Search Results

Search found 27011 results on 1081 pages for 'build vs buy'.

Page 65/1081 | < Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >

• BDD/TDD vs JAD?

  - by Jonathan Conway

  I've been proposing that my workplace implement Behavior-Driven-Development, by writing high-level specifications in a scenario format, and in such a way that one could imagine writing a test for it. I do know that working against testable specifications tends to increase developer productivity. And I can already think of several examples where this would be the case on our own project. However it's difficult to demonstrate the value of this to the business. This is because we already have a Joint Application Development (JAD) process in place, in which developers, management, user-experience and testers all get together to agree on a common set of requirements. So, they ask, why should developers work against the test-cases created by testers? These are for verification and are based on the higher-level specs created by the UX team, which the developers currently work off. This, they say, is sufficient for developers and there's no need to change how the specs are written. They seem to have a point. What is the actual benefit of BDD/TDD, if you already have a test-team who's test cases are fully compatible with the higher-level specs currently given to the developers?

  Read the article

• Waterfall Model (SDLC) vs. Prototyping Model

  The characters in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare can easily be used to demonstrate the similarities and differences between the Waterfall and Prototyping software development models. This children fable is about a race between a consistently slow moving but steadfast turtle and an extremely fast but unreliable rabbit. After closely comparing each character’s attributes in correlation with both software development models, a trend seems to appear in that the Waterfall closely resembles the Tortoise in that Waterfall Model is typically a slow moving process that is broken up in to multiple sequential steps that must be executed in a standard linear pattern. The Tortoise can be quoted several times in the story saying “Slow and steady wins the race.” This is the perfect mantra for the Waterfall Model in that this model is seen as a cumbersome and slow moving. Waterfall Model Phases Requirement Analysis & Definition This phase focuses on defining requirements for a project that is to be developed and determining if the project is even feasible. Requirements are collected by analyzing existing systems and functionality in correlation with the needs of the business and the desires of the end users. The desired output for this phase is a list of specific requirements from the business that are to be designed and implemented in the subsequent steps. In addition this phase is used to determine if any value will be gained by completing the project. System Design This phase focuses primarily on the actual architectural design of a system, and how it will interact within itself and with other existing applications. Projects at this level should be viewed at a high level so that actual implementation details are decided in the implementation phase. However major environmental decision like hardware and platform decision are typically decided in this phase. Furthermore the basic goal of this phase is to design an application at the system level in those classes, interfaces, and interactions are defined. Additionally decisions about scalability, distribution and reliability should also be considered for all decisions. The desired output for this phase is a functional  design document that states all of the architectural decisions that have been made in regards to the project as well as a diagrams like a sequence and class diagrams. Software Design This phase focuses primarily on the refining of the decisions found in the functional design document. Classes and interfaces are further broken down in to logical modules based on the interfaces and interactions previously indicated. The output of this phase is a formal design document. Implementation / Coding This phase focuses primarily on implementing the previously defined modules in to units of code. These units are developed independently are intergraded as the system is put together as part of a whole system. Software Integration & Verification This phase primarily focuses on testing each of the units of code developed as well as testing the system as a whole. There are basic types of testing at this phase and they include: Unit Test and Integration Test. Unit Test are built to test the functionality of a code unit to ensure that it preforms its desired task. Integration testing test the system as a whole because it focuses on results of combining specific units of code and validating it against expected results. The output of this phase is a test plan that includes test with expected results and actual results. System Verification This phase primarily focuses on testing the system as a whole in regards to the list of project requirements and desired operating environment. Operation & Maintenance his phase primarily focuses on handing off the competed project over to the customer so that they can verify that all of their requirements have been met based on their original requirements. This phase will also validate the correctness of their requirements and if any changed need to be made. In addition, any problems not resolved in the previous phase will be handled in this section. The Waterfall Model’s linear and sequential methodology does offer a project certain advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of the Waterfall Model Simplistic to implement and execute for projects and/or company wide Limited demand on resources Large emphasis on documentation Disadvantages of the Waterfall Model Completed phases cannot be revisited regardless if issues arise within a project Accurate requirement are never gather prior to the completion of the requirement phase due to the lack of clarification in regards to client’s desires. Small changes or errors that arise in applications may cause additional problems The client cannot change any requirements once the requirements phase has been completed leaving them no options for changes as they see their requirements changes as the customers desires change. Excess documentation Phases are cumbersome and slow moving Learn more about the Major Process in the Sofware Development Life Cycle and Waterfall Model. Conversely, the Hare shares similar traits with the prototyping software development model in that ideas are rapidly converted to basic working examples and subsequent changes are made to quickly align the project with customers desires as they are formulated and as software strays from the customers vision. The basic concept of prototyping is to eliminate the use of well-defined project requirements. Projects are allowed to grow as the customer needs and request grow. Projects are initially designed according to basic requirements and are refined as requirement become more refined. This process allows customer to feel their way around the application to ensure that they are developing exactly what they want in the application This model also works well for determining the feasibility of certain approaches in regards to an application. Prototypes allow for quickly developing examples of implementing specific functionality based on certain techniques. Advantages of Prototyping Active participation from users and customers Allows customers to change their mind in specifying requirements Customers get a better understanding of the system as it is developed Earlier bug/error detection Promotes communication with customers Prototype could be used as final production Reduced time needed to develop applications compared to the Waterfall method Disadvantages of Prototyping Promotes constantly redefining project requirements that cause major system rewrites Potential for increased complexity of a system as scope of the system expands Customer could believe the prototype as the working version. Implementation compromises could increase the complexity when applying updates and or application fixes When companies trying to decide between the Waterfall model and Prototype model they need to evaluate the benefits and disadvantages for both models. Typically smaller companies or projects that have major time constraints typically head for more of a Prototype model approach because it can reduce the time needed to complete the project because there is more of a focus on building a project and less on defining requirements and scope prior to the start of a project. On the other hand, Companies with well-defined requirements and time allowed to generate proper documentation should steer towards more of a waterfall model because they are in a position to obtain clarified requirements and have to design and optimal solution prior to the start of coding on a project.

  Read the article

• asp.net mvc vs angular.js model binding

  - by aw04

  So I've noticed a trend lately of .net web developers using angular.js on the client side of applications and I've become more curious as I play around with angular and compare it to how I would do things in asp.net mvc. I'll give a quick example of what really got me thinking. I recently came across a situation at work (I work in a .net environment) where I needed to create a table bound to a collection of objects that had the ability to add and remove rows/items from the collection. I had an add button that created a new object and appended a row to the end of the table, and a remove button in each row to remove a particular object/row. Using asp.net mvc, I first found myself making an ajax call to the server for each operation, updating the server side model, and refreshing part of the page to show the result in the table. This worked but I didn't really like the idea of calling the server to update the model each time, so I tried to come up with a solution to do this on the client side. It turned out to be quite a task, as I had to generate the html on add with validation and all and the correct indexing for the model binding to work. It got worse on remove, as I ended up with a crazy string replace function to recreate the indexes on each item to satisfy the binding requirements (if an item other than the last is removed, the indexes are no longer correct). Now out of curiosity, I tried to recreate this at home in angular (which I had no experience with) and it took me all of about 10 minutes with simple functions to add and remove items from the client side model. This is just one example, but it seems to me that I'm able to achieve the same results with far fewer calls to the server in angular because of the fact that it binds to a client side model. So my question is, is this a distinct advantage of using a javascript mvc framework or am I somehow under utilizing the power of asp.net mvc and am I right in thinking that these operations should be done on the client and have no business requiring calls to the server?

  Read the article

• Linux Distro Switching: Pro vs. Con

  Linux users have a habit of changing distros faster than you can say Ubuntu. Does this practice hurt of help Linux's development?

  Read the article

• In SEO & SEM terms, use of a international domain vs a local domain

  - by Paddy

  In terms of SEO & SEM if I have a .com and a .co.uk. Would it be better to use the .com and park the .co.uk, If I am selling the product locally (in the uk) and later moving out into the international market? Will I struggle more to compete locally with regards to local searches and Google Adwords, if I make the .com as the primary domain? Does the parking of the .co.uk or the .com effect the relevance of a web domains search locally and internationally?

  Read the article

• Where are classpath, path and pathelement documented in Ant version 1.8.0?

  - by Robert Menteer

  I'm looking over the documentation that comes with Apache Ant version 1.8.0 and can't find where classpath, path and pathelement are documented. I've found a page that describes path like structures but it doesn't list the valid attributes or nested elements for these. Another thing I can't find in the documentation is a description of the relationships between filelist, fileset, patternset and path and how to convert them back and forth. For instance there has to be an easier way to compile only those classes in one package while removing all class dependencies on the package classes and update documentation. <!-- Get list of files in which we're interested. --> <fileset id = "java.source.set" dir = "${src}"> <include name = "**/Package/*.java" /> </fileset> <!-- Get a COMMA separated list of classes to compile. --> <pathconvert property = "java.source.list" refid = "java.source.set" pathsep = ","> <globmapper from = "${src}/*.@{src.extent}" to = "*.class" /> </pathconvert> <!-- Remove ALL dependencies on package classes. --> <depend srcdir = "${src}" destdir = "${build}" includes = "${java.source.list}" closure = "yes" /> <!-- Get a list of up to date classes. --> <fileset id = "class.uptodate.set" dir = "${build}"> <include name = "**/*.class" /> </fileset> <!-- Get list of source files for up to date classes. --> <pathconvert property = "java.uptodate.list" refid = "class.uptodate.set" pathsep = ","> <globmapper from="${build}/*.class" to="*.java" /> </pathconvert> <!-- Compile only those classes in package that are not up to date. --> <javac srcdir = "${src}" destdir = "${build}" classpathref = "compile.classpath" includes = "${java.source.list}" excludes = "${java.uptodate.list}"/> <!-- Get list of directories of class files for package. --: <pathconvert property = "class.dir.list" refid = "java.source.set" pathsep = ","> <globmapper from = "${src}/*.java" to = "${build}*" /> </pathconvert> <!-- Convert directory list to path. --> <path id = "class.dirs.path"> <dirset dir = "${build}" includes = "class.dir.list" /> </path> <!-- Update package documentation. --> <jdepend outputfile = "${docs}/jdepend-report.txt"> <classpath refid = "compile.classpath" /> <classpath location = "${build}" /> <classespath> <path refid = "class.dirs.path" /> </classespath> <exclude name = "java.*" /> <exclude name = "javax.*" /> </jdepend> Notice there's a number of conversions between filesets, paths and comma separated list just to get the proper 'type' required for the different ant tasks. Is there a way to simplify this while still processing the fewest files in a complex directory structure?

  Read the article

• Programming knowledge vs. programming logic

  - by Shirish11

  Is there any difference between the two topics? I have seen companies asking for Good Programming knowledge some Good Programming logic. I believe that Programming knowledge is related to knowledge about the language in consideration and Programming logic is problem solving logic using programming (in general). Please correct me if I am wrong. Also what is more important. Edit: Do selection of components for application, designing interfaces validating user inputs fall under programming knowledge or Programming logic? Does programming logic simply imply problem solving, or is there anything else which it should comprise of?

  Read the article

• Visual Studio 2010 isn't building before a run when there are code changes. It was doing working yes

  - by jamone

  I've been using using F5 (Start Debugging) for years to build the code (if its out of date), and then debug. This was working on VS 2010 also, however today it just start debugging without a build. Say I do a clean on the project, and then hit F5 instead of building it so it can run it throws an error message saying that the exe doesn't exist to run. How do I make it build first? What could have changed?

  Read the article

• Removing hard-coded values and defensive design vs YAGNI

  - by Ben Scott

  First a bit of background. I'm coding a lookup from Age - Rate. There are 7 age brackets so the lookup table is 3 columns (From|To|Rate) with 7 rows. The values rarely change - they are legislated rates (first and third columns) that have stayed the same for 3 years. I figured that the easiest way to store this table without hard-coding it is in the database in a global configuration table, as a single text value containing a CSV (so "65,69,0.05,70,74,0.06" is how the 65-69 and 70-74 tiers would be stored). Relatively easy to parse then use. Then I realised that to implement this I would have to create a new table, a repository to wrap around it, data layer tests for the repo, unit tests around the code that unflattens the CSV into the table, and tests around the lookup itself. The only benefit of all this work is avoiding hard-coding the lookup table. When talking to the users (who currently use the lookup table directly - by looking at a hard copy) the opinion is pretty much that "the rates never change." Obviously that isn't actually correct - the rates were only created three years ago and in the past things that "never change" have had a habit of changing - so for me to defensively program this I definitely shouldn't store the lookup table in the application. Except when I think YAGNI. The feature I am implementing doesn't specify that the rates will change. If the rates do change, they will still change so rarely that maintenance isn't even a consideration, and the feature isn't actually critical enough that anything would be affected if there was a delay between the rate change and the updated application. I've pretty much decided that nothing of value will be lost if I hard-code the lookup, and I'm not too concerned about my approach to this particular feature. My question is, as a professional have I properly justified that decision? Hard-coding values is bad design, but going to the trouble of removing the values from the application seems to violate the YAGNI principle. EDIT To clarify the question, I'm not concerned about the actual implementation. I'm concerned that I can either do a quick, bad thing, and justify it by saying YAGNI, or I can take a more defensive, high-effort approach, that even in the best case ultimately has low benefits. As a professional programmer does my decision to implement a design that I know is flawed simply come down to a cost/benefit analysis?

  Read the article

• CRM vs VRM

  - by David Dorf

  In a previous post, I discussed the potential power of combining social, interest, and location graphs in order to personalize marketing and shopping experiences for consumers.  Marketing companies have been trying to collect detailed information for that very purpose, a large majority of which comes from tracking people on the internet.  But their approaches stem from the one-way nature of traditional advertising.  With TV, radio, and magazines there is no opportunity to truly connect to customers, which has trained marketing companies to [covertly] collect data and segment customers into easily identifiable groups.  To a large extent, we think of this as CRM. But what if we turned this viewpoint upside-down to accommodate for the two-way nature of social media?  The notion of marketing as conversations was the basis for the Cluetrain, an early attempt at drawing attention to the fact that customers are actually unique humans.  A more practical implementation is Project VRM, which is a reverse CRM of sorts.  Instead of vendors managing their relationships with customers, customers manage their relationships with vendors. Your shopping experience is not really controlled by you; rather, its controlled by the retailer and advertisers.  And unfortunately, they typically don't give you a say in the matter.  Yes, they might tailor the content for "female age 25-35 interested in shoes" but that's not really the essence of you, is it?  A better approach is to the let consumers volunteer information about themselves.  And why wouldn't they if it means a better, more relevant shopping experience?  I'd gladly list out my likes and dislikes in exchange for getting rid of all those annoying cookies on my harddrive. I really like this diagram from Beyond SocialCRM as it captures the differences between CRM and VRM. The closest thing to VRM I can find is Buyosphere, a start-up that allows consumers to track their shopping history across many vendors, then share it appropriately.  Also, Amazon does a pretty good job allowing its customers to edit their profile, which includes everything you've ever purchased from Amazon.  You can mark items as gifts, or explicitly exclude them from their recommendation engine.  This is a win-win for both the consumer and retailer. So here is my plea to retailers: Instead of trying to infer my interests from snapshots of my day, please just ask me.  We'll both have a better experience in the long-run.

  Read the article

• Just Another Web Service (JAWS) vs SOA

  Over the last few years SOA has been a hot topic lending it to be abused by many that have no understanding of the concept. In my opinion, one of the largest issues facing SOA is the lack of understanding and experience implementing SOA by business and IT alike. I just recently deployed a new web services that is called by multiple service clients. Would you call this SOA because it is a web service that can be called by any requesting client? In my opinion, this is not SOA; instead it is Just Another Web Service (JAWS).  Just because a company creates a web service does not mean that they are using SOA, in fact it only means that they are using a web service. SOA is an architectural style that focuses on the design of systems based on the consumer and providers thorough the use of contracts.  With this approach SOA needs to be applied for the top down in order for it to reach its full potential. In the case of the web service, the service is just a small part of the entire system that is reusable and has the flexibility to change. In order for a company in this case to move towards SOA then they need to define business processes that can be shared through the use of reusable software and loose coupling. Once the company’s thought and development process change to address changes in this manner they can start to become more SOA.

  Read the article

• Video Conferencing Vs. Audio Web Conferencing

  Organizations are generally confused whether to use audio web conferencing or video conferencing to communicate with their clients, stakeholders, members and all other relevant individuals. Both type... [Author: Zaibatt Zaki - Computers and Internet - August 24, 2009]

  Read the article

• Android Development: MVC vs MVVM

  - by Mel

  I've started coding for android and I'm having difficulty trying to properly partition my code. I always end up with a very tight coupling between my UI logic and the actual controls I use to represent them. I have background in both WPF MVVM and ASP.net MVC so I'm familiar with those patterns. After some digging, I found Android Binding. It seems nice and fits nicely with my WPF background. However, it bugs me that its not built in. I'm pretty sure that the android makers have thought of this when designing the android programming interface. So my question is, what is the best practice pattern to use when developing in android, if any. I have looked and looked at their site but didn't find anything...

  Read the article

• VS 2010, Silverlight, WP 7, Azure, F#, jQuery & more take Center Stage at India's Definitive Microso

  Microsoft has announced a slew of new and exciting releases that will help you take your code to the next level in 2010. As one of the longest running independent developer conferences in India, GIDS.NET at the Great Indian Developer Summit 2010 is uniquely positioned to provide a blend of practical, pragmatic and immediately applicable knowledge and a glimpse of the future of technology. At GIDS.NET, 0n 20 April 2010 in Bangalore, expert speakers will address a wide range of topics, including .NET...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• Xcode - duplicate Target - new Target fails to build

  - by SirRatty

  Hi all, using Xcode 3.2.5 on 10.6.6 (10J521) I have an Xcode project containing 1 Target: "MyApp". It builds and runs successfully. As well as source and resource files, the Target contains a "Copy Files" build phase which copies "Sparkle.framework" in. The framework is in the same directory as the project. I want to duplicate this Target. Steps taken: Did "Clean all Targets". Right-clicked on the "MyApp" Target within Xcode, and then chose "Duplicate". Renamed the duplicated target to "MyAppTarget2". Selected "MyAppTarget2" as the Active Target from the popup menu in the top-left. Did "Build". The problem: error: Sparkle/Sparkle.h: No such file or directory This is puzzling! Each Build step appears to have been replicated in the duplicated Target, including the "Copy Files" phase. The Sparkle.framework exists at the path indicated by [Get Info on the Copy Phase item]. If I right-click on the Sparkle.framework file within the "Copy Files" build phase of the duplicated Target, and select "Reveal in Finder", then the correct Sparkle.framework file is shown. The required file exists at Sparkle.framework/Headers/Sparkle.h If I switch back to the original "MyApp" target, it builds and runs successfully. Am I doing something obviously wrong here? Thanks.

  Read the article

• virtualbox host | Ubuntu vs XP

  - by iambriansreed

  In order to lengthen the lifespan of my machine I am replacing the weakest link, the hard drive and installing a new OS. I had planned on using xp pro as my virtualbox host and ubuntu as guest. After messing with ubuntu desktop and server I am really impressed and am thinking of reversing the virtualbox setup; ubuntu host xp guest. I would use XP for Adobe Fireworks, Netflix, and iTunes (maybe) that's pretty much it. Any reason not to do ubuntu host with xp guest? I know the xp vbox will run slower as a guest but really how much slower? It's a desktop. 4gb ram, 500gb disk, Pent D 3.2 ghz

  Read the article

• Normals vs Normal maps

  - by KaiserJohaan

  I am using Assimp asset importer (http://assimp.sourceforge.net/lib_html/index.html) to parse 3d models. So far, I've simply pulled out the normal vectors which are defined for each vertex in my meshes. Yet I have also found various tutorials on normal maps... As I understand it for normal maps, the normal vectors are stored in each texel of a normal map, and you pull these out of the normal texture in the shader. Why is there two ways to get the normals, which one is considered best-practice and why?

  Read the article

• Experience vs. versatility

  - by Florin Bombeanu

  Let's say a .NET programmer works at a company which provides software on demand, not as a product. The programmer works in WPF for a period of time and he/she invests lots of time in it. He/she get very good at WPF and Windows Forms and desktop development in general. But the company has to provide a web application now, so the developer has to learn MVC or Web Forms. He/she is not experienced in web development so he/she starts investing time in this new technology and in time they get good at it. But this time the company has to provide a Sharepoint solution, and so on. What is more important: Being very very good at a certain technology, Or be as versatile as possible knowing less in each technology but covering a greater area of expertise? Should the programmer keep studying and working in WPF until he/she reaches a guru level or is it a good thing that they had to learn other technologies as well? I agree with those of you who will say that when learning different technologies you will also learn things which are useful no matter the technology you're programming in. But eventually, when the programmer will want to change jobs, will it matter more that he/she knows some WPF, MVC or Sharepoint than the fact that he/she is insanely good at one of them? I would think the second one is more important since most companies are looking for a developer for a certain technology. I don't think there are many companies looking for technical know-it-all people. What do you think?

  Read the article

• Spring MVC vs raw servlets and template engine?

  - by Gigatron

  I've read numerous articles about the Spring MVC framework, and I still can't see the benefits of using it. It looks like writing even a simple application with it requires creating a big hodgepodge of XML files and annotations and other reams of code to conform to what the framework wants, a whole bunch of moving parts to accomplish a simple single task. Any time I look at a Spring example, I can see how I can write something with the same functionality using a simple servlet and template engine (e.g. FreeMarker, StringTemplate), in half the lines of code and little or no XML files and other artifacts. Just grab the data from the session and request, call the application domain objects if necessary, pass the results to the template engine to generate the resulting web page, done. What am I missing? Can you describe even one example of something that is actually made simpler with Spring than using a combination of raw servlets with a template engine? Or is Spring MVC just one of those overly complicated things that people use only because their boss tells them to use it?

  Read the article

• Solo vs Team development and the consequences

  - by Mathieu

  Hi, I've been programming for a while on different languages. I never really studied that at school nor worked on a team of more than 2 (me included). Still, I've been a professional developper for over three years. Last year, I took over my first C# project and it ended up being fine. I can't help but think that because I learned and worked alone I must be missing some concepts/hints/edge. For those who've been solo developpers before being part of a team, can you share your experience? Did you realize you were missing something? Did you find it hard? Did you learn faster after? Thank you!

  Read the article

• TDD vs. Productivity

  - by Nairou

  In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

  Read the article

• JavaOne+Develop vs Oracle OpenWorld

  - by Rick Ramsey

  http://cheapoair.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/san-francisco-napa-and-sonoma-a-first-visit/ This year, Oracle OpenWorld will be held Sep 19-23rd in San Francisco. Also this year, JavaOne+Develop will be held Sep 19-23d in San Francisco. How can that be? Simple. Oracle has acquired the city of San Francisco. OK, not all of it. But an awful lot of it. And it didn't actually acquire the city of San Francisco. It just sorta borrowed it. So, Oracle OpenWorld The world's most important developer conferences are creating the world's coolest neighborhood The Zone--San Francisco's Hotel Nikko, Hilton San Francisco, and Parc 55 hotels and the surrounding area--will be dedicated to developers during the week of JavaOne + Develop. Unparalleled education and practical hands-on sessions, engaging activities, exceptional entertainment, and food and drink in the Zone will be exclusively geared toward the developer community converging at JavaOne + Develop. Network, share information, and learn from leading experts in the Java, PL/SQL, rich internet application development, SOA communities, and more. Forget the business casual dress code and golf simulation: The Zone does things the developers' way. See for yourself, September 19 - 23, 2010. Participate in dozens of hands-on labs, including Oracle Database, Oracle Application Express, Oracle WebLogic Server, Java, SOA, .NET, Oracle JDeveloper, Eclipse, Oracle Solaris Studio, and application grid technologies The Develop 2010 call for papers is now closed. Review and selection is under way, and we expect to notify presenters by mid-May, 2010. If the submissions we've received are any indication, you can look forward to an outstanding developer conference this year in San Francisco. Thanks to all of you who contributed papers by the March 21 deadline.

  Read the article

• Functional/nonfunctional requirements VS design ideas

  - by Nicholas Chow

  Problem domain Functional requirements defines what a system does. Non-Functional requirements defines quality attributes of what the system does as a whole.(performance, security, reliability, volume, useability, etc.) Constraints limits the design space, they restrict designers to certain types of solutions. Solution domain Design ideas , defines how the system does it. For example a stakeholder need might be we want to increase our sales, therefore we must improve the usability of our webshop so more customers will purchase, a requirement can be written for this. (problem domain) Design takes this further into the solution domain by saying "therefore we want to offer credit card payments in addition to the current prepayment option". My problem is that the transition phase from requirement to design seems really vague, therefore when writing requirements I am often confused whether or not I incorporated design ideas in my requirements, that would make my requirement wrong. Another problem is that I often write functional requirements as what a system does, and then I also specify in what timeframe it must be done. But is this correct? Is it then a still a functional requirement or a non functional one? Is it better to seperate it into two distinct requirements? Here are a few requirements I wrote: FR1 Registration of Organizer FR1 describes the registration of an Organizer on CrowdFundum FR1.1 The system shall display a registration form on the website. FR1.2 The system shall require a Name, Username, Document number passport/ID card, Address, Zip code, City, Email address, Telephone number, Bank account, Captcha code on the registration form when a user registers. FR1.4 The system shall display an error message containing: “Registration could not be completed” to the subscriber within 1 seconds after the system check of the registration form was unsuccessful. FR1.5 The system shall send a verification email containing a verification link to the subscriber within 30 seconds after the system check of the registration form was successful. FR1.6 The system shall add the newly registered Organizer to the user base within 5 seconds after the verification link was accessed. FR2 Organizer submits a Project FR2 describes the submission of a Project by an Organizer on CrowdFundum - FR2 The system shall display a submit Project form to the Organizer accounts on the website.< - FR2.3 The system shall check for completeness the Name of the Project, 1-3 Photo’s, Keywords of the Project, Punch line, Minimum and maximum amount of people, Funding threshold, One or more reward tiers, Schedule of when what will be organized, Budget plan, 300-800 Words of additional information about the Project, Contact details within 1 secondin after an Organizer submits the submit Project form. - FR2.8 The system shall add to the homepage in the new Projects category the Project link within 30 seconds after the system made a Project webpage - FR2.9 The system shall include in the Project link for the homepage : Name of the Project, 1 Photo, Punch line within 30 seconds after the system made a Project webpage. Questions: FR 1.1 : Have I incorporated a design idea here, would " the system shall have a registration form" be a better functional requirement? F1.2 ,2.3 : Is this not singular? Would the conditions be better written for each its own separate requirement FR 1.4: Is this a design idea? Is this a correct functional requirement or have I incorporated non functional(performance) in it? Would it be better if I written it like this: FR1 The system shall display an error message when check is unsuccessful. NFR: The system will respond to unsuccesful registration form checks within 1 seconds. Same question with FR 2.8 and 2.9. FR2.3: The system shall check for "completeness", is completeness here used ambigiously? Should I rephrase it? FR1.2: I added that the system shall require a "Captcha code" is this a functional requirement or does it belong to the "security aspect" of a non functional requirement. I am eagerly waiting for your response. Thanks!

  Read the article

• How Visual Studio 2010 and Team Foundation Server enable Compliance

  - by Martin Hinshelwood

  One of the things that makes Team Foundation Server (TFS) the most powerful Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) platform is the traceability it provides to those that use it. This traceability is crucial to enable many companies to adhere to many of the Compliance regulations to which they are bound (e.g. CFR 21 Part 11 or Sarbanes–Oxley.)   From something as simple as relating Tasks to Check-in’s or being able to see the top 10 files in your codebase that are causing the most Bugs, to identifying which Bugs and Requirements are in which Release. All that information is available and more in TFS. Although all of this tradability is available within TFS you do need to understand that it is not for free. Well… I say that, but if you are using TFS properly you will have this information with no additional work except for firing up the reporting. Using Visual Studio ALM and Team Foundation Server you can relate every line of code changes all the way up to requirements and back down through Test Cases to the Test Results. Figure: The only thing missing is Build In order to build the relationship model below we need to examine how each of the relationships get there. Each member of your team from programmer to tester and Business Analyst to Business have their roll to play to knit this together. Figure: The relationships required to make this work can get a little confusing If Build is added to this to relate Work Items to Builds and with knowledge of which builds are in which environments you can easily identify what is contained within a Release. Figure: How are things progressing Along with the ability to produce the progress and trend reports the tractability that is built into TFS can be used to fulfil most audit requirements out of the box, and augmented to fulfil the rest. In order to understand the relationships, lets look at each of the important Artifacts and how they are associated with each other… Requirements – The root of all knowledge Requirements are the thing that the business cares about delivering. These could be derived as User Stories or Business Requirements Documents (BRD’s) but they should be what the Business asks for. Requirements can be related to many of the Artifacts in TFS, so lets look at the model: Figure: If the centre of the world was a requirement We can track which releases Requirements were scheduled in, but this can change over time as more details come to light. Figure: Who edited the Requirement and when There is also the ability to query Work Items based on the History of changed that were made to it. This is particularly important with Requirements. It might not be enough to say what Requirements were completed in a given but also to know which Requirements were ever assigned to a particular release. Figure: Some magic required, but result still achieved As an augmentation to this it is also possible to run a query that shows results from the past, just as if we had a time machine. You can take any Query in the system and add a “Asof” clause at the end to query historical data in the operational store for TFS. select <fields> from WorkItems [where <condition>] [order by <fields>] [asof <date>] Figure: Work Item Query Language (WIQL) format In order to achieve this you do need to save the query as a *.wiql file to your local computer and edit it in notepad, but one imported into TFS you run it any time you want. Figure: Saving Queries locally can be useful All of these Audit features are available throughout the Work Item Tracking (WIT) system within TFS. Tasks – Where the real work gets done Tasks are the work horse of the development team, but they only as useful as Excel if you do not relate them properly to other Artifacts. Figure: The Task Work Item Type has its own relationships Requirements should be broken down into Tasks that the development team work from to build what is required by the business. This may be done by a small dedicated group or by everyone that will be working on the software team but however it happens all of the Tasks create should be a Child of a Requirement Work Item Type. Figure: Tasks are related to the Requirement Tasks should be used to track the day-to-day activities of the team working to complete the software and as such they should be kept simple and short lest developers think they are more trouble than they are worth. Figure: Task Work Item Type has a narrower purpose Although the Task Work Item Type describes the work that will be done the actual development work involves making changes to files that are under Source Control. These changes are bundled together in a single atomic unit called a Changeset which is committed to TFS in a single operation. During this operation developers can associate Work Item with the Changeset. Figure: Tasks are associated with Changesets   Changesets – Who wrote this crap Changesets themselves are just an inventory of the changes that were made to a number of files to complete a Task. Figure: Changesets are linked by Tasks and Builds   Figure: Changesets tell us what happened to the files in Version Control Although comments can be changed after the fact, the inventory and Work Item associations are permanent which allows us to Audit all the way down to the individual change level. Figure: On Check-in you can resolve a Task which automatically associates it Because of this we can view the history on any file within the system and see how many changes have been made and what Changesets they belong to. Figure: Changes are tracked at the File level What would be even more powerful would be if we could view these changes super imposed over the top of the lines of code. Some people call this a blame tool because it is commonly used to find out which of the developers introduced a bug, but it can also be used as another method of Auditing changes to the system. Figure: Annotate shows the lines the Annotate functionality allows us to visualise the relationship between the individual lines of code and the Changesets. In addition to this you can create a Label and apply it to a version of your version control. The problem with Label’s is that they can be changed after they have been created with no tractability. This makes them practically useless for any sort of compliance audit. So what do you use? Branches – And why we need them Branches are a really powerful tool for development and release management, but they are most important for audits. Figure: One way to Audit releases The R1.0 branch can be created from the Label that the Build creates on the R1 line when a Release build was created. It can be created as soon as the Build has been signed of for release. However it is still possible that someone changed the Label between this time and its creation. Another better method can be to explicitly link the Build output to the Build. Builds – Lets tie some more of this together Builds are the glue that helps us enable the next level of tractability by tying everything together. Figure: The dashed pieces are not out of the box but can be enabled When the Build is called and starts it looks at what it has been asked to build and determines what code it is going to get and build. Figure: The folder identifies what changes are included in the build The Build sets a Label on the Source with the same name as the Build, but the Build itself also includes the latest Changeset ID that it will be building. At the end of the Build the Build Agent identifies the new Changesets it is building by looking at the Check-ins that have occurred since the last Build. Figure: What changes have been made since the last successful Build It will then use that information to identify the Work Items that are associated with all of the Changesets Changesets are associated with Build and change the “Integrated In” field of those Work Items . Figure: Find all of the Work Items to associate with The “Integrated In” field of all of the Work Items identified by the Build Agent as being integrated into the completed Build are updated to reflect the Build number that successfully integrated that change. Figure: Now we know which Work Items were completed in a build Now that we can link a single line of code changed all the way back through the Task that initiated the action to the Requirement that started the whole thing and back down to the Build that contains the finished Requirement. But how do we know wither that Requirement has been fully tested or even meets the original Requirements? Test Cases – How we know we are done The only way we can know wither a Requirement has been completed to the required specification is to Test that Requirement. In TFS there is a Work Item type called a Test Case Test Cases enable two scenarios. The first scenario is the ability to track and validate Acceptance Criteria in the form of a Test Case. If you agree with the Business a set of goals that must be met for a Requirement to be accepted by them it makes it both difficult for them to reject a Requirement when it passes all of the tests, but also provides a level of tractability and validation for audit that a feature has been built and tested to order. Figure: You can have many Acceptance Criteria for a single Requirement It is crucial for this to work that someone from the Business has to sign-off on the Test Case moving from the  “Design” to “Ready” states. The Second is the ability to associate an MS Test test with the Test Case thereby tracking the automated test. This is useful in the circumstance when you want to Track a test and the test results of a Unit Test designed to test the existence of and then re-existence of a a Bug. Figure: Associating a Test Case with an automated Test Although it is possible it may not make sense to track the execution of every Unit Test in your system, there are many Integration and Regression tests that may be automated that it would make sense to track in this way. Bug – Lets not have regressions In order to know wither a Bug in the application has been fixed and to make sure that it does not reoccur it needs to be tracked. Figure: Bugs are the centre of their own world If the fix to a Bug is big enough to require that it is broken down into Tasks then it is probably a Requirement. You can associate a check-in with a Bug and have it tracked against a Build. You would also have one or more Test Cases to prove the fix for the Bug. Figure: Bugs have many associations This allows you to track Bugs / Defects in your system effectively and report on them. Change Request – I am not a feature In the CMMI Process template Change Requests can also be easily tracked through the system. In some cases it can be very important to track Change Requests separately as an Auditor may want to know what was changed and who authorised it. Again and similar to Bugs, if the Change Request is big enough that it would require to be broken down into Tasks it is in reality a new feature and should be tracked as a Requirement. Figure: Make sure your Change Requests only Affect Requirements and not rewrite them Conclusion Visual Studio 2010 and Team Foundation Server together provide an exceptional Application Lifecycle Management platform that can help your team comply with even the harshest of Compliance requirements while still enabling them to be Agile. Most Audits are heavy on required documentation but most of that information is captured for you as long a you do it right. You don’t even need every team member to understand it all as each of the Artifacts are relevant to a different type of team member. Business Analysts manage Requirements and Change Requests Programmers manage Tasks and check-in against Change Requests and Bugs Testers manage Bugs and Test Cases Build Masters manage Builds Although there is some crossover there are still rolls or “hats” that are worn. Do you thing this is all achievable? Have I missed anything that you think should be there?

  Read the article

• [News] Les dix fonctionnalit?s les plus cool de VS 2010

  Le Lundi 12 Avril prochain est annonc? en grandes pompes la release officielle du temps attendu Visual Studio 2010. L'occasion pour Gergely Orosz de vous montrer (et vous illustrer) les dix fonctionnalit?s les plus cool de cet IDE.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >