Search Results

Search found 1748 results on 70 pages for 'branch prediction'.

Page 56/70 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

  • InvokeRequired not reliable?

    - by marocanu2001
    InvalidOperationException: Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'progressBar' accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created ... Now this is not a nice way to start a day! not even if it's a Monday! So you have seen this and already thought, come on, this is an old one, just ask whether InvokeRequired before calling the method in the control, something like this: if (progressBar.InvokeRequired) {           progressBar.Invoke  ( new MethodInvoker( delegate {  progressBar.Value = 50;    }) ) }else      progressBar.Value = 50;    Unfortunately this was not working the way I would have expected, I got this error, debugged and though in debugging the InvokeRequired had become true , the error was thrown on the branch that did not required Invoke. So there was a scenario where InvokeRequired returned false and still accessing the control was not on the right thread ... Problem was that I kept showing and hiding the little form showing the progressbar. The progressbar was updating on an event  , ProgressChanged and I could not guarantee the little form was loaded by the time the event was thrown. So , spotted the problem, if none of the parents of the control you try to modify is created at the time of the method invoking, the InvokeRequired returns true! That causes your code to execute on the woring thread. Of course, updating UI before the win dow was created is not a legitimate action either, still I would have expected a different error. MSDN: "If the control's handle does not yet exist, InvokeRequired searches up the control's parent chain until it finds a control or form that does have a window handle. If no appropriate handle can be found, the InvokeRequired method returns false. This means that InvokeRequired can return false if Invoke is not required (the call occurs on the same thread), or if the control was created on a different thread but the control's handle has not yet been created." Have  a look at InvokeRequired's implementation: public bool InvokeRequired {     get     {         HandleRef hWnd;         int lpdwProcessId;         if (this.IsHandleCreated)         {             hWnd = new HandleRef(this, this.Handle);         }         else         {             Control wrapper = this.FindMarshallingControl();             if (!wrapper.IsHandleCreated)             {                 return false; // <==========             }             hWnd = new HandleRef(wrapper, wrapper.Handle);         }         int windowThreadProcessId = SafeNativeMethods.GetWindowThreadProcessId(hWnd, out lpdwProcessId);         int currentThreadId = SafeNativeMethods.GetCurrentThreadId();         return (windowThreadProcessId != currentThreadId);     } } Here 's a good article about this and a workaround http://www.ikriv.com/en/prog/info/dotnet/MysteriousHang.html

    Read the article

  • Red Gate in the Community

    - by Nick Harrison
    Much has been said recently about Red Gate's community involvement and commitment to the DotNet community. Much of this has been unduly negative. Before you start throwing stones and spewing obscenities, consider some additional facts: Red Gate's software is actually very good. I have worked on many projects where Red Gate's software was instrumental in finishing successfully. Red Gate is VERY good to the community. I have spoken at many user groups and code camps where Red Gate has been a sponsor. Red Gate consistently offers up money to pay for the venue or food, and they will often give away licenses as door prizes. There are many such community events that would not take place without Red Gate's support. All I have ever seen them ask for is to have their products mentioned or be listed as a sponsor. They don't insist on anyone following a specific script. They don't monitor how their products are showcased. They let their products speak for themselves. Red Gate sponsors the Simple Talk web site. I publish there regularly. Red Gate has never exerted editorial pressure on me. No one has ever told me we can't publish this unless you mention Red Gate products. No one has ever said, you need to say nice things about Red Gate products in order to be published. They have told me, "you need to make this less academic, so you don't alienate too many readers. "You need to actually write an introduction so people will know what you are talking about". "You need to write this so that someone who isn't a reflection nut will follow what you are trying to say." In short, they have been good editors worried about the quality of the content and what the readers are likely to be interested in. For me personally, Red Gate and Simple Talk have both been excellent to work with. As for the developer outrage… I am a little embarrassed by so much of the response that I am seeing. So much of the complaints remind me of little children whining "but you promised" Semantics aside. A promise is just a promise. It's not like they "pinky sweared". Sadly no amount name calling or "double dog daring" will change the economics of the situation. Red Gate is not a multibillion dollar corporation. They are a mid size company doing the best they can. Without a doubt, their pockets are not as deep as Microsoft's. I honestly believe that they did try to make the "freemium" model work. Sadly it did not. I have no doubt that they intended for it to work and that they tried to make it work. I also have no doubt that they labored over making this decision. This could not have been an easy decision to make. Many people are gleefully proclaiming a massive backlash against Red Gate swearing off their wonderful products and promising to bash them at every opportunity from now on. This is childish behavior that does not represent professionals. This type of behavior is more in line with bullies in the school yard than professionals in a professional community. Now for my own prediction… This back lash against Red Gate is not likely to last very long. We will all realize that we still need their products. We may look around for alternatives, but realize that they really do have the best in class for every product that they produce, and that they really are not exorbitantly priced. We will see them sponsoring Code Camps and User Groups and be reminded, "hey this isn't such a bad company". On the other hand, software shops like Red Gate, will remember this back lash and give a second thought to supporting open source projects. They will worry about getting involved when an individual wants to turn over control for a product that they developed but can no longer support alone. Who wants to run the risk of not being able to follow through on their best intentions. In the end we may all suffer, even the toddlers among us throwing the temper tantrum, "BUT YOU PROMISED!" Disclaimer Before anyone asks or jumps to conclusions, I do not get paid by Red Gate to say any of this. I have often written about their products, and I have long thought that they are a wonderful company with amazing products. If they ever open an office in the SE United States, I will be one of the first to apply.

    Read the article

  • What is a resonable workflow for designing webapps?

    - by Evan Plaice
    It has been a while since I have done any substantial web development and I'd like to take advantage of the latest practices but I'm struggling to visualize the workflow to incorporate everything. Here's what I'm looking to use: CakePHP framework jsmin (JavaScript Minify) SASS (Synctactically Awesome StyleSheets) Git CakePHP: Pretty self explanatory, make modifications and update the source. jsmin: When you modify a script, do you manually run jsmin to output the new minified code, or would it be better to run a pre-commit hook that automatically generates jsmin outputs of javascript files that have changed. Assume that I have no knowledge of implementing commit hooks. SASS: I really like what SASS has to offer but I'm also aware that SASS code isn't supported by browsers by default so, at some point, the SASS code needs to be transformed to normal CSS. At what point in the workflow is this done. Git I'm terrified to admit it but, the last time I did any substantial web development, I didn't use SCM source control (IE, I did use source control but it consisted of a very detailed change log with backups). I have since had plenty of experience using Git (as well as mercurial and SVN) for desktop development but I'm wondering how to best implement it for web development). Is it common practice to implement a remote repository on the web host so I can push the changes directly to the production server, or is there some cross platform (windows/linux) tool that makes it easy to upload only changed files to the production server. Are there web hosting companies that make it eas to implement a remote repository, do I need SSH access, etc... I know how to accomplish this on my own testing server with a remote repository with a separate remote tracking branch already but I've never done it on a remote production web hosting server before so I'm not aware of the options yet. Extra: I was considering implementing a javascript framework where separate javascript files used on a page are compiled into a single file for each page on the production server to limit the number of file downloads needed per page. Does something like this already exist? Is there already an open source project out in the wild that implements something similar that I could use and contribute to? Considering how paranoid web devs are about performance (and the fact that the number of file requests on a website is a big hit to performance) I'm guessing that there is some wizard hacker on the net who has already addressed this issue.

    Read the article

  • Mexico leading in Business Transformation Strategies:

    - by [email protected]
    By John Burke Group Vice President Oracle Applications Business Unit     I recently completed a business tour in Mexico, and was surprised by both the economic vibrancy of the country and the thought leadership expressed by many of the customers I met.  An example of the economic vibrancy of the country: across the street from my hotel was the local Bentley dealership, Coach Store, Yves Saint Laurent and of course a Starbucks.  I only made it to Starbucks.  Both the Coach Store and YSL had a line of folks waiting to get in... As for thought leadership, there were several illustrations only on the first day. I had the opportunity to meet with a branch of the Mexican Federal Government. Their questions were not about clerical task automation, far from it! We discussed citizen on-line access to fees and services - for example looking up the duty on an international goods shipment, or tracking that my taxes have been received, or the status of my request for a certain service.  Eligibility, policies and status.  Having an integrated rules or policy automation system that would allow businesses and citizens to access accurate information and ensure the proper collection of fees and payment for 3rd party provided services.    Then in the afternoon, I met with the owner of a roofing company (note: most roofs in Mexico are flat and made of cement).  This CEO started discussing how he wanted to transform his business from a cement products company to a service company and market 5-10-15 year service contracts which would guarantee the structural integrity of the roof and of course that the roof would remain waterproof.  Although his products were guaranteed, they required an annual inspection and most home owners never schedule that inspection until it is too late and water damage has occurred.  These emergency calls reduce his margin and reduce customer satisfaction.  This lead to a discussion of business models in general and why long term differentiation can only come from service, not just for the music or news industries, but also for roofing companies!    I completely agreed with the transformational concepts described in both meetings and quickly understood why there is a Bentley dealership near my hotel.    

    Read the article

  • Using Oracle BPM to Extend Oracle Applications

    - by Michelle Kimihira
    Author: Srikant Subramaniam, Senior Principal Product Manager, Oracle Fusion Middleware Customers often modify applications to meet their specific business needs - varying regulatory requirements, unique business processes, product mix transition, etc. Traditional implementation practices for such modifications are typically invasive in nature and introduce risk into projects, affect time-to-market and ease of use, and ultimately increase the costs of running and maintaining the applications. Another downside of these traditional implementation practices is that they literally cast the application in stone, making it difficult for end-users to tailor their individual work environments to meet specific needs, without getting IT involved. For many businesses, however, IT lacks the capacity to support such rapid business changes. As a result, adopting innovative solutions to change the economics of customization becomes an imperative rather than a choice. Let's look at a banking process in Siebel Financial Services and Oracle Policy Automation (OPA) using Oracle Business Process Management. This approach makes modifications simple, quick to implement and easy to maintain/upgrade. The process model is based on the Loan Origination Process Accelerator, i.e., a set of ready to deploy business solutions developed by Oracle using Business Process Management (BPM) 11g, containing customizable and extensible pre-built processes to fit specific customer requirements. This use case is a branch-based loan origination process. Origination includes a number of steps ranging from accepting a loan application, applicant identity and background verification (Know Your Customer), credit assessment, risk evaluation and the eventual disbursal of funds (or rejection of the application). We use BPM to model all of these individual tasks and integrate (via web services) with: Siebel Financial Services and (simulated) backend applications: FLEXCUBE for loan management, Background Verification and Credit Rating. The process flow starts in Siebel when a customer applies for loan, switches to OPA for eligibility verification and product recommendations, before handing it off to BPM for approvals. OPA Connector for Siebel simplifies integration with Siebel’s web services framework by saving directly into Siebel the results from the self-service interview. This combination of user input and product recommendation invokes the BPM process for loan origination. At the end of the approval process, we update Siebel and the financial app to complete the loop. We use BPM Process Spaces to display role-specific data via dashboards, including the ability to track the status of a given process (flow trace). Loan Underwriters have visibility into the product mix (loan categories), status of loan applications (count of approved/rejected/pending), volume and values of loans approved per processing center, processing times, requested vs. approved amount and other relevant business metrics. Summary Oracle recommends the use of Fusion Middleware as an extensions platform for applications. This approach makes modifications simple, quick to implement and easy to maintain/upgrade applications (by moving customizations away from applications to the process layer). It is also easier to manage processes that span multiple applications by using Oracle BPM. Additional Information Product Information on Oracle.com: Oracle Fusion Middleware Follow us on Twitter and Facebook Subscribe to our regular Fusion Middleware Newsletter

    Read the article

  • So, what&rsquo;s your blog URL?

    - by johndoucette
    Asked by many of my colleagues often enough, I decided to take the plunge and begin blogging. After many attempts to start and long discussions about what I should write about, I decided to give my “buddies” a series of lessons and tidbits to help them understand what it takes to manage a software development project in the real world. Stories of success and failure to keep hope alive. I am formally trained as a developer (BS/CS) and have scattered my code throughout the matrix since 1985 (officially working for the man). As I moved from job-to-job over my career, I have had good managers, bad ones, and ones who were – well, just sitting in the corner office. It wasn't until I began the transition and commitment to the role of project management that I began to take real software development management seriously. A boss once told me “put down the code. Start managing the people and process.” That was a scary time in my career. I loved solving really cool problems with a blank sheet of paper. It was an adrenaline rush to get an opportunity to start from scratch and write an application solution people would actually use and help them in their work/business. I felt that moving into “management” would remove me from the thrill and ownership I felt as a developer. It was a hard step to take, and one which I believe is hard for any developer. Well, I am here to help you through this transition. For those of you wanting to read my stories or learn about the tools and techniques I use on a daily basis, you too might just learn something you would have never thought of as an architect/developer. I am currently a Sr. Consultant at Magenic with the Boston branch office and primarily work with clients in the New England area. I am typically engaged as the lead project manager on our engagements, but also perform Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) assessments for development organizations as well as augment the Technical Evangelists for Microsoft and perform many Team Foundation Server (TFS) demos, installs and “get started” engagements. I have spoken at the New England Code Camp, our most recent CodeMastery event in Boston, and have written several whitepapers.   I am looking forward to helping you “Put down the code.” John Doucette

    Read the article

  • Are there deprecated practices for multithread and multiprocessor programming that I should no longer use?

    - by DeveloperDon
    In the early days of FORTRAN and BASIC, essentially all programs were written with GOTO statements. The result was spaghetti code and the solution was structured programming. Similarly, pointers can have difficult to control characteristics in our programs. C++ started with plenty of pointers, but use of references are recommended. Libraries like STL can reduce some of our dependency. There are also idioms to create smart pointers that have better characteristics, and some version of C++ permit references and managed code. Programming practices like inheritance and polymorphism use a lot of pointers behind the scenes (just as for, while, do structured programming generates code filled with branch instructions). Languages like Java eliminate pointers and use garbage collection to manage dynamically allocated data instead of depending on programmers to match all their new and delete statements. In my reading, I have seen examples of multi-process and multi-thread programming that don't seem to use semaphores. Do they use the same thing with different names or do they have new ways of structuring protection of resources from concurrent use? For example, a specific example of a system for multithread programming with multicore processors is OpenMP. It represents a critical region as follows, without the use of semaphores, which seem not to be included in the environment. th_id = omp_get_thread_num(); #pragma omp critical { cout << "Hello World from thread " << th_id << '\n'; } This example is an excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenMP Alternatively, similar protection of threads from each other using semaphores with functions wait() and signal() might look like this: wait(sem); th_id = get_thread_num(); cout << "Hello World from thread " << th_id << '\n'; signal(sem); In this example, things are pretty simple, and just a simple review is enough to show the wait() and signal() calls are matched and even with a lot of concurrency, thread safety is provided. But other algorithms are more complicated and use multiple semaphores (both binary and counting) spread across multiple functions with complex conditions that can be called by many threads. The consequences of creating deadlock or failing to make things thread safe can be hard to manage. Do these systems like OpenMP eliminate the problems with semaphores? Do they move the problem somewhere else? How do I transform my favorite semaphore using algorithm to not use semaphores anymore?

    Read the article

  • Three Master Data Management Deployment Tips

    - by david.butler(at)oracle.com
    MDM is all about data quality and data governance. We now know that improved data quality raises all operational and analytical boats. But it's not just about deploying data quality tools. It's about deploying data quality tools within and across the IT landscape - from a thousand points of data entry to a single version of the truth. Here are three tips to deploying MDM across your applications and enterprise.   #1: Identify a tactical, high-value business problem where MDM can materially help. §  Support a customer acquisition and retention program with a 'customer' master data solution. §  Accelerate new products and services to market with a 'product' master data solution. §  Reduce supplier exceptions or support spend control initiatives with a 'supplier' master data solution. §  Support new store (branch, campus, restaurant, hospital, office, well head) location analysis with a 'site' master data solution. §  Fix long standing Chart of Accounts and Cost Center problems with a 'financial' master data solution. §  Support M&A activity, application upgrades, an SOA initiative, a cloud computing program, or a new business intelligence deployment by implementing a mix of master data solutions.   #2: Incrementally expand to a full information architecture. Quite often, the measurable return on interest from tactical MDM initiatives will fund future deployments. Over time, the MDM solution expands into its full architecture to cover the entire IT landscape. Operations and analytics are united, IT flexibility is restored, and sustainable competitive advantage is achieved.   #3: Bring business into every MDM deployment. To be successful, MDM must work hand in hand with data governance. In fact, Oracle MDM incorporates data governance tools for business users. IT can insure data quality, but only after the business side has defined what quality means. The business establishes the rules for governing the master data, and then IT enforces the rules via the MDM applications. Without this business/IT collaboration, MDM initiatives seldom achieve their full potential.   It is not very often that a technology comes along that can measurably assist organizations across a wide variety of top IT initiatives. Reducing costs, increasing flexibility, getting more out of existing assets, and aligning business and IT are not easy tasks for any CIO. But with MDM, success is achievable. IT can regain its place as a center for innovation.   For more information on this topic, take a look at my article Master Data Management Deployment Tips in the Opinion Section of Oracle's Profit Online magazine.

    Read the article

  • Shelving &ndash; What is it &ndash; and more importantly, can it help me?

    - by Chris Skardon
    Since we shifted to TFS we’ve had the ability to perform what is known as ‘shelving’. Shelving (whilst not a wholly new topic in the world of SCC) is new to us, and didn’t exist in our previous SCC solution – SVN. Soo… what is it? What? Shelving is a way to check-in but not check-in your code. By shelving you submit a copy of your ‘pending changes’ to the SCC server, (which maintains a list of the shelvesets) and once that is done you can either continue working, or undo your changes, safe in the knowledge that a backup copy exists on the server. You can unshelve your code at any time and get back to the state you were when you shelved. Yer, that is great but why not just check it in?? Shelvesets don’t have to build. The shelveset you put in there could be entirely broken, or it might solve every bug in the system – shelves aren’t continuously integrated so you can shelve anything. Hmmmm… What else? Shelving allows us to do some pretty cool stuff that beforehand was quite frankly a pain. For instance – Gated Check-ins are implemented via the shelving mechanism, when code is checked-in, what you’re actually doing is shelving it, the Build Controller will build the shelveset with the original code and if it succeeds, the code will be committed, if it fails – well – it’s only you that has to fix the code :) Other nice features are things like the ability to share code you are working on… For example, if I was having trouble with a particular piece of code, I could shelve it, and then you (yes you) could then get that shelveset and check out the problem for yourself, and if you fix it?? Well – you could check-it in! Nice, but day-to-day shizzle? Let’s say you’ve been working on your project and your project manager comes over to you and says: “Hey, errr, bad times, there is an urgent bug we need you to fix, it needs to go out now!” (also for this to play out – we’ll need to assume you’re currently working in the 'release’ branch for another bug fix (maybe))… You could undo all your current changes (obviously you’ll probably backup your code using zip or something I imagine) fix the bug, then re-copy your backup over the top, or you could shelve and unshelve. Perhaps some other uses will awaken the shelver in you… :) Before each checkin – if you shelve, you no longer need to worry (if indeed you do) about resolving conflicts and mysteriously losing your code… Going home at night? Not checking in straight away? Why not shelve, this way – should the worst come to the worst and your local pc gives up, you can just get the shelveset onto another machine and be up and running in literally seconds minutes…

    Read the article

  • How can I solve the same problems a CB-architecture is trying to solve without using hacks? [on hold]

    - by Jefffrey
    A component based system's goal is to solve the problems that derives from inheritance: for example the fact that some parts of the code (that are called components) are reused by very different classes that, hypothetically, would lie in a very different branch of the inheritance tree. That's a very nice concept, but I've found out that CBS is often hard to accomplish without using ugly hacks. Implementations of this system are often far from clean. But I don't want to discuss this any further. My question is: how can I solve the same problems a CBS try to solve with a very clean interface? (possibly with examples, there are a lot of abstract talks about the "perfect" design already). Here's an example I was going for before realizing I was just reinventing inheritance again: class Human { public: Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; // other human specific components }; class Zombie { Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; // other zombie specific components }; After writing that I realized I needed an interface, otherwise I would have needed N containers for N different types of objects (or to use boost::variant to gather them all together). So I've thought of polymorphism (move what systems do in a CBS design into class specific functions): class Entity { public: virtual void on_event(Event) {} // not pure virtual on purpose virtual void on_update(World) {} virtual void on_draw(Window) {} }; class Human { private: Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; public: virtual void on_event(Event) { ... } virtual void on_update(World) { ... } virtual void on_draw(Window) { ... } }; class Zombie { private: Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; public: virtual void on_event(Event) { ... } virtual void on_update(World) { ... } virtual void on_draw(Window) { ... } }; Which was nice, except for the fact that now the outside world would not even be able to know where a Human is positioned (it does not have access to its position member). That would be useful to track the player position for collision detection or if on_update the Zombie would want to track down its nearest human to move towards him. So I added const Position& get_position() const; to both the Zombie and Human classes. And then I realized that both functionality were shared, so it should have gone to the common base class: Entity. Do you notice anything? Yes, with that methodology I would have a god Entity class full of common functionality (which is the thing I was trying to avoid in the first place).

    Read the article

  • Efficient inline templates and C++

    - by Darryl Gove
    I've talked before about calling inline templates from C++, I've also talked about calling inline templates efficiently. This time I want to talk about efficiently calling inline templates from C++. The obvious starting point is that I need to declare the inline templates as being extern "C": extern "C" { int mytemplate(int); } This enables us to call it, but the call may not be very efficient because the compiler will treat it as a function call, and may produce suboptimal code based on that premise. So we need to add the no_side_effect pragma: extern "C" { int mytemplate(int); #pragma no_side_effect(mytemplate) } However, this may still not produce optimal code. We've discussed how the no_side_effect pragma cannot be combined with exceptions, well we know that the code cannot produce exceptions, but the compiler doesn't know that. If we tell the compiler that information it may be able to produce even better code. We can do this by adding the "throw()" keyword to the template declaration: extern "C" { int mytemplate(int) throw(); #pragma no_side_effect(mytemplate) } The following is an example of how these changes might improve performance. We can take our previous example code and migrate it to C++, adding the use of a try...catch construct: #include <iostream extern "C" { int lzd(int); #pragma no_side_effect(lzd) } int a; int c=0; class myclass { int routine(); }; int myclass::routine() { try { for(a=0; a<1000; a++) { c=lzd(c); } } catch(...) { std::cout << "Something happened" << std::endl; } return 0; } Compiling this produces a slightly suboptimal code sequence in the hot loop: $ CC -O -xtarget=T4 -S t.cpp t.il ... /* 0x0014 23 */ lzd %o0,%o0 /* 0x0018 21 */ add %l6,1,%l6 /* 0x001c */ cmp %l6,1000 /* 0x0020 */ bl,pt %icc,.L77000033 /* 0x0024 23 */ st %o0,[%l7] There's a store in the delay slot of the branch, so we're repeatedly storing data back to memory. If we change the function declaration to include "throw()", we get better code: $ CC -O -xtarget=T4 -S t.cpp t.il ... /* 0x0014 21 */ add %i1,1,%i1 /* 0x0018 23 */ lzd %o0,%o0 /* 0x001c 21 */ cmp %i1,999 /* 0x0020 */ ble,pt %icc,.L77000019 /* 0x0024 */ nop The store has gone, but the code is still suboptimal - there's a nop in the delay slot rather than useful work. However, it's good enough for this example. The point I'm making is that the compiler produces the better code with both the "throw()" and the no side effect pragma.

    Read the article

  • Start Time & Calculated Column Wonkiness in a SharePoint Event Calendar

    - by _zekeMouseOver
    I was creating some custom rollups on some of our event calendars and came across a very odd bug when trying to grab only the date component of the built-in Start Time field. One's first inclination will be to create a calculated column and give it the formula... =[Start Time]... and then assign its output type to be "Date Only." This works well until a user adds an All Day Event. For reasons unexplainable, the All Day Event flag causes your =[Start Time] to display the date minus one day. Here is an example of this in action:  Start Date and Time, Duration, Start Date Value and Start Day are all calculated fields. Notice how the Start Date and Time (=[Start Time]) is reporting 6:00PM of the previous day. The Start Date Value (=[Start Time] - Output Type: Number) confirms this (.75 = 6:00 PM.) Curiously enough, the Duration (=[End Time]-[Start Time]) is properly reporting the duration between 12:00AM and 11:59PM. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it's somehow bound to the regional settings on the site, but I'm not interested in changing a global site setting for the sake of one calculated field.With this information at our disposal, our calculated column to display the date part of the start date needs to be modified to add one day to the [Start Time] field if an All Day Event is selected. To determine this, we use the Duration above to assume the item is an all-day event and change our formula to be:=IF(TEXT(([End Time]-[Start Time])-TRUNC(([End Time]-[Start Time]),0),"0.000000000")="0.999305556",[Start Time] + 1, [Start Time])This will work, but what happens when the user de-selects the "All Day Event" checkbox? The duration stays the same, but all other values begin reporting the correct time: Since our formula above is strictly based on an expected duration, it will add one to the correct date, causing the date 5/11/2010 to appear. Notice though that the raw value of the start time (in this case) is a non-fractional number (40,308) whereas the all-day event was being represented as 6:00 PM (.75) of the previous day. We can use this to add one more nested branch of logic to our calculation:=IF(TEXT(([End Time]-[Start Time])-TRUNC(([End Time]-[Start Time]),0),"0.000000000")="0.999305556",IF([Start Time]=ROUND([Start Time],0),[Start Time],[Start Time]+1),[Start Time]) I feel somewhat... dirty about having to resort to this kind of calculation in what SHOULD have been a simple =[Start Time] to extract the date part of the Start Time field, but there you have it. Make sure to shower extra longer after having used it.

    Read the article

  • Compiling for T4

    - by Darryl Gove
    I've recently had quite a few queries about compiling for T4 based systems. So it's probably a good time to review what I consider to be the best practices. Always use the latest compiler. Being in the compiler team, this is bound to be something I'd recommend But the serious points are that (a) Every release the tools get better and better, so you are going to be much more effective using the latest release (b) Every release we improve the generated code, so you will see things get better (c) Old releases cannot know about new hardware. Always use optimisation. You should use at least -O to get some amount of optimisation. -xO4 is typically even better as this will add within-file inlining. Always generate debug information, using -g. This allows the tools to attribute information to lines of source. This is particularly important when profiling an application. The default target of -xtarget=generic is often sufficient. This setting is designed to produce a binary that runs well across all supported platforms. If the binary is going to be deployed on only a subset of architectures, then it is possible to produce a binary that only uses the instructions supported on these architectures, which may lead to some performance gains. I've previously discussed which chips support which architectures, and I'd recommend that you take a look at the chart that goes with the discussion. Crossfile optimisation (-xipo) can be very useful - particularly when the hot source code is distributed across multiple source files. If you're allowed to have something as geeky as favourite compiler optimisations, then this is mine! Profile feedback (-xprofile=[collect: | use:]) will help the compiler make the best code layout decisions, and is particularly effective with crossfile optimisations. But what makes this optimisation really useful is that codes that are dominated by branch instructions don't typically improve much with "traditional" compiler optimisation, but often do respond well to being built with profile feedback. The macro flag -fast aims to provide a one-stop "give me a fast application" flag. This usually gives a best performing binary, but with a few caveats. It assumes the build platform is also the deployment platform, it enables floating point optimisations, and it makes some relatively weak assumptions about pointer aliasing. It's worth investigating. SPARC64 processor, T3, and T4 implement floating point multiply accumulate instructions. These can substantially improve floating point performance. To generate them the compiler needs the flag -fma=fused and also needs an architecture that supports the instruction (at least -xarch=sparcfmaf). The most critical advise is that anyone doing performance work should profile their application. I cannot overstate how important it is to look at where the time is going in order to determine what can be done to improve it. I also presented at Oracle OpenWorld on this topic, so it might be helpful to review those slides.

    Read the article

  • How do I take responsibility for my code when colleague makes unnecessary improvements without notice?

    - by Jesslyn
    One of my teammates is a jack of all trades in our IT shop and I respect his insight. However, sometimes he reviews my code (he's second in command to our team leader, so that's expected) without a heads up. So sometimes he reviews my changes before they complete the end goal and makes changes right away... and has even broken my work once. Other times, he has made unnecessary improvements to some of my code that is 3+ months old. This annoys me for a few reasons: I am not always given a chance to fix my mistakes He has not taken the time to ask me what I was trying to accomplish when he is confused, which could affect his testing or changes I don't always think his code is readable Deadlines are not an issue and his current workload doesn't require any work in my projects other than reviewing my code changes. Anyways, I have told him in the past to please keep me posted if he sees something in my work that he wants to change so that I could take ownership of my code (maybe I should have said "shortcomings") and he's not been responsive. I fear that I may come off as aggressive when I ask him to explain his changes to me. He's just a quiet person who keeps to himself, but his actions continue. I don't want to banish him from making code changes (not like I could), because we are a team--but I want to do my part to help our team. Added clarifications: We share 1 development branch. I do not wait until all my changes complete a single task because I risk losing some significant work--so I make sure my changes build and do not break anything. My concern is that my teammate doesn't explain the reason or purpose behind his changes. I don't think he should need my blessing, but if we disagree on an approach I thought it would be best to discuss the pros and cons and make a decision once we both understand what is going on. I have not discussed this with our team lead yet as I would prefer to resolve personal disagreements without getting management involved unless it is necessary. Since my concern seemed more of personal issue than a threat to our work, I chose to not bother the team lead. I am working on code review process ideas--to help promote the benefits of more organized code reviews without making it all about my pet peeves.

    Read the article

  • Headaches using distributed version control for traditional teams?

    - by J Cooper
    Though I use and like DVCS for my personal projects, and can totally see how it makes managing contributions to your project from others easier (e.g. your typical Github scenario), it seems like for a "traditional" team there could be some problems over the centralized approach employed by solutions like TFS, Perforce, etc. (By "traditional" I mean a team of developers in an office working on one project that no one person "owns", with potentially everyone touching the same code.) A couple of these problems I've foreseen on my own, but please chime in with other considerations. In a traditional system, when you try to check your change in to the server, if someone else has previously checked in a conflicting change then you are forced to merge before you can check yours in. In the DVCS model, each developer checks in their changes locally and at some point pushes to some other repo. That repo then has a branch of that file that 2 people changed. It seems that now someone must be put in charge of dealing with that situation. A designated person on the team might not have sufficient knowledge of the entire codebase to be able to handle merging all conflicts. So now an extra step has been added where someone has to approach one of those developers, tell him to pull and do the merge and then push again (or you have to build an infrastructure that automates that task). Furthermore, since DVCS tends to make working locally so convenient, it is probable that developers could accumulate a few changes in their local repos before pushing, making such conflicts more common and more complicated. Obviously if everyone on the team only works on different areas of the code, this isn't an issue. But I'm curious about the case where everyone is working on the same code. It seems like the centralized model forces conflicts to be dealt with quickly and frequently, minimizing the need to do large, painful merges or have anyone "police" the main repo. So for those of you who do use a DVCS with your team in your office, how do you handle such cases? Do you find your daily (or more likely, weekly) workflow affected negatively? Are there any other considerations I should be aware of before recommending a DVCS at my workplace?

    Read the article

  • Creating a shared library that might be used with desktop applications and web projects

    - by dreza
    I have been involved in a number of MVC.NET and c# desktop projects in our company over the last year or so while also managing to kept my nose poked into other projects (in a read-only learning capacity of course). From this I've noticed that across the various projects and teams there is a-lot of functionality that has been well designed against good interfaces and abstractions. Because we tend to like our own work at times, I noticed a couple of projects had the exact same class, method copied into it as it had obviously worked on one and so was easily moved to a new project (probably by the same developer who originally wrote it) I mentioned this fact in one of our programmer meetings we have occasionally and suggested we pull some of this functionality into a core company library that we can build up over time and use across multiple projects. Everyone agreed and I started looking into this possibility. However, I've come across a stumbling block pretty early on. Our team primarily focuses on MVC at the moment and we have projects mainly in 2.0 but are starting to branch to 3.0. We also have a number of desktop applications that might benefit from some shared classes and basic helper methods. Initially when creating this DLL I included some shared classes that could be used across any project type (Web, Client etc) but then I started looking at adding some shared modules that would be useful in our MVC applications only. However this meant I had to include a reference to some Microsoft Web DLL's in order to leverage some of the classes I was creating (at this stage MVC 2.0). Now my issue is that we have a shared DLL that has references to web specific libraries that could also possibly be used in a client application. Not only that, our DLL referenced initially MVC 2.0 and we will eventually move onto MVC 3.0 for all projects. But alot of the classes in this library I expect to still be relevant to MVC 3 etc Our code within this DLL is separated into it's own namespaces such as: CompanyDLL.Primitives CompanyDLL.Web.Mvc CompanyDLL.Helpers etc etc So, my questions are: Is it OK to do a shared library like this, or if we have web specific features in it should we create a separate web DLL only targeted at a specific framework or MVC version? If it's OK, what kind of issues might we face when using the library that references MVC 2 in a MVC 3 project for example. I would be thinking that we might run into some sort of compatibility issue, or even issues where the developers using the library doesn't realize they need MVC 2.0 libraries. They might only want to use some of the generic classes etc The concept seemed like a good idea at the time, but I'm starting to think maybe it's not really a practical solution. But the number of times I've seen copied classes and methods across projects because they are proven tested code is a bit unnerving to be perfectly honest!

    Read the article

  • need some concrete examples on user stories, tasks and how they relate to functional and technical specifications

    - by gideon
    Little heads up, Im the only lonely dev building/planning/mocking my project as I go. Ive come up with a preview release that does only the core aspects of the system, with good business value and I've coded most of the UI as dirty throw-able mockups over nicely abstracted and very minimal base code. In the end I know quite well what my clients want on the whole. I can't take agile-ish cowboying anymore because Im completely dis-organized and have no paper plan and since my clients are happy, things are getting more complex with more features and ideas. So I started using and learning Agile & Scrum Here are my problems: I know what a functional spec is.(sample): Do all user stories and/or scenarios become part of the functional spec? I know what user stories and tasks are. Are these kinda user stories? I dont see any Business Value reason added to them. I made a mind map using freemind, I had problems like this: Actor : Finance Manager Can Add a Financial Plan into the system because well thats the point of it? What Business Value reason do I add for things like this? Example : A user needs to be able to add a blog article (in the blogger app) because..?? Its the point of a blogger app, it centers around that feature? How do I go into the finer details and system definitions: Actor: Finance Manager Action: Adds a finance plan. This adding is a complicated process with lots of steps. What User Story will describe what a finance plan in the system is ?? I can add it into the functional spec under definitions explaining what a finance plan is and how one needs to add it into the system, but how do I get to the backlog planning from there? Example: A Blog Article is mostly a textual document that can be written in rich text in the system. To add a blog article one must...... But how do you create backlog list/features out of this? Where are the user stories for what a blog article is and how one adds/removes it? Finally, I'm a little confused about the relations between functional specs and user stories. Will my spec contain user stories in them with UI mockups? Now will these user stories then branch out tasks which will make up something like a technical specification? Example : EditorUser Can add a blog article. Use XML to store blog article. Add a form to add blog. Add Windows Live Writer Support. That would be agile tasks but would that also be part of/or form the technical specs? Some concrete examples/answers of my questions would be nice!!

    Read the article

  • Learning by doing (and programming by trial and error)

    - by AlexBottoni
    How do you learn a new platform/toolkit while producing working code and keeping your codebase clean? When I know what I can do with the underlying platform and toolkit, I usually do this: I create a new branch (with GIT, in my case) I write a few unit tests (with JUnit, for example) I write my code until it passes my tests So far, so good. The problem is that very often I do not know what I can do with the toolkit because it is brand new to me. I work as a consulant so I cannot have my preferred language/platform/toolkit. I have to cope with whatever the customer uses for the task at hand. Most often, I have to deal (often in a hurry) with a large toolkit that I know very little so I'm forced to "learn by doing" (actually, programming by "trial and error") and this makes me anxious. Please note that, at some point in the learning process, usually I already have: read one or more five-stars books followed one or more web tutorials (writing working code a line at a time) created a couple of small experimental projects with my IDE (IntelliJ IDEA, at the moment. I use Eclipse, Netbeans and others, as well.) Despite all my efforts, at this point usually I can just have a coarse understanding of the platform/toolkit I have to use. I cannot yet grasp each and every detail. This means that each and every new feature that involves some data preparation and some non-trivial algorithm is a pain to implement and requires a lot of trial-and-error. Unfortunately, working by trial-and-error is neither safe nor easy. Actually, this is the phase that makes me most anxious: experimenting with a new toolkit while producing working code and keeping my codebase clean. Usually, at this stage I cannot use the Eclipse Scrapbook because the code I have to write is already too large and complex for this small tool. In the same way, I cannot use any more an indipendent small project for my experiments because I need to try the new code in place. I can just write my code in place and rely on GIT for a safe bail-out. This makes me anxious because this kind of intertwined, half-ripe code can rapidly become incredibly hard to manage. How do you face this phase of the development process? How do you learn-by-doing without making a mess of your codebase? Any tips&tricks, best practice or something like that?

    Read the article

  • Solaris 11.1 changes building of code past the point of __NORETURN

    - by alanc
    While Solaris 11.1 was under development, we started seeing some errors in the builds of the upstream X.Org git master sources, such as: "Display.c", line 65: Function has no return statement : x_io_error_handler "hostx.c", line 341: Function has no return statement : x_io_error_handler from functions that were defined to match a specific callback definition that declared them as returning an int if they did return, but these were calling exit() instead of returning so hadn't listed a return value. These had been generating warnings for years which we'd been ignoring, but X.Org has made enough progress in cleaning up code for compiler warnings and static analysis issues lately, that the community turned up the default error levels, including the gcc flag -Werror=return-type and the equivalent Solaris Studio cc flags -v -errwarn=E_FUNC_HAS_NO_RETURN_STMT, so now these became errors that stopped the build. Yet on Solaris, gcc built this code fine, while Studio errored out. Investigation showed this was due to the Solaris headers, which during Solaris 10 development added a number of annotations to the headers when gcc was being used for the amd64 kernel bringup before the Studio amd64 port was ready. Since Studio did not support the inline form of these annotations at the time, but instead used #pragma for them, the definitions were only present for gcc. To resolve this, I fixed both sides of the problem, so that it would work for building new X.Org sources on older Solaris releases or with older Studio compilers, as well as fixing the general problem before it broke more software building on Solaris. To the X.Org sources, I added the traditional Studio #pragma does_not_return to recognize that functions like exit() don't ever return, in patches such as this Xserver patch. Adding a dummy return statement was ruled out as that introduced unreachable code errors from compilers and analyzers that correctly realized you couldn't reach that code after a return statement. And on the Solaris 11.1 side, I updated the annotation definitions in <sys/ccompile.h> to enable for Studio 12.0 and later compilers the annotations already existing in a number of system headers for functions like exit() and abort(). If you look in that file you'll see the annotations we currently use, though the forms there haven't gone through review to become a Committed interface, so may change in the future. Actually getting this integrated into Solaris though took a bit more work than just editing one header file. Our ELF binary build comparison tool, wsdiff, actually showed a large number of differences in the resulting binaries due to the compiler using this information for branch prediction, code path analysis, and other possible optimizations, so after comparing enough of the disassembly output to be comfortable with the changes, we also made sure to get this in early enough in the release cycle so that it would get plenty of test exposure before the release. It also required updating quite a bit of code to avoid introducing new lint or compiler warnings or errors, and people building applications on top of Solaris 11.1 and later may need to make similar changes if they want to keep their build logs similarly clean. Previously, if you had a function that was declared with a non-void return type, lint and cc would warn if you didn't return a value, even if you called a function like exit() or panic() that ended execution. For instance: #include <stdlib.h> int callback(int status) { if (status == 0) return status; exit(status); } would previously require a never executed return 0; after the exit() to avoid lint warning "function falls off bottom without returning value". Now the compiler & lint will both issue "statement not reached" warnings for a return 0; after the final exit(), allowing (or in some cases, requiring) it to be removed. However, if there is no return statement anywhere in the function, lint will warn that you've declared a function returning a value that never does so, suggesting you can declare it as void. Unfortunately, if your function signature is required to match a certain form, such as in a callback, you not be able to do so, and will need to add a /* LINTED */ to the end of the function. If you need your code to build on both a newer and an older release, then you will either need to #ifdef these unreachable statements, or, to keep your sources common across releases, add to your sources the corresponding #pragma recognized by both current and older compiler versions, such as: #pragma does_not_return(exit) #pragma does_not_return(panic) Hopefully this little extra work is paid for by the compilers & code analyzers being able to better understand your code paths, giving you better optimizations and more accurate errors & warning messages.

    Read the article

  • Understanding the levels of computing

    - by RParadox
    Sorry, for my confused question. I'm looking for some pointers. Up to now I have been working mostly with Java and Python on the application layer and I have only a vague understanding of operating systems and hardware. I want to understand much more about the lower levels of computing, but it gets really overwhelming somehow. At university I took a class about microprogramming, i.e. how processors get hard-wired to implement the ASM codes. Up to now I always thought I wouldn't get more done if learned more about the "low level". One question I have is: how is it even possible that hardware gets hidden almost completely from the developer? Is it accurate to say that the operating system is a software layer for the hardware? One small example: in programming I have never come across the need to understand what L2 or L3 Cache is. For the typical business application environment one almost never needs to understand assembler and the lower levels of computing, because nowadays there is a technology stack for almost anything. I guess the whole point of these lower levels is to provide an interface to higher levels. On the other hand I wonder how much influence the lower levels can have, for example this whole graphics computing thing. So, on the other hand, there is this theoretical computer science branch, which works on abstract computing models. However, I also rarely encountered situations, where I found it helpful thinking in the categories of complexity models, proof verification, etc. I sort of know, that there is a complexity class called NP, and that they are kind of impossible to solve for a big number of N. What I'm missing is a reference for a framework to think about these things. It seems to me, that there all kinds of different camps, who rarely interact. The last few weeks I have been reading about security issues. Here somehow, much of the different layers come together. Attacks and exploits almost always occur on the lower level, so in this case it is necessary to learn about the details of the OSI layers, the inner workings of an OS, etc.

    Read the article

  • Please give the solution of the following programs in R Programming

    - by NEETHU
    Table below gives data concerning the performance of 28 national football league teams in 1976.It is suspected that the no. of yards gained rushing by opponents(x8) has an effect on the no. of games won by a team(y) (a)Fit a simple linear regression model relating games won by y to yards gained rushing by opponents x8. (b)Construct the analysis of variance table and test for significance of regression. (c)Find a 95% CI on the slope. (d)What percent of the total variability in y is explained by this model. (e)Find a 95% CI on the mean number of games won in opponents yards rushing is limited to 2000 yards. Team y x8 1 10 2205 2 11 2096 3 11 1847 4 13 1803 5 10 1457 6 11 1848 7 10 1564 8 11 1821 9 4 2577 10 2 2476 11 7 1984 12 10 1917 13 9 1761 14 9 1709 15 6 1901 16 5 2288 17 5 2072 18 5 2861 19 6 2411 20 4 2289 21 3 2203 22 3 2592 23 4 2053 24 10 1979 25 6 2048 26 8 1786 27 2 2876 28 0 2560 Suppose we would like to use the model developed in problem 1 to predict the no. of games a team will win if it can limit opponents yards rushing to 1800 yards. Find a point estimate of the no. of games won when x8=1800.Find a 905 prediction interval on the no. of games won. The purity of Oxygen produced by a fractionation process is thought to be percentage of Hydrocarbon in the main condenser of the processing unit .20 samples are shown below. Purity(%) Hydrocarbon(%) 86.91 1.02 89.85 1.11 90.28 1.43 86.34 1.11 92.58 1.01 87.33 0.95 86.29 1.11 91.86 0.87 95.61 1.43 89.86 1.02 96.73 1.46 99.42 1.55 98.66 1.55 96.07 1.55 93.65 1.4 87.31 1.15 95 1.01 96.85 0.99 85.2 0.95 90.56 0.98 (a)Fit a simple linear regression model to the data. (b)Test the hypothesis H0:ß=0 (c)Calculate R2 . (d)Find a 95% CI on the slope. (e)Find a 95% CI on the mean purity and the Hydrocarbon % is 1. Consider the Oxygen plant data in Problem3 and assume that purity and Hydrocarbon percentage are jointly normally distributed r.vs (a)What is the correlation between Oxygen purity and Hydrocarbon% (b)Test the hypothesis that ?=0. (c)Construct a 95% CI for ?.

    Read the article

  • Site to Site VPN with Fault Tolerence

    - by Nordberg
    Hello, I have a situation where I require an IPSEC tunnel between two sites. Site 2 is a small branch office with basic (ADSL) connectivity and Site 1 is the "main" office with SDSL and ADSL for redundancy should the SDSL fail. From Site 1, all traffic bound for the 172.0.0.0 network will then be sent down another IPSEC tunnel to a supplier's Remote Server. See this page for the basic premise (this is a rough idea and things can be moved about etc...) I am considering specifying Cisco ASA devices as the firewalls for both sites for all connections. Would it be possible to employ something like HSRC to provide a backup at Site 1 should the SDSL go down? I suppose the key aims here are that Site 2 can somehow failover to initiate a VPN to the ASA behind the ADSL at Site 1. I will have a 21 subnet mask on all internet connections so can play with Class C routing if need be... If I'm barking up the wrong tree with HSRC, is there another way I can acheive this without massive expenditure on Barracuda routers et al? Many Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to get decent WiFi despite a virtual Faraday cage

    - by MT_Head
    One of my clients is the local branch of an international airline. They have a small office in the secured area behind the ticket counters, and timeshare space at the ticket counter. I need to add a ticket printer out front, which I cannot (for contract/liability reasons) attach to the shared computer at the counter; the only workable solution seems to be to put the printer and its attached computer on a cart and connect to the office's network via WiFi. So far, no problem - right? Well, the terminal has been getting a facelift, which - among other things - includes decorative stainless-steel panels along the wall behind the ticket counters. This paneling acts as a seriously effective barrier to WiFi! The office's WiFi router - a brand-new D-Link DIR-815, dual-band 802.11n - is just on the other side of the pictured wall, and twenty feet or so to the right. And yet the only way I can connect AT ALL on this side of the wall is to stick the USB adapter (on the end of an extension cable) right into the crack between panels... and even then I can only see the 5GHz network, and that very weakly. Has anyone else had experience with this sort of misguided interior decoration? Any ideas on how I can improve reception on the other side of the barrier? (Needless to say, physical modifications of the environment - tempting though they might be - are strictly no-go.)

    Read the article

  • How to push changes from Test server to Live server?

    - by anonymous
    As a beginner, I finally noticed the issue with making changes to the live server I've been working on, now that I have a couple users on it, since I bring it down so often. I created an EC2 image of my live server and set up a separate instance on EC2, so now I have 2 EC2 instances, Stage and Production. I set up GitHub and push changes to stage and test my code there, and when it's all done and working, I push it to the production branch, and everything is good. And there is a slight issue here since I name my files config_stage.js and config_production.js and set up .gitignore on each server, and in my code, I would have it read the ENV flags and set up the appropriate configs, is this the correct approach? And my main question is: how do you keep track of non-code changes to the server? For example, I installed HAProxy, Stunnel, Redis, MongoDB and several other things onto the Stage server for testing and now that it's all working and good, how do I deploy them to production? Right now, I'm just keeping track of everything I installed and copying configuration files over, which is very tedious and I'm afraid I may have missed a step somewhere. Is there a better way to port these changes over from my test server to my live server?

    Read the article

  • Puppet: array in parameterized classes VS using resources

    - by Luke404
    I have some use cases where I want to define multiple similar resources that should end up in a single file (via a template). As an example I'm trying to write a puppet module that will let me manage the mapping between MAC addresses and network interface names (writing udev's persistent-net-rules file from puppet), but there are also many other similar usage cases. I searched around and found that it could be done with the new parameterised classes syntax: if implemented that way it should end up being used like this: node { "myserver.example.com": class { "network::iftab": interfaces => { "eth0" => { "mac" => "ab:cd:ef:98:76:54" } "eth1" => { "mac" => "98:76:de:ad:be:ef" } } } } Not too bad, I agree, but it would rapidly explode when you manage more complex stuff (think network configurations like in this module or any other multiple-complex-resources-in-a-single-config-file stuff). In a similar question on SF someone suggested using Pienaar's puppet-concat module but I doubt it could get any better than parameterised classes. What would be really cool and clean in the configuration definition would be something like the included host type, it's usage is simple, pretty and clean and naturally maps to multiple resources that will end up being configured in a single place. Transposed to my example it would be like: node { "myserver.example.com": interface { "eth0": "mac" => "ab:cd:ef:98:76:54", "foo" => "bar", "asd" => "lol", "eth1": "mac" => "98:76:de:ad:be:ef", "foo" => "rab", "asd" => "olo", } } ...that looks much better to my eyes, even with 3x options to each resource. Should I really be passing arrays to parameterised classes, or there is a better way to do this kind of stuff? Is there some accepted consensus in the puppet [users|developers] community? By the way, I'm referring to the latest stable release of the 2.7 branch and I am not interested in compatibility with older versions.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >