Search Results

Search found 1366 results on 55 pages for 'complexity'.

Page 29/55 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • 2012 Oracle Fusion Innovation Awards - Part 1

    - by Michelle Kimihira
    Author: Moazzam Chaudry This year we recognized 29 customers for their innovative use of Oracle Fusion Middleware and their significant results. The winners were selected across 8 product categories from 11 countries spanning diverse industries around the world. This is a two-part blog series. The 2012 Fusion Middleware Innovation Awards winners were announced at OOW on October 2nd by Hasan Rizvi (EVP Fusion Middleware and Java development), Amit Zavery (VP Product Management) and Ed Zou (VP Product Management) to an audience that included press, analysts and customers. Winners were selected based on the uniqueness of their business case, business benefits, level of impact relative to the size of the organization, complexity and magnitude of implementation, and the originality of architecture. The program is in its 6th year and this year, we are excited to have received over 250 submissions from customers around the globe. The winners were selected by a panel of internal and external judges; it was a difficult time selecting this year's most innovative projects. Judges scored each entry across multiple scoring categories. This year, winning use cases for Fusion Middleware include: Improve customer experience by monitoring real-time and simplifying user experience of tens of millions of customer Drive social enagement through social media channels in fields, including healthcare, harness big data by analyzing and improving visibility across 60M+customers and hundreds of terabytes of data Enable mobile adoption by delivering mobile news experience to 50% of the Australian population, embrace cloud computing by delivering hospitality services to 3000+ hotels and monitoring services to hospitals, and optimize criticial processes such as, remarketing cars through tens of thousands of dealers On Monday's blog, we will talk about the winners in each category and what customers had to say in the customer panel. Congratulations to the 2012 Oracle Fusion Innovation Award winners:  

    Read the article

  • How are the conceptual pairs Abstract/Concrete, Generic/Specific, and Complex/Simple related to one another in software architecture?

    - by tjb1982
    (= 2 (+ 1 1)) take the above. The requirement of the '=' predicate is that its arguments be comparable. Any two structures are comparable in this case, and so the contract/requirement is pretty generic. The '+' predicate requires that its arguments be numbers. That's more specific. (socket domain type protocol) the arguments here are much more specific (even though the arguments are still just numbers and the function itself returns a file descriptor, which is itself an int), but the arguments are more abstract, and the implementation is built up from other functions whose abstractions are less abstract, which are themselves built from less and less abstract abstractions. To the point where the requirements are something like move from one location to another, observe whether the switch at that location is on or off, turn the switch on or off, or leave it the same, etc. But are functions also less and less complex the less abstract they are? And is there a relationship between the number and range of arguments of a function and the complexity of its implementation, as you go from more abstract to less abstract, and vice versa? (= 2 (+ 1 1) 2r10) the '=' predicate is more generic than the '+' predicate, and thus could be more complex in its implementation. The '+' predicate's contract is less generic, and so could be less complex in its implementation. Is this even a little correct? What about the 'socket' function? Each of those arguments is a number of some kind. What they represent, though, is something more elaborate. It also returns a number (just like the others do), which is also a representation of something conceptually much more elaborate than a number. To boil it down, I'm asking if there is a relationship between the following dimensions, and why: Abstract/Concrete Complex/Simple Generic/Specific And more specifically, do different configurations of these dimensions have a specific, measurable impact on the number and range of the arguments (i.e., the contract) of a function?

    Read the article

  • I can write code...but can't design well. Any suggestions?

    - by user396089
    I feel that I am good at writing code in bits and pieces, but my designs really suck. The question is how do I improve my designs (in order to become a better designer). I think schools and colleges do a good job of teaching people as to how to become good at mathematical problem solving, but lets admit the fact that most programs taught at school are generally around 1000 - 2000 lines long, which means that it is mostly an academic exercise and no way reflects the complexity of real world software (a few hundred thousand to millions of lines of code). This is where I believe that even projects like topcoder/project euler also won't be of much help, they might sharpen your mathematical problem solving ability - but you might become a theoretician programmer; someone who is more interested in the nice, clean stuff, and someone who is utterly un-interested in the day to day mundane and hairy stuff that most application programmers deal with. So my question is how do I improve my design skills? That is the ability to design small/medium scale applications that will go into a few thousand of lines of code? How can I learn design skills that would help me build a better html editor kit, or some graphics program like gimp?

    Read the article

  • Need to include Calendar and Email in own CRM system. Whose?

    - by PurplePilot
    I am writing a web based application that needs to have some elements of CRM in it but I cannot use an of-the-shelf CRM to do what I want. (Honestly we have been through it all and it will not work). Now while Tasks, Calls, Meetings and Notes are straightforward the idea of reinventing Mail and Calendars seems a waste of time and effort and also unproductive as most users already have their own and it simply adds to the complexity of my application and hacks users off. My thoughts are going around using Outlook and or GMail/iCal and or Mac Mail/iCal and or Thunderbird and importing the relevant data or if possible integrating it into the application. Any thoughts? Anyone got any experience of this can point me in a few directions. N.B. Not looking for an answer as too complex just some pointers and thoughts. Thanks. p.s. We did look at Sugar CRM as the basis for our project and it is useful to get best practice from but as I say it was not useable due to how we are structuring our software, not Sugar's fault.

    Read the article

  • Using the Coherence ConcurrentMap Interface (Locking API)

    - by jpurdy
    For many developers using Coherence, the first place they look for concurrency control is the com.tangosol.util.ConcurrentMap interface (part of the NamedCache interface). The ConcurrentMap interface includes methods for explicitly locking data. Despite the obvious appeal of a lock-based API, these methods should generally be avoided for a variety of reasons: They are very "chatty" in that they can't be bundled with other operations (such as get and put) and there are no collection-based versions of them. Locks do directly not impact mutating calls (including puts and entry processors), so all code must make explicit lock requests before modifying (or in some cases reading) cache entries. They require coordination of all code that may mutate the objects, including the need to lock at the same level of granularity (there is no built-in lock hierarchy and thus no concept of lock escalation). Even if all code is properly coordinated (or there's only one piece of code), failure during updates that may leave a collection of changes to a set of objects in a partially committed state. There is no concept of a read-only lock. In general, use of locking is highly discouraged for most applications. Instead, the use of entry processors provides a far more efficient approach, at the cost of some additional complexity.

    Read the article

  • How best to construct our test subjects in unit tests?

    - by Liath
    Some of our business logic classes require quite a few dependencies (in our case 7-10). As such when we come to unit test these the creation become quite complex. In most tests these dependencies are often not required (only some dependencies are required for particular methods). As a result unit tests often require a significant number of lines of code to mock up these useless dependencies (which can't be null because of null checks). For example: [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = new Sut(new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, new Mock<IDependency3>().Object, new Mock<IDependency4>().Object, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } In this example almost half the test is taken up creating dependencies which aren't used. I've investigated an approach where I have a helper method. [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = CreateSut(null, null, null, null, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } private Sut CreateSut(IDependency1 d1, IDependency2 d2...) { return new Sut(d1 ?? new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, d2 ?? new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, } But these often grow very complicated very quickly. What is the best way to create these BLL classes in test classes to reduce complexity and simplify tests?

    Read the article

  • Why using Fragments?

    - by ahmed_khan_89
    I have read the documentation and some other questions' threads about this topic and I don't really feel convinced; I don't see clearly the limits of use of this technique. Fragments are now seen as a Best Practice; every Activity should be basically a support for one or more Fragments and not call a layout directly. Fragments are created in order to: allow the Activity to use many fragments, to change between them, to reuse these units... == the Fragment is totally dependent to the Context of an activity , so if I need something generic that I can reuse and handle in many Activities, I can create my own custom layouts or Views ... I will not care about this additional Complexity Developing Layer that fragments would add. a better handling to different resolution == OK for tablets/phones in case of long process that we can show two (or more) fragments in the same Activity in Tablets, and one by one in phones. But why would I use fragments always ? handling callbacks to navigate between Fragments (i.e: if the user is Logged-in I show a fragment else I show another fragment). === Just try to see how many bugs facebook SDK Log-in have because of this, to understand that it is really (?) ... considering that an Android Application is based on Activities... Adding another life cycles in the Activity would be better to design an Application... I mean the modules, the scenarios, the data management and the connectivity would be better designed, in that way. === This is an answer of someone who's used to see the Android SDK and Android Framework with a Fragments vision. I don't think it's wrong, but I am not sure it will give good results... And it is really abstract... ==== Why would I complicate my life, coding more, in using them always? else, why is it a best practice if it's just a tool for some cases? what are these cases?

    Read the article

  • knowing all available entity types

    - by plofplof
    I'm making a game where at some point the game will create enemies of random types. Each type of enemy available is defined on its own class derived from an enemy superclass. To do this, obviously the different types of enemies should be known. This is what I have thought of: Just make a list manually. Very simple to do, but I don't like it because I'll be adding more enemy types over time, so any time I add a new class I have to remember to update this (same if I remove an enemy). I would like some kind of auto-updating list. A completely component based system. There are no different classes for each enemy, but definitions of enemies in some file where all enemy types can be found. I really don't need that level of complexity for my game. I'm still using a component based model to some degree, but each Enemy type gets defined on its own class. Java Annotation processing. Give each enemy subclass an annotation like @EnemyType("whatever"), then code an annotation processor that writes in a file all available enemy types. Any time a new class is added the file gets updated after compilation.This gives me a feeling of failure even if its a good solution, it's very dependant on Java, so it means I cant think of a general design good for any kind of language. Also I think that this would be too much work for something so simple. I would like to see comments on these ideas and other possible solutions Thanks

    Read the article

  • Should I amortize scripting cost via bytecode analysis or multithreading?

    - by user18983
    I'm working on a game sort of thing where users can write arbitrary code for individual agents, and I'm trying to decide the best way to divide up computation time. The simplest option would be to give each agent a set amount of time and skip their turn if it elapses without an action being decided upon, but I would like people to be able to write their agents decision functions without having to think too much about how long its taking unless they really want to. The two approaches I'm considering are giving each agent a set number of bytecode instructions (taking cost into account) each timestep, and making players deal with the consequences of the game state changing between blocks of computation (as with Battlecode) or giving each agent it's own thread and giving each thread equal time on the processor. I'm about equally knowledgeable on both concurrency and bytecode stuff, which is to say not very, so I'm wondering which approach would be best. I have a clearer idea of how I'd structure things if I used bytecode, but less certainty about how to actually implement the analysis. I'm pretty sure I can work up a concurrency based system without much trouble, but I worry it will be messier with more overhead and will add unnecessary complexity to the project.

    Read the article

  • Flow-Design Cheat Sheet &ndash; Part I, Notation

    - by Ralf Westphal
    You want to avoid the pitfalls of object oriented design? Then this is the right place to start. Use Flow-Oriented Analysis (FOA) and –Design (FOD or just FD for Flow-Design) to understand a problem domain and design a software solution. Flow-Orientation as described here is related to Flow-Based Programming, Event-Based Programming, Business Process Modelling, and even Event-Driven Architectures. But even though “thinking in flows” is not new, I found it helpful to deviate from those precursors for several reasons. Some aim at too big systems for the average programmer, some are concerned with only asynchronous processing, some are even not very much concerned with programming at all. What I was looking for was a design method to help in software projects of any size, be they large or tiny, involing synchronous or asynchronous processing, being local or distributed, running on the web or on the desktop or on a smartphone. That´s why I took ideas from all of the above sources and some additional and came up with Event-Based Components which later got repositioned and renamed to Flow-Design. In the meantime this has generated some discussion (in the German developer community) and several teams have started to work with Flow-Design. Also I´ve conducted quite some trainings using Flow-Orientation for design. The results are very promising. Developers find it much easier to design software using Flow-Orientation than OOAD-based object orientation. Since Flow-Orientation is moving fast and is not covered completely by a single source like a book, demand has increased for at least an overview of the current state of its notation. This page is trying to answer this demand by briefly introducing/describing every notational element as well as their translation into C# source code. Take this as a cheat sheet to put next to your whiteboard when designing software. However, please do not expect any explanation as to the reasons behind Flow-Design elements. Details on why Flow-Design at all and why in this specific way you´ll find in the literature covering the topic. Here´s a resource page on Flow-Design/Event-Based Components, if you´re able to read German. Notation Connected Functional Units The basic element of any FOD are functional units (FU): Think of FUs as some kind of software code block processing data. For the moment forget about classes, methods, “components”, assemblies or whatever. See a FU as an abstract piece of code. Software then consists of just collaborating FUs. I´m using circles/ellipses to draw FUs. But if you like, use rectangles. Whatever suites your whiteboard needs best.   The purpose of FUs is to process input and produce output. FUs are transformational. However, FUs are not called and do not call other FUs. There is no dependency between FUs. Data just flows into a FU (input) and out of it (output). From where and where to is of no concern to a FU.   This way FUs can be concatenated in arbitrary ways:   Each FU can accept input from many sources and produce output for many sinks:   Flows Connected FUs form a flow with a start and an end. Data is entering a flow at a source, and it´s leaving it through a sink. Think of sources and sinks as special FUs which conntect wires to the environment of a network of FUs.   Wiring Details Data is flowing into/out of FUs through wires. This is to allude to electrical engineering which since long has been working with composable parts. Wires are attached to FUs usings pins. They are the entry/exit points for the data flowing along the wires. Input-/output pins currently need not be drawn explicitly. This is to keep designing on a whiteboard simple and quick.   Data flowing is of some type, so wires have a type attached to them. And pins have names. If there is only one input pin and output pin on a FU, though, you don´t need to mention them. The default is Process for a single input pin, and Result for a single output pin. But you´re free to give even single pins different names.   There is a shortcut in use to address a certain pin on a destination FU:   The type of the wire is put in parantheses for two reasons. 1. This way a “no-type” wire can be easily denoted, 2. this is a natural way to describe tuples of data.   To describe how much data is flowing, a star can be put next to the wire type:   Nesting – Boards and Parts If more than 5 to 10 FUs need to be put in a flow a FD starts to become hard to understand. To keep diagrams clutter free they can be nested. You can turn any FU into a flow: This leads to Flow-Designs with different levels of abstraction. A in the above illustration is a high level functional unit, A.1 and A.2 are lower level functional units. One of the purposes of Flow-Design is to be able to describe systems on different levels of abstraction and thus make it easier to understand them. Humans use abstraction/decomposition to get a grip on complexity. Flow-Design strives to support this and make levels of abstraction first class citizens for programming. You can read the above illustration like this: Functional units A.1 and A.2 detail what A is supposed to do. The whole of A´s responsibility is decomposed into smaller responsibilities A.1 and A.2. FU A thus does not do anything itself anymore! All A is responsible for is actually accomplished by the collaboration between A.1 and A.2. Since A now is not doing anything anymore except containing A.1 and A.2 functional units are devided into two categories: boards and parts. Boards are just containing other functional units; their sole responsibility is to wire them up. A is a board. Boards thus depend on the functional units nested within them. This dependency is not of a functional nature, though. Boards are not dependent on services provided by nested functional units. They are just concerned with their interface to be able to plug them together. Parts are the workhorses of flows. They contain the real domain logic. They actually transform input into output. However, they do not depend on other functional units. Please note the usage of source and sink in boards. They correspond to input-pins and output-pins of the board.   Implicit Dependencies Nesting functional units leads to a dependency tree. Boards depend on nested functional units, they are the inner nodes of the tree. Parts are independent, they are the leafs: Even though dependencies are the bane of software development, Flow-Design does not usually draw these dependencies. They are implicitly created by visually nesting functional units. And they are harmless. Boards are so simple in their functionality, they are little affected by changes in functional units they are depending on. But functional units are implicitly dependent on more than nested functional units. They are also dependent on the data types of the wires attached to them: This is also natural and thus does not need to be made explicit. And it pertains mainly to parts being dependent. Since boards don´t do anything with regard to a problem domain, they don´t care much about data types. Their infrastructural purpose just needs types of input/output-pins to match.   Explicit Dependencies You could say, Flow-Orientation is about tackling complexity at its root cause: that´s dependencies. “Natural” dependencies are depicted naturally, i.e. implicitly. And whereever possible dependencies are not even created. Functional units don´t know their collaborators within a flow. This is core to Flow-Orientation. That makes for high composability of functional units. A part is as independent of other functional units as a motor is from the rest of the car. And a board is as dependend on nested functional units as a motor is on a spark plug or a crank shaft. With Flow-Design software development moves closer to how hardware is constructed. Implicit dependencies are not enough, though. Sometimes explicit dependencies make designs easier – as counterintuitive this might sound. So FD notation needs a ways to denote explicit dependencies: Data flows along wires. But data does not flow along dependency relations. Instead dependency relations represent service calls. Functional unit C is depending on/calling services on functional unit S. If you want to be more specific, name the services next to the dependency relation: Although you should try to stay clear of explicit dependencies, they are fundamentally ok. See them as a way to add another dimension to a flow. Usually the functionality of the independent FU (“Customer repository” above) is orthogonal to the domain of the flow it is referenced by. If you like emphasize this by using different shapes for dependent and independent FUs like above. Such dependencies can be used to link in resources like databases or shared in-memory state. FUs can not only produce output but also can have side effects. A common pattern for using such explizit dependencies is to hook a GUI into a flow as the source and/or the sink of data: Which can be shortened to: Treat FUs others depend on as boards (with a special non-FD API the dependent part is connected to), but do not embed them in a flow in the diagram they are depended upon.   Attributes of Functional Units Creation and usage of functional units can be modified with attributes. So far the following have shown to be helpful: Singleton: FUs are by default multitons. FUs in the same of different flows with the same name refer to the same functionality, but to different instances. Think of functional units as objects that get instanciated anew whereever they appear in a design. Sometimes though it´s helpful to reuse the same instance of a functional unit; this is always due to valuable state it holds. Signify this by annotating the FU with a “(S)”. Multiton: FUs on which others depend are singletons by default. This is, because they usually are introduced where shared state comes into play. If you want to change them to be a singletons mark them with a “(M)”. Configurable: Some parts need to be configured before the can do they work in a flow. Annotate them with a “(C)” to have them initialized before any data items to be processed by them arrive. Do not assume any order in which FUs are configured. How such configuration is happening is an implementation detail. Entry point: In each design there needs to be a single part where “it all starts”. That´s the entry point for all processing. It´s like Program.Main() in C# programs. Mark the entry point part with an “(E)”. Quite often this will be the GUI part. How the entry point is started is an implementation detail. Just consider it the first FU to start do its job.   Patterns / Standard Parts If more than a single wire is attached to an output-pin that´s called a split (or fork). The same data is flowing on all of the wires. Remember: Flow-Designs are synchronous by default. So a split does not mean data is processed in parallel afterwards. Processing still happens synchronously and thus one branch after another. Do not assume any specific order of the processing on the different branches after the split.   It is common to do a split and let only parts of the original data flow on through the branches. This effectively means a map is needed after a split. This map can be implicit or explicit.   Although FUs can have multiple input-pins it is preferrable in most cases to combine input data from different branches using an explicit join: The default output of a join is a tuple of its input values. The default behavior of a join is to output a value whenever a new input is received. However, to produce its first output a join needs an input for all its input-pins. Other join behaviors can be: reset all inputs after an output only produce output if data arrives on certain input-pins

    Read the article

  • Project Management Helps AmeriCares Deliver International Aid

    - by Sylvie MacKenzie, PMP
    Excerpt from PROFIT - ORACLE - by Alison Weiss Handle with Care Sound project management helps AmeriCares bring international aid to those in need. The stakes are always high for AmeriCares. On a mission to restore health and save lives during times of disaster, the nonprofit international relief and humanitarian aid organization delivers donated medicines, medical supplies, and humanitarian aid to people in the U.S. and around the globe. Founded in 1982 with the express mission of responding as quickly and efficiently as possible to help people in need, the Stamford, Connecticut-based AmeriCares has delivered more than US$10.5 billion in aid to 147 countries over the past three decades. Launch the Slideshow “It’s critically important to us that we steward all the donations and that the medical supplies and medicines get to people as quickly as possible with no loss,” says Kate Sears, senior vice president for finance and technology at AmeriCares. “Whether we’re shipping IV solutions to victims of cholera in Haiti or antibiotics to Somali famine victims, we need to get the medicines there sooner because it means more people will be helped and lives improved or even saved.” Ten years ago, the tracking systems used by AmeriCares associates were paper-based. In recent years, staff started using spreadsheets, but the tracking processes were not standardized between teams. “Every team was tracking completely different information,” says Megan McDermott, senior associate, Sub-Saharan Africa partnerships, at AmeriCares. “It was just a few key things. For example, we tracked the date a shipment was supposed to arrive and the date we got reports from our partner that a hospital received aid on their end.” While the data was accurate, much detail was being lost in the process. AmeriCares management knew it could do a better job of tracking this enterprise data and in 2011 took a significant step by implementing Oracle’s Primavera P6 Professional Project Management. “It’s a comprehensive solution that has helped us improve the monitoring and controlling processes. It has allowed us to do our distribution better,” says Sears. In addition, the implementation effort has been a change agent, helping AmeriCares leadership rethink project management across the entire organization. Initially, much of the focus was on standardizing processes, but staff members also learned the importance of thinking proactively to prevent possible problems and evaluating results to determine if goals and objectives are truly being met. Such data about process efficiency and overall results is critical not only to AmeriCares staff but also to the donors supporting the organization’s life-saving missions. Efficiency Saves Lives One of AmeriCares’ core operations is to gather product donations from the private sector, establish where the most-urgent needs are, and solicit monetary support to send the aid via ocean cargo or airlift to welfare- and health-oriented nongovernmental organizations, hospitals, health networks, and government ministries based in areas in need. In 2011 alone, AmeriCares sent more than 3,500 shipments to 95 countries in response to both ongoing humanitarian needs and more than two dozen emergencies, including deadly tornadoes and storms in the U.S. and the devastating tsunami in Japan. When it comes to nonprofits in general, donors want to know that the charitable organizations they support are using funds wisely. Typically, nonprofits are evaluated by donors in terms of efficiency, an area where AmeriCares has an excellent reputation: 98 percent of expenses go directly to supporting programs and less than 2 percent represent administrative and fundraising costs. Donors, however, should look at more than simple efficiency, says Peter York, senior partner and chief research and learning officer at TCC Group, a nonprofit consultancy headquartered in New York, New York. They should also look at whether organizations have the systems in place to sustain their missions and continue to thrive. An expert on nonprofit organizational management, York has spent years studying sustainable charitable organizations. He defines them as nonprofits that are able to achieve the ongoing financial support to stay relevant and continue doing core mission work. In his analysis of well over 2,500 larger nonprofits, York has found that many are not sustaining, and are actually scaling back in size. “One of the biggest challenges of nonprofit sustainability is the general public’s perception that every dollar donated has to go only to the delivery of service,” says York. “What our data shows is that there are some fundamental capacities that have to be there in order for organizations to sustain and grow.” York’s research highlights the importance of data-driven leadership at successful nonprofits. “You’ve got to have the tools, the systems, and the technologies to get objective information on what you do, the people you serve, and the results you’re achieving,” says York. “If leaders don’t have the knowledge and the data, they can’t make the strategic decisions about programs to take organizations to the next level.” Historically, AmeriCares associates have used time-tested and cost-effective strategies to ship and then track supplies from donation to delivery to their destinations in designated time frames. When disaster strikes, AmeriCares ships by air and generally pulls out all the stops to deliver the most urgently needed aid within the first few days and weeks. Then, as situations stabilize, AmeriCares turns to delivering sea containers for the postemergency and ongoing aid so often needed over the long term. According to McDermott, getting a shipment out the door is fairly complicated, requiring as many as five different AmeriCares teams collaborating together. The entire process can take months—from when products are received in the warehouse and deciding which recipients to allocate supplies to, to getting customs and governmental approvals in place, actually shipping products, and finally ensuring that the products are received in-country. Delivering that aid is no small affair. “Our volume exceeds half a billion dollars a year worth of donated medicines and medical supplies, so it’s a sizable logistical operation to bring these products in and get them out to the right place quickly to have the most impact,” says Sears. “We really pride ourselves on our controls and efficiencies.” Adding to that complexity is the fact that the longer it takes to deliver aid, the more dire the human need can be. Any time AmeriCares associates can shave off the complicated aid delivery process can translate into lives saved. “It’s really being able to track information consistently that will help us to see where are the bottlenecks and where can we work on improving our processes,” says McDermott. Setting a Standard Productivity and information management improvements were key objectives for AmeriCares when staff began the process of implementing Oracle’s Primavera solution. But before configuring the software, the staff needed to take the time to analyze the systems already in place. According to Greg Loop, manager of database systems at AmeriCares, the organization received guidance from several consultants, including Rich D’Addario, consulting project manager in the Primavera Global Business Unit at Oracle, who was instrumental in shepherding the critical requirements-gathering phase. D’Addario encouraged staff to begin documenting shipping processes by considering the order in which activities occur and which ones are dependent on others to get accomplished. This exercise helped everyone realize that to be more efficient, they needed to keep track of shipments in a more standard way. “The staff didn’t recognize formal project management methodology,” says D’Addario. “But they did understand what the most important things are and that if they go wrong, an entire project can go off course.” Before, if a boatload of supplies was being sent to Haiti and there was a problem somewhere, a lot of time was taken up finding out where the problem was—because staff was not tracking things in a standard way. As a result, even more time was needed to find possible solutions to the problem and alert recipients that the aid might be delayed. “For everyone to put on the project manager hat and standardize the way every single thing is done means that now the whole organization is on the same page as to what needs to occur from the time a hurricane hits Haiti and when a boat pulls in to unload supplies,” says D’Addario. With so much care taken to put a process foundation firmly in place, configuring the Primavera solution was actually quite simple. Specific templates were set up for different types of shipments, and dashboards were implemented to provide executives with clear overviews of every project in the system. AmeriCares’ Loop reports that system planning, refining, and testing, followed by writing up documentation and training, took approximately four months. The system went live in spring 2011 at AmeriCares’ Connecticut headquarters. While the nonprofit has an international presence, with warehouses in Europe and offices in Haiti, India, Japan, and Sri Lanka, most donated medicines come from U.S. entities and are shipped from the U.S. out to the rest of the world. In addition, all shipments are tracked from the U.S. office. AmeriCares doesn’t expect the Primavera system to take months off the shipping time, especially for sea containers. However, any time saved is still important because it will allow aid to be delivered to people more quickly at a lower overall cost. “If we can trim a day or two here or there, that can translate into lives that we’re saving, especially in emergency situations,” says Sears. A Cultural Change Beyond the measurable benefits that come with IT-driven process improvement, AmeriCares management is seeing a change in culture as a result of the Primavera project. One change has been treating every shipment of aid as a project, and everyone involved with facilitating shipments as a project manager. “This is a revolutionary concept for us,” says McDermott. “Before, we were used to thinking we were doing logistics—getting a container from point A to point B without looking at it as one project and really understanding what it meant to manage it.” AmeriCares staff is also happy to report that collaboration within the organization is much more efficient. When someone creates a shipment in the Primavera system, the same shared template is used, which means anyone can log in to the system to see the status of a shipment. Knowledgeable staff can access a shipment project to help troubleshoot a problem. Management can easily check the status of projects across the organization. “Dashboards are really useful,” says McDermott. “Instead of going into the details of each project, you can just see the high-level real-time information at a glance.” The new system is helping team members focus on proactively managing shipments rather than simply reacting when problems occur. For example, when a container is shipped, documents must be included for customs clearance. Now, the shipping template has built-in reminders to prompt team members to ask for copies of these documents from freight forwarders and to follow up with partners to discover if a shipment is on time. In the past, staff may not have worked on securing these documents until they’d been notified a shipment had arrived in-country. Another benefit of capturing and adopting best practices within the Primavera system is that staff training is easier. “Capturing the processes in documented steps and milestones allows us to teach new staff members how to do their jobs faster,” says Sears. “It provides them with the knowledge of their predecessors so they don’t have to keep reinventing the wheel.” With the Primavera system already generating positive results, management is eager to take advantage of advanced capabilities. Loop is working on integrating the company’s proprietary inventory management system with the Primavera system so that when logistics or warehousing operators input data, the information will automatically go into the Primavera system. In the past, this information had to be manually keyed into spreadsheets, often leading to errors. Mining Historical Data Another feature on the horizon for AmeriCares is utilizing Primavera P6 Professional Project Management reporting capabilities. As the system begins to include more historical data, management soon will be able to draw on this information to conduct analysis that has not been possible before and create customized reports. For example, at the beginning of the shipment process, staff will be able to use historical data to more accurately estimate how long the approval process should take for a particular country. This could help ensure that food and medicine with limited shelf lives do not get stuck in customs or used beyond their expiration dates. The historical data in the Primavera system will also help AmeriCares with better planning year to year. The nonprofit’s staff has always put together a plan at the beginning of the year, but this has been very challenging simply because it is impossible to predict disasters. Now, management will be able to look at historical data and see trends and statistics as they set current objectives and prepare for future need. In addition, this historical data will provide AmeriCares management with the ability to review year-end data and compare actual project results with goals set at the beginning of the year—to see if desired outcomes were achieved and if there are areas that need improvement. It’s this type of information that is so valuable to donors. And, according to York, project management software can play a critical role in generating the data to help nonprofits sustain and grow. “It is important to invest in systems to help replicate, expand, and deliver services,” says York. “Project management software can help because it encourages nonprofits to examine program or service changes and how to manage moving forward.” Sears believes that AmeriCares donors will support the return on investment the organization will achieve with the Primavera solution. “It won’t be financial returns, but rather how many more people we can help for a given dollar or how much more quickly we can respond to a need,” says Sears. “I think donors are receptive to such arguments.” And for AmeriCares, it is all about the future and increasing results. The project management environment currently may be quite simple, but IT staff plans to expand the complexity and functionality as the organization grows in its knowledge of project management and the goals it wants to achieve. “As we use the system over time, we’ll continue to refine our best practices and accumulate more data,” says Sears. “It will advance our ability to make better data-driven decisions.”

    Read the article

  • Office 2010: It&rsquo;s not just DOC(X) and XLS(X)

    - by andrewbrust
    Office 2010 has released to manufacturing.  The bits have left the (product team’s) building.  Will you upgrade? This version of Office is officially numbered 14, a designation that correlates with the various releases, through the years, of Microsoft Word.  There were six major versions of Word for DOS, during whose release cycles came three 16-bit Windows versions.  Then, starting with Word 95 and counting through Word 2007, there have been six more versions – all for the 32-bit Windows platform.  Skip version 13 to ward off folksy bad luck (and, perhaps, the bugs that could come with it) and that brings us to version 14, which includes implementations for both 32- and 64-bit Windows platforms.  We’ve come a long way baby.  Or have we? As it does every three years or so, debate will now start to rage on over whether we need a “14th” version the PC platform’s standard word processor, or a “13th” version of the spreadsheet.  If you accept the premise of that question, then you may be on a slippery slope toward answering it in the negative.  Thing is, that premise is valid for certain customers and not others. The Microsoft Office product has morphed from one that offered core word processing, spreadsheet, presentation and email functionality to a suite of applications that provides unique, new value-added features, and even whole applications, in the context of those core services.  The core apps thus grow in mission: Excel is a BI tool.  Word is a collaborative editorial system for the production of publications.  PowerPoint is a media production platform for for live presentations and, increasingly, for delivering more effective presentations online.  Outlook is a time and task management system.  Access is a rich client front-end for data-driven self-service SharePoint applications.  OneNote helps you capture ideas, corral random thoughts in a semi-structured way, and then tie them back to other, more rigidly structured, Office documents. Google Docs and other cloud productivity platforms like Zoho don’t really do these things.  And there is a growing chorus of voices who say that they shouldn’t, because those ancillary capabilities are over-engineered, over-produced and “under-necessary.”  They might say Microsoft is layering on superfluous capabilities to avoid admitting that Office’s core capabilities, the ones people really need, have become commoditized. It’s hard to take sides in that argument, because different people, and the different companies that employ them, have different needs.  For my own needs, it all comes down to three basic questions: will the new version of Office save me time, will it make the mundane parts of my job easier, and will it augment my services to customers?  I need my time back.  I need to spend more of it with my family, and more of it focusing on my own core capabilities rather than the administrative tasks around them.  And I also need my customers to be able to get more value out of the services I provide. Help me triage my inbox, help me get proposals done more quickly and make them easier to read.  Let me get my presentations done faster, make them more effective and make it easier for me to reuse materials from other presentations.  And, since I’m in the BI and data business, help me and my customers manage data and analytics more easily, both on the desktop and online. Those are my criteria.  And, with those in mind, Office 2010 is looking like a worthwhile upgrade.  Perhaps it’s not earth-shattering, but it offers a combination of incremental improvements and a few new major capabilities that I think are quite compelling.  I provide a brief roundup of them here.  It’s admittedly arbitrary and not comprehensive, but I think it tells the Office 2010 story effectively. Across the Suite More than any other, this release of Office aims to give collaboration a real workout.  In certain apps, for the first time, documents can be opened simultaneously by multiple users, with colleagues’ changes appearing in near real-time.  Web-browser-based versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote will be available to extend collaboration to contributors who are off the corporate network. The ribbon user interface is now more pervasive (for example, it appears in OneNote and in Outlook’s main window).  It’s also customizable, allowing users to add, easily, buttons and options of their choosing, into new tabs, or into new groups within existing tabs. Microsoft has also taken the File menu (which was the “Office Button” menu in the 2007 release) and made it into a full-screen “Backstage” view where document-wide operations, like saving, printing and online publishing are performed. And because, more and more, heavily formatted content is cut and pasted between documents and applications, Office 2010 makes it easier to manage the retention or jettisoning of that formatting right as the paste operation is performed.  That’s much nicer than stripping it off, or adding it back, afterwards. And, speaking of pasting, a number of Office apps now make it especially easy to insert screenshots within their documents.  I know that’s useful to me, because I often document or critique applications and need to show them in action.  For the vast majority of users, I expect that this feature will be more useful for capturing snapshots of Web pages, but we’ll have to see whether this feature becomes popular.   Excel At first glance, Excel 2010 looks and acts nearly identically to the 2007 version.  But additional glances are necessary.  It’s important to understand that lots of people in the working world use Excel as more of a database, analytics and mathematical modeling tool than merely as a spreadsheet.  And it’s also important to understand that Excel wasn’t designed to handle such workloads past a certain scale.  That all changes with this release. The first reason things change is that Excel has been tuned for performance.  It’s been optimized for multi-threaded operation; previously lengthy processes have been shortened, especially for large data sets; more rows and columns are allowed and, for the first time, Excel (and the rest of Office) is available in a 64-bit version.  For Excel, this means users can take advantage of more than the 2GB of memory that the 32-bit version is limited to. On the analysis side, Excel 2010 adds Sparklines (tiny charts that fit into a single cell and can therefore be presented down an entire column or across a row) and Slicers (a more user-friendly filter mechanism for PivotTables and charts, which visually indicates what the filtered state of a given data member is).  But most important, Excel 2010 supports the new PowerPIvot add-in which brings true self-service BI to Office.  PowerPivot allows users to import data from almost anywhere, model it, and then analyze it.  Rather than forcing users to build “spreadmarts” or use corporate-built data warehouses, PowerPivot models function as true columnar, in-memory OLAP cubes that can accommodate millions of rows of data and deliver fast drill-down performance. And speaking of OLAP, Excel 2010 now supports an important Analysis Services OLAP feature called write-back.  Write-back is especially useful in financial forecasting scenarios for which Excel is the natural home.  Support for write-back is long overdue, but I’m still glad it’s there, because I had almost given up on it.   PowerPoint This version of PowerPoint marks its progression from a presentation tool to a video and photo editing and production tool.  Whether or not it’s successful in this pursuit, and if offering this is even a sensible goal, is another question. Regardless, the new capabilities are kind of interesting.  A greatly enhanced set of slide transitions with 3D effects; in-product photo and video editing; accommodation of embedded videos from services such as YouTube; and the ability to save a presentation as a video each lay testimony to PowerPoint’s transformation into a media tool and away from a pure presentation tool. These capabilities also recognize the importance of the Web as both a source for materials and a channel for disseminating PowerPoint output. Congruent with that is PowerPoint’s new ability to broadcast a slide presentation, using a quickly-generated public URL, without involving the hassle or expense of a Web meeting service like GoToMeeting or Microsoft’s own LiveMeeting.  Slides presented through this broadcast feature retain full color fidelity and transitions and animations are preserved as well.   Outlook Microsoft’s ubiquitous email/calendar/contact/task management tool gains long overdue speed improvements, especially against POP3 email accounts.  Outlook 2010 also supports multiple Exchange accounts, rather than just one; tighter integration with OneNote; and a new Social Connector providing integration with, and presence information from, online social network services like LinkedIn and Facebook (not to mention Windows Live).  A revamped conversation view now includes messages that are part of a given thread regardless of which folder they may be stored in. I don’t know yet how well the Social Connector will work or whether it will keep Outlook relevant to those who live on Facebook and LinkedIn.  But among the other features, there’s very little not to like.   OneNote To me, OneNote is the part of Office that just keeps getting better.  There is one major caveat to this, which I’ll cover in a moment, but let’s first catalog what new stuff OneNote 2010 brings.  The best part of OneNote, is the way each of its versions have managed hierarchy: Notebooks have sections, sections have pages, pages have sub pages, multiple notes can be contained in either, and each note supports infinite levels of indentation.  None of that is new to 2010, but the new version does make creation of pages and subpages easier and also makes simple work out of promoting and demoting pages from sub page to full page status.  And relationships between pages are quite easy to create now: much like a Wiki, simply typing a page’s name in double-square-brackets (“[[…]]”) creates a link to it. OneNote is also great at integrating content outside of its notebooks.  With a new Dock to Desktop feature, OneNote becomes aware of what window is displayed in the rest of the screen and, if it’s an Office document or a Web page, links the notes you’re typing, at the time, to it.  A single click from your notes later on will bring that same document or Web page back on-screen.  Embedding content from Web pages and elsewhere is also easier.  Using OneNote’s Windows Key+S combination to grab part of the screen now allows you to specify the destination of that bitmap instead of automatically creating a new note in the Unfiled Notes area.  Using the Send to OneNote buttons in Internet Explorer and Outlook result in the same choice. Collaboration gets better too.  Real-time multi-author editing is better accommodated and determining author lineage of particular changes is easily carried out. My one pet peeve with OneNote is the difficulty using it when I’m not one a Windows PC.  OneNote’s main competitor, Evernote, while I believe inferior in terms of features, has client versions for PC, Mac, Windows Mobile, Android, iPhone, iPad and Web browsers.  Since I have an Android phone and an iPad, I am practically forced to use it.  However, the OneNote Web app should help here, as should a forthcoming version of OneNote for Windows Phone 7.  In the mean time, it turns out that using OneNote’s Email Page ribbon button lets you move a OneNote page easily into EverNote (since every EverNote account gets a unique email address for adding notes) and that Evernote’s Email function combined with Outlook’s Send to OneNote button (in the Move group of the ribbon’s Home tab) can achieve the reverse.   Access To me, the big change in Access 2007 was its tight integration with SharePoint lists.  Access 2010 and SharePoint 2010 continue this integration with the introduction of SharePoint’s Access Services.  Much as Excel Services provides a SharePoint-hosted experience for viewing (and now editing) Excel spreadsheet, PivotTable and chart content, Access Services allows for SharePoint browser-hosted editing of Access data within the forms that are built in the Access client itself. To me this makes all kinds of sense.  Although it does beg the question of where to draw the line between Access, InfoPath, SharePoint list maintenance and SharePoint 2010’s new Business Connectivity Services.  Each of these tools provide overlapping data entry and data maintenance functionality. But if you do prefer Access, then you’ll like  things like templates and application parts that make it easier to get off the blank page.  These features help you quickly get tables, forms and reports built out.  To make things look nice, Access even gets its own version of Excel’s Conditional Formatting feature, letting you add data bars and data-driven text formatting.   Word As I said at the beginning of this post, upgrades to Office are about much more than enhancing the suite’s flagship word processing application. So are there any enhancements in Word worth mentioning?  I think so.  The most important one has to be the collaboration features.  Essentially, when a user opens a Word document that is in a SharePoint document library (or Windows Live SkyDrive folder), rather than the whole document being locked, Word has the ability to observe more granular locks on the individual paragraphs being edited.  Word also shows you who’s editing what and its Save function morphs into a sync feature that both saves your changes and loads those made by anyone editing the document concurrently. There’s also a new navigation pane that lets you manage sections in your document in much the same way as you manage slides in a PowerPoint deck.  Using the navigation pane, you can reorder sections, insert new ones, or promote and demote sections in the outline hierarchy.  Not earth shattering, but nice.   Other Apps and Summarized Findings What about InfoPath, Publisher, Visio and Project?  I haven’t looked at them yet.  And for this post, I think that’s fine.  While those apps (and, arguably, Access) cater to specific tasks, I think the apps we’ve looked at in this post service the general purpose needs of most users.  And the theme in those 2010 apps is clear: collaboration is key, the Web and productivity are indivisible, and making data and analytics into a self-service amenity is the way to go.  But perhaps most of all, features are still important, as long as they get you through your day faster, rather than adding complexity for its own sake.  I would argue that this is true for just about every product Microsoft makes: users want utility, not complexity.

    Read the article

  • CUDA Driver API vs. CUDA runtime

    - by Morten Christiansen
    When writing CUDA applications, you can either work at the driver level or at the runtime level as illustrated on this image (The libraries are CUFFT and CUBLAS for advanced math): I assume the tradeoff between the two are increased performance for the low-evel API but at the cost of increased complexity of code. What are the concrete differences and are there any significant things which you cannot do with the high-level API? I am using CUDA.net for interop with C# and it is built as a copy of the driver API. This encourages writing a lot of rather complex code in C# while the C++ equivalent would be more simple using the runtime API. Is there anything to win by doing it this way? The one benefit I can see is that it is easier to integrate intelligent error handling with the rest of the C# code.

    Read the article

  • Is Programming == Math?

    - by moffdub
    I've heard many times that all programming is really a subset of math. Some suggest that OO, at its roots, is mathematically based. I don't get the connection. Aside from some obvious examples: using induction to prove a recursive algorithm formal correctness proofs functional languages lambda calculus asymptotic complexity DFAs, NFAs, Turing Machines, and theoretical computation in general the fact that everything on the box is binary In what ways is programming really a subset of math? I'm looking for an explanation that might have relevance to enterprise/OO development (if there is a strong enough connection, that is). Thanks in advance. Edit: as I stated in a comment to an answer, math is uber important to programming, but what I struggle with is the "subset" argument.

    Read the article

  • Good examples of MVVM Template

    - by jwarzech
    I am currently working with the Microsoft MVVM template and find the lack of detailed examples frustrating. The included ContactBook example shows very little Command handling and the only other example I've found is from an MSDN Magazine article where the concepts are similar but uses a slightly different approach and still lack in any complexity. Are there any decent MVVM examples that at least show basic CRUD operations and dialog/content switching? Everyone's suggestions were really useful and I will start compiling a list of good resources Frameworks/Templates WPF Model-View-ViewModel Toolkit MVVM Light Toolkit Prism Caliburn Cinch Useful Articles Data Validation in .NET 3.5 Using a ViewModel to Provide Meaningful Validation Error Messages Action based ViewModel and Model validation Dialogs Command Bindings in MVVM More than just MVC for WPF MVVM + Mediator Example Application Additional Libraries WPF Disciples' improved Mediator Pattern implementation(I highly recommend this for applications that have more complex navigation)

    Read the article

  • What is the Relative Performance of Pseudo-Class and Custom Selectors?

    - by James Wiseman
    It's my understanding that, in terms of selector speed, that #ID selectors are fastest, followed by element selectors, and then .class selectors. I have always assumed that pseudo-class selectors and custom selectors (those in the form ':selector') are similar to .class selectors, but I realised that I'm just not sure. I realise that this does depend on the complexity of the code within the pseudo-class/custom selector, so I guess I'd like to know the answer with this excluded as factor. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Arguments of using WCF/OData as access layer instead of EF/L2S/nHibernate directly

    - by Carl Hörberg
    We develop mostly low traffic but highly specialized web applications. Normally we use L2S, EF or nHibernate as access layer and then throws Asp.Net MVC to it and in which for normal crud operations we query the ISession/DataContext directly but for more advanced functions/side effects we put it in a some kind of service layer. Now, i was think about publishing the data through OData (WCF Data Service) and query that from the controllers (or even from jQuery when the a good template engine shows up) and publish the service operations through a WCF service (or as custom methods on the WCF Data Service?). What advantages/disadvantages does this architecture poses? Do I gain something except higher complexity and latency? Better separations of concerns (or is it just a illusion)?

    Read the article

  • Boost asio async vs blocking reads, udp speed/quality

    - by Dolphin
    I have a quick and dirty proof of concept app that I wrote in C# that reads high data rate multicast UDP packets from the network. For various reasons the full implementation will be written in C++ and I am considering using boost asio. The C# version used a thread to receive the data using blocking reads. I had some problems with dropped packets if the computer was heavily loaded (generally with processing those packets in another thread). What I would like to know is if the async read operations in boost (which use overlapped io in windows) will help ensure that I receive the packets and/or reduce the cpu time needed to receive the packets. The single thread doing blocking reads is pretty straightforward, using the async reads seems like a step up in complexity, but I think it would be worth it if it provided higher performance or dropped fewer packets on a heavily loaded system. Currently the data rate should be no higher than 60Mb/s.

    Read the article

  • Database design for very large amount of data

    - by Hossein
    Hi, I am working on a project, involving large amount of data from the delicious website.The data available is at files are "Date,UserId,Url,Tags" (for each bookmark). I normalized my database to a 3NF, and because of the nature of the queries that we wanted to use In combination I came down to 6 tables....The design looks fine, however, now a large amount of data is in the database, most of the queries needs to "join" at least 2 tables together to get the answer, sometimes 3 or 4. At first, we didn't have any performance issues, because for testing matters we haven't had added too much data in the database. No that we have a lot of data, simply joining extremely large tables does take a lot of time and for our project which has to be real-time is a disaster.I was wondering how big companies solve these issues.Looks like normalizing tables just adds complexity, but how does the big company handle large amounts of data in their databases, don't they do the normalization? thanks

    Read the article

  • Query only the first detail record for each master record

    - by Neal S.
    If I have the following master-detail relationship: owner_tbl auto_tbl --------- -------- owner --- owner auto year And I have the following table data: owner_tbl auto_tbl --------- -------- john john, corvette, 1968 john, prius, 2008 james james, f-150, 2004 james, cadillac, 2002 james, accord, 2009 jeff jeff, tesla, 2010 jeff, hyundai, 1996 Now, I want to perform a query that returns the following result: john, corvette, 1968 jeff, hyundai, 1996 james, cadillac, 2002 The query should join the two tables, and sort all the records on the "year" field, but only return the first detail record for each master record. I know how to join the tables and sort on the "year" field, but it's not clear how (or if) I might be able to only retrieve the first joined record for each owner. Three related questions: Can I perform this kind of query using LINQ-to-SQL? Can I perform the query using T-SQL? Would it be best to just create a stored procedure for the query given its likely complexity?

    Read the article

  • Learn MacRuby or Objective-C?

    - by MaxD
    Well, my fisrt question was a bit too general so i ll try again and hope this one is better. The way i see it is: Ruby-MacRuby or IronRuby or Rails Obj-c-Mac Development So Ruby has clearly more potential in desktop and web platforms and now with MacRuby, OSX native (and commercial) apps are on the way. If i get it wrong please correct me. For me that i will do a fresh start should i go with the modern Ruby or start learning c+obj-c? Will a newcomer benefit much (in learning & coding time, frustration, complexity) by learning/using macruby for osx apps rather objective-c? Or its pretty much the same? I hope some day to hang around here and help others.

    Read the article

  • Shopping Portal based on XML Data - XSLT or PHP?

    - by buggy1985
    For my bachelor thesis I want to implement a shopping (price comparison) portal prototype based on XML Data. The main requirement is to get a very clear and customizable HTML template, which should be hosted by the customer on his own webserver. I'm not very sure if XSLT meets this requirements, as it generates a lot of xsl-related code. It is not easy to understand for people with little HTML skills. I have some experience with the PHP templating engine Smarty. The syntax is much better, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea to parse the XML data with PHP, as it is very complex. Which language should I choose for a web application with high complexity? XSLT or PHP?

    Read the article

  • Killing a deadlocked Task in .NET 4 TPL

    - by Dan Bryant
    I'd like to start using the Task Parallel Library, as this is the recommended framework going forward for performing asynchronous operations. One thing I haven't been able to find is any means of forcible Abort, such as what Thread.Abort provides. My particular concern is that I schedule tasks running code that I don't wish to completely trust. In particular, I can't be sure this untrusted code won't deadlock and therefore I can't be certain if a Task I schedule using this code will ever complete. I want to stay away from true AppDomain isolation (due to the overhead and complexity of marshaling), but I also don't want to leave a Task thread hanging around, deadlocked. Is there a way to do this in TPL?

    Read the article

  • Ria Services vs WCF Dataservices

    - by NPehrsson
    My Team are evaluation to a bigger Business portal. (Invoicing, Bookkeeping, Salaries.....) We are all used to work with DDD, O/R mappers with NHibernate as our first choice. We have chosen to work with CompositeWPF to keep modularity between all modules and part system in the business portal. Now we have evaluated Ria Services and are kind of disappointed how it works in a Data Oriented way, Data Oriented can be good in a service oriented scenario, but we feel that we can with an Object Oriented approach to, and we feel that we can get an application with less complexity with the OO approach than the DO approach. For example it doesn't allow Value Objects, Many-to-many relations, everything needs to have keys and so on. We haven't looked at WCF Data Services yet so our question is WCF Data Services our answere? Does it integrate good with Silverlight 4? Can we work with it in a OO manor?

    Read the article

  • Is there a jquery List plugin that will auto-sort items and has robust add/remove methods?

    - by Breadtruck
    I have been googling for hours looking for something to handle my situation. I am not skilled enough to write my own jquery plugin ..YET!! The plugin should auto-sort the list, not as important as being able to add/remove items from the list easily. Themeroller capable would be a plus. I would basically use anything as long as I could add a item to the list (or any other container for that matter), item is coming from a modal popup that is using ajax to search for the item. Once the item is found I want to click that item and have it added to the list and it would put it into the correct order based on alphabetic sort. I think where I am losing sight is the complexity of the item and needing to have the item contain: The name of the item a hidden value, [the int id of the item], one or two checkboxes for turning on/off a feature for that item. I am really open to any ideas, suggestions on a better process, or a pointer to a plugin that might get me close.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >