Search Results

Search found 661 results on 27 pages for 'terminology'.

Page 5/27 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• What term is used to describe running frequent batch jobs to emulate near real time

  - by Steven Tolkin

  Suppose users of application A want to see the data updated by application B as frequently as possible. Unfortunately app A or app B cannot use message queues, and they cannot share a database. So app B writes a file, and a batch job periodically checks to see if the file is there, and if load loads it into app A. Is there a name for this concept? A very explicit and geeky description: "running very frequent batch jobs in a tight loop to emulate near real time". This concept is similar to "polling". However polling has the connotation of being very frequent, multiple times per second, whereas the most often you would run a batch job would be every few minutes. A related question -- what is the tightest loop that is reasonable. Is it 1 minute of 5 minutes or ...? Recall that the batch jobs are started by a batch job scheduler (e.g. Autosys, Control M, CA ESP, Spring Batch etc.) and so running a job too frequently would causes overhead and clutter.

  Read the article

• What is meant by 4 GL?

  - by Geek

  I came across the term 4GL(generation language) in reading about Oracle ADF Busniess components . I want to know what exactly is 4GL ? This is the actual quote from the book Oracle Fusion Guide: Oracle ADF Business Components is the business services layer of choice in Oracle Fusion application development. Compared to other persistence layers, ADF Business Components provides exceptional built-in business application functionality and maximally declarative experience that makes it a perfect match for those who seek an end-to-end fourth generation language (4GL) Java EE development architecture.

  Read the article

• What does the English word "for" exactly mean in "for" loops?

  - by kol

  English is not my first language, but since the keywords in programming languages are English words, I usually find it easy to read source code as English sentences: if (x > 10) f(); = "If variable x is greater than 10, then call function f." while (i < 10) ++i; = "While variable i is less than 10, increase i by 1." But how a for loop is supposed to be read? for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) f(i); = ??? I mean, I know what a for loop is and how it works. My problem is only that I don't know what the English word "for" exactly means in for loops.

  Read the article

• Is there a term for quasi-open source proprietary software?

  - by mwhite

  Say a company wants to keep development of new features of a piece of software internal, but wants to make the source code for previous versions public, up to and including existing public features, so that other people can benefit from using and modifying the software themselves, and even possibly contribute changes that can be applied to the development branch. Is there a term for this sort of arrangement, and what is the best way of accomplishing it using existing version control tools and platforms?

  Read the article

• What is the formal definition of a meta package?

  - by kojiro

  There are several examples of packaging where an application package is built, named, described, even licensed, but contains only setup code and dependencies -- it has no first-class runtime software of its own. I would call this "meta-packaging". This seems to be particularly popular in the open-source world, including examples like kde-meta (Gentoo Portage), Plone, and I'm sure lots of others. I can see how it's a useful practice, but despite it existing as a practice, I couldn't find a formal definition of either "meta-packaging" or "meta-egg" (Python) in searching the web. Is that not the correct term? If it is, is it such common-sense that it needs no formal definition? If not, what is the correct way to put it?

  Read the article

• What's the term describing this system for generating user interfaces?

  - by mjfgates

  So, there's this idea, which you already know: Define the layout of your UI by creating a tree of panels. The leaf nodes on the tree are what we used to call 'controls' way back in the day-- the things that the user interacts with, radio buttons and listboxes and such. The internal nodes are mostly concerned with layout; this kind of panel stacks its child panels vertically, that kind puts its children into a grid, etc. It's COMMON. Most of the UI-generating systems I've seen in the past twenty years are implementations of this, and the ones that aren't borrow from it. What's the word for this idea?

  Read the article

• What is the term for a really BIG source code commit?

  - by Ida

  Sometimes when we check the commit history of a software, we may see that there are a few commits that are really BIG - they may change 10 or 20 files with hundreds of changed source code lines (delta). I remember that there is a commonly used term for such BIG commit but I can't recall exactly what that term is. Can anyone help me? What is the term that programmers usually use to refer to such BIG and giant commit? BTW, is committing a lot of changes all together a good practice? UPDATE: thank you guys for the inspiring discussion! But I think "code bomb" is the term that I'm looking for.

  Read the article

• Is there a common programming term for the problems of adding features to an already-featureful program?

  - by Jeremy Friesner

  I'm looking for a commonly used programming term to describe a software-engineering phenomenon, which (for lack of a better way to describe it) I'll illustrate first with a couple of examples-by-analogy: Scenario 1: We want to build/extend a subway system on the outskirts of a small town in Wyoming. There are the usual subway-problems to solve, of course (hiring the right construction company, choosing the best route, buying the subway cars), but other than that it's pretty straightforward to implement the system because there aren't a huge number of constraints to satisfy. Scenario 2: Same as above, except now we need to build/extend the subway system in downtown Los Angeles. Here we face all of the problems we did in case (1), but also additional problems -- most of the applicable space is already in use, and has a vocal constituency which will protest loudly if we inconvenience them by repurposing, redesigning, or otherwise modifying the infrastructure that they rely on. Because of this, extensions to the system happen either very slowly and expensively, or they don't happen at all. I sometimes see a similar pattern with software development -- adding a new feature to a small/simple program is straightforward, but as the program grows, adding further new features becomes more and more difficult, if only because it is difficult to integrate the new feature without adversely affecting any of the large number of existing use-cases or user-constituencies. (even with a robust, adaptable program design, you run into the problem of the user interface becoming so elaborate that the program becomes difficult to learn or use) Is there a term for this phenomenon?

  Read the article

• Term for a single C++ endpoint/object file

  - by Qix

  I have heard several terms for a C++ "Codepoint" (which is what I've heard used the most often), or a .cpp file that is compiled into an object file. For instance, .cpp files can include other .cpp files (or any other file, really, so long as it compiles), but during compilation, there is really only one 'main' code file that is used/generated. I know there is a widely accepted term, I just can't recall what it is. What is the accepted term for the final .c/.cpp file used to generate an object file?

  Read the article

• Inventory Consignment Flow

  - by ipohfly

  Not sure whether this is the right place to ask this question, but here goes.. Currently I have requirement to add support for consignment transaction in our inventory module. I have a very limited understanding of what consignment means in inventory, i.e. Customer get stocks/products from Seller without actually buying them, the product just resides in the Customer's inventory and it's still owned by the Seller. Only when the Customer actually buy the stocks then only will the ownership of the stock is transferred. The issue is i can't imagine how the data will be presented to both the Customer and the Seller. What i know is that i would need to deduct the stock from the Seller's inventory when the Customer raise a request to get the stock through consignment, but what about the 'ownership' of the stocks/products? Does that mean i would need to create another column in my table to state that for each inventory it is owned by who? Anywhere i can get information on how i should work out an inventory module like this? Thanks.

  Read the article

• What is "egoless programming"?

  - by Bob Murphy

  I first heard this term about fifteen years ago. My understanding is similar to that described in the Wikipedia article and a TechRepublic article: you work with your colleagues in a "friendly, collegiate way in which personal feelings are put aside". It includes things like doing peer reviews with mutual respect and a desire to learn, and not feeling like you "own" code, so if somebody has a suggestion or says there's a bug or needs to change it, you don't get defensive about it. I've also thought it was largely about having an attitude that makes for good relations with other programmers with the goal of improving the code. So I haven't seen it as being incompatible with taking pride in the quality of your work or feeling regret if something you did caused your customer a problem. However, an answer to a recent question makes me think some other programmers have different understandings about "egoless programming". So what is the correct definition? And what are its implications?

  Read the article

• Is there a well grounded theory on backward and forward compatibility of formats, languages, grammars and vocabularies?

  - by Breton

  I have a friend who has the specific problem of building a case against the use of a custom HTML <wrapper> tag in some site's markup. Now, intuitively we can answer that use of such a tag is risky, as future HTML specs may define a wrapper tag with semantics that conflict with its use on the site. We can also appeal to a particular section of the HTML5 spec which also recommends against the use of custom tags for this reason. And while I agree with the conclusion, I find these arguments a little on the weak side, on their own. Is there some well grounded and proven theory in computer science from which we can derive this conclusion? Have programming language theorists created proofs about the properties of vocabulary versioning, or some such thing?

  Read the article

• Is it correct to refer to a performing programming assignments as a "computer labs"?

  - by Nick Rosencrantz

  Can we say that developing an algorithm is a "laboration"? Are these "labs"? At engineering performing an exercise or an assignement is refered to as "labs" but are those "labs" when in fact it is mainly software problem solving pretty much like numeric methods in math which are not "labs". When studying engineering such as electrical engineering or physics you might do a "laser lab" or a "chemical laboration" if you study chemical engineering for instance. How do you define "lab"? Just performing something experimental? This is sort of double meaning also the physical environment at universities which we call "computer labs" that in fact are just rooms with computers.

  Read the article

• Quality Assurance=inspections, reviews..?

  - by user970696

  Studying this subject extensively, the most books state the following: Quality Assurance: prevention activity. Act of inspection, reviewing.. Quality Control: testing While there are some exceptions that mention that QA deals with just processes (planning, strategy, standard application etc.) which is IMHO much closer to real QA, yet I cannot find any good reference in Google Books. I believe that inspections, reviews, testing is all quality control as it is about checking products, no matter if it is the final one or work products. The problem is that so many authors do not agree. I would be grateful for detailed explanation, ideally with a reference.

  Read the article

• Is there a phrase or word to describe an algorithim or program is complete in that given any value for its arguments there is a defined outcome?

  - by Mrk Mnl

  Is there a phrase or word to describe an algorithim or programme is complete in that given any value for its arguments there is a defined outcome? i.e. all the ramifications have been considered whatever the context? A simple example would be the below function: function returns string get_item_type(int type_no) { if(type_no < 10) return "hockey stick" else if (type_no < 20) return "bulldozer" else return "unknown" } (excuse the dismal pseudo code) No matter what number is supplied all possibiblites are catered for. My question is: is there a word to fill the blank here: "get_item_type() is ______ complete" ? (The answer is not Turing Complete - that is something quite different - but I annoyingly always think of something as "Turing Complete" when I am thinking of the above).

  Read the article

• How is this "interface"-like structure/pattern called?

  - by Sebastian Negraszus

  Let's assume we have an XmlDoc class that contains basic functionality for dealing with an XML data structure and saving/loading data to/from a file. Now we have several subclasses, A, B and C. They all inherit from XmlDoc and add component-specific methods for setting and getting lots of data. They are like "interfaces" but also add an implementation for the signatures. Finally, we have an ABCDoc class that joins all the "interfaces" via virtual multiple inheritence and adds some ABCDoc-specific stuff, such as using XMLDoc-methods to set an appropriate doc type. We may also have an ADoc class for only saving A data. How is this pattern called? "Interface" is not really the right word since interfaces usually do not contain an implementation. Bonus points for C++ code conventions.

  Read the article

• When do you say "near ID" / "far ID" when using RTMFP in ActionScript 3?

  - by Panzercrisis

  I've been using RTMFP streaming for around a year in ActionScript 3, and I pretty much know the difference between a near ID and far ID. The near ID is your peer ID, and the far ID is the other guy's peer ID. The problem I'm having is that, to my knowledge, choosing whether to use one term or the other in a given sentence is a little like choosing whether to say "go" or "come". In English, "go" and "come" have opposite meanings, but ironically, they can still be used almost interchangeably. It's because whether you're going or coming is so heavily dependent on perspective, as opposed to anything concrete. Is the choice of words between "near ID" and "far ID" just as ambiguous, or is there some sort of method to the madness? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Is there an opposite for the term "Backporting"?

  - by Avian00

  As I understand, the term "Backporting" is used to describe a fix which is applied in a future version which is also ported to a previous version. Wikipedia definition is as follows: Backporting is the action of taking a certain software modification (patch) and applying it to an older version of the software than it was initially created for. It forms part of the maintenance step in a software development process... For example: A problem is discovered and fixed in V2.0. The same fix is ported and applied to V1.5. What is the term when this is done in the opposite direction? The problem is discovered and fixed in V1.5. The same fix is ported and applied to V2.0. Would the term "Backporting" still apply? Or is there a term such as "Forwardporting" (which amusingly sounds a lot like "Port Forwarding")?

  Read the article

• What type of application is this called?

  - by boatingcow

  I am working on a web-based application which combines elements of what my client would call a CMS (content management system) and CRM (customer relations management) but also adds in many other business-specific features such as bookings management, staff task allocation management, wages calculations, document version control etc. However, I'm struggling to find a catch-all term for this type of application so I can research how other people have gone about creating such an integrated solution. Can anyone recommend a term I can use to refer to this, both internally in our team, for the client so they know what to call the 'system' and also for me personally, so that I can ask the Stack community further questions?

  Read the article

• In dependency injection, is there a simple name for the counterpart of the injected object?

  - by kostja

  In tutorials and books, I have never seen a single word describing the object that the injected object is injected into. Instead, other terms are used, like "injection point" which don't denote the object containing the injected object. And nothing I can think of sounds right, except maybe "injection target" - but I have never read it anywhere. Is there a single word or a simple expression for it, or is it like the "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" from a recent fantasy book series?

  Read the article

• What Does It Usually Mean for a Feature to be "Supported"?

  - by joshin4colours

  I'm currently working some testing for a particular area of an application. I had to write some automated tests for a particular feature but due to the circumstances, this was not easy to do. When I asked one of the other testers about it, he mentioned that the same features exist in a sister application our company produces but isn't documented anywhere (end-user documentation or otherwise). He also said that the feature doesn't typically get tested at all in the sister application and isn't usually tested in the application I work on. Apparently this feature isn't heavily used but removing it would require a fair bit of work so the benefit-cost ratio doesn't work out. All of this has left me with some questions. Other than "The documentation says so" or "We told the client it is", what usually makes a feature "supported" versus an unsupported feature?

  Read the article

• Amnesic Environment

  - by Mike Clark

  My team is looking for a technical term which may or may not exist. We are trying to describe an environment, such as a database, which has been built up over time with little or documentation about the change process that has gone into it. Generally these are legacy systems who's original developers have long since moved on and they are in such a tangled and unmanageable state that the only way to recreate the environment, say for testing purposes, is to copy it and do your best guess at re-configuring it for its new purpose. So far the best term we have come up with is Amnesic, such as "setting up the new test environment is going to be a challenge because it is an amnesic db." However, we are still not quite happy with the term and were wondering if a better and/or more accepted term for this situation exists.

  Read the article

• The term "interface" in C++

  - by Flexo

  Java makes a clear distinction between class and interface. (I believe C# does also, but I have no experience with it). When writing C++ however there is no language enforced distinction between class and interface. Consequently I've always viewed interface as a workaround for the lack of multiple inheritance in Java. Making such a distinction feels arbitrary and meaningless in C++. I've always tended to go with the "write things in the most obvious way" approach, so if in C++ I've got what might be called an interface in Java, e.g.: class Foo { public: virtual void doStuff() = 0; ~Foo() = 0; }; and I then decided that most implementers of Foo wanted to share some common functionality I would probably write: class Foo { public: virtual void doStuff() = 0; ~Foo() {} protected: // If it needs this to do its thing: int internalHelperThing(int); // Or if it doesn't need the this pointer: static int someOtherHelper(int); }; Which then makes this not an interface in the Java sense anymore. Instead C++ has two important concepts, related to the same underlying inheritance problem: virtual inhertiance Classes with no member variables can occupy no extra space when used as a base "Base class subobjects may have zero size" Reference Of those I try to avoid #1 wherever possible - it's rare to encounter a scenario where that genuinely is the "cleanest" design. #2 is however a subtle, but important difference between my understanding of the term "interface" and the C++ language features. As a result of this I currently (almost) never refer to things as "interfaces" in C++ and talk in terms of base classes and their sizes. I would say that in the context of C++ "interface" is a misnomer. It has come to my attention though that not many people make such a distinction. Do I stand to lose anything by allowing (e.g. protected) non-virtual functions to exist within an "interface" in C++? (My feeling is the exactly the opposite - a more natural location for shared code) Is the term "interface" meaningful in C++ - does it imply only pure virtual or would it be fair to call C++ classes with no member variables an interface still?

  Read the article

• Checking negative of a condition

  - by oym

  What is the (slightly pejorative) term for checking the negative of a condition (rather than the positive which is often more readable): e.g. if(!someVar) { return null; } else { return doSomethingInteresting(); } instead of doing this (which is arguably more readable) if(someVar) { return doSomethingInteresting(); } else { return null; } I vaguely remember there being a term for this; something in the same spirit as the term Yoda conditions.

  Read the article

• If I have true i/o false or vice versa, is it an OBOE?

  - by Protector one

  I often make the mistake of inverting my truth values in my code (e.g. in my if clauses). It gives me the same feeling as when making an OBOE (Off By One Error), even though it's technically not. Would you call it an OBOE, or better yet, is there a specific term for "off by truth value"-errors? My reasoning is that all possible values of a boolean are true and false. In other words, the possible values are contained in the array: [true, false]. If you access this array by index, you'll always be off by one… when selecting the wrong one. This becomes especially obvious when you calculate your index as: index = someInt % 2. Now I understand that this usually not the case, but in my mind, it always feels like this. Almost got it, just off by one…

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >