Search Results

Search found 1112 results on 45 pages for 'constraints'.

Page 23/45 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • Handling Deployment to Multiple Environments

    - by JayGee
    How should I handle deploying web applications to multiple servers? Constraints I have a dev, test and prod environment. No build server is available. Developers can't deploy to prod. The people that do deploy to prod copy files from test to prod. They don't have VS installed. Currently The way it's handled is using web.config transform. However, to deploy to prod involves putting prod code on the test server where it's copied over. Problem Sometimes simple mistakes are made, such as forgetting to change test back to the right environment after deployment. Or the test config gets moved to prod instead of the prod config. Solution So the question is, what is the best way to prevent mistakes from happening? My first thought is let the app determine which server it's on at runtime and use the appropriate settings/connection strings/etc... However, the server names could change in the not too distant future. So if multiple apps are hard coded, that would mean updating all of them. The easiest way to handle that situation would be to place a DLL in the GAC that determines the environment. Are there any drawbacks or possible complications that this would cause? Or is there a better solution to the problem than this?

    Read the article

  • Simple issue tracker for 1-2 developers

    - by devoured elysium
    (I'm not sure whether this pertains to the realm of programmers@se or so@se) I'm currently working mostly alone on a project (in Java). I'm mostly alone as I have an advisor that gives me high level instructions on what to do, and will seldom make any code contribution. She will code in a couple of acceptance tests from time to time, though. I've never used an Issue Tracker before, and was thinking about starting to use one now, as I'd like to have a place where I can log possible bugs I find and keep track of them in a centralized manner. Would it be possible to integrate the issue tracker with Eclipse, better yet. So here are the constraints: It's NOT a open-source project. Our code is not to be shared with anyone! we are and will be using Subversion; we have our own Subversion server and we will keep using this same Subversion server; it must be free; it must allow at least 2 users. What is your advice on what to pick? I'm looking for the simplest solution available!

    Read the article

  • Variant Management– Which Approach fits for my Product?

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

    Read the article

  • My father is a doctor. He is insisting on writing a database to store non-critical patient information, with no programming background

    - by Dominic Bou-Samra
    So, my father is currently in the process of "hacking" together a database using FileMaker Pro, a GUI based databasing tool for his small (4 doctor) practice. The database will be used to help ease the burden on reporting from medical machines, streamlining quite a clumsy process. He's got no programming background, and seems to be doing everything in his power to not learn things correctly. He's got duplicate data types, no database-enforced relationships (foreign/primary key constraints) and a dozen other issues. He's doing it all by hand via GUI tool using Youtube videos. My issue is, that whilst I want him to succeed 100%, I don't think it's appropriate for him to be handling these types of decisions. How do I convince him that without some sort of education in these topics, a hacked together solution is a bad idea? He's can be quite stubborn and I think he sees these types of jobs as "childs play" How should I approach this? Is it even that bad an idea - or am I correct in thinking he should hire a proper DBA/developer to handle this so that it doesn't become a maintenance nightmare? NB: I am a developer consultant of 4 years and I've seen my share of painful customer implementations.

    Read the article

  • Upcoming Directory Services Live Webcast - Improve Time-to-Market and Reduce Cost with Oracle Direct

    - by mark.wilcox
    We're doing another live webcast on May 27 - Here's the details: Live Webcast: Improve Time-to-Market and Reduce Cost with Oracle Directory Services Event Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010 Event Time: 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time / 1:00 Eastern Standard Time Organizations can spend up to 60% of their IT budgets on operational activities. • Are you being asked to do more, with less resources? • Have you had to lead a cost cutting exercise in your IT department? • Do you have licenses for software and wonder whether you are getting the most out of those resources? • Do you want to be an Identity Hero inside your organization? Oracle brings leadership in Directory Services to help organization's identify ways to leverage Oracle Virtual Directory to reduce costs in their enterprise. This presentation will explore ways to use Oracle Virtual Directory to federate faster, create architectures to meet aggressive time constraints for identity projects or mergers and acquisitions in a cost conscious environment. -- Posted via email from Virtual Identity Dialogue

    Read the article

  • MATLAB: Best fitness vs mean fitness, initial range

    - by Sa Ta
    Based on the example of Rastrigin's function. At the plot function, if I chose 'best fitness', on the same graph 'mean fitness' will also be plotted. I understand well about 'best fitness' whereby it plots the best function value in each generation versus iteration number. It will reach value zero after some times. I don't understand about 'mean fitness'in the graph plotted. What do those 'mean fitness' values mean? How does the 'mean fitness' graph help to understand Rastrigin's function? What are the meaning of the term initial population, initial score and initial range? I wish to have a better understanding of these terms. The default value for initial range is [0,1]. Does it mean that 0 is the lower bound (lb) and 1 is the upper bound (ub)? Do these values interfere with the lb and ub values I set in the constraints? I try to better understand about lb and ub. If my lb is 0 and ub is 5, does it mean that my final point values will be within 0 and 5? If I know the lb and ub for my problem is between 0 and 5, do I just set the initial range as [0,5] at all times and may I assume that this is the best option for initial range, and I need not try it with any other values?

    Read the article

  • Do we have enough time to build an electric car future?

    - by julien.groues
    A recent article from Greenbang has posed the question 'Do we have enough time to build an electric car future?'. The writer discusses that, although the future of transport might lie with electric cars, there is concern regarding whether we'll be able to build the market and infrastructure required to support them, before carbon and oil constraints create difficulties in powering the vehicles. Of course, the increasing use of Electric vehicles (EVs) is going to put excessive pressure on energy grids, as large volumes of electricity will need to be directed to charging points, which in turn must handle fluctuating demand at peak times. EVs are increasing in popularity as a sustainable method of transport to reduce carbon consumption, and electric utilities will have the opportunity, and the challenge, to quickly determine the best methods to fuel these vehicles and accommodate the associated increases in demand for energy. Critically, efficient software is required to provide diagnostic and predictive capabilities related to EV refuelling - for example, anticipated electricity flow will need to be addressed as the number of EVs on the road increases, and electricity will need to be directed to specific areas on-demand as vehicles attempt to recharge en-mass. But a smart grid infrastructure can meet these demands, intelligently. The implementation of a smart grid is not in the distant future, it is an achievable reality for utilities via simple installation of new software and technologies, which can be done incrementally for those facing existing legacy systems or concerned with upfront costs. The smart grid is integral to the monitoring and control of energy use as well as the future-proofing of the energy grid. A smart grid will be critical to meeting the electricity requirements of new EVs and will ensure their successful deployment by providing a reliable foundation for the data handling required to record and manage electricity distribution - from recording and assessing energy usage, to analysing data and sharing information with consumers via green billing. http://www.greenbang.com/do-we-have-enough-time-to-build-an-electric-car-future_14248.html

    Read the article

  • Run database checks but omit large tables or filegroups - New option in Ola Hallengren's Scripts

    - by Greg Low
    One of the things I've always wanted in DBCC CHECKDB is the option to omit particular tables from the check. The situation that I often see is that companies with large databases often have only one or two very large tables. They want to run a DBCC CHECKDB on the database to check everything except those couple of tables due to time constraints. I posted a request on the Connect site about time some time ago: https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/611164/dbcc-checkdb-omit-tables-option The workaround from the product team was that you could script out the checks that you did want to carry out, rather than omitting the ones that you didn't. I didn't overly like this as a workaround as clients often had a very large number of objects that they did want to check and only one or two that they didn't. I've always been impressed with the work that our buddy Ola Hallengren has done on his maintenance scripts. He pinged me recently about my old Connect item and said he was going to implement something similar. The good news is that it's available now. Here are some examples he provided of the newly-supported syntax: EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKDB' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKALLOC,CHECKTABLE,CHECKCATALOG', @Objects = 'AdventureWorks.Person.Address' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKALLOC,CHECKTABLE,CHECKCATALOG', @Objects = 'ALL_OBJECTS,-AdventureWorks.Person.Address' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKFILEGROUP,CHECKCATALOG', @FileGroups = 'AdventureWorks.PRIMARY' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKFILEGROUP,CHECKCATALOG', @FileGroups = 'ALL_FILEGROUPS,-AdventureWorks.PRIMARY' Note the syntax to omit an object from the list of objects and the option to omit one filegroup. Nice! Thanks Ola! You'll find details here: http://ola.hallengren.com/  

    Read the article

  • Adding complexity by generalising: how far should you go?

    - by marcog
    Reference question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4303813/help-with-interview-question The above question asked to solve a problem for an NxN matrix. While there was an easy solution, I gave a more general solution to solve the more general problem for an NxM matrix. A handful of people commented that this generalisation was bad because it made the solution more complex. One such comment is voted +8. Putting aside the hard-to-explain voting effects on SO, there are two types of complexity to be considered here: Runtime complexity, i.e. how fast does the code run Code complexity, i.e. how difficult is the code to read and understand The question of runtime complexity is something that requires a better understanding of the input data today and what it might look like in the future, taking the various growth factors into account where necessary. The question of code complexity is the one I'm interested in here. By generalising the solution, we avoid having to rewrite it in the event that the constraints change. However, at the same time it can often result in complicating the code. In the reference question, the code for NxN is easy to understand for any competent programmer, but the NxM case (unless documented well) could easily confuse someone coming across the code for the first time. So, my question is this: Where should you draw the line between generalising and keeping the code easy to understand?

    Read the article

  • MSDN Live 2010 &ndash; Delivered : 24 sessions (4 x 6) on Visual Studio and Team Foundation Server

    - by terje
    We (Mikael Nitell and me) got a whole track on the Norwegian MSDN Live tour this year.  We did these as a pair, and covered 4 cities over 4 days, 6 sessions per day, taking 8 hours to come through it.  The Islandic volcano made the travels a bit rough, but we managed 6 flights out of 8. The first one had to go by van instead, 7-8 hour drive each way together with other MSDN Live presenters – a memorable tour! Oslo was the absolute top point.  We had to change hall to a bigger one. People were crowding, and even the big hall was packed!  The presentations were mostly based on demos, but we had a few slides as well.  They have been uploaded to my SkyDrive.  Info to aliens – some of the text may be Norwegian. The sessions were as follows: Overview of news in Visual Studio and Team Foundation server 2010 Ensuring Quality with VS/TFS 2010 Releasing products with VS/TFS 2010 No More No Repro with VS/TFS 2010 Performance Testing and Parallel Programming with VS/TFS 2010 Migrating to VS/TFS 2010 Tips, tricks, news and some best practices with VS/TFS 2010   In the coming days, I will post up examples from the demos too, with explanations of how they are intended to work. These entries will also contain stuff we had to remove from the actual presentations due to the time constraints. We managed to create recordings of two of the sessions, which will be uploaded to Channel 9 by Microsoft, afaik.   I will update this blog with information about exact locations when that is done. Also note we’re (read:Osiris Data AS) running both Upgrade and Deep Dive courses  on VS/TFS 2010 now in May.  Please look here for more info. If you want to be informed, follow me on Twitter.  All blog entries will be announced on twitter.

    Read the article

  • ArchBeat Top 20 for March 25-31, 2012

    - by Bob Rhubart
    The top 20 most-clicked links as shared via my social networks for the week of March 25-31, 2012. Oracle Cloud Conference: dates and locations worldwide The One Skill All Leaders Should Work On | Scott Edinger BPM in Retail Industry | Sanjeev Sharma Oracle VM: What if you have just 1 HDD system | @yvelikanov Solution for installing the ADF 11.1.1.6.0 Runtimes onto a standalone WLS 10.3.6 | @chriscmuir Beware the 'Facebook Effect' when service-orienting information technology | @JoeMcKendrick Using Oracle VM with Amazon EC2 | @pythianfielding Oracle BPM: Adding an attachment during the Human Task Initialization | Manh-Kiet Yap When Your Influence Is Ineffective | Chris Musselwhite and Tammie Plouffe Oracle Enterprise Pack for Eclipse 12.1.1 update on OTN  A surefire recipe for cloud failure | @DavidLinthicum  IT workers bore brunt of offshoring over past decade: analysis | @JoeMcKendrick Private cloud-public cloud schism is a meaningless distraction | @DavidLinthicum Oracle Systems and Solutions at OpenWorld Tokyo 2012 Dissing Architects, or "What's wrong with the coffee?" | Bob Rhubart Validating an Oracle IDM Environment (including a Fusion Apps build out) | @FusionSecExpert Cookbook: SES and UCM setup | George Maggessy Red Samurai Tool Announcement - MDS Cleaner V2.0 | @AndrejusB OSB/OSR/OER in One Domain - QName violates loader constraints | John Graves Spring to Java EE Migration, Part 3 | @ensode Thought for the Day "Inspire action amongst your comrades by being a model to avoid." — Leon Bambrick

    Read the article

  • Adding complexity by generalising: how far should you go?

    - by marcog
    Reference question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4303813/help-with-interview-question The above question asked to solve a problem for an NxN matrix. While there was an easy solution, I gave a more general solution to solve the more general problem for an NxM matrix. A handful of people commented that this generalisation was bad because it made the solution more complex. One such comment is voted +8. Putting aside the hard-to-explain voting effects on SO, there are two types of complexity to be considered here: Runtime complexity, i.e. how fast does the code run Code complexity, i.e. how difficult is the code to read and understand The question of runtime complexity is something that requires a better understanding of the input data today and what it might look like in the future, taking the various growth factors into account where necessary. The question of code complexity is the one I'm interested in here. By generalising the solution, we avoid having to rewrite it in the event that the constraints change. However, at the same time it can often result in complicating the code. In the reference question, the code for NxN is easy to understand for any competent programmer, but the NxM case (unless documented well) could easily confuse someone coming across the code for the first time. So, my question is this: Where should you draw the line between generalising and keeping the code easy to understand?

    Read the article

  • KISS principle applied to programming language design?

    - by Giorgio
    KISS ("keep it simple stupid", see e.g. here) is an important principle in software development, even though it apparently originated in engineering. Citing from the wikipedia article: The principle is best exemplified by the story of Johnson handing a team of design engineers a handful of tools, with the challenge that the jet aircraft they were designing must be repairable by an average mechanic in the field under combat conditions with only these tools. Hence, the 'stupid' refers to the relationship between the way things break and the sophistication available to fix them. If I wanted to apply this to the field of software development I would replace "jet aircraft" with "piece of software", "average mechanic" with "average developer" and "under combat conditions" with "under the expected software development / maintenance conditions" (deadlines, time constraints, meetings / interruptions, available tools, and so on). So it is a commonly accepted idea that one should try to keep a piece of software simple stupid so that it easy to work on it later. But can the KISS principle be applied also to programming language design? Do you know of any programming languages that have been designed specifically with this principle in mind, i.e. to "allow an average programmer under average working conditions to write and maintain as much code as possible with the least cognitive effort"? If you cite any specific language it would be great if you could add a link to some document in which this intent is clearly expressed by the language designers. In any case, I would be interested to learn about the designers' (documented) intentions rather than your personal opinion about a particular programming language.

    Read the article

  • Generic Repositories with DI & Data Intensive Controllers

    - by James
    Usually, I consider a large number of parameters as an alarm bell that there may be a design problem somewhere. I am using a Generic Repository for an ASP.NET application and have a Controller with a growing number of parameters. public class GenericRepository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class { protected DbContext Context { get; set; } protected DbSet<T> DbSet { get; set; } public GenericRepository(DbContext context) { Context = context; DbSet = context.Set<T>(); } ...//methods excluded to keep the question readable } I am using a DI container to pass in the DbContext to the generic repository. So far, this has met my needs and there are no other concrete implmentations of IRepository<T>. However, I had to create a dashboard which uses data from many Entities. There was also a form containing a couple of dropdown lists. Now using the generic repository this makes the parameter requirments grow quickly. The Controller will end up being something like public HomeController(IRepository<EntityOne> entityOneRepository, IRepository<EntityTwo> entityTwoRepository, IRepository<EntityThree> entityThreeRepository, IRepository<EntityFour> entityFourRepository, ILogError logError, ICurrentUser currentUser) { } It has about 6 IRepositories plus a few others to include the required data and the dropdown list options. In my mind this is too many parameters. From a performance point of view, there is only 1 DBContext per request and the DI container will serve the same DbContext to all of the Repositories. From a code standards/readability point of view it's ugly. Is there a better way to handle this situation? Its a real world project with real world time constraints so I will not dwell on it too long, but from a learning perspective it would be good to see how such situations are handled by others.

    Read the article

  • Tips about how to spread Object Oriented practices

    - by Augusto
    I work for a medium company that has around 250 developers. Unfortunately, lots of them are stuck in a procedural way of thinking and some teams constantly deliver big Transactional Script applications, when in fact the application contains rich logic. They also fail to manage the design dependencies, and end up with services which depend on another large number of services (a clean example of Big Ball of Mud). My question is: Can you suggest how to spread this type of knowledge? I know that the surface of the problem is that these applications have a poor architecture and design. Another issue is that there are some developers who are against writing any kind of test. A few things I'm doing to change this (but I'm either failing or the change is too small are) Running presentations about design principles (SOLID, clean code, etc). Workshops about TDD and BDD. Coaching teams (this includes using sonar, findbugs, jdepend and other tools). IDE & Refactoring talks. A few things I'm thinking to do in the future (but I'm concern that they might not be good) Form a team of OO evangelists, who disseminate an OO way of thinking in differet teams (these people would need to change teams every few months). Running design review sessions, to criticise the design and suggest improvements (even if the improvements are not done because of time constraints, I think this might be useful) . Something I found with the teams I coach, is that as soon as I leave them, they revert back to the old practices. I know I don't spend a lot of time with them, usually just one month. So whatever I'm doing, it doesn't stick. I'm sorry this question is spattered with frustration, but the alterative to write this was to hit my head on the wall until I pass out.

    Read the article

  • Aberdeen 10/25 Webcast: Service Excellence and the Path to Business Transformation

    - by Charles Knapp
    The uncertain economy has had a sustained impact on service organizations and processes. The impact has contributed to new complexities - new customer engagement channels, enhanced user and customer expectations, rapidly evolving technologies, increased competition, and increased compliance and regulatory mandates. Yet many organizations have embraced these challenges by investing in and transforming customer service to evolve, differentiate, and thrive under current constraints. What is their secret? Transforming Support Centers into Profit Centers According to the recent Aberdeen research report, “Service Excellence and the Path to Business Transformation”, service is now viewed as a strategic profit center at nearly 70% of organizations. As customers demand improved service, in terms of speed, efficiency and reliability, an organization's success has become increasingly dependent on optimizing the customer ownership experience. Those service organizations focused on providing easy, consistent, and relevant interactions across the customer lifecycle, including service and support delivery, are experiencing higher levels of customer acquisition and retention and are achieving better revenue and margin growth rates.  Don't miss this opportunity to learn how to transform to provide the next generation of service offerings. Click here to register now for the webcast and download a complimentary copy of this informative new research paper.

    Read the article

  • GPU based procedual terrain borders?

    - by OnePie
    I'm working on a game that preferibly should feature a combination of designed and procedually generated terrain where the designer specifies in somewhat detailed terms what type of terrain a given area will have (grasslands, forest etc...) and then a precedual algorithm takes care of the rest. I'm not talking about minecraft style biomoes, but rather the game map for a strategy game. Each 'area' will not take up that much of the screen, and thus be more akin to a tile whose texture is procedually generated. While procedually generating terrain textures on the GPU are not that difficult, the hard part is making the borders between them look good. Currently, the 'tiles' are large enough to be visible (due to memory constraints mainly, we are talking planetary sized textures for a game taking place in space and on a continental ground view with seamless transitions between them) and creating good borders between them with an algorithm that is fast enough to be useful has proven difficult. Sampling the n-surrounding pixels and using the combiened result did not yield very good borders and was fairly slow on the GPU to boot (ca 12ms for me, that is without any lighning or shading and with very simple terrain texture shaders). So are there any practical known methods to solve this problem?

    Read the article

  • Languages with a clear distinction between subroutines that are purely functional, mutating, state-changing, etc?

    - by CPX
    Lately I've become more and more frustrated that in most modern programming languages I've worked with (C/C++, C#, F#, Ruby, Python, JS and more) there is very little, if any, language support for determining what a subroutine will actually do. Consider the following simple pseudo-code: var x = DoSomethingWith(y); How do I determine what the call to DoSomethingWith(y) will actually do? Will it mutate y, or will it return a copy of y? Does it depend on global or local state, or is it only dependent on y? Will it change the global or local state? How does closure affect the outcome of the call? In all languages I've encountered, almost none of these questions can be answered by merely looking at the signature of the subroutine, and there is almost never any compile-time or run-time support either. Usually, the only way is to put your trust in the author of the API, and hope that the documentation and/or naming conventions reveal what the subroutine will actually do. My question is this: Does there exist any languages today that make symbolic distinctions between these types of scenarios, and places compile-time constraints on what code you can actually write? (There is of course some support for this in most modern languages, such as different levels of scope and closure, the separation between static and instance code, lambda functions, et cetera. But too often these seem to come into conflict with each other. For instance, a lambda function will usually either be purely functional, and simply return a value based on input parameters, or mutate the input parameters in some way. But it is usually possible to access static variables from a lambda function, which in turn can give you access to instance variables, and then it all breaks apart.)

    Read the article

  • How to Assure an Effective Data Model

    As a general rule in my opinion the effectiveness of a data model can be directly related to the accuracy and complexity of a project’s requirements. For example there is no need to work on very detailed data models when the details surrounding a specific data model have not been defined or even clarified. Developing data models when the clarity of project requirements is limited tends to introduce designed issues because the proper details to create an effective data model are not even known. One way to avoid this issue is to create data models that correspond to the complexity of the existing project requirements so that when requirements are updated then new data models can be created based any new discoveries regarding requirements on a fine grain level.  This allows for data models to be composed of general entities to be created initially when a project’s requirements are very vague and then the entities are refined as new and more substantial requirements are defined or redefined. This promotes communication amongst all stakeholders within a project as they go through the process of defining and finalizing project requirements.In addition, here are some general tips that can be applied to projects in regards to data modeling.Initially model all data generally and slowly reactor the data model as new requirements and business constraints are applied to a project.Ensure that data modelers have the proper tools and training they need to design a data model accurately.Create a common location for all project documents so that everyone will be able to review a project’s data models along with any other project documentation.All data models should follow a clear naming schema that tells readers the intended purpose for the data and how it is going to be applied within a project.

    Read the article

  • Generic rule parser for RPG board game rules - how to do it?

    - by burzum
    I want to build a generic rule parser for pen and paper style RPG systems. A rule can involve usually 1 to N entities 1 to N roles of a dice and calculating values based on multiple attributes of an entity. For example: Player has STR 18, his currently equipped weapon gives him a bonus of +1 STR but a malus of DEX -1. He attacks a monster entity and the game logic now is required to run a set of rules or actions: Player rolls the dice, if he gets for example 8 or more (base attack value he needs to pass is one of his base attributes!) his attack is successfully. The monster then rolls the dice to calculate if the attack goes through it's armor. If yes the damage is taken if not the attack was blocked. Besides simple math rules can also have constraints like applying only to a certain class of user (warrior vs wizzard for example) or any other attribute. So this is not just limited to mathematical operations. If you're familiar with RPG systems like Dungeon and Dragons you'll know what I'm up to. My issue is now that I have no clue how to exactly build this the best possible way. I want people to be able to set up any kind of rule and later simply do an action like selecting a player and a monster and run an action (set of rules like an attack). I'm asking less for help with the database side of things but more about how to come up with a structure and a parser for it to keep my rules flexible. The language of choice for this is php by the way.

    Read the article

  • Is it appropriate to run a complex enterprise-system configuration and migration project in a similar way to a Scrum development project?

    - by AndyM
    I'm just starting out on the implementation of a large enterprise-wide system, which has complex requirements and many stakeholders. The company has been through high-level evaluation and tender process and determined to purchase a highly configurable "off-the-shelf" product rather than building an entirely bespoke system. The system will replace several existing systems and will require a significant amount of data migration. I'm thinking that the implementation of this system (which is expected to take over 2 years) could be run in a similar way to a Scrum software development project. With the first sprints targeted at building the minimal possible functionality needed (across all functional areas), and then iteratively deepening the level of functionality according the stakeholder feedback. I think this will de-risk the project and help ensure a balance of stakeholder needs within the available time. The user stories are still the same, it's just that to implement them we have work within the constraints of the pre-purchased system. When it comes to 'building stuff', instead of writing custom code the team will be configuring the off-the-shelf package, writing data conversion scripts and the like (and it should be a lot quicker!). Does this sound like a sensible approach? Does the Agile approach makes sense here?

    Read the article

  • With Google Analytics, is it possible to check a specific page in Multi-Channel conversion attribution?

    - by Emmett R.
    I'm somewhat new to Google Analytics, and I'm trying to track all conversions that are assisted by a particular landing page, because I don't expect an instant purchase. I have e-commerce tracking set up. Due to the constraints of the associated ad campaign, I can't include the source/medium code in the url when people go to the landing page, and all of my traffic to the landing page is likely to be direct, so I'm not sure how to tell Multi-Channel marketing that it's a significant page. I know how to add events to a page, but I'm still figuring out what they can and cannot do. Would creating a redirect from the landing url to an identical url+source/medium code work? Any advice on how to accomplish this would be greatly appreciated. Tracking the final sale conversion is not the issue. Ecommerce reporting is functioning just fine on the site. I just want to report the landing page as an assist, whenever it shows up in the funnel, and I need to be able to do that across multiple visits.

    Read the article

  • Are specific types still necessary?

    - by MKO
    One thing that occurred to me the other day, are specific types still necessary or a legacy that is holding us back. What I mean is: do we really need short, int, long, bigint etc etc. I understand the reasoning, variables/objects are kept in memory, memory needs to be allocated and therefore we need to know how big a variable can be. But really, shouldn't a modern programming language be able to handle "adaptive types", ie, if something is only ever allocated in the shortint range it uses fewer bytes, and if something is suddenly allocated a very big number the memory is allocated accordinly for that particular instance. Float, real and double's are a bit trickier since the type depends on what precision you need. Strings should however be able to take upp less memory in many instances (in .Net) where mostly ascii is used buth strings always take up double the memory because of unicode encoding. One argument for specific types might be that it's part of the specification, ie for example a variable should not be able to be bigger than a certain value so we set it to shortint. But why not have type constraints instead? It would be much more flexible and powerful to be able to set permissible ranges and values on variables (and properties). I realize the immense problem in revamping the type architecture since it's so tightly integrated with underlying hardware and things like serialization might become tricky indeed. But from a programming perspective it should be great no?

    Read the article

  • Is there a common programming term for the problems of adding features to an already-featureful program?

    - by Jeremy Friesner
    I'm looking for a commonly used programming term to describe a software-engineering phenomenon, which (for lack of a better way to describe it) I'll illustrate first with a couple of examples-by-analogy: Scenario 1: We want to build/extend a subway system on the outskirts of a small town in Wyoming. There are the usual subway-problems to solve, of course (hiring the right construction company, choosing the best route, buying the subway cars), but other than that it's pretty straightforward to implement the system because there aren't a huge number of constraints to satisfy. Scenario 2: Same as above, except now we need to build/extend the subway system in downtown Los Angeles. Here we face all of the problems we did in case (1), but also additional problems -- most of the applicable space is already in use, and has a vocal constituency which will protest loudly if we inconvenience them by repurposing, redesigning, or otherwise modifying the infrastructure that they rely on. Because of this, extensions to the system happen either very slowly and expensively, or they don't happen at all. I sometimes see a similar pattern with software development -- adding a new feature to a small/simple program is straightforward, but as the program grows, adding further new features becomes more and more difficult, if only because it is difficult to integrate the new feature without adversely affecting any of the large number of existing use-cases or user-constituencies. (even with a robust, adaptable program design, you run into the problem of the user interface becoming so elaborate that the program becomes difficult to learn or use) Is there a term for this phenomenon?

    Read the article

  • Using ConcurrentQueue for thread-safe Performance Bookkeeping.

    - by Strenium
    Just a small tidbit that's sprung up today. I had to book-keep and emit diagnostics for the average thread performance in a highly-threaded code over a period of last X number of calls and no more. Need of the day: a thread-safe, self-managing stats container. Since .NET 4.0 introduced new thread-safe 'Collections.Concurrent' objects and I've been using them frequently - the one in particular seemed like a good fit for storing each threads' performance data - ConcurrentQueue. But I wanted to store only the most recent X# of calls and since the ConcurrentQueue currently does not support size constraint I had to come up with my own generic version which attempts to restrict usage to numeric types only: unfortunately there is no IArithmetic-like interface which constrains to only numeric types – so the constraints here here aren't as elegant as they could be. (Note the use of the Average() method, of course you can use others as well as make your own).   FIFO FixedSizedConcurrentQueue using System;using System.Collections.Concurrent;using System.Linq; namespace xxxxx.Data.Infrastructure{    [Serializable]    public class FixedSizedConcurrentQueue<T> where T : struct, IConvertible, IComparable<T>    {        private FixedSizedConcurrentQueue() { }         public FixedSizedConcurrentQueue(ConcurrentQueue<T> queue)        {            _queue = queue;        }         ConcurrentQueue<T> _queue = new ConcurrentQueue<T>();         public int Size { get { return _queue.Count; } }        public double Average { get { return _queue.Average(arg => Convert.ToInt32(arg)); } }         public int Limit { get; set; }        public void Enqueue(T obj)        {            _queue.Enqueue(obj);            lock (this)            {                T @out;                while (_queue.Count > Limit) _queue.TryDequeue(out @out);            }        }    } }   The usage case is straight-forward, in this case I’m using a FIFO queue of maximum size of 200 to store doubles to which I simply Enqueue() the calculated rates: Usage var RateQueue = new FixedSizedConcurrentQueue<double>(new ConcurrentQueue<double>()) { Limit = 200 }; /* greater size == longer history */   That’s about it. Happy coding!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >