Search Results

Search found 9254 results on 371 pages for 'approach'.

Page 31/371 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

  • How to credit other authors in an open source project

    - by erik
    I have a pet project that I am planning to release as open source at some point in the not-too-distant future. A couple of the files use or are mostly code that was taken from a project released under the New BSD License. While I have changed it to fit my needs and added some small stuff, the algorithm and the functionality is basically exactly the same. I want to make sure that the author of the code gets credit and that the license is not broken, but I also want to make the reader aware that this is not the code as it was orignally released. How should I approach this? Should I isolate the code as much as possible and just retain the original license? Maybe put all the files that contain foreign code in their own folder and add a readme explaining what has been added/removed? There must have been tons of projects using other open source code. What is the standard approach to this?

    Read the article

  • How should I pitch moving to an agile/iterative development cycle with mandated 3-week deployments?

    - by Wayne M
    I'm part of a small team of four, and I'm the unofficial team lead (I'm lead in all but title, basically). We've largely been a "cowboy" environment, with no architecture or structure and everyone doing their own thing. Previously, our production deployments would be every few months without being on a set schedule, as things were added/removed to the task list of each developer. Recently, our CIO (semi-technical but not really a programmer) decided we will do deployments every three weeks; because of this I instantly thought that adopting an iterative development process (not necessarily full-blown Agile/XP, which would be a huge thing to convince everyone else to do) would go a long way towards helping manage expectations properly so there isn't this far-fetched idea that any new feature will be done in three weeks. IMO the biggest hurdle is that we don't have ANY kind of development approach in place right now (among other things like no CI or automated tests whatsoever). We don't even use Waterfall, we use "Tell Developer X to do a task, expect him to do everything and get it done". Are there any pointers that would help me start to ease us towards an iterative approach and A) Get the other developers on board with it and B) Get management to understand how iterative works? So far my idea involves trying to set up a CI server and get our build process automated (it takes about 10-20 minutes right now to simply build the application to put it on our development server), since pushing tests and/or TDD will be met with a LOT of resistance at this point, and constantly force us to break larger projects into smaller chunks that could be done iteratively in a three-week cycle; my only concern is that, unless I'm misunderstanding, an agile/iterative process may or may not release the software (depending on the project scope you might have "working" software after three weeks, but there isn't enough of it that works to let users make use of it), while I think the expectation here from management is that there will always be something "ready to go" in three weeks, and that disconnect could cause problems. On that note, is there any literature or references that explains the agile/iterative approach from a business standpoint? Everything I've seen only focuses on the developers, how to do it, but nothing seems to describe it from the perspective of actually getting the buy-in from the businesspeople.

    Read the article

  • Designing Algorithm Flowchart Application

    - by l46kok
    I need to develop an GUI application in C# where users can freely add conditional/statement blocks on the algorithm flowchart like the one shown below. By freely, I mean users can add a block on wherever the arrows are. I'm having some problems brainstorming how to approach this problem, especially what to choose for my datastructure to store the blocks. I was thinking LinkedList since everything follows a linear fashion and every node always has a head and tail, but the If/Else block (ba) has two branches (heads) to store, so this complicates things a little bit. How would a smart one approach problems like this? My apologies if this question isn't suited for Programmers stackexchange, but this is more of a conceptual problem rather than implementation problem so I figured this place was appropriate for the question.

    Read the article

  • How do you develop web applications? [closed]

    - by ck3g
    How do you and/or your team develop your web applications? Language, framework or platform doesn't matter. I would like to know about the structure of your environment. For example: Using IDE on workstation and project files on remote host accessing via sftp. Files are saved instantly on remote host; All files are local and are uploaded on remote host during saving; Files are local, web server is running on local computer and is tested at local host. etc. You could write down also about the benefits of your approach, this will be useful for me. Thanks upd: Here must be a question and here it is: which is the best approach by your opinion?

    Read the article

  • *Code owner* system: is it an efficient way?

    - by sergzach
    There is a new developer in our team. An agile methodology is in use at our company. But the developer has another experience: he considers that particular parts of the code must be assigned to particular developers. So if one developer had created a program procedure or module it would be considered normal that all changes of the procedure/module would be made by him only. On the plus side, supposedly with the proposed approach we save common development time, because each developer knows his part of the code well and makes fixes fast. The downside is that developers don't know the system entirely. Do you think the approach will work well for a medium size system (development of a social network site)?

    Read the article

  • ING: Scaling Role Management and Access Certification to Thousands of Applications

    - by Tanu Sood
    Organizations deal with employee and user access certifications in different ways.  There’s collation of multiple spreadsheets, an intense two-week exercise by managers or use of access certification tools to do so across a handful of applications. But for most organizations compliance is about certifying user access for thousands of employees across hundreds of systems. Managing and auditing millions of entitlement combinations on a periodic basis poses a huge scale challenge. ING solved the compliance scale challenge using an Identity Platform approach. Join the live webcast featuring ING’s enterprise architect, Mark Robison, as he discusses how a platform approach offers value that is greater than the sum of its parts and enables ING to successfully meet their security and compliance goals. Mark will also share his implementation experiences and discuss the key requirements to manage the complexity and scale of access certification efforts at ING. Mark will be joined by Neil Gandhi, Principal Product Manager for Oracle Identity Analytics. Live WebcastING: Scaling Role Management and Access Certification to Thousands of ApplicationsWednesday, April 11th at 10 am Pacific/ 1 pm EasternRegister Today

    Read the article

  • Where would my different development rhythm be suitable for the work?

    - by DarenW
    Over the years I have worked on many projects, with some successful and a great benefit to the company, and some total failures with me getting fired or otherwise leaving. What is the difference? Naturally I prefer the former and wish to avoid the latter, so I'm pondering this issue. The key seems to be that my personal approach differs from the norm. I write code first, letting it be all spaghetti and chaos, using whatever tools "fit my hand" that I'm fluent in. I try to organize it, then give up and start over with a better design. I go through cycles, from thinking-design to coding-testing. This may seem to be the same as any other development process, Agile or whatever, cycling between design and coding, but there does seem to be a subtle difference: The methods (ideally) followed by most teams goes design, code; design, code; ... while I'm going code, design; code, design; (if that makes any sense.) Music analogy: some types of music have a strong downbeat while others have prominent syncopation. In practice, I just can't think in terms of UML, specifications and so on, but grok things only by attempting to code and debug and refactor ad-hoc. I need the grounding provided by coding in order to think constructively, then to offer any opinions, advice or solutions to the team and get real work done. In positions where I can initially hack up cowboy code without constraints of tool or language choices, I easily gain a "feel" for the data, requirements etc and eventually do good work. In formalized positions where paperwork and pure "design" comes first and only later any coding (even for small proof-of-concept projects), I am lost at sea and drown. Therefore, I'd like to know how to either 1) change my rhythm to match the more formalized methodology-oriented team ways of doing things, or 2) find positions at organizations where my sense of development rhythm is perfect for the work. It's probably unrealistic for a person to change their fundamental approach to things. So option 2) is preferred. So where I can I find such positions? How common is my approach and where is it seen as viable but different, and not dismissed as undisciplined or cowboy coder ways?

    Read the article

  • Simple vs Complex (but performance efficient) solution - which one to choose and when?

    - by ManojGumber
    I have been programming for a couple of years and have often found myself at a dilemma. There are two solutions - one is simple one i.e. simple approach, easier to understand and maintain. It involves some redundancy, some extra work (extra IO, extra processing) and therefore is not the most optimal solution. but other uses a complex approach,difficult to implement, often involving interaction between lot of modules and is a performance efficient solution. Which solution should I strive for when I do not have hard performance SLA to meet and even the simple solution can meet the performance SLA? I have felt disdain among my fellow developers for simple solution. Is it good practice to come up with most optimal complex solution if your performance SLA can be met by a simple solution?

    Read the article

  • Design patterns and multiple programming languages

    - by Eduard Florinescu
    I am referring here to the design patterns found in the GOF book. First, how I see it, there are a few peculiarities to design pattern and knowing multiple languages, for example in Java you really need a singleton but in Python you can do without it you write a module, I saw somewhere a wiki trying to write all GOF patterns for JavaScript and all the entries were empty, I guess because it might be a daunting task to do that adaptation. If there is someone who is using design patterns and is programming multiple languages supporting the OOP paradigm and can give me a hint on how should I approach design patterns. An approach that might help me in all languages I use(Java, JavaScript, Python, Ruby): Can I write good application without knowing exactly the GOF design patterns or I might need just some of them which might be crucial and if yes which one, are there alternatives to GOF for specific languages, and should a programmer or a team make their own design patterns set?

    Read the article

  • Class Design -- Multiple Calls from One Method or One Call from Multiple Methods?

    - by Andrew
    I've been working on some code recently that interfaces with a CMS we use and it's presented me with a question on class design that I think is applicable in a number of situations. Essentially, what I am doing is extracting information from the CMS and transforming this information into objects that I can use programatically for other purposes. This consists of two steps: Retrieve the data from the CMS (we have a DAL that I use, so this is essentially just specifying what data from the CMS I want--no connection logic or anything like that) Map the parsed data to my own [C#] objects There are basically two ways I can approach this: One call from multiple methods public void MainMethodWhereIDoStuff() { IEnumerable<MyObject> myObjects = GetMyObjects(); // Do other stuff with myObjects } private static IEnumerable<MyObject> GetMyObjects() { IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> cmsDataItems = GetCmsDataItems(); List<MyObject> mappedObjects = new List<MyObject>(); // do stuff to map the CmsDataItems to MyObjects return mappedObjects; } private static IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> GetCmsDataItems() { List<CmsDataItem> cmsDataItems = new List<CmsDataItem>(); // do stuff to get the CmsDataItems I want return cmsDataItems; } Multiple calls from one method public void MainMethodWhereIDoStuff() { IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> cmsDataItems = GetCmsDataItems(); IEnumerable<MyObject> myObjects = GetMyObjects(cmsDataItems); // do stuff with myObjects } private static IEnumerable<MyObject> GetMyObjects(IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> itemsToMap) { // ... } private static IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> GetCmsDataItems() { // ... } I am tempted to say that the latter is better than the former, as GetMyObjects does not depend on GetCmsDataItems, and it is explicit in the calling method the steps that are executed to retrieve the objects (I'm concerned that the first approach is kind of an object-oriented version of spaghetti code). On the other hand, the two helper methods are never going to be used outside of the class, so I'm not sure if it really matters whether one depends on the other. Furthermore, I like the fact that in the first approach the objects can be retrieved from one line-- most likely anyone working with the main method doesn't care how the objects are retrieved, they just need to retrieve the objects, and the "daisy chained" helper methods hide the exact steps needed to retrieve them (in practice, I actually have a few more methods but am still able to retrieve the object collection I want in one line). Is one of these methods right and the other wrong? Or is it simply a matter of preference or context dependent?

    Read the article

  • [PHP] Version Changes: How considerable are the compatibility issues in project?

    - by AdityaGameProgrammer
    For example if we consider ActionScript2.0(based on Objects but programming does not implement much OOP ) vs 3.0(highly OOP) its like a whole new scripting language in the sense of approach, programming style,features you get the idea. In PHP we can see current versions going from 3-5. brief version changes Question :Developers who work on PHP is it easy to migrate from version to version? Question :Are there any extensive compatibility issues, forward or backward? Question :Does your project stick to a particular version till the end ? Question :Does the programming style ,approach change from version to version? Question :If you had to get started on PHP to contribute to a project built earlier versions, would learning the latest version be counterproductive towards this aim? Some related topics i had come across on SE How should I be keeping track of php script version/changes? What is happening to PHP 6? It would be Really helpful in understanding if you could answer this topic directly to the questions put forth.

    Read the article

  • Auto-Configuring SSIS Packages

    - by Davide Mauri
    SSIS Package Configurations are very useful to make packages flexible so that you can change objects properties at run-time and thus make the package configurable without having to open and edit it. In a complex scenario where you have dozen of packages (even in in the smallest BI project I worked on I had 50 packages), each package may have its own configuration needs. This means that each time you have to run the package you have to pass the correct Package Configuration. I usually use XML configuration files and I also force everyone that works with me to make sure that an object that is used in several packages has the same name in all package where it is used, in order to simplify configurations usage. Connection Managers are a good example of one of those objects. For example, all the packages that needs to access to the Data Warehouse database must have a Connection Manager named DWH. Basically we define a set of “global” objects so that we can have a configuration file for them, so that it can be used by all packages. If a package as some specific configuration needs, we create a specific – or “local” – XML configuration file or we set the value that needs to be configured at runtime using DTLoggedExec’s Package Parameters: http://dtloggedexec.davidemauri.it/Package%20Parameters.ashx Now, how we can improve this even more? I’d like to have a package that, when it’s run, automatically goes “somewhere” and search for global or local configuration, loads it and applies it to itself. That’s the basic idea of Auto-Configuring Packages. The “somewhere” is a SQL Server table, defined in this way In this table you’ll put the values that you want to be used at runtime by your package: The ConfigurationFilter column specify to which package that configuration line has to be applied. A package will use that line only if the value specified in the ConfigurationFilter column is equal to its name. In the above sample. only the package named “simple-package” will use the line number two. There is an exception here: the $$Global value indicate a configuration row that has to be applied to any package. With this simple behavior it’s possible to replicate the “global” and the “local” configuration approach I’ve described before. The ConfigurationValue contains the value you want to be applied at runtime and the PackagePath contains the object to which that value will be applied. The ConfiguredValueType column defined the data type of the value and the Checksum column is contains a calculated value that is simply the hash value of ConfigurationFilter plus PackagePath so that it can be used as a Primary Key to guarantee uniqueness of configuration rows. As you may have noticed the table is very similar to the table originally used by SSIS in order to put DTS Configuration into SQL Server tables: SQL Server SSIS Configuration Type: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms141682.aspx Now, how it works? It’s very easy: you just have to call DTLoggedExec with the /AC option: DTLoggedExec.exe /FILE:”mypackage.dtsx” /AC:"localhost;ssis_auto_configuration;ssiscfg.configuration" the AC option expects a string with the following format: <database_server>;<database_name>;<table_name>; only Windows Authentication is supported. When DTLoggedExec finds an Auto-Configuration request, it injects a new connection manager in the loaded package. The injected connection manager is named $$DTLoggedExec_AutoConfigure and is used by the two SQL Server DTS Configuration ($$DTLoggedExec_Global and $$DTLoggedExec_Local) also injected by DTLoggedExec, used to load “local” and “global” configuration. Now, you may start to wonder why this approach cannot be used without having all this stuff going around, but just passing to a package always two XML DTS Configuration files, (to have to “local” and the “global” configurations) doing something like this: DTLoggedExec.exe /FILE:”mypackage.dtsx” /CONF:”global.dtsConfig” /CONF:”mypackage.dtsConfig” The problem is that this approach doesn’t work if you have, in one of the two configuration file, a value that has to be applied to an object that doesn’t exists in the loaded package. This situation will raise an error that will halt package execution. To solve this problem, you may want to create a configuration file for each package. Unfortunately this will make deployment and management harder, since you’ll have to deal with a great number of configuration files. The Auto-Configuration approach solve all these problems at once! We’re using it in a project where we have hundreds of packages and I can tell you that deployment of packages and their configuration for the pre-production and production environment has never been so easy! To use the Auto-Configuration option you have to download the latest DTLoggedExec release: http://dtloggedexec.codeplex.com/releases/view/62218 Feedback, as usual, are very welcome!

    Read the article

  • System Wide Performance Sanity Check Procedures

    - by user702295
    Do you need to boost your overall implementation performance? Do you need a direction to pinpoint possible performance opportunities? Are you looking for a general performance guide? Try MOS note 69565.1.  This paper describes a holistic methodology that defines a systematic approach to resolve complex Application performance problems.  It has been successfully used on many critical accounts.  The 'end-to-end' tuning approach encompasses the client, network and database and has proven far more effective than isolated tuning exercises.  It has been used to define and measure targets to ensure success.  Even though it was checked for relevance on 13-Oct-2008, the procedure is still very valuable. Regards!  

    Read the article

  • Can WinRT really be used at just the boundaries?

    - by Bret Kuhns
    Microsoft (chiefly, Herb Sutter) recommends when using WinRT with C++/CX to keep WinRT at the boundaries of the application and keep the core of the application written in standard ISO C++. I've been writing an application which I would like to leave portable, so my core functionality was written in standard C++, and I am now attempting to write a Metro-style front end for it using C++/CX. I've had a bit of a problem with this approach, however. For example, if I want to push a vector of user-defined C++ types to a XAML ListView control, I have to wrap my user-defined type in a WinRT ref/value type for it to be stored in a Vector^. With this approach, I'm inevitably left with wrapping a large portion of my C++ classes with WinRT classes. This is the first time I've tried to write a portable native application in C++. Is it really practical to keep WinRT along the boundaries like this? How else could this type of portable core with a platform-specific boundary be handled?

    Read the article

  • How do you balance documentation requirements with Agile developments

    - by Jeremy
    In our development group there is currently discussions around agile and waterfal methodology. No-one has any practical experience with agile, but we are doing some reading. The agile manifesto lists 4 values: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan We are an internal development group developing applications for the consumption of other units in our enterprise. A team of 10 developers builds and releases multiple projects simultanously, typically with 1 - maybe 2 (rarely) developer on each project. It seems to be that from a supportability perspective the organization needs to put some real value on documentation - as without it, there are serious risks with resourcing changes. With agile favouring interactions, and software deliverables over processes and documentation, how do you balance that with the requirements of supportable systems and maintaining knowledge and understanding of how those systems work? With a waterfall approach which favours documentation (requirements before design, design specs before construction) it is easy to build a process that meets some of the organizational requirements - how do we do this with an agile approach?

    Read the article

  • How to make the transition to functional programming?

    - by tahatmat
    Lately, I have been very intrigued with F# which I have been working a bit with. Coming mostly from Java and C#, I like how concise and easily understandable it is. However, I believe that my background with these imperative languages disturb my way of thinking when programming in F#. I found a comparison of the imperative and functional approach, and I surely do recognize the "imperative way" of programming, but I also find it difficult to define problems to fit well with the functional approach. So my question is: How do I best make the transition from object-oriented programming to functional programming? Can you provide some tips or perhaps provide some literature that can help one to think "in functions" in general?

    Read the article

  • A Grand Unified Theory of AI

    A new approach unites two prevailing but often opposed strains in the history of AI research Artificial intelligence - Physics - Alternative - Quantum Mechanics - Quantum Field Theory

    Read the article

  • Establishing relationships with unsolicited recruiters

    - by Michael
    Several times each year, I receive unsolicited introductions from tech recruiters, usually via LinkedIn and usually local firms. I am not currently looking for a new job. Is it advisable to establish a relationship with one or more recruiters when I'm not interested in finding new work, so that they have my resume on file? Here's another way I approach the question: My plumber was first hired at the point of need: I had a plumbing problem, looked up a few of them, and evaluated and hired based on their demeanor and cost estimates. I established a relationship with a general attorney, on the other hand, well in advance of ever actually needing services so that if or when services are needed he already knows enough about me to begin work. Should I approach recruiters like I approached my plumber or my lawyer? A separate discussion, I suppose, is whether or not the type of recruiters who troll LinkedIn for clients are generally helpful or not. Edit: I have never worked with a recruiter before, and therefore have little idea what to expect.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >