Search Results

Search found 8440 results on 338 pages for 'wms implementation'.

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

Page 39/338 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

  • Choosing Technology To Include In Software Design

    How many of us have been forced to select one technology over another when designing a new system? What factors do we and should we consider? How can we ensure the correct business decision is made? When faced with this type of decision it is important to gather as much information possible regarding each technology being considered as well as the project itself. Additionally, I tend to delay my decision about the technology until it is ultimately necessary to be made. The reason why I tend to delay such an important design decision is due to the fact that as the project progresses requirements and other factors can alter a decision for selecting the best technology for a project. Important factors to consider when making technology decisions: Time to Implement and Maintain Total Cost of Technology (including Implementation and maintenance) Adaptability of Technology Implementation Team’s Skill Sets Complexity of Technology (including Implementation and maintenance) orecasted Return On Investment (ROI) Forecasted Profit on Investment (POI) Of the factors to consider the ROI and POI weigh the heaviest because the take in to consideration the other factors when calculating the profitability and return on investments.For a real world example let us consider developing a web based lead management system for a new company. This system can either be hosted on Microsoft Windows based web server or on a Linux based web server. Important Factors for this Example Implementation Team’s Skill Sets Member 1  Skill Set: Classic ASP, ASP.Net, and MS SQL Server Experience: 10 years Member 2  Skill Set: PHP, MySQL, Photoshop and MS SQL Server Experience: 3 years Member 3  Skill Set: C++, VB6, ASP.Net, and MS SQL Server Experience: 12 years Total Cost of Technology (including Implementation and maintenance) Linux Initial Year: $5,000 (Random Value) Additional Years: $3,000 (Random Value) Windows Initial Year: $10,000 (Random Value) Additional Years: $3,000 (Random Value) Complexity of Technology Linux Large Learning Curve with user driven documentation Estimated learning cost: $30,000 Windows Minimal based on Teams skills with Microsoft based documentation Estimated learning cost: $5,000 ROI Linux Total Cost Initial Total Cost: $35,000 Additional Cost $3,000 per year Windows Total Cost Initial Total Cost: $15,000 Additional Cost $3,000 per year Based on the hypothetical numbers it would make more sense to select windows based web server because the initial investment of the technology is much lower initially compared to the Linux based web server.

    Read the article

  • Defining a service layer: the text-based adventure

    - by Stacy Vicknair
    Applications these days have more options than ever for a user interface, and it’s only going to grow. A successful product might require native applications for mobile devices, a regular web implementation, or even a gaming console. These systems often will be centralized and data driven. The solution is one that’s fairly solitary, a service layer! Simply put, take what’s shared and put it behind a physical or abstract layer that defines the boundary between the specific user interface and the shared content.   I know, I know, none of this is complicated. But some times it can be difficult to discern what belongs on which side of the line. For instance, say we’re creating a service that will provide content for both an ASP.NET MVC application and a WP7 application. Although the content served to each application is the same, there are different paradigms and patterns for displaying that data in the different environments. In ASP.NET MVC, you may create a model specific to a page that combines necessary information. In the WP7 application you might require different sets of data that you will connect via MVVM with the view. The general rule of thumb is that any shared content, business rules, or data should exist separately. Any element that is specific to the current UI implementation should be included in a separate library or with the UI implementation itself. The WP7 application doesn’t need my MVC specific model classes. My MVC application doesn’t require those INotifyPropertyChanged viewmodels that the WP7 application depends on. In both cases, there should be additional processing done above the service layer to massage the data to the application’s specific needs.   Service-ocalypse: the text based adventure What helps me the most about deciding whether or not something belongs coupled to the UI implementation or in the shared implementation is thinking of the simplest implementation you could have: a console application. You might have played a game like Peasant’s Quest: The console app is the text based adventure game version of your application. If you’re service was consumed in its simplest form, you would simply have a console based API for it that issues requests. Maybe those requests aren’t SWIM TO BOAT, but they might be CREATE USER JOHN. If I issue a request, I expect that request to be issued to the service. If the service has any exceptions or issues with my input, that business logic should be encapsulated in that service, not implemented in the UI. The service layer should be your functional application in its entirety, and anything above that layer should only assist with the display of that information.

    Read the article

  • Use the Latest Guided Learning Paths for BI & EPM Partners

    - by Mike.Hallett(at)Oracle-BI&EPM
    Keep up to date with the current version Guided Learning Paths for BI Partners @ https://competencycenter.oracle.com/opncc/glp_list.cc, for Example: Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} Business Intelligence Implementation Consultant Business Intelligence Applications 7.9.6 for CRM Implementation Specialist Business Intelligence Applications 7.9.6 for ERP Implementation Specialist Oracle Business Intelligence Foundation 11g Implementation Specialist Oracle Essbase 11 Implementation Specialist PreSales Consultant Business Intelligence Applications 7.9.6 PreSales Specialist Oracle Business Intelligence Foundation Suite 11g PreSales Specialist Oracle Essbase 11 PreSales Specialist Sales Person Business Intelligence Applications 7.9.6 Sales Specialist Oracle Business Intelligence Foundation Suite 11g Sales Specialist Oracle Essbase 11 Sales Specialist

    Read the article

  • Developing a TCK: Spec Lead Call for Spec Leads 20 December

    - by Heather VanCura
    The JCP Program will be hosting a Spec Lead call on 20 December on the topic of developing a Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK).  A Technology Compatibility Kit is a required output of a JSR at Final Release, along with the Specification and Reference Implementation (RI).   The TCK must test all aspects of a specification that impact how compatible an implementation of that specification would be, such as the public API and all mandatory elements of the specification. The Reference Implementation is required to pass the TCK. A vendor's implementation of a specification is only considered compatible if the implementation passes the TCK fully and completely.  The TCK is used to test implementations of the Final Specification to make sure that they are fully compatible. The call will be recorded and posted on the JCP.org multimedia page along with any related materials.   Invitation details for the online meeting:Topic: SL Call: Developing a TCK Date: Thursday, December 20, 2012 Time: 9:30 am, Pacific Standard Time (San Francisco, GMT-08:00) Meeting Number: 804 390 892 Meeting Password: 2222 ------------------------------------------------------- To join the audio conference -------------------------------------------------------     +1 (866) 682-4770 (US)     Conference code: 945-4597    Security code: 52775 ("JCPSL" on your phone handset)     For global access numbers see http://www.intercall.com/oracle/access_numbers.htm         Or +1 (408) 774-4073

    Read the article

  • How to charge for software design [on hold]

    - by cja
    I have a prospect with both an idea and an existing customer of theirs who want to pay for this idea to be implemented. The customer want to pay only when the implementation is complete. My prospect has separate investors that will fund the implementation. The prospect wants to know how much I will charge for the implementation so that he knows how much to ask the investors for. Before I can estimate reliably I need to work with the prospect to develop an implementation plan. This planning work will take time that I want to charge for. The prospect doesn't have enough money to pay me until the investment. I want to make sure I am paid for the planning. How can I resolve this?

    Read the article

  • License compatibility question

    - by Ivaylo Slavov
    I have a question regarding software licenses. I plan to put a license to a framework that I have written. My intention is that the license should be open, in order to maintain a community. Also I want to control when a new version is released and which changes will be included. The license should allow the framework to be used with commercial products, therefore respecting their own license. I have done some quick research and I decided to double license my work under the Apache License 2.0 (ASL) and Eclipse Public License (EPL). My point is that the EPL will provide me the ability to control the release cycle as well as the contributions to the project and the Apache license will take care for any patents a 3rd party might want to use in a derived work. Also both are open licenses. My question is related to the GLP and LGPL licenses. If I have the above licenses to my framework, will it be possible and legal, for someone to create a derived work of my framework, that is also a derived work of, or links a library that is under the LGPL license? Thanks in advance. EDIT: To be clear I will explain how I expect things to work. The framework will define some common API for certain functionalities as well as a Wrapper class that will invoke an implementation of that API. The Wrapper will be part of the framework, but it will internally call the actual implementation. This implementation should be in a separate library, and such libraries I would like to be developed and maintained by community. Surely the community will have to access the framework but I want to limit changes to the framework by the community but I want to provide freedom for any API implementation (a derived work of the framework). The framework will enable flexible configuration mechanisms that will tell which implementation of an API will be used.

    Read the article

  • Application of LGPL license on a simple algorithm

    - by georgesl
    The "scope" of the GNU license is troubling me : I know it has been answered many times ( here, here, ... ) but shouldn't we take into consideration the complexity and originality of a code before using GPL license ? I explain : I'm working on a pet project using the DTW algorithm that I have written in C using the pseudo-code given on the wikipedia page . At one point I decided to change it for a C++ implementation ( just for hone my c++ skill ) . After doing so, I've looked for an existing implementation on the web, to compare the "cleanliness" of it, and I found this one : Vectored DTW implementation, which is part of limproved, a C++ library licensed under GPL v3 . Personnally, I don't mind the GNU license because it is a personnal project, which will never led to any kind of commercial purpose, but I wonder if this implementation can abide a company using it to open their code ( and other FOSS permissions ). Theoretically, I think it can ( I may be wrong :p ), but the algorithm in question is so simple (and old) that it should not.

    Read the article

  • How to reserve public API to internal usage in .NET?

    - by mark
    Dear ladies and sirs. Let me first present the case, which will explain my question. This is going to be a bit long, so I apologize in advance :-). I have objects and collections, which should support the Merge API (it is my custom API, the signature of which is immaterial for this question). This API must be internal, meaning only my framework should be allowed to invoke it. However, derived types should be able to override the basic implementation. The natural way to implement this pattern as I see it, is this: The Merge API is declared as part of some internal interface, let us say IMergeable. Because the interface is internal, derived types would not be able to implement it directly. Rather they must inherit it from a common base type. So, a common base type is introduced, which would implement the IMergeable interface explicitly, where the interface methods delegate to respective protected virtual methods, providing the default implementation. This way the API is only callable by my framework, but derived types may override the default implementation. The following code snippet demonstrates the concept: internal interface IMergeable { void Merge(object obj); } public class BaseFrameworkObject : IMergeable { protected virtual void Merge(object obj) { // The default implementation. } void IMergeable.Merge(object obj) { Merge(obj); } } public class SomeThirdPartyObject : BaseFrameworkObject { protected override void Merge(object obj) { // A derived type implementation. } } All is fine, provided a single common base type suffices, which is usually true for non collection types. The thing is that collections must be mergeable as well. Collections do not play nicely with the presented concept, because developers do not develop collections from the scratch. There are predefined implementations - observable, filtered, compound, read-only, remove-only, ordered, god-knows-what, ... They may be developed from scratch in-house, but once finished, they serve wide range of products and should never be tailored to some specific product. Which means, that either: they do not implement the IMergeable interface at all, because it is internal to some product the scope of the IMergeable interface is raised to public and the API becomes open and callable by all. Let us refer to these collections as standard collections. Anyway, the first option screws my framework, because now each possible standard collection type has to be paired with the respective framework version, augmenting the standard with the IMergeable interface implementation - this is so bad, I am not even considering it. The second option breaks the framework as well, because the IMergeable interface should be internal for a reason (whatever it is) and now this interface has to open to all. So what to do? My solution is this. make IMergeable public API, but add an extra parameter to the Merge method, I call it a security token. The interface implementation may check that the token references some internal object, which is never exposed to the outside. If this is the case, then the method was called from within the framework, otherwise - some outside API consumer attempted to invoke it and so the implementation can blow up with a SecurityException. Here is the modified code snippet demonstrating this concept: internal static class InternalApi { internal static readonly object Token = new object(); } public interface IMergeable { void Merge(object obj, object token); } public class BaseFrameworkObject : IMergeable { protected virtual void Merge(object obj) { // The default implementation. } public void Merge(object obj, object token) { if (!object.ReferenceEquals(token, InternalApi.Token)) { throw new SecurityException("bla bla bla"); } Merge(obj); } } public class SomeThirdPartyObject : BaseFrameworkObject { protected override void Merge(object obj) { // A derived type implementation. } } Of course, this is less explicit than having an internally scoped interface and the check is moved from the compile time to run time, yet this is the best I could come up with. Now, I have a gut feeling that there is a better way to solve the problem I have presented. I do not know, may be using some standard Code Access Security features? I have only vague understanding of it, but can LinkDemand attribute be somehow related to it? Anyway, I would like to hear other opinions. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Haskell: Left-biased/short-circuiting function

    - by user2967411
    Two classes ago, our professor presented to us a Parser module. Here is the code: module Parser (Parser,parser,runParser,satisfy,char,string,many,many1,(+++)) where import Data.Char import Control.Monad import Control.Monad.State type Parser = StateT String [] runParser :: Parser a -> String -> [(a,String)] runParser = runStateT parser :: (String -> [(a,String)]) -> Parser a parser = StateT satisfy :: (Char -> Bool) -> Parser Char satisfy f = parser $ \s -> case s of [] -> [] a:as -> [(a,as) | f a] char :: Char -> Parser Char char = satisfy . (==) alpha,digit :: Parser Char alpha = satisfy isAlpha digit = satisfy isDigit string :: String -> Parser String string = mapM char infixr 5 +++ (+++) :: Parser a -> Parser a -> Parser a (+++) = mplus many, many1 :: Parser a -> Parser [a] many p = return [] +++ many1 p many1 p = liftM2 (:) p (many p) Today he gave us an assignment to introduce "a left-biased, or short-circuiting version of (+++)", called (<++). His hint was for us to consider the original implementation of (+++). When he first introduced +++ to us, this was the code he wrote, which I am going to call the original implementation: infixr 5 +++ (+++) :: Parser a -> Parser a -> Parser a p +++ q = Parser $ \s -> runParser p s ++ runParser q s I have been having tons of trouble since we were introduced to parsing and so it continues. I have tried/am considering two approaches. 1) Use the "original" implementation, as in p +++ q = Parser $ \s - runParser p s ++ runParser q s 2) Use the final implementation, as in (+++) = mplus Here are my questions: 1) The module will not compile if I use the original implementation. The error: Not in scope: data constructor 'Parser'. It compiles fine using (+++) = mplus. What is wrong with using the original implementation that is avoided by using the final implementation? 2) How do I check if the first Parser returns anything? Is something like (not (isNothing (Parser $ \s - runParser p s) on the right track? It seems like it should be easy but I have no idea. 3) Once I figure out how to check if the first Parser returns anything, if I am to base my code on the final implementation, would it be as easy as this?: -- if p returns something then p <++ q = mplus (Parser $ \s -> runParser p s) mzero -- else (<++) = mplus Best, Jeff

    Read the article

  • Does protobuf-net generated binary compatible with Google specs

    - by cornerback84
    Actually I want to serialize my data using Google's java implementation and then deserialize using C# implementation? I have chosen portobuf-net as it seems to be more stable (porto# is still v0.9 or I would have gone for it). Before I start working on it I wanted to be sure that I can achieve this (serializing data using java implementation and deserializing it using potobuf-net). Or is there any list of methods that are specific to portobuf-net implementation?

    Read the article

  • Tiling window manager where dual heads share common workspace

    - by mikero
    I want to use a tiling window manager with my dual monitor setup, but almost all wms seem to treat each monitor as an independent workspace. This means that I can change the workspace of monitor 0 without affecting the workspace of monitor 1. This is not what I want -- I want a workspace to span both monitors, where each monitor is essentially a separate column for tiling (my monitors are oriented vertically, so they are well-suited as tiling columns). When I switch workspaces, say with Mod-[0-9], I want both monitors to change contents. So far the only wm I have found to support this is wmii, but I'd love to try some other options. Have I missed this capability from other tiling wms?

    Read the article

  • Does portobuf-net generated binary compatible with Google specs

    - by cornerback84
    Actually I want to serialize my data using Google's java implementation and then deserialize using C# implementation? I have chosen portobuf-net as it seems to be more stable (porto# is still v0.9 or I would have gone for it). Before I start working on it I wanted to be sure that I can achieve this (serializing data using java implementation and deserializing it using potobuf-net). Or is there any list of methods that are specific to portobuf-net implementation?

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >