Search Results

Search found 2222 results on 89 pages for 'functional'.

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 27/89 | < Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >

  • Web technologies on GUI apps

    - by Apalala
    I developed many GUI applications for the Windows platform during my early professional career, and saw several GUI frameworks come, have whole magazines devoted to them, and then fade away. MFC is iconic. Tasked with writing yet another GUI application, I starter researching cross-platform frameworks like Qt and WxWindows. I found the same steep learning curves I knew from before, and tooling doesn't help much in building a functional and elegant user interface because its clumsy and complicated. But people are building beautiful and functional UIs on the Web all the time (look at this site!). The standards, the libraries, and the tools are certainly there. My thought and my question: Why not write a GUI in which most of the UI is handled by an embedded browser? I already know that the Qt widgets support a large part of CSS and JavaScript, and programmers with good knowledge about web development are relatively easy to find, ..., so... Have you done something like that before? What's your experience/advise?

    Read the article

  • Webcast: Oracle Service Charges - Introduction/Overview

    - by LuciaC
    December 5, 2012 at 12 pm ET, 11 am CT, 10 am MT, 9 am PT Have you wondered how Service Charges flow through into Order Management?  Do you want to understand more about the functional flows for Service Charges?  If you use Service Charges as part of your service implementation then you won't want to miss this webcast which explains Oracle Service Charges functionality and integration points with other products.   Topics will include: Functional flows involving Service Charges Integration points Data flow Available UI's Available API's. Go to Doc ID 1455786.1 to register. Current Schedule and Archived Downloads can be found on Doc ID 740966.1.

    Read the article

  • Help Desk Software with user groups and temporary ban function?

    - by Zillo
    Does anyone know any Help Desk Software which allow you to create user groups / to mark/categorize specific users in some way / and to to ban specific users/e-mails (not user groups) for a specific period of time? Kayako? OTRS? simpledesk?... Kayako looks to be very functional but not sure if it has this option. zendesk is also very functional but a SaaS service not a downloadable software. Since the functions that I am saying are very common in forum software, maybe simpledesk could do it since it is based in SMF. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Sources of requirements? [closed]

    - by user970696
    I was reading a book about SW engineering the other day and it went like: Sources of both functional and non-functional requirements are: law (for specific cases) business and user requirements etc. //what else then? So the question is, what other sources of requirements there are when an analyst is gathering the information? Lets consider a desktop app for mobile operator. As for the comment, I do not think this is a broad question as the books usually mention 1-2 sources. I would like to know more, if anyone can help.

    Read the article

  • Is there an imperative language with a Haskell-like type system?

    - by Graham Kaemmer
    I've tried to learn Haskell a few times over the last few years, and, maybe because I know mainly scripting languages, the functional-ness of it has always bothered me (monads seem like a huge mess for doing lots of I/O). However, I think it's type system is perfect. Reading through a guide to Haskell's types and typeclasses (like this), I don't really see a reason why they would require a functional language, and furthermore, they seem like they would be perfect for an industry-grade object-oriented language (like Java). This all begs the question: has anyone ever taken Haskell's typing system and made a imperative, OOP language with it? If so, I want to use it.

    Read the article

  • What programming language matches this description? [on hold]

    - by Benubird
    I am looking for a functional language that is basically dynamic programming - i.e. one where functions are first-class objects - but where all function calls are asynchronous by default; i.e. you define function X(a,b) = (Y(a)+Z(b)), and when X() is called, it sees it is waiting for the return from two functions, runs one in the current thread, and spawns a new thread to run the other. The future is very much parallel processing; multiple cores, multiple machines, the internet of things, etc. and I was wondering if there was a language specifically designed to make this kind of parallelization easy. I currently have only used imperative languages (c, php, java, ruby, etc), so I don't know anything about what kind of functional languages are available.

    Read the article

  • F# - When do you use a class instead of a record when you do not want to use mutable fields?

    - by fairflow
    I'm imagining a situation where you are creating an F# module in a purely functional style. This means objects do not have mutable fields and are not modified in place. I'm assuming for simplicity that there is no need to use .NET objects or other kinds of objects. There are two possible ways of implementing an object-oriented kind of solution: the first is to use type classes and the second to use records which have fields of functional type, to implement methods. I imagine you'd use classes when you want to use inheritance but that otherwise records would be adequate, if perhaps clumsier to express. Or do you find classes more convenient than records in any case?

    Read the article

  • F# - When do you use a type class instead of a record when you do not want to use mutable fields?

    - by fairflow
    I'm imagining a situation where you are creating an F# module in a purely functional style. This means objects do not have mutable fields and are not modified in place. I'm assuming for simplicity that there is no need to use .NET objects or other kinds of objects. There are two possible ways of implementing an object-oriented kind of solution: the first is to use type classes and the second to use records which have fields of functional type, to implement methods. I imagine you'd use classes when you want to use inheritance but that otherwise records would be adequate, if perhaps clumsier to express. Or do you find classes more convenient than records in any case?

    Read the article

  • How to resolve 'No internet connectivity issues' with a Virtualised 2008 R2 Server using Forefront UAG

    - by user684589
    I have spent some considerable time reading up on as many possible blogs and articles as I can to help me solve why my VM (Running on Hyper-V) for DirectAccess has suddenly stopped being able to access the internet. The VM setup shares the same internet connection on which I have written and submitted this question so I know that the actual underlying internet connection is fully functional. Previous to last week the DirectAccess was fully functional and had no issues. This is a recent problem which was led up to by a number of consistent crashes on the DA machine when access was attempted. Upon reboot all seemed well until recently. I am not certain whether it is relevant, but previously to this I had a number of power issues where the entire VM host shutdown unexpectedly leaving around 8 VM's in a bad way. Upon restart, the UAG DirectAccess machine was unable to access its configuration service (although the service was started) but this seemed to relate to the Light-Weight Active Directory Service AD LDS which had a corrupted database. Having repaired this database, I restarted the service and could subsequently reconnect to the configuration service again. For good measure I re-bound the network adapters (virtualised through Hyper-V) and DirectAccess claimed to be all happy again. However as it stands my machine is still unable to access the internet showing the "No internet connectivity" exclamation mark for the external facing NIC. I have also tried removing the adapters, disabling, re-enabling and the problem persists. The intranet part of the VM CorpNet seems to be fully functional as before and I'm running out of ideas. Any input would be greatly appreciated. I am not an advanced Domain Administrator so please be gentle.

    Read the article

  • The future of programming, or what lies in the future in programming?

    - by prosseek
    I remember that a article that Microsoft uses formal verification to debug the Device Driver, and I also remember that Functional Programming removes much of the bug as it ensures stateless programming. And we all know about the multi-core. I beleive all of them are future direction of programming or programming language. Multi-core programming or parallel programming Software Formal Verification Functional Programming (as a mainstream?) What do you think? What will be the future of programming?

    Read the article

  • scrum and refactoring

    - by zachary
    If everything in scrum is all about functional things that a user can see is there really any place for refactoring code unrelated to any new functional requirements?

    Read the article

  • How is management of requirements for embedded software different from business applications ?

    - by Chakra
    For business software we usually document the business flow and functional and non functional specs as SRS, Use cases or user stories. One of the critical requirements is UI design which may get prototyped. How do people in the real world document and manage requirements for embedded software for automobile systems ? How are they different from the business applications in terms of requirements management ? Thanks, Chak.

    Read the article

  • Middleware Test Automation Tools

    Hi I would like to know about any Test Automation Solution adopted in Middle ware Testing. Is it similar to automation solutions provided for functional tests? I would like to know in what ways it is similar / different than Functional test automation. What are the tools which can be used to accomplish test automation in Middleware testing?

    Read the article

  • Abstracting functionality

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/08/22/abstracting-functionality.aspxWhat is more important than data? Functionality. Yes, I strongly believe we should switch to a functionality over data mindset in programming. Or actually switch back to it. Focus on functionality Functionality once was at the core of software development. Back when algorithms were the first thing you heard about in CS classes. Sure, data structures, too, were important - but always from the point of view of algorithms. (Niklaus Wirth gave one of his books the title “Algorithms + Data Structures” instead of “Data Structures + Algorithms” for a reason.) The reason for the focus on functionality? Firstly, because software was and is about doing stuff. Secondly because sufficient performance was hard to achieve, and only thirdly memory efficiency. But then hardware became more powerful. That gave rise to a new mindset: object orientation. And with it functionality was devalued. Data took over its place as the most important aspect. Now discussions revolved around structures motivated by data relationships. (John Beidler gave his book the title “Data Structures and Algorithms: An Object Oriented Approach” instead of the other way around for a reason.) Sure, this data could be embellished with functionality. But nevertheless functionality was second. When you look at (domain) object models what you mostly find is (domain) data object models. The common object oriented approach is: data aka structure over functionality. This is true even for the most modern modeling approaches like Domain Driven Design. Look at the literature and what you find is recommendations on how to get data structures right: aggregates, entities, value objects. I´m not saying this is what object orientation was invented for. But I´m saying that´s what I happen to see across many teams now some 25 years after object orientation became mainstream through C++, Delphi, and Java. But why should we switch back? Because software development cannot become truly agile with a data focus. The reason for that lies in what customers need first: functionality, behavior, operations. To be clear, that´s not why software is built. The purpose of software is to be more efficient than the alternative. Money mainly is spent to get a certain level of quality (e.g. performance, scalability, security etc.). But without functionality being present, there is nothing to work on the quality of. What customers want is functionality of a certain quality. ASAP. And tomorrow new functionality needs to be added, existing functionality needs to be changed, and quality needs to be increased. No customer ever wanted data or structures. Of course data should be processed. Data is there, data gets generated, transformed, stored. But how the data is structured for this to happen efficiently is of no concern to the customer. Ask a customer (or user) whether she likes the data structured this way or that way. She´ll say, “I don´t care.” But ask a customer (or user) whether he likes the functionality and its quality this way or that way. He´ll say, “I like it” (or “I don´t like it”). Build software incrementally From this very natural focus of customers and users on functionality and its quality follows we should develop software incrementally. That´s what Agility is about. Deliver small increments quickly and often to get frequent feedback. That way less waste is produced, and learning can take place much easier (on the side of the customer as well as on the side of developers). An increment is some added functionality or quality of functionality.[1] So as it turns out, Agility is about functionality over whatever. But software developers’ thinking is still stuck in the object oriented mindset of whatever over functionality. Bummer. I guess that (at least partly) explains why Agility always hits a glass ceiling in projects. It´s a clash of mindsets, of cultures. Driving software development by demanding small increases in functionality runs against thinking about software as growing (data) structures sprinkled with functionality. (Excuse me, if this sounds a bit broad-brush. But you get my point.) The need for abstraction In the end there need to be data structures. Of course. Small and large ones. The phrase functionality over data does not deny that. It´s not functionality instead of data or something. It´s just over, i.e. functionality should be thought of first. It´s a tad more important. It´s what the customer wants. That´s why we need a way to design functionality. Small and large. We need to be able to think about functionality before implementing it. We need to be able to reason about it among team members. We need to be able to communicate our mental models of functionality not just by speaking about them, but also on paper. Otherwise reasoning about it does not scale. We learned thinking about functionality in the small using flow charts, Nassi-Shneiderman diagrams, pseudo code, or UML sequence diagrams. That´s nice and well. But it does not scale. You can use these tools to describe manageable algorithms. But it does not work for the functionality triggered by pressing the “1-Click Order” on an amazon product page for example. There are several reasons for that, I´d say. Firstly, the level of abstraction over code is negligible. It´s essentially non-existent. Drawing a flow chart or writing pseudo code or writing actual code is very, very much alike. All these tools are about control flow like code is.[2] In addition all tools are computationally complete. They are about logic which is expressions and especially control statements. Whatever you code in Java you can fully (!) describe using a flow chart. And then there is no data. They are about control flow and leave out the data altogether. Thus data mostly is assumed to be global. That´s shooting yourself in the foot, as I hope you agree. Even if it´s functionality over data that does not mean “don´t think about data”. Right to the contrary! Functionality only makes sense with regard to data. So data needs to be in the picture right from the start - but it must not dominate the thinking. The above tools fail on this. Bottom line: So far we´re unable to reason in a scalable and abstract manner about functionality. That´s why programmers are so driven to start coding once they are presented with a problem. Programming languages are the only tool they´ve learned to use to reason about functional solutions. Or, well, there might be exceptions. Mathematical notation and SQL may have come to your mind already. Indeed they are tools on a higher level of abstraction than flow charts etc. That´s because they are declarative and not computationally complete. They leave out details - in order to deliver higher efficiency in devising overall solutions. We can easily reason about functionality using mathematics and SQL. That´s great. Except for that they are domain specific languages. They are not general purpose. (And they don´t scale either, I´d say.) Bummer. So to be more precise we need a scalable general purpose tool on a higher than code level of abstraction not neglecting data. Enter: Flow Design. Abstracting functionality using data flows I believe the solution to the problem of abstracting functionality lies in switching from control flow to data flow. Data flow very naturally is not about logic details anymore. There are no expressions and no control statements anymore. There are not even statements anymore. Data flow is declarative by nature. With data flow we get rid of all the limiting traits of former approaches to modeling functionality. In addition, nomen est omen, data flows include data in the functionality picture. With data flows, data is visibly flowing from processing step to processing step. Control is not flowing. Control is wherever it´s needed to process data coming in. That´s a crucial difference and needs some rewiring in your head to be fully appreciated.[2] Since data flows are declarative they are not the right tool to describe algorithms, though, I´d say. With them you don´t design functionality on a low level. During design data flow processing steps are black boxes. They get fleshed out during coding. Data flow design thus is more coarse grained than flow chart design. It starts on a higher level of abstraction - but then is not limited. By nesting data flows indefinitely you can design functionality of any size, without losing sight of your data. Data flows scale very well during design. They can be used on any level of granularity. And they can easily be depicted. Communicating designs using data flows is easy and scales well, too. The result of functional design using data flows is not algorithms (too low level), but processes. Think of data flows as descriptions of industrial production lines. Data as material runs through a number of processing steps to be analyzed, enhances, transformed. On the top level of a data flow design might be just one processing step, e.g. “execute 1-click order”. But below that are arbitrary levels of flows with smaller and smaller steps. That´s not layering as in “layered architecture”, though. Rather it´s a stratified design à la Abelson/Sussman. Refining data flows is not your grandpa´s functional decomposition. That was rooted in control flows. Refining data flows does not suffer from the limits of functional decomposition against which object orientation was supposed to be an antidote. Summary I´ve been working exclusively with data flows for functional design for the past 4 years. It has changed my life as a programmer. What once was difficult is now easy. And, no, I´m not using Clojure or F#. And I´m not a async/parallel execution buff. Designing the functionality of increments using data flows works great with teams. It produces design documentation which can easily be translated into code - in which then the smallest data flow processing steps have to be fleshed out - which is comparatively easy. Using a systematic translation approach code can mirror the data flow design. That way later on the design can easily be reproduced from the code if need be. And finally, data flow designs play well with object orientation. They are a great starting point for class design. But that´s a story for another day. To me data flow design simply is one of the missing links of systematic lightweight software design. There are also other artifacts software development can produce to get feedback, e.g. process descriptions, test cases. But customers can be delighted more easily with code based increments in functionality. ? No, I´m not talking about the endless possibilities this opens for parallel processing. Data flows are useful independently of multi-core processors and Actor-based designs. That´s my whole point here. Data flows are good for reasoning and evolvability. So forget about any special frameworks you might need to reap benefits from data flows. None are necessary. Translating data flow designs even into plain of Java is possible. ?

    Read the article

  • OBIEE 11.1.1 - Introduction to OBIEE 11g Full Sample App

    - by user809526
    Isn't it nice to discover OBIEE 11g around a nice "How To" catalog of features? to observe OBI and Essbase relationships at work? to discover TimesTen? The OBIEE 11g Full Sample App (FSA) is a comprehensive collection of examples designed to demonstrate the latest Oracle BIEE 11g capabilities and design best practices: Enhanced visualizations as Geo-spacial maps and interactive dashboards, Action Framework,  BI Publisher, Scorecard and Strategy Management, Mobile style sheets, Semantic layer modeling, Multi-source federation, Integration with products such as Essbase, Oracle OLAP, ODM, TimesTen, ODI and more The FSA is intended to be comprehensive, it is big (see CAVEAT below). The FSA is not an Oracle product, it is a good will free deployment of OBIEE/Essbase designed to exemplify OBIEE features, infrastructure and security around the Fusion Middleware components. Its contents and code are distributed free for demonstrative purposes only. It is neither maintained nor supported by Oracle as a licensed product. The OBIEE Full Sample App is independent of the default Sample App that comes with the OBIEE product. BENEFITS The FSA helps as a demonstrator of OBIEE 11g best practices, a tutorial, an environment "Test & Scrap", a SR bench (regression, conflicts), a tuning bench, a quick ready made POC seed for projects, a security options environment, ... The FSA - Is organized around a catalog of functional features - Has been deployed over 1000 times, it should be stable RELEASE The Full Sample App (V107) is bound to OBIEE 11.1.1.5 and Essbase 11.1.2.1 (November 2011). The FSA release dates are independent of the Product GA date (OBIEE). In early December 2011, a new functional Patch (V110) is released. It is easily applied (in less than 15 mins) on top of OBIEE SampleApp 11.1.1.5 (V107). The patch (V110) includes additional functional examples:        1. Web Catalog Statistics Application: Provides detailed insight into your web catalog content, dormant catalog objects, webcat impact analysis for metadata changes and more        2. Data inflation Scripts: A set of simple SQL procedures to quickly inflate SampleApp Fact and Dimension data to millions of records in a few minutes        3. Public Content Extensions Framework: A patching framework for public examples and contributions leveraging SampleApp        4. Additional report examples (including bridge report, external chart integrations) and bug fixes DISTRIBUTION as VBox image (November 2011) The ready made VBox image is designed to run on Virtual Box. It can be converted to VMware (see another BLOG). 1/ http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/bi-foundation/obiee-samples-167534.html VBox Image Deployment Guide Sampleapp_v107_GA.ovf - VBox image key file The above http URL provides the user:password for the ftp URLs below. 2/ ftp://user:[email protected]/static/SampleAppV107/ 12 "7-zip" files Sampleapp_v107_GA_7_20.7z.001 -> .012 We recommend 7-zip file manager for unzipping (http://www.7-zip.org/). Select Unzip here option, it will create the contents under a directory named "SampleApp_10722". On Windows, it is important to download and save zip file under the root directory (e.g. C:\ or D:\) because of possible long pathnames. 3/ ftp://user:[email protected]/static/SampleAppV107/Unzipped_Version/ 4 files Sampleapp_v107_GA-disk[1234].vmdk Important note: Check the provided checksums (md5sum). Please do it! DISTRIBUTION as Installation files for existing OBI 11.1.1.5 (November 2011) http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/bi-foundation/obiee-samples-167534.html Install files Deployment Guide SampleApp_10722_1.zip - 198 MB CAVEAT Many computers have RAM chips problems that keep often silent ... until you manipulate big files. It is strongly advised you run some memory check program eg MEMTEST in GRUB boot manager. Running md5sum repeatedly onto the very same big file must be consistent [same result], else a hardware memory problem is suspected. For Virtual Box, you should most likely enable VT-X (Vanderpool) hardware virtualization in BIOS. A free disk space of 80 GB is required to perform safely the VBox image installation. A Virtual Machine of minimum 6 to 7 GB memory fits the needs of combining OBIEE and Essbase execution.

    Read the article

  • The Evolution Of C#

    - by Paulo Morgado
    The first release of C# (C# 1.0) was all about building a new language for managed code that appealed, mostly, to C++ and Java programmers. The second release (C# 2.0) was mostly about adding what wasn’t time to built into the 1.0 release. The main feature for this release was Generics. The third release (C# 3.0) was all about reducing the impedance mismatch between general purpose programming languages and databases. To achieve this goal, several functional programming features were added to the language and LINQ was born. Going forward, new trends are showing up in the industry and modern programming languages need to be more: Declarative With imperative languages, although having the eye on the what, programs need to focus on the how. This leads to over specification of the solution to the problem in hand, making next to impossible to the execution engine to be smart about the execution of the program and optimize it to run it more efficiently (given the hardware available, for example). Declarative languages, on the other hand, focus only on the what and leave the how to the execution engine. LINQ made C# more declarative by using higher level constructs like orderby and group by that give the execution engine a much better chance of optimizing the execution (by parallelizing it, for example). Concurrent Concurrency is hard and needs to be thought about and it’s very hard to shoehorn it into a programming language. Parallel.For (from the parallel extensions) looks like a parallel for because enough expressiveness has been built into C# 3.0 to allow this without having to commit to specific language syntax. Dynamic There was been lots of debate on which ones are the better programming languages: static or dynamic. The fact is that both have good qualities and users of both types of languages want to have it all. All these trends require a paradigm switch. C# is, in many ways, already a multi-paradigm language. It’s still very object oriented (class oriented as some might say) but it can be argued that C# 3.0 has become a functional programming language because it has all the cornerstones of what a functional programming language needs. Moving forward, will have even more. Besides the influence of these trends, there was a decision of co-evolution of the C# and Visual Basic programming languages. Since its inception, there was been some effort to position C# and Visual Basic against each other and to try to explain what should be done with each language or what kind of programmers use one or the other. Each language should be chosen based on the past experience and familiarity of the developer/team/project/company and not by particular features. In the past, every time a feature was added to one language, the users of the other wanted that feature too. Going forward, when a feature is added to one language, the other will work hard to add the same feature. This doesn’t mean that XML literals will be added to C# (because almost the same can be achieved with LINQ To XML), but Visual Basic will have auto-implemented properties. Most of these features require or are built on top of features of the .NET Framework and, the focus for C# 4.0 was on dynamic programming. Not just dynamic types but being able to talk with anything that isn’t a .NET class. Also introduced in C# 4.0 is co-variance and contra-variance for generic interfaces and delegates. Stay tuned for more on the new C# 4.0 features.

    Read the article

  • ArchBeat Link-o-Rama Top 10 for October 28 - November 3, 2012

    - by Bob Rhubart
    The Top 10 most popular items shared on the OTN ArchBeat Facebook Page for the week of Oct 28 - Nov 3, 2012. Eventually, 90% of tech budgets will be outside IT departments | ZDNet Another interesting post from ZDNet blogger Joe McKendrick about changing roles in IT. ADF Mobile - Login Functionality | Andrejus Baranovskis "The new ADF Mobile approach with native deployment is cool when you want to access phone functionality (camera, email, sms and etc.), also when you want to build mobile applications with advanced UI," reports Oracle ACE Director Andrejus Baranovskis. Mobile Development Platform Strategy Chart: ADF Mobile, WebCenter Sites, Portal, Content and Social "Unlike desktop web focused efforts, the world of mobile has undergone change at a feverish pace," says social enterprise expert John Brunswick. His extensive post charts various resources that will help you keep up. ADF Essentials - The Bare Necessities | Floyd Teter The experiment is over… And now Oracle ACE Director Floyd Teter shares his impressions after spending some time with Oracle ADF Essentials, the free version of Oracle ADF. A review of Oracle SOA Suite 11g Administrator’s Handbook | RedStack "More so than any other single piece of content that I have seen on the topic, it provides the information that a SOA administrator needs to know in order to successfully configure, manage, monitor, troubleshoot and backup an Oracle SOA environment." So says Oracle Fusion Middleware A-Team solution architect Mark Nelson of Oracle SOA Suite 11g Administrator’s Handbook, by Ahmed Aboulnaga and Arun Pareek. Expanding the Oracle Enterprise Repository with functional documentation Capgemini middleware specialist Marc Kuijpers shares information on how Oracle Enterprise Repository can be configured "to contain functional assets, i.e. functional designs, use cases and a logical data model" to aid in SOA governance efforts. Podcast: Are You Future Proof? - Part 2 In Part 2, practicing architects and Oracle ACE Directors Ron Batra (AT&T), Basheer Khan (Innowave Technology), and Ronald van Luttikhuizen discuss re-tooling one’s skill set to reflect changes in enterprise IT, including the knowledge to steer stakeholders around the hype to what’s truly valuable. Easy way to access JPA with REST (JSON / XML) | Edwin Biemond Oracle ACE Edwin Biemond shows you "what is possible with JPA-RS, how easy it is and howto setup your own EclipseLink REST service." Clustering ODI11g for High-Availability Part 1: Introduction and Architecture | Richard Yeardley "JEE agents can be deployed alongside, or instead of, standalone agents," says Rittman Meade's Richard Yeardley. "But there is one key advantage in using JEE agents and WebLogic: when you deploy JEE agents as part of a WebLogic cluster they can be configured together to form a high availability cluster." Learn more in Yeardley's extensive post. 2012 IOUG Virtualization SIG – Online Symposium on Nov 7 and Nov 8 | Kai Yu Oracle ACE Director Kai Yu shares information on this week's IOUG Virtualization SIG online event. Does that make it a virtual virtualization event? Thought for the Day "If McDonalds were run like a software company, one out of every hundred Big Macs would give you food poisoning — and the response would be, 'We’re sorry, here’s a coupon for two more.'" — Mark Minasi Source: SoftwareQuotes.com

    Read the article

  • When to use Aspect Oriented Architecture (AOA/AOD)

    When is it appropriate to use aspect oriented architecture? I think the only honest answer to this question is that it depends on the context for which the question is being asked. There really are no hard and fast rules regarding the selection of an architectural model(s) for a project because each model provides good and bad benefits. Every system is built with a unique requirements and constraints. This context will dictate when to use one type of architecture over another or in conjunction with others. To me aspect oriented architecture models should be a sub-phase in the architectural modeling and design process especially when creating enterprise level models. Personally, I like to use this approach to create a base architectural model that is defined by non-functional requirements and system quality attributes.   This general model can then be used as a starting point for additional models because it is targets all of the business key quality attributes required by the system.Aspect oriented architecture is a method for modeling non-functional requirements and quality attributes of a system known as aspects. These models do not deal directly with specific functionality. They do categorize functionality of the system. This approach allows a system to be created with a strong emphasis on separating system concerns into individual components. These cross cutting components enables a systems to create with compartmentalization in regards to non-functional requirements or quality attributes.  This allows for the reduction in code because an each component maintains an aspect of a system that can be called by other aspects. This approach also allows for a much cleaner and smaller code base during the implementation and support of a system. Additionally, enabling developers to develop systems based on aspect-oriented design projects will be completed faster and will be more reliable because existing components can be shared across a system; thus, the time needed to create and test the functionality is reduced.   Example of an effective use of Aspect Oriented ArchitectureIn my experiences, aspect oriented architecture can be very effective with large or more complex systems. Typically, these types of systems have a large number of concerns so the act of defining them is very beneficial for reducing the system’s complexity because components can be developed to address each concern while exposing functionality to the other system components. The benefits to using the aspect oriented approach as the starting point for a system is that it promotes communication between IT and the business due to the fact that the aspect oriented models are quality attributes focused so not much technical understanding is needed to understand the model.An example of this can be in developing a new intranet website. Common Intranet Concerns: Error Handling Security Logging Notifications Database connectivity Example of a not as effective use of Aspect Oriented ArchitectureAgain in my experiences, aspect oriented architecture is not as effective with small or less complex systems in comparison.  There is no need to model concerns for a system that has a limited amount of them because the added overhead would not be justified for the actual benefits of creating the aspect oriented architecture model.  Furthermore, these types of projects typically have a reduced time schedule and a limited budget.  The creation of the Aspect oriented models would increase the overhead of a project and thus increase the time needed to implement the system. An example of this is seen by creating a small application to poll a network share for new files and then FTP them to a new location.  The two primary concerns for this project is to monitor a network drive and FTP files to a new location.  There is no need to create an aspect model for this system because there will never be a need to share functionality amongst either of these concerns.  To add to my point, this system is so small that it could be created with just a few classes so the added layer of componentizing the concerns would be complete overkill for this situation. References:Brichau, Johan; D'Hondt, Theo. (2006) Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD) - An Introduction. Retreived from: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~jbrichau/courses/introductionToAOSD.pdf

    Read the article

  • When is LINQ (to objects) Overused?

    - by Mystagogue
    My career started as a hard-core functional-paradigm developer (LISP), and now I'm a hard-care .net/C# developer. Of course I'm enamored with LINQ. However, I also believe in (1) using the right tool for the job and (2) preserving the KISS principle: of the 60+ engineers I work with, perhaps only 20% have hours of LINQ / functional paradigm experience, and 5% have 6 to 12 months of such experience. In short, I feel compelled to stay away from LINQ unless I'm hampered in achieving a goal without it (wherein replacing 3 lines of O-O code with one line of LINQ is not a "goal"). But now one of the engineers, having 12 months LINQ / functional-paradigm experience, is using LINQ to objects, or at least lambda expressions anyway, in every conceivable location in production code. My various appeals to the KISS principle have not yielded any results. Therefore... What published studies can I next appeal to? What "coding standard" guideline have others concocted with some success? Are there published LINQ performance issues I could point out? In short, I'm trying to achieve my first goal - KISS - by indirect persuasion. Of course this problem could be extended to countless other areas (such as overuse of extension methods). Perhaps there is an "uber" guide, highly regarded (e.g. published studies, etc), that takes a broader swing at this. Anything?

    Read the article

  • How do you pass .net objects values around in F#?

    - by Russell
    I am currently learning F# and functional programming in general (from a C# background) and I have a question about using .net CLR objects during my processing. The best way to describe my problem will be to give an example: let xml = new XmlDocument() |> fun doc -> doc.Load("report.xml"); doc let xsl = new XslCompiledTransform() |> fun doc -> doc.Load("report.xsl"); doc let transformedXml = new MemoryStream() |> fun mem -> xsl.Transform(xml.CreateNavigator(), null, mem); mem This code transforms an XML document with an XSLT document using .net objects. Note XslCompiledTransform.Load works on an object, and returns void. Also the XslCompiledTransform.Transform requires a memorystream object and returns void. The above strategy used is to add the object at the end (the ; mem) to return a value and make functional programming work. When we want to do this one after another we have a function on each line with a return value at the end: let myFunc = new XmlDocument("doc") |> fun a -> a.Load("report.xml"); a |> fun a -> a.AppendChild(new XmlElement("Happy")); a Is there a more correct way (in terms of functional programming) to handle .net objects and objects that were created in a more OO environment? The way I returned the value at the end then had inline functions everywhere feels a bit like a hack and not the correct way to do this. Any help is greatly appreciated!

    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 | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >