' whenever I suggest a new class.

    Read the article

  • How to use DLL reference with an ActiveX <object> via JavaScript

    - by John Factorial
    My question: how can I set an ActiveX object's property via JavaScript to an enum value found in a non-ActiveX DLL? Problem description: I am instantiating an ActiveX object with the following object tag: <object classid="clsid:F338193D-2491-4D7B-80CE-03487041A278" id="VideoCapture1" width="500" height="500"></object> (This is the guid for the 3rd party ActiveX I'm using, "VisioForge_Video_Capture_4.VFVideoCapture4X") I have example C# code for using this ActiveX, which I am porting to JavaScript. Code like this works just fine: VideoCapture1.Debug_Mode = true; var devcount = VideoCapture1.Video_CaptureDevices_GetCount(); var devs = []; for (var i =0; i < devcount; ++i) { devs[devs.length] = VideoCapture1.Video_CaptureDevices_GetItem(i); } ... etc ... However, VideoCapture1 has some settings which refer to a DLL enum, like so (C# code): VideoCapture1.Mode = VisioForge_Video_Capture_4.TxVFMode.Mode_Video_Preview; I can see in Visual Web Developer that TxVFMode.Mode_Video_Preview is value 1 in the enum. However, the following JS does not appear to set the Mode properly: VideoCapture1.Mode = 1; Does anyone know how I can set VideoCapture1.Mode to the enum value found in the TxVFMode? PS: In Visual Web Developer, when I "Go to definition" on TxVFMode, I get the Guid for the enum. I thought I could create an with this Guid or instantiate a VisioForge_Video_Capture_4.TxVFMode in JS, but neither gives me a usable object.

    Read the article

  • How is it possible to list all folders that a particular user/group has permissions on?

    - by Lord Torgamus
    Is it possible to list all folders/files that a given group has explicit permissions on, for a machine running Windows Server 2003? If so, how? It would be nice to see inherited permissions as well, but I could do with just explicit permissions. A little background: I'm trying to update groups/permissions on a test server. One of the groups, Devs, wasn't implemented correctly when it was created, and my goal is to remove it from the system. It has been replaced by LeadDevelopers, which has permissions on many — but naturally not all — of the same folders. I want to make sure that I don't accidentally orphan any folders or cause any other issues when I remove Devs. It did have some admin-level permissions.

    Read the article

  • To write or not to write: Frameworks [closed]

    - by caarlos0
    Today some friends and I started discussing frameworks.. Some of us strongly believe that in 99.9% of cases, writing a new framework is a bad idea. We believe that probably some of the millions of frameworks out there should fit our problem, and if not, some hack, API, or configuration should be enough. If not, we think that contributing to some framework, suggest features or something like that should be the best solution. The 0.1% is when none of the frameworks fit to our case. But, some of us say that it is better to have an "internal corporate framework" (for example), because it's faster to fix issues, creates a 100% fit with the app, because of the "learning" factor (when you improve your skills building a framework), etc. I think that to go out coding frameworks like there's no tomorrow is not the right way. I've seen a lot of small teams building their own framework just to spread the word: "we built our own framework, we rule, bro". Generally, the framework is crap, without any documentation, and only works for their own applications. Opinions are opinions, devs are devs, without the intention to start any kind of flame war, I ask: What do you think about that? What parameters you consider when building a framework? What do you think about all this?

    Read the article

  • Should Developers Perform All Tasks or Should They Specialize?

    - by Bob Horn
    Disclaimer: The intent of this question isn't to discern what is better for the individual developer, but for the system as a whole. I've worked in environments where small teams managed certain areas. For example, there would be a small team for every one of these functions: UI Framework code Business/application logic Database I've also worked on teams where the developers were responsible for all of these areas and more (QA, analsyt, etc...). My current environment promotes agile development (specifically scrum) and everyone has their hands in every area mentioned above. While there are pros and cons to each approach, I'd be curious to know if there are more pros and cons than I list below, and also what the generally feeling is about which approach is better. Devs Do It All Pros 1. Developers may be more well-rounded 2. Developers know more of the system Cons 1. Everyone has their hands in all areas, increasing the probability of creating less-than-optimal results in that area 2. It can take longer to do something with which you are unfamiliar (jack of all trades, master of none) Devs Specialize Pros 1. Developers can create policies and procedures for their area of expertise and more easily enforce them 2. Developers have more of a chance to become deeply knowledgeable about their specific area and make it the best it can be 3. Other developers don't cross boundaries and degrade another area Cons 1. As one colleague put it: "Why would you want to pigeon-hole yourself like that?" (Meaning some developers won't get a chance to work in certain areas.) It's easy to say how wonderful agile is, and that we should do it all, but I'm somewhat of a fan of having areas of expertise. Without that expertise, I've seen code degrade, database schemas become difficult to manage, hack UI code, etc... Let's face it, some people make careers out of doing just UI work, or just database work. It's not that easy to just fill in and do as good of a job as an expert in that area.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Pair Programming, for or against? [on hold]

    - by user1037729
    I believe it has many advantages over individual programming: Pros By pairing senior with relatively junior staff, the more junior can get up to speed with both project and computing experience, and the senior will re-think the problem in order to communicate with the junior, thus re-checking his own thinking (rubber duck principle!). At least 2 people will know about any single piece of work, if one person is away the other can cover, or if some one leaves a project knowledge transfer is easier. Two brains on a complex task is more effective, communication keeps the work free flowing and provides redundancy in decision making. Code is effectively reviewed as its being written, no need for a separate reviewing phase which requires a context switch as someone who has not been working on the piece in question would be required to understand and review the related code. Reviewing code on your own which you haven't written or architected is not fun, hence counter productive. Cons Less bandwith for performing tasks, lets say we have 4 devs, pair programming requires 2 devs per task, so we would be doing 2 tasks concurrently as a posed to 4. I believe this "Con" does not stand up as the pair programmed task would complete sooner and comes with a review built in for free! Ie the pair programming task would be more efficient and thus free up resources earlier. Less flexibility to chop and change tasks as two developers are tied into a task, when flexibility is required this could be a problem.

    Read the article

  • Layers - Logical seperation vs physical

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    Some programmers recommend logical seperation of layers over physical. For example, given a DL, this means we create a DL namespace not a DL assembly. Benefits include: faster compilation time simpler deployment Faster startup time for your program Less assemblies to reference Im on a small team of 5 devs. We have over 50 assemblies to maintain. IMO this ratio is far from ideal. I prefer an extreme programming approach. Where if 100 assemblies are easier to maintain than 10,000...then 1 assembly must be easier than 100. Given technical limits, we should strive for < 5 assemblies. New assemblies are created out of technical need not layer requirements. Developers are worried for a few reasons. A. People like to work in their own environment so they dont step on eachothers toes. B. Microsoft tends to create new assemblies. E.G. Asp.net has its own DLL, so does winforms. Etc. C. Devs view this drive for a common assembly as a threat. Some team members Have a tendency to change the common layer without regard for how it will impact dependencies. My personal view: I view A. as silos, aka cowboy programming and suggest we implement branching to create isolation. C. First, that is a human problem and we shouldnt create technical work arounds for human behavior. Second, my goal is not to put everything in common. Rather, I want partitions to be made in namespaces not assemblies. Having a shared assembly doesnt make everything common. I want the community to chime in and tell me if Ive gone off my rocker. Is a drive for a single assembly or my viewpoint illogical or otherwise a bad idea?

    Read the article

  • Juniper Strategy, LLC is hiring SharePoint Developers&hellip;

    - by Mark Rackley
    Isn’t everybody these days? It seems as though there are definitely more jobs than qualified devs these days, but yes, we are looking for a few good devs to help round out our burgeoning SharePoint team. Juniper Strategy is located in the DC area, however we will consider remote devs for the right fit. This is your chance to get in on the ground floor of a bright company that truly “gets it” when it comes to SharePoint, Project Management, and Information Assurance. We need like-minded people who “get it”, enjoy it, and who are looking for more than just a job. We have government and commercial opportunities as well as our own internal product that has a bright future of its own. Our immediate needs are for SharePoint .NET developers, but feel free to submit your resume for us to keep on file as it looks as though we’ll need several people in the coming months. Please email us your resume and salary requirements to [email protected] Below are our official job postings. Thanks for stopping by, we look forward to  hearing from you. Senior SharePoint .NET Developer Senior developer will focus on design and coding of custom, end-to-end business process solutions within the SharePoint framework. Senior developer with the ability to serve as a senior developer/mentor and manage day-to-day development tasks. Work with business consultants and clients to gather requirements to prepare business functional specifications. Analyze and recommend technical/development alternative paths based on business functional specifications. For selected development path, prepare technical specification and build the solution. Assist project manager with defining development task schedule and level-of-effort. Lead technical solution deployment. Job Requirements Minimum of 7 years experience in agile development, with at least 3 years of SharePoint-related development experience (SPS, SharePoint 2007/2010, WSS2-4). Thorough understanding of and demonstrated experience in development under the SharePoint Object Model, with focus on the WSS 3.0 foundation (MOSS 2007 Standard/Enterprise, Project Server 2007). Experience with using multiple data sources/repositories for database CRUD activities, including relational databases, SAP, Oracle e-Business. Experience with designing and deploying performance-based solutions in SharePoint for business processes that involve a very large number of records. Experience designing dynamic dashboards and mashups with data from multiple sources (internal to SharePoint as well as from external sources). Experience designing custom forms to facilitate user data entry, both with and without leveraging Forms Services. Experience building custom web part solutions. Experience with designing custom solutions for processing underlying business logic requirements including, but not limited to, SQL stored procedures, C#/ASP.Net workflows/event handlers (including timer jobs) to support multi-tiered decision trees and associated computations. Ability to create complex solution packages for deployment (e.g., feature-stapled site definitions). Must have impeccable communication skills, both written and verbal. Seeking a "tinkerer"; proactive with a thirst for knowledge (and a sense of humor). A US Citizen is required, and need to be able to pass NAC/E-Verify. An active Secret clearance is preferred. Applicants must pass a skills assessment test. MCP/MCTS or comparable certification preferred. Salary & Travel Negotiable SharePoint Project Lead Define project task schedule, work breakdown structure and level-of-effort. Serve as principal liaison to the customer to manage deliverables and expectations. Day-to-day project and team management, including preparation and maintenance of project plans, budgets, and status reports. Prepare technical briefings and presentation decks, provide briefs to C-level stakeholders. Work with business consultants and clients to gather requirements to prepare business functional specifications. Analyze and recommend technical/development alternative paths based on business functional specifications. The SharePoint Project Lead will be working with SharePoint architects and system owners to perform requirements/gap analysis and develop the underlying functional specifications. Once we have functional specifications as close to "final" as possible, the Project Lead will be responsible for preparation of the associated technical specification/development blueprint, along with assistance in preparing IV&V/test plan materials with support from other team members. This person will also be responsible for day-to-day management of "developers", but is also expected to engage in development directly as needed.  Job Requirements Minimum 8 years of technology project management across the software development life-cycle, with a minimum of 3 years of project management relating specifically to SharePoint (SPS 2003, SharePoint2007/2010) and/or Project Server. Thorough understanding of and demonstrated experience in development under the SharePoint Object Model, with focus on the WSS 3.0 foundation (MOSS 2007 Standard/Enterprise, Project Server 2007). Ability to interact and collaborate effectively with team members and stakeholders of different skill sets, personalities and needs. General "development" skill set required is a fundamental understanding of MOSS 2007 Enterprise, SP1/SP2, from the top-level of skinning to the core of the SharePoint object model. Impeccable communication skills, both written and verbal, and a sense of humor are required. The projects will require being at a client site at least 50% of the time in Washington DC (NW DC) and Maryland (near Suitland). A US Citizen is required, and need to be able to pass NAC/E-Verify. An active Secret clearance is preferred. PMP certification, PgMP preferred. Salary & Travel Negotiable

    Read the article

  • Build 2012, some thoughts..

    - by Dennis Vroegop
    I think you probably read my rant about the logistics at Build 2012, as posted here, so I am not going into that anymore. Instead, let’s look at the content. (BTW If you did read that post and want some more info then read Nia Angelina’s post about Build. I have nothing to add to that.) As usual, there were good speakers and some speakers who could benefit from some speaker training. I find it hard to understand why Microsoft allows certain people on stage, people who speak English with such strong accents it’s hard for people, especially from abroad, to understand. Some basic training might be useful for some of them. However, it is nice to see that most speakers are project managers, program managers or even devs on the teams that build the stuff they talk about: there was a lot of knowledge on stage! And that means when you ask questions you get very relevant information. I realize I am not the average audience member here, I am regular speaker myself so I tend to look for other things when I am in a room than most audience members so my opinion might differ from others. All in all the knowledge of the speakers was above average but the presentation skills were most of the times below what I would describe as adequate. But let us look at the contents. Since the official name of the conference is Build Windows 2012 it is not surprising most of the talks were focused on building Windows 8 apps. Next to that, there was a lot of focus on Azure and of course Windows Phone 8 that launched the day before Build started. Most sessions dealt with C# and JavaScript although I did see a tendency to use C++ more. Touch. Well, that was the focus on a lot of sessions, that goes without saying. Microsoft is really betting on Touch these days and being a Touch oriented developer I can only applaud this. The term NUI is getting a bit outdated but the principles behind it certainly aren’t. The sessions did cover quite a lot on how to make your applications easy to use and easy to understand. However, not all is touch nowadays; still the majority of people use keyboard and mouse to interact with their machines (or, as I do, use keyboard, mouse AND touch at the same time). Microsoft understands this and has spend some serious thoughts on this as well. It was all about making your apps run everywhere on all sorts of devices and in all sorts of scenarios. I have seen a couple of sessions focusing on the portable class library and on sharing code between Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8. You get the feeling Microsoft is enabling us devs to write software that will be ubiquitous. They want your stuff to be all over the place and they do anything they can to help. To achieve that goal they provide us with brilliant SDK’s, great tooling, a very, very good backend in the form of Windows Azure (I was particularly impressed by the Mobility part of Azure) and some fantastic hardware. And speaking of hardware: the partners such as Acer, Lenovo and Dell are making hardware that puts Apple to a shame nowadays. To illustrate: in Bellevue (very close to Redmond where Microsoft HQ is) they have the Microsoft Store located very close to the Apple Store, so it’s easy to compare devices. And I have to say: the Microsoft offerings are much, much more appealing that what the Cupertino guys have to offer. That was very visible by the number of people visiting the stores: even on the day that Apple launched the iPad Mini there were more people in the Microsoft store than in the Apple store. So, the future looks like it’s going to be fun. Great hardware (did I mention the Nokia Lumia 920? No? It’s brilliant), great software (Windows 8 is in a league of its own), the best dev tools (Visual Studio 2012 is still the champion here) and a fantastic backend (Azure.. need I say more?). It’s up to us devs to fill up the stores with applications that matches this. To summarize: it is great to be a Windows developer. PS. Did I mention Surface RT? Man….. People were drooling all over it wherever I went. It is fantastic :-) Technorati Tags: Build,Windows 8,Windows Phone,Lumia,Surface,Microsoft

    Read the article

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