Search Results

Search found 406 results on 17 pages for 'paradigm'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 3/17 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • What's the name of the storage paradigm that uses cubes subdivided into 8 smaller cubes ad infinitum?

    - by Eric
    If I have a cube divided into 8 smaller cubes, each of which may be subdivided into a further 8 cubes, ad infinitum, what is the name of my system? I know that it's a special case of a tree, where each brance contains exactly 8 other leaves/branches. I remember the name starting with "Oct", and there was a wikipedia article on it, but I honestly can't find it! Does anyone know what such a data structure is actually known as?

    Read the article

  • What does this Java generics paradigm do and what is it called?

    - by Tom
    I'm looking at some Java classes that have the following form: public abstract class A <E extends A<E>> implements Comparable <E> { public final int compareTo( E other ) { // etc } } public class B extends A <B> { // etc } public class C extends A <C> { // etc } My usage of "Comparable" here is just to illustrate a possible use of the generic parameter "E". Does this usage of generics/inheritance have a name? What is it used for? My impression is that this allows the abstract class to provide a common implementation of a method (such as compareTo) without having to provide it in the subclasses. However, in this example, unlike an inherited method it would restrict subclasses to invoking compareTo on other instances of the same subclass, rather than any "A" subclass. Does this sound right? Anyway, just curious if any gurus out there have seen this before and know what it does. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • what idea is behind Zend Framework Frontcontroller/dispatcher

    - by simple
    Zend Framework FrontController implements Singleton and plus it has some kind a plugin "paradigm" , - what is the idea behind its architecture , maybe it implements some well known paradigm ? and if so then if u could give some links directions where I can find information about reasons that brought up that particular paradigm ?

    Read the article

  • Can Scala be considered a functional superset of Java?

    - by Giorgio
    Apart from the differences in syntax, can Scala be considered a superset of Java that adds the functional paradigm to the object-oriented paradigm? Or are there any major features in Java for which there is no direct Scala equivalent? With major features I mean program constructs that would force me to heavily rewrite / restructure my code, e.g., if I had to port a Java program to Scala. Or can I expect that, given a Java program, I can port it to Scala almost line-by-line?

    Read the article

  • SOA Forcing A Shift In IT Governance

    As more and more companies adopt a service oriented approach to developing and maintaining existing enterprise systems, IT governance also needs to shift its philosophies to fit the emerging development paradigm. When I first started programming companies placed an emphasis on “Code and Go” software development style. They only developed for current problems and did not really take a look at how the company could leverage some of the code we were developing across the entire enterprise system.  The concept of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) has dramatically shifted how we develop enterprise software with emphasizing software processes as company assets. This has driven some to start developing new components as processes strictly for the possibility of future integration of existing and new systems. I personally like this new paradigm because it truly promotes code reusability. However, most enterprise level IT governance polices were created prior to the introduction of SOA in their respected organization. This can create a sense of the Wild West for developers working on projects related to SOA. This is due to the fact that a lot of the standards and polices implemented by enterprise IT governing boards were initially for developing under the “Code and Go” paradigm and do not take in to account idiosyncrasies found in the SOA/integration based development. As IT governance moves forward its focus should aim more for “Develop to Integrate” versus “Code and Go” philosophies. Examples of “Develop to Integrate” Philosophy: Defining preferred data transfer methodologies (XML vs. JSON), and when to use them Updating security best practices for exposing public services based on existing standard security policies Define when to use create new SOA project vs. implementing localized components that could be reused elsewhere in the enterprise.

    Read the article

  • Why is there no service-oriented language?

    - by Wolfgang
    Edit: To avoid further confusion: I am not talking about web services and such. I am talking about structuring applications internally, it's not about how computers communicate. It's about programming languages, compilers and how the imperative programming paradigm is extended. Original: In the imperative programming field, we saw two paradigms in the past 20 years (or more): object-oriented (OO), and service-oriented (SO) aka. component-based (CB). Both paradigms extend the imperative programming paradigm by introducing their own notion of modules. OO calls them objects (and classes) and lets them encapsulates both data (fields) and procedures (methods) together. SO, in contrast, separates data (records, beans, ...) from code (components, services). However, only OO has programming languages which natively support its paradigm: Smalltalk, C++, Java and all other JVM-compatibles, C# and all other .NET-compatibles, Python etc. SO has no such native language. It only comes into existence on top of procedural languages or OO languages: COM/DCOM (binary, C, C++), CORBA, EJB, Spring, Guice (all Java), ... These SO frameworks clearly suffer from the missing native language support of their concepts. They start using OO classes to represent services and records. This leads to designs where there is a clear distinction between classes that have methods only (services) and those that have fields only (records). Inheritance between services or records is then simulated by inheritance of classes. Technically, its not kept so strictly but in general programmers are adviced to make classes to play only one of the two roles. They use additional, external languages to represent the missing parts: IDL's, XML configurations, Annotations in Java code, or even embedded DSL like in Guice. This is especially needed, but not limited to, since the composition of services is not part of the service code itself. In OO, objects create other objects so there is no need for such facilities but for SO there is because services don't instantiate or configure other services. They establish an inner-platform effect on top of OO (early EJB, CORBA) where the programmer has to write all the code that is needed to "drive" SO. Classes represent only a part of the nature of a service and lots of classes have to be written to form a service together. All that boiler plate is necessary because there is no SO compiler which would do it for the programmer. This is just like some people did it in C for OO when there was no C++. You just pass the record which holds the data of the object as a first parameter to the procedure which is the method. In a OO language this parameter is implicit and the compiler produces all the code that we need for virtual functions etc. For SO, this is clearly missing. Especially the newer frameworks extensively use AOP or introspection to add the missing parts to a OO language. This doesn't bring the necessary language expressiveness but avoids the boiler platform code described in the previous point. Some frameworks use code generation to produce the boiler plate code. Configuration files in XML or annotations in OO code is the source of information for this. Not all of the phenomena that I mentioned above can be attributed to SO but I hope it clearly shows that there is a need for a SO language. Since this paradigm is so popular: why isn't there one? Or maybe there are some academic ones but at least the industry doesn't use one.

    Read the article

  • Imperative Programming v/s Declarative Programming v/s Functional Programming

    - by kaleidoscope
    Imperative Programming :: Imperative programming is a programming paradigm that describes computation in terms of statements that change a program state. In much the same way as the imperative mood in natural languages expresses commands to take action, imperative programs define sequences of commands for the computer to perform. The focus is on what steps the computer should take rather than what the computer will do (ex. C, C++, Java). Declarative Programming :: Declarative programming is a programming paradigm that expresses the logic of a computation without describing its control flow. It attempts to minimize or eliminate side effects by describing what the program should accomplish, rather than describing how to go about accomplishing it. The focus is on what the computer should do rather than how it should do it (ex. SQL). A  C# example of declarative v/s. imperative programming is LINQ. With imperative programming, you tell the compiler what you want to happen, step by step. For example, let's start with this collection, and choose the odd numbers: List<int> collection = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }; With imperative programming, we'd step through this, and decide what we want: List<int> results = new List<int>(); foreach(var num in collection) {     if (num % 2 != 0)           results.Add(num); } Here’s what we are doing: *Create a result collection *Step through each number in the collection *Check the number, if it's odd, add it to the results With declarative programming, on the other hand, we write the code that describes what you want, but not necessarily how to get it var results = collection.Where( num => num % 2 != 0); Here, we're saying "Give us everything where it's odd", not "Step through the collection. Check this item, if it's odd, add it to a result collection." Functional Programming :: Functional programming is a programming paradigm that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids state and mutable data. It emphasizes the application of functions.Functional programming has its roots in the lambda calculus. It is a subset of declarative languages that has heavy focus on recursion. Functional programming can be a mind-bender, which is one reason why Lisp, Scheme, and Haskell have never really surpassed C, C++, Java and COBOL in commercial popularity. But there are benefits to the functional way. For one, if you can get the logic correct, functional programming requires orders of magnitude less code than imperative programming. That means fewer points of failure, less code to test, and a more productive (and, many would say, happier) programming life. As systems get bigger, this has become more and more important. To know more : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/602444/what-is-functional-declarative-and-imperative-programming http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb669144.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_programming   Technorati Tags: Ranjit,Imperative Programming,Declarative programming,Functional Programming

    Read the article

  • What is a non commital approach to software analysis

    - by dsjbirch
    When I think about software analysis the first thing which comes to mind is SSADM and the UML. But, what I want is a high level view of the system before I commit to a programming paradigm. Where am I going wrong? How do I approach a problem in a high level and generic way before I commit to a paradigm? What are the diagrams/tools available to support me? Edit: Some examples of tools that appear to be what I'm after are... A block diagram - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_diagram A data flow diagram - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_flow_diagram

    Read the article

  • Cost of maintenance depending on paradigms

    - by Anto
    Is there any data on which paradigms allow for code which is easier/cheaper to maintain? Certainly, independantly of the chosen paradigm, good design is cheaper to maintain than bad, but there should probably be major differences coming only from the paradigm choice. Unstructured programming, for instance, generates very messy code (spaghetti code) which is expensive to maintain. In object oriented programming, implementation details are hidden and thus it should be pretty cheap to change those. In functional programming, there are no side effects, thus there is lesser risk of introducing bugs during maintainance, which should be cheaper. Is there any data on which paradigms are the most cost-efficient when coming down to maintenance? If no such data exists, what is your take on the question?

    Read the article

  • Exception throws: encapsulate them or not?

    - by Simon
    Hi there. Once I read an MSDN article that encouraged the following programming paradigm: public class MyClass { public void Method1() { NewCustomException(); } public void Method2() { NewCustomException(); } void NewCustomException() { throw new CustomException("Exception message"); } } Do you think this paradigm makes sense? Wouldn't it be enough to store the exception message in a static const field and then pass it to the exception's constructor, instead of encapsulating the whole exception throw?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Using expressor Composite Types to Enforce Business Rules

    - by pinaldave
    One of the features that distinguish the expressor Data Integration Platform from other products in the data integration space is its concept of composite types, which provide an effective and easily reusable way to clearly define the structure and characteristics of data within your application.  An important feature of the composite type approach is that it allows you to easily adjust the content of a record to its ultimate purpose.  For example, a record used to update a row in a database table is easily defined to include only the minimum set of columns, that is, a value for the key column and values for only those columns that need to be updated. Much like a class in higher level programming languages, you can also use the composite type as a way to enforce business rules onto your data by encapsulating a datum’s name, data type, and constraints (for example, maximum, minimum, or acceptable values) as a single entity, which ensures that your data can not assume an invalid value.  To what extent you use this functionality is a decision you make when designing your application; the expressor design paradigm does not force this approach on you. Let’s take a look at how these features are used.  Suppose you want to create a group of applications that maintain the employee table in your human resources database. Your table might have a structure similar to the HumanResources.Employee table in the AdventureWorks database.  This table includes two columns, EmployeID and rowguid, that are maintained by the relational database management system; you cannot provide values for these columns when inserting new rows into the table. Additionally, there are columns such as VacationHours and SickLeaveHours that you might choose to update for all employees on a monthly basis, which justifies creation of a dedicated application. By creating distinct composite types for the read, insert and update operations against this table, you can more easily manage this table’s content. When developing this application within expressor Studio, your first task is to create a schema artifact for the database table.  This process is completely driven by a wizard, only requiring that you select the desired database schema and table.  The resulting schema artifact defines the mapping of result set records to a record within the expressor data integration application.  The structure of the record within the expressor application is a composite type that is given the default name CompositeType1.  As you can see in the following figure, all columns from the table are included in the result set and mapped to an identically named attribute in the default composite type. If you are developing an application that needs to read this table, perhaps to prepare a year-end report of employees by department, you would probably not be interested in the data in the rowguid and ModifiedDate columns.  A typical approach would be to drop this unwanted data in a downstream operator.  But using an alternative composite type provides a better approach in which the unwanted data never enters your application. While working in expressor  Studio’s schema editor, simply create a second composite type within the same schema artifact, which you could name ReadTable, and remove the attributes corresponding to the unwanted columns. The value of an alternative composite type is even more apparent when you want to insert into or update the table.  In the composite type used to insert rows, remove the attributes corresponding to the EmployeeID primary key and rowguid uniqueidentifier columns since these values are provided by the relational database management system. And to update just the VacationHours and SickLeaveHours columns, use a composite type that includes only the attributes corresponding to the EmployeeID, VacationHours, SickLeaveHours and ModifiedDate columns. By specifying this schema artifact and composite type in a Write Table operator, your upstream application need only deal with the four required attributes and there is no risk of unintentionally overwriting a value in a column that does not need to be updated. Now, what about the option to use the composite type to enforce business rules?  If you review the composition of the default composite type CompositeType1, you will note that the constraints defined for many of the attributes mirror the table column specifications.  For example, the maximum number of characters in the NationaIDNumber, LoginID and Title attributes is equivalent to the maximum width of the target column, and the size of the MaritalStatus and Gender attributes is limited to a single character as required by the table column definition.  If your application code leads to a violation of these constraints, an error will be raised.  The expressor design paradigm then allows you to handle the error in a way suitable for your application.  For example, a string value could be truncated or a numeric value could be rounded. Moreover, you have the option of specifying additional constraints that support business rules unrelated to the table definition. Let’s assume that the only acceptable values for marital status are S, M, and D.  Within the schema editor, double-click on the MaritalStatus attribute to open the Edit Attribute window.  Then click the Allowed Values checkbox and enter the acceptable values into the Constraint Value text box. The schema editor is updated accordingly. There is one more option that the expressor semantic type paradigm supports.  Since the MaritalStatus attribute now clearly specifies how this type of information should be represented (a single character limited to S, M or D), you can convert this attribute definition into a shared type, which will allow you to quickly incorporate this definition into another composite type or into the description of an output record from a transform operator. Again, double-click on the MaritalStatus attribute and in the Edit Attribute window, click Convert, which opens the Share Local Semantic Type window that you use to name this shared type.  There’s no requirement that you give the shared type the same name as the attribute from which it was derived.  You should supply a name that makes it obvious what the shared type represents. In this posting, I’ve overviewed the expressor semantic type paradigm and shown how it can be used to make your application development process more productive.  The beauty of this feature is that you choose when and to what extent you utilize the functionality, but I’m certain that if you opt to follow this approach your efforts will become more efficient and your work will progress more quickly.  As always, I encourage you to download and evaluate expressor Studio for your current and future data integration needs. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: CodeProject, Pinal Dave, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Documentation, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQLServer, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • Introducing functional programming constructs in non-functional programming languages

    - by Giorgio
    This question has been going through my mind quite a lot lately and since I haven't found a convincing answer to it I would like to know if other users of this site have thought about it as well. In the recent years, even though OOP is still the most popular programming paradigm, functional programming is getting a lot of attention. I have only used OOP languages for my work (C++ and Java) but I am trying to learn some FP in my free time because I find it very interesting. So, I started learning Haskell three years ago and Scala last summer. I plan to learn some SML and Caml as well, and to brush up my (little) knowledge of Scheme. Well, a lot of plans (too ambitious?) but I hope I will find the time to learn at least the basics of FP during the next few years. What is important for me is how functional programming works and how / whether I can use it for some real projects. I have already developed small tools in Haskell. In spite of my strong interest for FP, I find it difficult to understand why functional programming constructs are being added to languages like C#, Java, C++, and so on. As a developer interested in FP, I find it more natural to use, say, Scala or Haskell, instead of waiting for the next FP feature to be added to my favourite non-FP language. In other words, why would I want to have only some FP in my originally non-FP language instead of looking for a language that has a better support for FP? For example, why should I be interested to have lambdas in Java if I can switch to Scala where I have much more FP concepts and access all the Java libraries anyway? Similarly: why do some FP in C# instead of using F# (to my knowledge, C# and F# can work together)? Java was designed to be OO. Fine. I can do OOP in Java (and I would like to keep using Java in that way). Scala was designed to support OOP + FP. Fine: I can use a mix of OOP and FP in Scala. Haskell was designed for FP: I can do FP in Haskell. If I need to tune the performance of a particular module, I can interface Haskell with some external routines in C. But why would I want to do OOP with just some basic FP in Java? So, my main point is: why are non-functional programming languages being extended with some functional concept? Shouldn't it be more comfortable (interesting, exciting, productive) to program in a language that has been designed from the very beginning to be functional or multi-paradigm? Don't different programming paradigms integrate better in a language that was designed for it than in a language in which one paradigm was only added later? The first explanation I could think of is that, since FP is a new concept (it isn't new at all, but it is new for many developers), it needs to be introduced gradually. However, I remember my switch from imperative to OOP: when I started to program in C++ (coming from Pascal and C) I really had to rethink the way in which I was coding, and to do it pretty fast. It was not gradual. So, this does not seem to be a good explanation to me. Or can it be that many non-FP programmers are not really interested in understanding and using functional programming, but they find it practically convenient to adopt certain FP-idioms in their non-FP language? IMPORTANT NOTE Just in case (because I have seen several language wars on this site): I mentioned the languages I know better, this question is in no way meant to start comparisons between different programming languages to decide which is better / worse. Also, I am not interested in a comparison of OOP versus FP (pros and cons). The point I am interested in is to understand why FP is being introduced one bit at a time into existing languages that were not designed for it even though there exist languages that were / are specifically designed to support FP.

    Read the article

  • Functional programming constructs in non-functional programming languages

    - by Giorgio
    This question has been going through my mind quite a lot lately and since I haven't found a convincing answer to it I would like to know if other users of this site have thought about it as well. In the recent years, even though OOP is still the most popular programming paradigm, functional programming is getting a lot of attention. I have only used OOP languages for my work (C++ and Java) but I am trying to learn some FP in my free time because I find it very interesting. So, I started learning Haskell three years ago and Scala last summer. I plan to learn some SML and Caml as well, and to brush up my (little) knowledge of Scheme. Well, a lot of plans (too ambitious?) but I hope I will find the time to learn at least the basics of FP during the next few years. What is important for me is how functional programming works and how / whether I can use it for some real projects. I have already developed small tools in Haskell. In spite of my strong interest for FP, I find it difficult to understand why functional programming constructs are being added to languages like C#, Java, C++, and so on. As a developer interested in FP, I find it more natural to use, say, Scala or Haskell, instead of waiting for the next FP feature to be added to my favourite non-FP language. In other words, why would I want to have only some FP in my originally non-FP language instead of looking for a language that has a better support for FP? For example, why should I be interested to have lambdas in Java if I can switch to Scala where I have much more FP concepts and access all the Java libraries anyway? Similarly: why do some FP in C# instead of using F# (to my knowledge, C# and F# can work together)? Java was designed to be OO. Fine. I can do OOP in Java (and I would like to keep using Java in that way). Scala was designed to support OOP + FP. Fine: I can use a mix of OOP and FP in Scala. Haskell was designed for FP: I can do FP in Haskell. If I need to tune the performance of a particular module, I can interface Haskell with some external routines in C. But why would I want to do OOP with just some basic FP in Java? So, my main point is: why are non-functional programming languages being extended with some functional concept? Shouldn't it be more comfortable (interesting, exciting, productive) to program in a language that has been designed from the very beginning to be functional or multi-paradigm? Don't different programming paradigms integrate better in a language that was designed for it than in a language in which one paradigm was only added later? The first explanation I could think of is that, since FP is a new concept (it isn't new at all, but it is new for many developers), it needs to be introduced gradually. However, I remember my switch from imperative to OOP: when I started to program in C++ (coming from Pascal and C) I really had to rethink the way in which I was coding, and to do it pretty fast. It was not gradual. So, this does not seem to be a good explanation to me. Also, I asked myself if my impression is just plainly wrong due to lack of knowledge. E.g., do C# and C++11 support FP as extensively as, say, Scala or Caml do? In this case, my question would be simply non-existent. Or can it be that many non-FP programmers are not really interested in using functional programming, but they find it practically convenient to adopt certain FP-idioms in their non-FP language? IMPORTANT NOTE Just in case (because I have seen several language wars on this site): I mentioned the languages I know better, this question is in no way meant to start comparisons between different programming languages to decide which is better / worse. Also, I am not interested in a comparison of OOP versus FP (pros and cons). The point I am interested in is to understand why FP is being introduced one bit at a time into existing languages that were not designed for it even though there exist languages that were / are specifically designed to support FP.

    Read the article

  • When is LINQ (to objects) Overused?

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

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET developers turning to Visual WebGui for rich management system

    - by Webgui
    When The Center for Organ Recovery & Education (CORE) decided they needed a web application to allow easy access to the expenses management system they initially went to ASP.NET web forms combined with CSS. The outcome, however, was not satisfying enough as it appeared bland and lacked in richness. So in order to enrich the UI and give the web application some glitz, Visual WebGui was selected. Visual WebGui provided the needed richness and the familiar Windows look and feel also made the transition for the desktop users very easy. The richer GUI of Visual WebGui compared to ASP.NET conveyed some initial concerns about performance. But the Visual WebGui performance turned out to be a surprising advantage as the website maintained good response times. Working with Visual WebGui required a paradigm shift for the development process as some of the usual methods of coding with ASP.NET did not apply. However, the transition was fairly easy due to the simplicity and intuitiveness of Visual WebGui as well as the good support and documentation. “The shift into a different development paradigm was eased by the Visual WebGui web forums which are very active thanks to a large, involved community. There are also several video and web pages dedicated to answering the most commonly asked questions and pitfalls" Dave Bhatia, Systems Engineer who added "A couple of issues such as deploying on IIS7 seemed to be show stoppers at first, however the solution was readily available in a white paper on the Gizmox website.” The full story is found on the Visual WebGui website: http://www.visualwebgui.com/Gizmox/Resources/CaseStudies/tabid/358/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/964/The-Center-for-Organ-Recovery-Education-gets-a-web-based-expenses-management-system.aspx

    Read the article

  • Is a Model Driven Architecture in Language Oriented Programming (MPS) feasible at this time

    - by Steven Jeuris
    As a side project I am developing some sort of DSL where I describe a data model, and generate desired code files from it. I believe this is called Model Driven Architecture. My partial existing implementation uses C#, CodeDOM, XML and XSLT to do this manually. I discovered there already exist better environments to do this in. The one which fascinated me the most is called MPS, which follows the Language Oriented Programming paradigm. This article, written by a cofounder of JetBrains was a real eye opener for me. I truly believe LOP has a very good chance of becoming the next big programming paradigm once it has broader support. From my short experience with MPS, I noticed it is still mainly Java-oriented. My question is, how feasible is it to generate code files for other (multiple) languages instead of just Java. I don't need full language support from the start, so preferably, I need to be able to implement a language in a agile way. E.g. first support only one type, add access modifiers, ... Perhaps some other (free) environment already provides this out of the box. P.S.: I find it important to have a lot of control over the naming conventions and such of the generated code. This is one of the reasons why I started my own implementation.

    Read the article

  • Videos: Getting Started with Java Embedded

    - by Tori Wieldt
    Are you a Java developer? That means you can write applications for embedded processors! There are new six new videos up on the YouTube/Java channel that you can watch to get more information. To get an overview, watch James Allen of Oracle Global Business Development give OTN a tour of the Oracle booth at ARM Techcon. He also explains the huge opportunity for Java in the embedded space. These videos from Oracle Engineering show you how to leverage your knowledge to seamlessly develop in a space that is really taking off. Java SE Embedded Development Made Easy, Part 1 This video demonstrates how developers already familiar with the Java SE development paradigm can leverage their knowledge to seamlessly develop on very capable embedded processors. Part one of a two-part series. Java SE Embedded Development Made Easy, Part 2 This video demonstrates how developers already familiar with the Java SE development paradigm can leverage their knowledge to seamlessly develop on very capable embedded processors. Part two of a two-part series. Mobile Database Synchronization - Healthcare Demonstration This video demonstrates how a good portion of Oracle's embedded technologies (Java SE-Embedded, Berkeley DB, Database Mobile Server) can be applied to a medical application. Tomcat Micro Cluster See how multiple embedded devices installed with Java Standard Edition HotSpot for Armv5/Linux and Apache Tomcat can be configured as a micro cluster. Java Embedded Partnerships Kevin Smith of Oracle Technical Business Development explains what's new for partners and Java developers in the embedded space. Learn how you can start prototyping for Qualcomm's new Orion board before it's available. (Sorry about the video quality, the booth lights were weird.)   Visit the YouTube/Java channel for other great Java videos. <fade to black>

    Read the article

  • Database Driven Web Application, C# Front-End and F# Back-End meaning

    - by user1473053
    Hi I am an intern working with ASP.NET. My current task is to make a website which will incorporate some jquery viewing features. This project seems to me will be primarily dealing with reading data from a database and making graphs out of them. This will require me to make custom queries from whatever the client is looking at. I think it is going to be what this guy calls an Ad Hoc Query tool My plan for this is to make it a database-driven website. So I can utilize the jquery dynamic viewing capabilities. I stumbled upon the functional programming paradigm and found F#. I read that because of it's functional programming paradigm, it makes it a good language to do asynchronous functions. I read about how you can use this with LINQ to SQL and how easy it is to make queries without actually putting the query language in. I understand the concept of the MVC design pattern. But I don't understand what they mean about C# being the front-end and F# being the back-end. Can someone clarify this to me? Also what are your thoughts about doing this project in this way? Any comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated. I feel as if learning F# will be a great learning experience for me. My guess is that the F# back-end is like the part where it controls the calls to the database. F# is possibly the model part of the design pattern. And C# is the controller. So HTML, Javascript and Jquery stuff will be my View design pattern. Clarify please?

    Read the article

  • Get the Latest Security Inside Out Newsletter, October Edition

    - by Troy Kitch
    The latest October edition of the Security Inside Out newsletter is now available and covers the following important security news: Securing Oracle Database 12c: A Technical Primer The new multitenant architecture of Oracle Database 12c calls for adopting an updated approach to database security. In response, Oracle security experts have written a new book that is expected to become a key resource for database administrators. Find out how to get a complimentary copy.  Read More HIPAA Omnibus Rule Is in Effect: Are You Ready? On September 23, 2013, the HIPAA Omnibus Rule went into full effect. To help Oracle’s healthcare customers ready their organizations for the new requirements, law firm Ballard Spahr LLP and the Oracle Security team hosted a webcast titled “Addressing the Final HIPAA Omnibus Rule and Securing Protected Health Information.” Find out three key changes affecting Oracle customers.  Read More The Internet of Things: A New Identity Management Paradigm By 2020, it’s predicted there will be 50 billion devices wirelessly connected to the internet, from consumer products to highly complex industrial and manufacturing equipment and processes. Find out the key challenges of protecting identity and data for the new paradigm called the Internet of Things.  Read More

    Read the article

  • WPF DataBinding, CollectionViewSource, INotifyPropertyChanged

    - by plotnick
    First time when I tried to do something in WPF, I was puzzled with WPF DataBinding. Then I studied thorougly next example on MSDN: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms771319(v=VS.90).aspx Now, I quite understand how to use Master-Detail paradigm for a form which takes data from one source (one table) - both for master and detailed parts. I mean for example I have a grid with data and below the grid I have a few fields with detailed data of current row. But how to do it, if detailed data comes from different but related tables? for example: you have a Table 'Users' with columns - 'id' and 'Name'. You also have another table 'Pictures' with columns like 'id','Filename','UserId'. And now, using master-detail paradigm you have to built a form. And every time when you chose a row in a Master you should get all associated pictures in Details. What is the right way to do it? Could you please show me an example?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >