Search Results

Search found 8638 results on 346 pages for 'vs'.

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 22/346 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • BDD/TDD vs JAD?

    - by Jonathan Conway
    I've been proposing that my workplace implement Behavior-Driven-Development, by writing high-level specifications in a scenario format, and in such a way that one could imagine writing a test for it. I do know that working against testable specifications tends to increase developer productivity. And I can already think of several examples where this would be the case on our own project. However it's difficult to demonstrate the value of this to the business. This is because we already have a Joint Application Development (JAD) process in place, in which developers, management, user-experience and testers all get together to agree on a common set of requirements. So, they ask, why should developers work against the test-cases created by testers? These are for verification and are based on the higher-level specs created by the UX team, which the developers currently work off. This, they say, is sufficient for developers and there's no need to change how the specs are written. They seem to have a point. What is the actual benefit of BDD/TDD, if you already have a test-team who's test cases are fully compatible with the higher-level specs currently given to the developers?

    Read the article

  • In SEO & SEM terms, use of a international domain vs a local domain

    - by Paddy
    In terms of SEO & SEM if I have a .com and a .co.uk. Would it be better to use the .com and park the .co.uk, If I am selling the product locally (in the uk) and later moving out into the international market? Will I struggle more to compete locally with regards to local searches and Google Adwords, if I make the .com as the primary domain? Does the parking of the .co.uk or the .com effect the relevance of a web domains search locally and internationally?

    Read the article

  • Removing hard-coded values and defensive design vs YAGNI

    - by Ben Scott
    First a bit of background. I'm coding a lookup from Age - Rate. There are 7 age brackets so the lookup table is 3 columns (From|To|Rate) with 7 rows. The values rarely change - they are legislated rates (first and third columns) that have stayed the same for 3 years. I figured that the easiest way to store this table without hard-coding it is in the database in a global configuration table, as a single text value containing a CSV (so "65,69,0.05,70,74,0.06" is how the 65-69 and 70-74 tiers would be stored). Relatively easy to parse then use. Then I realised that to implement this I would have to create a new table, a repository to wrap around it, data layer tests for the repo, unit tests around the code that unflattens the CSV into the table, and tests around the lookup itself. The only benefit of all this work is avoiding hard-coding the lookup table. When talking to the users (who currently use the lookup table directly - by looking at a hard copy) the opinion is pretty much that "the rates never change." Obviously that isn't actually correct - the rates were only created three years ago and in the past things that "never change" have had a habit of changing - so for me to defensively program this I definitely shouldn't store the lookup table in the application. Except when I think YAGNI. The feature I am implementing doesn't specify that the rates will change. If the rates do change, they will still change so rarely that maintenance isn't even a consideration, and the feature isn't actually critical enough that anything would be affected if there was a delay between the rate change and the updated application. I've pretty much decided that nothing of value will be lost if I hard-code the lookup, and I'm not too concerned about my approach to this particular feature. My question is, as a professional have I properly justified that decision? Hard-coding values is bad design, but going to the trouble of removing the values from the application seems to violate the YAGNI principle. EDIT To clarify the question, I'm not concerned about the actual implementation. I'm concerned that I can either do a quick, bad thing, and justify it by saying YAGNI, or I can take a more defensive, high-effort approach, that even in the best case ultimately has low benefits. As a professional programmer does my decision to implement a design that I know is flawed simply come down to a cost/benefit analysis?

    Read the article

  • Programming knowledge vs. programming logic

    - by Shirish11
    Is there any difference between the two topics? I have seen companies asking for Good Programming knowledge some Good Programming logic. I believe that Programming knowledge is related to knowledge about the language in consideration and Programming logic is problem solving logic using programming (in general). Please correct me if I am wrong. Also what is more important. Edit: Do selection of components for application, designing interfaces validating user inputs fall under programming knowledge or Programming logic? Does programming logic simply imply problem solving, or is there anything else which it should comprise of?

    Read the article

  • Just Another Web Service (JAWS) vs SOA

    Over the last few years SOA has been a hot topic lending it to be abused by many that have no understanding of the concept. In my opinion, one of the largest issues facing SOA is the lack of understanding and experience implementing SOA by business and IT alike. I just recently deployed a new web services that is called by multiple service clients. Would you call this SOA because it is a web service that can be called by any requesting client? In my opinion, this is not SOA; instead it is Just Another Web Service (JAWS).  Just because a company creates a web service does not mean that they are using SOA, in fact it only means that they are using a web service. SOA is an architectural style that focuses on the design of systems based on the consumer and providers thorough the use of contracts.  With this approach SOA needs to be applied for the top down in order for it to reach its full potential. In the case of the web service, the service is just a small part of the entire system that is reusable and has the flexibility to change. In order for a company in this case to move towards SOA then they need to define business processes that can be shared through the use of reusable software and loose coupling. Once the company’s thought and development process change to address changes in this manner they can start to become more SOA.

    Read the article

  • Android Development: MVC vs MVVM

    - by Mel
    I've started coding for android and I'm having difficulty trying to properly partition my code. I always end up with a very tight coupling between my UI logic and the actual controls I use to represent them. I have background in both WPF MVVM and ASP.net MVC so I'm familiar with those patterns. After some digging, I found Android Binding. It seems nice and fits nicely with my WPF background. However, it bugs me that its not built in. I'm pretty sure that the android makers have thought of this when designing the android programming interface. So my question is, what is the best practice pattern to use when developing in android, if any. I have looked and looked at their site but didn't find anything...

    Read the article

  • VS 2010, Silverlight, WP 7, Azure, F#, jQuery & more take Center Stage at India's Definitive Microso

    Microsoft has announced a slew of new and exciting releases that will help you take your code to the next level in 2010. As one of the longest running independent developer conferences in India, GIDS.NET at the Great Indian Developer Summit 2010 is uniquely positioned to provide a blend of practical, pragmatic and immediately applicable knowledge and a glimpse of the future of technology. At GIDS.NET, 0n 20 April 2010 in Bangalore, expert speakers will address a wide range of topics, including .NET...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • CRM vs VRM

    - by David Dorf
    In a previous post, I discussed the potential power of combining social, interest, and location graphs in order to personalize marketing and shopping experiences for consumers.  Marketing companies have been trying to collect detailed information for that very purpose, a large majority of which comes from tracking people on the internet.  But their approaches stem from the one-way nature of traditional advertising.  With TV, radio, and magazines there is no opportunity to truly connect to customers, which has trained marketing companies to [covertly] collect data and segment customers into easily identifiable groups.  To a large extent, we think of this as CRM. But what if we turned this viewpoint upside-down to accommodate for the two-way nature of social media?  The notion of marketing as conversations was the basis for the Cluetrain, an early attempt at drawing attention to the fact that customers are actually unique humans.  A more practical implementation is Project VRM, which is a reverse CRM of sorts.  Instead of vendors managing their relationships with customers, customers manage their relationships with vendors. Your shopping experience is not really controlled by you; rather, its controlled by the retailer and advertisers.  And unfortunately, they typically don't give you a say in the matter.  Yes, they might tailor the content for "female age 25-35 interested in shoes" but that's not really the essence of you, is it?  A better approach is to the let consumers volunteer information about themselves.  And why wouldn't they if it means a better, more relevant shopping experience?  I'd gladly list out my likes and dislikes in exchange for getting rid of all those annoying cookies on my harddrive. I really like this diagram from Beyond SocialCRM as it captures the differences between CRM and VRM. The closest thing to VRM I can find is Buyosphere, a start-up that allows consumers to track their shopping history across many vendors, then share it appropriately.  Also, Amazon does a pretty good job allowing its customers to edit their profile, which includes everything you've ever purchased from Amazon.  You can mark items as gifts, or explicitly exclude them from their recommendation engine.  This is a win-win for both the consumer and retailer. So here is my plea to retailers: Instead of trying to infer my interests from snapshots of my day, please just ask me.  We'll both have a better experience in the long-run.

    Read the article

  • Video Conferencing Vs. Audio Web Conferencing

    Organizations are generally confused whether to use audio web conferencing or video conferencing to communicate with their clients, stakeholders, members and all other relevant individuals. Both type... [Author: Zaibatt Zaki - Computers and Internet - August 24, 2009]

    Read the article

  • Default Parameters vs Method Overloading

    - by João Angelo
    With default parameters introduced in C# 4.0 one might be tempted to abandon the old approach of providing method overloads to simulate default parameters. However, you must take in consideration that both techniques are not interchangeable since they show different behaviors in certain scenarios. For me the most relevant difference is that default parameters are a compile time feature while method overloading is a runtime feature. To illustrate these concepts let’s take a look at a complete, although a bit long, example. What you need to retain from the example is that static method Foo uses method overloading while static method Bar uses C# 4.0 default parameters. static void CreateCallerAssembly(string name) { // Caller class - Invokes Example.Foo() and Example.Bar() string callerCode = String.Concat( "using System;", "public class Caller", "{", " public void Print()", " {", " Console.WriteLine(Example.Foo());", " Console.WriteLine(Example.Bar());", " }", "}"); var parameters = new CompilerParameters(new[] { "system.dll", "Common.dll" }, name); new CSharpCodeProvider().CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, callerCode); } static void Main() { // Example class - Foo uses overloading while Bar uses C# 4.0 default parameters string exampleCode = String.Concat( "using System;", "public class Example", "{{", " public static string Foo() {{ return Foo(\"{0}\"); }}", " public static string Foo(string key) {{ return \"FOO-\" + key; }}", " public static string Bar(string key = \"{0}\") {{ return \"BAR-\" + key; }}", "}}"); var compiler = new CSharpCodeProvider(); var parameters = new CompilerParameters(new[] { "system.dll" }, "Common.dll"); // Build Common.dll with default value of "V1" compiler.CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, String.Format(exampleCode, "V1")); // Caller1 built against Common.dll that uses a default of "V1" CreateCallerAssembly("Caller1.dll"); // Rebuild Common.dll with default value of "V2" compiler.CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, String.Format(exampleCode, "V2")); // Caller2 built against Common.dll that uses a default of "V2" CreateCallerAssembly("Caller2.dll"); dynamic caller1 = Assembly.LoadFrom("Caller1.dll").CreateInstance("Caller"); dynamic caller2 = Assembly.LoadFrom("Caller2.dll").CreateInstance("Caller"); Console.WriteLine("Caller1.dll:"); caller1.Print(); Console.WriteLine("Caller2.dll:"); caller2.Print(); } And if you run this code you will get the following output: // Caller1.dll: // FOO-V2 // BAR-V1 // Caller2.dll: // FOO-V2 // BAR-V2 You see that even though Caller1.dll runs against the current Common.dll assembly where method Bar defines a default value of “V2″ the output show us the default value defined at the time Caller1.dll compiled against the first version of Common.dll. This happens because the compiler will copy the current default value to each method call, much in the same way a constant value (const keyword) is copied to a calling assembly and changes to it’s value will only be reflected if you rebuild the calling assembly again. The use of default parameters is also discouraged by Microsoft in public API’s as stated in (CA1026: Default parameters should not be used) code analysis rule.

    Read the article

  • Spring MVC vs raw servlets and template engine?

    - by Gigatron
    I've read numerous articles about the Spring MVC framework, and I still can't see the benefits of using it. It looks like writing even a simple application with it requires creating a big hodgepodge of XML files and annotations and other reams of code to conform to what the framework wants, a whole bunch of moving parts to accomplish a simple single task. Any time I look at a Spring example, I can see how I can write something with the same functionality using a simple servlet and template engine (e.g. FreeMarker, StringTemplate), in half the lines of code and little or no XML files and other artifacts. Just grab the data from the session and request, call the application domain objects if necessary, pass the results to the template engine to generate the resulting web page, done. What am I missing? Can you describe even one example of something that is actually made simpler with Spring than using a combination of raw servlets with a template engine? Or is Spring MVC just one of those overly complicated things that people use only because their boss tells them to use it?

    Read the article

  • Solo vs Team development and the consequences

    - by Mathieu
    Hi, I've been programming for a while on different languages. I never really studied that at school nor worked on a team of more than 2 (me included). Still, I've been a professional developper for over three years. Last year, I took over my first C# project and it ended up being fine. I can't help but think that because I learned and worked alone I must be missing some concepts/hints/edge. For those who've been solo developpers before being part of a team, can you share your experience? Did you realize you were missing something? Did you find it hard? Did you learn faster after? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • virtualbox host | Ubuntu vs XP

    - by iambriansreed
    In order to lengthen the lifespan of my machine I am replacing the weakest link, the hard drive and installing a new OS. I had planned on using xp pro as my virtualbox host and ubuntu as guest. After messing with ubuntu desktop and server I am really impressed and am thinking of reversing the virtualbox setup; ubuntu host xp guest. I would use XP for Adobe Fireworks, Netflix, and iTunes (maybe) that's pretty much it. Any reason not to do ubuntu host with xp guest? I know the xp vbox will run slower as a guest but really how much slower? It's a desktop. 4gb ram, 500gb disk, Pent D 3.2 ghz

    Read the article

  • JavaOne+Develop vs Oracle OpenWorld

    - by Rick Ramsey
    http://cheapoair.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/san-francisco-napa-and-sonoma-a-first-visit/ This year, Oracle OpenWorld will be held Sep 19-23rd in San Francisco. Also this year, JavaOne+Develop will be held Sep 19-23d in San Francisco. How can that be? Simple. Oracle has acquired the city of San Francisco. OK, not all of it. But an awful lot of it. And it didn't actually acquire the city of San Francisco. It just sorta borrowed it. So, Oracle OpenWorld The world's most important developer conferences are creating the world's coolest neighborhood The Zone--San Francisco's Hotel Nikko, Hilton San Francisco, and Parc 55 hotels and the surrounding area--will be dedicated to developers during the week of JavaOne + Develop. Unparalleled education and practical hands-on sessions, engaging activities, exceptional entertainment, and food and drink in the Zone will be exclusively geared toward the developer community converging at JavaOne + Develop. Network, share information, and learn from leading experts in the Java, PL/SQL, rich internet application development, SOA communities, and more. Forget the business casual dress code and golf simulation: The Zone does things the developers' way. See for yourself, September 19 - 23, 2010. Participate in dozens of hands-on labs, including Oracle Database, Oracle Application Express, Oracle WebLogic Server, Java, SOA, .NET, Oracle JDeveloper, Eclipse, Oracle Solaris Studio, and application grid technologies The Develop 2010 call for papers is now closed. Review and selection is under way, and we expect to notify presenters by mid-May, 2010. If the submissions we've received are any indication, you can look forward to an outstanding developer conference this year in San Francisco. Thanks to all of you who contributed papers by the March 21 deadline.

    Read the article

  • Experience vs. versatility

    - by Florin Bombeanu
    Let's say a .NET programmer works at a company which provides software on demand, not as a product. The programmer works in WPF for a period of time and he/she invests lots of time in it. He/she get very good at WPF and Windows Forms and desktop development in general. But the company has to provide a web application now, so the developer has to learn MVC or Web Forms. He/she is not experienced in web development so he/she starts investing time in this new technology and in time they get good at it. But this time the company has to provide a Sharepoint solution, and so on. What is more important: Being very very good at a certain technology, Or be as versatile as possible knowing less in each technology but covering a greater area of expertise? Should the programmer keep studying and working in WPF until he/she reaches a guru level or is it a good thing that they had to learn other technologies as well? I agree with those of you who will say that when learning different technologies you will also learn things which are useful no matter the technology you're programming in. But eventually, when the programmer will want to change jobs, will it matter more that he/she knows some WPF, MVC or Sharepoint than the fact that he/she is insanely good at one of them? I would think the second one is more important since most companies are looking for a developer for a certain technology. I don't think there are many companies looking for technical know-it-all people. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Functional/nonfunctional requirements VS design ideas

    - by Nicholas Chow
    Problem domain Functional requirements defines what a system does. Non-Functional requirements defines quality attributes of what the system does as a whole.(performance, security, reliability, volume, useability, etc.) Constraints limits the design space, they restrict designers to certain types of solutions. Solution domain Design ideas , defines how the system does it. For example a stakeholder need might be we want to increase our sales, therefore we must improve the usability of our webshop so more customers will purchase, a requirement can be written for this. (problem domain) Design takes this further into the solution domain by saying "therefore we want to offer credit card payments in addition to the current prepayment option". My problem is that the transition phase from requirement to design seems really vague, therefore when writing requirements I am often confused whether or not I incorporated design ideas in my requirements, that would make my requirement wrong. Another problem is that I often write functional requirements as what a system does, and then I also specify in what timeframe it must be done. But is this correct? Is it then a still a functional requirement or a non functional one? Is it better to seperate it into two distinct requirements? Here are a few requirements I wrote: FR1 Registration of Organizer FR1 describes the registration of an Organizer on CrowdFundum FR1.1 The system shall display a registration form on the website. FR1.2 The system shall require a Name, Username, Document number passport/ID card, Address, Zip code, City, Email address, Telephone number, Bank account, Captcha code on the registration form when a user registers. FR1.4 The system shall display an error message containing: “Registration could not be completed” to the subscriber within 1 seconds after the system check of the registration form was unsuccessful. FR1.5 The system shall send a verification email containing a verification link to the subscriber within 30 seconds after the system check of the registration form was successful. FR1.6 The system shall add the newly registered Organizer to the user base within 5 seconds after the verification link was accessed. FR2 Organizer submits a Project FR2 describes the submission of a Project by an Organizer on CrowdFundum - FR2 The system shall display a submit Project form to the Organizer accounts on the website.< - FR2.3 The system shall check for completeness the Name of the Project, 1-3 Photo’s, Keywords of the Project, Punch line, Minimum and maximum amount of people, Funding threshold, One or more reward tiers, Schedule of when what will be organized, Budget plan, 300-800 Words of additional information about the Project, Contact details within 1 secondin after an Organizer submits the submit Project form. - FR2.8 The system shall add to the homepage in the new Projects category the Project link within 30 seconds after the system made a Project webpage - FR2.9 The system shall include in the Project link for the homepage : Name of the Project, 1 Photo, Punch line within 30 seconds after the system made a Project webpage. Questions: FR 1.1 : Have I incorporated a design idea here, would " the system shall have a registration form" be a better functional requirement? F1.2 ,2.3 : Is this not singular? Would the conditions be better written for each its own separate requirement FR 1.4: Is this a design idea? Is this a correct functional requirement or have I incorporated non functional(performance) in it? Would it be better if I written it like this: FR1 The system shall display an error message when check is unsuccessful. NFR: The system will respond to unsuccesful registration form checks within 1 seconds. Same question with FR 2.8 and 2.9. FR2.3: The system shall check for "completeness", is completeness here used ambigiously? Should I rephrase it? FR1.2: I added that the system shall require a "Captcha code" is this a functional requirement or does it belong to the "security aspect" of a non functional requirement. I am eagerly waiting for your response. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Normals vs Normal maps

    - by KaiserJohaan
    I am using Assimp asset importer (http://assimp.sourceforge.net/lib_html/index.html) to parse 3d models. So far, I've simply pulled out the normal vectors which are defined for each vertex in my meshes. Yet I have also found various tutorials on normal maps... As I understand it for normal maps, the normal vectors are stored in each texel of a normal map, and you pull these out of the normal texture in the shader. Why is there two ways to get the normals, which one is considered best-practice and why?

    Read the article

  • web vs desktop? (php vs c++?)

    - by Dhaivat Pandya
    I need to write a simple file transfer mechanism (that isn't ftp). Firstly, it must have a GUI. Secondly, it must not be dropbox. Third, it may not use any paid libraries, and hopefully, it uses open source components. The question that came to my mind is, where is everyone moving, from desktop to web, or from web to desktop? Would it be more useful to be experienced in say, C++ than in PHP (or vice versa)?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Puzzle – SELECT * vs SELECT COUNT(*)

    - by pinaldave
    Earlier this weekend I have presented at Bangalore User Group on the subject of SQL Server Tips and Tricks. During the presentation I have asked a question to attendees. It was very interesting to see that I have received various different answer to my question. Here is the same question for you and I would like to see what your answer to this question. Question: SELECT * gives error when executed alone but SELECT COUNT(*) does not. Why? Select * - resulting Error Select count * - NOT resulting Error Please leave your answer as comment over here. If you prefer you can blog post about this on your blog and put a link here. I will publish valid answer with due credit in future blog posts. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, Readers Question, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Puzzle, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • Build one to throw away vs Second-system effect

    - by m3th0dman
    One one hand there is an advice that says "Build one to throw away". Only after finishing a software system and seeing the end product we realize what went wrong in the design phase and understand how we should have really done it. On the other hand there is the "second-system effect" which says that the second system of the same kind that is designed is usually worse than the first one; there are many features that did not fit in the first project and were pushed into the second version usually leading to overly complex and overly engineered. Isn't here some contradiction between these principles? What is the correct view over the problems and where is the border between these two? I believe that these "good practices" are were firstly promoted in the seminal book The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks. I know that some of these issues are solved by Agile methodologies, but deep down, the problem is still the principles still stand; for example we would not make important design changes 3 sprints before going live.

    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 | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >