Search Results

Search found 1706 results on 69 pages for 'distributed'.

Page 40/69 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

• Develop in trunk and then branch off, or in release branch and then merge back?

  - by Torben Gundtofte-Bruun

  Say that we've decided on following a "release-based" branching strategy, so we'll have a branch for each release, and we can add maintenance updates as sub-branches from those. Does it matter whether we: develop and stabilize a new release in the trunk and then "save" that state in a new release branch; or first create that release branch and only merge into the trunk when the branch is stable? I find the former to be easier to deal with (less merging necessary), especially when we don't develop on multiple upcoming releases at the same time. Under normal circumstances we would all be working on the trunk, and only work on released branches if there are bugs to fix. What is the trunk actually used for in the latter approach? It seems to be almost obsolete, because I could create a future release branch based on the most recent released branch rather than from the trunk. Details based on comment below: Our product consists of a base platform and a number of modules on top; each is developed and even distributed separately from each other. Most team members work on several of these areas, so there's partial overlap between people. We generally work only on 1 future release and not at all on existing releases. One or two might work on a bugfix for an existing release for short periods of time. Our work isn't compiled and it's a mix of Unix shell scripts, XML configuration files, SQL packages, and more -- so there's no way to have push-button builds that can be tested. That's done manually, which is a bit laborious. A release cycle is typically half a year or more for the base platform; often 1 month for the modules.

  Read the article

• Business Forces: SOA Adoption

  The only constant in today’s business environment is change. Businesses that continuously foresee change and adapt quickly will gain market share and increased growth. In our ever growing global business environment change is driven by data in regards to collecting, maintaining, verifying and distributing data.  Companies today are made and broken over data. Would anyone still use Google if they did not have one of the most accurate search indexes on the internet? No, because their value is in their data and the quality of their data. Due to the increasing focus on data, companies have been adopting new methodologies for gaining more control over their data while attempting to reduce the costs of maintaining it. In addition, companies are also trying to reduce the time it takes to analyze data in regards to various market forces to foresee changes prior to them actually occurring.   Benefits of Adopting SOA Services can be maintained separately from other services and applications so that a change in one service will only affect itself and client services or applications. The advent of services allows for system functionality to be distributed across a network or multiple networks. The costs associated with maintain business functionality is much higher in standard application development over SOA due to the fact that one Services can be maintained and shared to other applications instead of multiple instances of business functionality being duplicated via hard coding in to several applications. When multiple applications use a single service for a specific business function then the all of the data being processed will be consistent in terms of quality and accuracy through the applications. Disadvantages of Adopting SOA Increased initial costs and timelines are associated with SOA due to the fact that services need to be created as well as applications need to be modified to call the services In order for an SOA project to be successful the project must obtain company and management support in order to gain the proper exposure, funding, and attention. If SOA is new to a company they must also support the proper training in order for the project to be designed, and implemented correctly. References: Tews, R. (2007). Beyond IT: Exploring the Business Value of SOA. SOA Magazine Issue XI.

  Read the article

• Need advice concerning Feature Based Development when knowledge DB is involved

  - by voroninp

  We develop BackOffice application which is used to edit our knowledge DB. Now our main product's development team is shifting to the feature based development and we need to support several DB's with not identical data schemes. (DS changes slightly from DB to DB) The information from knowledge Db is extracted by the script and then is distributed to the clients. We also need to support merging these DB's. We now analyze pros and cons of different approaches. We discuss this one: One working DB (WDB) with one DB for each feature branch (FDB). The approved data is moved from WDB to FDB. So we need to support only one script for each branch. This script will extract data from corresponding FDB. Nevertheless we are to code the differences between FDBs and WDB manually. May be some automatic mapping tools exist? I also wish to know whether classic solutions to the alike problems already exist. Can anyone share the best practices for this case?

  Read the article

• Why would Java app make RPC call to itself?

  - by amphibient

  I am working with a multithreaded homegrown multi-module app in my new job. We use the the Thrift protocol to communicate RPC calls between different stand-alone applications in a distributed system. One of them listens on multiple ports and I just noticed that it actually makes an RPC call to itself from one thread invoked from one socket it listens to (web service call) to another port within the same app. I verified that it could accomplish the same thing if it just went and directly called the method that the remote procedure ultimately invokes as it is all within the same application, same JVM. To make it even more mysterious, the call is completely synchronous, i.e. no callbacks involved. The first thread totally sits and waits until it makes a call across the wire to itself and comes back. Now, I am perplexed why anybody would do it this way. It seems like calling somebody on the phone that sits in the same room as you do. Can anybody provide an explanation why the developer before me would come up with the above mentioned model? Maybe there is a reason and I am missing something.

  Read the article

• Is ZeroMQ a good choice to make a Python app and a C# managed assembly work together?

  - by Alex Bausk

  I have a task that involves talking to a .NET-based API (namely AutoCAD) to retrieve data, send commands, and react to events. I want to separate the API operations and the proper program logic (largely already implemented in Python) by using natural tools for both: a C# DLL for the former and a Python app for the latter. To connect these two pieces, I began exchanging JSON in ZeroMQ messages. I'm at early development stages but having recently discovered that ZeroMQ does not guarantee message delivery/order, I have reservations about whether this is a feasible way to go. Right now my app is a very basic REQ/REP pair and I plan to handle reacting to events and executing different commands by adding some sort of 'recipient-function' field to my message format. The reason that I want to use ZMQ is that I might be able to scale the software into a larger, multi-user, distributed solution sometime. I am a lay programmer so I would ask for your advice about this architecture. Should I just go ahead with it and plan to deal with message reliability/ordering when problems appear? Should I consider developing some kind of a REST wrapper around ZMQ?

  Read the article

• The balance between client and server functionality

  - by Eugen Martynov

  I want to bring the discussion that started in our teams and get your opinion about it. Assume we have an user account which could have different credentials for authentication and associated email to recover. An user has possibility to do signup with an email or use his social profile to complete signup process. As an Rest API from the backend to client looks like: Create account Authorise Update user data Link social account Register email Verify email In addition our BE is distributed and divided between several services/servers/clusters. So different calls are related to different end points. In case of the social sign up some of steps should be skipped or simplified. For example, with Facebook signup we could already skip email registration and verification step (we ask email permission form user), linking the social account and pre-fill user displayed name. So we proposed to have another end point which will hide/combine different calls on BE and return whole process result to the clients. The pros for this approach: No more duplication of functionality between clients Speed up the networking and user experience The cons for this approach: Additional work for backend Probably most complex scenarios in future updates I would like to get your opinion or experience with this situation. Especially if you already experienced point #2 from against reasons.

  Read the article

• I'm a SubVersion geek, why I should consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DRCS?

  - by Pierre 303

  I tried to understand the benefits of DRCS. I must recognize I still doesn't get it. Here are my current beliefs. I'm ready to destroy them thanks to your expertise. I know I'm probably resisting to change. I just want to evaluate how much that change will cost me. Merging hell can be solved by just applying good practices such as continuous integration. There is no such good practice than having a private branch for a few days when you are in a self managing team with real collaboration. I use branching for that for very rare cases, and I keep a branch for every major version, in which I fix bugs merged from the trunk. I see the value of committing offline then pushing online. But continuous integration can help on this too. I work on very large projects, and I never noticed SubVersion to be slow even when the server is 5000km away on the internet and my small connection (less than 1024D/128U). Harddisk space is cheap, so having a copy of source code locally doesn't look like a problem to me. I already have a full copy of the last version on my disk. I don't understand the distributed thing there (maybe THIS IS the key to my understanding?) I not new in the industry, and judging by my difficulty to understand, I don't think DRCS are easier to understand than SubVersion like. If fact, I don't understand... Doctor, give me your diagnostic.

  Read the article

• Reformatting and version control

  - by l0b0

  Code formatting matters. Even indentation matters. And consistency is more important than minor improvements. But projects usually don't have a clear, complete, verifiable and enforced style guide from day 1, and major improvements may arrive any day. Maybe you find that SELECT id, name, address FROM persons JOIN addresses ON persons.id = addresses.person_id; could be better written as / is better written than SELECT persons.id, persons.name, addresses.address FROM persons JOIN addresses ON persons.id = addresses.person_id; while working on adding more columns to the query. Maybe this is the most complex of all four queries in your code, or a trivial query among thousands. No matter how difficult the transition, you decide it's worth it. But how do you track code changes across major formatting changes? You could just give up and say "this is the point where we start again", or you could reformat all queries in the entire repository history. If you're using a distributed version control system like Git you can revert to the first commit ever, and reformat your way from there to the current state. But it's a lot of work, and everyone else would have to pause work (or be prepared for the mother of all merges) while it's going on. Is there a better way to change history which gives the best of all results: Same style in all commits Minimal merge work ? To clarify, this is not about best practices when starting the project, but rather what should be done when a large refactoring has been deemed a Good Thing™ but you still want a traceable history? Never rewriting history is great if it's the only way to ensure that your versions always work the same, but what about the developer benefits of a clean rewrite? Especially if you have ways (tests, syntax definitions or an identical binary after compilation) to ensure that the rewritten version works exactly the same way as the original?

  Read the article

• How to keep the trunk stable when tests take a long time?

  - by Oak

  We have three sets of test suites: A "small" suite, taking only a couple of hours to run A "medium" suite that takes multiple hours, usually ran every night (nightly) A "large" suite that takes a week+ to run We also have a bunch of shorter test suites, but I'm not focusing on them here. The current methodology is to run the small suite before each commit to the trunk. Then, the medium suite runs every night, and if in the morning it turned out it failed, we try to isolate which of yesterday's commits was to blame, rollback that commit and retry the tests. A similar process, only at a weekly instead of nightly frequency, is done for the large suite. Unfortunately, the medium suite does fail pretty frequently. That means that the trunk is often unstable, which is extremely annoying when you want to make modifications and test them. It's annoying because when I check out from the trunk, I cannot know for certain it's stable, and if a test fails I cannot know for certain if it's my fault or not. My question is, is there some known methodology for handling these kinds of situations in a way which will leave the trunk always in top shape? e.g. "commit into a special precommit branch which will then periodically update the trunk every time the nightly passes". And does it matter if it's a centralized source control system like SVN or a distributed one like git? By the way I am a junior developer with a limited ability to change things, I'm just trying to understand if there's a way to handle this pain I am experiencing.

  Read the article

• Impact of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) on Business and IT Operations

  The impact of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) on business and IT operations varies from company to company. I think more and more companies are starting to view SOA as just another technology that they can incorporate in an existing or new system. One of the driving factors in using SOA is the reduction in maintenance costs and decrease in the time needed to bring products to market. The reductions in costs, and reduced turnaround time can be directly converted in to increased profitability due to less expenditures that are needed in order to maintain or create new systems. My personal perspective on SOA is that it is great for what it is actually intended to do. SOA allows systems to be distributed across networks or even the world while ensuring enterprise processing consistency, data integrity and preventing code duplication. This being said a lot of preparation and work goes into properly designing and implementing an SOA especially if an enterprise wants to take full advantage of its benefits. Even though SOA has recently gotten a lot of hype about its benefits it does not a perfect fit for all situations. At the end of the day SOA is just another tool in my tool belt that I can pull from to create solutions that meet the business’s needs. Based on current industry trends SOA appears to be a very solid technology to use moving forward, especially as more and more companies shift towards cloud based computing. It is important to remember that SOA is one of many technologies that can be used in creating business solutions and I think more time will be spent in the future evaluating if SOA is the right technology for a solution once the initial hype of SOA has calmed down.

  Read the article

• Best way: restructure an existing Team Foundation Server (TFS) solution

  - by dhh

  In my department we are developing several smaller AddOns for some unified communication server. For versioning and distributed development we use a Team Foundation Server 2012. But: there is only one large TFS solution for all of our applications and libraries: Main Solution Applications App 1 App 2 App 3 Externals Libraries Lib 1 Lib 2 Tools The "Application" path contains all main applications. Those are not depending on each other, but they depend on the Libraries and Externals projects. The "Externals" path contains some external DLLs referenced in our Applications and Libraries. The Libraries path contains commonly used libs (UI templates, Helper classes, etc.). They do not depend on each other and they are referenced in the Libraries and the Tools projects. The Tools path contains some helper programs like setup helpers, update web services, etc. Now, there's some major points why I'd like to change this structure: We can't use server builds. It's uncomfortable to manage TFS scrum management with sprints, impediments, etc. with a solution structure like that. Every developer always has access to all projects in the solution. A complete build lasts too long if one accidentally hits [F6] in Visual Studio... What would you change in this solution? How would you break those projects into smaller Solutions, how should those solutions be structured. My first approach would be, to create one TFS project for each Application, Library and Tool. But how can I ensure that e.g. App 2 always contains the newest version of Lib 1? Do I have to monitor changes on Lib 1 and update App 2 manually as soon as the Lib changes? Or can I somehow force Visual Studio to always use the newest version of an external project somehow?

  Read the article

• Trac/SVN to DVCS Migration

  - by quanticle

  The project I'm currently working on is using Trac, with SVN integration. It's worked great until now. Now, however, we've taken on some additional developers and we're running into issues with branching and merging. Because of this, I think a move to a distributed version control system is in order. The problem is that Trac is very closely integrated with the SVN repository. We have tight integration between the tickets and the revision numbers of code changes corresponding to those tickets. In addition we have a support wiki that has a lot of data that helps the tech. support team. Is there a way we can migrate to git or mercurial without losing the benefits of Trac? I've looked at the git plugin for Trac, and I'm unsure of how well it works. Has anyone here used it with a project that's been migrated from SVN? EDIT: I should note that the most important priority for us is maintaining the links between Trac tickets and the corresponding changesets in SVN. That's a tool that we use every day, and it provides an easy way to jump to code changes when reviewing tickets. Wiki migration would be nice to have, but if it's not possible, we can continue to run the old system whilst we write some kind of a one-off script to migrate the content.

  Read the article

• Microsoft Lowers Cloud Barrier To Entry

  - by Herve Roggero

  Once in a while, the technology stack changes enough to create a disturbance in the IT industry. Microsoft did just that today and has officially closed the gap with its #1 competitor: Amazon. What is remarkable is that Microsoft is no longer an alternative to Amazon, it is becoming a clear leader in that space. Some of the new features include official support for durable Virtual Machines with high availability (cross-geographic replication), free WebSites to try Azure, MySQL database at no charge, a new distributed low-latency cache feature, Linux support, support with existing VPN hardware for seamless on-premise integration, a new partner ecosystem and much, much more. Amazon had an edge against Windows Azure in the IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) space, until now. With the latest release from Microsoft Azure, the gap has been filled. In fact, it seems Amazon may now have a gap to fill… This is great news to everyone; it seems that cloud offerings are becoming more standardized with the more mature cloud providers, and the management stack and quality of service of each cloud provider is increasingly becoming the differentiator. With today’s announcements, it is becoming clear that cloud providers are pushing hard to increase their service footprint and lowering typical barriers to entry such as support for open-source operating systems, free trial offers, higher availability, faster deployment times and simpler enterprise integration.

  Read the article

• Non-dynamic CMS [closed]

  - by user20457

  Some of the web sites I visit every day (news, sports, etc..), although the content changes very often (several times per day), the URLs always have .html extension, what makes me thing that the content has been generated once, and then published as a static page, rather than generated in every call, or even cached in memory. For example, the fictitious site "mysports.com" have a "futbol.html" page, and then yesterday Messi gets injured and they have another thing to put in that page, then I presume they post the new item in their CMS system, and automatically a publishing action is triggered aftewards that recreates "futbol.html" in a CDN with the new item and probably discard the oldest one. Then the ETag changes and clients will get the new page if they try to access it. (the site is fictitious but this is what I believe happened yesterday in the sports site I read) This would fit in the CQRS approach, and I presume they have a huge performance. I know lots of CMS (WP, Drupal, BlogEngine.net, DNN, etc...), but I have never seen any able of doing this, or at least, I was not aware this feautre. How are called those distributed CMS? Which are the most well known? Cheers.

  Read the article

• I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS?

  - by user2567

  I try to understand the benefits of distributed version control system (DVCS). I found Subversion Re-education and this article by Martin Fowler very useful. Mercurial and others DVCS promote a new way of working on code with changesets and local commits. It prevents from merging hell and other collaboration issues We are not affected by this as I practice continuous integration and working alone in a private branch is not an option, unless we are experimenting. We use a branch for every major version, in which we fix bugs merged from the trunk. Mercurial allows you to have lieutenants I understand this can be useful for very large projects like Linux, but I don't see the value in small and highly collaborative teams (5 to 7 people). Mercurial is faster, takes less disk space and full local copy allows faster logs & diffs operations. I'm not concerned by this either, as I didn't notice speed or space problems with SVN even with very large projects I'm working on. I'm seeking for your personal experiences and/or opinions from former SVN geeks. Especially regarding the changesets concept and overall performance boost you measured. UPDATE (12th Jan): I'm now convinced that it worth a try. UPDATE (12th Jun): I kissed Mercurial and I liked it. The taste of his cherry local commits. I kissed Mercurial just to try it. I hope my SVN Server don't mind it. It felt so wrong. It felt so right. Don't mean I'm in love tonight. FINAL UPDATE (29th Jul): I had the privilege to review Eric Sink's next book called Version Control by Example. He finished to convince me. I'll go for Mercurial.

  Read the article

• Developer with 4 years experience with Java/C++. How to move into web programming? [closed]

  - by JerryC

  Possible Duplicate: Tips for switching jobs and moving into web based programming? I graduated in 2006 with a computer science degree and got solid grades (3.5 overall 3.8 in my major) For the past 4.5 years I've been working as a Software Engineer doing primarily rich client development. Most of my experience is with Java, Swing and C++. I've done a lot of network programming and I have acquired some skill working & debugging in distributed environments. I would like to switch jobs and move into a role where I can get exposure to some new technologies and frameworks. I would like to move into a more web development role but I find my lack of web development experience is hurting me. 90% of the jobs I see advertised are looking for one of two skill sets: 1) Stereotypical server side Java web developer. Experience with Spring, Hibernate, J2EE, etc. 2) Stereotypical front end web developer. Experience with Javascript, jQuery, HTML5, GWT, CSS, etc I find most of these companies are looking really specifically for this experience and they are not willing to take on good programmers/ CS fundamental guys who lack experience with this stuff. I would love to get a job doing stuff like this, but have my skills become out of date and unmarketable? Any opinions on ways to sell myself to help get a new position?

  Read the article

• Is there such thing like a "refactoring/maintainability group" role in software companies?

  - by dukeofgaming

  So, I work in a company that does embedded software development, other groups focus in the core development of different products' software and my department (which is in another geographical location) which is located at the factory has to deal with software development as well, but across all products, so that we can also fix things quicker when the lines go down due to software problems with the product. In other words, we are generalists while other groups specialize on each product. Thing is, it is kind of hard to get involved in core development when you are distributed geographically (well, I know it really isn't that hard, but there might be unintended cultural/political barriers when it comes to the discipline of collaborating remotely). So I figured that, since we are currently just putting fires out and somewhat being idle/sub-utilized (even though we are a new department, or maybe that is the reason), I thought that a good role for us could be detecting areas of opportunity of refactoring and rearchitecting code and all other implementations that might have to do with stewarding maintainability and modularity. Other groups aren't focused on this because they don't have the time and they have aggressive deadlines, which damage the quality of the code (eternal story of software projects) The thing is that I want my group/department to be recognized by management and other groups with this role officially, and I'm having trouble to come up with a good definition/identity of our group for this matter. So my question is: is this role something that already exists?, or am I the first one to make something like this up?

  Read the article

• Advice and resources on collaborative environments

  - by Tjaart

  I need some advice on collaborative software environments. More specifically, I am looking for books and reference materials that can aid me in understanding team and code structures and the interactions thereof. In other words books, blogs or white papers explaining: Different strategies for structuring teams that share common code between each other but have distinct individual functions? To summarise my question I would like to know what would be a good source of knowledge if I were to set up teams in an organisation that shared code but each unit still remained autonomous. I have done some research on this subject and explored: code review tools, distributed VCS, continuous integration tools, Unit testing automation. The tough part about implementing these tools are to determine where a good place would be to start, which tools are low hanging fruit, which tools or methods provide higher success rates. If someone asks me about code quality reference I point them to Code Complete. I am looking for an equivalent guide on software team structures and tools to make this equation work better. I realise that this question is quite vague but it arose as "we need to share code between teams without breaking each others stuff and causing management headaches and reams of red tape" The answer is definitely not simple and requires changes on many levels, hence the question. If the question is too vague please vote to close or delete. I would accept any good starting point as an answer.

  Read the article

• Which version management design methodology to be used in a Dependent System nodes?

  - by actiononmail

  This is my first question so please indicate if my question is too vague and not understandable. My question is more related to High Level Design. We have a system (specifically an ATCA Chassis) configured in a Star Topology, having Master Node (MN) and other sub-ordinate nodes(SN). All nodes are connected via Ethernet and shall run on Linux OS with other proprietary applications. I have to build a recovery Framework Design so that any software entity, whether its Linux, Ramdisk or application can be rollback to previous good versions if something bad happens. Thus I think of maintaining a State Version Matrix over MN, where each State(1,2....n) represents Good Kernel, Ramdisk and application versions for each SN. It may happen that one SN version can dependent on other SN's version. Please see following diagram:- So I am in dilemma whether to use Package Management Methodology used by Debian Distributions (Like Ubuntu) or GIT repository methodology; in order to do a Rollback to previous good versions on either one SN or on all the dependent SNs. The method should also be easier for upgrading SNs along with MNs. Some of the features which I am trying to achieve:- 1) Upgrade of even single software entity is achievable without hindering others. 2) Dependency checks must be done before applying rollback or upgrade on each of the SN 3) User Prompt should be given in case dependency fails.If User still go for rollback, all the SNs should get notification to rollback there own releases (if required). 4) The binaries should be distributed on SNs accordingly so that recovery process is faster; rather fetching every time from MN. 5) Release Patches from developer for bug fixes, feature enhancement can be applied on running system. 6) Each version can be easily tracked and distinguishable. Thanks

  Read the article

• When creating a GUI wizard, should all pages/tabs be of the same size? [closed]

  - by Job

  I understand that some libraries would force me to, but my question is general. If I have a set of buttons at the bottom: Back, Next, Cancel?, (other?), then should their location ever change? If the answer is no, then what do I do about pages with little content? Do I stretch things? Place them in the lone upper left corner? According to Steve Krug, it does not make sense to add anything to GUI that does not need to be there. I understand that there are different approaches to wizards - some have tabs, others do not. Some tabs are lined horizontally at the top; others - vertically on the left. Some do not show pages/tabs, and are simply sequences of dialogs. This is probably a must when the wizard is "non-linear", e.g. some earlier choices can result in branching. Either way the problem is the same - sacrifice on the consistency of the "big picture" (outline of the page/tab + location of buttons), or the consistency of details (some tabs might be somewhat packed; others having very little content). A third choice, I suppose is putting extra effort in the content in order to make sure that organizing the content such that it is more or less evenly distributed from page to page. However, this can be difficult to do (say, when the very first tab contains only a choice of three things, and then branches off from there; there are probably other examples), and hard to maintain this balance if any of the content changes later. Can you recommend a good approach? A link to a relevant good blog post or a chapter of a book is also welcome. Let me know if you have questions.

  Read the article

• Cross-platform builds with OGRE3D via CMake. Any tips?

  - by frarees

  I've been trying to compile a simple project for both OSX and Windows platforms, using OGRE3D, but I've got some problems on the way. I'm using CMake to create my platform specific project files (VS solution & Xcode project). Some problems I found are: OGRE3D source is distributed in 2 flavors, Windows sources and UNIX/OSX sources. In OSX, compiling dependencies (freetype, FreeImage and specially OIS) is such a pain. I don't know how to handle precompiled dependencies (they exist for both Win & Mac). May sound like a noob question, but I would appreciate some tips on this. Resources, forum posts, anything. There exists any "cross-platform base project for OGRE3D" on the net? Would be really helpful if someone who already managed to do this can bring some light. Btw, I'm not basing the project on OGRE3D, it's just that is the biggest library I'm probably using, so I depend a lot on it. Thanks in advantage!

  Read the article

• Enablement 2.0 Get Specialized!

  - by mseika

  Enablement 2.0 Get Specialized! The Oracle PartnerNetwork Specialized program is releasing new certifications on our latest products, and partners are invited to be the first candidates to get certified. Oracle's Certified Exams go through a rigorous review process called a "beta period". Here are a few advantages of taking a Beta Exam: Certification exams taken during the beta period count towards company Specializations. Most new Certified Specialist Exams have no training requirement. Beta Exams Vouchers are available in limited quantity, so request a voucher today by contacting the Partner Enablement Team and act fast to reserve your test from the list below. FREE Certification Testing Are you attending OPN Exchange @ OpenWorld? Then join us at OPN Specialist Test Fest! October 1st - 4th 2012, Marriott Marquis Hotel Pre-register now! Beta testing period will end on October, 6th, 2012 for the following exams: Oracle E-Business Suite R12 Project Essentials (1Z1-511) Beta testing period will end on October, 13th, 2012 for the following exams: Oracle Hyperion Data Relationship Management Essentials (1Z1-588) Beta testing period will end on November, 17th, 2012 for the following exams: Oracle Global Trade Management 6 Essentials (1Z1-589) Exams Coming Soon in Beta Oracle Fusion Distributed Order Orchestration Essentials Exam (1Z1-469) Take the exam(s) now at a near-by Pearson VUE testing center! Contact Us Please direct any inquiries you may have to the Oracle Partner Enablement team at [email protected] For More Information Oracle Certification Program Beta Exams OPN Certified Specialist Exam Study Guides OPN Certified Specialist FAQ

  Read the article

• Using Git with TFS projects

  If you having been following the updates to CodePlex over the last several months you will have noticed that we added support for Git source control. It is important to the CodePlex team to enable developers to use the source control system that supports their development style whether it is distributed version control or centralized version control. There are many projects on CodePlex that are using TFS centralized version control. But we continue to see more and more developers interested in using Git. Last week Brian Harry announced a new open source project called Git-TF. Git-TF is a client side bridge that enabled developer to use Git locally and push to a remote backed by Team Foundation version control. Git-TF also works great for TFS based projects on CodePlex. You may already be familiar with git-tfs. Git-TFS is a similar client side bridge between Git and TFS. Git-TFS works great if you are on Windows since it depends on the TFS .Net client object model. Git-TF adds the ability to use a Git to TFS bridge on multiple platforms since it is written in Java. You can use it on Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows, etc. Since you are connecting to a TFS Server when using Git-TF make sure you use your CodePlex TFS account name: snd\YOUR_USERNAME_cp along with your password. At this point, you will need to be a member of the project to connect using Git-TF. Resources Git-TF Getting Started Guide Download: Git-TF Git-TF Source on CodePlex

  Read the article

• Do you have a data roadmap?

  - by BuckWoody

  I often visit companies where they asked me “What is SQL Server’s Roadmap?” What they mean is that they want to know where Microsoft is going with our database products. I explain that we’re expanding not only the capacities in SQL Server but the capabilities – we’re trying to make an “information platform”, rather than just a data store. But it’s interesting when I ask the same question back. “What is your data roadmap?” Most folks are surprised by the question, thinking only about storage and archival. To them, data is data. Ah, not so. Your data is one of the most valuable, if not the most valuable asset in your organization. And you should be thinking about how you’ll acquire it, how it will be distributed, how you’ll archive it (which includes more than just backing it up) and most importantly, how you’ll leverage it. Because it’s only when data becomes information that it is truly useful. to be sure, the folks on the web that collect lots of data have a strategy for it – do you? Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

  Read the article

• What is an efficient algorithm for randomly assigning a pool of objects to a parent using specific rules

  - by maple_shaft

  I need some expert answers to help me determine the most efficient algorithm in this scenario. Consider the following data structures: type B { A parent; } type A { set<B> children; integer minimumChildrenAllowed; integer maximumChildrenAllowed; } I have a situation where I need to fetch all the orphan children (there could be hundreds of thousands of these) and assign them RANDOMLY to A type parents based on the following rules. At the end of the job, there should be no orphans left At the end of the job, no object A should have less children than its predesignated minimum. At the end of the job, no object A should have more children than its predesignated maximum. If we run out of A objects then we should create a new A with default values for minimum and maximum and assign remaining orphans to these objects. The distribution of children should be as evenly distributed as possible. There may already be some children assigned to A before the job starts. I was toying with how to do this but I am afraid that I would just end up looping across the parents sorted from smallest to largest, and then grab an orphan for each parent. I was wondering if there is a more efficient way to handle this?

  Read the article

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