Search Results

Search found 874 results on 35 pages for 'policies'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 2/35 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Reminder: Premier Support for EBS 11i ends November 2010

    - by Steven Chan
    Apps sysadmins are going to have a busy year.  If you're still running your E-Business Suite environment on the 10gR2 database, I hope that you're aware that Premier Support for 10.2 ends in July 2010.  But if you're still on Oracle E-Business Suite Release 11i version 11.5.10, the impending end of Premier Support this year on November 30, 2010 is even more important.  Support windows for Oracle E-Business Suite are listed here:Oracle Lifetime Support > "Lifetime Support Policy: Oracle Applications" (PDF)Premier Support runs for five years from a product's first release.  In the case of Oracle E-Business Suite Release 11.5.10, that window was increased to six years in recognition of the challenges that some of you face in justifying major upgrades in today's economy. Here's a graphical summary of the EBS 11.5.10's support stages:First year of Extended Support fees for EBS 11.5.10 waivedRegular readers may recall that fees for the first year of Extended Support for EBS 11.5.10 are waived.  There is nothing that customers need to do to remain fully supported other than keep your support contracts current.  Higher fees for Extended Support will start December 1, 2011 for most platforms.  This is formally documented here:Technical Support Policies > "Oracle's Technical Support Policies" (PDF)

    Read the article

  • Needed inputs for helping hospitals/practices save money on mandatory compliance Policies and Course

    - by user363414
    Recently one of my clients came up to me and asked "Is there any way we can save some money on mandatory compliance policies and courses, and I started wondering what can I do? I started creating a calculator to show some savings if they used elearning. I wanted your input to validate that data. How many Policies your practice/hospital need to sign and average number of pages per policy? Also how many employees need to sign these policies? This would be really helpful and once I have this done I will send a copy to you as well.

    Read the article

  • IPSec policies on Mac OSX

    - by Helder
    Is there a way to configure IPSec policies on a Mac OSX, in a similar way to what you can do in Windows, with "Connection Security Rules"? I need to implement a service that will use an IPSec tunnel, and I might have to provide it to Macs as well. As I don't have access to a Mac, I've done some reading, and it seems that there is something called "racoon" that handles IPSec. Can anyone confirm this? Further, we will need to use certificates for authenticating the IPsec tunnel as well (as opposed to pre-shared keys). Can anyone confirm that this is also possible from a Mac OSX? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Active Directory theme policies

    - by Tuinslak
    Hey, I'm currently managing a terminal server in a domain. As the TS-service just got installed, previous users (I logged in with every user once to test it and set up a few things) use the default windows 2008 theme. New users automatically use the fancy Aero theme. Is there a way to push the Aero theme to all current users? I currently have something like this in my policies: However, when logging in with a user, the theme is not changed. Only if I disable "prohibit access to the control panel", the theme can be changed (doesn't seem to change automatically). But this gives them access to every other control panel feature as well. And giving users only access to "desk.cpl" CP-applet, gives them an access error as well when attempting to change the theme. Another question: can I, as admin, take over and/or log in as another user when that user is not logged in? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Windows Installer: System Admin Policies (Vista)

    - by Wesley
    Hi all, I have a friend with a Toshiba Satellite A200. He's running Vista HP SP2 32-bit. For some reason, when he attempts to uninstall Open Office or some other programs, a dialog box appears, which states, "The system administrator has set policies to prevent this installation." After I click OK, another dialog box entitled "Installed Updates" says that "You do not have sufficient access to uninstall _. Please contact your system administrator." Any ideas? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Domain controller policies having administrative issues with program installations

    - by russ
    I have an issue with our domain and policies where a user needs administrative rights to install a program and someone provides the credentials for the 'run as admin' or 'run as other user' it will always show an error: Cannot find specified file on the drive. So we cannot install programs for our employees. How I fix it is I add the user to administrators, force a policy update, have them reboot, run as administrator and install it that way. Then remove them after and update the policy. Another way was to right click the install file (.exe/.msi) and add the user and administrator as an owner with full control. Only works when we have the installation file. I have no idea how to fix this and I can't find a relevant thread or QA about this problem. I can only find users having issues on their home computers not on a domain. Any help and threads to read would be great!

    Read the article

  • Am I abusing Policies?

    - by pmr
    I find myself using policies a lot in my code and usually I'm very happy with that. But from time to time I find myself confronted with using that pattern in situations where the Policies are selected and runtime and I have developed habbits to work around such situations. Usually I start with something like that: class DrawArrays { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; class DrawElements { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public Policy { using Policy::sendDraw(); public: void render() const; }; When the policy is picked at runtime I have different choices of working around the situation. Different code paths: if(drawElements) { Vertices<DrawElements> vertices; } else { Vertices<DrawArrays> vertices; } Inheritance and virtual calls: class PureVertices { public: void render()=0; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public PureVertices, public Policy { //.. }; Both solutions feel wrong to me. The first creates an umaintainable mess and the second introduces the overhead of virtual calls that I tried to avoid by using policies in the first place. Am I missing the proper solutions or do I use the wrong pattern to solve the problem?

    Read the article

  • European Interoperability Framework - a new beginning?

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    The most controversial document in the history of the European Commission's IT policy is out. EIF is here, wrapped in the Communication "Towards interoperability for European public services", and including the new feature European Interoperability Strategy (EIS), arguably a higher strategic take on the same topic. Leaving EIS aside for a moment, the EIF controversy has been around IPR, defining open standards and about the proper terminology around standardization deliverables. Today, as the document finally emerges, what is the verdict? First of all, to be fair to those among you who do not spend your lives in the intricate labyrinths of Commission IT policy documents on interoperability, let's define what we are talking about. According to the Communication: "An interoperability framework is an agreed approach to interoperability for organisations that want to collaborate to provide joint delivery of public services. Within its scope of applicability, it specifies common elements such as vocabulary, concepts, principles, policies, guidelines, recommendations, standards, specifications and practices." The Good - EIF reconfirms that "The Digital Agenda can only take off if interoperability based on standards and open platforms is ensured" and also confirms that "The positive effect of open specifications is also demonstrated by the Internet ecosystem." - EIF takes a productive and pragmatic stance on openness: "In the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and stimulate debate within that community, the ultimate goal being to advance knowledge and the use of this knowledge to solve problems" (p.11). "If the openness principle is applied in full: - All stakeholders have the same possibility of contributing to the development of the specification and public review is part of the decision-making process; - The specification is available for everybody to study; - Intellectual property rights related to the specification are licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software" (p. 26). - EIF is a formal Commission document. The former EIF 1.0 was a semi-formal deliverable from the PEGSCO, a working group of Member State representatives. - EIF tackles interoperability head-on and takes a clear stance: "Recommendation 22. When establishing European public services, public administrations should prefer open specifications, taking due account of the coverage of functional needs, maturity and market support." - The Commission will continue to support the National Interoperability Framework Observatory (NIFO), reconfirming the importance of coordinating such approaches across borders. - The Commission will align its internal interoperability strategy with the EIS through the eCommission initiative. - One cannot stress the importance of using open standards enough, whether in the context of open source or non-open source software. The EIF seems to have picked up on this fact: What does the EIF says about the relation between open specifications and open source software? The EIF introduces, as one of the characteristics of an open specification, the requirement that IPRs related to the specification have to be licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software. In this way, companies working under various business models can compete on an equal footing when providing solutions to public administrations while administrations that implement the standard in their own software (software that they own) can share such software with others under an open source licence if they so decide. - EIF is now among the center pieces of the Digital Agenda (even though this demands extensive inter-agency coordination in the Commission): "The EIS and the EIF will be maintained under the ISA Programme and kept in line with the results of other relevant Digital Agenda actions on interoperability and standards such as the ones on the reform of rules on implementation of ICT standards in Europe to allow use of certain ICT fora and consortia standards, on issuing guidelines on essential intellectual property rights and licensing conditions in standard-setting, including for ex-ante disclosure, and on providing guidance on the link between ICT standardisation and public procurement to help public authorities to use standards to promote efficiency and reduce lock-in.(Communication, p.7)" All in all, quite a few good things have happened to the document in the two years it has been on the shelf or was being re-written, depending on your perspective, in any case, awaiting the storms to calm. The Bad - While a certain pragmatism is required, and governments cannot migrate to full openness overnight, EIF gives a bit too much room for governments not to apply the openness principle in full. Plenty of reasons are given, which should maybe have been put as challenges to be overcome: "However, public administrations may decide to use less open specifications, if open specifications do not exist or do not meet functional interoperability needs. In all cases, specifications should be mature and sufficiently supported by the market, except if used in the context of creating innovative solutions". - EIF does not use the internationally established terminology: open standards. Rather, the EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification". How do "formalised specifications" relate to "standards"? According to the FAQ provided: The word "standard" has a specific meaning in Europe as defined by Directive 98/34/EC. Only technical specifications approved by a recognised standardisation body can be called a standard. Many ICT systems rely on the use of specifications developed by other organisations such as a forum or consortium. The EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification", which is either a standard pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC or a specification established by ICT fora and consortia. The term "open specification" used in the EIF, on the one hand, avoids terminological confusion with the Directive and, on the other, states the main features that comply with the basic principle of openness laid down in the EIF for European Public Services. Well, this may be somewhat true, but in reality, Europe is 30 year behind in terminology. Unless the European Standardization Reform gets completed in the next few months, most Member States will likely conclude that they will go on referencing and using standards beyond those created by the three European endorsed monopolists of standardization, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. Who can afford to begin following the strict Brussels rules for what they can call open standards when, in reality, standards stemming from global standardization organizations, so-called fora/consortia, dominate in the IT industry. What exactly is EIF saying? Does it encourage Member States to go on using non-ESO standards as long as they call it something else? I guess I am all for it, although it is a bit cumbersome, no? Why was there so much interest around the EIF? The FAQ attempts to explain: Some Member States have begun to adopt policies to achieve interoperability for their public services. These actions have had a significant impact on the ecosystem built around the provision of such services, e.g. providers of ICT goods and services, standardisation bodies, industry fora and consortia, etc... The Commission identified a clear need for action at European level to ensure that actions by individual Member States would not create new electronic barriers that would hinder the development of interoperable European public services. As a result, all stakeholders involved in the delivery of electronic public services in Europe have expressed their opinions on how to increase interoperability for public services provided by the different public administrations in Europe. Well, it does not take two years to read 50 consultation documents, and the EU Standardization Reform is not yet completed, so, more pragmatically, you finally had to release the document. Ok, let's leave some of that aside because the document is out and some people are happy (and others definitely not). The Verdict Considering the controversy, the delays, the lobbying, and the interests at stake both in the EU, in Member States and among vendors large and small, this document is pretty impressive. As with a good wine that has not yet come to full maturity, let's say that it seems to be coming in in the 85-88/100 range, but only a more fine-grained analysis, enjoyment in good company, and ultimately, implementation, will tell. The European Commission has today adopted a significant interoperability initiative to encourage public administrations across the EU to maximise the social and economic potential of information and communication technologies. Today, we should rally around this achievement. Tomorrow, let's sit down and figure out what it means for the future.

    Read the article

  • Reminder: Premier Support for 10gR2 10.2.0.4 Database ends July 2010

    - by Steven Chan
    Regular readers know that Premier Support for the Oracle 10gR2 Database ends in July 2010, a scant few months from now.  What does that mean for E-Business Suite environments running on this database?The Oracle E-Business Suite is comprised of products like Financials, Supply Chain, Procurement, and so on.  Support windows for the E-Business Suite and these associated applications products are listed here:Oracle Lifetime Support > "Lifetime Support Policy: Oracle Applications" (PDF)The Oracle E-Business Suite can run on a variety of database releases, including 10gR2, 11gR1, and 11gR2.  Support windows for database releases are listed here:Oracle Lifetime Support > "Lifetime Support Policy: Oracle Technology Products" (PDF)Looking at those two documents together, you'll see that:Premier Support for Oracle E-Business Suite Release 11i ends on November 30, 2010Premier Support for Oracle E-Business Suite Release 12 ends on January 31, 2012Premier Support for Oracle E-Business Suite Release 12.1 ends on May 31, 2014Premier Support for Oracle Database 10.2 (a.k.a. 10gR2) ends on July 31, 2010[Note: These are the Premier Support dates as of today.  If you've arrived at this article in the future via a search engine, you must check the latest dates in the Lifetime Support Policy documents above; these dates are subject to change.]It's a bit hard to read, thanks to the layout restrictions of this blog, but the following diagram shows the Premier and Extended Support windows for the last four major database releases certified with Apps 11i:Do the EBS Premier Support dates trump the 10gR2 DB date?No.  Each of the support policies apply individually to your combined EBS + DB configuration.  The support dates for a given EBS release don't override the Database support policy.

    Read the article

  • System State Backup Retention Policies

    - by isoscelestriangle
    I was wondering if there was a general consensus on how long to keep system state backups. I am trying to reevaluate our current backup process, and trying to get a good handle on our current storage requirements. Our current setup involves tapes and sending backups offsite with Barracuda Networks. We have been doing our system state backups with Barracuda now, which does full backups daily, leaving our storage requirements growing quite quickly. My boss is a little too gung-ho with backups and wants our system states saved for quite a while. We currently have 5 days of nightlies, 5 weeklies, 3 monthlies, and so on. I think this is quite overkill for system state backups. My boss wants the ability to go back in time to find when an issue appeared, but I don't think that is practical. Many things change in the course of several months. I also think it would be hard not to notice problems with our DCs and other servers for several months. I would think that a previous week's snapshot and the current week's dailies would suffice. Any advice or reading you can point me to? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Can you give one directory two SELinux Policies?

    - by Mike
    Out of laziness I want to be able FTP into my WWW directory. However, the SELinux permissions for apache(user_u:object_r:httpd_sys_content_t) to be able to use the WWW directory and for the user(system_u:object_r:user_home_dir_t ) to use the WWW directory are different. Anyway, around this problem without disabling SELinux? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Group policies - WSUS

    - by cory
    Hello, I am really lost as to what is the reason as to why my group policy is not working on my domain. I have setup a GPO for my wsus server to a specific OU in my domain. It seems as of right now, none of my machines have inherited that GPO. I have manually put it in quite a few computers. Most of my computers in the domain are linked up to my wsus server, but all my desired settings are not there. If I run gpresult /R, On one computer I ran this on, it is linking to my backup domain controller and not my main. On another computer I checked this on, it is linking to my main DC, but it did no inherit the GPO. When looking on my DC on gpmc - I see the policy is forced to the OU as #1 precedence. Thank for any help.

    Read the article

  • CEN/CENELEC Lacks Perspective

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    Over the last few months, two of the European Standardization Organizations (ESOs), CEN and CENELEC have circulated an unfortunate position statement distorting the facts around fora and consortia. For the benefit of outsiders to this debate, let's just say that this debate regards whether and how the EU should recognize standards and specifications from certain fora and consortia based on a process evaluating the openness and transparency of such deliverables. The topic is complex, and somewhat confusing even to insiders, but nevertheless crucial to the European economy. As far as I can judge, their positions are not based on facts. This is unfortunate. For the benefit of clarity, here are some of the observations they make: a)"Most consortia are in essence driven by technology companies making hardware and software solutions, by definition very few of the largest ones are European-based". b) "Most consortia lack a European presence, relevant Committees, even those that are often cited as having stronger links with Europe, seem to lack an overall, inclusive set of participants". c) "Recognising specific consortia specifications will not resolve any concrete problems of interoperability for public authorities; interoperability depends on stringing together a range of specifications (from formal global bodies or consortia alike)". d) "Consortia already have the option to have their specifications adopted by the international formal standards bodies and many more exercise this than the two that seem to be campaigning for European recognition. Such specifications can then also be adopted as European standards." e) "Consortium specifications completely lack any process to take due and balanced account of requirements at national level - this is not important for technologies but can be a critical issue when discussing cross-border issues within the EU such as eGovernment, eHealth and so on". f) "The proposed recognition will not lead to standstill on national or European activities, nor to the adoption of the specifications as national standards in the CEN and CENELEC members (usually in their official national languages), nor to withdrawal of conflicting national standards. A big asset of the European standardization system is its coherence and lack of fragmentation." g) "We always miss concrete and specific examples of where consortia referencing are supposed to be helpful." First of all, note that ETSI, the third ESO, did not join the position. The reason is, of course, that ETSI beyond being an ESO, also has a global perspective and, moreover, does consider reality. Secondly, having produced arguments a) to g), CEN/CENELEC has the audacity to call a meeting on Friday 25 February entitled "ICT standardization - improving collaboration in Europe". This sounds very nice, but they have not set the stage for constructive debate. Rather, they demonstrate a striking lack of vision and lack of perspective. I will back this up by three facts, and leave it there. 1. Since the 1980s, global industry fora and consortia, such as IETF, W3C and OASIS have emerged as world-leading ICT standards development organizations with excellent procedures for openness and transparency in all phases of standards development, ex post and ex ante. - Practically no ICT system can be built without using fora and consortia standards (FCS). - Without using FCS, neither the Internet, upon which the EU economy depends, nor EU institutions would operate. - FCS are of high relevance for achieving and promoting interoperability and driving innovation. 2. FCS are complementary to the formally recognized standards organizations including the ESOs. - No work will be taken away from the ESOs should the EU recognize certain FCS. - Each FCS would be evaluated on its merit and on the openness of the process that produced it. ESOs would, with other stakeholders, have a say. - ESOs could potentially educate and assist European stakeholders to engage more actively and constructively with FCS. - ETSI, also an ESO, seems to clearly recognize these facts. 3. Europe and its Member States have a strong voice in several of the most relevant global industry fora and consortia. - W3C: W3C was founded in 1994 by an Englishman, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, in collaboration with CERN, the European research lab. In April 1995, INRIA (Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et Automatique) in France became the first European W3C host and in 2003, ERCIM (European Research Consortium in Informatics and Mathematics), also based in France, took over the role of European W3C host from INRIA. Today, W3C has 326 Members, 40% of which are European. Government participation is also strong, and it could be increased - a development that is very much desired by W3C. Current members of the W3C Advisory Board includes Ora Lassila (Nokia) and Charles McCathie Nevile (Opera). Nokia is Finnish company, Opera is a Norwegian company. SAP's Claus von Riegen is an alumni of the same Advisory Board. - OASIS: its membership - 30% of which is European - represents the marketplace, reflecting a balance of providers, user companies, government agencies, and non-profit organizations. In particular, about 15% of OASIS members are governments or universities. Frederick Hirsch from Nokia, Claus von Riegen from SAP AG and Charles-H. Schulz from Ars Aperta are on the Board of Directors. Nokia is a Finnish company, SAP is a German company and Ars Aperta is a French company. The Chairman of the Board is Peter Brown, who is an Independent Consultant, an Austrian citizen AND an official of the European Parliament currently on long-term leave. - IETF: The oversight of its activities is by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), since 2007 chaired by Olaf Kolkman, a Dutch national who lives in Uithoorn, NL. Kolkman is director of NLnet Labs, a foundation chartered to develop open source software and open source standards for the Internet. Other IAB members include Marcelo Bagnulo whose affiliation is the University Carlos III of Madrid, Spain as well as Hannes Tschofenig from Nokia Siemens Networks. Nokia is a Finnish company. Siemens is a German company. Nokia Siemens is a European joint venture. - Member States: At least 17 European Member States have developed Interoperability Frameworks that include FCS, according to the EU-funded National Interoperability Framework Observatory (see list and NIFO web site on IDABC). This also means they actively procure solutions using FCS, reference FCS in their policies and even in laws. Member State reps are free to engage in FCS, and many do. It would be nice if the EU adjusted to this reality. - A huge number of European nationals work in the global IT industry, on European soil or elsewhere, whether in EU registered companies or not. CEN/CENELEC lacks perspective and has engaged in an effort to twist facts that is quite striking from a publicly funded organization. I wish them all possible success with Friday's meeting but I fear all of the most important stakeholders will not be at the table. Not because they do not wish to collaborate, but because they just have been insulted. If they do show up, it would be a gracious move, almost beyond comprehension. While I do not expect CEN/CENELEC to line up perfectly in favor of fora and consortia, I think it would be to their benefit to stick to more palatable observations. Actually, I would suggest an apology, straightening out the facts. This works among friends and it works in an organizational context. Then, we can all move on. Standardization is important. Too important to ignore. Too important to distort. The European economy depends on it. We need CEN/CENELEC. It is an important organization. But CEN/CENELEC needs fora and consortia, too.

    Read the article

  • Create java sandbox based on security policies

    - by argos
    I need to create environment to run potentially untrusted code. Program allowed to connect to preconfigured address:port and nothing else (even read the system time). I have compiled the class whitelist. I'd searched similar questions, but found only template that based on SecurityManager which AFAIK is deprecated. Can anybody give me a simple sample how to run code in sandbox based on security policies and AccessController?

    Read the article

  • Applying Microsoft Management Console Policies

    - by Hipno
    Hello, I am using windows 7. i got a user on my computer a non-admin user, and i want to apply on him user policies from the Microsoft Management Console. i added group policy object editor, chose Non-admin group, set a setting, saved and close. but i when i logon to that user i applied to, it just won't effect! please tell me what i miss, thank you.

    Read the article

  • Setting refresh-policies in Ehcache

    - by Alex Ciminian
    Is there any to specify a data refresh policy in Ehcache? I am currently migrating an application from OSCache to Ehcache and I can't seem to find any way to specify when an element needs refreshing, besides setting timeToIdle and timeToLive. What I want is: on accessing an element from the cache, check with it's associated resource to see if it was updated later than the lastUpdateTime of the cache element. If yes, refresh the cache; else serve the content from the cache. In OSCache this was done by catching NeedsRefreshExceptions and setting custom refresh policies for the elements. I've been digging around in the docs for a while now, but I wasn't able to find any methods or examples of how I could accomplish this in Ehcache. Any help would be appreciated :). Alex

    Read the article

  • Policies Array Class-Design wrapper

    - by PT
    Hi, i want to write an wrapper for different Array Classes with different Policies. For example: typedef ArrayType<useValArray,StdAllocator> Array; // one global assignment I want to use the class like a blitz++ Array for example: Array<double,2> x(2,2); //maps the Array to an Valarray or to a Blitz++ Array Array<double,2> x2(5,6); is this Posible? Which technics i need to realise that?

    Read the article

  • Class member functions instantiated by traits [policies, actually]

    - by Jive Dadson
    I am reluctant to say I can't figure this out, but I can't figure this out. I've googled and searched Stack Overflow, and come up empty. The abstract, and possibly overly vague form of the question is, how can I use the traits-pattern to instantiate member functions? [Update: I used the wrong term here. It should be "policies" rather than "traits." Traits describe existing classes. Policies prescribe synthetic classes.] The question came up while modernizing a set of multivariate function optimizers that I wrote more than 10 years ago. The optimizers all operate by selecting a straight-line path through the parameter space away from the current best point (the "update"), then finding a better point on that line (the "line search"), then testing for the "done" condition, and if not done, iterating. There are different methods for doing the update, the line-search, and conceivably for the done test, and other things. Mix and match. Different update formulae require different state-variable data. For example, the LMQN update requires a vector, and the BFGS update requires a matrix. If evaluating gradients is cheap, the line-search should do so. If not, it should use function evaluations only. Some methods require more accurate line-searches than others. Those are just some examples. The original version instantiates several of the combinations by means of virtual functions. Some traits are selected by setting mode bits that are tested at runtime. Yuck. It would be trivial to define the traits with #define's and the member functions with #ifdef's and macros. But that's so twenty years ago. It bugs me that I cannot figure out a whiz-bang modern way. If there were only one trait that varied, I could use the curiously recurring template pattern. But I see no way to extend that to arbitrary combinations of traits. I tried doing it using boost::enable_if, etc.. The specialized state information was easy. I managed to get the functions done, but only by resorting to non-friend external functions that have the this-pointer as a parameter. I never even figured out how to make the functions friends, much less member functions. The compiler (VC++ 2008) always complained that things didn't match. I would yell, "SFINAE, you moron!" but the moron is probably me. Perhaps tag-dispatch is the key. I haven't gotten very deeply into that. Surely it's possible, right? If so, what is best practice? UPDATE: Here's another try at explaining it. I want the user to be able to fill out an order (manifest) for a custom optimizer, something like ordering off of a Chinese menu - one from column A, one from column B, etc.. Waiter, from column A (updaters), I'll have the BFGS update with Cholesky-decompositon sauce. From column B (line-searchers), I'll have the cubic interpolation line-search with an eta of 0.4 and a rho of 1e-4, please. Etc... UPDATE: Okay, okay. Here's the playing-around that I've done. I offer it reluctantly, because I suspect it's a completely wrong-headed approach. It runs okay under vc++ 2008. #include <boost/utility.hpp> #include <boost/type_traits/integral_constant.hpp> namespace dj { struct CBFGS { void bar() {printf("CBFGS::bar %d\n", data);} CBFGS(): data(1234){} int data; }; template<class T> struct is_CBFGS: boost::false_type{}; template<> struct is_CBFGS<CBFGS>: boost::true_type{}; struct LMQN {LMQN(): data(54.321){} void bar() {printf("LMQN::bar %lf\n", data);} double data; }; template<class T> struct is_LMQN: boost::false_type{}; template<> struct is_LMQN<LMQN> : boost::true_type{}; // "Order form" struct default_optimizer_traits { typedef CBFGS update_type; // Selection from column A - updaters }; template<class traits> class Optimizer; template<class traits> void foo(typename boost::enable_if<is_LMQN<typename traits::update_type>, Optimizer<traits> >::type& self) { printf(" LMQN %lf\n", self.data); } template<class traits> void foo(typename boost::enable_if<is_CBFGS<typename traits::update_type>, Optimizer<traits> >::type& self) { printf("CBFGS %d\n", self.data); } template<class traits = default_optimizer_traits> class Optimizer{ friend typename traits::update_type; //friend void dj::foo<traits>(typename Optimizer<traits> & self); // How? public: //void foo(void); // How??? void foo() { dj::foo<traits>(*this); } void bar() { data.bar(); } //protected: // How? typedef typename traits::update_type update_type; update_type data; }; } // namespace dj int main() { dj::Optimizer<> opt; opt.foo(); opt.bar(); std::getchar(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • EBS 12.0 Minimum Requirements for Extended Support Finalized

    - by Steven Chan
    Oracle E-Business Suite Release 12.0 will transition from Premier Support to Extended Support on February 1, 2012.  New EBS 12.0 patches will be created and tested during Extended Support against the minimum patching baseline documented in our E-Business Suite Error Correction Support Policy (Note 1195034.1).These new technical requirements have now been finalized.  To be eligible for Extended Support, all EBS 12.0 customers must apply the EBS 12.0.6 Release Update Pack, technology stack infrastructure updates, and updates for EBS products if they're shared or fully-installed.  The complete set of minimum EBS 12.0 baseline requirements are listed here:E-Business Suite Error Correction Support Policy (Note 1195034.1)

    Read the article

  • E-Business Suite Technology Stack Roadmap (April 2010) Now Available

    - by Steven Chan
    Keeping up with our E-Business Suite technology stack roadmap can be challenging.  Regular readers of this blog know that we certify new combinations and versions of Oracle products with the E-Business Suite every few weeks.  We also update our certification plans and roadmap as new third-party products like Microsoft Office 2010 and Firefox are announced or released.  Complicating matters further, various Oracle products leave Premier Support or are superceded by more-recent versions.This constant state of change means that any static representation of our roadmap is really a snapshot in time, and a snapshot that might begin to yellow and fade fairly quickly.  With that caveat in mind, here's this month's snapshot that I presented at the OAUG/Collaborate 2010 conference in Las Vegas last week:EBS Technology Stack Roadmap (April 2010)

    Read the article

  • Is Openness at the heart of the EU Digital Agenda?

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    At OpenForum Europe Summit 2010, to be held in Brussels, Autoworld, 11 Parc du Cinquantenaire on Thursday 10 June 2010, a number of global speakers will discuss whether it indeed provides an open digital market as a catalyst for economic growth and if it will deliver a truly open e-government and digital citizenship (see Summit 2010). In 2008, OpenForum Europe, a not-for-profit champion of openness through open standards, hosted one of the most cited speeches by Neelie Kroes, then Commissioner of Competition. Her forward-looking speech on openness and interoperability as a way to improve the competitiveness of ICT markets set the EU on a path to eradicate lock-in forever. On the two-year anniversary of that event, Vice President Kroes, now the first-ever Commissioner of the Digital Agenda, is set to outline her plans for delivering on that vision. Much excitement surrounds open standards, given that Kroes is a staunch believer. The EU's Digital Agenda promises IT standardization reform in Europe and vows to recognize global standards development organizations (fora/consortia) by 2010. However, she avoided the term "open standards" in her new strategy. Markets are, of course, asking why she is keeping her cards tight on this crucial issue. Following her speech, Professor Yochai Benkler, award-winning author of "The Wealth of Networks", and Professor Nigel Shadbolt, appointed by the UK Government to work alongside Sir Tim Berners-Lee to help transform public access to UK Government information join dozens of speakers in the quest to analyse, entertain and challenge European IT policy, people, and documents. Speakers at OFE Summit 2010 include David Drummond, Senior VP Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Google; Michael Karasick, VP Technology and Strategy, IBM; Don Deutsch, Vice President, Standards Strategy and Architecture for Oracle Corp; Thomas Vinje, Partner Clifford Chance; Jerry Fishenden, Director, Centre for Policy Research, and Rishab Ghosh, head, collaborative creativity group, UNU-MERIT, Maastricht (see speakers). Will openness stay at the heart of EU Digital Agenda? Only time will show.

    Read the article

  • EU Digital Agenda scores 85/100

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    If the Digital Agenda was a bottle of wine and I were wine critic Robert Parker, I would say the Digital Agenda has "a great bouquet, many good elements, with astringent, dry and puckering mouth feel that will not please everyone, but still displaying some finesse. A somewhat controlled effort with no surprises and a few noticeable flaws in the delivery. Noticeably shorter aftertaste than advertised by the producers. Score: 85/100. Enjoy now". The EU Digital Agenda states that "standards are vital for interoperability" and has a whole chapter on interoperability and standards. With this strong emphasis, there is hope the EU's outdated standardization system finally is headed for reform. It has been 23 years since the legal framework of standardisation was completed by Council Decision 87/95/EEC8 in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector. Standardization is market driven. For several decades the IT industry has been developing standards and specifications in global open standards development organisations (fora/consortia), many of which have transparency procedures and practices far superior to the European Standards Organizations. The Digital Agenda rightly states: "reflecting the rise and growing importance of ICT standards developed by certain global fora and consortia". Some fora/consortia, of course, are distorted, influenced by single vendors, have poor track record, and need constant vigilance, but they are the minority. Therefore, the recognition needs to be accompanied by eligibility criteria focused on openness. Will the EU reform its ICT standardization by the end of 2010? Possibly, and only if DG Enterprise takes on board that Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) have driven half of the productivity growth in Europe over the past 15 years, a prominent fact in the EU's excellent Digital Competitiveness report 2010 published on Monday 17 May. It is ok to single out the ICT sector. It simply is the most important sector right now as it fuels growth in all other sectors. Let's not wait for the entire standardization package which may take another few years. Europe does not have time. The Digital Agenda is an umbrella strategy with deliveries from a host of actors across the Commission. For instance, the EU promises to issue "guidance on transparent ex-ante disclosure rules for essential intellectual property rights and licensing terms and conditions in the context of standard setting", by 2011 in the Horisontal Guidelines now out for public consultation by DG COMP and to some extent by DG ENTR's standardization policy reform. This is important. The EU will issue procurement guidance as interoperability frameworks are put into practice. This is a joint responsibility of several DGs, and is likely to suffer coordination problems, controversy and delays. We have seen plenty of the latter already and I have commented on the Commission's own interoperability elsewhere, with mixed luck. :( Yesterday, I watched the cartoonesque Korean western film The Good, the Bad and the Weird. In the movie (and I meant in the movie only), a bandit, a thief, and a bounty hunter, all excellent at whatever they do, fight for a treasure map. Whether that is a good analogy for the situation within the Commission, others are better judges of than I. However, as a movie fanatic, I still await the final shoot-out, and, as in the film, the only certainty is that "life is about chasing and being chased". The missed opportunity (in this case not following up the push from Member States to better define open standards based interoperability) is a casualty of the chaos ensued in the European Wild West (and I mean that in the most endearing sense, and my excuses beforehand to actors who possibly justifiably cannot bear being compared to fictional movie characters). Instead of exposing the ongoing fight, the EU opted for the legalistic use of the term "standards" throughout the document. This is a term that--to the EU-- excludes most standards used by the IT industry world wide. So, while it, for a moment, meant "weapon down", it will not lead to lasting peace. The Digital Agenda calls for the Member States to "Implement commitments on interoperability and standards in the Malmö and Granada Declarations by 2013". This is a far cry from the actual Ministerial Declarations which called upon the Commission to help them with this implementation by recognizing and further defining open standards based interoperability. Unless there is more forthcoming from the Commission, the market's judgement will be: you simply fall short. Generally, I think the EU focus now should be "from policy to practice" and the Digital Agenda does indeed stop short of tackling some highly practical issues. There is need for progress beyond the Digital Agenda. Here are some suggestions that would help Europe re-take global leadership on openness, public sector reform, and economic growth: A strong European software strategy centred around open standards based interoperability by 2011. An ambitious new eCommission strategy for 2011-15 focused on migration to open standards by 2015. Aligning the IT portfolio across the Commission into one Digital Agenda DG by 2012. Focusing all best practice exchange in eGovernment on one social networking site, epractice.eu (full disclosure: I had a role in getting that site up and running) Prioritizing public sector needs in global standardization over European standardization by 2014.

    Read the article

  • Interim Update #1: Microsoft Office 2010 and E-Business Suite

    - by Steven Chan
    Congratulations to my colleagues at Microsoft on their launch of Microsoft Office 2010 yesterday.  Questions about our certification plans for Office 2010 are filling my inbox, so here's an interim update on our plans.  If you've reached this article via a search engine, it's possible that a later update on our status is available.  For our latest status, please check the Desktop Client Certifications section of our one-page Certifications summary.Our current plans for Office 2010We plan to certify Oracle E-Business Suite Release 11i and 12 with Microsoft Office 2010.When will Office 2010 be certified with EBS?Oracle's Revenue Recognition rules prohibit us from discussing certification and release dates, but you're welcome to monitor or subscribe to this blog for updates, which I'll post as soon as soon as they're available.    How does the E-Business Suite work with Microsoft Office?The Oracle E-Business Suite is comprised of several product families such as Financials, Supply Chain Management, Human Resources, and so on.  These product families group together collections of individual products.  Some of these products may be optionally integrated with one or more Microsoft Office components such as Excel, Word, and Projects.Individual E-Business Suite product teams have the option of building integrations between their products and one or more Microsoft Office components.  This is not mandatory.  Over forty E-Business Suite teams offer these kinds of Office integrations today.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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