Search Results

Search found 11278 results on 452 pages for 'aim for business flows'.

Page 40/452 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

  • Capabilities of business and SOHO routers

    - by Q8Y
    I'm currently studying for the CCNA certifications (especially for Cisco routers and configuration). I know that business routers provide more features than SOHO routers, the processing speed and RAM can be enough. Assume I need to connect a number of users through a network (accessing internet, share files, printers, ...). I have a high speed connection to the internet and I already applied QoS. How can I find out how many users such a single (SOHO) router could handle? In my case I'd attach to it multiple switches until I have the number of ports needed. Would everything work well and smoothly with 50 users? What about 300? At which point would I need a business router instead? If I implemented VLAN here, would it make any difference in the performance? When do I really need to use more than one router? (Both SOHO and business) I'm thinking that I may need them only if I want to increase the performance (instead of replacing the existing one) and if I have multiple locations, so in this situation I need to have multiple routers, right? Put differently: Is there is a need to have another router if my business all in one place?

    Read the article

  • Fill business object from database by calling stored procedurs?

    - by grady
    Hello, I have several stored procedures in my database, some of them have params, some have no params. I tried to fill a business object by calling the stored procedures, but failed so far. How could I do that dynamically? Later, I want to use this object as a datasource for a report...but thats the next step. The important facts are: different stored procs return different amount of columns stored procs can have params, but its not required How could I achieve that? Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • Upgrading from Vista Home Basic to Vista Business

    - by miracle2k
    I have a PC that came with Vista Home Basic, and I now have some need for Remote Desktop, which is not included in Home Basic, so I'd like to upgrade. Now, there is apparently some hack to get Remote Desktop working in Home Premium, and obviously, it's in Ultimate, but really, the Business Edition would be the best fit for us. Unfortunately, Windows Anytime Upgrade does not provide a path from Home Basic to Business. My question is, if I were to buy a standalone Vista Business license, could I use it to do an upgrade from my current Home Basic installation? Would it be simply entering the new license key?

    Read the article

  • Silverlight 4 + RIA Services - Ready for Business: Exposing OData Services

    OData is an emerging set of extensions for the ATOM protocol that makes it easier to share data over the web. To show off OData in RIA Services, lets continue our series.       We think it is very interesting to expose OData from a DomainService to facilitate data sharing.   For example I might want users to be able to access my data in a rich way in Excel as well as my custom Silverlight client.   Id like to be able to enable that without writing...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • The importance of Unit Testing in BI

    - by Davide Mauri
    One of the main steps in the process we internally use to develop a BI solution is the implementation of Unit Test of you BI Data. As you may already know, I’ve create a simple (for now) tool that leverages NUnit to allow us to quickly create Unit Testing without having to resort to use Visual Studio Database Professional: http://queryunit.codeplex.com/ Once you have a tool like this one, you can start also to make sure that your BI solution (DWH and CUBE) is not only structurally sound (I mean, the cube or the report gets processed correctly), but you can also check that the logical integrity of your business rules is enforced. For example let’s say that the customer tell you that they will never create an invoice for a specific product-line in 2010 since that product-line is dismissed and will never be sold again. Ok we know that this in theory is true, but a lot of this business rule effectiveness depends on the fact the people does not do a mistake while inserting new orders/invoices and the ERP used implements a check for this business logic. Unfortunately these last two hypotesis are not always true, so you may find yourself really having some invoices for a product line that doesn’t exists anymore. Maybe this kind of situation in future will be solved using Master Data Management but, meanwhile, how you can give and idea of the data quality to your customers? How can you check that logical integrity of the analytical data you produce is exactly what you expect? Well, Unit Testing of a DWH or a CUBE can be a solution. Once you have defined your test suite, by writing SQL and MDX queries that checks that your data is what you expect to be, if you use NUnit (and QueryUnit does), you can then use a tool like NUnit2Report to create a nice HTML report that can be shipped via email to give information of data quality: In addition to that, since NUnit produces an XML file as a result, you can also import it into a SQL Server Database and then monitor the quality of data over time. I’ll be speaking about this approach (and more in general about how to “engineer” a BI solution) at the next European SQL PASS Adaptive BI Best Practices http://www.sqlpass.org/summit/eu2010/Agenda/ProgramSessions/AdaptiveBIBestPratices.aspx I’ll enjoy discussing with you all about this, so see you there! And remember: “if ain't tested it's broken!” (Sorry I don’t remember how said that in first place :-)) Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • Easy way to update models in your ASP.NET MVC business layer

    - by rajbk
    Brad Wilson just mentioned there is a static class ModelCopier that has a static method CopyModel(object from, object to) in the MVC Futures library. It uses reflection to match properties with the same name and compatible types. In short, instead of manually copying over properties as shown here: public void Save(EmployeeViewModel employeeViewModel){ var employee = (from emp in dataContext.Employees where emp.EmployeeID == employeeViewModel.EmployeeID select emp).SingleOrDefault(); if (employee != null) { employee.Address = employeeViewModel.Address; employee.Salary = employeeViewModel.Salary; employee.Title = employeeViewModel.Title; } dataContext.SubmitChanges();} you can use the method like so: public void Save(EmployeeViewModel employeeViewModel){ var employee = (from emp in dataContext.Employees where emp.EmployeeID == employeeViewModel.EmployeeID select emp).SingleOrDefault(); if (employee != null) { ModelCopier.CopyModel(employeeViewModel, employee); } dataContext.SubmitChanges();} Beautiful, isn’t it?

    Read the article

  • Willy Rotstein on Analytics and Social Media in Retail

    - by sarah.taylor(at)oracle.com
    Recently I came across a presentation from Dan Zarrella on "The Science of Retweets. (http://www.slideshare.net/HubSpot/the-science-of-retweets-with-dan-zarrella). It is an insightful, fact-based analysis of how tweets propagate and what makes them successful. The analysis is of course very interesting for those of us interested Tweeting. However, what really caught my attention is how well it illustrates, form a very different angle, some of the issues I am discussing with retailers these days. In particular the opportunities that e-commerce and social media open to those retailers with the appetite and vision to tackle the associated analytical challenges. And these challenges are of course not straightforward.   In his presentation Dan introduces the concept of Observability, I haven't had the opportunity to discuss with Dan his specific definition for the term. However, in practical retail terms, I would say that it means that through social media (and other web channels such as search) we can analyze and track processes by measuring Indicators that were not measurable before. The focus is in identifying patterns across a large number of consumers rather than what a particular individual "Likes".   The potential impact for retailers is huge. It opens the opportunity to monitor changes in consumer preference  and plan the business accordingly. And you can do this almost "real time" rather than through infrequent surveys that provide a "rear view" picture of your consumer behaviour. For instance, you could envision identifying when a particular set of fashion styles are breaking out from the pack, and commit a re-buy. Or you could monitor when the preference for a specific mobile device has declined and hence markdowns should be considered; or how demand for a specific ready-made food typically flows across regions and manage the inventory accordingly. Search, blogging, website and store data may need to be considered in identifying these trends. The data volumes involved are huge (check Andrea Morgan's recent post on "Big Data" in retail) but so are the benefits. As Andrea says, for the first time we can start getting insight into "Why" the business is performing in a certain way rather than just reporting on what is happening. And it is not just about the data volumes. Tackling the challenge also calls for integrated planning systems that can bring data and insight into the context of the Decision Making process Buyers, Merchandisers and Supply Chain managers are following. I strongly believe that only when data and process come together you can move from the anecdotal to systematically improving business performance.   I would love to hear your opinions on these trends and where you think Retail is heading to exploit these topics - please email me: [email protected]

    Read the article

  • Blicken Sie über den Tellerrand hinaus. Da sind neue Märkte.

    - by A&C Redaktion
    Über 60 Spezialisierungen wird es bis Ende des Jahres bei Oracle geben. Thomas Gartner, Senior Vertriebsleiter Business Partner, macht angesichts dieser Zahl eine einfache Rechnung auf. In den angestammten Märkten tummeln sich zahlreiche Partner, die miteinander im Wettbewerb stehen. Wer jetzt, so Gartner, über den Tellerrand hinaus schaue, neue Möglichkeiten für sein Unternehmen recherchiert, der gewinnt in mehrfacher Hinsicht: Erstens gibt es zahlreiche Märkte, die noch erhebliches Wachstumspotenzial bieten. Zweitens entstehen neue Nischen, die sich über gezielte Differenzierung und Spezialisierung lukrativ erschließen lassen. Drittens unterstützt das Team von Thomas Gartner engagierte Business Partner gerne mit einem individuellen Vertriebscoaching, damit es noch schneller geht, mit dem gewünschten Wachstum. Hier geht es zum Blick über den Tellerrand hinaus.

    Read the article

  • Oracle VM Templates for EBS 12.1.3 for Exalogic Now Available

    - by Elke Phelps (Oracle Development)
    Oracle VM Templates for Oracle E-Business Suite 12.1.3 for x86 Exalogic Platform (64 bit) are now available on the Oracle Software Delivery Cloud.  The templates contain all the required elements to create an Oracle E-Business Suite R12 demonstration system on an Exalogic server. You can use these templates to quickly build an EBS 12.1.3 demonstration environment, bypassing the operating system and the software install (via the EBS Rapid Install).   The Oracle E-Business Suite Release 12.1.3 (64 bit) template for the Exalogic platform is a Oracle Virtual Server Guest template that contains a complete Oracle E-Business Suite Release 12.1.3 Database Tier and Application Tier Installation.  For additional details, please refer to the following My Oracle Support Note: Oracle E-Business Suite Release 12.1.3 Database Tier and Application Tier Template for Oracle Exalogic Platform (Note 1499132.1) The Oracle E-Business Suite system is installed on top of Oracle Linux Version 5 update 6. The templates have been optimized for performance, including OS kernel settings and E-Business Suite configuration settings tuned specifically for the Exalogic platform.  The configuration delivered with this template for a mid-tier running on Exalogic will support hundreds of concurrent users.  Please refer to Section 2: Performance Analysis in My Oracle Support Note 1499132.1 for additional details.   Additional Information The Oracle E-Business Suite VM templates for the Exalogic platform contain the following software versions: Operating System: Oracle Linux Version 5 Update 6 Oracle E-Business Suite 12.1.3 (Database Tier) Oracle E-Business Suite 12.1.3 (Application Tier) The following considerations were made when the Oracle E-Business Suite VM template for the Exalogic platform were designed: Templates use the hardware-virtualized architecture, supporting hardware with virtualization feature. Database Tier Template is configured to use the following configuration: 16 GB RAM 4 VCPUs 250 GB of Disk space for application installation Application Tier Template is configured to use the following configuration: 16 GB RAM 4 VCPUs 50 GB of Disk space for application installation References Oracle E-Business Suite Release 12.1.3 Database Tier and Application Tier Template for Oracle Exalogic Platform (Note 1499132.1) Related Articles Part 1: E-Business Suite 12.1.1 Templates for Oracle VM Now Available Part 2: Using Oracle VM with Oracle E-Business Suite Virtualization Kit Part 3: On Clouds and Virtualization in EBS Environments (OpenWorld 2009 Recap) Part 4: Deploying E-Business Suite on Amazon Web Services Elastic Compute Cloud Part 5: Live Migration of EBS Services Using Oracle VM Support Policies for Virtualization Technologies and Oracle E-Business Suite Virtualization and the E-Business Suite, Redux Virtualization and E-Business Suite

    Read the article

  • 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

< Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >