Search Results

Search found 3779 results on 152 pages for 'dylan cross'.

Page 48/152 | < Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >

  • Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) - am I missing something here?

    - by David Semeria
    I was reading about CORS (https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTTP_access_control) and I think the implementation is both simple and effective. However, unless I'm missing something, I think there's a big part missing from the spec. As I understand, it's the foreign site that decides, based on the origin of the request (and optionally including credentials), whether to allow access to its resources. This is fine. But what if malicious code on the page wants to POST a user's sensitive information to a foreign site? The foreign site is obviously going to authenticate the request. Hence, again if I'm not missing something, CORS actually makes it easier to steal sensitive information. I think it would have made much more sense if the original site could also supply an immutable list of servers its page is allowed to access. So the expanded sequence would be: 1) Supply a page with list of acceptable CORS servers (abc.com, xyz.com, etc) 2) Page wants to make an XHR request to abc.com - the browser allows this because it's in the allowed list and authentication proceeds as normal 3) Page wants to make an XHR request to malicious.com - request rejected locally (ie by the browser) because the server is not in the list. I know that malicious code could still use JSONP to do its dirty work, but I would have thought that a complete implementation of CORS would imply the closing of the script tag multi-site loophole. I also checked out the official CORS spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/cors) and could not find any mention of this issue.

    Read the article

  • Cross platform millisecond timer lasting more than 49 days?

    - by Cetra
    Hey guys, I'm going to be developing a small dedicated server in C/C++ that will require uptime of forever. I've been looking into some time functions as millisecond timing is required for calculations. I have 2 problems that I'm facing: Using a 32bit integer to store the number of milliseconds since the operation began will wrap around at about the 49 days mark resetting to zero. There doesn't seem to be any standard system calls for getting elapsed milliseconds that are platform independant What should I do to resolve both these issues?

    Read the article

  • How to handle dependency files in a cross-platform manner?

    - by Brian Knoblauch
    I'm working on updating an old app. It has some dependency files that live in the same directory as the app. Obviously this broke when Windows Vista came out (since it violates the API and Vista/7 now enforce that (XP didn't)). Ideally, I'd like to avoid hardcoding anything into the app for just Windows. I can live with that if I have to though. I've already been down that path with pulling the APPDATA and LOCALAPPDATA environment variables, but that doesn't help any since they just give you the current user area... I need these to live somewhere accessible for all users, and I'd like to obey the Windows API expectations that they go into the all user appdata area. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • What rules govern cross-version compatibility for .NET applications and the C# language?

    - by John Feminella
    For some reason I've always had trouble remembering the backwards/forwards compatibility guarantees made by the framework, so I'd like to put that to bed forever. Suppose I have two assemblies, A and B. A is older and references .NET 2.0 assemblies; B references .NET 3.5 assemblies. I have the source for A and B, Ax and Bx, respectively; they are written in C# at the 2.0 and 3.0 language levels. (That is, Ax uses no features that were introduced later than C# 2.0; likewise Bx uses no features that were introduced later than 3.0.) I have two environments, C and D. C has the .NET 2.0 framework installed; D has the .NET 3.5 framework installed. Now, which of the following can/can't I do? Running: run A on C? run A on D? run B on C? run C on D? Compiling: compile Ax on C? compile Ax on D? compile Bx on C? compile Bx on D? Rewriting: rewrite Ax to use features from the C# 3 language level, and compile it on D, while having it still work on C? rewrite Bx to use features from the C# 4 language level on another environment E that has .NET 4, while having it still work on D?' Referencing from another assembly: reference B from A and have a client app on C use it? reference B from A and have a client app on D use it? reference A from B and have a client app on C use it? reference A from B and have a client app on D use it? More importantly, what rules govern the truth or falsity of these hypothetical scenarios?

    Read the article

  • What work has been done on cross-platform mobile development?

    - by Nicholas
    Have any well-documented or open source projects targeted iPhone, Blackberry, and Android? Are there other platforms which are better-suited to such an endeavor? Note that I am particularly asking about client-side software, not web apps, though any information about the difficulties of using web apps across multiple mobile platforms is also interesting.

    Read the article

  • Can I create a cross-project source reference in redmine?

    - by UlfR
    If you have two separate projects that is somehow connected. How can one make a reference to the source of the other project? For referencing the source of your own project you use: source:some/file But since I want to refer to code in another project my thought was that I could write something like: other_project:source:some/file Anyone that knows if this is possible in some way? I have read http://www.redmine.org/wiki/redmine/RedmineTextFormatting#Redmine-links but found no clues there.

    Read the article

  • Should I use an interface or factory (and interface) for a cross-platform implementation?

    - by nbolton
    Example A: // pseudo code interface IFoo { void bar(); } class FooPlatformA : IFoo { void bar() { /* ... */ } } class FooPlatformB : IFoo { void bar() { /* ... */ } } class Foo : IFoo { IFoo m_foo; public Foo() { if (detectPlatformA()} { m_foo = new FooPlatformA(); } else { m_foo = new FooPlatformB(); } } // wrapper function - downside is we'd have to create one // of these for each function, which doesn't seem right. void bar() { m_foo.bar(); } } Main() { Foo foo = new Foo(); foo.bar(); } Example B: // pseudo code interface IFoo { void bar(); } class FooPlatformA : IFoo { void bar() { /* ... */ } } class FooPlatformB : IFoo { void bar() { /* ... */ } } class FooFactory { IFoo newFoo() { if (detectPlatformA()} { return new FooPlatformA(); } else { return new FooPlatformB(); } } } Main() { FooFactory factory = new FooFactory(); IFoo foo = factory.newFoo(); foo.bar(); } Which is the better option, example A, B, neither, or "it depends"?

    Read the article

  • Don Knuth and MMIXAL vs. Chuck Moore and Forth -- Algorithms and Ideal Machines -- was there cross-pollination / influence in their ideas / work?

    - by AKE
    Question: To what extent is it known (or believed) that Chuck Moore and Don Knuth had influence on each other's thoughts on ideal machines, or their work on algorithms? I'm interested in citations, interviews, articles, links, or any other sort of evidence. It could also be evidence of the form of A and B here suggest that Moore might have borrowed or influenced C and D from Knuth here, or vice versa. (Opinions are of course welcome, but references / links would be better!) Context: Until fairly recently, I have been primarily familiar with Knuth's work on algorithms and computing models, mostly through TAOCP but also through his interviews and other writings. However, the more I have been using Forth, the more I am struck by both the power of a stack-based machine model, and the way in which the spareness of the model makes fundamental algorithmic improvements more readily apparent. A lot of what Knuth has done in fundamental analysis of algorithms has, it seems to me, a very similar flavour, and I can easily imagine that in a parallel universe, Knuth might perhaps have chosen Forth as his computing model. That's the software / algorithms / programming side of things. When it comes to "ideal computing machines", Knuth in the 70s came up with the MIX computer model, and then, collaborating with designers of state-of-the-art RISC chips through the 90s, updated this with the modern MMIX model and its attendant assembly language MMIXAL. Meanwhile, Moore, having been using and refining Forth as a language, but using it on top of whatever processor happened to be in the computer he was programming, began to imagine a world in which the efficiency and value of stack-based programming were reflected in hardware. So he went on in the 80s to develop his own stack-based hardware chips, defining the term MISC (Minimal Instruction Set Computers) along the way, and ending up eventually with the first Forth chip, the MuP21. Both are brilliant men with keen insight into the art of programming and algorithms, and both work at the intersection between algorithms, programs, and bare metal hardware (i.e. hardware without the clutter of operating systems). Which leads me to the headlined question... Question:To what extent is it known (or believed) that Chuck Moore and Don Knuth had influence on each other's thoughts on ideal machines, or their work on algorithms?

    Read the article

  • What's a good AJAX Autocomplete Plugin for jQuery?

    - by Murat Ayfer
    I usually use jQuery as my JS library on my sites, and I would like to stick with it since I'm familiar with it. I need to implement an AJAX autocomplete, mainly for suggesting search results. Here are a few I have found: Dylan Verheul's version Jörn Zaefferer's version A modification of Dylan Verheul's version If you have tried any of these plugins, were you happy with them? Which one do you think is the most (and easily) customizable?

    Read the article

  • CQRS &ndash; Questions and Concerns

    - by Dylan Smith
    I’ve been doing a lot of learning on CQRS and Event Sourcing over the last little while and I have a number of questions that I haven’t been able to answer. 1. What is the benefit of CQRS when compared to a typical DDD architecture that uses Event Sourcing and properly captures intent and behavior via verb-based commands? (other than Scalability) 2. When using CQRS what do you do with complex query-based logic? I’m going to elaborate on #1 in this blog post and I’ll do a follow-up post on #2. I watched through Greg Young’s video on the business benefits of CQRS + Event Sourcing and first let me say that I thought it was an excellent presentation that really drives home a lot of the benefits to this approach to architecture (I watched it twice in a row I enjoyed it so much!). But it didn’t answer some of my questions fully (I wish I had been there to ask these of Greg in person!). So let me pick apart some of the points he makes and how they relate to my first question above. I’m completely sold on the idea of event sourcing and have a clear understanding of the benefits that it brings to the table, so I’m not going to question that. But you can use event sourcing without going to a CQRS architecture, so my main question is around the benefits of CQRS + Event Sourcing vs Event Sourcing + Typical DDD architecture Architecture with Event Sourcing + Commands on Left, CQRS on Right Greg talks about how the stereotypical architecture doesn’t support DDD, but is that only because his diagram shows DTO’s coming up from the client. If we use the same diagram but allow the client to send commands doesn’t that remove a lot of the arguments that Greg makes against the stereotypical architecture? We can now introduce verbs into the system. We can capture intent now (storing it still requires event sourcing, but you can implement event sourcing without doing CQRS) We can create a rich domain model (as opposed to an anemic domain model) Scalability is obviously a benefit that CQRS brings to the table, but like Greg says, very few of the systems we create truly need significant scalability Greg talks about the ability to scale your development efforts. He says CQRS allows you to split the system into 3 parts (Client, Domain/Commands, Reads) and assign 3 teams of developers to work on them in parallel; letting you scale your development efforts by 3x with nearly linear gains. But in the stereotypical architecture don’t you already have 2 separate modules that you can split your dev efforts between: The client that sends commands/queries and receives DTO’s, and the Domain which accepts commands/queries, and generates events/DTO’s. If this is true it’s not really a 3x scaling you achieve with CQRS but merely a 1.5x scaling which while great doesn’t sound nearly as dramatic (“I can do it with 10 devs in 12 months – let me hire 5 more and we can have it done in 8 months”). Making the Query side “stupid simple” such that you can assign junior developers (or even outsource it) sounds like a valid benefit, but I have some concerns over what you do with complex query-based logic/behavior. I’m going to go into more detail on this in a follow-up blog post shortly. He also seemed to focus on how “stupid-simple” it is doing queries against the de-normalized data store, but I imagine there is still significant complexity in the event handlers that interpret the events and apply them to the de-normalized tables. It sounds like Greg suggests that because we’re doing CQRS that allows us to apply Event Sourcing when we otherwise wouldn’t be able to (~33:30 in the video). I don’t believe this is true. I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to apply Event Sourcing without separating out the Commands and Queries. The queries would just operate against the domain model instead of the database. But you’d still get the benefits of Event Sourcing. Without CQRS the queries would only be able to operate against the current state rather than the event history, but even in CQRS the domain behaviors can only operate against the current state and I don’t see that being a big limiting factor. If some query needs to operate against something that is not captured by the current state you would just have to update the domain model to capture that information (no different than if that statement were made about a Command under CQRS). Some of the benefits I do see being applicable are that your domain model might end up being simpler/smaller since it only needs to represent the state needed to process commands and not worry about the reads (like the Deactivate Inventory Item and associated comment example that Greg provides). And also commands that can be handled in a Transaction Script style manner by the command handler simply generating events and not touching the domain model. It also makes it easier for your senior developers to focus on the command behavior and ignore the queries, which is usually going to be a better use of their time. And of course scalability. If anybody out there has any thoughts on this and can help educate me further, please either leave a comment or feel free to get in touch with me via email:

    Read the article

  • CQRS - Benefits

    - by Dylan Smith
    Thanks to all the comments and feedback from the last post I think I have a better understanding now of the benefits of CQRS (separate from the benefits of Event Sourcing). I’m going to try and sum it up here, and point out some areas where I could still use some advice: CQRS Benefits Sounds like the primary benefit of CQRS as an architecture is it allows you to create a simpler domain model by sucking out everything related to queries. I can definitely see the benefit to this, in general the domain logic related to commands is the high-value behavior in the software, but the logic required to service the queries would add a lot of low-value “noise” to the domain model that would dilute the high-value (command) behavior – sorting, paging, filtering, pre-fetch paths, etc. Also the most appropriate domain structure for implementing commands might not be the most optimal for implementing queries. To paraphrase Greg, this usually results in a domain model that is mediocre at both, piss-poor at one, or more likely piss-poor at both commands and queries. Not only will you be able to simplify your domain model by pulling out all the query logic, but at least a handful of commands in most systems will probably be “pass-though” type commands with little to no logic that just generate events. If these can be implemented directly in the command-handler and never touch the domain model, this allows you to slim down the domain model even more. Also, if you were to do event sourcing without CQRS, you no longer have a database containing the current state (only the domain model would) which makes it difficult (or impossible) to support ad-hoc querying and/or reporting that is common in most business software. Of course CQRS provides some great scalability benefits, not only scalability but I have to assume that it provides extremely low latency for most operations, especially if you have an asynchronous event bus. I know Greg says that you get a 3x scaling (Commands, Queries, Client) of your ability to perform parallel development, but IMHO, it seems like it only provides 1.5x scaling since even without CQRS you’re going to have your client loosely coupled to your domain - which is still a great benefit to be able to realize. Questions / Concerns If all the queries against an aggregate get pulled out to the Query layer, what if the only commands for that aggregate can be handled in a “pass-through” manner with the command handler directly generating events. Is it possible to have an aggregate that isn’t modeled in the domain model? Are there any issues or downsides to this? I know in the feedback from my previous posts it was suggested that having one domain model handling both commands and queries requires implementing a lot of traversals between objects that wouldn’t be necessary if it was only servicing commands. My question is, do you include traversals in your domain model based on the needs of the code, or based on the conceptual domain model? If none of my Commands require a Customer.Orders traversal, but the conceptual domain includes the concept of a set of orders belonging to a customer – should I model that in my domain model or not? I like the idea of using the Query side of the architecture as a place to put junior devs where the risk of them screwing something up has minimal impact. But I’m not sold on the idea that you can actually outsource it. Like I said in one of my comments on my previous post, the code to handle a query and generate DTO’s is going to be dead simple, but the code to process events and apply them to the tables on the query side is going to require a significant amount of domain knowledge to know which events to listen for to update each of the de-normalized tables (and what changes need to be made when each event is processed). I don’t know about everybody else, but having Indian/Russian/whatever outsourced developers have to do anything that requires significant domain knowledge has never been successful in my experience. And if you need to spec out for each new query which events to listen to and what to do with each one, well that’s probably going to be just as much work to document as it would be to just implement it. Greg made the point in a comment that doing an aggregate query like “Total Sales By Customer” is going to be inefficient if you use event sourcing but not CQRS. I don’t understand why that would be the case. I imagine in that case you’d simply have a method/property on the Customer object that calculated total sales for that customer by enumerating over the Orders collection. Then the application services layer would generate DTO’s off of the Customers collection that included say the CustomerID, CustomerName, TotalSales, or whatever the case may be. As long as you use a snapshotting implementation, I don’t see why that would be anymore inefficient in a DDD+Event Sourcing implementation than in a typical DDD implementation. Like I mentioned in my last post I still have some questions about query logic that haven’t been answered yet, but before I start asking those I want to make sure I have a strong grasp on what benefits CQRS provides.  My main concern with the query logic was that I know I could just toss it all into the query side, but I was concerned that I would be losing the benefits of using CQRS in the first place if I did that.  I want to elaborate more on this though with some example situations in an upcoming post.

    Read the article

  • Meta package / quick reference for string manipulation commands?

    - by Dylan McCall
    The latest version of the Scribes text editor lets us select some text, hit Alt+X, and then run an arbitrary command. For example, I can run the sort command and the selected text is replaced appropriately. This is quite useful but I am also not very well-versed in awk and the like. Is there something I can grab that will provide more of these commands like sort? Maybe a package with a whole bunch of handy, task-specific string manipulation commands?

    Read the article

  • Running Unity 2d - Does not work on actual system but works fine in VM

    - by Dylan
    So I'm running Ubuntu 10.10 and I cannot get Unity 2d to work with my system. This is particularly frustrating as it works just fine in all the VMs I've tested it on. I actually really like Unity and I want to get to know it (in part) before Ubuntu 11.04. I checked Synaptic and it looks like everything's there. The only thing not installed are dev libs and so on. Should I install those as well? Obviously the difference between my system and a VM is that the VM is running off a basically brand new OS. I only use VMs to test new stuff out and remake them often, so my only guess is that I have something installed on my system that is preventing Unity from running. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • script to recursively check for and select dependencies

    - by rp.sullivan
    I have written a script that does this but it is one of my first scripts ever so i am sure there is a better way:) Let me know how you would go about doing this. I'm looking for a simple yet efficient way to do this. Here is some important background info: ( It might be a little confusing but hopefully by the end it will make sense. ) 1) This image shows the structure/location of the relevant dirs and files. 2) The packages.file located at ./config/default/config/packages is a space delimited file. field5 is the "package name" which i will call $a for explanations sake. field4 is the name of the dir containing the $a.dir i will call $b field1 shows if the package is selected or not, "X"(capital x) for selected and "O"(capital o as in orange) for not selected. Here is an example of what the packages.file might contain: ... X ---3------ 104.800 database gdbm 1.8.3 / base/library CROSS 0 O -1---5---- 105.000 base libiconv 1.13.1 / base/tool CROSS 0 X 01---5---- 105.000 base pkgconfig 0.25 / base/tool CROSS 0 X -1-3------ 105.000 base texinfo 4.13a / base/tool CROSS DIETLIBC 0 O -----5---- 105.000 develop duma 2_5_15 / base/development CROSS NOPARALLEL 0 O -----5---- 105.000 develop electricfence 2_4_13 / base/development CROSS 0 O -----5---- 105.000 develop gnupth 2.0.7 / extra/development CROSS NOPARALLEL FPIC-QUIRK 0 ... 3) For almost every package listed in the "packages.file" there is a corresponding ".cache file" The .cache file for package $a would be located at ./package/$b/$a/$a.cache The .cache files contain a list of dependencies for that particular package. Here is an example of one of the .cache files might look like. Note that the dependencies are field2 of lines containing "[DEP]" These dependencies are all names of packages in the "package.file" [TIMESTAMP] 1134178701 Sat Dec 10 02:38:21 2005 [BUILDTIME] 295 (9) [SIZE] 11.64 MB, 191 files [DEP] 00-dirtree [DEP] bash [DEP] binutils [DEP] bzip2 [DEP] cf [DEP] coreutils ... So with all that in mind... I'm looking for a shell script that: From within the "main dir" Looks at the ./config/default/config/packages file and finds the "selected" packages and reads the corresponding .cache Then compiles a list of dependencies that excludes the already selected packages Then selects the dependencies (by changing field1 to X) in the ./config/default/config/packages file and repeats until all the dependencies are met Note: The script will ultimately end up in the "scripts dir" and be called from the "main dir". If this is not clear let me know what need clarification. For those interested I'm playing around with T2 SDE. If you are into playing around with linux it might be worth taking a look.

    Read the article

  • PrairieDevCon &ndash; Slide Decks

    - by Dylan Smith
    PrairieDevCon 2010 was an awesome time.  Learned a lot, and had some amazing conversations.  You guys even managed to convince me that NoSQL databases might actually be useful after all.   For those interested here’s my slide decks from my two sessions: Agile In Action Database Change Management With Visual Studio

    Read the article

  • How can I get something like Nautilus's "spatial" behaviour in 11.10 and later?

    - by Dylan McCall
    Until recently, Nautilus had an optional "spatial" mode as an alternative to its usual browser mode. Users could enable it by opening Nautilus's preferences and selecting "Open each folder in its own window." Choosing this option resulted in a stripped down interface, and folders would always open in the same place on the screen. It looked something like this: That checkbox is still there, but it doesn't do the same thing: while every folder opens in a new window, those windows are all the same size and positioned the same way. Nautilus doesn't restore the size and position of each folder, which is what spatial mode was all about. This difference really shows if someone opens a folder in a new window, and then opens the same folder again. Nautilus will create another window instead of focusing the existing window. I help someone who is currently using Ubuntu 10.04, and he will be upgrading to 12.04 in the future. He is very comfortable with Nautilus's spatial behaviour and I think he would be disappointed to lose it. Is there an alternative file manager, or perhaps some less obvious option, that will give him an interface similar to the one he is comfortable with?

    Read the article

  • Rawr Code Clone Analysis&ndash;Part 0

    - by Dylan Smith
    Code Clone Analysis is a cool new feature in Visual Studio 11 (vNext).  It analyzes all the code in your solution and attempts to identify blocks of code that are similar, and thus candidates for refactoring to eliminate the duplication.  The power lies in the fact that the blocks of code don't need to be identical for Code Clone to identify them, it will report Exact, Strong, Medium and Weak matches indicating how similar the blocks of code in question are.   People that know me know that I'm anal enthusiastic about both writing clean code, and taking old crappy code and making it suck less. So the possibilities for this feature have me pretty excited if it works well - and thats a big if that I'm hoping to explore over the next few blog posts. I'm going to grab the Rawr source code from CodePlex (a World Of Warcraft gear calculator engine program), run Code Clone Analysis against it, then go through the results one-by-one and refactor where appropriate blogging along the way.  My goals with this blog series are twofold: Evaluate and demonstrate Code Clone Analysis Provide some concrete examples of refactoring code to eliminate duplication and improve the code-base Here are the initial results:   Code Clone Analysis has found: 129 Exact Matches 201 Strong Matches 300 Medium Matches 193 Weak Matches Also indicated is that there was a total of 45,181 potentially duplicated lines of code that could be eliminated through refactoring.  Considering the entire solution only has 109,763 lines of code, if true, the duplicates lines of code number is pretty significant. In the next post we’ll start examining some of the individual results and determine if they really do indicate a potential refactoring.

    Read the article

  • Calculating instantaneous speed and acceleration for a simple Car software model

    - by Dylan
    I am trying to model a speedometer and tachometer for a simple software model of a car dashboard. I want this to be relatively simple, so for my purposes I won't likely simulate variables such as drag (or, assume that drag is a constant). But I would like to know the general formulas for: 1) Calculating the RPM, depending on a position of a graphical slider representing the accelerator. 2) Using this information to find the instantaneous speed (or, magnitude of instantaneous velocity?). I am not sure, in the case of 2), what other independent variables I need to consider. Do I need to consider the frequency of rotation of the wheels (assuming a fixed radius), in addition to the RPM? If anyone can give me a rough explanation plus relevant formulas, or alternatively direct me to other trusted resources online (I have had a hard time sifting through info and determining the accuracy), it would be much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How do I theme the maximized window buttons with Unity?

    - by Dylan McCall
    I use a custom Gtk theme along with the default Ambiance window controls. Using my theme, the Unity panel shows its very ugly default buttons when my window is maximized. Since I have the same window theme, I am assuming this comes from the Gtk theme. I tried copying and pasting a few things from Ambiance's gtkrc, but nothing has stuck so far. What must a theme author do to gain pretty looking window buttons in Unity's panel?

    Read the article

  • Why we do not use PowerConnect to access PeopleSoft Tree

    - by dylan.wan
    1. It does not allow you to use parameters to the PeopleSoft connect. It may be changed later. However, it was a big issue when we try to address customer issues. 2. It requires EFFDT as an option. It expect that people change the EFFDT using Mapping Editor. How can a business user does that every month? 3. It asks for a Tree Name. Many PeopleSoft tree structure supports multiple trees. Tree is just a header of the hierarchy. Whenever you add a new Tree, you need to create a new mapping!! It does not make sense to use PowerConnect due to the customer demands. All requirements are from customers. We have no choice but stop using it.

    Read the article

  • Agilist, Heal Thyself!

    - by Dylan Smith
    I’ve been meaning to blog about a great experience I had earlier in the year at Prairie Dev Con Calgary.  Myself and Steve Rogalsky did a session that we called “Agilist, Heal Thyself!”.  We used a format that was new to me, but that Steve had seen used at another conference.  What we did was start by asking the audience to give us a list of challenges they had had when adopting agile.  We wrote them all down, then had everybody vote on the most interesting ones.  Then we split into two groups, and each group was assigned one of the agile challenges.  We had 20 minutes to discuss the challenge, and suggest solutions or approaches to improve things.  At the end of the 20 minutes, each of the groups gave a brief summary of their discussion and learning's, then we mixed up the groups and repeated with another 2 challenges. The 2 groups I was part of had some really interesting discussions, and suggestions: Unfinished Stories at the end of Sprints The first agile challenge we tackled, was something that every single Scrum team I have worked with has struggled with.  What happens when you get to the end of a Sprint, and there are some stories that are only partially completed.  The team in question was getting very de-moralized as they felt that every Sprint was a failure as they never had a set of fully completed stories. How do you avoid this? and/or what do you do when it happens? There were 2 pieces of advice that were well received: 1. Try to bring stories to completion before starting new ones.  This is advice I give all my Scrum teams.  If you have a 3-week sprint, what happens all too often is you get to the end of week 2, and a lot of stories are almost done; but almost none are completely done.  This is a Bad Thing.  I encourage the teams I work with to only start a new story as a very last resort.  If you finish your task look at the stories in progress and see if there’s anything you can do to help before moving onto a new story.  In the daily standup, put a focus on seeing what stories got completed yesterday, if a few days go by with none getting completed, be sure this fact is visible to the team and do something about it.  Something I’ve been doing recently is introducing WIP (Work In Progress) limits while using Scrum.  My current team has 2-week sprints, and we usually have about a dozen or stories in a sprint.  We instituted a WIP limit of 4 stories.  If 4 stories have been started but not finished then nobody is allowed to start new stories.  This made it obvious very quickly that our QA tasks were our bottleneck (we have 4 devs, but only 1.5 testers).  The WIP limit forced the developers to start to pickup QA tasks before moving onto the next dev tasks, and we ended our sprints with many more stories completely finished than we did before introducing WIP limits. 2. Rather than using time-boxed sprints, why not just do away with them altogether and go to a continuous flow type approach like KanBan.  Limit WIP to keep things under control, but don’t have a fixed time box at the end of which all tasks are supposed to be done.  This eliminates the problem almost entirely.  At some points in the project (releases) you need to be able to burn down all the half finished stories to get a stable release build, but this probably occurs less often than every sprint, and there are alternative approaches to achieve it using branching strategies rather than forcing your team to try to get to Zero WIP every 2-weeks (e.g. when you are ready for a release, create a new branch for any new stories, but finish all existing stories in the current branch and release it). Trying to Introduce Agile into a team with previous Bad Agile Experiences One of the agile adoption challenges somebody described, was he was in a leadership role on a team he had recently joined – lets call him Dave.  This team was currently very waterfall in their ALM process, but they were about to start on a new green-field project.  Dave wanted to use this new project as an opportunity to do things the “right way”, using an Agile methodology like Scrum, adopting TDD, automated builds, proper branching strategies, etc.  The problem he was facing is everybody else on the team had previously gone through an “Agile Adoption” that was a horrible failure.  Dave blamed this failure on the consultant brought in previously to lead this agile transition, but regardless of the reason, the team had very negative feelings towards agile, and was very resistant to trying it out again.  Dave possibly had the authority to try to force the team to adopt Agile practices, but we all know that doesn’t work very well.  What was Dave to do? Ultimately, the best advice was to question *why* did Dave want to adopt all these various practices. Rather than trying to convince his team that these were the “right way” to run a dev project, and trying to do a Big Bang approach to introducing change.  He would be better served by identifying problems the team currently faces, have a discussion with the team to get everybody to agree that specific problems existed, then have an open discussion about ways to address those problems.  This way Dave could incrementally introduce agile practices, and he doesn’t even need to identify them as “agile” practices if he doesn’t want to.  For example, when we discussed with Dave, he said probably the teams biggest problem was long periods without feedback from users, then finding out too late that the software is not going to meet their needs.  Rather than Dave jumping right to introducing Scrum and all it entails, it would be easier to get buy-in from team if he framed it as a discussion of existing problems, and brainstorming possible solutions.  And possibly most importantly, don’t try to do massive changes all at once with a team that has not bought-into those changes.  Taking an incremental approach has a greater chance of success. I see something similar in my day job all the time too.  Clients who for one reason or another claim to not be fans of agile (or not ready for agile yet).  But then they go on to ask me to help them get shorter feedback cycles, quicker delivery cycles, iterative development processes, etc.  It’s kind of funny at times, sometimes you just need to phrase the suggestions in terms they are using and avoid the word “agile”. PS – I haven’t blogged all that much over the past couple of years, but in an attempt to motivate myself, a few of us have accepted a blogger challenge.  There’s 6 of us who have all put some money into a pool, and the agreement is that we each need to blog at least once every 2-weeks.  The first 2-week period that we miss we’re eliminated.  Last person standing gets the money.  So expect at least one blog post every couple of weeks for the near future (I hope!).  And check out the blogs of the other 5 people in this blogger challenge: Steve Rogalsky: http://winnipegagilist.blogspot.ca Aaron Kowall: http://www.geekswithblogs.net/caffeinatedgeek Tyler Doerkson: http://blog.tylerdoerksen.com David Alpert: http://www.spinthemoose.com Dave White: http://www.agileramblings.com (note: site not available yet.  should be shortly or he owes me some money!)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >