Search Results

Search found 37348 results on 1494 pages for 'agile project management'.

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 397/1494 | < Previous Page | 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404  | Next Page >

  • Moving from WCF RIA Beta to RC: best practices?

    - by Duncan Bayne
    I have an existing WCF RIA project built on the Release Candidate; I'm now moving to the Release version & have discovered many changes. David Scruggs made the following comment on his (MSDN) blog: "If you’ve written anything in SIlverlight 4 RIA Services, you’ll need to rewrite it. There has been a lot of refactoring and namespace moves." Having made a brief attempt to compile the old solution with the new RIA framework I'm inclined to agree. My current plan is to: remove the Silverlight Business Application projects from the Solution rebuild the EF4 items from the database create a new Silverlight Business Application project re-add the files (XAML, CS) from the old Silverlight Business Application project Does this sound like a reasonable approach? I think it's cleaner than trying to manually alter the existing project.

    Read the article

  • Linking LAPACK/BLAS libraries

    - by Daniel Bremberg
    Background: I am working on a project written in a mix of C and Fortran 77 and now need to link the LAPACK/BLAS libraries to the project (all in a Linux environment). The LAPACK in question is version 3.2.1 (including BLAS) from netlib.org. The libraries were compiled using the top level Makefile (make lapacklib and make blaslib). Problem: During linking, error messages claimed that certain (not all) BLAS-routines called from LAPACK-routines were undefined. This gave me some headache but the problem was eventually solved when (in the Makefile) the order of appearance of the libraries to be linked was changed. Code: In the following, (a) gives errors while (b) does not. The linking is performed by (c). (a) LIBS = $(LAPACK)/blas_LINUX.a $(LAPACK)/lapack_LINUX.a (b) LIBS = $(LAPACK)/lapack_LINUX.a $(LAPACK)/blas_LINUX.a (c) gcc -Wall -O -o $@ project.o project.a $(LIBS) Question: What could be the reason for the undefined references of only some routines and what makes the order of appearance relevant?

    Read the article

  • The Incremental Architect&acute;s Napkin &ndash; #3 &ndash; Make Evolvability inevitable

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/06/04/the-incremental-architectacutes-napkin-ndash-3-ndash-make-evolvability-inevitable.aspxThe easier something to measure the more likely it will be produced. Deviations between what is and what should be can be readily detected. That´s what automated acceptance tests are for. That´s what sprint reviews in Scrum are for. It´s no small wonder our software looks like it looks. It has all the traits whose conformance with requirements can easily be measured. And it´s lacking traits which cannot easily be measured. Evolvability (or Changeability) is such a trait. If an operation is correct, if an operation if fast enough, that can be checked very easily. But whether Evolvability is high or low, that cannot be checked by taking a measure or two. Evolvability might correlate with certain traits, e.g. number of lines of code (LOC) per function or Cyclomatic Complexity or test coverage. But there is no threshold value signalling “evolvability too low”; also Evolvability is hardly tangible for the customer. Nevertheless Evolvability is of great importance - at least in the long run. You can get away without much of it for a short time. Eventually, though, it´s needed like any other requirement. Or even more. Because without Evolvability no other requirement can be implemented. Evolvability is the foundation on which all else is build. Such fundamental importance is in stark contrast with its immeasurability. To compensate this, Evolvability must be put at the very center of software development. It must become the hub around everything else revolves. Since we cannot measure Evolvability, though, we cannot start watching it more. Instead we need to establish practices to keep it high (enough) at all times. Chefs have known that for long. That´s why everybody in a restaurant kitchen is constantly seeing after cleanliness. Hygiene is important as is to have clean tools at standardized locations. Only then the health of the patrons can be guaranteed and production efficiency is constantly high. Still a kitchen´s level of cleanliness is easier to measure than software Evolvability. That´s why important practices like reviews, pair programming, or TDD are not enough, I guess. What we need to keep Evolvability in focus and high is… to continually evolve. Change must not be something to avoid but too embrace. To me that means the whole change cycle from requirement analysis to delivery needs to be gone through more often. Scrum´s sprints of 4, 2 even 1 week are too long. Kanban´s flow of user stories across is too unreliable; it takes as long as it takes. Instead we should fix the cycle time at 2 days max. I call that Spinning. No increment must take longer than from this morning until tomorrow evening to finish. Then it should be acceptance checked by the customer (or his/her representative, e.g. a Product Owner). For me there are several resasons for such a fixed and short cycle time for each increment: Clear expectations Absolute estimates (“This will take X days to complete.”) are near impossible in software development as explained previously. Too much unplanned research and engineering work lurk in every feature. And then pervasive interruptions of work by peers and management. However, the smaller the scope the better our absolute estimates become. That´s because we understand better what really are the requirements and what the solution should look like. But maybe more importantly the shorter the timespan the more we can control how we use our time. So much can happen over the course of a week and longer timespans. But if push comes to shove I can block out all distractions and interruptions for a day or possibly two. That´s why I believe we can give rough absolute estimates on 3 levels: Noon Tonight Tomorrow Think of a meeting with a Product Owner at 8:30 in the morning. If she asks you, how long it will take you to implement a user story or bug fix, you can say, “It´ll be fixed by noon.”, or you can say, “I can manage to implement it until tonight before I leave.”, or you can say, “You´ll get it by tomorrow night at latest.” Yes, I believe all else would be naive. If you´re not confident to get something done by tomorrow night (some 34h from now) you just cannot reliably commit to any timeframe. That means you should not promise anything, you should not even start working on the issue. So when estimating use these four categories: Noon, Tonight, Tomorrow, NoClue - with NoClue meaning the requirement needs to be broken down further so each aspect can be assigned to one of the first three categories. If you like absolute estimates, here you go. But don´t do deep estimates. Don´t estimate dozens of issues; don´t think ahead (“Issue A is a Tonight, then B will be a Tomorrow, after that it´s C as a Noon, finally D is a Tonight - that´s what I´ll do this week.”). Just estimate so Work-in-Progress (WIP) is 1 for everybody - plus a small number of buffer issues. To be blunt: Yes, this makes promises impossible as to what a team will deliver in terms of scope at a certain date in the future. But it will give a Product Owner a clear picture of what to pull for acceptance feedback tonight and tomorrow. Trust through reliability Our trade is lacking trust. Customers don´t trust software companies/departments much. Managers don´t trust developers much. I find that perfectly understandable in the light of what we´re trying to accomplish: delivering software in the face of uncertainty by means of material good production. Customers as well as managers still expect software development to be close to production of houses or cars. But that´s a fundamental misunderstanding. Software development ist development. It´s basically research. As software developers we´re constantly executing experiments to find out what really provides value to users. We don´t know what they need, we just have mediated hypothesises. That´s why we cannot reliably deliver on preposterous demands. So trust is out of the window in no time. If we switch to delivering in short cycles, though, we can regain trust. Because estimates - explicit or implicit - up to 32 hours at most can be satisfied. I´d say: reliability over scope. It´s more important to reliably deliver what was promised then to cover a lot of requirement area. So when in doubt promise less - but deliver without delay. Deliver on scope (Functionality and Quality); but also deliver on Evolvability, i.e. on inner quality according to accepted principles. Always. Trust will be the reward. Less complexity of communication will follow. More goodwill buffer will follow. So don´t wait for some Kanban board to show you, that flow can be improved by scheduling smaller stories. You don´t need to learn that the hard way. Just start with small batch sizes of three different sizes. Fast feedback What has been finished can be checked for acceptance. Why wait for a sprint of several weeks to end? Why let the mental model of the issue and its solution dissipate? If you get final feedback after one or two weeks, you hardly remember what you did and why you did it. Resoning becomes hard. But more importantly youo probably are not in the mood anymore to go back to something you deemed done a long time ago. It´s boring, it´s frustrating to open up that mental box again. Learning is harder the longer it takes from event to feedback. Effort can be wasted between event (finishing an issue) and feedback, because other work might go in the wrong direction based on false premises. Checking finished issues for acceptance is the most important task of a Product Owner. It´s even more important than planning new issues. Because as long as work started is not released (accepted) it´s potential waste. So before starting new work better make sure work already done has value. By putting the emphasis on acceptance rather than planning true pull is established. As long as planning and starting work is more important, it´s a push process. Accept a Noon issue on the same day before leaving. Accept a Tonight issue before leaving today or first thing tomorrow morning. Accept a Tomorrow issue tomorrow night before leaving or early the day after tomorrow. After acceptance the developer(s) can start working on the next issue. Flexibility As if reliability/trust and fast feedback for less waste weren´t enough economic incentive, there is flexibility. After each issue the Product Owner can change course. If on Monday morning feature slices A, B, C, D, E were important and A, B, C were scheduled for acceptance by Monday evening and Tuesday evening, the Product Owner can change her mind at any time. Maybe after A got accepted she asks for continuation with D. But maybe, just maybe, she has gotten a completely different idea by then. Maybe she wants work to continue on F. And after B it´s neither D nor E, but G. And after G it´s D. With Spinning every 32 hours at latest priorities can be changed. And nothing is lost. Because what got accepted is of value. It provides an incremental value to the customer/user. Or it provides internal value to the Product Owner as increased knowledge/decreased uncertainty. I find such reactivity over commitment economically very benefical. Why commit a team to some workload for several weeks? It´s unnecessary at beast, and inflexible and wasteful at worst. If we cannot promise delivery of a certain scope on a certain date - which is what customers/management usually want -, we can at least provide them with unpredecented flexibility in the face of high uncertainty. Where the path is not clear, cannot be clear, make small steps so you´re able to change your course at any time. Premature completion Customers/management are used to premeditating budgets. They want to know exactly how much to pay for a certain amount of requirements. That´s understandable. But it does not match with the nature of software development. We should know that by now. Maybe there´s somewhere in the world some team who can consistently deliver on scope, quality, and time, and budget. Great! Congratulations! I, however, haven´t seen such a team yet. Which does not mean it´s impossible, but I think it´s nothing I can recommend to strive for. Rather I´d say: Don´t try this at home. It might hurt you one way or the other. However, what we can do, is allow customers/management stop work on features at any moment. With spinning every 32 hours a feature can be declared as finished - even though it might not be completed according to initial definition. I think, progress over completion is an important offer software development can make. Why think in terms of completion beyond a promise for the next 32 hours? Isn´t it more important to constantly move forward? Step by step. We´re not running sprints, we´re not running marathons, not even ultra-marathons. We´re in the sport of running forever. That makes it futile to stare at the finishing line. The very concept of a burn-down chart is misleading (in most cases). Whoever can only think in terms of completed requirements shuts out the chance for saving money. The requirements for a features mostly are uncertain. So how does a Product Owner know in the first place, how much is needed. Maybe more than specified is needed - which gets uncovered step by step with each finished increment. Maybe less than specified is needed. After each 4–32 hour increment the Product Owner can do an experient (or invite users to an experiment) if a particular trait of the software system is already good enough. And if so, she can switch the attention to a different aspect. In the end, requirements A, B, C then could be finished just 70%, 80%, and 50%. What the heck? It´s good enough - for now. 33% money saved. Wouldn´t that be splendid? Isn´t that a stunning argument for any budget-sensitive customer? You can save money and still get what you need? Pull on practices So far, in addition to more trust, more flexibility, less money spent, Spinning led to “doing less” which also means less code which of course means higher Evolvability per se. Last but not least, though, I think Spinning´s short acceptance cycles have one more effect. They excert pull-power on all sorts of practices known for increasing Evolvability. If, for example, you believe high automated test coverage helps Evolvability by lowering the fear of inadverted damage to a code base, why isn´t 90% of the developer community practicing automated tests consistently? I think, the answer is simple: Because they can do without. Somehow they manage to do enough manual checks before their rare releases/acceptance checks to ensure good enough correctness - at least in the short term. The same goes for other practices like component orientation, continuous build/integration, code reviews etc. None of that is compelling, urgent, imperative. Something else always seems more important. So Evolvability principles and practices fall through the cracks most of the time - until a project hits a wall. Then everybody becomes desperate; but by then (re)gaining Evolvability has become as very, very difficult and tedious undertaking. Sometimes up to the point where the existence of a project/company is in danger. With Spinning that´s different. If you´re practicing Spinning you cannot avoid all those practices. With Spinning you very quickly realize you cannot deliver reliably even on your 32 hour promises. Spinning thus is pulling on developers to adopt principles and practices for Evolvability. They will start actively looking for ways to keep their delivery rate high. And if not, management will soon tell them to do that. Because first the Product Owner then management will notice an increasing difficulty to deliver value within 32 hours. There, finally there emerges a way to measure Evolvability: The more frequent developers tell the Product Owner there is no way to deliver anything worth of feedback until tomorrow night, the poorer Evolvability is. Don´t count the “WTF!”, count the “No way!” utterances. In closing For sustainable software development we need to put Evolvability first. Functionality and Quality must not rule software development but be implemented within a framework ensuring (enough) Evolvability. Since Evolvability cannot be measured easily, I think we need to put software development “under pressure”. Software needs to be changed more often, in smaller increments. Each increment being relevant to the customer/user in some way. That does not mean each increment is worthy of shipment. It´s sufficient to gain further insight from it. Increments primarily serve the reduction of uncertainty, not sales. Sales even needs to be decoupled from this incremental progress. No more promises to sales. No more delivery au point. Rather sales should look at a stream of accepted increments (or incremental releases) and scoup from that whatever they find valuable. Sales and marketing need to realize they should work on what´s there, not what might be possible in the future. But I digress… In my view a Spinning cycle - which is not easy to reach, which requires practice - is the core practice to compensate the immeasurability of Evolvability. From start to finish of each issue in 32 hours max - that´s the challenge we need to accept if we´re serious increasing Evolvability. Fortunately higher Evolvability is not the only outcome of Spinning. Customer/management will like the increased flexibility and “getting more bang for the buck”.

    Read the article

  • Multiple "pages" in GWT with human friendly URLs

    - by Andreas Borglin
    Hi. I'm playing with a GWT/GAE project which will have three different "pages", although it is not really pages in a GWT sense. The top views (one for each page) will have completely different layouts, but some of the widgets will be shared. One of the pages is the main page which is loaded by the default url (http://www.site.com), but the other two needs additional URL information to differentiate the page type. They also need a name parameter, (like http://www.site.com/project/project-name. There are at least two solutions to this that I'm aware of. Use GWT history mechanism and let page type and parameters (such as project name) be part of the history token. Use servlets with url-mapping patterns (like /project/*) The first choice might seem obvious at first, but it has several drawbacks. First, a user should be able to easily remember and type URL directly to a project. It is hard to produce a human friendly URL with history tokens. Second, I'm using gwt-presenter and this approach would mean that we need to support subplaces in one token, which I'd rather avoid. Third, a user will typically stay at one page, so it makes more sense that the page information is part of the "static" URL. Using servlets solves all these problems, but also creates other ones. So my first questions is, what is the best solution here? If I would go for the servlet solution, new questions pop up. It might make sense to split the GWT app into three separate modules, each with an entry point. Each servlet that is mapped to a certain page would then simply forward the request to the GWT module that handles that page. Since a user typically stays at one page, the browser only needs to load the js for that page. Based on what I've read, this solution is not really recommended. I could also stick with one module, but then GWT needs to find out which page it should display. It could either query the server or parse the URL itself. If I stick with one GWT module, I need to keep the page information stored on server side. Naturally I thought about sessions, but I'm not sure if its a good idea to mix page information with user data. A session usually lives between user login and logout, but in this case it would need different behavior. Would it be bad practise to handle this via sessions? The one GWT module + servlet solution also leads to another problem. If a user goes from a project page to the main page, how will GWT know that this has happened? The app will not be reloaded, so it will be treated as a simple state change. It seems rather ineffecient to have to check page info for every state change. Anyone care to guide me out of the foggy darkness that surrounds me? :-)

    Read the article

  • Connecting TFS2008 server to Sharepoint (WSS3)

    - by MCalder
    I have recently upgraded from TFS2005 to 2008, and in doing so, lost the connection to Sharepoint so now I cannot access my project portal from VSS or TFS Web. I have a working WSS 3.0 installation on the same server as TFS, and TFS is working fine other than the Sharepoint disconnect. I have even been able to go into Sharepoint and create a site for my project. The only thing left is to find the configuration item in TFS for my project that says, "Project portal is here...". Does anyone know where I might find this setting?

    Read the article

  • CodePlex Daily Summary for Friday, April 09, 2010

    CodePlex Daily Summary for Friday, April 09, 2010New Projects(SocketCoder) Free Silverlight Voice/Video Conferencing Modules: The Goal of this project is to provide complete Open Source Voice/Video Chatting Client/Server Modules Using Silverlight techniques, this project i...AJAX Control Framework: Do PageMethods and the UpdatePanel make you feel dirty? Think making AJAX enabled custom ASP.NET controls should WAY easier than it is? Wish ASP.NE...Bluetooth Radar: WPF 4.0 Application working with The final release of 32feet.net (v2.2) to Discover Bluetooth devices, send files and more cool stuff for Bluetooth...Bomberman: Bomberman c++ Project Code Library: This is just a personal storage place for a utility library containing extension methods, new classes, and/or improvements to existing classes.DianPing.com MogileFS Client: MogileFS Client for .Net 2.0Dirty City Hearts Website: Dirty City Hearts WebsiteDocGen - SharePoint 2010 Bulk Document Loader: DocGen is a SharePoint 2010 multithreaded console application for bulk loading sample documents into SharePoint. This program generates Microsoft ...dou24: WebSite for DOUExplora: Explora es un navegador de archivos que no pretende ser un sustituto del explorador de Windows, sino un experimento de codificación que compartir c...HobbyBrew Mobile: This project is basic beer brewing software for Windows Mobile able to read HobbyBrew xml files. Developed in C# and Windows FormsjLight: Interop between Silverlight and the javascript based on jQuery. The syntax used in Silverlight is as close as posible to the jQuery syntax.johandekoning.nl samples: Sample code project which are discussed on johandekoning.nl / johandekoning.com. Most examples are / will be developed with C#Kanban: this is a agile paroject managementMETAR.NET Decoder: Project libraries used to decode airport METAR weather information into adequate data types, change them and back, create resulting METAR informati...Micro Framework: MFDeploy with Set/Get mote SKU ID: This is a modification to the Micro Framework's MFDeploy utility that lets the user set and get the mote's ID (aka SKU). It can be done via the GUI...MobySharp: MobySharp is a implementation of the Mobypicture.com API written in C#NGilead: NGilead permits you to use your NHibernate POCO (and especially the partially loaded ones) outside the .NET Virtual Machine (to Silverlight for exa...OpenIdPortableArea: OpenIdPortableArea is an MvcContrib powered Portable Area that encapsulates logic for implementing OpenId encapsulation (using DotNetOpenAuth).OrderToList Extension for IEnumerable: An extension method for IEnumerable<T> that will sort the IEnumerable based on a list of keys. Suppose you have a list of IDs {10, 5, 12} and wa...project3140.org: Code repository for project3140.org.Prometheus Backup Solution: The Prometheus Backup Solution is a free and small Backup Utility for personal use and for small businesses.Roids: an asteroids clone for Silverlight and XNA: An example of a simple game cross-compiling for both Silverlight and XNA using SilverSprite.SemanticAnalyzer: 3rd phase of Compiler Design ProjectSSRS SDK for PHP: SQL Server Reporting Service SDK for PHPWorking Memory Workout: Working Memory Workout is a working memory training game based on the N-back, a task researchers say may improve fluid intelligence. It greatly ex...Wouters Code Samples: This Project will host some of my sample projects I created. I'm a professional SharePoint/BizTalk developer so most of the provided samples will ...New Releases(SocketCoder) Free Silverlight Voice/Video Conferencing Modules: Silverlight Voice Video Chat Modules: Client/Server Silverlight Voice Video Chat ModulesAccessibilityChecker: Accessibility Checker V0.2: Accessibility Checker V0.2 - Direct url´s input functionality added - XHTML, WAI validation modules, easy to extend. (W3C and Achecker modules incl...AStar.net: AStar.net 1.1 downloads: AStar.net 1.1 Version detailsGreatly improved path finding speed and memory usage from version 1.0. Avalaible downloads:AStar.net 1.1 dll - Runtim...AutoPoco: AutoPoco 0.2: This release will bring some non-generic alternatives to configuration + some more automatic configuration options such as assembly scanningBluetooth Radar: Version 1: Basic version only with the ability to discover Bluetooth devices around you.Convert-Media PowerShell Module for Expression Encoder: Release 1.0.0.2: This is a build that incorporates the latest change sets including perform publish. No other changesDevTreks -social budgeting that improves lives and livelihoods: Social Budgeting Web Software, DevTreks alpha 3e: Alpha 3e is a general debug. It also upgrades the software's family budgeting capabilities, including the addition of a new 'Food Nutrition Input'...dV2t Enterprise Library: dV2tEntLib 1.0.0.3: dV2tEntLib 1.0.0.3EnhSim: Release v1.9.8.3: Release v1.9.8.3 Change Armour Penetration calcs to apply the "Rouncer fix" (current version displays debug info to assist users in testing that th...HouseFly controls: HouseFly controls alpha 0.9: HouseFly controls 0.9 alpha binaries (Includes HouseFly.Classes and HouseFly.Controls).Jitbit WYSWYG BBCode Editor: Release: ReleaseMicro Framework: MFDeploy with Set/Get mote SKU ID: MFDeploy with get, set mote ID: The Micro Framework 4.0 MFDeploy, modified to let the user get & set the mote IDMobySharp: MobySharp 1.0: Initial ReleaseOpenIdPortableArea: OpenIdPortableArea: OpenIdPortableArea.Release: DotNetOpenAuth.dll DotNetOpenAuth.xml MvcContrib.dll MvcContrib.xml OpenIdPortableArea.dll OpenIdPortableAre...OrderToList Extension for IEnumerable: Release 0.9b: I'm calling this 0.9 because I came up with it yesterday and there's little real word use so there's probably something that needs fixing or improv...Prometheus Backup Solution: Prometheus BETA: Actual BETA Release. Restore Functions are not available...Reusable Library: V1.0.6: A collection of reusable abstractions for enterprise application developer.Reusable Library Demo: V1.0.4: A demonstration of reusable abstractions for enterprise application developerSharePoint Labs: SPLab4005A-FRA-Level100: SPLab4005A-FRA-Level100 This SharePoint Lab will teach you the 5th best practice you should apply when writing code with the SharePoint API. Lab La...SharePoint Labs: SPLab6001A-FRA-Level200: SPLab6001A-FRA-Level200 This SharePoint Lab will teach you how to create a generic Feature Receiver within Visual Studio. Creating a Feature Receiv...SharePoint LogViewer: SharePoint LogViewer 2.0: Supports live Farm monitoring. Many bug fixes.Simple Savant: Simple Savant v0.5: Added support for custom constraint/validation logic (See Versioning and Consistency) Added support for reliable cross-domain writes (See Version...SQL Server Extended Properties Quick Editor: Release 1.6.1: Whats new in 1.6.1: Add an edit form to support long text editing. double click to open editor. Add an ORM extended properties initializer to creat...SSRS SDK for PHP: SSRS SDK for PHP: Current release includes the SSRSReport library to connect to SQL Server Reporting Services and a sample application to show the basic steps needed...Table Storage Backup & Restore for Windows Azure: Table Storage Backup 1.0.3751: Bug fix: Crash when creating a table if the existing table had not finished deleting. Bug fix: Incorrect batch URI if the storage account ended in ...VCC: Latest build, v2.1.30408.0: Automatic drop of latest buildVisual Studio DSite: Audio Player (Visual C++ 2008): An audio player that can play wav files.Working Memory Workout: Working Memory Workout 1.0: Working Memory Workout is a working memory trainer based on the N-back memory task.Wouters Code Samples: XMLReceiveCBR: This is a Custom Pipeline component. It will help you create a Content Based Routing solution in combination of a WCF Requst/Response service. Gene...Xen: Graphics API for XNA: Xen 1.8: Version 1.8 (XNA 3.1) This update fixes a number of bugs in several areas of the API and introduces a large new Tutorial. [Added] L2 Spherical Ha...Most Popular ProjectsWBFS ManagerRawrMicrosoft SQL Server Product Samples: DatabaseASP.NET Ajax LibrarySilverlight ToolkitAJAX Control ToolkitWindows Presentation Foundation (WPF)ASP.NETMicrosoft SQL Server Community & SamplesFacebook Developer ToolkitMost Active ProjectsnopCommerce. Open Source online shop e-commerce solution.Shweet: SharePoint 2010 Team Messaging built with PexRawrAutoPocopatterns & practices – Enterprise LibraryIonics Isapi Rewrite FilterNB_Store - Free DotNetNuke Ecommerce Catalog ModuleFacebook Developer ToolkitFarseer Physics EngineNcqrs Framework - The CQRS framework for .NET

    Read the article

  • How to manage maintenance/bug-fix branches in Subversion when setup projects need to be built?

    - by Mike Spross
    We have a suite of related products written in VB6, with some C# and VB.NET projects, and all the source is kept in a single Subversion repository. We haven't been using branches in Subversion (although we do tag releases now), and simply do all development in trunk, creating new releases when the trunk is stable enough. This causes no end of grief when we release a new version, issues are found with it, and we have already begun working on new features or major changes to the trunk. In the past, we would address this in one of two ways, depending on the severity of the issues and how stable we thought the trunk was: Hurry to stabilize the trunk, fix the issues, and then release a maintenance update based on the HEAD revision, but this had the side effect of releases that fixed the bugs but introduced new issues because of half-finished features or bugfixes that were in trunk. Make customers wait until the next official release, which is usually a few months. We want to change our policies to better deal with this situation. I was considering creating a "maintenance branch" in Subversion whenever I tag an official release. Then, new development would continue in trunk, and I can periodically merge specific fixes from trunk into the maintenance branch, and create a maintenance release when enough fixes are accumulated, while we continue to work on the next major update in parallel. I know we could also have a more stable trunk and create a branch for new updates instead, but keeping current development in trunk seems simpler to me. The major problem is that while we can easily branch the source code from a release tag and recompile it to get the binaries for that release, I'm not sure how to handle the setup and installer projects. We use QSetup to create all of our setup programs, and right now when we need to modify a setup project, we just edit the project file in-place (all the setup projects and any dependencies that we don't compile ourselves are stored on a separate server, and we make sure to always compile the setup projects on that machine only). However, since we may add or remove files to the setup as our code changes, there is no guarantee that today's setup projects will work with yesterday's source code. I was going to put all the QSetup projects in Subversion to deal with this, but I see some problems with this approach. I want the creation of setup programs to be as automated as possible, and at the very least, I want a separate build machine where I can build the release that I want (grabbing the code from Subversion first), grab the setup project for that release from Subversion, recompile the setup, and then copy the setup to another place on the network for QA testing and eventual release to customers. However, when someone needs to change a setup project (to add a new dependency that trunk now requires or to make other changes), there is a problem. If they treat it like a source file and check it out on their own machine to edit it, they won't be able to add files to the project unless they first copy the files they need to add to the build machine (so they are available to other developers), then copy all the other dependencies from the build machine to their machine, making sure to match the folder structure exactly. The issue here is that QSetup uses absolute paths for any files added to a setup project. However, this means installing a bunch of setup dependencies onto development machines, which seems messy (and which could destabilize the development environment if someone accidentally runs the setup project on their machine). Also, how do we manage third-party dependencies? For example, if the current maintenance branch used MSXML 3.0 and the trunk now requires MSXML 4.0, we can't go back and create a maintenance release if we have already replaced the MSXML library on the build machine with the latest version (assuming both versions have the same filename). The only solution I can think is to either put all the third-party dependencies in Subversion along with the source code, or to make sure we put different library versions in separate folders (i.e. C:\Setup\Dependencies\MSXML\v3.0 and C:\Setup\Dependencies\MSXML\v4.0). Is one way "better" or more common than the other? Are there any best practices for dealing with this situation? Basically, if we release v2.0 of our software, we want to be able to release v2.0.1, v2.0.2, and v.2.0.3 while we work on v2.1, but the whole setup/installation project and setup dependency issue is making this more complicated than the typical "just create a branch in Subversion and recompile as needed" answer.

    Read the article

  • JPA Annotations in Android

    - by dasmaze
    Hello, We have a project that uses JPA/Hibernate on the server side, the mapped entity classes are in their own Library-Project and use Annotations to be mapped to the database. I want to use these classes in an Android-Project - is there any way to ignore the annotations within Android, to use these classes as standard POJOs?

    Read the article

  • Exception when creating new Iphone/Ipad window in MonoDevelop

    - by Jones D R
    I get this exception every time i try to create a new Iphone/Ipad solution? I have been following the guides and have both XCode, interface builder and IOS SDK installed. Any clues are welcome:) System.ApplicationException: Can't create display binding for mime type: application/vnd.apple-interface-builder at MonoDevelop.Ide.Gui.Workbench.NewDocument (System.String defaultName, System.String mimeType, System.IO.Stream content) [0x00000] in :0 at MonoDevelop.Ide.Templates.FileTemplate.CreateFile (MonoDevelop.Ide.Templates.FileDescriptionTemplate newfile, MonoDevelop.Projects.SolutionItem policyParent, MonoDevelop.Projects.Project project, System.String directory, System.String language, System.String name) [0x00000] in :0 at MonoDevelop.Ide.Templates.FileTemplate.Create (MonoDevelop.Projects.SolutionItem policyParent, MonoDevelop.Projects.Project project, System.String directory, System.String language, System.String name) [0x00000] in :0 at MonoDevelop.Ide.Projects.NewFileDialog.OpenEvent (System.Object sender, System.EventArgs e) [0x00000] in :0

    Read the article

  • Stocks with Ext JS Charts

    An example to display stock indexes in an Ext JS chart. Including an introduction to Ext JS, a simple introductory Ext JS example, and an introduction to the new charts feature. Concludes with a more comprehensive demo showing some more of Ext’s features.

    Read the article

  • Best Practices for Source Control Dependencies

    - by VirtuosiMedia
    How do you handle source control setup of a project that has dependency on a separate framework or library? For example, Project A uses Framework B. Should Project A also include the code from Framework B in its repository? Is there a way for it to be included automatically from a different repository or would I have to updated it manually? What are the general approaches are usually taken for this scenario? Assume that I control the repositories for both Project A and Framework B and that the source code for both is not compiled. Any resources or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I'm currently using Subversion (on a very basic level), but I would like to switch to Mercurial so that I can try out Kiln with Fogbugz. Edit: In Mercurial, would you use parent repositories for this function?

    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 | 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404  | Next Page >