Search Results

Search found 269 results on 11 pages for 'methodologies'.

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

  • Error Handling Examples(C#)

    “The purpose of reviewing the Error Handling code is to assure that the application fails safely under all possible error conditions, expected and unexpected. No sensitive information is presented to the user when an error occurs.” (OWASP, 2011) No Error Handling The absence of error handling is still a form of error handling. Based on the code in Figure 1, if an error occurred and was not handled within either the ReadXml or BuildRequest methods the error would bubble up to the Search method. Since this method does not handle any acceptations the error will then bubble up the stack trace. If this continues and the error is not handled within the application then the environment in which the application is running will notify the user running the application that an error occurred based on what type of application. Figure 1: No Error Handling public DataSet Search(string searchTerm, int resultCount) { DataSet dt = new DataSet(); dt.ReadXml(BuildRequest(searchTerm, resultCount)); return dt; } Generic Error Handling One simple way to add error handling is to catch all errors by default. If you examine the code in Figure 2, you will see a try-catch block. On April 6th 2010 Louis Lazaris clearly describes a Try Catch statement by defining both the Try and Catch aspects of the statement. “The try portion is where you would put any code that might throw an error. In other words, all significant code should go in the try section. The catch section will also hold code, but that section is not vital to the running of the application. So, if you removed the try-catch statement altogether, the section of code inside the try part would still be the same, but all the code inside the catch would be removed.” (Lazaris, 2010) He also states that all errors that occur in the try section cause it to stops the execution of the try section and redirects all execution to the catch section. The catch section receives an object containing information about the error that occurred so that they system can gracefully handle the error properly. When errors occur they commonly log them in some form. This form could be an email, database entry, web service call, log file, or just an error massage displayed to the user.  Depending on the error sometimes applications can recover, while others force an application to close. Figure 2: Generic Error Handling public DataSet Search(string searchTerm, int resultCount) { DataSet dt = new DataSet(); try { dt.ReadXml(BuildRequest(searchTerm, resultCount)); } catch (Exception ex) { // Handle all Exceptions } return dt; } Error Specific Error Handling Like the Generic Error Handling, Error Specific error handling allows for the catching of specific known errors that may occur. For example wrapping a try catch statement around a soap web service call would allow the application to handle any error that was generated by the soap web service. Now, if the systems wanted to send a message to the web service provider every time a soap error occurred but did not want to notify them if any other type of error occurred like a network time out issue. This would be varying tedious to accomplish using the General Error Handling methodology. This brings us to the use case for using the Error Specific error handling methodology.  The Error Specific Error handling methodology allows for the TryCatch statement to catch various types of errors depending on the type of error that occurred. In Figure 3, the code attempts to handle DataException differently compared to how it potentially handles all other errors. This allows for specific error handling for each type of known error, and still allows for error handling of any unknown error that my occur during the execution of the TryCatch statement. Figure 5: Error Specific Error Handling public DataSet Search(string searchTerm, int resultCount) { DataSet dt = new DataSet(); try { dt.ReadXml(BuildRequest(searchTerm, resultCount)); } catch (TimeoutException ex) { // Handle Timeout TimeoutException Only } catch (Exception) { // Handle all Exceptions } return dt; }

    Read the article

  • Code Review tools - to use or not?

    - by liortal
    On my dev team, we're doing code reviews, however not in a proper way i believe. The issues our process suffers from: Not enough time is allocated for proper code review. Doing reviews is not mandatory - many times it is simply not done. Devs sit together for reviews, due to lack of another easy mechanism for doing it "offline" without spending both developers' time. My question is: can integration of a tool for code reviews improve the points mentioned above? Is it not needed? I would love to hear from positive/negative experiences.

    Read the article

  • Component Development within SOA

    How do the concepts of component development work within SOA? Let’s first break this question down by defining what component development is. Component development is the process of implementing specific functionality in the form of small units of complied code that can be reused across multiple applications or product families. Typically, components are integrated with other components forming composite components. In general, most interaction between components is done through interfaces to promote loose coupling. The concept of loose coupling refers to the interconnections of components in a system so that their component dependences based on contracts defined by interfaces. A real life example of this can be experienced while using Legos to build a structure. If we consider each Lego block as a component, then when two more Legos are connected they form a composite component due to the fact that the structure is made up of multiple components.   It is important to note that composite components can be made from standard components and other composite components. Eventually as various components and composite components become interconnected a structure begins to form in the shape of an application or in the case of Legos in the form of Lego structure. Software components can loosely be defined as small units of related implemented functionality that can communicate with other components or may have dependencies on other components. Based on the definitions provide above, it is my personal opinion that SOA works well with the concepts of component development. The SOA architectural style focuses on creating loosely coupled services. Each service much like a component offers related functionality that can be accessed by various requesting clients.  In addition services can be derived just like components in that services can be built on other services to form composite services. In summary, the concepts of component development can work within SOA based on the example above.

    Read the article

  • Methodology behind fetching large XML data sets in pieces

    - by Jerry Dodge
    I am working on an HTTP Server in Delphi which simply sends back a custom XML dataset. I am not following any type of standard formatting, such as SOAP. I have the system working seamlessly, except one small flaw: When I have a very large dataset to send back to the client, it might take up to 2 minutes for all the data to be transferred. The HTTP Server I'm building is essentially an XML Data based API around a database, implementing the common business rule - therefore, the requests are specific to the data behind the system. When, for example, I fetch a large set of product data, I would like to break this down and send it back piece by piece. However, a single HTTP request calls for a single response. I can't necessarily keep feeding the client with multiple different XML packets unless the client explicitly requests it. I don't have any session management, but rather an API Key. I know if I had sessions, I could keep-alive a dataset temporarily for a client, and they could request bits and pieces of it. However, without session management, I would have to execute the SQL query multiple times (for each chunk of data), and in the mean-time, if that data changes, the "pages" might get messed up, therefore causing items to show on the wrong pages, after navigating to a different page. So how is this commonly handled? What's the methodology behind breaking down a large XML dataset into chunks to save the load?

    Read the article

  • Security in Software

    The term security has many meanings based on the context and perspective in which it is used. Security from the perspective of software/system development is the continuous process of maintaining confidentiality, integrity, and availability of a system, sub-system, and system data. This definition at a very high level can be restated as the following: Computer security is a continuous process dealing with confidentiality, integrity, and availability on multiple layers of a system. Key Aspects of Software Security Integrity Confidentiality Availability Integrity within a system is the concept of ensuring only authorized users can only manipulate information through authorized methods and procedures. An example of this can be seen in a simple lead management application.  If the business decided to allow each sales member to only update their own leads in the system and sales managers can update all leads in the system then an integrity violation would occur if a sales member attempted to update someone else’s leads. An integrity violation occurs when a team member attempts to update someone else’s lead because it was not entered by the sales member.  This violates the business rule that leads can only be update by the originating sales member. Confidentiality within a system is the concept of preventing unauthorized access to specific information or tools.  In a perfect world the knowledge of the existence of confidential information/tools would be unknown to all those who do not have access. When this this concept is applied within the context of an application only the authorized information/tools will be available. If we look at the sales lead management system again, leads can only be updated by originating sales members. If we look at this rule then we can say that all sales leads are confidential between the system and the sales person who entered the lead in to the system. The other sales team members would not need to know about the leads let alone need to access it. Availability within a system is the concept of authorized users being able to access the system. A real world example can be seen again from the lead management system. If that system was hosted on a web server then IP restriction can be put in place to limit access to the system based on the requesting IP address. If in this example all of the sales members where accessing the system from the 192.168.1.23 IP address then removing access from all other IPs would be need to ensure that improper access to the system is prevented while approved users can access the system from an authorized location. In essence if the requesting user is not coming from an authorized IP address then the system will appear unavailable to them. This is one way of controlling where a system is accessed. Through the years several design principles have been identified as being beneficial when integrating security aspects into a system. These principles in various combinations allow for a system to achieve the previously defined aspects of security based on generic architectural models. Security Design Principles Least Privilege Fail-Safe Defaults Economy of Mechanism Complete Mediation Open Design Separation Privilege Least Common Mechanism Psychological Acceptability Defense in Depth Least Privilege Design PrincipleThe Least Privilege design principle requires a minimalistic approach to granting user access rights to specific information and tools. Additionally, access rights should be time based as to limit resources access bound to the time needed to complete necessary tasks. The implications of granting access beyond this scope will allow for unnecessary access and the potential for data to be updated out of the approved context. The assigning of access rights will limit system damaging attacks from users whether they are intentional or not. This principle attempts to limit data changes and prevents potential damage from occurring by accident or error by reducing the amount of potential interactions with a resource. Fail-Safe Defaults Design PrincipleThe Fail-Safe Defaults design principle pertains to allowing access to resources based on granted access over access exclusion. This principle is a methodology for allowing resources to be accessed only if explicit access is granted to a user. By default users do not have access to any resources until access has been granted. This approach prevents unauthorized users from gaining access to resource until access is given. Economy of Mechanism Design PrincipleThe Economy of mechanism design principle requires that systems should be designed as simple and small as possible. Design and implementation errors result in unauthorized access to resources that would not be noticed during normal use. Complete Mediation Design PrincipleThe Complete Mediation design principle states that every access to every resource must be validated for authorization. Open Design Design PrincipleThe Open Design Design Principle is a concept that the security of a system and its algorithms should not be dependent on secrecy of its design or implementation Separation Privilege Design PrincipleThe separation privilege design principle requires that all resource approved resource access attempts be granted based on more than a single condition. For example a user should be validated for active status and has access to the specific resource. Least Common Mechanism Design PrincipleThe Least Common Mechanism design principle declares that mechanisms used to access resources should not be shared. Psychological Acceptability Design PrincipleThe Psychological Acceptability design principle refers to security mechanisms not make resources more difficult to access than if the security mechanisms were not present Defense in Depth Design PrincipleThe Defense in Depth design principle is a concept of layering resource access authorization verification in a system reduces the chance of a successful attack. This layered approach to resource authorization requires unauthorized users to circumvent each authorization attempt to gain access to a resource. When designing a system that requires meeting a security quality attribute architects need consider the scope of security needs and the minimum required security qualities. Not every system will need to use all of the basic security design principles but will use one or more in combination based on a company’s and architect’s threshold for system security because the existence of security in an application adds an additional layer to the overall system and can affect performance. That is why the definition of minimum security acceptably is need when a system is design because this quality attributes needs to be factored in with the other system quality attributes so that the system in question adheres to all qualities based on the priorities of the qualities. Resources: Barnum, Sean. Gegick, Michael. (2005). Least Privilege. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/bsi/articles/knowledge/principles/351-BSI.html Saltzer, Jerry. (2011). BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION PROTECTION. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from  http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/protection/Basic.html Barnum, Sean. Gegick, Michael. (2005). Defense in Depth. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from  https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/bsi/articles/knowledge/principles/347-BSI.html Bertino, Elisa. (2005). Design Principles for Security. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from  http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~bhargav/cs526/security-9.pdf

    Read the article

  • What technologies are used for Game development now days?

    - by Monika Michael
    Whenever I ask a question about game development in an online forum I always get suggestions like learning line drawing algorithms, bit level image manipulation and video decompression etc. However looking at games like God of War 3, I find it hard to believe that these games could be developed using such low level techniques. The sheer awesomeness of such games defy any comprehensible(for me) programming methodology. Besides the gaming hardware is really a monster now days. So it stands to reason that the developers would work at a higher level of abstraction. What is the latest development methodology in the gaming industry? How is it that a team of 30-35 developers (of which most is management and marketing fluff) able to make such mind boggling games? If the question seems too general could you explain the architecture of God of War 3? Or how you would go about producing a clone? That I think should be objectively answerable.

    Read the article

  • What Problems Are Better Solved By SOAP Over REST?

    In the battle for web service supremacy SOAP and REST have been battling for years. In my personal opinion this debate should have never existed. Yes, both forms can be used to create an interactive web service, but each form of a service was developed independent of each other to solve two different yet similar problems. Based my research and experience I would have to say that REST should be the preferred web service methodology and SOAP should only be used in specific situations. Note, I did not say that I was against SOAP, and in fact I actually like to use SOAP when it is needed. Criteria for using SOAP: Does the service need a guaranteed level of reliability and security? Did the provider and consumer of the service agreed on a standardized data exchange format? Does the service need data context and state management? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then you may want to consider SOAP as the format for the web service. Another way to look at the relationship between REST and SOAP is to look at the medical field.  For most things a general doctor or you family health care provider can acceptably treat most conditions from the case of a common cold to a broken bone. A general doctor more aligns with REST in my opinion because for most service requirements REST fulfills a projects needs, but what happens if you need more of an advanced examination, you would go to a specialist. A specialist would already have experience dealing with specific issues that you are experiencing giving them specific context to how best treat you going forward. SOAP acts more like a specialist doctor giving that they understand the context of an issue and can treat it based on the state of other patients they have already treated. An example of where I would use SOAP over REST in real life would be a single sign-on application. I n these cases I need to check validate a username and password for authentication and authorization of a web page request. This service would need to maintain state while it authenticated a user and while it validated access to a web page on a subsequent request. This service must process every request for access and not allow caching to ensure that every request is processed and the appropriate users are allowed to view selected web pages. References: Rozlog, M. (2010). REST and SOAP: When Should I Use Each (or Both)? Retrieved 11 20, 2011, from Infoq.com: http://www.infoq.com/articles/rest-soap-when-to-use-each

    Read the article

  • How should I pitch moving to an agile/iterative development cycle with mandated 3-week deployments?

    - by Wayne M
    I'm part of a small team of four, and I'm the unofficial team lead (I'm lead in all but title, basically). We've largely been a "cowboy" environment, with no architecture or structure and everyone doing their own thing. Previously, our production deployments would be every few months without being on a set schedule, as things were added/removed to the task list of each developer. Recently, our CIO (semi-technical but not really a programmer) decided we will do deployments every three weeks; because of this I instantly thought that adopting an iterative development process (not necessarily full-blown Agile/XP, which would be a huge thing to convince everyone else to do) would go a long way towards helping manage expectations properly so there isn't this far-fetched idea that any new feature will be done in three weeks. IMO the biggest hurdle is that we don't have ANY kind of development approach in place right now (among other things like no CI or automated tests whatsoever). We don't even use Waterfall, we use "Tell Developer X to do a task, expect him to do everything and get it done". Are there any pointers that would help me start to ease us towards an iterative approach and A) Get the other developers on board with it and B) Get management to understand how iterative works? So far my idea involves trying to set up a CI server and get our build process automated (it takes about 10-20 minutes right now to simply build the application to put it on our development server), since pushing tests and/or TDD will be met with a LOT of resistance at this point, and constantly force us to break larger projects into smaller chunks that could be done iteratively in a three-week cycle; my only concern is that, unless I'm misunderstanding, an agile/iterative process may or may not release the software (depending on the project scope you might have "working" software after three weeks, but there isn't enough of it that works to let users make use of it), while I think the expectation here from management is that there will always be something "ready to go" in three weeks, and that disconnect could cause problems. On that note, is there any literature or references that explains the agile/iterative approach from a business standpoint? Everything I've seen only focuses on the developers, how to do it, but nothing seems to describe it from the perspective of actually getting the buy-in from the businesspeople.

    Read the article

  • Waterfall Model (SDLC) vs. Prototyping Model

    The characters in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare can easily be used to demonstrate the similarities and differences between the Waterfall and Prototyping software development models. This children fable is about a race between a consistently slow moving but steadfast turtle and an extremely fast but unreliable rabbit. After closely comparing each character’s attributes in correlation with both software development models, a trend seems to appear in that the Waterfall closely resembles the Tortoise in that Waterfall Model is typically a slow moving process that is broken up in to multiple sequential steps that must be executed in a standard linear pattern. The Tortoise can be quoted several times in the story saying “Slow and steady wins the race.” This is the perfect mantra for the Waterfall Model in that this model is seen as a cumbersome and slow moving. Waterfall Model Phases Requirement Analysis & Definition This phase focuses on defining requirements for a project that is to be developed and determining if the project is even feasible. Requirements are collected by analyzing existing systems and functionality in correlation with the needs of the business and the desires of the end users. The desired output for this phase is a list of specific requirements from the business that are to be designed and implemented in the subsequent steps. In addition this phase is used to determine if any value will be gained by completing the project. System Design This phase focuses primarily on the actual architectural design of a system, and how it will interact within itself and with other existing applications. Projects at this level should be viewed at a high level so that actual implementation details are decided in the implementation phase. However major environmental decision like hardware and platform decision are typically decided in this phase. Furthermore the basic goal of this phase is to design an application at the system level in those classes, interfaces, and interactions are defined. Additionally decisions about scalability, distribution and reliability should also be considered for all decisions. The desired output for this phase is a functional  design document that states all of the architectural decisions that have been made in regards to the project as well as a diagrams like a sequence and class diagrams. Software Design This phase focuses primarily on the refining of the decisions found in the functional design document. Classes and interfaces are further broken down in to logical modules based on the interfaces and interactions previously indicated. The output of this phase is a formal design document. Implementation / Coding This phase focuses primarily on implementing the previously defined modules in to units of code. These units are developed independently are intergraded as the system is put together as part of a whole system. Software Integration & Verification This phase primarily focuses on testing each of the units of code developed as well as testing the system as a whole. There are basic types of testing at this phase and they include: Unit Test and Integration Test. Unit Test are built to test the functionality of a code unit to ensure that it preforms its desired task. Integration testing test the system as a whole because it focuses on results of combining specific units of code and validating it against expected results. The output of this phase is a test plan that includes test with expected results and actual results. System Verification This phase primarily focuses on testing the system as a whole in regards to the list of project requirements and desired operating environment. Operation & Maintenance his phase primarily focuses on handing off the competed project over to the customer so that they can verify that all of their requirements have been met based on their original requirements. This phase will also validate the correctness of their requirements and if any changed need to be made. In addition, any problems not resolved in the previous phase will be handled in this section. The Waterfall Model’s linear and sequential methodology does offer a project certain advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of the Waterfall Model Simplistic to implement and execute for projects and/or company wide Limited demand on resources Large emphasis on documentation Disadvantages of the Waterfall Model Completed phases cannot be revisited regardless if issues arise within a project Accurate requirement are never gather prior to the completion of the requirement phase due to the lack of clarification in regards to client’s desires. Small changes or errors that arise in applications may cause additional problems The client cannot change any requirements once the requirements phase has been completed leaving them no options for changes as they see their requirements changes as the customers desires change. Excess documentation Phases are cumbersome and slow moving Learn more about the Major Process in the Sofware Development Life Cycle and Waterfall Model. Conversely, the Hare shares similar traits with the prototyping software development model in that ideas are rapidly converted to basic working examples and subsequent changes are made to quickly align the project with customers desires as they are formulated and as software strays from the customers vision. The basic concept of prototyping is to eliminate the use of well-defined project requirements. Projects are allowed to grow as the customer needs and request grow. Projects are initially designed according to basic requirements and are refined as requirement become more refined. This process allows customer to feel their way around the application to ensure that they are developing exactly what they want in the application This model also works well for determining the feasibility of certain approaches in regards to an application. Prototypes allow for quickly developing examples of implementing specific functionality based on certain techniques. Advantages of Prototyping Active participation from users and customers Allows customers to change their mind in specifying requirements Customers get a better understanding of the system as it is developed Earlier bug/error detection Promotes communication with customers Prototype could be used as final production Reduced time needed to develop applications compared to the Waterfall method Disadvantages of Prototyping Promotes constantly redefining project requirements that cause major system rewrites Potential for increased complexity of a system as scope of the system expands Customer could believe the prototype as the working version. Implementation compromises could increase the complexity when applying updates and or application fixes When companies trying to decide between the Waterfall model and Prototype model they need to evaluate the benefits and disadvantages for both models. Typically smaller companies or projects that have major time constraints typically head for more of a Prototype model approach because it can reduce the time needed to complete the project because there is more of a focus on building a project and less on defining requirements and scope prior to the start of a project. On the other hand, Companies with well-defined requirements and time allowed to generate proper documentation should steer towards more of a waterfall model because they are in a position to obtain clarified requirements and have to design and optimal solution prior to the start of coding on a project.

    Read the article

  • Is aspect oriented programming a misnomer?

    - by glenviewjeff
    From everything I have learned about "Aspect Oriented Programming" or "Aspect Oriented Software Development," labeling it as a programming paradigm or methodology appears to be inaccurate. From what I can tell it is not a fundamental technique for programming. To nail down what is meant by "paradigm" and "methodology," please refer to the following definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary. Compare how well or poorly "Object-Oriented Programming" applies to each vs. how well AOP fits. Paradigm: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. Methodology: A body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; a set of working methods. "Evidence-based medicine" satisfies the definition of paradigm, but "hysterectomy-based medicine" would be a misnomer because the problem space is too narrow. I am getting the impression that AOP may be misnamed because based on the "oriented-programming" suffix, AOP is alleging to be both a paradigm and a methodology in the same way "Object-Oriented Programming" is. Both of these terms (paradigm and methodology) indicate a fundamental technique, where what I understand about aspects is a technology for solving a narrow problem scope, maybe comparable in magnitude to the static variable feature of Java. If it's true that aspects solve a narrow set of problems, and AOP isn't a misnomer, then why shouldn't all programming techniques be given the "oriented-programming" suffix, such as "inheritance-oriented programming," "dependency-oriented programming," or "scope-oriented programming?"

    Read the article

  • Abstraction, Politics, and Software Architecture

    Abstraction can be defined as a general concept and/or idea that lack any concrete details. Throughout history this type of thinking has led to an array of new ideas and innovations as well as increased confusion and conspiracy. If one was to look back at our history they will see that abstraction has been used in various forms throughout our past. When I was growing up I do not know how many times I heard politicians say “Leave no child left behind” or “No child left behind” as a major part of their campaign rhetoric in regards to a stance on education. As you can see their slogan is a perfect example of abstraction because it only offers a very general concept about improving our education system but they do not mention how they would like to do it. If they did then they would be adding concrete details to their abstraction thus turning it in to an actual working plan as to how we as a society can help children succeed in school and in life, but then they would not be using abstraction. By now I sure you are thinking what does abstraction have to do with software architecture. You are valid in thinking this way, but abstraction is a wonderful tool used in information technology especially in the world of software architecture. Abstraction is one method of extracting the concepts of an idea so that it can be understood and discussed by others of varying technical abilities and backgrounds. One ways in which I tend to extract my architectural design thoughts is through the use of basic diagrams to convey an idea for a system or a new feature for an existing application. This allows me to generically model an architectural design through the use of views and Unified Markup Language (UML). UML is a standard method for creating a 4+1 Architectural View Models. The 4+1 Architectural View Model consists of 4 views typically created with UML as well as a general description of the concept that is being expressed by a model. The 4+1 Architectural View Model: Logical View: Models a system’s end-user functionality. Development View: Models a system as a collection of components and connectors to illustrate how it is intended to be developed.  Process View: Models the interaction between system components and connectors as to indicate the activities of a system. Physical View: Models the placement of the collection of components and connectors of a system within a physical environment. Recently I had to use the concept of abstraction to express an idea for implementing a new security framework on an existing website. My concept would add session based management in order to properly secure and allow page access based on valid user credentials and last user activity.  I created a basic Process View by using UML diagrams to communicate the basic process flow of my changes in the application so that all of the projects stakeholders would be able to understand my idea. Additionally I created a Logical View on a whiteboard while conveying the process workflow with a few stakeholders to show how end-user will be affected by the new framework and gaining additional input about the design. After my Logical and Process Views were accepted I then started on creating a more detailed Development View in order to map how the system will be built based on the concept of components and connections based on the previously defined interactions. I really did not need to create a Physical view for this idea because we were updating an existing system that was already deployed based on an existing Physical View. What do you think about the use of abstraction in the development of software architecture? Please let me know.

    Read the article

  • Agile and different facet of software development

    - by arjun
    It is said that the Kanban methodology is suited for software maintenance and support areas, whereas Scrum is more suited for new product development. No process or methods are complete. Using the right one will help you succeed, but they will not guarantee success. Which agile approach is best suited for a project which is basically a re-platforming from one technology to another (say from Java to .NET).

    Read the article

  • When to use SOAP over REST

    So, how does REST based services differ from SOAP based services, and when should you use SOAP? Representational State Transfer (REST) implements the standard HTTP/HTTPS as an interface allowing clients to obtain access to resources based on requested URIs. An example of a URI may look like this http://mydomain.com/service/method?parameter=var1&parameter=var2. It is important to note that REST based services are stateless because http/https is natively stateless. One of the many benefits for implementing HTTP/HTTPS as an interface is can be found in caching. Caching can be done on a web service much like caching is done on requested web pages. Caching allows for reduced web server processing and increased response times because content is already processed and stored for immediate access. Typical actions performed by REST based services include generic CRUD (Create, Read, Update, and Delete) operations and operations that do not require state. Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) on the other hand uses a generic interface in order to transport messages. Unlike REST, SOAP can use HTTP/HTTPS, SMTP, JMS, or any other standard transport protocols. Furthermore, SOAP utilizes XML in the following ways: Define a message Defines how a message is to be processed Defines the encoding of a message Lays out procedure calls and responses As REST aligns more with a Resource View, SOAP aligns more with a Method View in that business logic is exposed as methods typically through SOAP web service because they can retain state. In addition, SOAP requests are not cached therefore every request will be processed by the server. As stated before Soap does retain state and this gives it a special advantage over REST for services that need to preform transactions where multiple calls to a service are need in order to complete a task. Additionally, SOAP is more ideal for enterprise level services that implement standard exchange formats in the form of contracts due to the fact that REST does not currently support this. A real world example of where SOAP is preferred over REST can be seen in the banking industry where money is transferred from one account to another. SOAP would allow a bank to perform a transaction on an account and if the transaction failed, SOAP would automatically retry the transaction ensuring that the request was completed. Unfortunately, with REST, failed service calls must be handled manually by the requesting application. References: Francia, S. (2010). SOAP vs. REST. Retrieved 11 20, 2011, from spf13: http://spf13.com/post/soap-vs-rest Rozlog, M. (2010). REST and SOAP: When Should I Use Each (or Both)? Retrieved 11 20, 2011, from Infoq.com: http://www.infoq.com/articles/rest-soap-when-to-use-each

    Read the article

  • How to design software when using BDD?

    - by Léster
    I'm working on a project right now and it's my first project using BDD. Up till now, the user stories have proven themselves a very valuable weapon to understand requirements and to specify the solution in a comprehensive, easy to understand language. My question is this: now that my user stories are complete, how do I design my solution? I understand that I derive behavior tests from my user stories, and I have to do UI design, but am I supposed to use good ol' UML? I'm under the impression that when using user stories, UML is left out; is this correct? Léster

    Read the article

  • systems/software engineering design process

    - by adam kim
    I just developed my first non-trivial android app. It was a complete nightmare. I came up with an idea, build the app, changed my idea, and implemented a lot of input from others on new features. All in all my app took 10 times longer than I think that it should have, it is almost impossible to look the source code and tell what's going on with the classes, and may or may not have unused methods that I'll never be able to find... So I would like an opinion from those of you with experience on how to plan out my designs for the future. I created a flow chart (pencil drawn) of a plan: I would like constructive criticism.

    Read the article

  • How Service Component Architecture (SCA) Can Be Incorporated Into Existing Enterprise Systems

    After viewing Rob High’s presentation “The SOA Component Model” hosted on InfoQ.com, I can foresee how Service Component Architecture (SCA) can be incorporated in to an existing enterprise. According to IBM’s DeveloperWorks website, SCA is a set of conditions which outline a model for constructing applications/systems using a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). In addition, SCA builds on open standards such as Web services. In the future, I can easily see how some large IT shops could potently divide development teams or work groups up into Component/Data Object Groups, and Standard Development Groups. The Component/Data Object Group would only work on creating and maintaining components that are reused throughout the entire enterprise. The Standard Development Group would work on new and existing projects that incorporate the use of various components to accomplish various business tasks. In my opinion the incorporation of SCA in to any IT department will initially slow down the number of new features developed due to the time needed to create the new and loosely-coupled components. However once a company becomes more mature in its SCA process then the number of program features developed will greatly increase. I feel this is due to the fact that the loosely-coupled components needed in order to add the new features will already be built and ready to incorporate into any new development feature request. References: BEA Systems, Cape Clear Software, IBM, Interface21, IONA Technologies PLC, Oracle, Primeton Technologies Ltd, Progress Software, Red Hat Inc., Rogue Wave Software, SAP AG, Siebel Systems, Software AG, Sun Microsystems, Sybase, TIBCO Software Inc. (2006). Service Component Architecture. Retrieved 11 27, 2011, from DeveloperWorks: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/specification/ws-sca/ High, R. (2007). The SOA Component Model. Retrieved 11 26, 2011, from InfoQ: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/rob-high-sca-sdo-soa-programming-model

    Read the article

  • Choosing Technology To Include In Software Design

    How many of us have been forced to select one technology over another when designing a new system? What factors do we and should we consider? How can we ensure the correct business decision is made? When faced with this type of decision it is important to gather as much information possible regarding each technology being considered as well as the project itself. Additionally, I tend to delay my decision about the technology until it is ultimately necessary to be made. The reason why I tend to delay such an important design decision is due to the fact that as the project progresses requirements and other factors can alter a decision for selecting the best technology for a project. Important factors to consider when making technology decisions: Time to Implement and Maintain Total Cost of Technology (including Implementation and maintenance) Adaptability of Technology Implementation Team’s Skill Sets Complexity of Technology (including Implementation and maintenance) orecasted Return On Investment (ROI) Forecasted Profit on Investment (POI) Of the factors to consider the ROI and POI weigh the heaviest because the take in to consideration the other factors when calculating the profitability and return on investments.For a real world example let us consider developing a web based lead management system for a new company. This system can either be hosted on Microsoft Windows based web server or on a Linux based web server. Important Factors for this Example Implementation Team’s Skill Sets Member 1  Skill Set: Classic ASP, ASP.Net, and MS SQL Server Experience: 10 years Member 2  Skill Set: PHP, MySQL, Photoshop and MS SQL Server Experience: 3 years Member 3  Skill Set: C++, VB6, ASP.Net, and MS SQL Server Experience: 12 years Total Cost of Technology (including Implementation and maintenance) Linux Initial Year: $5,000 (Random Value) Additional Years: $3,000 (Random Value) Windows Initial Year: $10,000 (Random Value) Additional Years: $3,000 (Random Value) Complexity of Technology Linux Large Learning Curve with user driven documentation Estimated learning cost: $30,000 Windows Minimal based on Teams skills with Microsoft based documentation Estimated learning cost: $5,000 ROI Linux Total Cost Initial Total Cost: $35,000 Additional Cost $3,000 per year Windows Total Cost Initial Total Cost: $15,000 Additional Cost $3,000 per year Based on the hypothetical numbers it would make more sense to select windows based web server because the initial investment of the technology is much lower initially compared to the Linux based web server.

    Read the article

  • Architectural and Design Challenges with SOA

    With all of the hype about service oriented architecture (SOA) primarily through the use of web services, not much has been said about potential issues of using SOA in the design of an application. I am personally a fan of SOA, but it is not the solution for every application. Proper evaluation should be done on all requirements and use cases prior to deciding to go down the SOA road. It is important to consider how your application/service will handle the following perils as it executes. Example Challenges of SOA Network Connectivity Issues Handling Connectivity Issues Longer Processing/Transaction Times How many of us have had issues visiting our favorite web sites from time to time? The same issue will occur when using service based architecture especially if it is implemented using web services. Forcing applications to access services via a network connection introduces a lot of new failure points to the application. Potential failure points include: DNS issues, network hardware issues, remote server issues, and the lack of physical network connections. When network connectivity issues do occur, how are the service clients are implemented is very important. Should the client wait and poll the service until it is accessible again? If so what is the maximum wait time or number of attempts it should retry. Due to the fact of services being distributed across a network automatically increase the responsiveness of client applications due to the fact that processing time must now also include time to send and receive messages from called services. This could add nanoseconds to minutes per each request based on network load and server usage of the service provider. If speed highly desirable quality attribute then I would consider creating components that are hosted where the client application is located. References: Rader, Dave. (2002). Overcoming Web Services Challenges with Smart Design: http://soa.sys-con.com/node/39458

    Read the article

  • Black Hat Hackers vs Programmers?

    - by Matt Ridge
    This came up with another question I had here, I have decided on a programming verification system that requires a hardware verification system, a software key, and a name/password system. Now people are saying that hackers will bypass any new security, which may be true, but I have a few questions. There has to be a balance between programmers programming and hackers stealing software, otherwise programs wouldn’t be made, and we wouldn’t be where we are today. What is that balance? 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%? What is too much security for the end user? What is too little security so the hacker can just push through without issue? If your software becomes popular, what should you expect or accept as acceptable loss? Why should we accept black hat hackers as a way of life?

    Read the article

  • The effects of Agile Programming can alter the five desirable properties of modeling tools and techniques

    The effects of Agile Programming can alter the five desirable properties of modeling tools and techniques as documented by Pfleeger. The agile methodology does promote human understanding and communication through the use of short iterative software development life cycles which forces stakeholders to review the project and adjust the project for any requirement changes.  Due to the consistent evaluations of a project and requirements, process are continually being refined, upgraded, and compared against other alternatives to ensure the best design delivered to the client. Due to the short repetitive development cycles, increased time is devoted to process management due to the fact that requirements and designs could be constantly changing. This requires additional forecasting, monitoring, and planning for each iteration. Because things can change so rapidly, automated guidance in performing process must be updated for each iteration because the environment and the available reusable process could change. In addition, the original guidance and suggestions for the project also need to be updated to account for these changes as well.   In essence the automation of process execution is supported by the agile methodology because during every iteration all processes must be tested, evaluated to ensure process integrity and compliance with the customer’s requirements. I do not think the agile approach diminishes modeling, in fact I think it increases the modeling because before the start of every development cycle, modeling must be checked for accuracy based on the changed requirements. So in essence the reduced time spent initially designing the models is in fact gained as the project completes every iteration of the project.

    Read the article

  • Enterprise Service Bus (ESB): Important architectural piece to a SOA or is it just vendor hype?

    Is an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) an important architectural piece to a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), or is it just vendor hype in order to sell a particular product such as SOA-in-a-box? According to IBM.com, an ESB is a flexible connectivity infrastructure for integrating applications and services; it offers a flexible and manageable approach to service-oriented architecture implementation. With this being said, it is my personal belief that ESBs are an important architectural piece to any SOA. Additionally, generic design patterns have been created around the integration of web services in to ESB regardless of any vendor. ESB design patterns, according to Philip Hartman, can be classified in to the following categories: Interaction Patterns: Enable service interaction points to send and/or receive messages from the bus Mediation Patterns: Enable the altering of message exchanges Deployment Patterns: Support solution deployment into a federated infrastructure Examples of Interaction Patterns: One-Way Message Synchronous Interaction Asynchronous Interaction Asynchronous Interaction with Timeout Asynchronous Interaction with a Notification Timer One Request, Multiple Responses One Request, One of Two Possible Responses One Request, a Mandatory Response, and an Optional Response Partial Processing Multiple Application Interactions Benefits of the Mediation Pattern: Mediator promotes loose coupling by keeping objects from referring to each other explicitly, and it lets you vary their interaction independently Design an intermediary to decouple many peers Promote the many-to-many relationships between interacting peers to “full object status” Examples of Interaction Patterns: Global ESB: Services share a single namespace and all service providers are visible to every service requester across an entire network Directly Connected ESB: Global service registry that enables independent ESB installations to be visible Brokered ESB: Bridges services that are reluctant to expose requesters or providers to ESBs in other domains Federated ESB: Service consumers and providers connect to the master or to a dependent ESB to access services throughout the network References: Mediator Design Pattern. (2011). Retrieved 2011, from SourceMaking.com: http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/mediator Hartman, P. (2006, 24 1). ESB Patterns that "Click". Retrieved 2011, from The Art and Science of Being an IT Architect: http://artsciita.blogspot.com/2006/01/esb-patterns-that-click.html IBM. (2011). WebSphere DataPower XC10 Appliance Version 2.0. Retrieved 2011, from IBM.com: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wdpxc/v2r0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.websphere.help.glossary.doc%2Ftopics%2Fglossary.html Oracle. (2005). 12 Interaction Patterns. Retrieved 2011, from Oracle® BPEL Process Manager Developer's Guide: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B31017_01/integrate.1013/b28981/interact.htm#BABHHEHD

    Read the article

  • CodeStock 2012 Review: Eric Landes( @ericlandes ) - Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.

    Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.Speaker: Eric LandesTwitter: @ericlandesBlog: http://ericlandes.com/ This was one of the first sessions I attended during CodeStock 2012. Eric’s talk focused mostly on unit testing, and that the lack of proper unit testing can be compared to stealing from an employer. His point was that if you’re not doing proper unit testing then all of the time wasted on fixing issues that could have been detected with unit tests is like stealing money from employer. He makes the assumption that that time spent on fixing these issues could have been better spent developing new features that drive the business. To a point I can agree with Eric’s argument regarding unit testing and stealing from a company’s perspective. I can see how he relates resources being shifted from new development to bug fixes as stealing based on the fact that the resources used to fix bugs are directly taken from other projects. He also states that Boring/Redundant and Build/Test tasks should be automated because it reduces the changes of errors and frees up developer to do what they do best, DEVELOP! When he refers to testing, he breaks testing down in to four distinct types. Unit Test Acceptance Test (This also includes Integration Tests) Performance Test UI Test With this he also recommends that developers should not go buck wild striving for 100% code coverage because some test my not provide a great return on investment. In his experience he recommends that 70% test coverage was a very acceptable rate.

    Read the article

  • Personal Software Process (PSP1)

    - by gentoo_drummer
    I'm trying to figure out an exercise but it doesn't really makes to much sense.. I'm not asking someone to provide the solution. just to try and analyse what needs to be done in order to solve this. I'm trying to understand which PSP 1.0 1.1 process I should use. PROBE? Or something else? I would greatly appreciate some help on this one from someone that has experience with the Personal Software Process Methodology.. Here is the question. For the reference case (“code1.c”), the following s/w metrics are provided: man-hours spent in implementation phase (per-module): 2,7 mh/file man-hours spent in testing phase (per-module): 4,3 mh/file estimated number of bugs remaining (per-module): 0,3 errors/function, 4 errors/module (remaining) Based on the corresponding values provided for the reference case, each of the following tasks focus on some s/w metrics to be estimated for the test case (“code2.c”): [25 marks] (estimated) man-hours required in implementation phase (per-module) [8 marks] (estimated) man-hours required in testing phase (per-module) [8 marks] (estimated) number of bugs remaining at the end of testing phase (per-module) [9 marks] Tasks 4 through 6 should use the data provided for the reference case within the context of Personal Software Process level-1 (PSP-1), using them as a single-point historic data log. Specifically, the same s/w metrics are to be estimated for the test case (“code2.c”), using PSP as the basic estimation model. In order to perform the above listed tasks, students are advised to consider all phases of the PSP software development process, especially at levels PSP0 and PSP1. Both cases are to be treated as separate case-studies in the context of classic s/w development.

    Read the article

  • Breaking The Promise of Web Service Interoperability

    The promise of web service interoperability is achievable if certain technical and non-technical issues are dealt with properly. As the world gets smaller and smaller thanks to our growing global economy the need for security is increasing. The use of security is vital in the transferring of data from one server to another. As new security standards and protocols are created, the environments for web service hosts and clients must be in sync so that they can communicate on the same standard and protocols. For example, if a new protocol x can only be implemented on computers built after 2010 then all computers built prior to 2010 will not be able to connect to any web service hosts that only use this protocol in its security policy. If both the host and client of a web service cannot communicate using a set of common standards and protocols then web services are not available to these clients thus breaking the promise of interoperability. Another limiting factor of web services is governmental policies and regulations. I have experienced this first hand last year when I had to work on a project that dealt with personally identifiable information (PII) regarding US and Canadian Citizens. Currently the Canadian government regulates that any data pertaining to Canadian citizens must be store in Canada only. The issue that we had was that fact that we are a US based company that sometimes works with Canadian PII as part of a service that we provide. As you can see we are US based company and dealing with Canadian Data, so we had to place a file server inside the border of Canada in order for us to continue working for our Canadian customers.

    Read the article

  • Construction Paper, Legos, and Architectural Modeling

    I can remember as a kid playing with construction paper and Legos to explore my imagination. Through my exploration I was able to build airplanes, footballs, guns, and more, out of paper. Additionally I could create entire cities, robots, or anything else I could image out of Legos.  These toys, I now realize were in fact tools that gave me an opportunity to explore my ideas in the physical world through the use of modeling.  My imagination was allowed to run wild as I, unknowingly at the time, made design decisions that directly affected the models I was building from the raw materials.  To prove my point further, I can remember building a paper airplane that seemed to go nowhere when I tried to throw it. So I decided to attach a paper clip to the plane before I decided to throw it the next time to test my concept that by adding more weight to the plane that it would fly better and for longer distances. The paper airplane allowed me to model my design decision through the use of creating an artifact in that I created a paper airplane that was carrying extra weight through the incorporation of the paper clip in to the design. Also, I remember using Legos to build all sorts of creations, and these creations became artifacts of my imagination. As I further and further defined my Lego creations through the process of playing I was able to create elaborate artifacts of my imagination. These artifacts represented design decision I had made in the evolution of my creation through my child like design process. In some form or fashion the artifacts I created as a kid are very similar to the artifacts that I create when I model a software architectural concept or a software design in that the process of making decisions is directly translated in to a tangible model in the form of an architectural model. Architectural models have been defined as artifacts that depict design decisions of a system’s architecture.  The act of creating architectural models is the act of architectural modeling. Furthermore, architectural modeling is the process of creating a physical model based architectural concepts and documenting these design decisions. In the process of creating models, the standard notation used is Architectural modeling notation. This notation is the primary method of capturing the essence of design decisions regarding architecture.  Modeling notations can vary based on the need and intent of a project; typically they range from natural language to a diagram based notation. Currently, Unified Markup Language (UML) is the industry standard in terms of architectural modeling notation  because allows for architectures to be defined through a series of boxes, lines, arrows and other basic symbols that encapsulate design designs in to virtual components, connectors, configurations and interfaces.  Furthermore UML allows for additional break down of models through the use of natural language as to explain each section of the model in plain English. One of the major factors in architectural modeling is to define what is to be modeled. As a basic rule of thumb, I tend to model architecture based on the complexity of systems or sub sub-systems of architecture. Another key factor is the level of detail that is actually needed for a model. For example if I am modeling a system for a CEO to view then the low level details will be omitted. In comparison, if I was modeling a system for another engineer to actually implement I would include as much detailed information as I could to help the engineer implement my design.

    Read the article

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