Search Results

Search found 6442 results on 258 pages for 'managed bean'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 6/258 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Managed game frameworks with Model loading support [on hold]

    - by codymanix
    Iam looking for an alternative to XNA with support of model loading. Does anybody know when/if there if a MonoGame release is planned which includes its own content pipeline which works without XNA beeing installed? If not, what are the alternatives in managed game development? As far as I know, SlimDX and SharpDX on its own brings no functionality for loading models. Are there any open source libraries that can do that?

    Read the article

  • Screenshot Tour: 10 New Features in Android 4.2 Jelly Bean

    - by Chris Hoffman
    Android 4.2 improves on Android 4.1 in numerous ways, adding a variety of new features. Android 4.2 isn’t as big an update as Android 4.1, also called Jelly Bean, but it’s a definite improvement. If you have a Nexus 7 or Galaxy Nexus, you should be getting this update very soon. Unfortunately, it will likely take quite a bit longer for manufacturers to ship Android 4.2 on non-Nexus devices. How To Delete, Move, or Rename Locked Files in Windows HTG Explains: Why Screen Savers Are No Longer Necessary 6 Ways Windows 8 Is More Secure Than Windows 7

    Read the article

  • Injecting Mockito mocks into a Spring bean

    - by teabot
    I would like to inject a Mockito mock object into a Spring (3+) bean for the purposes of unit testing with JUnit. My bean dependencies are currently injected by using the @Autowired annotation on private member fields. I have considered using ReflectionTestUtils.setField but the bean instance that I wish to inject is actually a proxy and hence does not declare the private member fields of the target class. I do not wish to create a public setter to the dependency as I will then be modifying my interface purely for the purposes of testing. I have followed some advice given by the Spring community but the mock does not get created and the auto-wiring fails: <bean id="dao" class="org.mockito.Mockito" factory-method="mock"> <constructor-arg value="com.package.Dao" /> </bean> The error I currently encounter is as follows: ... Caused by: org...NoSuchBeanDefinitionException: No matching bean of type [com.package.Dao] found for dependency: expected at least 1 bean which qualifies as autowire candidate for this dependency. Dependency annotations: { @org...Autowired(required=true), @org...Qualifier(value=dao) } at org...DefaultListableBeanFactory.raiseNoSuchBeanDefinitionException(D...y.java:901) at org...DefaultListableBeanFactory.doResolveDependency(D...y.java:770) If I set the constructor-arg value to something invalid no error occurs when starting the application context.

    Read the article

  • How can I implement a proper counter bean with EJB 3.0?

    - by Aaron Digulla
    I have this entity bean: import javax.persistence.*; @Entity public class CounterTest { private int id; private int counter; @Id public int getId() { return id; } public void setId(int id) { this.id = id; } public int getCounter() { return counter; } public void setCounter(int counter) { this.counter = counter; } } and this stateful bean to increment a counter: import java.rmi.RemoteException; import javax.ejb.*; import javax.persistence.*; @Stateful public class CounterTestBean implements CounterTestRemote { @PersistenceContext(unitName = "JavaEE") EntityManager manager; public void initDB() { CounterTest ct = new CounterTest(); ct.setNr(1); ct.setWert(1); manager.persist(ct); } public boolean testCounterWithLock() { try { CounterTest ct = manager.find(CounterTest.class, 1); manager.lock(ct, LockModeType.WRITE); int wert = ct.getWert(); ct.setWert(wert + 1); manager.flush(); return true; } catch (Throwable t) { return false; } } } When I call testCounterWithLock() from three threads 500 times each, the counter gets incremented between 13 and 1279 times. How do I fix this code so that it is incremented 1500 times?

    Read the article

  • Spring rejecting bean name, no URL paths specified

    - by richever
    I am trying to register an interceptor using a annotation-driven controller configuration. As far as I can tell, I've done everything correctly but when I try testing the interceptor nothing happens. After looking in the logs I found the following: 2010-04-04 20:06:18,231 DEBUG [main] support.AbstractAutowireCapableBeanFactory (AbstractAutowireCapableBeanFactory.java:452) - Finished creating instance of bean 'org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.annotation.DefaultAnnotationHandlerMapping#0' 2010-04-04 20:06:18,515 DEBUG [main] handler.AbstractDetectingUrlHandlerMapping (AbstractDetectingUrlHandlerMapping.java:86) - Rejected bean name 'org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.annotation.DefaultAnnotationHandlerMapping#0': no URL paths identified 2010-04-04 20:06:19,109 DEBUG [main] support.AbstractBeanFactory (AbstractBeanFactory.java:241) - Returning cached instance of singleton bean 'org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.annotation.DefaultAnnotationHandlerMapping#0' Look at the second line of this log snippet. Is Spring rejecting the DefaultAnnotationHandlerMapping bean? And if so could this be the problem with my interceptor not working? Here is my application context: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <beans xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:p="http://www.springframework.org/schema/p" xmlns:context="http://www.springframework.org/schema/context" xmlns:mvc="http://www.springframework.org/schema/mvc" xsi:schemaLocation=" http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-3.0.xsd http://www.springframework.org/schema/context http://www.springframework.org/schema/context/spring-context-3.0.xsd http://www.springframework.org/schema/mvc http://www.springframework.org/schema/mvc/spring-mvc-3.0.xsd" default-autowire="byName"> <!-- Configures the @Controller programming model --> <mvc:annotation-driven /> <!-- Scan for annotations... --> <context:component-scan base-package=" com.splash.web.controller, com.splash.web.service, com.splash.web.authentication"/> <bean id="authorizedUserInterceptor" class="com.splash.web.handler.AuthorizedUserInterceptor"/> <bean class="org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.annotation.DefaultAnnotationHandlerMapping"> <property name="interceptors"> <list> <ref bean="authorizedUserInterceptor"/> </list> </property> </bean> Here is my interceptor: package com.splash.web.handler; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletResponse; import org.apache.log4j.Logger; import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired; import org.springframework.web.servlet.handler.HandlerInterceptorAdapter; public class AuthorizedUserInterceptor extends HandlerInterceptorAdapter { @Override public boolean preHandle(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response, Object handler) throws Exception { log.debug(">>> Operation intercepted..."); return true; } } Does anyone see anything wrong with this? What does the error I mentioned above actually mean and could it have any bearing on the interceptor not being called? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Recommended Bean Utility Libraries for Java

    - by Jim Ferrans
    I'm looking for a good, well-supported, and efficient Java library that uses reflection to automate JavaBean operations. These include making a deep copy of an arbitrary bean hierarchy (with nested lists and maps of beans), comparing two bean hierarchies for deep equality, and "transmorphing" one bean to another of a different class. Some possibilities include Apache Commons BeanUtils, Spring's BeanUtils, and Java's Bean support. Which libraries would you recommend?

    Read the article

  • Bean value update problem in jsf 1.1

    - by johnbritto
    I have One Jsf form that contains 2 Beans. First Bean scope: Session. Second Bean scope: request. When somevalues are added via First Bean to second Bean, the Updation value is not displayed in the form. I don't know how to do. Please help me.

    Read the article

  • Bean Value Updation problem in jsf1.1

    - by johnbritto
    Hey I have One Jsf form that contains 2 Beans . First Bean scope: Session Second Bean scope: request When somevalues are added via First Bean to second Bean. The Updation value is not displayed in the form.I dont know how to do.Please help me.

    Read the article

  • Creating Key Flex Field (KFF) Bean in OAF

    - by Manoj Madhusoodanan
    This blog describes how to create KFF in OAF Page.Here I am going to demonstrate with standard Job KFF. I have created a new structure in Job KFF which I am going to use it in my custom OAF page.Please see the below pic. In the above created structure I have created following segments.You can see the valuesets also. In the custom page I have created an item with following properties. In the Segment List property you can give which segments are going to use in the KFF. The syntax for defining it is  KFF Code|Segment1|Segment2|Segment3|Segment4|Segment N In the table just create a field to hold the code combination.Please click here to see table script. Code combination will goes into JOB_ID field of the table. In the processRequest method of the page controller add following code snippet to attach the KFF structure and CCID column to the KFF bean. Deploy the files belonging to this solution to the server. Following is the output of the above solution. If you click on JobId you can see the KFF window.   Code Combination Id has created in the table.      

    Read the article

  • MySQL server with website hosting with managed hosting

    - by BlackSheep
    I work for a small business, and I am the "IT Department". I also happen to be a summer intern, so after I leave the number of IT staff will be 0 for an indefinite period of time. I need a place where I can reliably put up the company's website as well as the mySQL+PHP backend. Good redundancy is a plus, as well as easy administration for my IT-challenged colleagues. Managed hosting would be good, so the PHP versions can update without my company having to hire an admin. EDIT: The company already has a mySQL+PHP server running locally which hosts the existing website. My assignment is to find a remote server where the latest versions of mySQL+PHP will be maintained and where there is a very small chance of unintended downtime. Can you recommend anything?

    Read the article

  • Conky to Monitor WLS Managed Servers

    - by John Graves
    I've been using a little utility on my linux-based machines for years called conky.  It can be used to monitor system resources, but I wanted to modify it to monitor my WebLogic managed servers too. Once installing conky, you'll need to update the .conkyrc file.  Here is a simple example. Basically, the important lines are these: - Admin (7001) ${if_empty ${exec /usr/sbin/lsof -i :7001 | grep LISTEN}}${color red}DOWN${color} ${else}${color green} UP ${color}(${tcp_portmon 7001 7001 count}) ${endif} - OSB (8011) ${if_empty ${exec /usr/sbin/lsof -i :8011 | grep LISTEN}}${color red}DOWN${color} ${else}${color green} UP ${color}(${tcp_portmon 8011 8011 count}) ${endif} - BAM (9001) ${if_empty ${exec /usr/sbin/lsof -i :9001 | grep LISTEN}}${color red}DOWN${color} ${else}${color green} UP ${color}(${tcp_portmon 9001 9001 count}) ${endif} - DB (1521) ${if_empty ${exec /usr/sbin/lsof -i :1521 | grep LISTEN}}${color red}DOWN${color} ${else}${color green} UP ${color}(${tcp_portmon 1521 1521 count}) ${endif} It uses lsof to find out if ports are in use. Here is a video showing it in action.

    Read the article

  • How are you using the Managed Extensibility Framework?

    - by dboarman
    I have been working with MEF for about 2 weeks. I started thinking about what MEF is for, researching to find out how to use MEF, and finally implementing a Host with 3 modules. The contracts are proving to be easy to grasp and the modules are easily managed. Although MEF has a very practical use, I am wondering to what extent? I mean, is everyone going to be rewriting existing applications for extensibility? Yes, that sounds, and is insanely impractical. Rhetorically speaking: how is MEF affecting the current trends in programming? have you begun looking for opportunities to use MEF? have you begun planning a major re-write of an existing app that may benefit from extensibility? That said, my questions are: how do I know when I should plan a new project with extensibility? how will I know if an existing project needs to be re-written for extensibility? Is anyone using MEF?

    Read the article

  • In a Visual Studio C++ project with /clr, are its dependencies also compiled to managed code?

    - by Michael
    To be a bit more clear. If I have a Visual Studio C++ solution that has two projects, say a static library with CLR support turned off, and a second project with CLR support turned on that depends on this static library, does the static library get compiled as managed code? What about libraries that the CLR project uses that are external to this solution, do they also get compiled as managed code?

    Read the article

  • What Gets Measured Gets Managed

    - by steve.diamond
    OK, so if I were to claim credit for inventing that expression, I guess I could share the mantle with Al Gore, creator of the Internet. But here's the point: How many of us acquire CRM systems without specifically benchmarking several key performance indicators across sales, marketing and service BEFORE and AFTER deployment of said system? Yes, this may sound obvious and it might provoke the, "Well of course, Diamond!" response, but is YOUR company doing this? Can you define in quantitative terms the delta across multiple parameters? I just trolled the Web site of one of my favorite sales consultancy firms, The Alexander Group. Right on their home page is a brief appeal citing the importance of benchmarking. The corresponding landing page states, "The fact that hundreds of sales executives now track how their sales forces spend time means they attach great value to understanding how much time sellers actually devote to selling." The opportunity is to extend this conversation to benchmarking the success that companies derive from the investment they make in CRM systems, i.e., to the automation side of the equation. To a certain extent, the 'game' is analogous to achieving optimal physical fitness. One may never quite get there, but beyond the 95% threshold of "excellence," she/he may be entering the realm of splitting infinitives. But at the very start, and to quote verbiage from the aforementioned Alexander Group Web page, what gets measured gets managed. And getting to that 95% level along several key indicators would be a high quality problem indeed, don't you think? Yes, this could be a "That's so 90's" conversation, but is it really?

    Read the article

  • Set up a GUI managed stateful filtering firewall?

    - by Azendale
    What ways are there of setting up a stateful filtering* firewall whose rules can be managed by a GUI? Can GUFW do it? FireStarter? (or should that be avoided because it is supposedly no longer updated?) *By filtering, I'm mean the traffic I am setting rules up for is not destined for this computer. It is either from or to other computers on my LAN. Say, for (a simplified, hypothetical) example: I have an ethernet connection at my dorm that I have plugged into eth0. It gets an address of 192.168.1.185 and I also have 192.168.185.0/24 routed to me, so I don't have to do any NAT. I have a hub attached to my second ethernet port (eth1) with a few Windows computers and I give addresses out of my 192.168.185.0/24 block with DHCP. How can I use my Ubuntu box to block incoming connections from eth0 that are being routed to my Windows computers and let through just a few specific ports (so fellow students can't see what files my Windows boxes are sharing via SMB)?

    Read the article

  • The UIManager Pattern

    - by Duncan Mills
    One of the most common mistakes that I see when reviewing ADF application code, is the sin of storing UI component references, most commonly things like table or tree components in Session or PageFlow scope. The reasons why this is bad are simple; firstly, these UI object references are not serializable so would not survive a session migration between servers and secondly there is no guarantee that the framework will re-use the same component tree from request to request, although in practice it generally does do so. So there danger here is, that at best you end up with an NPE after you session has migrated, and at worse, you end up pinning old generations of the component tree happily eating up your precious memory. So that's clear, we should never. ever, be storing references to components anywhere other than request scope (or maybe backing bean scope). So double check the scope of those binding attributes that map component references into a managed bean in your applications.  Why is it Such a Common Mistake?  At this point I want to examine why there is this urge to hold onto these references anyway? After all, JSF will obligingly populate your backing beans with the fresh and correct reference when needed.   In most cases, it seems that the rational is down to a lack of distinction within the application between what is data and what is presentation. I think perhaps, a cause of this is the logical separation between business data behind the ADF data binding (#{bindings}) façade and the UI components themselves. Developers tend to think, OK this is my data layer behind the bindings object and everything else is just UI.  Of course that's not the case.  The UI layer itself will have state which is intrinsically linked to the UI presentation rather than the business model, but at the same time should not be tighly bound to a specific instance of any single UI component. So here's the problem.  I think developers try and use the UI components as state-holders for this kind of data, rather than using them to represent that state. An example of this might be something like the selection state of a tabset (panelTabbed), you might be interested in knowing what the currently disclosed tab is. The temptation that leads to the component reference sin is to go and ask the tabset what the selection is.  That of course is fine in context - e.g. a handler within the same request scoped bean that's got the binding to the tabset. However, it leads to problems when you subsequently want the same information outside of the immediate scope.  The simple solution seems to be to chuck that component reference into session scope and then you can simply re-check in the same way, leading of course to this mistake. Turn it on its Head  So the correct solution to this is to turn the problem on its head. If you are going to be interested in the value or state of some component outside of the immediate request context then it becomes persistent state (persistent in the sense that it extends beyond the lifespan of a single request). So you need to externalize that state outside of the component and have the component reference and manipulate that state as needed rather than owning it. This is what I call the UIManager pattern.  Defining the Pattern The  UIManager pattern really is very simple. The premise is that every application should define a session scoped managed bean, appropriately named UIManger, which is specifically responsible for holding this persistent UI component related state.  The actual makeup of the UIManger class varies depending on a needs of the application and the amount of state that needs to be stored. Generally I'll start off with a Map in which individual flags can be created as required, although you could opt for a more formal set of typed member variables with getters and setters, or indeed a mix. This UIManager class is defined as a session scoped managed bean (#{uiManager}) in the faces-config.xml.  The pattern is to then inject this instance of the class into any other managed bean (usually request scope) that needs it using a managed property.  So typically you'll have something like this:   <managed-bean>     <managed-bean-name>uiManager</managed-bean-name>     <managed-bean-class>oracle.demo.view.state.UIManager</managed-bean-class>     <managed-bean-scope>session</managed-bean-scope>   </managed-bean>  When is then injected into any backing bean that needs it:    <managed-bean>     <managed-bean-name>mainPageBB</managed-bean-name>     <managed-bean-class>oracle.demo.view.MainBacking</managed-bean-class>     <managed-bean-scope>request</managed-bean-scope>     <managed-property>       <property-name>uiManager</property-name>       <property-class>oracle.demo.view.state.UIManager</property-class>       <value>#{uiManager}</value>     </managed-property>   </managed-bean> In this case the backing bean in question needs a member variable to hold and reference the UIManager: private UIManager _uiManager;  Which should be exposed via a getter and setter pair with names that match the managed property name (e.g. setUiManager(UIManager _uiManager), getUiManager()).  This will then give your code within the backing bean full access to the UI state. UI components in the page can, of course, directly reference the uiManager bean in their properties, for example, going back to the tab-set example you might have something like this: <af:paneltabbed>   <af:showDetailItem text="First"                disclosed="#{uiManager.settings['MAIN_TABSET_STATE'].['FIRST']}"> ...   </af:showDetailItem>   <af:showDetailItem text="Second"                      disclosed="#{uiManager.settings['MAIN_TABSET_STATE'].['SECOND']}">     ...   </af:showDetailItem>   ... </af:panelTabbed> Where in this case the settings member within the UI Manger is a Map which contains a Map of Booleans for each tab under the MAIN_TABSET_STATE key. (Just an example you could choose to store just an identifier for the selected tab or whatever, how you choose to store the state within UI Manger is up to you.) Get into the Habit So we can see that the UIManager pattern is not great strain to implement for an application and can even be retrofitted to an existing application with ease. The point is, however, that you should always take this approach rather than committing the sin of persistent component references which will bite you in the future or shotgun scattered UI flags on the session which are hard to maintain.  If you take the approach of always accessing all UI state via the uiManager, or perhaps a pageScope focused variant of it, you'll find your applications much easier to understand and maintain. Do it today!

    Read the article

  • Managed Service Architectures Part I

    - by barryoreilly
    Instead of thinking about service oriented architecture, a concept that is continually defined, redefined, abused and mistreated, perhaps it is time to drop the acronym and consider what we actually need to get the job done.   ‘Pure’ SOA involves the modeling of an organisation’s processes, the so called ‘Top Down’ approach, followed by the implementation of these processes as services.     Another approach, more commonly seen in the wild, is the bottom up approach. This usually involves services that simply start popping up in the organization, and SOA in this case is often just an attempt to rein in these services. Such projects, although described as SOA projects for a variety of reasons, have clearly little relation to process driven architecture. Much has been written about these two approaches, with many deciding that a hybrid of both methods is needed to succeed with SOA.   These hybrid methods are a sensible compromise, but one gets the feeling that there is too much focus on ‘Succeeding with SOA’. Organisations who focus too much on bottom up development, or who waste too much time and money on top down approaches that don’t produce results, are often recommended to attempt an ‘agile’(Erl) or ‘middle-out’ (Microsoft) approach in order to succeed with SOA.  The problem with recommending this approach is that, in most cases, succeeding with SOA isn’t the aim of the project. If a project is started with the simple aim of ‘Succeeding with SOA’ then the reasons for the projects existence probably need to be questioned.   There are a number of things we can be sure of: ·         An organisation will have a number of disparate IT systems ·         Some of these systems will have redundant data and functionality ·         Integration will give considerable ROI ·         Integration will already be under way. ·         Services will already exist in the organisation ·         These services will be inconsistent in their implementation and in their governance   So there are three goals here: 1.       Alignment between the business and IT 2.     Integration of disparate systems 3.     Management of services.   2 and 3 are going to happen,  in fact they must happen if any degree of return is expected from the IT department. Ignoring 1 is considered a typical mistake in SOA implementations, as it ignores the business implications. However, the business implication of this approach is the money saved in more efficient IT processes. 2 and 3 are ongoing, and they will continue happening, even if a large project to produce a SOA metamodel is started. The result will then be an unstructured cackle of services, and a metamodel that is already going out of date. So we get stuck in and rebuild our services so that they match the metamodel, with the far reaching consequences that this will have on all our LOB systems are current. Lets imagine that this actually works ( how often do we rip and replace working software because it doesn't fit a certain pattern? Never -that's the point of integration), we will now be working with a metamodel that is out of date, and most likely incomplete if the organisation is large.      Accepting that an object can have more than one model over time, with perhaps more than one model being  at any given time will help us realise the limitations of the top down model. It is entirely normal , and perhaps necessary, for an organisation to be able to view an entity from different perspectives.   So, instead of trying to constantly force these goals in a straight line, why not let them happen in parallel, and manage the changes in each layer.     If  company A has chosen to model their business processes and create a business architecture, there will be a reason behind this. Often the aim is to make the business more flexible and able to cope with change, through alignment between the business and the IT department.   If company B’s IT department recognizes the problem of wild services springing up everywhere, and decides to do something about it, by designing a platform and processes for the introduction of services, is this not a valid approach?   With the hybrid approach, it is recommended that company A begin deploying services as quickly as possible. Based on models that are clearly incomplete, and which will therefore change rapidly and often in the near future. Natural business evolution will also mean that the models can be guaranteed to change in the not so near future. To ‘Succeed with SOA’ Company B needs to go back to the drawing board and start modeling processes and objects. So, in effect, we are telling business analysts to start developing code based on a model they are unsure of, and telling programmers to ignore the obvious and growing problems in their IT department and start drawing lines and boxes.     Could the problem be that there are two different problem domains? And the whole concept of SOA as it being described by clever salespeople today creates an example of oft dreaded ‘tight coupling’ between these two domains?   Could it be that we have taken two large problem areas, and bundled the solution together in order to create a magic bullet? And then convinced ourselves that the bullet actually exists?   Company A wants to have a closer relationship between the business and its IT department, in order to become a more flexible organization. Company B wants to decrease the maintenance costs of its IT infrastructure. If both companies focus on succeeding with SOA, then they aren’t focusing on their actual goals.   If Company A starts building services from incomplete models, without a gameplan, they will end up in the same situation as company B, with wild services. If company B focuses on modeling, they could easily end up with the same problems as company A.   Now we have two companies, who a short while ago had one problem each, that now have two problems each. This has happened because of a focus on ‘Succeeding with SOA’, rather than solving the problem at hand.   This is not to suggest that the two problem domains are unrelated, a strategy that encompasses both will obviously be good for the organization. But only if the organization realizes this and can develop such a strategy. This strategy cannot be bought in a box.       Anyone who has worked with SOA for a while will be used to analyzing the solutions to a problem and judging the solution’s level of coupling. If we have two applications that each perform separate functions, but need to communicate with each other, we create a integration layer between them, perhaps with a service, but we do all we can to reduce the dependency between the two systems. Using the same approach, we can separate the modeling (business architecture) and the service hosting (technical architecture).     The business architecture describes the processes and business objects in the business domain.   The technical architecture describes the hosting and management and implementation of services.   The glue that binds these together, the integration layer in our analogy, is the service contract, where the operations map the processes to their technical implementation, and the messages map business concepts to software objects in the implementation.   If we reduce the coupling between these layers, we should be able to allow developers to develop services, and business analysts to develop models, without the changes rippling through from one side to the other.   This would allow company A to carry on modeling, and company B to develop a service platform, each achieving their intended goal, without necessarily creating the problems seen in pure top down or bottom up approaches. Company B could then at a later date map their service infrastructure to a unified model, and company A could carry on modeling, insulating deployed services from changes in the ongoing modeling.   How do we do this?  The concept of service virtualization has been around for a while, and is instantly realizable in Microsoft’s Managed Services Engine. Here we can create a layer of virtual services, which represent the business analyst’s view, presenting uniform contracts to the outside world. These services can then transform and route messages to the actual service implementations. I like to think of the virtual services with their beautifully modeled interfaces as ‘SOA services’, and the implementations as simple integration ‘adapter’ services providing an interface to a technical implementation. The Managed Services Engine also provides policy based control over services, regardless of where they are deployed, simplifying handling of security, logging, exception handling etc.   This solves a big problem. The pressure to deliver services quickly is always there in projects. It is very important to quickly show value when implementing service architectures. There is also pressure to deliver quality, and you can’t easily do both at the same time. This approach allows quick delivery with quality increasing over time, allowing modeling and service development to occur in parallel and independent of each other. The link between business modeling and service implementation is not one that is obvious to many organizations, and requires a certain maturity to realize and drive forward. It is also completely possible that a company can benefit from one without the other, even if this approach is frowned upon today, there are many companies doing so and seeing ROI.   Of course there are disadvantages to this. The biggest one being the transformations necessary between the virtual interfaces and the service implementations. Bad choices in developing the services in the service implementation could mean that it is impossible to map the modeled processes to the implementation with redevelopment of the service. In many cases the architect will not have a choice here anyway, as proprietary systems are often delivered with predeveloped services. The alternative is to wait until the model is finished and then build the service according the model. However, if that approach worked we wouldn’t be having this discussion! And even when it does work, natural business evolution will mean that the two concepts (model and implementation) will immediately start to drift away from each other, so coupling them tightly together so that they are forever bound to the model that only applies at the time of the modeling work will not really achieve a great deal. Architecture is all about trade offs, and here a choice has to be made. The choice is between something will initially be of low quality but will work, or something that may well be impossible to achieve in most situations.         In conclusion, top-down is a natural approach for business analysts, and bottom-up  is a natural approach for developers. Instead of trying to force something on both that neither want, and which has not shown itself to be successful,  why not let them get on with their jobs, and let an enterprise architect coordinate the processes?

    Read the article

  • network manager says "device not managed"

    - by Daniella Glover
    I used to be able to share my network connection by editing the Auto Eth0 to share with other computers in the Ipv4 section and now I upgraded my laptop to 11.10 . Now are there no wired connections in the network manager. When I click my connections applet at the top of the tray it also says wired device not managed! when I type ifconfig -a daniella@daniella-1001HA:~$ ifconfig -a eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 90:e6:ba:83:d6:fc UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) Interrupt:45 eth0:avahi Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 90:e6:ba:83:d6:fc inet addr:169.254.13.40 Bcast:169.254.255.255 Mask:255.255.0.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Interrupt:45 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:25:d3:90:43:41 inet addr:192.168.0.6 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::225:d3ff:fe90:4341/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:12881 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:12867 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:8851081 (8.8 MB) TX bytes:2343199 (2.3 MB)

    Read the article

  • Looking for an example of how a software project can be managed/deployed

    - by rguilbault
    My company is evaluating adopting off-the-shelf ALM products to aid in our development lifecycle; we currently use our own homegrown solutions to manage requirements gathering, specification documentation, testing, etc. One of the issues I am having is understanding how to move code between stages of development. We have what we call a pipeline, which consists of particular stops: [Source] - [QC] - [Production] At the first stop, the developer works out a solution to some requested change and performs individual testing. When that process is complete (and peer review has been performed), our ALM system physically moves the affected programs from the [Source] runtime environment to the [QC] runtime environment. This movement of code is triggered by advancing the status of the change request to match the stage of the pipeline. I have been searching the internet for a few days trying to find how the process is accomplished elsewhere -- I have read a bit about builds, automated testing, various ALM products, etc. but nowhere does any of this state how builds interact with initial change requests, what the triggers are, how dependencies are managed, how the various forms of testing are accommodated (e.g. unit testing, integration testing, regression testing), etc. Can anyone point me to any resources detailing specific workflows or attempt to explain (generically) how a change could/should be tracked and moved though the development lifecycle? I'd be very appreciative. Note: I've cleaned up the question to hopefully make it easier to understand. Also, I found another question (which I can't find now) that referenced this book, which sounds like it might be exactly what I am looking for -- not sure if I want to shell out the cash for it, though.

    Read the article

  • inject a mockups to a bean that has @autowired annotations

    - by santiagozky
    I have a bean that has a couple of beans injected with the autowire annotation (no qualifier). Now, for testing reasons I want to inject some mocks to the bean instead of the ones being autowired (some DAOs). Is there any way I can change which bean is being injected without modifying my bean? I don't like the idea of adding annotations my code just to test it and then remove then for production. I am using spring 2.5. The bean look like this: @Transactional @Service("validaBusinesService") public class ValidaBusinesServiceImpl implements ValidaBusinesService { @Autowired OperationDAO operationDAO; @Autowired BinDAO binDAO; @Autowired CardDAO cardDAO; @Autowired UserDAO userDAO; ... ... }

    Read the article

  • How to pass Endpoint parameter to Endpoint defined as bean in Spring conext

    - by sempa
    I have camel Fileendpoint defined in following way: <bean id="hotfolderEndpoint" class="org.apache.camel.component.file.FileEndpoint" factory-bean="camel" factory-method="getEndpoint"> <constructor-arg ref="hotfolder" /> </bean> I want to define some File parameters such as preMove, move etc. Variable hotfolder is String taken from JNDI and I have no impact on it. When I define property as <bean id="moveExp" class="org.apache.camel.model.language.SimpleExpression"> <property name="expression" value="done/${file:name}"/> </bean> it is not correctly parsed and the file get name done/name

    Read the article

  • Custom spring <strike>bean</strike> interceptor

    - by Hari
    Hi, I want to convert some of our internal API into a spring bean spring interceptor that we can use in other projects. This API needs some instantiation and other logic which I want to encapsulate in this bean so that we can just put the bean into our app context with necessary propoerties alone, and this will then apply the logic. I remember having read an article on this somewhere in the past - but cant find it now. Any pointers to something similar will be helpful EDIT: Sorry, I meant a spring interceptor, not a bean - my bad - please see my edit. I want to apply this interceptor to another bean dealing in XML messages.

    Read the article

  • Unmanaged Network Switch vs Managed Network Switch

    - by David
    Currently I have an unmanaged POE switch connected to a Linksys router. I am thinking of upgrading my POE switch to a gigabit POE switch, the only problem is that the switch that I want to get is a managed switch. So here's my question: with a managed switch, can I still connect all of my devices to it and have the devices request IP addresses from the DHCP server within the Linksys router or will the devices request IPs from the managed switch since I believe the switch has its own DHCP server as well?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >