Search Results

Search found 13289 results on 532 pages for 'effective android'.

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 425/532 | < Previous Page | 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432  | Next Page >

  • Transformation of Product Management in Telecommunications for Rapid Launch of Next Generation Products

    - by raul.goycoolea
    @font-face { font-family: "Arial"; }@font-face { font-family: "Courier New"; }@font-face { font-family: "Wingdings"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }ol { margin-bottom: 0cm; }ul { margin-bottom: 0cm; } The Telecom industry continues to evolve through disruptive products, uncertain markets, shorter product lifecycles and convergence of technologies. Today’s market has moved from network centric to consumer centric and focuses primarily on the customer experience. It has resulted in several product management challenges such as an increased complexity and volume of offerings, creating product variants, accelerating time-to-market, ability to provide multiple product views for varied stakeholders, leveraging OSS intelligence to BSS layer, product co-creation and increasing audit and security concerns for service providers. The document discusses how enterprise product management enabled by PLM-based product catalogue solutions helps to launch next generation products rapidly in the context of the Telecommunication Industry.   1.0.       Introduction   Figure 1: Business Scenario   Modern business demands the launch of complex products in a very short timeframe and effecting changes in the price plan faster without IT intervention. One of the key transformation initiatives companies are focusing on is in the area of product management transformation and operational efficiency improvement. As part of these initiatives, companies are investing in best- in-class COTs-based Product Management solutions developed on industry-wide standards.   The new COTs packages are planned to integrate with existing or new B/OSS systems to provide a strategic end-to-end agile solution for reduced time-to-market and order journey time. In addition, system rationalization is being undertaken to phase out legacy systems and migrate to strategic systems.   2.0.       An Overview of Product Management in Telecom   Product data in telecom is multi- dimensional and difficult to manage. It increased significantly due to the complexity of the product, product offerings on the converged network, increased volume of offerings, bundled offering structures and ever increasing regulatory requirements.   In addition, the shrinking product lifecycle in telecom makes it difficult to manage the dynamic product data. Mergers and acquisitions coupled with organic growth pose major challenges in product portfolio management. It is a roadblock in the journey towards becoming an agile organization.       Figure 2: Complexity in Product Management   Network Technology’ is the new dimension in telecom product management where the same products are realized through different networks i.e., Soiled network to Converged network. Consequently, the product solution is different.     Figure 3: Current Scenario - Pain Points in Product Management   The major business implications arising out of the current scenario are slow time-to-market and an inefficient process that affects innovation.   3.0. Transformation of Next Generation Product Management   Companies must focus on their Product Management Transformation Journey in the areas of:   ·       Management of single truth of product information across the organization/geographies which is currently managed in heterogeneous systems   ·       Management of the Intellectual Property (IP) on the product concept and partnership in the design of discrete components to integrate into the system   ·       Leveraging structured and unstructured product data within the extended enterprise to extract consumer insights and drive innovation   ·       Management of effective operational separation to comply with regulatory bodies   ·       Reuse of existing designs and add relevant features such as value-added services to enable effective product bundling     Figure 4: Next generation needs   PLM-based Enterprise Product Catalogue solutions efficiently address the above requirements and act as an enabler towards product management transformation and rapid product launch.   4.0. PLM-based Enterprise Product Management     Figure 5: PLM-based Enterprise Product Mastering   Enterprise Product Management (EPM) enables the business to manage complex product attributes of data in complex environments. Product Mastering helps create a 'single view' of the product by creating a business-driven, IT-supported environment where a global 'single truth record' is created, managed and reused.   4.1 The Business Case for Telco PLM-based solutions for Enterprise Product Management   ·       Telco PLM-based Product Mastering solutions provide a centralized authoring environment for product definition and control of all product data and rules   ·       PLM packages are designed to support multiple perspectives of product data (ordering perspective, billing perspective, provisioning perspective)   ·       Maintains relationships/links between different elements of the entire product definition   ·       Telco PLM packages are specialized in next generation lifecycle management requirements of products such as revision and state management, test and release management, role management and impact analysis)   ·       Takes into consideration all aspects of OSS product requirements compared to CRM product catalogue solutions where the product data managed is mostly order oriented and transactional     ·       New breed of Telco PLM packages are designed with 'open' standards such as SID and eTOM. They are interoperable, support integration frameworks such as subscription and notification.   ·       Telco PLM packages have developed good collaboration frameworks to integrate suppliers and partners into the product development value chain   4.2 Various Architectures/Approaches for Product Mastering using Telco PLM systems   4. 2.a Single Central Product Management (Mastering) Approach   Figure 6: Single Central Product Management (Master) Approach       This approach is implemented across verticals such as aerospace and automotive. It focuses on a physically centralized product master to which other sources are dependent on. The product definition data (Product bundles, service bundles, price plans, offers and discounts, product configuration rules and market campaigns) is created and maintained physically in a centralized environment. In addition, the product definition/authoring environment is centralized. The existing legacy product definition data available in CRM product catalogue, billing catalogue and the legacy product catalogue is migrated to the centralized PLM-based Enterprise Product Management solution.   Architectural changes must be made in the existing business landscape of applications to create and revise data because the applications have to refer to the central repository for approvals and validation of product configurations. It is achieved by modifying how the applications write data or how the applications can be adapted to use the rules to be managed and published.   Complete product configuration validation will be done in enterprise / central product catalogue and final configuration will be sent to the B/OSS system through the SOA compliant product distribution architecture. The approach/architecture enables greater control in terms of product data management and product data governance.   4.2.b Federated Product Management (Mastering) Architecture     Figure 7: Federated Product Management (Mastering) Architecture   In the federated product mastering approach, the basic unique product definition data (product id, description product hierarchy, basic price plans and simple product design rules) will be centrally created and will be maintained. And, the advanced product definition (Product bundling, promotions, offers & discount plans) will be created in respective down stream OSS systems. The advanced product definition (Product bundling, promotions, offers and discount plans) will be created in respective downstream OSS systems.   For example, basic product definitions such as attributes, product hierarchy and basic price plans will be created and maintained in Enterprise/Central product reference catalogue and distributed to downstream OSS systems. Respective downstream OSS systems build product bundles, promotions, advanced price plans over the basic product definition and master the advanced product definition. Central reference database accesses the respective other source product master data and assembles a point-in-time consolidated view of the product. The approach is typically adapted in some merger and acquisition scenarios where there is a low probability of a central physical authority managing the data. In addition, the migration effort in this case is minimal and there are no big architectural changes to the organization application landscape. However, this approach will not result in better product data management and data governance.   5.0 Customer Scenario – Before EPC deployment   A leading global telecommunications service provider wanted to launch a quad play and triple play service offering in the shortest possible lead time. The service provider was offering Broadband and VoIP services to customers. The company wanted to reuse a majority of the Broadband services and price plans and bundle them with new wireless and IPTV services for quad play and triple play. The challenges in launching the new service offerings were:       Figure 8: Triple Play Plan   ·       Broadband product data was stored in multiple product catalogues (CRM catalogue, Billing catalogue, spread sheets)   ·       Product managers spent a lot of time performing tasks involving duplication or re-keying of data. Manual effort caused errors, cost and time over-runs.   ·       No effective product and price data governance mechanism. Price change issues arising from the lack of data consistency across systems resulted in leakage of customer value and revenue.   ·       Product data had re-usability issues and was not in a structured format. It resulted in uncontrolled product portfolio creation and product management issues.   ·       Lack of enterprise product model resulted into product distribution challenges and thus delays in product launch.   ·       Designers are constrained by existing legacy product management solutions to model product/service requirements and product configuration rules such as upgrading, downgrading and cross selling.    5.1 Customer Scenario - After EPC deployment     Figure 9: SOA-based end-to-end EPC Solution   The company deployed PLM-based Enterprise Product Catalogue solutions to launch quad play service after evaluating various product catalogues. The broadband product offering, service and price data were migrated to the new system, and the product and price plan hierarchy for new offerings were created using the entities defined in the Enterprise Product Model. Supplier product catalogue data such as routers and set up boxes were loaded onto the new solution through SOA-based web service. Price plans and configuration rules were built in the new system. The validated final product configurations were extracted from the product catalogue in a SID format and were distributed to the downstream B/OSS systems through exposed SOA-based web services. The transformations required for the B/OSS system were handled using the transformation layer as part of the solution.   6.0 How PLM enabled Product Management Transformation         Figure 10: Product Management Transformation     PLM-based Product Catalogue Solution helped the customer reduce the product launch cycle time by 30% and enable transformation of Product Management for next generation services.   7.0 Conclusion   On the one hand, the telecom industry is undergoing changes due to disruptions, uncertain product markets and increased complexity of products. On the other hand, the ARPU is decreasing year-on-year. Communications Service Providers are embarking on convergence, bundled service offerings, flexibility to cross-sell and up-sell, introduce new value-added services, leverage Web 2.0 concepts and network capabilities. Consequently, large scale IT transformation initiatives to improve their ARPU supporting network and business transformations are a business imperative. Product Management has become a focus area. Companies are investing in best-in- class COTS solutions to reduce time-to-market, ensure rapid service delivery and improve operational efficiency. An efficient PLM-based enterprise product mastering solution plays a key role in achieving zero touch automation and rapid product launch.   References:   1.     Preston G.Smith, Donald G.Reineristsem, Van Nostrand Reinhold “Developing Products in Half the time”.   2.     John G. Innes, "Achieving Successful Product Change", Pitman Publishing.   3.     D T Pham and R M Setchi (16th Jan, 2001) "Authoring environment for documentation development" University of Wales Cardiff, U.K., Proceedings on Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 215, Part B.   4.     Oracle Product Hub for Communications:   http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/master-data-management/product-hub-082059.html  

    Read the article

  • Pain Comes Instantly

    - by user701213
    When I look back at recent blog entries – many of which are not all that current (more on where my available writing time is going later) – I am struck by how many of them focus on public policy or legislative issues instead of, say, the latest nefarious cyberattack or exploit (or everyone’s favorite new pastime: coining terms for the Coming Cyberpocalypse: “digital Pearl Harbor” is so 1941). Speaking of which, I personally hope evil hackers from Malefactoria will someday hack into my bathroom scale – which in a future time will be connected to the Internet because, gosh, wouldn’t it be great to have absolutely everything in your life Internet-enabled? – and recalibrate it so I’m 10 pounds thinner. The horror. In part, my focus on public policy is due to an admitted limitation of my skill set. I enjoy reading technical articles about exploits and cybersecurity trends, but writing a blog entry on those topics would take more research than I have time for and, quite honestly, doesn’t play to my strengths. The first rule of writing is “write what you know.” The bigger contributing factor to my recent paucity of blog entries is that more and more of my waking hours are spent engaging in “thrust and parry” activity involving emerging regulations of some sort or other. I’ve opined in earlier blogs about what constitutes good and reasonable public policy so nobody can accuse me of being reflexively anti-regulation. That said, you have so many cycles in the day, and most of us would rather spend it slaying actual dragons than participating in focus groups on whether dragons are really a problem, whether lassoing them (with organic, sustainable and recyclable lassos) is preferable to slaying them – after all, dragons are people, too - and whether we need lasso compliance auditors to make sure lassos are being used correctly and humanely. (A point that seems to evade many rule makers: slaying dragons actually accomplishes something, whereas talking about “approved dragon slaying procedures and requirements” wastes the time of those who are competent to dispatch actual dragons and who were doing so very well without the input of “dragon-slaying theorists.”) Unfortunately for so many of us who would just get on with doing our day jobs, cybersecurity is rapidly devolving into the “focus groups on dragon dispatching” realm, which actual dragons slayers have little choice but to participate in. The general trend in cybersecurity is that powers-that-be – which encompasses groups other than just legislators – are often increasingly concerned and therefore feel they need to Do Something About Cybersecurity. Many seem to believe that if only we had the right amount of regulation and oversight, there would be no data breaches: a breach simply must mean Someone Is At Fault and Needs Supervision. (Leaving aside the fact that we have lots of home invasions despite a) guard dogs b) liberal carry permits c) alarm systems d) etc.) Also note that many well-managed and security-aware organizations, like the US Department of Defense, still get hacked. More specifically, many powers-that-be feel they must direct industry in a multiplicity of ways, up to and including how we actually build and deploy information technology systems. The more prescriptive the requirement, the more regulators or overseers a) can be seen to be doing something b) feel as if they are doing something regardless of whether they are actually doing something useful or cost effective. Note: an unfortunate concomitant of Doing Something is that often the cure is worse than the ailment. That is, doing what overseers want creates unfortunate byproducts that they either didn’t foresee or worse, don’t care about. After all, the logic goes, we Did Something. Prescriptive practice in the IT industry is problematic for a number of reasons. For a start, prescriptive guidance is really only appropriate if: • It is cost effective• It is “current” (meaning, the guidance doesn’t require the use of the technical equivalent of buggy whips long after horse-drawn transportation has become passé)*• It is practical (that is, pragmatic, proven and effective in the real world, not theoretical and unproven)• It solves the right problem With the above in mind, heading up the list of “you must be joking” regulations are recent disturbing developments in the Payment Card Industry (PCI) world. I’d like to give PCI kahunas the benefit of the doubt about their intentions, except that efforts by Oracle among others to make them aware of “unfortunate side effects of your requirements” – which is as tactful I can be for reasons that I believe will become obvious below - have gone, to-date, unanswered and more importantly, unchanged. A little background on PCI before I get too wound up. In 2008, the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Security Standards Council (SSC) introduced the Payment Application Data Security Standard (PA-DSS). That standard requires vendors of payment applications to ensure that their products implement specific requirements and undergo security assessment procedures. In order to have an application listed as a Validated Payment Application (VPA) and available for use by merchants, software vendors are required to execute the PCI Payment Application Vendor Release Agreement (VRA). (Are you still with me through all the acronyms?) Beginning in August 2010, the VRA imposed new obligations on vendors that are extraordinary and extraordinarily bad, short-sighted and unworkable. Specifically, PCI requires vendors to disclose (dare we say “tell all?”) to PCI any known security vulnerabilities and associated security breaches involving VPAs. ASAP. Think about the impact of that. PCI is asking a vendor to disclose to them: • Specific details of security vulnerabilities • Including exploit information or technical details of the vulnerability • Whether or not there is any mitigation available (as in a patch) PCI, in turn, has the right to blab about any and all of the above – specifically, to distribute all the gory details of what is disclosed - to the PCI SSC, qualified security assessors (QSAs), and any affiliate or agent or adviser of those entities, who are in turn permitted to share it with their respective affiliates, agents, employees, contractors, merchants, processors, service providers and other business partners. This assorted crew can’t be more than, oh, hundreds of thousands of entities. Does anybody believe that several hundred thousand people can keep a secret? Or that several hundred thousand people are all equally trustworthy? Or that not one of the people getting all that information would blab vulnerability details to a bad guy, even by accident? Or be a bad guy who uses the information to break into systems? (Wait, was that the Easter Bunny that just hopped by? Bringing world peace, no doubt.) Sarcasm aside, common sense tells us that telling lots of people a secret is guaranteed to “unsecret” the secret. Notably, being provided details of a vulnerability (without a patch) is of little or no use to companies running the affected application. Few users have the technological sophistication to create a workaround, and even if they do, most workarounds break some other functionality in the application or surrounding environment. Also, given the differences among corporate implementations of any application, it is highly unlikely that a single workaround is going to work for all corporate users. So until a patch is developed by the vendor, users remain at risk of exploit: even more so if the details of vulnerability have been widely shared. Sharing that information widely before a patch is available therefore does not help users, and instead helps only those wanting to exploit known security bugs. There’s a shocker for you. Furthermore, we already know that insider information about security vulnerabilities inevitably leaks, which is why most vendors closely hold such information and limit dissemination until a patch is available (and frequently limit dissemination of technical details even with the release of a patch). That’s the industry norm, not that PCI seems to realize or acknowledge that. Why would anybody release a bunch of highly technical exploit information to a cast of thousands, whose only “vetting” is that they are members of a PCI consortium? Oracle has had personal experience with this problem, which is one reason why information on security vulnerabilities at Oracle is “need to know” (we use our own row level access control to limit access to security bugs in our bug database, and thus less than 1% of development has access to this information), and we don’t provide some customers with more information than others or with vulnerability information and/or patches earlier than others. Failure to remember “insider information always leaks” creates problems in the general case, and has created problems for us specifically. A number of years ago, one of the UK intelligence agencies had information about a non-public security vulnerability in an Oracle product that they circulated among other UK and Commonwealth defense and intelligence entities. Nobody, it should be pointed out, bothered to report the problem to Oracle, even though only Oracle could produce a patch. The vulnerability was finally reported to Oracle by (drum roll) a US-based commercial company, to whom the information had leaked. (Note: every time I tell this story, the MI-whatever agency that created the problem gets a bit shirty with us. I know they meant well and have improved their vulnerability handling/sharing processes but, dudes, next time you find an Oracle vulnerability, try reporting it to us first before blabbing to lots of people who can’t actually fix the problem. Thank you!) Getting back to PCI: clearly, these new disclosure obligations increase the risk of exploitation of a vulnerability in a VPA and thus, of misappropriation of payment card data and customer information that a VPA processes, stores or transmits. It stands to reason that VRA’s current requirement for the widespread distribution of security vulnerability exploit details -- at any time, but particularly before a vendor can issue a patch or a workaround -- is very poor public policy. It effectively publicizes information of great value to potential attackers while not providing compensating benefits - actually, any benefits - to payment card merchants or consumers. In fact, it magnifies the risk to payment card merchants and consumers. The risk is most prominent in the time before a patch has been released, since customers often have little option but to continue using an application or system despite the risks. However, the risk is not limited to the time before a patch is issued: customers often need days, or weeks, to apply patches to systems, based upon the complexity of the issue and dependence on surrounding programs. Rather than decreasing the available window of exploit, this requirement increases the available window of exploit, both as to time available to exploit a vulnerability and the ease with which it can be exploited. Also, why would hackers focus on finding new vulnerabilities to exploit if they can get “EZHack” handed to them in such a manner: a) a vulnerability b) in a payment application c) with exploit code: the “Hacking Trifecta!“ It’s fair to say that this is probably the exact opposite of what PCI – or any of us – would want. Established industry practice concerning vulnerability handling avoids the risks created by the VRA’s vulnerability disclosure requirements. Specifically, the norm is not to release information about a security bug until the associated patch (or a pretty darn good workaround) has been issued. Once a patch is available, the notice to the user community is a high-level communication discussing the product at issue, the level of risk associated with the vulnerability, and how to apply the patch. The notices do not include either the specific customers affected by the vulnerability or forensic reports with maps of the exploit (both of which are required by the current VRA). In this way, customers have the tools they need to prioritize patching and to help prevent an attack, and the information released does not increase the risk of exploit. Furthermore, many vendors already use industry standards for vulnerability description: Common Vulnerability Enumeration (CVE) and Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). CVE helps ensure that customers know which particular issues a patch addresses and CVSS helps customers determine how severe a vulnerability is on a relative scale. Industry already provides the tools customers need to know what the patch contains and how bad the problem is that the patch remediates. So, what’s a poor vendor to do? Oracle is reaching out to other vendors subject to PCI and attempting to enlist then in a broad effort to engage PCI in rethinking (that is, eradicating) these requirements. I would therefore urge all who care about this issue, but especially those in the vendor community whose applications are subject to PCI and who may not have know they were being asked to tell-all to PCI and put their customers at risk, to do one of the following: • Contact PCI with your concerns• Contact Oracle (we are looking for vendors to sign our statement of concern)• And make sure you tell your customers that you have to rat them out to PCI if there is a breach involving the payment application I like to be charitable and say “PCI meant well” but in as important a public policy issue as what you disclose about vulnerabilities, to whom and when, meaning well isn’t enough. We need to do well. PCI, as regards this particular issue, has not done well, and has compounded the error by thus far being nonresponsive to those of us who have labored mightily to try to explain why they might want to rethink telling the entire planet about security problems with no solutions. By Way of Explanation… Non-related to PCI whatsoever, and the explanation for why I have not been blogging a lot recently, I have been working on Other Writing Venues with my sister Diane (who has also worked in the tech sector, inflicting upgrades on unsuspecting and largely ungrateful end users). I am pleased to note that we have recently (self-)published the first in the Miss Information Technology Murder Mystery series, Outsourcing Murder. The genre might best be described as “chick lit meets geek scene.” Our sisterly nom de plume is Maddi Davidson and (shameless plug follows): you can order the paper version of the book on Amazon, or the Kindle or Nook versions on www.amazon.com or www.bn.com, respectively. From our book jacket: Emma Jones, a 20-something IT consultant, is working on an outsourcing project at Tahiti Tacos, a restaurant chain offering Polynexican cuisine: refried poi, anyone? Emma despises her boss Padmanabh, a brilliant but arrogant partner in GD Consulting. When Emma discovers His-Royal-Padness’s body (verdict: death by cricket bat), she becomes a suspect.With her overprotective family and her best friend Stacey providing endless support and advice, Emma stumbles her way through an investigation of Padmanabh’s murder, bolstered by fusion food feeding frenzies, endless cups of frou-frou coffee and serious surfing sessions. While Stacey knows a PI who owes her a favor, landlady Magda urges Emma to tart up her underwear drawer before the next cute cop with a search warrant arrives. Emma’s mother offers to fix her up with a PhD student at Berkeley and showers her with self-defense gizmos while her old lover Keoni beckons from Hawai’i. And everyone, even Shaun the barista, knows a good lawyer. Book 2, Denial of Service, is coming out this summer. * Given the rate of change in technology, today’s “thou shalts” are easily next year’s “buggy whip guidance.”

    Read the article

  • Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture (EA)

    - by TedMcLaughlan
    Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture A taxonomy of subject areas, from which to develop a prioritized marketing and communications plan to evangelize EA activities within and among US Federal Government organizations and constituents. Any and all feedback is appreciated, particularly in developing and extending this discussion as a tool for use – more information and details are also available. "Selling" the discipline of Enterprise Architecture (EA) in the Federal Government (particularly in non-DoD agencies) is difficult, notwithstanding the general availability and use of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) for some time now, and the relatively mature use of the reference models in the OMB Capital Planning and Investment (CPIC) cycles. EA in the Federal Government also tends to be a very esoteric and hard to decipher conversation – early apologies to those who agree to continue reading this somewhat lengthy article. Alignment to the FEAF and OMB compliance mandates is long underway across the Federal Departments and Agencies (and visible via tools like PortfolioStat and ITDashboard.gov – but there is still a gap between the top-down compliance directives and enablement programs, and the bottom-up awareness and effective use of EA for either IT investment management or actual mission effectiveness. "EA isn't getting deep enough penetration into programs, components, sub-agencies, etc.", verified a panelist at the most recent EA Government Conference in DC. Newer guidance from OMB may be especially difficult to handle, where bottom-up input can't be accurately aligned, analyzed and reported via standardized EA discipline at the Agency level – for example in addressing the new (for FY13) Exhibit 53D "Agency IT Reductions and Reinvestments" and the information required for "Cloud Computing Alternatives Evaluation" (supporting the new Exhibit 53C, "Agency Cloud Computing Portfolio"). Therefore, EA must be "sold" directly to the communities that matter, from a coordinated, proactive messaging perspective that takes BOTH the Program-level value drivers AND the broader Agency mission and IT maturity context into consideration. Selling EA means persuading others to take additional time and possibly assign additional resources, for a mix of direct and indirect benefits – many of which aren't likely to be realized in the short-term. This means there's probably little current, allocated budget to work with; ergo the challenge of trying to sell an "unfunded mandate". Also, the concept of "Enterprise" in large Departments like Homeland Security tends to cross all kinds of organizational boundaries – as Richard Spires recently indicated by commenting that "...organizational boundaries still trump functional similarities. Most people understand what we're trying to do internally, and at a high level they get it. The problem, of course, is when you get down to them and their system and the fact that you're going to be touching them...there's always that fear factor," Spires said. It is quite clear to the Federal IT Investment community that for EA to meet its objective, understandable, relevant value must be measured and reported using a repeatable method – as described by GAO's recent report "Enterprise Architecture Value Needs To Be Measured and Reported". What's not clear is the method or guidance to sell this value. In fact, the current GAO "Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0)", a.k.a. the "EAMMF", does not include words like "sell", "persuade", "market", etc., except in reference ("within Core Element 19: Organization business owner and CXO representatives are actively engaged in architecture development") to a brief section in the CIO Council's 2001 "Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture", entitled "3.3.1. Develop an EA Marketing Strategy and Communications Plan." Furthermore, Core Element 19 of the EAMMF is advised to be applied in "Stage 3: Developing Initial EA Versions". This kind of EA sales campaign truly should start much earlier in the maturity progress, i.e. in Stages 0 or 1. So, what are the understandable, relevant benefits (or value) to sell, that can find an agreeable, participatory audience, and can pave the way towards success of a longer-term, funded set of EA mechanisms that can be methodically measured and reported? Pragmatic benefits from a useful EA that can help overcome the fear of change? And how should they be sold? Following is a brief taxonomy (it's a taxonomy, to help organize SME support) of benefit-related subjects that might make the most sense, in creating the messages and organizing an initial "engagement plan" for evangelizing EA "from within". An EA "Sales Taxonomy" of sorts. We're not boiling the ocean here; the subjects that are included are ones that currently appear to be urgently relevant to the current Federal IT Investment landscape. Note that successful dialogue in these topics is directly usable as input or guidance for actually developing early-stage, "Fit-for-Purpose" (a DoDAF term) Enterprise Architecture artifacts, as prescribed by common methods found in most EA methodologies, including FEAF, TOGAF, DoDAF and our own Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework (OEAF). The taxonomy below is organized by (1) Target Community, (2) Benefit or Value, and (3) EA Program Facet - as in: "Let's talk to (1: Community Member) about how and why (3: EA Facet) the EA program can help with (2: Benefit/Value)". Once the initial discussion targets and subjects are approved (that can be measured and reported), a "marketing and communications plan" can be created. A working example follows the Taxonomy. Enterprise Architecture Sales Taxonomy Draft, Summary Version 1. Community 1.1. Budgeted Programs or Portfolios Communities of Purpose (CoPR) 1.1.1. Program/System Owners (Senior Execs) Creating or Executing Acquisition Plans 1.1.2. Program/System Owners Facing Strategic Change 1.1.2.1. Mandated 1.1.2.2. Expected/Anticipated 1.1.3. Program Managers - Creating Employee Performance Plans 1.1.4. CO/COTRs – Creating Contractor Performance Plans, or evaluating Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP) 1.2. Governance & Communications Communities of Practice (CoP) 1.2.1. Policy Owners 1.2.1.1. OCFO 1.2.1.1.1. Budget/Procurement Office 1.2.1.1.2. Strategic Planning 1.2.1.2. OCIO 1.2.1.2.1. IT Management 1.2.1.2.2. IT Operations 1.2.1.2.3. Information Assurance (Cyber Security) 1.2.1.2.4. IT Innovation 1.2.1.3. Information-Sharing/ Process Collaboration (i.e. policies and procedures regarding Partners, Agreements) 1.2.2. Governing IT Council/SME Peers (i.e. an "Architects Council") 1.2.2.1. Enterprise Architects (assumes others exist; also assumes EA participants aren't buried solely within the CIO shop) 1.2.2.2. Domain, Enclave, Segment Architects – i.e. the right affinity group for a "shared services" EA structure (per the EAMMF), which may be classified as Federated, Segmented, Service-Oriented, or Extended 1.2.2.3. External Oversight/Constraints 1.2.2.3.1. GAO/OIG & Legal 1.2.2.3.2. Industry Standards 1.2.2.3.3. Official public notification, response 1.2.3. Mission Constituents Participant & Analyst Community of Interest (CoI) 1.2.3.1. Mission Operators/Users 1.2.3.2. Public Constituents 1.2.3.3. Industry Advisory Groups, Stakeholders 1.2.3.4. Media 2. Benefit/Value (Note the actual benefits may not be discretely attributable to EA alone; EA is a very collaborative, cross-cutting discipline.) 2.1. Program Costs – EA enables sound decisions regarding... 2.1.1. Cost Avoidance – a TCO theme 2.1.2. Sequencing – alignment of capability delivery 2.1.3. Budget Instability – a Federal reality 2.2. Investment Capital – EA illuminates new investment resources via... 2.2.1. Value Engineering – contractor-driven cost savings on existing budgets, direct or collateral 2.2.2. Reuse – reuse of investments between programs can result in savings, chargeback models; avoiding duplication 2.2.3. License Refactoring – IT license & support models may not reflect actual or intended usage 2.3. Contextual Knowledge – EA enables informed decisions by revealing... 2.3.1. Common Operating Picture (COP) – i.e. cross-program impacts and synergy, relative to context 2.3.2. Expertise & Skill – who truly should be involved in architectural decisions, both business and IT 2.3.3. Influence – the impact of politics and relationships can be examined 2.3.4. Disruptive Technologies – new technologies may reduce costs or mitigate risk in unanticipated ways 2.3.5. What-If Scenarios – can become much more refined, current, verifiable; basis for Target Architectures 2.4. Mission Performance – EA enables beneficial decision results regarding... 2.4.1. IT Performance and Optimization – towards 100% effective, available resource utilization 2.4.2. IT Stability – towards 100%, real-time uptime 2.4.3. Agility – responding to rapid changes in mission 2.4.4. Outcomes –measures of mission success, KPIs – vs. only "Outputs" 2.4.5. Constraints – appropriate response to constraints 2.4.6. Personnel Performance – better line-of-sight through performance plans to mission outcome 2.5. Mission Risk Mitigation – EA mitigates decision risks in terms of... 2.5.1. Compliance – all the right boxes are checked 2.5.2. Dependencies –cross-agency, segment, government 2.5.3. Transparency – risks, impact and resource utilization are illuminated quickly, comprehensively 2.5.4. Threats and Vulnerabilities – current, realistic awareness and profiles 2.5.5. Consequences – realization of risk can be mapped as a series of consequences, from earlier decisions or new decisions required for current issues 2.5.5.1. Unanticipated – illuminating signals of future or non-symmetric risk; helping to "future-proof" 2.5.5.2. Anticipated – discovering the level of impact that matters 3. EA Program Facet (What parts of the EA can and should be communicated, using business or mission terms?) 3.1. Architecture Models – the visual tools to be created and used 3.1.1. Operating Architecture – the Business Operating Model/Architecture elements of the EA truly drive all other elements, plus expose communication channels 3.1.2. Use Of – how can the EA models be used, and how are they populated, from a reasonable, pragmatic yet compliant perspective? What are the core/minimal models required? What's the relationship of these models, with existing system models? 3.1.3. Scope – what level of granularity within the models, and what level of abstraction across the models, is likely to be most effective and useful? 3.2. Traceability – the maturity, status, completeness of the tools 3.2.1. Status – what in fact is the degree of maturity across the integrated EA model and other relevant governance models, and who may already be benefiting from it? 3.2.2. Visibility – how does the EA visibly and effectively prove IT investment performance goals are being reached, with positive mission outcome? 3.3. Governance – what's the interaction, participation method; how are the tools used? 3.3.1. Contributions – how is the EA program informed, accept submissions, collect data? Who are the experts? 3.3.2. Review – how is the EA validated, against what criteria?  Taxonomy Usage Example:   1. To speak with: a. ...a particular set of System Owners Facing Strategic Change, via mandate (like the "Cloud First" mandate); about... b. ...how the EA program's visible and easily accessible Infrastructure Reference Model (i.e. "IRM" or "TRM"), if updated more completely with current system data, can... c. ...help shed light on ways to mitigate risks and avoid future costs associated with NOT leveraging potentially-available shared services across the enterprise... 2. ....the following Marketing & Communications (Sales) Plan can be constructed: a. Create an easy-to-read "Consequence Model" that illustrates how adoption of a cloud capability (like elastic operational storage) can enable rapid and durable compliance with the mandate – using EA traceability. Traceability might be from the IRM to the ARM (that identifies reusable services invoking the elastic storage), and then to the PRM with performance measures (such as % utilization of purchased storage allocation) included in the OMB Exhibits; and b. Schedule a meeting with the Program Owners, timed during their Acquisition Strategy meetings in response to the mandate, to use the "Consequence Model" for advising them to organize a rapid and relevant RFI solicitation for this cloud capability (regarding alternatives for sourcing elastic operational storage); and c. Schedule a series of short "Discovery" meetings with the system architecture leads (as agreed by the Program Owners), to further populate/validate the "As-Is" models and frame the "To Be" models (via scenarios), to better inform the RFI, obtain the best feedback from the vendor community, and provide potential value for and avoid impact to all other programs and systems. --end example -- Note that communications with the intended audience should take a page out of the standard "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO) playbook, using keywords and phrases relating to "value" and "outcome" vs. "compliance" and "output". Searches in email boxes, internal and external search engines for phrases like "cost avoidance strategies", "mission performance metrics" and "innovation funding" should yield messages and content from the EA team. This targeted, informed, practical sales approach should result in additional buy-in and participation, additional EA information contribution and model validation, development of more SMEs and quick "proof points" (with real-life testing) to bolster the case for EA. The proof point here is a successful, timely procurement that satisfies not only the external mandate and external oversight review, but also meets internal EA compliance/conformance goals and therefore is more transparently useful across the community. In short, if sold effectively, the EA will perform and be recognized. EA won’t therefore be used only for compliance, but also (according to a validated, stated purpose) to directly influence decisions and outcomes. The opinions, views and analysis expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Oracle.

    Read the article

  • mount_afp on linux, user rights

    - by Antonio Sesto
    I need to mount a remote filesystem on a linux box using the afp protocol. The linux box runs an old Debian 4. I downloaded the source code of mount_afp, compiled it and installed it with all the required packages. Then created /etc/fuse with the following command: mknod /dev/fuse c 10 229 (according to the instructions here) I can mount the remote filesystem as root by executing: mount_afp afp://USER:PASSWD@REMOTE_SERVER/FOLDER /mnt/MOUNTPOINT/ but the same command fails when run as normal user (of the local machine). After reading here and there, I created a group fuse, and added my normal user U to the group fuse: [prompt] groups U U fuse Then modified the group of /dev/fuse, that now has the following rights: 0 crwxrwx--- 1 root fuse 10, 229 Feb 8 15:33 /dev/fuse However, if the user U tries to mount the remote filesystem by using the same command as above, U gets the following error: Incorrect permissions on /dev/fuse, mode of device is 20770, uid/gid is 0/1007. But your effective uid/gid is 1004/1004 But the user U with uid 1004 has also gid 1007 (group fuse). I might think the problem is related to real/effective/etc. ID, but I do not know how to proceed and could not find any clear instructions. Could you please help me? There is also another problem. If I mount /mnt/MOUNTPOINT as root and run ls -l /mnt, I get: drwxrwxrwx 15 root root 466 Feb 8 16:34 MONTPOINT If I run ls -l /mnt as normal user U I get: ? ?????????? ? ? ? ? ? MOUNTPOINT in fact when I try to cd /mnt/MOUNTPOINT I get: $-> cd /mnt/MOUNTPOINT -sh: cd: /mnt/MOUNTPOINT: Not a directory Then I unmount /mnt/MOUNTPOINT as root and run again ls -l /mnt as normal user U I get: 0 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 6 Feb 8 15:32 MOUNTPOINT/ After reading Frank's answer, I killed every shell/process running with privileges of user U. Still U cannot mount the remote filesystem, but the error message has changed. Now it is: "Login error: Authentication failed". The problem is not related to remote login/password since the same command works perfectly when run as root of the local machine. Since I cannot get mount_afp to work with normal users, I decided to follow mgorven's suggestion. So I run the commands: mount_afp -o allow_other afp://USER:PASSWD@REMOTE_SERVER/FOLDER /mnt/MOUNTPOINT/ and mount_afp -o user=U afp://USER:PASSWD@REMOTE_SERVER/FOLDER /mnt/MOUNTPOINT/ The mount succeeds but user U cannot access the mount point. If U executes ls -l in /mnt U@LOCAL_HOST [/mnt] $-> ls -l ls: cannot access MOUNT_POINT: Permission denied total 0 ? ?????????? ? ? ? ? ? MOUNT_POINT Is it so hard to have this utility working?

    Read the article

  • Linux installation analysis

    - by blunders
    "Ending company IT Admin relationship" has a good checklist for taking over an existing IT system, but I'm wondering as it relates to Linux: What is the most effective way to assess the scope of existing custom configurations, installs, scripts, etc done? Is there any software that will check if the kernel, system files, etc mirror the default files for the version installed? At this point I don't know what distro of Linux the server (though using Netcraft I do know the server appears to be Linux) -- so it's possible without knowing that information that this would be a hard question to answer.

    Read the article

  • sd card folder is not being created in DDMS

    - by Abhijeet
    hi everyone , I am new to android. I intend to make video player which can play video from file as well as web URL. But the problem is that when my emulator runs , a sd card folder should be created in "File Explorer" tab of DDMS perspective in eclipse , which is not happening . That's why I am unable to push any file in the sd card and hence video is not being played. I have used followed this code :- check it out the link http://davanum.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/android-%E2%80%93-videomusic-player-sample-take-2/ Please help me out. Abhijeet

    Read the article

  • sd card folder is not being created in DDMS

    - by Abhijeet
    hi everyone , I am new to android. I intend to make video player which can play video from file as well as web URL. But the problem is that when my emulator runs , a sd card folder should be created in "File Explorer" tab of DDMS perspective in eclipse , which is not happening . That's why I am unable to push any file in the sd card and hence video is not being played. I have used following code :- check it out the link http://davanum.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/android-%E2%80%93-videomusic-player-sample-take-2/ Please help me out. Abhijeet

    Read the article

  • AppEngine BlobStore upload failing when request is programmatic

    - by Joe Ludwig
    I have an AppEngine application that uses the blobstore to store user-provided image data. When I upload images to that application from a form in Chrome it works fine. When I try to upload an image from an Android application it fails. Both methods work fine if I am running against the development server, but the Android upload doesn't work against the live service. This is the request from Chrome: POST /_ah/upload/?userToken=11001/AMmfu6ZCyMQQ9YdiXal3SmSXIRTQIuSRXkNc-i3JmU0fqx_kJbUJ2OMLcS2lXhVJSK4qs7regViTKzOPz5ejoZYi0nAD5o8vNltiOViQw6DZO7_byZz3Ut0/ALBNUaYAAAAAS_lusgPMAGmpPrg0BuNsJyymX-57ob4i/ HTTP/1.1 Host: photohuntservice.appspot.com Connection: keep-alive User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.1.249.1064 Safari/532.5 Referer: http://photohuntservice.appspot.com/debug_newpuzzle?userToken=11001 Content-Length: 60360 Cache-Control: max-age=0 Origin: http://photohuntservice.appspot.com Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=----WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN Accept: application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.8 Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.3 ------WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN Content-Disposition: form-data; name="userToken" 11001 ------WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN Content-Disposition: form-data; name="img"; filename="Photo_020908_001.jpg" Content-Type: image/jpeg <image data> ------WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN Content-Disposition: form-data; name="longitude" -122.084095 ------WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN Content-Disposition: form-data; name="latitude" 37.422006 ------WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN-- This is the request from my client (which is written in Java on Android, but I don't think that's relevant): POST /_ah/upload/?userToken=11001/AMmfu6Zf9an6AU4lT9UuhIpxOZyOYb1LMwimFpeSh8zr6J1sX9F2ddJW3Qlsw0kwV3oALv-TNPWRQ6g4_Dgwk0UTwF47bbc78Yl44kDeV69MydTuR3N46S4/ALBNUaYAAAAAS_mMr3CYqTg3aVBDjhRxP0DyyRdvotyG/ HTTP/1.1 Content-Type: multipart/form-data;boundary=----WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG Cache-Control: max-age=0 Accept: */* Origin: http://photohuntservice.appspot.com Connection: keep-alive Referer: http://photohuntservice.appspot.com/getuploadurl?userToken=11001 Content-Length: 2638 Host: photohuntservice.appspot.com User-Agent: Apache-HttpClient/UNAVAILABLE (java 1.4) Expect: 100-Continue ------WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG Content-Disposition: form-data; name="userToken" 11001 ------WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG Content-Disposition: form-data; name="img";filename="PhotoHunt.jpg" Content-Type: image/jpeg <image data> ------WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG Content-Disposition: form-data; name="latitude" 37.422006 ------WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG Content-Disposition: form-data; name="longitude" -122.084095 ------WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG-- In both cases the AppEngine Python code to catch the request is the same: class UploadPuzzle( blobstore_handlers.BlobstoreUploadHandler ): def post(self): upload_files = self.get_uploads( ) The problem is that when running on the production AppEngine service self.get_uploads() returns an empty list when the request is made from my client app. Both requests return what I expect (a list with one blob_info in it) on the development server, and Chrome returns what I expect in both cases.

    Read the article

  • jQTouch with PhoneGap on webOS

    - by Steve Nay
    I'm writing an application in PhoneGap that I want to run on iOS, Android, and webOS. jQTouch plays nice with everything on iOS and Android, but not webOS. Since the webOS Mojo framework is based on Prototype (which uses the $ variable), it's necessary to use jQuery in noConflict mode. I can handle that much. However, the problem is that I also want to use the jQTouch plugin. The jqtouch.js file uses $ throughout, causing JavaScript errors when that file is loaded. Is there a way to run the jQTouch plugin (or any plugin for that matter) in my PhoneGap application without interfering with Prototype?

    Read the article

  • Windows Small Business Server 2008 and Exchange 2010

    - by Chris Marisic
    Is there going to be a release of SBS 2008 that includes Exchange 2010? I want to take this into consideration as I might purchase SBS for the premium edition to get Sql Server at a much more cost effective rate but it feels like I would be getting shorted if I purchase SBS 2008 and receive Exchange 2007 since it is now outdated to 2010.

    Read the article

  • unable to connect emulator with internet

    - by Abhijeet
    hi I am using Android 2.2 . I am unable to connect my emulator to internet . When I open my web browser in the emulator it shows the message "Web Page not available" . I have set proxy settings in the emulator (settings - Wireless & Networks -Mobile Networks - Access Point Names). Also , I set proxy settings in eclipse (Windows- Preferences- Android- Launch- Default Emulator Options). I have read many blogs and forums but I haven't found any solution yet .I am really frustrated . Please help me out. Abhijeet

    Read the article

  • SDK Setup Problems

    - by ramesh
    Hi, Im new to android and am just trying to install the SDK. I have everything else done. When i run the SDK Setup.exe (ive added the ./tools to the path already.) It gives me the famous cannot fetch URL error. Failed to fetch URL https://dl-ssl.google.com/android/repository/repository.xml, reason: Permission denied: connect I tried the force http option and also manually adding a http:// version of the above url. It does not work at all. I am working on a windows 7 64 bit pc. Any help would be appreciated. Ramesh

    Read the article

  • Free-as-in-beer binary file format inspector

    - by fbrereto
    I am looking for a utility that gives me the ability to specify a binary file format and then interpret a file of bytes according to that format. (Something along the lines of the 010 Editor, but infinitely more cost-effective). Something that runs on Mac OS X would be preferred, but I'm interested to see what all is out there in general (while more of a hassle I'd be willing to run a tool on Windows if it were superior.) What's your preference?

    Read the article

  • Best defragmentation software?

    - by dentrasi
    I'm currently running Defraggler on my system, as it's fast, seems to be effective, and has a nice clean interface; it's also the program the other techs recommend to me. I've also heard good things about JKDefrag. Which program do you find you get the best results with?

    Read the article

  • How can I replace email alerts for system events with something more scalable?

    - by Dave Forgac
    I have a number of systems and services that send email alerts when some sort of event takes place. This works fine for a small number of systems but as the number of alerts grows the important message become less visible among the informational notices. Email filtering can only be effective to a point. What sort of solution can I use in place of emails that will allow me to send arbitrary alerts from various services and that will scale easily as the number of services grows?

    Read the article

  • Migrating outlook user to entourage

    - by Robot
    Can anyone give advice or pointers to resources for migrating a PC Outlook user's email, contacts, etc, to Entourage 2008 on a Mac? Most of what I see is from circa 2005, and I wonder if there is more accurate or effective information.

    Read the article

  • AppEngine BlobStore upload failing with a request that works in the Development Environment

    - by Joe Ludwig
    I have an AppEngine application that uses the blobstore to store user-provided image data. When I upload images to that application from a form in Chrome it works fine. When I try to upload an image from an Android application it fails. Both methods work fine if I am running against the development server, but the Android upload doesn't work against the live service. This is the request from Chrome: POST /_ah/upload/?userToken=11001/AMmfu6ZCyMQQ9YdiXal3SmSXIRTQIuSRXkNc-i3JmU0fqx_kJbUJ2OMLcS2lXhVJSK4qs7regViTKzOPz5ejoZYi0nAD5o8vNltiOViQw6DZO7_byZz3Ut0/ALBNUaYAAAAAS_lusgPMAGmpPrg0BuNsJyymX-57ob4i/ HTTP/1.1 Host: photohuntservice.appspot.com Connection: keep-alive User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.1.249.1064 Safari/532.5 Referer: http://photohuntservice.appspot.com/debug_newpuzzle?userToken=11001 Content-Length: 60360 Cache-Control: max-age=0 Origin: http://photohuntservice.appspot.com Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=----WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN Accept: application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.8 Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.3 ------WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN Content-Disposition: form-data; name="userToken" 11001 ------WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN Content-Disposition: form-data; name="img"; filename="Photo_020908_001.jpg" Content-Type: image/jpeg <image data> ------WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN Content-Disposition: form-data; name="longitude" -122.084095 ------WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN Content-Disposition: form-data; name="latitude" 37.422006 ------WebKitFormBoundarybl05YLmLbFRf2MzN-- This is the request from my client (which is written in Java on Android, but I don't think that's relevant): POST /_ah/upload/?userToken=11001/AMmfu6Zf9an6AU4lT9UuhIpxOZyOYb1LMwimFpeSh8zr6J1sX9F2ddJW3Qlsw0kwV3oALv-TNPWRQ6g4_Dgwk0UTwF47bbc78Yl44kDeV69MydTuR3N46S4/ALBNUaYAAAAAS_mMr3CYqTg3aVBDjhRxP0DyyRdvotyG/ HTTP/1.1 Content-Type: multipart/form-data;boundary=----WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG Cache-Control: max-age=0 Accept: */* Origin: http://photohuntservice.appspot.com Connection: keep-alive Referer: http://photohuntservice.appspot.com/getuploadurl?userToken=11001 Content-Length: 2638 Host: photohuntservice.appspot.com User-Agent: Apache-HttpClient/UNAVAILABLE (java 1.4) Expect: 100-Continue ------WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG Content-Disposition: form-data; name="userToken" 11001 ------WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG Content-Disposition: form-data; name="img";filename="PhotoHunt.jpg" Content-Type: image/jpeg <image data> ------WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG Content-Disposition: form-data; name="latitude" 37.422006 ------WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG Content-Disposition: form-data; name="longitude" -122.084095 ------WebKitFormBoundaryhdyNAhmOouRDGErG-- In both cases the AppEngine Python code to catch the request is the same: class UploadPuzzle( blobstore_handlers.BlobstoreUploadHandler ): def post(self): upload_files = self.get_uploads( ) The problem is that when running on the production AppEngine service self.get_uploads() returns an empty list when the request is made from my client app. Both requests return what I expect (a list with one blob_info in it) on the development server, and Chrome returns what I expect in both cases.

    Read the article

  • How to change I/O priority of a process or thread in Win7?

    - by romkyns
    Process Explorer is able to show the effective IO priority of a given thread, but not change it. Seeing as IO priority support is a comparatively new feature, most programs don't set their own IO priorities. It appears that by default the IO priority is derived from the thread priority (rather than process priority), which Process Explorer can't modify either. Are there any other tools out there that can help me change the IO priority of a given thread / all threads of a given process?

    Read the article

  • Consolidating Windows and Linux servers

    - by Shalan
    Hi, I'm looking forward to getting your thoughts on consolidating/virtualizing 3 Windows 2008 Servers and 2 Linux Debian Servers into 1 (powerful) machine. What is the most cost-effective Virtualization software available to accomplish this. VMWare looks awfully expensive!

    Read the article

  • Revolutionary brand powder packing machine price from affecting marketplace boom and put on uniform in addition to a lengthy service life

    - by user74606
    In mining in stone crushing, our machinery company's encounter becomes much more apparent. As a consequence of production capacity in between 600~800t/h of mining stone crusher, stone is mine Mobile Cone Crushing Plant Price 25~40 times, effectively solved the initially mining stone crusher operation because of low yield prices, no upkeep problems. Full chunk of mining stone crusher. Maximum particle size for crushing 1000x1200mm, an effective answer for the original side is mine stone provide, storing significant chunks of stone can not use complications in mines. Completed goods granularity is modest, only 2~15mm, an effective option for the original mine stone size, generally blocking chute production was an issue even the grinding machine. Two types of material mixed great uniformity, desulfurization of mining stone by adding weight considerably. Present quantity added is often reached 60%, effectively minimizing the cost of raw supplies. Electrical energy consumption has fallen. Dropped 1~2KWh/t tons of mining stone electrical energy consumption, annual electricity savings of one hundred,000 yuan. Efficient labor intensity of workers and also the atmosphere. Due to mine stone powder packing machine price a high degree of automation, with out human make contact with supplies, workers working circumstances enhanced significantly. Positive aspects, and along with mine for stone crushing, CS series cone Crusher has the following efficiency traits. CS series cone Crusher Chamber is divided into 3 unique designs, the user is usually chosen in accordance with the scenario on site crushing efficiency is high, uniform item size, grain shape, rolling mortar wall friction and put on uniform in addition to a extended service life of crushing cavity-. CS series cone Crusher utilizes a one of a kind dust-proof seal, sealing dependable, properly extend the service life of the lubricant replacement cycle and parts. CS series Sprial Sand washer price manufacture of important components to choose unique materials. Each and every stroke left rolling mortar wall of broken cone distances, by permitting a lot more products into the crushing cavity, as well as the formation of big discharge volume, speed of supplies by way of the crushing Chamber. This machine makes use of the principle of crushing cavity, also as unique laminated crushing, particle fragmentation, so that the completed product drastically improved the proportions of a cube, needle-shaped stones to lower particle levels extra evenly.

    Read the article

  • Dynamically add new HTML elements on page load after getting JSON data from Web API

    - by Luis D Urraca
    I'm building an hybrid Android App using Phonegap/Apache Cordova. My app should get data from my web api. I'm using JSON to serve the data to the APP. So i got a the following code: function init() { document.addEventListener('deviceready', onDeviceReady, false); var url = "http://23.21.128.153:3000/regions.json";var jsonresults; $.getJSON(url,function(data){ jsonresults = data; $.each(jsonresults, function(i,v){ $('#main-content').append('<li>'+jsonresults[i].name+'</li>'); }); }); } and also on the body of the html i have a div called main-content. Everythings works fine in the Eclipse browser, but on the Android Emulator is not working. Not sure if there's another way to pull data from Web API using JSON and dinamically create HMTL elements after getting the data. https://gist.github.com/2956660

    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 | 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432  | Next Page >