Search Results

Search found 64047 results on 2562 pages for 'oracle application architecture'.

Page 276/2562 | < Previous Page | 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283  | Next Page >

• Microkernel architectural pattern and applicability for business applications

  - by Pangea

  We are in the business of building customizable web applications. We have the core team that provides what we call as the core platform (provides services like security, billing etc.) on top of which core products are built. These core products are industry specific solutions like telecom, utility etc. These core products are later used by other teams to build customer specific solutions in a particular industry. Until now we have a loose separation between platform and core product. The customer specific solutions are build by customizing 20-40% of the core offering and re-packaging. The core-platform and core products are released together as monolithic apps (ear). I am looking to improvise the current situation so that there is a cleaner separation on these 3. This allows us to have evolve each of these 3 separately etc. I've read through the Mircokernel architecture and kind of felt that I can take apply the principles in my context. But most of my reading about this pattern is always in the context of operating systems or application servers etc. I am wondering if there are any examples on how that pattern was used for architecting business applications. Or you could provide some insight on how to apply that pattern to my problem.

  Read the article

• The best way to structure/design game code

  - by Edward

  My question is quite broad and related to the 2D game code design/architecture/structure. Usually the main game consists of the main loop where you update & render your world states. However, it's recommended for many purposes to separate rendering from the game-logic and so on. I am kinda confused about the whole situation. Many game engines/libs/sdks don't follow separation schema. They propagate a way where you define some scenes/stages and they contain some objects and the scene/stage controls the user input and so on. For example, in cocos2d(-x) and libgdx (stage2d) the games are usually done the way that the update logic happens at the same time/place as rendering. Also, the propagated way is to have a structure where an object knows how to draw itself - which is not a separation of updating & rendering. The same with Flash based games, they are usually done the way when an object (class) contains a swf or a texture and some data and holds some update logic itself, or updated from main Scene. And again this object already knows how to draw itself via "addChild". Also, some people recommend to use MVC pattern, which will require to completely obey the structure of those engines/libs/sdks. Maybe I am overthinking everything, but I am totally confused. I would be grateful if somebody could point me to a correct direction with the game code structures. What is your way of doing things in libgdx/cocos2d/flash?

  Read the article

• Securing credentials passed to web service

  - by Greg Smith

  I'm attempting to design a single sign on system for use in a distributed architecture. Specifically, I must provide a way for a client website (that is, a website on a different domain/server/network) to allow users to register accounts on my central system. So, when the user takes an action on a client website, and that action is deemed to require an account, the client will produce a page (on their site/domain) where the user can register for a new account by providing an email and password. The client must then send this information to a web service, which will register the account and return some session token type value. The client will need to hash the password before sending it across the wire, and the webservice will require https, but this doesn't feel like it's safe enough and I need some advice on how I can implement this in the most secure way possible. A few other bits of relevant information: Ideally we'd prefer not to share any code with the client We've considered just redirecting the user to a secure page on the same server as the webservice, but this is likely to be rejected for non-technical reasons. We almost certainaly need to salt the password before hashing and passing it over, but that requires the client to either a) generate the salt and communicate it to us, or b) come and ask us for the salt - both feel dirty. Any help or advice is most appreciated.

  Read the article

• UML Diagrams of Multi-Threaded Applications

  - by PersonalNexus

  For single-threaded applications I like to use class diagrams to get an overview of the architecture of that application. This type of diagram, however, hasn’t been very helpful when trying to understand heavily multi-threaded/concurrent applications, for instance because different instances of a class "live" on different threads (meaning accessing an instance is save only from the one thread it lives on). Consequently, associations between classes don’t necessarily mean that I can call methods on those objects, but instead I have to make that call on the target object's thread. Most literature I have dug up on the topic such as Designing Concurrent, Distributed, and Real-Time Applications with UML by Hassan Gomaa had some nice ideas, such as drawing thread boundaries into object diagrams, but overall seemed a bit too academic and wordy to be really useful. I don’t want to use these diagrams as a high-level view of the problem domain, but rather as a detailed description of my classes/objects, their interactions and the limitations due to thread-boundaries I mentioned above. I would therefore like to know: What types of diagrams have you found to be most helpful in understanding multi-threaded applications? Are there any extensions to classic UML that take into account the peculiarities of multi-threaded applications, e.g. through annotations illustrating that some objects might live in a certain thread while others have no thread-affinity; some fields of an object may be read from any thread, but written to only from one; some methods are synchronous and return a result while others are asynchronous that get requests queued up and return results for instance via a callback on a different thread.

  Read the article

• Processing component pools problem - Entity Subsystem

  - by mani3xis

  Architecture description I'm creating (designing) an entity system and I ran into many problems. I'm trying to keep it Data-Oriented and efficient as much as possible. My components are POD structures (array of bytes to be precise) allocated in homogeneous pools. Each pool has a ComponentDescriptor - it just contains component name, field types and field names. Entity is just a pointer to array of components (where address acts like an entity ID). EntityPrototype contains entity name and array of component names. Finally Subsystem (System or Processor) which works on component pools. Actual problem The problem is that some components dependents on others (Model, Sprite, PhysicalBody, Animation depends on Transform component) which makes a lot of problems when it comes to processing them. For example, lets define some entities using [S]prite, [P]hysicalBody and [H]ealth: Tank: Transform, Sprite, PhysicalBody BgTree: Transform, Sprite House: Transform, Sprite, Health and create 4 Tanks, 5 BgTrees and 2 Houses and my pools will look like: TTTTTTTTTTT // Transform pool SSSSSSSSSSS // Sprite pool PPPP // PhysicalBody pool HH // Health component There is no way to process them using indices. I spend 3 days working on it and I still don't have any ideas. In previous designs TransformComponent was bound to the entity - but it wasn't a good idea. Can you give me some advices how to process them? Or maybe I should change the overall design? Maybe I should create pools of entites (pools of component pools) - but I guess it will be a nightmare for CPU caches. Thanks

  Read the article

• How should I host our scalable worker processes?

  - by Pieter Breed

  We are designing a new architecture for an enterprise business. The principles we've followed so far is not to develop what you can (possible buy and) deploy, ie, don't reinvent any wheels. In this way we've decided on CQRS, RabbitMQ, Riak and a bunch of other things. We still need to write /some/ business code though and these will be in the form of worker processes, which will consume commands from a message queue and after any side-effects, produce events onto another message queue. The idea behind this is that via the competing-consumers design we will have a scalable design right out of the box. One option is of writing a management infrastructure that will know how to: deploy code instantiate processes kill processes update configuration etc IE provide fault tolerance and scalability. Also, this is exactly what something like GAE and Heroku does for you, but in a public setting and in our organization, public is bad. My question is, is there an out-of-the-box solution that we can use to host our consumers in? Like a private cloud or private platform-as-a-service. Private Heroku or GAE. Is there some kind of software or software product with which we can do all of these things and thereby get scalability and fault tolerance over our consumers?

  Read the article

• CQRS applicability when some commands need to block the UI

  - by regularfry

  I am working on an app which I would dearly love to transition from a fairly traditional layered architecture to CQRS, for a number of reasons, not least fo which is that having a robust event log will make adding a couple of feature requests I can see barrelling towards me trivial to accomodate. Now, I have a conceptual problem: of around 40 commands the user can initiate, there are three which the user needs to be sure have successfully completed before the UI lets them do anything else. Everything else fits into the "submit a request, query for success later" model, except for these three commands. How is this handled in CQRS-land? Do I separate the three blocking commands to effectively a third service, so I have Commands, Queries, and BlockingCommands? Do I have a two-stage event processor with an in-request blocking first stage which only gets used for the blocking commands? Does the existence of these three commands mean that the whole idea of applying CQRS is invalid? Should I just pretend they aren't blocking and poll for success in the UI? I'm sure this must come up on other projects, how is it usually handled?

  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

• How do you keep SOA DRY?

  - by TaylorOtwell

  In our organization, we've shifted to a more "service oriented architecture". To give an example, let's assume we need to retrieve a "Quote" object. This quote has a shipper, a consignee, phone numbers, contacts, email addresses, and other location information. In other words, a Quote object is made up of many other objects. So, it seems like it would make sense to make a "Quote Retrieval Service". In our situation, we've accomplished this by creating a .NET solution and writing the service. The service API looks something like this (in pseudo-code): Function GetQuote(String ID) Returns Quote So, so far so good. Now, when this service is consumed, to keep things "de-coupled", we are creating essentially a duplicate of the Quote object and mapping from the QuoteService version of the Quote into the consumer's version of the Quote. In many cases, these classes will have the exact same properties. So, if the Quote service is consumed by 5 other applications, we would have 6 definitions of what a "Quote" is. One for each consumer, and one for the service. This feels wrong. I thought code was supposed to be DRY, but it seems like our method of SOA is forcing us to create tons of duplicated class definitions. What are we doing wrong, or is the code duplication just a "necessary evil" of SOA?

  Read the article

• Avoid overwriting all the methods in the child class

  - by Heckel

  The context I am making a game in C++ using SFML. I have a class that controls what is displayed on the screen (manager on the image below). It has a list of all the things to draw like images, text, etc. To be able to store them in one list I created a Drawable class from which all the other drawable class inherit. The image below represents how I would organize each class. Drawable has a virtual method Draw that will be called by the manager. Image and Text overwrite this method. My problem is that I would like Image::draw method to work for Circle, Polygon, etc. since sf::CircleShape and sf::ConvexShape inherit from sf::Shape. I thought of two ways to do that. My first idea would be for Image to have a pointer on sf::Shape, and the subclasses would make it point onto their sf::CircleShape or sf::ConvexShape classes (Like on the image below). In the Polygon constructor I would write something like ptr_shape = &polygon_shape; This doesn't look very elegant because I have two variables that are, in fact, just one. My second idea is to store the sf::CircleShape and sf::ConvexShape inside the ptr_shape like ptr_shape = new sf::ConvexShape(...); and to use a function that is only in ConvexShape I would cast it like so ((sf::ConvexShape*)ptr_shape)->convex_method(); But that doesn't look very elegant either. I am not even sure I am allowed to do that. My question I added details about the whole thing because I thought that maybe my whole architecture was wrong. I would like to know how I could design my program to be safe without overwriting all the Image methods. I apologize if this question has already been asked; I have no idea what to google.

  Read the article

• Loadbalancing Questions

  - by Van Holtz

  I have been learning networking for about 4 months. Wrote a single standalone Multiplayer server and succeeded with authoritative approach. Now I want to extend it by splitting the single server into clusters to allow even more players to log in to avoid latency issues. Now I have protyped the Loadbalancing server and its running pretty good so far. This is my architecture, I have a master server which acts as a proxy, every sub servers(chat, login, game) connect to the master server as well as all the clients. when a client connects, Client Request: Send Request - MS(Master) - Decides which SS(SubServer) to forward to - Forwards Request to SS - SS - Analyze Message - Send Response to MS - Decides which Client to forward to - Forwards Response to Client Well, it looks like its going through lots of stages. it takes double the time to process the message than a single server approach. i feel like my model isnt the best or i may be wrong. is there any better model or the one they use in professional games? I still want a Master-SubServer approach. I just want to clarify that I'm going in the right direction before writing all my codes. Thanks for any answer :)

  Read the article

• Is there really anything to gain with complex design? [duplicate]

  - by SB2055

  This question already has an answer here: What is enterprise software, exactly? 8 answers I've been working for a consulting firm for some time, with clients of various sizes, and I've seen web applications ranging in complexity from really simple: MVC Service Layer EF DB To really complex: MVC UoW DI / IoC Repository Service UI Tests Unit Tests Integration Tests But on both ends of the spectrum, the quality requirements are about the same. In simple projects, new devs / consultants can hop on, make changes, and contribute immediately, without having to wade through 6 layers of abstraction to understand what's going on, or risking misunderstanding some complex abstraction and costing down the line. In all cases, there was never a need to actually make code swappable or reusable - and the tests were never actually maintained past the first iteration because requirements changed, it was too time-consuming, deadlines, business pressure, etc etc. So if - in the end - testing and interfaces aren't used rapid development (read: cost-savings) is a priority the project's requirements will be changing a lot while in development ...would it be wrong to recommend a super-simple architecture, even to solve a complex problem, for an enterprise client? Is it complexity that defines enterprise solutions, or is it the reliability, # concurrent users, ease-of-maintenance, or all of the above? I know this is a very vague question, and any answer wouldn't apply to all cases, but I'm interested in hearing from devs / consultants that have been in the business for a while and that have worked with these varying degrees of complexity, to hear if the cool-but-expensive abstractions are worth the overall cost, at least while the project is in development.

  Read the article

• Use a SQL Database for a Desktop Game

  - by sharethis

  Developing a Game Engine I am planning a computer game and its engine. There will be a 3 dimensional world with first person view and it will be single player for now. The programming language is C++ and it uses OpenGL. Data Centered Design Decision My design decision is to use a data centered architecture where there is a global event manager and a global data manager. There are many components like physics, input, sound, renderer, ai, ... Each component can trigger and listen to events. Moreover, each component can read, edit, create and remove data. The question is about the data manager. Whether to Use a Relational Database Should I use a SQL Database, e.g. SQLite or MySQL, to store the game data? This contains virtually all game content like items, characters, inventories, ... Except of meshes and textures which are even more performance related, so I will keep them in memory. Is a SQL database fast enough to use it for realtime reading and writing game informations, like the position of a moving character? I also need to care about cross-platform compatibility. Aside from keeping everything in memory, what alternatives do I have? Advantages Would Be The advantages of using a relational database like MySQL would be the data orientated structure which allows fast computation. I would not need objects for representing entities. I could easily query data of objects near the player needed for rendering. And I don't have to take care about data of objects far away. Moreover there would be no need for savegames since the hole game state is saved in the database. Last but not least, expanding the game to an online game would be relative easy because there already is a place where the hole game state is stored.

  Read the article

• How to avoid the GameManager god object?

  - by lorancou

  I just read an answer to a question about structuring game code. It made me wonder about the ubiquitous GameManager class, and how it often becomes an issue in a production environment. Let me describe this. First, there's prototyping. Nobody cares about writing great code, we just try to get something running to see if the gameplay adds up. Then there's a greenlight, and in an effort to clean things up, somebody writes a GameManager. Probably to hold a bunch of GameStates, maybe to store a few GameObjects, nothing big, really. A cute, little, manager. In the peaceful realm of pre-production, the game is shaping up nicely. Coders have proper nights of sleep and plenty of ideas to architecture the thing with Great Design Patterns. Then production starts and soon, of course, there is crunch time. Balanced diet is long gone, the bug tracker is cracking with issues, people are stressed and the game has to be released yesterday. At that point, usually, the GameManager is a real big mess (to stay polite). The reason for that is simple. After all, when writing a game, well... all the source code is actually here to manage the game. It's easy to just add this little extra feature or bugfix in the GameManager, where everything else is already stored anyway. When time becomes an issue, no way to write a separate class, or to split this giant manager into sub-managers. Of course this is a classical anti-pattern: the god object. It's a bad thing, a pain to merge, a pain to maintain, a pain to understand, a pain to transform. What would you suggest to prevent this from happening?

  Read the article

• MVVM and service pattern

  - by alfa-alfa

  I'm building a WPF application using the MVVM pattern. Right now, my viewmodels calls the service layer to retrieve models (how is not relevant to the viewmodel) and convert them to viewmodels. I'm using constructor injection to pass the service required to the viewmodel. It's easily testable and works well for viewmodels with few dependencies, but as soon as I try to create viewModels for complex models, I have a constructor with a LOT of services injected in it (one to retrieve each dependencies and a list of all available values to bind to an itemsSource for example). I'm wondering how to handle multiple services like that and still have a viewmodel that I can unit test easily. I'm thinking of a few solutions: Creating a services singleton (IServices) containing all the available services as interfaces. Example: Services.Current.XXXService.Retrieve(), Services.Current.YYYService.Retrieve(). That way, I don't have a huge constructor with a ton of services parameters in them. Creating a facade for the services used by the viewModel and passing this object in the ctor of my viewmodel. But then, I'll have to create a facade for each of my complexe viewmodels, and it might be a bit much... What do you think is the "right" way to implement this kind of architecture ?

  Read the article

• decouple software components via nameconvention

  - by csteinmueller

  I'm currently evaluating alternatives to refactor a drivermanagement. In my multitier architecture I have Baseclass DAL.Device //my entity Interfaces BL.IDriver //handles the dataprocessing between application and device BL.IDriverCreator //creates an IDriver from a Device BL.IDriverFactory //handles the driver creation requests Every specialization of Device has a corresponding IDriver implementation and a corresponding IDriverCreator implementation. At the moment the mapping is fix via a type check within the business layer / DriverFactory. That means every new driver needs a) changing code within the DriverFactory and b) referencing the new IDriver implementation / assembly. On a customers point of view that means, every new driver, used or not, needs a complex revalidation of their hardware environment, because it's a critical process. My first inspiration was to use a caliburn micro like nameconvention see Caliburn.Micro: Xaml Made Easy BL.RestDriver BL.RestDriverCreator DAL.RestDevice After receiving the RestDevicewithin the IDriverFactory I can load all driver dlls via reflection and do a namesplitting/comparing (extracting the xx from xxDriverCreator and xxDevice) Another idea would be a custom attribute (which also leads to comparing strings). My question: is that a good approach above layer borders? If not, what would be a good approach?

  Read the article

• Implementing Explosions

  - by Xkynar

  I want to add explosions to my 2D game, but im having a hard time with the architecture. Several game elements might be responsible for explosions, like, lets say, explosive barrels and bullets (and there might be chain reactions with close barrels). The only options i can come up with are: 1 - Having an array of explosions and treat them as a game element as important as any other Pros: Having a single array which is updated and drawn with all the other game element arrays makes it more organized and simple to update, and the explosive barrels at a first glance would be easy to create, simply by passing the explosion array as a pointer to each explosive barrel constructor Cons: It might be hard for the bullets to add an explosion to the vector, since bullets are shot by a Weapon class which is located in every mob, so lets say, if i create a new enemy and add it to the enemy array, that enemy will have a weapon and functions to be able to use it, and if i want the weapon (rocket launcher in this case) to have access to the explosions array to be able to add a new one, id have to pass the explosion array as a pointer to the enemy, which would then pass it to the weapon, which would pass it to the bullets (ugly chain). Another problem I can think of is a little more weird: If im checking the collisions between explosions and barrels (so i create a chain reaction) and i detect an explosion colliding with a barrel, if i add a new explosion while im iterating the explosions java will trow an exception. So this is kinda annoying, i cant iterate through the explosions and add a new explosion, i must do it in another way... The other way which isnt really well thought yet is to just add an explosive component to every element that might explode so that when it dies, it explodes or something, but i dont have good ways on implementing this theory either Honestly i dont like either the solutions so id like to know how is it usually done by actual game developers, sorry if my problem seems trivial and dumb.

  Read the article

• How do OSes work on multiple CPUs? [on hold]

  - by user3691093

  Assumption: "OS es (atleast in some part) should be written in assembly.Assembly programs are CPU specefic." If so how can one os run on different CPUs ? For example: how is that I can load Ubuntu on different systems having different CPUs (like intel i3,i5,i7, amd a8,a6,etc) from the same bootable disk? Does the disk contain seporate assembly programs for each CPU? Are these CPUs 'similar' enough to run the same assembly program? Is my assumption wrong? Something else.... Thanks for responding. I tried to find out in what way are the CPUs that I mentioned 'similar'. I came across the concepts of Instruction Set Architecture and Microarchitecture of CPUs.A CPU will understand a program if it is combatible with its ISA. Even if CPUs are 'wired up' differently (different microarchitecture) , as long as the ISA implemented on top is same ,the program will work. ARM and x86 have different ISA ( that why there are 2 windows 8 versions, right?). And if an app program is written in an HLL with compilers for both platforms we will saved from wasting time writing 2 programs. Did I understand anything wrong? Are there programs that can take a compiled program as input and produce a program executable on another CPU as output? Is it possible? (Virtualisation?) 32 bit windows programs do install on 64 bit windows ,dont they? Arent 64 bit CPUs 'differerent' from 32 bit CPUs? They do get seporate OS versions, right? Is this backward combatibility achieved using programes mentioned in (3) ?

  Read the article

• Hosting StreamInsight applications using WCF

  - by gsusx

  One of the fundamental differentiators of Microsoft's StreamInsight compared to other Complex Event Processing (CEP) technologies is its flexible deployment model. In that sense, a StreamInsight solution can be hosted within an application or as a server component. This duality contrasts with most of the popular CEP frameworks in the current market which are almost exclusively server based. Whether it's undoubtedly that the ability of embedding a CEP engine in your applications opens new possibilities...(read more)

  Read the article

• It's not just “Single Sign-on” by Steve Knott (aurionPro SENA)

  - by Greg Jensen

  It is true that Oracle Enterprise Single Sign-on (Oracle ESSO) started out as purely an application single sign-on tool but as we have seen in the previous articles in this series the product has matured into a suite of tools that can do more than just automated single sign-on and can also provide rapidly deployed, cost effective solution to many demanding password management problems. In the last article of this series I would like to discuss three cases where customers faced password scenarios that required more than just single sign-on and how some of the less well known tools in the Oracle ESSO suite “kitbag” helped solve these challenges. Case #1 One of the issues often faced by our customers is how to keep their applications compliant. I had a client who liked the idea of automated single sign-on for most of his applications but had a key requirement to actually increase the security for one specific SOX application. For the SOX application he wanted to secure access by using two-factor authentication with a smartcard. The problem was that the application did not support two-factor authentication. The solution was to use a feature from the Oracle ESSO suite called authentication manager. This feature enables you to have multiple authentication methods for the same user which in this case was a smartcard and the Windows password.  Within authentication manager each authenticator can be configured with a security grade so we gave the smartcard a high grade and the Windows password a normal grade. Security grading in Oracle ESSO can be configured on a per application basis so we set the SOX application to require the higher grade smartcard authenticator. The end result for the user was that they enjoyed automated single sign-on for most of the applications apart from the SOX application. When the SOX application was launched, the user was required by ESSO to present their smartcard before being given access to the application. Case #2 Another example solving compliance issues was in the case of a large energy company who had a number of core billing applications. New regulations required that users change their password regularly and use a complex password. The problem facing the customer was that the core billing applications did not have any native user password change functionality. The customer could not replace the core applications because of the cost and time required to re-develop them. With a reputation for innovation aurionPro SENA were approached to provide a solution to this problem using Oracle ESSO. Oracle ESSO has a password expiry feature that can be triggered periodically based on the timestamp of the users’ last password creation therefore our strategy here was to leverage this feature to provide the password change experience. The trigger can launch an application change password event however in this scenario there was no native change password feature that could be launched therefore a “dummy” change password screen was created that could imitate the missing change password function and connect to the application database on behalf of the user. Oracle ESSO was configured to trigger a change password event every 60 days. After this period if the user launched the application Oracle ESSO would detect the logon screen and invoke the password expiry feature. Oracle ESSO would trigger the “dummy screen,” detect it automatically as the application change password screen and insert a complex password on behalf of the user. After the password event had completed the user was logged on to the application with their new password. All this was provided at a fraction of the cost of re-developing the core applications. Case #3 Recent popular initiatives such as the BYOD and working from home schemes bring with them many challenges in administering “unmanaged machines” and sometimes “unmanageable users.” In a recent case, a client had a dispersed community of casual contractors who worked for the business using their own laptops to access applications. To improve security the around password management the security goal was to provision the passwords directly to these contractors. In a previous article we saw how Oracle ESSO has the capability to provision passwords through Provisioning Gateway but the challenge in this scenario was how to get the Oracle ESSO agent to the casual contractor on an unmanaged machine. The answer was to use another tool in the suite, Oracle ESSO Anywhere. This component can compile the normal Oracle ESSO functionality into a deployment package that can be made available from a website in a similar way to a streamed application. The ESSO Anywhere agent does not actually install into the registry or program files but runs in a folder within the user’s profile therefore no local administrator rights are required for installation. The ESSO Anywhere package can also be configured to stay persistent or disable itself at the end of the user’s session. In this case the user just needed to be told where the website package was located and download the package. Once the download was complete the agent started automatically and the user was provided with single sign-on to their applications without ever knowing the application passwords. Finally, as we have seen in these series Oracle ESSO not only has great utilities in its own tool box but also has direct integration with Oracle Privileged Account Manager, Oracle Identity Manager and Oracle Access Manager. Integrated together with these tools provides a complete and complementary platform to address even the most complex identity and access management requirements. So what next for Oracle ESSO? “Agentless ESSO available in the cloud” – but that will be a subject for a future Oracle ESSO series!                                                                                                                               

  Read the article

• Security in Software

  The term security has many meanings based on the context and perspective in which it is used. Security from the perspective of software/system development is the continuous process of maintaining confidentiality, integrity, and availability of a system, sub-system, and system data. This definition at a very high level can be restated as the following: Computer security is a continuous process dealing with confidentiality, integrity, and availability on multiple layers of a system. Key Aspects of Software Security Integrity Confidentiality Availability Integrity within a system is the concept of ensuring only authorized users can only manipulate information through authorized methods and procedures. An example of this can be seen in a simple lead management application.  If the business decided to allow each sales member to only update their own leads in the system and sales managers can update all leads in the system then an integrity violation would occur if a sales member attempted to update someone else’s leads. An integrity violation occurs when a team member attempts to update someone else’s lead because it was not entered by the sales member.  This violates the business rule that leads can only be update by the originating sales member. Confidentiality within a system is the concept of preventing unauthorized access to specific information or tools.  In a perfect world the knowledge of the existence of confidential information/tools would be unknown to all those who do not have access. When this this concept is applied within the context of an application only the authorized information/tools will be available. If we look at the sales lead management system again, leads can only be updated by originating sales members. If we look at this rule then we can say that all sales leads are confidential between the system and the sales person who entered the lead in to the system. The other sales team members would not need to know about the leads let alone need to access it. Availability within a system is the concept of authorized users being able to access the system. A real world example can be seen again from the lead management system. If that system was hosted on a web server then IP restriction can be put in place to limit access to the system based on the requesting IP address. If in this example all of the sales members where accessing the system from the 192.168.1.23 IP address then removing access from all other IPs would be need to ensure that improper access to the system is prevented while approved users can access the system from an authorized location. In essence if the requesting user is not coming from an authorized IP address then the system will appear unavailable to them. This is one way of controlling where a system is accessed. Through the years several design principles have been identified as being beneficial when integrating security aspects into a system. These principles in various combinations allow for a system to achieve the previously defined aspects of security based on generic architectural models. Security Design Principles Least Privilege Fail-Safe Defaults Economy of Mechanism Complete Mediation Open Design Separation Privilege Least Common Mechanism Psychological Acceptability Defense in Depth Least Privilege Design PrincipleThe Least Privilege design principle requires a minimalistic approach to granting user access rights to specific information and tools. Additionally, access rights should be time based as to limit resources access bound to the time needed to complete necessary tasks. The implications of granting access beyond this scope will allow for unnecessary access and the potential for data to be updated out of the approved context. The assigning of access rights will limit system damaging attacks from users whether they are intentional or not. This principle attempts to limit data changes and prevents potential damage from occurring by accident or error by reducing the amount of potential interactions with a resource. Fail-Safe Defaults Design PrincipleThe Fail-Safe Defaults design principle pertains to allowing access to resources based on granted access over access exclusion. This principle is a methodology for allowing resources to be accessed only if explicit access is granted to a user. By default users do not have access to any resources until access has been granted. This approach prevents unauthorized users from gaining access to resource until access is given. Economy of Mechanism Design PrincipleThe Economy of mechanism design principle requires that systems should be designed as simple and small as possible. Design and implementation errors result in unauthorized access to resources that would not be noticed during normal use. Complete Mediation Design PrincipleThe Complete Mediation design principle states that every access to every resource must be validated for authorization. Open Design Design PrincipleThe Open Design Design Principle is a concept that the security of a system and its algorithms should not be dependent on secrecy of its design or implementation Separation Privilege Design PrincipleThe separation privilege design principle requires that all resource approved resource access attempts be granted based on more than a single condition. For example a user should be validated for active status and has access to the specific resource. Least Common Mechanism Design PrincipleThe Least Common Mechanism design principle declares that mechanisms used to access resources should not be shared. Psychological Acceptability Design PrincipleThe Psychological Acceptability design principle refers to security mechanisms not make resources more difficult to access than if the security mechanisms were not present Defense in Depth Design PrincipleThe Defense in Depth design principle is a concept of layering resource access authorization verification in a system reduces the chance of a successful attack. This layered approach to resource authorization requires unauthorized users to circumvent each authorization attempt to gain access to a resource. When designing a system that requires meeting a security quality attribute architects need consider the scope of security needs and the minimum required security qualities. Not every system will need to use all of the basic security design principles but will use one or more in combination based on a company’s and architect’s threshold for system security because the existence of security in an application adds an additional layer to the overall system and can affect performance. That is why the definition of minimum security acceptably is need when a system is design because this quality attributes needs to be factored in with the other system quality attributes so that the system in question adheres to all qualities based on the priorities of the qualities. Resources: Barnum, Sean. Gegick, Michael. (2005). Least Privilege. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/bsi/articles/knowledge/principles/351-BSI.html Saltzer, Jerry. (2011). BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION PROTECTION. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from  http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/protection/Basic.html Barnum, Sean. Gegick, Michael. (2005). Defense in Depth. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from  https://buildsecurityin.us-cert.gov/bsi/articles/knowledge/principles/347-BSI.html Bertino, Elisa. (2005). Design Principles for Security. Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from  http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~bhargav/cs526/security-9.pdf

  Read the article

• Bringing true agility to enterprise .NET: Tellago Studios announces TeleSharp

  - by gsusx

  We are happy to announce the latest addition to Tellago Studios’ product family: TeleSharp . After the success of SO-Aware and the SO-Aware Test Workbench , we decided to tackle on a bigger challenge by taking the initial steps towards simplifying enterprise .NET application development. After months of discussion with customers we decided to focus on the following challenges: Cataloging Applications What if you could keep a central catalog of the .NET applications exist on your enterprise? What...(read more)

  Read the article

• Characteristics of a Web service that promote reusability and change

  Characteristics of a Web service that promote reusability and change:  Standardized Data Exchange Formats (XML, JSON) Standardized communication protocols (Soap, Rest) Promotes Loosely Coupled Systems  Standardized Data Exchange Formats (XML, JSON) XML W3.org defines Extensible Markup Language (XML) as a simplistic text format derived from SGML. XML was designed to solve challenges found in large-scale electronic publishing. In addition,  XML is playing an important role in the exchange of data primarily focusing on data exchange on the web. JSON JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a human-readable text-based standard designed for data interchange. This format is used for serializing and transmitting data over a network connection in a structured format. The primary use of JSON is to transmit data between a server and web application. JSON is an alternative to XML. Standardized communication protocols (Soap, Rest) Soap W3Scools.com defines SOAP as a simple XML-based protocol. This protocol lets applications exchange data over HTTP.  SOAP provides a way to communicate between applications running on different operating systems, with different technologies and programming languages. Rest In 2007, Stefan Tilkov defines Representational State Transfer (REST) as a set of principles that outlines how Web standards are supposed to be used.  Using REST in an application will ensure that it exploits the Web’s architecture to its benefit. Promotes Loosely Coupled Systems “Loose coupling as an approach to interconnecting the components in a system or network so that those components, also called elements, depend on each other to the least extent practicable. Coupling refers to the degree of direct knowledge that one element has of another.” (TechTarget.com, 2007) “Loosely coupled system can be easily broken down into definable elements. The extent of coupling in a system can be measured by mapping the maximum number of element changes that can occur without adverse effects. Examples of such changes include adding elements, removing elements, renaming elements, reconfiguring elements, modifying internal element characteristics and rearranging the way in which elements are interconnected.” (TechTarget.com, 2007) References: W3C. (2011). Extensible Markup Language (XML). Retrieved from W3.org: http://www.w3.org/XML/ W3Scools.com. (2011). SOAP Introduction. Retrieved from W3Scools.com: http://www.w3schools.com/soap/soap_intro.asp Tilkov, Stefan. (2007). A Brief Introduction to REST. Retrieved from Infoq.com: http://www.infoq.com/articles/rest-introduction TechTarget.com. (2011). loose coupling. Retrieved from TechTarget.com: http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/loose-coupling

  Read the article

• Programming is easy, Designing is hard

  - by Rachel

  I work as Programmer and I feel if design documents are properly in place and requirements are clearly specified than programming is not that difficult but when I think in terms of Designing a Software than it gives chills to me and I think its a very difficult part. I want to develop my Design Skills so, How should I go about it ? Are there any books, blogs, websites or other approaches that SO community can suggest ? Update: By Design I meant Design of overall Application or particular problem at hand and not UI Design.

  Read the article

• Best approach to designing multi-client applications

  - by Tomh

  Hi, I was wondering how you guys start out if you need to design a multi-client project where multiple clients can interact with a server. In specific how do you go about dealing with different states and message handling, how do you start designing and considering all these cases? For example a video webchat application where it is possible that you call another client, while that client is already in a call, or is stuck in a modal dialog such that the calling dialog does not come through.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283  | Next Page >