Search Results

Search found 10556 results on 423 pages for 'practical approach'.

Page 30/423 | < Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >

  • Export data to Excel from Silverlight/WPF DataGrid

    - by outcoldman
    Data export from DataGrid to Excel is very common task, and it can be solved with different ways, and chosen way depend on kind of app which you are design. If you are developing app for enterprise, and it will be installed on several computes, then you can to advance a claim (system requirements) with which your app will be work for client. Or customer will advance system requirements on which your app should work. In this case you can use COM for export (use infrastructure of Excel or OpenOffice). This approach will give you much more flexibility and give you possibility to use all features of Excel app. About this approach I’ll speak below. Other way – your app is for personal use, it can be installed on any home computer, in this case it is not good to ask user to install MS Office or OpenOffice just for using your app. In this way you can use foreign tools for export, or export to xml/html format which MS Office can read (this approach used by JIRA). But in this case will be more difficult to satisfy user tasks, like create document with landscape rotation and with defined fields for printing. At this article I'll show you how to work with Excel object from .NET 4 and Silverlight 4 with dynamic objects and give you an approach which allow you to export data from DataGrid Silverlight and WPF controls. Read more...

    Read the article

  • .NET Weak Event Handlers – Part II

    - by João Angelo
    On the first part of this article I showed two possible ways to create weak event handlers. One using reflection and the other using a delegate. For this performance analysis we will further differentiate between creating a delegate by providing the type of the listener at compile time (Explicit Delegate) vs creating the delegate with the type of the listener being only obtained at runtime (Implicit Delegate). As expected, the performance between reflection/delegate differ significantly. With the reflection based approach, creating a weak event handler is just storing a MethodInfo reference while with the delegate based approach there is the need to create the delegate which will be invoked later. So, at creating the weak event handler reflection clearly wins, but what about when the handler is invoked. No surprises there, performing a call through reflection every time a handler is invoked is costly. In conclusion, if you want good performance when creating handlers that only sporadically get triggered use reflection, otherwise use the delegate based approach. The explicit delegate approach always wins against the implicit delegate, but I find the syntax for the latter much more intuitive. // Implicit delegate - The listener type is inferred at runtime from the handler parameter public static EventHandler WrapInDelegateCall(EventHandler handler); public static EventHandler<TArgs> WrapInDelegateCall<TArgs>(EventHandler<TArgs> handler) where TArgs : EventArgs; // Explicite delegate - TListener is the type that defines the handler public static EventHandler WrapInDelegateCall<TListener>(EventHandler handler); public static EventHandler<TArgs> WrapInDelegateCall<TArgs, TListener>(EventHandler<TArgs> handler) where TArgs : EventArgs;

    Read the article

  • Is recursion really bad?

    - by dotneteer
    After my previous post about the stack space, it appears that there is perception from the feedback that recursion is bad and we should avoid deep recursion. After writing a compiler, I know that the modern computer and compiler are complex enough and one cannot automatically assume that a hand crafted code would out-perform the compiler optimization. The only way is to do some prototype to find out. So why recursive code may not perform as well? Compilers place frames on a stack. In additional to arguments and local variables, compiles also need to place frame and program pointers on the frame, resulting in overheads. So why hand-crafted code may not performance as well? The stack used by a compiler is a simpler data structure and can grow and shrink cleanly. To replace recursion with out own stack, our stack is allocated in the heap that is far more complicated to manage. There could be overhead as well if the compiler needs to mark objects for garbage collection. Compiler also needs to worry about the memory fragmentation. Then there is additional complexity: CPUs have registers and multiple levels of cache. Register access is a few times faster than in-CPU cache access and is a few 10s times than on-board memory access. So it is up to the OS and compiler to maximize the use of register and in-CPU cache. For my particular problem, I did an experiment to rewrite my c# version of recursive code with a loop and stack approach. So here are the outcomes of the two approaches:   Recursive call Loop and Stack Lines of code for the algorithm 17 46 Speed Baseline 3% faster Readability Clean Far more complex So at the end, I was able to achieve 3% better performance with other drawbacks. My message is never assuming your sophisticated approach would automatically work out better than a simpler approach with a modern computer and compiler. Gage carefully before committing to a more complex approach.

    Read the article

  • Partnering with your Applications – The Oracle AppAdvantage Story

    - by JuergenKress
    So, what is Oracle AppAdvantage? A practical approach to adopting cloud, mobile, social and other trends A guided path to aligning IT more closely with business objectives Maximizing the value of existing investments in applications A layered approach to simplifying IT, building differentiation and bringing innovation All of the above? Enhance the value of your existing applications investment with #Oracle #AppAdvantage Aligning biz and IT expectations on Simplifying IT, building Differentiation and Innovation #AppAdvantage Adopt a pace layered approach to extracting biz value from your apps with #AppAdvantage Bringing #cloud, #social, #mobile to your apps with #Oracle #AppAdvantage Embracing Situational IT In the next IT Leaders Editorial, Rick Beers discusses the necessity of IT disruption and #AppAdvantage. Rick Beers sheds light on the Situational Leadership and the path to success #AppAdvantage. Rick Beers draws parallels with CIO’s strategic thinking and #Oracle #AppAdvantage approach. Do you have this paper in your summer reading list? Aligning biz and IT #AppAdvantage What does Situational leadership have to do with Oracle AppAdvantage? Catch the next piece in Rick Beers’ monthly series of IT Leaders Editorial and find out. #AppAdvantage Middleware Minutes with Howard Beader – August edition In the quarterly column, @hbeader discusses impact of #cloud, #mobile, #fastdata on #middleware Making #cloud, #mobile, #fastdata a part of your IT strategy with #middleware What keeps the #oracle #middleware team busy? Find out in the inaugural post in quarterly update on #middleware Recent #middleware news update along with a preview of things to come from #Oracle, in @hbeader ‘s quarterly column In his inaugural post, Howard Beader, senior director for Oracle Fusion Middleware, discusses the recent industry trends including mobile, cloud, fast data, integration and how these are shaping the IT and business requirements. SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Wiki Mix Forum Technorati Tags: AppAdvantage,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • Keystone Correction using 3D-Points of Kinect

    - by philllies
    With XNA, I am displaying a simple rectangle which is projected onto the floor. The projector can be placed at an arbitrary position. Obviously, the projected rectangle gets distorted according to the projectors position and angle. A Kinect scans the floor looking for the four corners. Now my goal is to transform the original rectangle such that the projection is no longer distorted by basically pre-warping the rectangle. My first approach was to do everything in 2D: First compute a perspective transformation (using OpenCV's warpPerspective()) from the scanned points to the internal rectangle's points und apply the inverse to the rectangle. This seemed to work but was too slow as it couldn't be rendered on the GPU. The second approach was to do everything in 3D in order to use XNA's rendering features. First, I would display a plane, scan its corners with Kinect and map the received 3D-Points to the original plane. Theoretically, I could apply the inverse of the perspective transformation to the plane, as I did in the 2D-approach. However, in since XNA works with a view and projection matrix, I can't just call a function such as warpPerspective() and get the desired result. I would need to compute the new parameters for the camera's view and projection matrix. Question: Is it possible to compute these parameters and split them into two matrices (view and projection)? If not, is there another approach I could use?

    Read the article

  • Where to Perform Authentication in REST API Server?

    - by David V
    I am working on a set of REST APIs that needs to be secured so that only authenticated calls will be performed. There will be multiple web apps to service these APIs. Is there a best-practice approach as to where the authentication should occur? I have thought of two possible places. Have each web app perform the authentication by using a shared authentication service. This seems to be in line with tools like Spring Security, which is configured at the web app level. Protect each web app with a "gateway" for security. In this approach, the web app never receives unauthenticated calls. This seems to be the approach of Apache HTTP Server Authentication. With this approach, would you use Apache or nginx to protect it, or something else in between Apache/nginx and your web app? For additional reference, the authentication is similar to services like AWS that have a non-secret identifier combined with a shared secret key. I am also considering using HMAC. Also, we are writing the web services in Java using Spring. Update: To clarify, each request needs to be authenticated with the identifier and secret key. This is similar to how AWS REST requests work.

    Read the article

  • Partnering with your Applications – The Oracle AppAdvantage Story

    - by JuergenKress
    So, what is Oracle AppAdvantage? A practical approach to adopting cloud, mobile, social and other trends A guided path to aligning IT more closely with business objectives Maximizing the value of existing investments in applications A layered approach to simplifying IT, building differentiation and bringing innovation All of the above? Enhance the value of your existing applications investment with #Oracle #AppAdvantage Aligning biz and IT expectations on Simplifying IT, building Differentiation and Innovation #AppAdvantage Adopt a pace layered approach to extracting biz value from your apps with #AppAdvantage Bringing #cloud, #social, #mobile to your apps with #Oracle #AppAdvantage Embracing Situational IT In the next IT Leaders Editorial, Rick Beers discusses the necessity of IT disruption and #AppAdvantage. Rick Beers sheds light on the Situational Leadership and the path to success #AppAdvantage. Rick Beers draws parallels with CIO’s strategic thinking and #Oracle #AppAdvantage approach. Do you have this paper in your summer reading list? Aligning biz and IT #AppAdvantage What does Situational leadership have to do with Oracle AppAdvantage? Catch the next piece in Rick Beers’ monthly series of IT Leaders Editorial and find out. #AppAdvantage Middleware Minutes with Howard Beader – August edition In the quarterly column, @hbeader discusses impact of #cloud, #mobile, #fastdata on #middleware Making #cloud, #mobile, #fastdata a part of your IT strategy with #middleware What keeps the #oracle #middleware team busy? Find out in the inaugural post in quarterly update on #middleware Recent #middleware news update along with a preview of things to come from #Oracle, in @hbeader ‘s quarterly column In his inaugural post, Howard Beader, senior director for Oracle Fusion Middleware, discusses the recent industry trends including mobile, cloud, fast data, integration and how these are shaping the IT and business requirements. SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Wiki Mix Forum Technorati Tags: AppAdvantage,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • Questioning pythonic type checking

    - by Pace
    I've seen countless times the following approach suggested for "taking in a collection of objects and doing X if X is a Y and ignoring the object otherwise" def quackAllDucks(ducks): for duck in ducks: try: duck.quack("QUACK") except AttributeError: #Not a duck, can't quack, don't worry about it pass The alternative implementation below always gets flak for the performance hit caused by type checking def quackAllDucks(ducks): for duck in ducks: if hasattr(duck,"quack"): duck.quack("QUACK") However, it seems to me that in 99% of scenarios you would want to use the second solution because of the following: If the user gets the parameters wrong then they will not be treated like a duck and there will be no indication. A lot of time will be wasted debugging why there is no quacking going on until the user finally realizes his silly mistake. The second solution would throw a stack trace as soon the user tried to quack. If the user has any bugs in their quack() method which cause an AttributeError then those bugs will be silently swallowed. Once again time will be wasted digging for the bug when the second solution would simply give a stack trace showing the immediate issue. In fact, it seems to me that the only time you would ever want to use the first method is when: The block of code in question is in an extremely performance critical section of your application. Following the principal of "avoid premature optimization" you would only realize this of course, after you had implemented the safer approach and found it to be a bottleneck. There are many types of quacking objects out there and you are only interested in quacking objects that quack with a very specific set of arguments (this seems to be a very rare case to me). Given this, why is it that so many people prefer the first approach over the second approach? What is it that I am missing? Also, I realize there are other solutions (such as using abcs) but these are the two solutions I seem to see most often for the basic case.

    Read the article

  • Performance due to entity update

    - by Rizzo
    I always think about 2 ways to code the global Step() function, both with pros and cons. Please note that AIStep is just to provide another more step for whoever who wants it. // Approach 1 step foreach( entity in entities ) { entity.DeltaStep( delta_time ); if( time_for_fixed_step ) entity.FixedStep(); if( time_for_AI_step ) entity.AIStep(); ... // all kind of updates you want } PRO: you just have to iterate once over all entities. CON: fidelity could be lower at some scenarios, since the entity.FixedStep() isn't going all at a time. // Approach 2 step foreach( entity in entities ) entity.DeltaStep( delta_time ); if( time_for_fixed_step ) foreach( entity in entities ) entity.FixedStep(); if( time_for_AI_step ) foreach( entity in entities ) entity.FixedStep(); // all kind of updates you want SEPARATED PRO: fidelity on FixedStep is higher, shouldn't be much time between all entities update, rather than Approach 1 where you may have to wait other updates until FixedStep() comes. CON: you iterate once for each kind of update. Also, a third approach could be a hybrid between both of them, something in the way of foreach( entity in entities ) { entity.DeltaStep( delta_time ); if( time_for_AI_step ) entity.AIStep(); // all kind of updates you want BUT FixedStep() } if( time_for_fixed_step ) { foreach( entity in entities ) { entity.FixedStep(); } } Just two loops, don't caring about time fidelity in nothing other than at FixedStep(). Any thoughts on this matter? Should it really matters to make all steps at once or am I thinking on problems that don't exist?

    Read the article

  • Toon/cel shading with variable line width?

    - by Nick Wiggill
    I see a few broad approaches out there to doing cel shading: Duplication & enlargement of model with flipped normals (not an option for me) Sobel filter / fragment shader approaches to edge detection Stencil buffer approaches to edge detection Geometry (or vertex) shader approaches that calculate face and edge normals Am I correct in assuming the geometry-centric approach gives the greatest amount of control over lighting and line thickness, as well eg. for terrain where you might see the silhouette line of a hill merging gradually into a plain? What if I didn't need pixel lighting on my terrain surfaces? (And I probably won't as I plan to use cell-based vertex- or texturemap-based lighting/shadowing.) Would I then be better off sticking with the geometry-type approach, or go for a screen space / fragment approach instead to keep things simpler? If so, how would I get the "inking" of hills within the mesh silhouette, rather than only the outline of the entire mesh (with no "ink" details inside that outline? Lastly, is it possible to cheaply emulate the flipped-normals approach, using a geometry shader? Is that exactly what the GS approaches do? What I want - varying line thickness with intrusive lines inside the silhouette... What I don't want...

    Read the article

  • Requesting quality analysis test cases up front of implementation/change

    - by arin
    Recently I have been assigned to work on a major requirement that falls between a change request and an improvement. The previous implementation was done (badly) by a senior developer that left the company and did so without leaving a trace of documentation. Here were my initial steps to approach this problem: Considering that the release date was fast approaching and there was no time for slip-ups, I initially asked if the requirement was a "must have". Since the requirement helped the product significantly in terms of usability, the answer was "If possible, yes". Knowing the wide-spread use and affects of this requirement, had it come to a point where the requirement could not be finished prior to release, I asked if it would be a viable option to thrash the current state and revert back to the state prior to the ex-senior implementation. The answer was "Most likely: no". Understanding that the requirement was coming from the higher management, and due to the complexity of it, I asked all usability test cases to be written prior to the implementation (by QA) and given to me, to aid me in the comprehension of this task. This was a big no-no for the folks at the management as they failed to understand this approach. Knowing that I had to insist on my request and the responsibility of this requirement, I insisted and have fallen out of favor with some of the folks, leaving me in a state of "baffledness". Basically, I was trying a test-driven approach to a high-risk, high-complexity and must-have requirement and trying to be safe rather than sorry. Is this approach wrong or have I approached it incorrectly? P.S.: The change request/improvement was cancelled and the implementation was reverted back to the prior state due to the complexity of the problem and lack of time. This only happened after a 2 hour long meeting with other seniors in order to convince the aforementioned folks.

    Read the article

  • algorithm for Virtual Machine(VM) Consolidation in Cloud

    - by devansh dalal
    PROBLEM: We have N physical machines(PMs) each with ram Ri, cpu Ci and a set of currently scheduled VMs each with ram requirement ri and ci respectively Moving(Migrating) any VM from one PM to other has a cost associated which depends on its ram ri. A PM with no VMs is shut down to save power. Our target is to minimize the weighted sum of (N,migration cost) by migrating some VMs i.e. minimize the number of working PMs as well as not to degrade the service level due to excessive migrations. My Approach: Brute Force approach is choosing the minimum loaded PM and try to fit its VMs to other PMs by First Fit Decreasing algorithm or we can select the victim PMs and target PMs based on their loading level and shut down victims if possible by moving their VMs to targets. I tried this Greedy approach on the Data of Baadal(IIT-D cloud) but It isn't giving promising results. I have also tried to study the Ant colony optimization for dynamic VM consolidating but was unable to understand very much. I used the links. http://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/72/52/15/PDF/Esnault.pdf http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/72/38/56/PDF/RR-8032.pdf Would anyone please explain the solution or suggest any new approach for better performance soon. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Is there a canonical source supporting "all-surrogates"?

    - by user61852
    Background The "all-PK-must-be-surrogates" approach is not present in Codd's Relational Model or any SQL Standard (ANSI, ISO or other). Canonical books seems to elude this restrictions too. Oracle's own data dictionary scheme uses natural keys in some tables and surrogate keys in other tables. I mention this because these people must know a thing or two about RDBMS design. PPDM (Professional Petroleum Data Management Association) recommend the same canonical books do: Use surrogate keys as primary keys when: There are no natural or business keys Natural or business keys are bad ( change often ) The value of natural or business key is not known at the time of inserting record Multicolumn natural keys ( usually several FK ) exceed three columns, which makes joins too verbose. Also I have not found canonical source that says natural keys need to be immutable. All I find is that they need to be very estable, i.e need to be changed only in very rare ocassions, if ever. I mention PPDM because these people must know a thing or two about RDBMS design too. The origins of the "all-surrogates" approach seems to come from recommendations from some ORM frameworks. It's true that the approach allows for rapid database modeling by not having to do much business analysis, but at the expense of maintainability and readability of the SQL code. Much prevision is made for something that may or may not happen in the future ( the natural PK changed so we will have to use the RDBMS cascade update funtionality ) at the expense of day-to-day task like having to join more tables in every query and having to write code for importing data between databases, an otherwise very strightfoward procedure (due to the need to avoid PK colisions and having to create stage/equivalence tables beforehand ). Other argument is that indexes based on integers are faster, but that has to be supported with benchmarks. Obviously, long, varying varchars are not good for PK. But indexes based on short, fix-length varchar are almost as fast as integers. The questions - Is there any canonical source that supports the "all-PK-must-be-surrogates" approach ? - Has Codd's relational model been superceded by a newer relational model ?

    Read the article

  • Are there design patterns or generalised approaches for particle simulations?

    - by romeovs
    I'm working on a project (for college) in C++. The goal is to write a program that can more or less simulate a beam of particles flying trough the LHC synchrotron. Not wanting to rush into things, me and my team are thinking about how to implement this and I was wondering if there are general design patterns that are used to solve this kind of problem. The general approach we came up with so far is the following: there is a World that holds all objects you can add objects to this world such as Particle, Dipole and Quadrupole time is cut up into discrete steps, and at each point in time, for each Particle the magnetic and electric forces that each object in the World generates are calculated and summed up (luckily electro-magnetism is linear). each Particle moves accordingly (using a simple estimation approach to solve the differential movement equations) save the Particle positions repeat This seems a good approach but, for instance, it is hard to take into account symmetries that might be present (such as the magnetic field of each Quadrupole) and is this thus suboptimal. To take into account such symmetries as that of the Quadrupole field, it would be much easier to (also) make space discrete and somehow store form of the Quadrupole field somewhere. (Since 2532 or so Quadrupoles are stored this should lead to a massive gain of performance, not having to recalculate each Quadrupole field) So, are there any design patterns? Is the World-approach feasible or is it old-fashioned, bad programming? What about symmetry, how is that generally taken into acount?

    Read the article

  • Modular Architecture for Processing Pipeline

    - by anjruu
    I am trying to design the architecture of a system that I will be implementing in C++, and I was wondering if people could think of a good approach, or critique the approach that I have designed so far. First of all, the general problem is an image processing pipeline. It contains several stages, and the goal is to design a highly modular solution, so that any of the stages can be easily swapped out and replaced with a piece of custom code (so that the user can have a speed increase if s/he knows that a certain stage is constrained in a certain way in his or her problem). The current thinking is something like this: struct output; /*Contains the output values from the pipeline.*/ class input_routines{ public: virtual foo stage1(...){...} virtual bar stage2(...){...} virtual qux stage3(...){...} ... } output pipeline(input_routines stages); This would allow people to subclass input_routines and override whichever stage they wanted. That said, I've worked in systems like this before, and I find the subclassing and the default stuff tends to get messy, and can be difficult to use, so I'm not giddy about writing one myself. I was also thinking about a more STLish approach, where the different stages (there are 6 or 7) would be defaulted template parameters. Can anyone offer a critique of the pattern above, thoughts on the template approach, or any other architecture that comes to mind?

    Read the article

  • FP for simulation and modelling

    - by heaptobesquare
    I'm about to start a simulation/modelling project. I already know that OOP is used for this kind of projects. However, studying Haskell made me consider using the FP paradigm for modelling a system of components. Let me elaborate: Let's say I have a component of type A, characterised by a set of data (a parameter like temperature or pressure,a PDE and some boundary conditions,etc.) and a component of type B, characterised by a different set of data(different or same parameter, different PDE and boundary conditions). Let's also assume that the functions/methods that are going to be applied on each component are the same (a Galerkin method for example). If I were to use an OOP approach, I would create two objects that would encapsulate each type's data, the methods for solving the PDE(inheritance would be used here for code reuse) and the solution to the PDE. On the other hand, if I were to use an FP approach, each component would be broken down to data parts and the functions that would act upon the data in order to get the solution for the PDE. This approach seems simpler to me assuming that linear operations on data would be trivial and that the parameters are constant. What if the parameters are not constant(for example, temperature increases suddenly and therefore cannot be immutable)? In OOP, the object's (mutable) state can be used. I know that Haskell has Monads for that. To conclude, would implementing the FP approach be actually simpler,less time consuming and easier to manage (add a different type of component or new method to solve the pde) compared to the OOP one? I come from a C++/Fortran background, plus I'm not a professional programmer, so correct me on anything that I've got wrong.

    Read the article

  • Efficient algorithm for Virtual Machine(VM) Consolidation in Cloud

    - by devansh dalal
    PROBLEM: We have N physical machines(PMs) each with ram Ri, cpu Ci and a set of currently scheduled VMs each with ram requirement ri and ci respectively Moving(Migrating) any VM from one PM to other has a cost associated which depends on its ram ri. A PM with no VMs is shut down to save power. Our target is to minimize the weighted sum of (N,migration cost) by migrating some VMs i.e. minimize the number of working PMs as well as not to degrade the service level due to excessive migrations. My Approach: Brute Force approach is choosing the minimum loaded PM and try to fit its VMs to other PMs by First Fit Decreasing algorithm or we can select the victim PMs and target PMs based on their loading level and shut down victims if possible by moving their VMs to targets. I tried this Greedy approach on the Data of Baadal(IIT-D cloud) but It isn't giving promising results. I have also tried to study the Ant colony optimization for dynamic VM consolidating but was unable to understand very much. I used the links. http://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/72/52/15/PDF/Esnault.pdf http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/72/38/56/PDF/RR-8032.pdf Would anyone please clarify the solution or suggest any new approach/resources for better performance. I am basically searching for the algorithms not the physical optimizations and I also know that many commercial organizations have provided these solution but I just wanted to know more the underlying algorithms. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Iterative and Incremental Principle Series 5: Conclusion

    - by llowitz
    Thank you for joining me in the final segment in the Iterative and Incremental series.  During yesterday’s segment, I discussed Iteration Planning, and specifically how I planned my daily exercise (iteration) each morning by assessing multiple factors, while following my overall Implementation plan. As I mentioned in yesterday’s blog, regardless of the type of exercise or how many increment sets I decide to complete each day, I apply the 6 minute interval sets and a timebox approach.  When the 6 minutes are up, I stop the interval, even if I have more to give, saving the extra energy to apply to my next interval set.   Timeboxes are used to manage iterations.  Once the pre-determined iteration duration is reached – whether it is 2 weeks or 6 weeks or somewhere in between-- the iteration is complete.  Iteration group items (requirements) not fully addressed, in relation to the iteration goal, are addressed in the next iteration.  This approach helps eliminate the “rolling deadline” and better allows the project manager to assess the project progress earlier and more frequently than in traditional approaches. Not only do smaller, more frequent milestones allow project managers to better assess potential schedule risks and slips, but process improvement is encouraged.  Even in my simple example, I learned, after a few interval sets, not to sprint uphill!  Now I plan my route more efficiently to ensure that I sprint on a level surface to reduce of the risk of not completing my increment.  Project managers have often told me that they used an iterative and incremental approach long before OUM.   An effective project manager naturally organizes project work consistent with this principle, but a key benefit of OUM is that it formalizes this approach so it happens by design rather than by chance.    I hope this series has encouraged you to think about additional ways you can incorporate the iterative and incremental principle into your daily and project life.  I further hope that you will share your thoughts and experiences with the rest of us.

    Read the article

  • LISP: Keyword parameters, supplied-p

    - by echox
    At the moment I'm working through "Practical Common Lisp" from Peter Seibel. In the chapter "Practical: A Simple Database" (http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/practical-a-simple-database.html) Seibel explains keyword parameters and the usage of a supplied-parameter with the following example: (defun foo (&key a (b 20) (c 30 c-p)) (list a b c c-p)) Results: (foo :a 1 :b 2 :c 3) ==> (1 2 3 T) (foo :c 3 :b 2 :a 1) ==> (1 2 3 T) (foo :a 1 :c 3) ==> (1 20 3 T) (foo) ==> (NIL 20 30 NIL) So if I use &key at the beginning of my parameter list, I have the possibility to use a list of 3 parameters name, default value and the third if the parameter as been supplied or not. Ok. But looking at the code in the above example: (list a b c c-p) How does the lisp interpreter know that c-p is my "supplied parameter"?

    Read the article

  • Augmenting your Social Efforts via Data as a Service (DaaS)

    - by Mike Stiles
    The following is the 3rd in a series of posts on the value of leveraging social data across your enterprise by Oracle VP Product Development Don Springer and Oracle Cloud Data and Insight Service Sr. Director Product Management Niraj Deo. In this post, we will discuss the approach and value of integrating additional “public” data via a cloud-based Data-as-as-Service platform (or DaaS) to augment your Socially Enabled Big Data Analytics and CX Management. Let’s assume you have a functional Social-CRM platform in place. You are now successfully and continuously listening and learning from your customers and key constituents in Social Media, you are identifying relevant posts and following up with direct engagement where warranted (both 1:1, 1:community, 1:all), and you are starting to integrate signals for communication into your appropriate Customer Experience (CX) Management systems as well as insights for analysis in your business intelligence application. What is the next step? Augmenting Social Data with other Public Data for More Advanced Analytics When we say advanced analytics, we are talking about understanding causality and correlation from a wide variety, volume and velocity of data to Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to achieve and optimize business value. And in some cases, to predict future performance to make appropriate course corrections and change the outcome to your advantage while you can. The data to acquire, process and analyze this is very nuanced: It can vary across structured, semi-structured, and unstructured data It can span across content, profile, and communities of profiles data It is increasingly public, curated and user generated The key is not just getting the data, but making it value-added data and using it to help discover the insights to connect to and improve your KPIs. As we spend time working with our larger customers on advanced analytics, we have seen a need arise for more business applications to have the ability to ingest and use “quality” curated, social, transactional reference data and corresponding insights. The challenge for the enterprise has been getting this data inline into an easily accessible system and providing the contextual integration of the underlying data enriched with insights to be exported into the enterprise’s business applications. The following diagram shows the requirements for this next generation data and insights service or (DaaS): Some quick points on these requirements: Public Data, which in this context is about Common Business Entities, such as - Customers, Suppliers, Partners, Competitors (all are organizations) Contacts, Consumers, Employees (all are people) Products, Brands This data can be broadly categorized incrementally as - Base Utility data (address, industry classification) Public Master Reference data (trade style, hierarchy) Social/Web data (News, Feeds, Graph) Transactional Data generated by enterprise process, workflows etc. This Data has traits of high-volume, variety, velocity etc., and the technology needed to efficiently integrate this data for your needs includes - Change management of Public Reference Data across all categories Applied Big Data to extract statics as well as real-time insights Knowledge Diagnostics and Data Mining As you consider how to deploy this solution, many of our customers will be using an online “cloud” service that provides quality data and insights uniformly to all their necessary applications. In addition, they are requesting a service that is: Agile and Easy to Use: Applications integrated with the service can obtain data on-demand, quickly and simply Cost-effective: Pre-integrated into applications so customers don’t have to Has High Data Quality: Single point access to reference data for data quality and linkages to transactional, curated and social data Supports Data Governance: Becomes more manageable and cost-effective since control of data privacy and compliance can be enforced in a centralized place Data-as-a-Service (DaaS) Just as the cloud has transformed and now offers a better path for how an enterprise manages its IT from their infrastructure, platform, and software (IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS), the next step is data (DaaS). Over the last 3 years, we have seen the market begin to offer a cloud-based data service and gain initial traction. On one side of the DaaS continuum, we see an “appliance” type of service that provides a single, reliable source of accurate business data plus social information about accounts, leads, contacts, etc. On the other side of the continuum we see more of an online market “exchange” approach where ISVs and Data Publishers can publish and sell premium datasets within the exchange, with the exchange providing a rich set of web interfaces to improve the ease of data integration. Why the difference? It depends on the provider’s philosophy on how fast the rate of commoditization of certain data types will occur. How do you decide the best approach? Our perspective, as shown in the diagram below, is that the enterprise should develop an elastic schema to support multi-domain applicability. This allows the enterprise to take the most flexible approach to harness the speed and breadth of public data to achieve value. The key tenet of the proposed approach is that an enterprise carefully federates common utility, master reference data end points, mobility considerations and content processing, so that they are pervasively available. One way you may already be familiar with this approach is in how you do Address Verification treatments for accounts, contacts etc. If you design and revise this service in such a way that it is also easily available to social analytic needs, you could extend this to launch geo-location based social use cases (marketing, sales etc.). Our fundamental belief is that value-added data achieved through enrichment with specialized algorithms, as well as applying business “know-how” to weight-factor KPIs based on innovative combinations across an ever-increasing variety, volume and velocity of data, will be where real value is achieved. Essentially, Data-as-a-Service becomes a single entry point for the ever-increasing richness and volume of public data, with enrichment and combined capabilities to extract and integrate the right data from the right sources with the right factoring at the right time for faster decision-making and action within your core business applications. As more data becomes available (and in many cases commoditized), this value-added data processing approach will provide you with ongoing competitive advantage. Let’s look at a quick example of creating a master reference relationship that could be used as an input for a variety of your already existing business applications. In phase 1, a simple master relationship is achieved between a company (e.g. General Motors) and a variety of car brands’ social insights. The reference data allows for easy sort, export and integration into a set of CRM use cases for analytics, sales and marketing CRM. In phase 2, as you create more data relationships (e.g. competitors, contacts, other brands) to have broader and deeper references (social profiles, social meta-data) for more use cases across CRM, HCM, SRM, etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as the amount of master reference relationships is constrained only by your imagination and the availability of quality curated data you have to work with. DaaS is just now emerging onto the marketplace as the next step in cloud transformation. For some of you, this may be the first you have heard about it. Let us know if you have questions, or perspectives. In the meantime, we will continue to share insights as we can.Photo: Erik Araujo, stock.xchng

    Read the article

  • What features would you like to have in PHP?

    - by StasM
    Since it's the holiday season now and everybody's making wishes, I wonder - which language features you would wish PHP would have added? I am interested in some practical suggestions/wishes for the language. By practical I mean: Something that can be practically done (not: "I wish PHP would guess what my code means and fix bugs for me" or "I wish any code would execute under 5ms") Something that doesn't require changing PHP into another language (not: "I wish they'd drop $ signs and use space instead of braces" or "I wish PHP were compiled, statically typed and had # in it's name") Something that would not require breaking all the existing code (not: "Let's rename 500 functions and change parameter order for them") Something that does change the language or some interesting aspect of it (not: "I wish there was extension to support for XYZ protocol" or "I wish bug #12345 were finally fixed") Something that is more than a rant (not: "I wish PHP wouldn't suck so badly") Anybody has any good wishes? Mod edit: Stanislav Malyshev is a core PHP developer.

    Read the article

  • Need to Know

    - by Tony Davis
    Sometimes, I wonder whether writers of documentation, tutorials and articles stop to ask themselves one very important question: Does the reader really need to know this? I recently took on the task of writing a concise series of articles about the transaction log, what is it, how it works and why it's important. It was an enjoyable task; rather like peering inside a giant, complex clock mechanism. Initially, one sees only the basic components, which work to guarantee the integrity of database transactions, and preserve these transactions so that data can be restored to a previous point in time. On closer inspection, one notices all of small, arcane mechanisms that are necessary to make this happen; LSNs, virtual log files, log chains, database checkpoints, and so on. It was engrossing, escapist, stuff; what I'd written looked weighty and steeped in mysterious significance. Suddenly, however, I jolted myself back to reality with the awful thought "does anyone really need to know all this?" The driver of a car needs only to be dimly aware of what goes on under the hood, however exciting the mechanism is to the engineer. Similarly, while everyone who uses SQL Server ought to be aware of the transaction log, its role in guaranteeing the ACID properties, and how to control its growth, the intricate mechanisms ticking away under its clock face are a world away from the daily work of the harassed developer. The DBA needs to know more, such as the correct rituals for ensuring optimal performance and data integrity, setting the appropriate growth characteristics, backup routines, restore procedures, and so on. However, even then, the average DBA only needs to understand enough about the arcane processes to spot problems and react appropriately, or to know how to Google for the best way of dealing with it. The art of technical writing is tied up in intimate knowledge of your audience and what they need to know at any point. It means serving up just enough at each point to help the reader in a practical way, but not to overcook it, or stuff the reader with information that does them no good. When I think of the books and articles that have helped me the most, they have been full of brief, practical, and well-informed guidance, based on experience. This seems far-removed from the 900-page "beginner's guides" that one now sees everywhere. The more I write and edit, the more I become convinced that the real art of technical communication lies in knowing what to leave out. In what areas do the SQL Server technical materials suffer from "information overload"? Where else does it seem that concise, practical advice is drowned out by endless discussion of the "clock mechanisms"? Cheers, Tony.

    Read the article

  • Street-Fighting Mathematics

    Sanjoy Mahajan's new book lays out practical tools for educated guessing and down-and-dirty problem-solving Problem solving - Math - Recreations - Competitions - Methods and Theories

    Read the article

  • Entity/Component based engine rendering separation from logic

    - by Denis Narushevich
    I noticed in Unity3D that each gameObject(entity) have its own renderer component, as far I understand, such component handle rendering logic. I wonder if it is a common practice in entity/component based engines, when single entity have renderer components and logic components such as position, behavior altogether in one box? Such approach sound odd to me, in my understanding entity itself belongs to logic part and shouldn't contain any render specific things inside. With such approach it is impossible to swap renderers, it would require to rewrite all that customized renderers. The way I would do it is, that entity would contain only logic specific components, like AI,transform,scripts plus reference to mesh, or sprite. Then some entity with Camera component would store all references to object that is visible to the camera. And in order to render all that stuff I would have to pass Camera reference to Renderer class and render all sprites,meshes of visible entities. Is such approach somehow wrong?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >