Search Results

Search found 23667 results on 947 pages for 'level design'.

Page 31/947 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

  • Abstracting functionality

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/08/22/abstracting-functionality.aspxWhat is more important than data? Functionality. Yes, I strongly believe we should switch to a functionality over data mindset in programming. Or actually switch back to it. Focus on functionality Functionality once was at the core of software development. Back when algorithms were the first thing you heard about in CS classes. Sure, data structures, too, were important - but always from the point of view of algorithms. (Niklaus Wirth gave one of his books the title “Algorithms + Data Structures” instead of “Data Structures + Algorithms” for a reason.) The reason for the focus on functionality? Firstly, because software was and is about doing stuff. Secondly because sufficient performance was hard to achieve, and only thirdly memory efficiency. But then hardware became more powerful. That gave rise to a new mindset: object orientation. And with it functionality was devalued. Data took over its place as the most important aspect. Now discussions revolved around structures motivated by data relationships. (John Beidler gave his book the title “Data Structures and Algorithms: An Object Oriented Approach” instead of the other way around for a reason.) Sure, this data could be embellished with functionality. But nevertheless functionality was second. When you look at (domain) object models what you mostly find is (domain) data object models. The common object oriented approach is: data aka structure over functionality. This is true even for the most modern modeling approaches like Domain Driven Design. Look at the literature and what you find is recommendations on how to get data structures right: aggregates, entities, value objects. I´m not saying this is what object orientation was invented for. But I´m saying that´s what I happen to see across many teams now some 25 years after object orientation became mainstream through C++, Delphi, and Java. But why should we switch back? Because software development cannot become truly agile with a data focus. The reason for that lies in what customers need first: functionality, behavior, operations. To be clear, that´s not why software is built. The purpose of software is to be more efficient than the alternative. Money mainly is spent to get a certain level of quality (e.g. performance, scalability, security etc.). But without functionality being present, there is nothing to work on the quality of. What customers want is functionality of a certain quality. ASAP. And tomorrow new functionality needs to be added, existing functionality needs to be changed, and quality needs to be increased. No customer ever wanted data or structures. Of course data should be processed. Data is there, data gets generated, transformed, stored. But how the data is structured for this to happen efficiently is of no concern to the customer. Ask a customer (or user) whether she likes the data structured this way or that way. She´ll say, “I don´t care.” But ask a customer (or user) whether he likes the functionality and its quality this way or that way. He´ll say, “I like it” (or “I don´t like it”). Build software incrementally From this very natural focus of customers and users on functionality and its quality follows we should develop software incrementally. That´s what Agility is about. Deliver small increments quickly and often to get frequent feedback. That way less waste is produced, and learning can take place much easier (on the side of the customer as well as on the side of developers). An increment is some added functionality or quality of functionality.[1] So as it turns out, Agility is about functionality over whatever. But software developers’ thinking is still stuck in the object oriented mindset of whatever over functionality. Bummer. I guess that (at least partly) explains why Agility always hits a glass ceiling in projects. It´s a clash of mindsets, of cultures. Driving software development by demanding small increases in functionality runs against thinking about software as growing (data) structures sprinkled with functionality. (Excuse me, if this sounds a bit broad-brush. But you get my point.) The need for abstraction In the end there need to be data structures. Of course. Small and large ones. The phrase functionality over data does not deny that. It´s not functionality instead of data or something. It´s just over, i.e. functionality should be thought of first. It´s a tad more important. It´s what the customer wants. That´s why we need a way to design functionality. Small and large. We need to be able to think about functionality before implementing it. We need to be able to reason about it among team members. We need to be able to communicate our mental models of functionality not just by speaking about them, but also on paper. Otherwise reasoning about it does not scale. We learned thinking about functionality in the small using flow charts, Nassi-Shneiderman diagrams, pseudo code, or UML sequence diagrams. That´s nice and well. But it does not scale. You can use these tools to describe manageable algorithms. But it does not work for the functionality triggered by pressing the “1-Click Order” on an amazon product page for example. There are several reasons for that, I´d say. Firstly, the level of abstraction over code is negligible. It´s essentially non-existent. Drawing a flow chart or writing pseudo code or writing actual code is very, very much alike. All these tools are about control flow like code is.[2] In addition all tools are computationally complete. They are about logic which is expressions and especially control statements. Whatever you code in Java you can fully (!) describe using a flow chart. And then there is no data. They are about control flow and leave out the data altogether. Thus data mostly is assumed to be global. That´s shooting yourself in the foot, as I hope you agree. Even if it´s functionality over data that does not mean “don´t think about data”. Right to the contrary! Functionality only makes sense with regard to data. So data needs to be in the picture right from the start - but it must not dominate the thinking. The above tools fail on this. Bottom line: So far we´re unable to reason in a scalable and abstract manner about functionality. That´s why programmers are so driven to start coding once they are presented with a problem. Programming languages are the only tool they´ve learned to use to reason about functional solutions. Or, well, there might be exceptions. Mathematical notation and SQL may have come to your mind already. Indeed they are tools on a higher level of abstraction than flow charts etc. That´s because they are declarative and not computationally complete. They leave out details - in order to deliver higher efficiency in devising overall solutions. We can easily reason about functionality using mathematics and SQL. That´s great. Except for that they are domain specific languages. They are not general purpose. (And they don´t scale either, I´d say.) Bummer. So to be more precise we need a scalable general purpose tool on a higher than code level of abstraction not neglecting data. Enter: Flow Design. Abstracting functionality using data flows I believe the solution to the problem of abstracting functionality lies in switching from control flow to data flow. Data flow very naturally is not about logic details anymore. There are no expressions and no control statements anymore. There are not even statements anymore. Data flow is declarative by nature. With data flow we get rid of all the limiting traits of former approaches to modeling functionality. In addition, nomen est omen, data flows include data in the functionality picture. With data flows, data is visibly flowing from processing step to processing step. Control is not flowing. Control is wherever it´s needed to process data coming in. That´s a crucial difference and needs some rewiring in your head to be fully appreciated.[2] Since data flows are declarative they are not the right tool to describe algorithms, though, I´d say. With them you don´t design functionality on a low level. During design data flow processing steps are black boxes. They get fleshed out during coding. Data flow design thus is more coarse grained than flow chart design. It starts on a higher level of abstraction - but then is not limited. By nesting data flows indefinitely you can design functionality of any size, without losing sight of your data. Data flows scale very well during design. They can be used on any level of granularity. And they can easily be depicted. Communicating designs using data flows is easy and scales well, too. The result of functional design using data flows is not algorithms (too low level), but processes. Think of data flows as descriptions of industrial production lines. Data as material runs through a number of processing steps to be analyzed, enhances, transformed. On the top level of a data flow design might be just one processing step, e.g. “execute 1-click order”. But below that are arbitrary levels of flows with smaller and smaller steps. That´s not layering as in “layered architecture”, though. Rather it´s a stratified design à la Abelson/Sussman. Refining data flows is not your grandpa´s functional decomposition. That was rooted in control flows. Refining data flows does not suffer from the limits of functional decomposition against which object orientation was supposed to be an antidote. Summary I´ve been working exclusively with data flows for functional design for the past 4 years. It has changed my life as a programmer. What once was difficult is now easy. And, no, I´m not using Clojure or F#. And I´m not a async/parallel execution buff. Designing the functionality of increments using data flows works great with teams. It produces design documentation which can easily be translated into code - in which then the smallest data flow processing steps have to be fleshed out - which is comparatively easy. Using a systematic translation approach code can mirror the data flow design. That way later on the design can easily be reproduced from the code if need be. And finally, data flow designs play well with object orientation. They are a great starting point for class design. But that´s a story for another day. To me data flow design simply is one of the missing links of systematic lightweight software design. There are also other artifacts software development can produce to get feedback, e.g. process descriptions, test cases. But customers can be delighted more easily with code based increments in functionality. ? No, I´m not talking about the endless possibilities this opens for parallel processing. Data flows are useful independently of multi-core processors and Actor-based designs. That´s my whole point here. Data flows are good for reasoning and evolvability. So forget about any special frameworks you might need to reap benefits from data flows. None are necessary. Translating data flow designs even into plain of Java is possible. ?

    Read the article

  • Design for a machine learning artificial intelligence framework

    - by Lirik
    This is a community wiki which aims to provide a good design for a machine learning/artificial intelligence framework (ML/AI framework). Please contribute to the design of a language-agnostic framework which would allow multiple ML/AI algorithms to be plugged into a single framework which: runs the algorithms with a user-specified data set. facilitates learning, qualification, and classification. allows users to easily plug in new algorithms. can aggregate or create an ensemble of the existing algorithms. can save/load the progress of the algorithm (i.e. save the network and weights of a neural network, save the tree of a decision tree, etc.). What is a good design for this sort of ML/AI framework?

    Read the article

  • Design for a machine learning artificial intelligence framework (community wiki)

    - by Lirik
    This is a community wiki which aims to provide a good design for a machine learning/artificial intelligence framework (ML/AI framework). Please contribute to the design of a language-agnostic framework which would allow multiple ML/AI algorithms to be plugged into a single framework which: runs the algorithms with a user-specified data set. facilitates learning, qualification, and classification. allows users to easily plug in new algorithms. can aggregate or create an ensemble of the existing algorithms. can save/load the progress of the algorithm (i.e. save the network and weights of a neural network, save the tree of a decision tree, etc.). What is a good design for this sort of ML/AI framework?

    Read the article

  • Language Design: Combining Gotos and Functions

    - by sub
    I'm designing and currently rethinking a low-level interpreted programming language with similarities to assembler. I very soon came across the functions/loops/gotos decision problem and thought that while loops like while and for would be too high-level and unfitting, gotos would be too low level, unmaintainable and generally evil again. Functions like you know them from most languages that have return values and arguments aren't fitting in the language's concept either. So I tried to figure out something between a function and a goto which is capable of Recursion Efficient loops After some thinking I came up with the idea of subroutines: They have a beginning and an end like a function They have a name but no arguments like a goto You can go into one with jump and go out of it again before its end with return (doesn't give back any result, only stops the subroutine) Handled just like normal code - Global scope like goto So I wanted to know: Is the idea above good? What are the (dis)advantages? Would there be a better combination of function and goto or even a completely new idea?

    Read the article

  • Winforms Which Design Pattern / Agile Methodology to choose

    - by ZedBee
    I have developed desktop (winforms) applications without following any proper design pattern or agile methodologies. Now I have been given the task to re-write an existing ERP application in C# (Winforms). I have been reading about Domain Driven Design, scrum, extreme programming, layered architecture etc. Its quite confusing and really hard (because of time limitations) to go and try each and every method and then deciding which way to go. Its very hard for me to understand the bigger picture and see which pattern and agile methodology to follow. To be more specific about what I want to know is that: Is it possible to follow Domain Driven Design and still be agile. Should I choose Extreme programming or scrum in this specific scenario Where does MVP and MVVM fits, which one would be a better option for me

    Read the article

  • How to find level of employee position using RECURSIVE COMMON TABLE EXPRESSION

    - by user309381
    ;with Ranked(Empid,Mngrid,Empnm,RN,level) As ( select Empid,Mngrid ,Empnm ,row_number() over (order by Empid)AS RN , 0 as level from dbo.EmpMngr ), AnchorRanked(Empid,Mngrid,Empnm,RN,level) AS(select Empid,Mngrid,Empnm,RN ,level from Ranked ), RecurRanked(Empid,Mngrid,Empnm,RN,level) AS(select Empid,Mngrid,Empnm,RN,level from AnchorRanked Union All select Ranked.Empid,Ranked.Mngrid,Ranked.Empnm,Ranked.RN,Ranked.level + 1 from Ranked inner join RecurRanked on Ranked.Empid = RecurRanked.Empid AND Ranked.RN = RecurRanked.RN+1) select Empid,Empnm,level from RecurRanked

    Read the article

  • What design patterns are used in diagramming tools?

    - by TheMachineCharmer
    Diagram.net is good diagramming tool. I need to understand what design patterns are used by this tool so that I can understand how it works. What design patterns are used in this tool? What design patterns are generally used for diagramming tools? I would also like to know how can I use this to develop very simple diagramming tool (Only rectangular nodes and straight links). NOTE/Caution: I am doing this for FUN so please don't direct me to existing tools(I might down vote.. just kiddin ;).

    Read the article

  • android call log like design

    - by Alxandr
    I'm trying to create a design for a list that looks like (and mostly behaves like) the call log, like shown here: I don't need all the design, but what I'm trying to achieve is the two-columned design with the splitter in-between, and the behavior that if I click on the main item (the left part) one thing happens (in this case, you open some details about the call), and if you press the outer right part something else happens (you call the contact). I'm pretty new to android, but I've managed to do most of the designs I wanted so far, so I don't need the entire layout for this one, only the part that does the splitting and the splitter. And if possible it would be nice to know how to map the clicks appropriately, though I think I might be able to find that out by my self.

    Read the article

  • View centric design with Django

    - by wishi_
    Hi! I'm relatively new to Django and I'm designing a website that primarily needs usability experience, speaking of optimized CSS, HTML5 and UI stuff. It's very easy to use Django for data/Model centric design. Just designing a couple of Python classes and ./manage.py syncdb - there's your Model. But I'm dealing with a significant amount of View centric challenges. (Different user classes, different tasks, different design challenges.) The official Django tutorial cursorily goes through using a "Template". Is there any Design centric guide for Django, or a set of Templates that are ready and useable? I don't want to start from scratch using JS, HTML5, Ajax and everything. From the Model layer perspective Django is very rapid and delivering a working base system. I wonder whether there's something like that for the Views.

    Read the article

  • Alternative design for a synonyms table?

    - by Majid
    I am working on an app which is to suggest alternative words/phrases for input text. I have doubts about what might be a good design for the synonyms table. Design considerations: number of synonyms is variable, i.e. football has one synonym (soccer), but in particular has two (particularly, specifically) if football is a synonym to soccer, the relation exists in the opposite direction as well. our goal is to query a word and find its synonyms we want to keep the table small and make adding new words easy What comes to my mind is a two column design with col a = word and col b = delimited list of synonyms Is there any better alternative? What about using two tables, one for words and the other for relations?

    Read the article

  • Proper design a Model-Controller in Cocoa?

    - by legege
    Hi, I'm trying to design a simple Cocoa application and I would like to have a clear and easy to understand software architecture. Of course, I'm using a basic MVC design and my question concerns the Model layer. For my application, the Model represents data fetched on the Internet with a XML-RPC API. I'm planning to use Core Data to represent a locally fetched version. How should the data be loaded initially? I'm reading the Cocoa Design Pattern book, and they talk about a Model-Controller that is centric to the Model. How would that be done? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Good workflow for website design

    - by Olav
    I would like some idea about a good workflow for Website Design, with a high degree of "offshoring" (Elance, Odesk etc.). I would to do as much as possible "pre production", with client input, ideas etc. stored in IA diagrams, wireframe mockups etc. in something like a Wiki. Also a like the idea about having different people come up with different design proposals. Wouldlike to have some ideas of costs of different phases and tasks ($, %, hours). With Design I mean roughly the aspects of a site that can be done with client-side tools, especially XHTML and CSS. What other tools should I use than IA diagrams.

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for mouse interaction

    - by mike
    I need some opinions on what is the "ideal" design pattern for a general mouse interaction. Here the simplified problem. I have a small 3d program (QT and openGL) and I use the mouse for interaction. Every interaction is normally not only a single function call, it is mostly performed by up to 3 function calls (initiate, perform, finalize). For example, camera rotation: here the initial function call will deliver the current first mouse position, whereas the performing function calls will update the camera etc. However, for only a couple of interactions, hardcoding these (inside MousePressEvent, MouseReleaseEvent MouseMoveEvent or MouseWheelEvent etc) is not a big deal, but if I think about a more advanced program (e.g 20 or more interactions) then a proper design is needed. Therefore, how would you design such a interactions inside QT. I hope I made my problem clear enough, otherwise don't bother complain :-) Thanks

    Read the article

  • Good Design for Initialization of Static Array

    - by jplot
    I have a question regarding good design in C++. I have a class A, and all objects of this class use an integer array of constant values (they should share the same array, as their values are constant). The array needs to be computed (just once) before any object A. I thought about having another class B which contains the integer array as a static member, an init() method which would fill this array according to some formula and a static boolean flag initialized (if this variable if true then the init() method would do nothing), but I'm not sure this is the best way to solve my design issue. So my question is, what would be a good design/way to accomplish this ? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • I've been hired on as a entry-level game developer at a company and have little/no experience in API programming, what should I expect?

    - by Mr. Geneth
    So, I've been hired on as an entry level game developer with little/no experience working with any API other than Win32. This will be an overall learning experience for me as a person and I have gone over this multiple times with the boss and he has no problem with my inexperience. He says that if I'm not worth it now, I will be later. This gives me confidence, but I still feel that I should know a lot more before tackling this position. I would be stupid to pass it up. This is one of my favorite places to come for advice and help and have tried to just accept this, but it just keeps bothering that I can't go in knowing how to at least do the basics. I want to give the company its money's worth. Ya know? My questions are: What should I expect from the other programmers in this project (In terms of patience with me and working together, and being taught)? Is this normal? Any other advice on this sort of thing would be wonderful. I just want to feel comfortable with it.

    Read the article

  • database design help for game / user levels / progress

    - by sprugman
    Sorry this got long and all prose-y. I'm creating my first truly gamified web app and could use some help thinking about how to structure the data. The Set-up Users need to accomplish tasks in each of several categories before they can move up a level. I've got my Users, Tasks, and Categories tables, and a UserTasks table which joins the three. ("User 3 has added Task 42 in Category 8. Now they've completed it.") That's all fine and working wonderfully. The Challenge I'm not sure of the best way to track the progress in the individual categories toward each level. The "business" rules are: You have to achieve a certain number of points in each category to move up. If you get the number of points needed in Cat 8, but still have other work to do to complete the level, any new Cat 8 points count toward your overall score, but don't "roll over" into the next level. The number of Categories is small (five currently) and unlikely to change often, but by no means absolutely fixed. The number of points needed to level-up will vary per level, probably by a formula, or perhaps a lookup table. So the challenge is to track each user's progress toward the next level in each category. I've thought of a few potential approaches: Possible Solutions Add a column to the users table for each category and reset them all to zero each time a user levels-up. Have a separate UserProgress table with a row for each category for each user and the number of points they have. (Basically a Many-to-Many version of #1.) Add a userLevel column to the UserTasks table and use that to derive their progress with some kind of SUM statement. Their current level will be a simple int in the User table. Pros & Cons (1) seems like by far the most straightforward, but it's also the least flexible. Perhaps I could use a naming convention based on the category ids to help overcome some of that. (With code like "select cats; for each cat, get the value from Users.progress_{cat.id}.") It's also the one where I lose the most data -- I won't know which points counted toward leveling up. I don't have a need in mind for that, so maybe I don't care about that. (2) seems complicated: every time I add or subtract a user or a category, I have to maintain the other table. I foresee synchronization challenges. (3) Is somewhere in between -- cleaner than #2, but less intuitive than #1. In order to find out where a user is, I'd have mildly complex SQL like: SELECT categoryId, SUM(points) from UserTasks WHERE userId={user.id} & countsTowardLevel={user.level} groupBy categoryId Hmm... that doesn't seem so bad. I think I'm talking myself into #3 here, but would love any input, advice or other ideas. P.S. Sorry for the cross-post. I wrote this up on SO and then remembered that there was a game dev-focused one. Curious to see if I get different answers one place than the other....

    Read the article

  • Were the first assemblers written in machine code?

    - by The111
    I am reading the book The Elements of Computing Systems: Building a Modern Computer from First Principles, which contains projects encompassing the build of a computer from boolean gates all the way to high level applications (in that order). The current project I'm working on is writing an assembler using a high level language of my choice, to translate from Hack assembly code to Hack machine code (Hack is the name of the hardware platform built in the previous chapters). Although the hardware has all been built in a simulator, I have tried to pretend that I am really constructing each level using only the tools available to me at that point in the real process. That said, it got me thinking. Using a high level language to write my assembler is certainly convenient, but for the very first assembler ever written (i.e. in history), wouldn't it need to be written in machine code, since that's all that existed at the time? And a correlated question... how about today? If a brand new CPU architecture comes out, with a brand new instruction set, and a brand new assembly syntax, how would the assembler be constructed? I'm assuming you could still use an existing high level language to generate binaries for the assembler program, since if you know the syntax of both the assembly and machine languages for your new platform, then the task of writing the assembler is really just a text analysis task and is not inherently related to that platform (i.e. needing to be written in that platform's machine language)... which is the very reason I am able to "cheat" while writing my Hack assembler in 2012, and use some preexisting high level language to help me out.

    Read the article

  • Worst Web Site Design Ever

    - by Alex Angas
    I'm looking for a very good example of a very poorly designed web site. For example: use of <blink> mixed with many 'cute' animated GIFs (a common home page in the mid-'90s). It needs to display relatively correctly in the popular web browsers of today. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • How Does EoR Design Work with Multi-tiered Data Center Topology

    - by S.C.
    I just did a ton of reading about the different multi-tier network topology options as outlined by Cisco, and now that I'm looking at the physical options (End of Row (EoR) vs Top of Rack(ToR)), I find myself confused about how these fit into the logical constructs. With ToR it also maps 1:1: at the top of each rack there is a switch(es) that essentially act as the access layer. They connect via fiber to other switches, maybe chassis-based, that act as the aggregation layer, that then connect to the core layer. With EoR it seems that the servers are connecting directly to the aggregation layer, skipping the access layer all together, by plugging directly into what are typically chassis switches. In EoR then is the standard 3-tier model now a 2-tier model: the servers go to the chassis switch which goes straight to the core switch? The reason it matters to me is that my understanding was that the 3-tier model was more desirable due to less complexity. The agg switch pair acts as default gateway and does routing; if you use up all of your ports in your agg layer pair it's much more complicated to add additional switches, than simply adding more switches at the access layer. Are there other downsides to this layout? Does this 3-tier architecture still apply in some way in EoR? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • design question for transportation agency/workflow system

    - by George2
    I am designing a transportation agency/workflow system, and it including 3 types of people, customer who requests to transport some stuff, drivers who deliver the stuff, and truck manager who manages transport source/destination truck coordination and communicates/organizes drivers. The system is expected to be a web site, and 3 kinds of people could use the web site to submit request, accept request, monitor status of specific stuff transportation, etc. The web site is more like an open agency or a workflow system. I am wondering whether there are any existing technologies, tools or projects (better to be open source, but not a must) which I could build my application faster based on? I prefer to use .Net technologies, but not a must. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Database Design - Surrogate keys: Part 1 of many (Rules for Surrogate Keys, E. F. Codd and C J Date

    - by tonyrogerson
    I started writing an article for my blog on surrogate keys drawing in the original research by E F Codd and C J Date, its getting a bit big :) so I'm going to chop it up into a number of posts over the coming weeks depending on my time. I'm interested in your thoughts and if you disagree please let me know but more importantly give me references back to papers stating why you take that position. Hope it makes sense. Surrogate keys There are two factions in the world of Database Design that...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Principes universels du design de William Lidwell , Kritina Holden , Jill Butler, critique par Benwit

    Je viens de lire un livre intitulé "Principes universels du design" [IMG]http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/2212128622.08.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/IMG] Sur la couverture recto/verso, ce qui ressemble à des traits jaunes verticaux, ce sont les noms des 125 principes de design présentés dans ce livre. Entendons nous bien, il ne s'agit pas de Design Pattern (modèle de conception pour votre modèle de données) mais des principes de design utilisé lors de la conception d'objets (IHM comprise). Quels principes de design utilisez vous dans la conception de vos IHM ? Avez vous lu ce livre, pensez vous le lire ?...

    Read the article

  • Join the Authors of SSIS Design Patterns at the PASS Summit 2012!

    - by andyleonard
    My fellow authors and I will be presenting a day-long pre-conference session titled SSIS Design Patterns at the PASS Summit 2012 in Seattle Monday 5 Nov 2012! Register to learn patterns for: Package execution Package logging Loading flat file sources Loading XML sources Loading the cloud Dynamic package generation SSIS Frameworks Data warehouse ETL Data flow performance   Presenting this session: Matt Masson Tim Mitchell Jessica Moss Michelle Ufford Andy Leonard I hope to see you in Seattle!...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Learn SSIS from the Authors of SSIS Design Patterns at the PASS Summit 2012!

    - by andyleonard
    Jessica Moss ( blog | @jessicammoss ), Michelle Ufford ( blog | @sqlfool ), Tim Mitchell ( blog | @tim_mitchell ), Matt Masson ( blog | @mattmasson ), and me – we are all presenting the SSIS Design Patterns pre-conference session at the PASS Summit 2012 ! We will be covering material from, and based upon, the book. We will describe and demonstrate patterns for package execution, package logging, loading flat file and XML sources, loading the cloud, dynamic package generation, SSIS Frameworks, data...(read more)

    Read the article

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