Search Results

Search found 8582 results on 344 pages for 'integration tests'.

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 24/344 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • SQL Server 2008 R2 'Madison' Undergoing Final Tests

    Microsoft on Friday announced that it had released the final Parallel Data Warehouse version of SQL Server 2008 R2 to testers....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

  • Libreoffice theme integration not working (Xubuntu)

    - by Treepata
    I am running Xubuntu 11.10 and everything works nicely. I have selected a nice Xfce theme and everything looks beautiful, except Libreoffice. While other programmes (Gimp, Inkscape, Thunar etc.) integrate with the selected Appearance & Window Manager theme, Libreoffice looks like a Windows 98 programme. Does anyone know how to fix this? I have already tried this solution, without success: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1584010&page=2 Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • Does ActiveCollab subversion integration work with subversion over ssh?

    - by executor21
    I'm trying to setup a repository in an ActiveCollab project. During setup, it reports that the connection tests successfully. However, when I try to actually update the repository, I get the following message: Could not obrain the highest revision number for the given repository. If I try to browse the repository, the following error comes up: Fatal error: Call to a member function getRevision() on a non-object in /u/sites/activecollab/webroot/shared/activecollab/activecollab/application/modules/source/controllers/RepositoryController.class.php on line 357 Is this because of trying to access the repository via svn+ssh plugin rather than http? Or did something happen on the ActiveCollab end? The repository is accessed fine via other means -- only ActiveCollab has the problem.

    Read the article

  • How to manage end user documentation for a project under continuous integration?

    - by mcdon
    I have a project under continuous integration and would like to add end user documentation to the project. The end user documentation is a user manual, not API documentation. In our environment we use windows, c#, msbuild, cruisecontrol.net and subversion. We are currently using DocToHelp to create our help file, which is based on an msword document. I'm looking for some guidance on how to manage the end user documentation. What documentation tools should I use? Should any of the documentation tools be part of the build script? Should the output files from the documentation tool be stored in subversion? What type of help files would be best to use?

    Read the article

  • How to leverage Spring Integration in a real-world JMS distributed architecture?

    - by ngeek
    For the following scenario I am looking for your advices and tips on best practices: In a distributed (mainly Java-based) system with: many (different) client applications (web-app, command-line tools, REST API) a central JMS message broker (currently in favor of using ActiveMQ) multiple stand-alone processing nodes (running on multiple remote machines, computing expensive operations of different types as specified by the JMS message payload) How would one best apply the JMS support provided by the Spring Integration framework to decouple the clients from the worker nodes? When reading through the reference documentation and some very first experiments it looks like the configuration of an JMS inbound adapter inherently require to use a subscriber, which in a decoupled scenario does not exist. Small side note: communication should happen via JMS text messages (using a JSON data structure for future extensibility).

    Read the article

  • Why hasn't anybody started a hosted continuous integration service?

    - by Teflon Ted
    There's a dozen services that provide hosted version control, hosted ticket tracking, hosted project management, and combinations of all of the above, there's even hosted web-based IDEs. But nobody's yet offered a hosted continuous integration service; at least that I can find. The concept seems simple enough: I register and provide the URL to my source code repository, it grabs my code and builds it via ant/rake/whatever, then runs the suite of tests and some metrics (code coverage, performance, etc.). Is there some prohibitive barrier to entry I'm not considering?

    Read the article

  • How can I unit test a class which requires a web service call?

    - by Chris Cooper
    I'm trying to test a class which calls some Hadoop web services. The code is pretty much of the form: method() { ...use Jersey client to create WebResource... ...make request... ...do something with response... } e.g. there is a create directory method, a create folder method etc. Given that the code is dealing with an external web service that I don't have control over, how can I unit test this? I could try and mock the web service client/responses but that breaks the guideline I've seen a lot recently: "Don't mock objects you don't own". I could set up a dummy web service implementation - would that still constitute a "unit test" or would it then be an integration test? Is it just not possible to unit test at this low a level - how would a TDD practitioner go about this?

    Read the article

  • What is the value to checking in broken unit tests?

    - by Adam W.
    While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in broken unit tests? I will use a simple example. Case sensitivity. The current code is Case Sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests has found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

    Read the article

  • What is the value of checking in failing unit tests?

    - by Adam W.
    While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

    Read the article

  • What is the value of checking in failing unit tests?

    - by user20194
    While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

    Read the article

  • Installing Hyper-V Integration Components on Linux

    - by Lance Fisher
    Some big news this week was Microsoft released the Hyper-V integration components for Linux source code under the GPL v2. I just installed Ubuntu Server 9.04 in a Hyper-V VM with a Legacy Network Adapter. How do I install the integration components? Do I have to wait until they are included in the kernel?

    Read the article

  • And the Winners of Fusion Middleware Innovation Awards in Data Integration are…

    - by Irem Radzik
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} At OpenWorld, we announced the winners of Fusion Middleware Innovation Awards 2012. Raymond James and Morrison Supermarkets were selected for the data integration category for their innovative use of Oracle’s data integration products and the great results they have achieved. In this blog I would like to briefly introduce you to these award winning projects. Raymond James is a diversified financial services company, which provides financial planning, wealth management, investment banking, and asset management. They are using Oracle GoldenGate and Oracle Data Integrator to feed their operational data store (ODS), which supports application services across the enterprise. A major requirement for their project was low data latency, as key decisions are made based on the data in the ODS. They were able to fulfill this requirement due to the Oracle Data Integrator’s integrated solution with Oracle GoldenGate. Oracle GoldenGate captures changed data from different systems including Oracle Database, HP NonStop and Microsoft SQL Server into a single data store on SQL Server 2008. Oracle Data Integrator provides data transformations for the ODS. Leveraging ODI’s integration with GoldenGate, Raymond James now sees a 9 second median latency (from source commit to ODS target commit). The ODS solution delivers high quality, accurate data for consuming applications such as Raymond James’ next generation client and portfolio management systems as well as real-time operational reporting. It enables timely information for making better decisions. There are more benefits Raymond James achieved with this implementation of Oracle’s data integration solution. The software developers and architects of this solution, Tim Garrod and Ryan Fonnett, have told us during their presentation at OpenWorld that they also reduced application complexity significantly while improving developer productivity through trusted operational services. They were able to utilize CDC to generate alerts for business users, and for applications (for example for cache hydration mechanisms). One cool innovation example among many in this project is that using ODI's flexible architecture, Tim and Ryan could build 24/7 self-healing processes. And these processes have hardly failed. Integration processes fixes the errors itself. Pretty amazing; and a great solution for environments that need such reliability and availability. (You can see Tim and Ryan’s photo with the Innovation Award above.) The other winner of this year in the data integration category, Morrison Supermarkets, is the UK’s 4th largest grocery retailer. The company has been migrating all their legacy applications on to a new-world application set based on Oracle and consolidating all BI on to a single Oracle platform. The company recently implemented Oracle Exadata as the data warehouse engine and uses Oracle Business Intelligence EE. Their goal with deploying GoldenGate and ODI was to provide BI data to the enterprise in a way that it also supports operational decision making requirements from a wide range of Oracle based ERP applications such as E-Business Suite, PeopleSoft, Oracle Retail Suite. They use GoldenGate’s log-based change data capture capabilities and Oracle Data Integrator to populate the Oracle Retail Data Model. The electronic point of sale (EPOS) integration solution they built processes over 80 million transactions/day at busy periods in near real time (15 mins). It provides valuable insight to Retail and Commercial teams for both intra-day and historical trend analysis. As I mentioned in yesterday’s blog, the right data integration platform can transform the business. Here is another example: The point-of-sale integration enabled the grocery chain to optimize its stock management, leading to another award: Morrisons won the Grocer 33 award in 2012 - beating all other major UK supermarkets in product availability. Congratulations, Morrisons,on another award! Celebrating the innovation and the success of our customers with Oracle’s data integration products was definitely a highlight of Oracle OpenWorld for me. I look forward to hearing more from Raymond James, Morrisons, and the other customers that presented their data integration projects at OpenWorld, on how they are creating more value for their organizations.

    Read the article

  • Getting MSDeploy working on our build/integration server - Is an MSBuild upgrade necessary?

    - by Jeff D
    We have what I think is a fairly standard build process: 1. Developer: Check in code 2. Build: Polls repo, sees change, and kicks off build that: 3. Build: Updates from repo, Builds w/ MSBuild, Runs unit tests w/ nunit, 4. Build: creates installer package Our security team allows us to pull from the build server, but does not allow the build server to push. So we generally rdp in, d/l the installers, and run them, which rules out the slick deployment services, so I would need to generate packages instead. I'd like to use MSDeploy, except that we have the following issues: We're on .net 3.5, and the MSBuild target (Package) that uses MSDeploy requires 4.0. Is there anything I'd need to install other than .net 4.0 RC for this? (Would MSBuild be part of that upgrade?) When I generate packages with MSDeploy, I see that I don't have just 1 file. There's a zip, deploy.cmd, SourceManifest.xml, and SetParameters.xml. What are all the other files for, and why wouldn't they all be in the 'package'? It sounds as if you can create packages by telling the system to look at a working IIS site. But if the packages are build from a CI environment, aren't you basically out of luck here? It feels like they designed some of this for small-scale developers deploying from their dev environment. That's a fine use case, but I'm interested in see what everyone's enterprise-experience is with the tool Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Typical SVN repo structure seems to be sub-optimal for continuous integration...

    - by Dave
    I've set up our SVN repository like the Subversion book suggests, and this is also how my previous companies have done it. It looks something like this: /trunk /branches /tags /extlibs /docs where the first three are pretty obvious, and extlibs is for 3rd party assemblies that we wouldn't typically recompile ourselves. All of this works great for the daily development stuff. Now I've installed TeamCity and have builds, unit tests, code coverage, and code analysis running. Everything is great, except for the fact that this code structure results in too much code getting downloaded. So here's the catch 22, in my opinion: it's silly to download all of aforementioned folders from the SVN repo when I only need /trunk and /extlibs. But I can only specify one repo folder to download in the TeamCity VCS settings. So then the other possibility is to put the /extlibs folder into /trunk, but in order to compile branches, /extlibs would have to go into all of those as well (since I usually branch the trunk, and not individual subfolders... and this would seem infinitely more evil since /extlibs could actually be larger than /trunk and /branches, with all of the binaries stored there... Do you guys have any suggestions for me? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-First

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-first.aspxThis is the second of two posts on some common strategies for approaching the job of writing tests.  The previous post covered test-after workflows where as this will focus on test-first.  Each workflow presented is a method of attack for adding tests to a project.  The more tools in your tool belt the better.  So here is a partial list of some test-first methodologies. Ping Pong Ping Pong is a methodology commonly used in pair programing.  One developer will write a new failing test.  Then they hand the keyboard to their partner.  The partner writes the production code to get the test passing.  The partner then writes the next test before passing the keyboard back to the original developer. The reasoning behind this testing methodology is to facilitate pair programming.  That is to say that this testing methodology shares all the benefits of pair programming, including ensuring multiple team members are familiar with the code base (i.e. low bus number). Test Blazer Test Blazing, in some respects, is also a pairing strategy.  The developers don’t work side by side on the same task at the same time.  Instead one developer is dedicated to writing tests at their own desk.  They write failing test after failing test, never touching the production code.  With these tests they are defining the specification for the system.  The developer most familiar with the specifications would be assigned this task. The next day or later in the same day another developer fetches the latest test suite.  Their job is to write the production code to get those tests passing.  Once all the tests pass they fetch from source control the latest version of the test project to get the newer tests. This methodology has some of the benefits of pair programming, namely lowering the bus number.  This can be good way adding an extra developer to a project without slowing it down too much.  The production coder isn’t slowed down writing tests.  The tests are in another project from the production code, so there shouldn’t be any merge conflicts despite two developers working on the same solution. This methodology is also a good test for the tests.  Can another developer figure out what system should do just by reading the tests?  This question will be answered as the production coder works there way through the test blazer’s tests. Test Driven Development (TDD) TDD is a highly disciplined practice that calls for a new test and an new production code to be written every few minutes.  There are strict rules for when you should be writing test or production code.  You start by writing a failing (red) test, then write the simplest production code possible to get the code working (green), then you clean up the code (refactor).  This is known as the red-green-refactor cycle. The goal of TDD isn’t the creation of a suite of tests, however that is an advantageous side effect.  The real goal of TDD is to follow a practice that yields a better design.  The practice is meant to push the design toward small, decoupled, modularized components.  This is generally considered a better design that large, highly coupled ball of mud. TDD accomplishes this through the refactoring cycle.  Refactoring is only possible to do safely when tests are in place.  In order to use TDD developers must be trained in how to look for and repair code smells in the system.  Through repairing these sections of smelly code (i.e. a refactoring) the design of the system emerges. For further information on TDD, I highly recommend the series “Is TDD Dead?”.  It discusses its pros and cons and when it is best used. Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATDD) Whereas TDD focuses on small unit tests that concentrate on a small piece of the system, Acceptance Tests focuses on the larger integrated environment.  Acceptance Tests usually correspond to user stories, which come directly from the customer. The unit tests focus on the inputs and outputs of smaller parts of the system, which are too low level to be of interest to the customer. ATDD generally uses the same tools as TDD.  However, ATDD uses fewer mocks and test doubles than TDD. ATDD often complements TDD; they aren’t competing methods.  A full test suite will usually consist of a large number of unit (created via TDD) tests and a smaller number of acceptance tests. Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) BDD is more about audience than workflow.  BDD pushes the testing realm out towards the client.  Developers, managers and the client all work together to define the tests. Typically different tooling is used for BDD than acceptance and unit testing.  This is done because the audience is not just developers.  Tools using the Gherkin family of languages allow for test scenarios to be described in an English format.  Other tools such as MSpec or FitNesse also strive for highly readable behaviour driven test suites. Because these tests are public facing (viewable by people outside the development team), the terminology usually changes.  You can’t get away with the same technobabble you can with unit tests written in a programming language that only developers understand.  For starters, they usually aren’t called tests.  Usually they’re called “examples”, “behaviours”, “scenarios”, or “specifications”. This may seem like a very subtle difference, but I’ve seen this small terminology change have a huge impact on the acceptance of the process.  Many people have a bias that testing is something that comes at the end of a project.  When you say we need to define the tests at the start of the project many people will immediately give that a lower priority on the project schedule.  But if you say we need to define the specification or behaviour of the system before we can start, you’ll get more cooperation.   Keep these test-first and test-after workflows in your tool belt.  With them you’ll be able to find new opportunities to apply them.

    Read the article

  • Boost your infrastructure with Coherence into the Cloud

    - by Nino Guarnacci
    Authors: Nino Guarnacci & Francesco Scarano,  at this URL could be found the original article:  http://blogs.oracle.com/slc/coherence_into_the_cloud_boost. Thinking about the enterprise cloud, come to mind many possible configurations and new opportunities in enterprise environments. Various customers needs that serve as guides to this new trend are often very different, but almost always united by two main objectives: Elasticity of infrastructure both Hardware and Software Investments related to the progressive needs of the current infrastructure Characteristics of innovation and economy. A concrete use case that I worked on recently demanded the fulfillment of two basic requirements of economy and innovation.The client had the need to manage a variety of data cache, which can process complex queries and parallel computational operations, maintaining the caches in a consistent state on different server instances, on which the application was installed.In addition, the customer was looking for a solution that would allow him to manage the likely situations in load peak during certain times of the year.For this reason, the customer requires a replication site, on which convey part of the requests during periods of peak; the desire was, however, to prevent the immobilization of investments in owned hardware-software architectures; so, to respond to this need, it was requested to seek a solution based on Cloud technologies and architectures already offered by the market. Coherence can already now address the requirements of large cache between different nodes in the cluster, providing further technology to search and parallel computing, with the simultaneous use of all hardware infrastructure resources. Moreover, thanks to the functionality of "Push Replication", which can replicate and update the information contained in the cache, even to a site hosted in the cloud, it is satisfied the need to make resilient infrastructure that can be based also on nodes temporarily housed in the Cloud architectures. There are different types of configurations that can be realized using the functionality "Push-Replication" of Coherence. Configurations can be either: Active - Passive  Hub and Spoke Active - Active Multi Master Centralized Replication Whereas the architecture of this particular project consists of two sites (Site 1 and Site Cloud), between which only Site 1 is enabled to write into the cache, it was decided to adopt an Active-Passive Configuration type (Hub and Spoke). If, however, the requirement should change over time, it will be particularly easy to change this configuration in an Active-Active configuration type. Although very simple, the small sample in this post, inspired by the specific project is effective, to better understand the features and capabilities of Coherence and its configurations. Let's create two distinct coherence cluster, located at miles apart, on two different domain contexts, one of them "hosted" at home (on-premise) and the other one hosted by any cloud provider on the network (or just the same laptop to test it :)). These two clusters, which we call Site 1 and Site Cloud, will contain the necessary information, so a simple client can insert data only into the Site 1. On both sites will be subscribed a listener, who listens to the variations of specific objects within the various caches. To implement these features, you need 4 simple classes: CachedResponse.java Represents the POJO class that will be inserted into the cache, and fulfills the task of containing useful information about the hypothetical links navigation ResponseSimulatorHelper.java Represents a link simulator, which has the task of randomly creating objects of type CachedResponse that will be added into the caches CacheCommands.java Represents the model of our example, because it is responsible for receiving instructions from the controller and performing basic operations against the cache, such as insert, delete, update, listening, objects within the cache Shell.java It is our controller, which give commands to be executed within the cache of the two Sites So, summarily, we execute the java class "Shell", asking it to put into the cache 100 objects of type "CachedResponse" through the java class "CacheCommands", then the simulator "ResponseSimulatorHelper" will randomly create new instances of objects "CachedResponse ". Finally, the Shell class will listen to for events occurring within the cache on the Site Cloud, while insertions and deletions are performed on Site 1. Now, we realize the two configurations of two respective sites / cluster: Site 1 and Site Cloud.For the Site 1 we define a cache of type "distributed" with features of "read and write", using the cache class store for the "push replication", a functionality offered by the project "incubator" of Oracle Coherence.For the "Site Cloud" we expect even the definition of “distributed” cache type with tcp proxy feature enabled, so it can receive updates from Site 1.  Coherence Cache Config XML file for "storage node" on "Site 1" site1-prod-cache-config.xml Coherence Cache Config XML file for "storage node" on "Site Cloud" site2-prod-cache-config.xml For two clients "Shell" which will connect respectively to the two clusters we have provided two easy access configurations.  Coherence Cache Config XML file for Shell on "Site 1" site1-shell-prod-cache-config.xml Coherence Cache Config XML file for Shell on "Site Cloud" site2-shell-prod-cache-config.xml Now, we just have to get everything and run our tests. To start at least one "storage" node (which holds the data) for the "Cloud Site", we can run the standard class  provided OOTB by Oracle Coherence com.tangosol.net.DefaultCacheServer with the following parameters and values:-Xmx128m-Xms64m-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote -Dtangosol.coherence.management=all -Dtangosol.coherence.management.remote=true -Dtangosol.coherence.distributed.localstorage=true -Dtangosol.coherence.cacheconfig=config/site2-prod-cache-config.xml-Dtangosol.coherence.clusterport=9002-Dtangosol.coherence.site=SiteCloud To start at least one "storage" node (which holds the data) for the "Site 1", we can perform again the standard class provided by Coherence  com.tangosol.net.DefaultCacheServer with the following parameters and values:-Xmx128m-Xms64m-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote -Dtangosol.coherence.management=all -Dtangosol.coherence.management.remote=true -Dtangosol.coherence.distributed.localstorage=true -Dtangosol.coherence.cacheconfig=config/site1-prod-cache-config.xml-Dtangosol.coherence.clusterport=9001-Dtangosol.coherence.site=Site1 Then, we start the first client "Shell" for the "Cloud Site", launching the java class it.javac.Shell  using these parameters and values: -Xmx64m-Xms64m-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote -Dtangosol.coherence.management=all -Dtangosol.coherence.management.remote=true -Dtangosol.coherence.distributed.localstorage=false -Dtangosol.coherence.cacheconfig=config/site2-shell-prod-cache-config.xml-Dtangosol.coherence.clusterport=9002-Dtangosol.coherence.site=SiteCloud Finally, we start the second client "Shell" for the "Site 1", re-launching a new instance of class  it.javac.Shell  using  the following parameters and values: -Xmx64m-Xms64m-Dcom.sun.management.jmxremote -Dtangosol.coherence.management=all -Dtangosol.coherence.management.remote=true -Dtangosol.coherence.distributed.localstorage=false -Dtangosol.coherence.cacheconfig=config/site1-shell-prod-cache-config.xml-Dtangosol.coherence.clusterport=9001-Dtangosol.coherence.site=Site1  And now, let’s execute some tests to validate and better understand our configuration. TEST 1The purpose of this test is to load the objects into the "Site 1" cache and seeing how many objects are cached on the "Site Cloud". Within the "Shell" launched with parameters to access the "Site 1", let’s write and run the command: load test/100 Within the "Shell" launched with parameters to access the "Site Cloud" let’s write and run the command: size passive-cache Expected result If all is OK, the first "Shell" has uploaded 100 objects into a cache named "test"; consequently the "push-replication" functionality has updated the "Site Cloud" by sending the 100 objects to the second cluster where they will have been posted into a respective cache, which we named "passive-cache". TEST 2The purpose of this test is to listen to deleting and adding events happening on the "Site 1" and that are replicated within the cache on "Cloud Site". In the "Shell" launched with parameters to access the "Site Cloud" let’s write and run the command: listen passive-cache/name like '%' or a "cohql" query, with your preferred parameters In the "Shell" launched with parameters to access the "Site 1" let’s write and run the following commands: load test/10 load test2/20 delete test/50 Expected result If all is OK, the "Shell" to Site Cloud let us to listen to all the add and delete events within the cache "cache-passive", whose objects satisfy the query condition "name like '%' " (ie, every objects in the cache; you could change the tests and create different queries).Through the Shell to "Site 1" we launched the commands to add and to delete objects on different caches (test and test2). With the "Shell" running on "Site Cloud" we got the evidence (displayed or printed, or in a log file) that its cache has been filled with events and related objects generated by commands executed from the" Shell "on" Site 1 ", thanks to "push-replication" feature.  Other tests can be performed, such as, for example, the subscription to the events on the "Site 1" too, using different "cohql" queries, changing the cache configuration,  to effectively demonstrate both the potentiality and  the versatility produced by these different configurations, even in the cloud, as in our case. More information on how to configure Coherence "Push Replication" can be found in the Oracle Coherence Incubator project documentation at the following link: http://coherence.oracle.com/display/INC10/Home More information on Oracle Coherence "In Memory Data Grid" can be found at the following link: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/coherence/overview/index.html To download and execute the whole sources and configurations of the example explained in the above post,  click here to download them; After download the last available version of the Push-Replication Pattern library implementation from the Oracle Coherence Incubator site, and download also the related and required version of Oracle Coherence. For simplicity the required .jarS to execute the example (that can be found into the Push-Replication-Pattern  download and Coherence Distribution download) are: activemq-core-5.3.1.jar activemq-protobuf-1.0.jar aopalliance-1.0.jar coherence-commandpattern-2.8.4.32329.jar coherence-common-2.2.0.32329.jar coherence-eventdistributionpattern-1.2.0.32329.jar coherence-functorpattern-1.5.4.32329.jar coherence-messagingpattern-2.8.4.32329.jar coherence-processingpattern-1.4.4.32329.jar coherence-pushreplicationpattern-4.0.4.32329.jar coherence-rest.jar coherence.jar commons-logging-1.1.jar commons-logging-api-1.1.jar commons-net-2.0.jar geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec-1.0.jar geronimo-jms_1.1_spec-1.1.1.jar http.jar jackson-all-1.8.1.jar je.jar jersey-core-1.8.jar jersey-json-1.8.jar jersey-server-1.8.jar jl1.0.jar kahadb-5.3.1.jar miglayout-3.6.3.jar org.osgi.core-4.1.0.jar spring-beans-2.5.6.jar spring-context-2.5.6.jar spring-core-2.5.6.jar spring-osgi-core-1.2.1.jar spring-osgi-io-1.2.1.jar At this URL could be found the original article: http://blogs.oracle.com/slc/coherence_into_the_cloud_boost Authors: Nino Guarnacci & Francesco Scarano

    Read the article

  • Can an internally developed fast evolving, agile, short sprint web application lend itself to offshoring?

    - by Gavin Howden
    I have recently been set a target to achieve readiness to successfully manage and deliver results through the usage of offshore teams on our mainline development project within 12 months. Our mainline is a multi-thousand user highly available web application, and various related SAAS components delivered through the above mentioned web application. We work agile on the mainline with a rapid 1 week sprint using continuous integration. Our delivery platform is a bespoke php framework, although we have some .net services and components in the mix. My view is: an offshore team could work if we either ship out an entire isolated project for offshore development, or we specify a component for our system in huge detail up front. But we don't currently work like that, and it will conflict with the in-house method, and unless the off-shore is working within our team, with our development/deployment chain it could be an integration nightmare. So my question is, given we have a closed source bespoke framework (Private IP) which we train our developers to use, and we work agile minimising documentation, maximising communication and responding to rapidly changing requirements, and much of the quality control is via team skills building and peer review, how can I make off-shoring work on our main line development?

    Read the article

  • Performance issues with jms and spring integration. What is wrong with the following configuration?

    - by user358448
    I have a jms producer, which generates many messages per second, which are sent to amq persistent queue and are consumed by single consumer, which needs to process them sequentially. But it seems that the producer is much faster than the consumer and i am having performance and memory problems. Messages are fetched very very slowly and the consuming seems to happen on intervals (the consumer "asks" for messages in polling fashion, which is strange?!) Basically everything happens with spring integration. Here is the configuration at the producer side. First stake messages come in stakesInMemoryChannel, from there, they are filtered throw the filteredStakesChannel and from there they are going into the jms queue (using executor so the sending will happen in separate thread) <bean id="stakesQueue" class="org.apache.activemq.command.ActiveMQQueue"> <constructor-arg name="name" value="${jms.stakes.queue.name}" /> </bean> <int:channel id="stakesInMemoryChannel" /> <int:channel id="filteredStakesChannel" > <int:dispatcher task-executor="taskExecutor"/> </int:channel> <bean id="stakeFilterService" class="cayetano.games.stake.StakeFilterService"/> <int:filter input-channel="stakesInMemoryChannel" output-channel="filteredStakesChannel" throw-exception-on-rejection="false" expression="true"/> <jms:outbound-channel-adapter channel="filteredStakesChannel" destination="stakesQueue" delivery-persistent="true" explicit-qos-enabled="true" /> <task:executor id="taskExecutor" pool-size="100" /> The other application is consuming the messages like this... The messages come in stakesInputChannel from the jms stakesQueue, after that they are routed to 2 separate channels, one persists the message and the other do some other stuff, lets call it "processing". <bean id="stakesQueue" class="org.apache.activemq.command.ActiveMQQueue"> <constructor-arg name="name" value="${jms.stakes.queue.name}" /> </bean> <jms:message-driven-channel-adapter channel="stakesInputChannel" destination="stakesQueue" acknowledge="auto" concurrent-consumers="1" max-concurrent-consumers="1" /> <int:publish-subscribe-channel id="stakesInputChannel" /> <int:channel id="persistStakesChannel" /> <int:channel id="processStakesChannel" /> <int:recipient-list-router id="customRouter" input-channel="stakesInputChannel" timeout="3000" ignore-send-failures="true" apply-sequence="true" > <int:recipient channel="persistStakesChannel"/> <int:recipient channel="processStakesChannel"/> </int:recipient-list-router> <bean id="prefetchPolicy" class="org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQPrefetchPolicy"> <property name="queuePrefetch" value="${jms.broker.prefetch.policy}" /> </bean> <bean id="connectionFactory" class="org.springframework.jms.connection.CachingConnectionFactory"> <property name="targetConnectionFactory"> <bean class="org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory"> <property name="brokerURL" value="${jms.broker.url}" /> <property name="prefetchPolicy" ref="prefetchPolicy" /> <property name="optimizeAcknowledge" value="true" /> <property name="useAsyncSend" value="true" /> </bean> </property> <property name="sessionCacheSize" value="10"/> <property name="cacheProducers" value="false"/> </bean>

    Read the article

  • CI - How long is continous?

    - by Andy
    We currently are using CCNet as our continous integration server. Most projects check for changes every 30 seconds (the default) and if needed perform a build (unit tests, stylecop, fxcop, etc). We've gotten quite a few projects now, and the server spends most of its time near 100% cpu utilization. This has alarmed some of the development team, even though the server is responsive and builds are still about the same length of time they've always been. Its been suggested that we lower the check interval to about five minutes. To me that seems too long, and we risk people committing code and then going home for the weekend and now there's a broken build possibly holding up others. In response, the suggestion is that if someone needs to know the results they can force the build. But that seems to defeat the purpose of CI, as I thought it was supposed to be automated. My proposed solution is just to get another build server and split the builds amongst the servers. Am I thinking about this the wrong way, or is there a point where if integration isn't often enough you're not really doing CI anymore?

    Read the article

  • Automated testing in Android development

    - by Sara
    I have an ordinary project with JUnit tests that are connected to the classes in my Android Project. I want my server to run some JUnit tests in my testproject everytime I commit my code from my Android Project. Is there a best practise to do this? So far I only managed to run the tests when they are a part of a while the JUnit tests and Android classes are separated into 2 different projects, since JUnit runs on JVM and Android in an emulator on DVM (Dalvik Virtual Machine).

    Read the article

  • ServiceLocator not initialized in Tests project

    - by Carl Bussema
    When attempting to write a test related to my new Tasks (MVC3, S#arp 2.0), I get this error when I try to run the test: MyProject.Tests.MyProject.Tasks.CategoryTasksTests.CanConfirmDeleteReadiness: SetUp : System.NullReferenceException : ServiceLocator has not been initialized; I was trying to retrieve SharpArch.NHibernate.ISessionFactoryKeyProvider ---- System.NullReferenceException : Object reference not set to an instance of an object. at SharpArch.Domain.SafeServiceLocator1.GetService() at SharpArch.NHibernate.SessionFactoryKeyHelper.GetKeyFrom(Object anObject) at SharpArch.NHibernate.NHibernateRepositoryWithTypedId2.get_Session() at SharpArch.NHibernate.NHibernateRepositoryWithTypedId2.Save(T entity) at MyProject.Tests.MyProject.Tasks.CategoryTasksTests.Setup() in C:\code\MyProject\Solutions\MyProject.Tests\MyProject.Tasks\CategoryTasksTests.cs:line 36 --NullReferenceException at Microsoft.Practices.ServiceLocation.ServiceLocator.get_Current() at SharpArch.Domain.SafeServiceLocator1.GetService() Other tests which do not involve the new class (e.g., generate/confirm database mappings) run correctly. My ServiceLocatorInitializer is as follows public class ServiceLocatorInitializer { public static void Init() { IWindsorContainer container = new WindsorContainer(); container.Register( Component .For(typeof(DefaultSessionFactoryKeyProvider)) .ImplementedBy(typeof(DefaultSessionFactoryKeyProvider)) .Named("sessionFactoryKeyProvider")); container.Register( Component .For(typeof(IEntityDuplicateChecker)) .ImplementedBy(typeof(EntityDuplicateChecker)) .Named("entityDuplicateChecker")); ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => new WindsorServiceLocator(container)); } }

    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 | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >