Search Results

Search found 583 results on 24 pages for 'methodology'.

Page 7/24 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Error Handling Examples(C#)

    “The purpose of reviewing the Error Handling code is to assure that the application fails safely under all possible error conditions, expected and unexpected. No sensitive information is presented to the user when an error occurs.” (OWASP, 2011) No Error Handling The absence of error handling is still a form of error handling. Based on the code in Figure 1, if an error occurred and was not handled within either the ReadXml or BuildRequest methods the error would bubble up to the Search method. Since this method does not handle any acceptations the error will then bubble up the stack trace. If this continues and the error is not handled within the application then the environment in which the application is running will notify the user running the application that an error occurred based on what type of application. Figure 1: No Error Handling public DataSet Search(string searchTerm, int resultCount) { DataSet dt = new DataSet(); dt.ReadXml(BuildRequest(searchTerm, resultCount)); return dt; } Generic Error Handling One simple way to add error handling is to catch all errors by default. If you examine the code in Figure 2, you will see a try-catch block. On April 6th 2010 Louis Lazaris clearly describes a Try Catch statement by defining both the Try and Catch aspects of the statement. “The try portion is where you would put any code that might throw an error. In other words, all significant code should go in the try section. The catch section will also hold code, but that section is not vital to the running of the application. So, if you removed the try-catch statement altogether, the section of code inside the try part would still be the same, but all the code inside the catch would be removed.” (Lazaris, 2010) He also states that all errors that occur in the try section cause it to stops the execution of the try section and redirects all execution to the catch section. The catch section receives an object containing information about the error that occurred so that they system can gracefully handle the error properly. When errors occur they commonly log them in some form. This form could be an email, database entry, web service call, log file, or just an error massage displayed to the user.  Depending on the error sometimes applications can recover, while others force an application to close. Figure 2: Generic Error Handling public DataSet Search(string searchTerm, int resultCount) { DataSet dt = new DataSet(); try { dt.ReadXml(BuildRequest(searchTerm, resultCount)); } catch (Exception ex) { // Handle all Exceptions } return dt; } Error Specific Error Handling Like the Generic Error Handling, Error Specific error handling allows for the catching of specific known errors that may occur. For example wrapping a try catch statement around a soap web service call would allow the application to handle any error that was generated by the soap web service. Now, if the systems wanted to send a message to the web service provider every time a soap error occurred but did not want to notify them if any other type of error occurred like a network time out issue. This would be varying tedious to accomplish using the General Error Handling methodology. This brings us to the use case for using the Error Specific error handling methodology.  The Error Specific Error handling methodology allows for the TryCatch statement to catch various types of errors depending on the type of error that occurred. In Figure 3, the code attempts to handle DataException differently compared to how it potentially handles all other errors. This allows for specific error handling for each type of known error, and still allows for error handling of any unknown error that my occur during the execution of the TryCatch statement. Figure 5: Error Specific Error Handling public DataSet Search(string searchTerm, int resultCount) { DataSet dt = new DataSet(); try { dt.ReadXml(BuildRequest(searchTerm, resultCount)); } catch (TimeoutException ex) { // Handle Timeout TimeoutException Only } catch (Exception) { // Handle all Exceptions } return dt; }

    Read the article

  • The dislikes of TDD

    - by andrewstopford
    I enjoy debates about TDD and Brian Harrys blog post is no exception. Brian sounds out what he likes and dislikes about TDD and it's the dislikes I'll focus on. The idea of having unit tests that cover virtually every line of code that I’ve written that I have to refactor every time I refactor my code makes me shudder.  Doing this way makes me take nearly twice as long as it would otherwise take and I don’t feel like I get sufficient benefits from it. Refactoring your tests to match your refactored code sounds like the tests are suffering. Too many hard dependencies with no SOLID concerns are a sure fire reason you would do this. Maybe at the start of a TDD cycle you would need to do this as your design evolves and you remove these dependencies but this should quickly be resolved as you refactor. If you find your self still doing it then stop and look back at your design. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of unit tests.  I just prefer to write them after the code has stopped shaking a bit.  In fact most of my early testing is “manual”.  Either I write a small UI on top of my service that allows me to plug in values and try it or write some quick API tests that I throw away as soon as I have validated them. The problem with this is that a UI can make assumptions on your code that then just unit test around and very quickly the design becomes bad and you technical debt sweeps in. If you want to blackbox test your code with a UI then do so after your TDD cycles not before. This is probably by biggest issue with a literal TDD interpretation.  TDD says you never write a line of code without a failing test to show you need it.  I find it leads developers down a dangerous path.  Without any help from a methodology, I have met way too many developers in my life that “back into a solution”.  By this, I mean they write something, it mostly works and they discover a new requirement so they tack it on, and another and another and when they are done, they’ve got a monstrosity of special cases each designed to handle one specific scenario.  There’s way more code than there should be and it’s way too complicated to understand. I believe in finding general solutions to problems from which all the special cases naturally derive rather than building a solution of special cases.  In my mind, to do this, you have to start by conceptualizing and coding the framework of the general algorithm.  For me, that’s a relatively monolithic exercise. TDD is an development pratice not a methodology, the danger is that the solution becomes a mass of different things that violate DRY. TDD won't solve these problems, only good communication and practices like pairing will help. Above all else an assumption that TDD replaces a methodology is a mistake, combine it with what ever works for your team\business but only good communication will help. A good naming scheme\structure for folders, files and tests can help you and your team isolate what tests are for what.

    Read the article

  • Using Completed User Stories to Estimate Future User Stories

    - by David Kaczynski
    In Scrum/Agile, the complexity of a user story can be estimated in story points. After completing some user stories, a programmer or team of programmers can use those experiences to better estimate how much time it might take to complete a future user story. Is there a methodology for breaking down the complexity of user stories into quantifiable or quantifiable attributes? For example, User Story X requires a rich, new view in the GUI, but User Story X can perform most of its functionality using existing business logic on the server. On a scale of 1 to 10, User Story X has a complexity of 7 on the client and a complexity of 2 on the server. After User Story X is completed, someone asks how long would it take to complete User Story Y, which has a complexity of 3 on the client and 6 on the server. Looking at how long it took to complete User Story X, we can make an educated estimate on how long it might take to complete User Story Y. I can imagine some other details: The complexity of one attribute (such as complexity of client) could have sub-attributes, such as number of steps in a sequence, function points, etc. Several other attributes that could be considered as well, such as the programmer's familiarity with the system or the number of components/interfaces involved These attributes could be accumulated into some sort of user story checklist. To reiterate: is there an existing methodology for decomposing the complexity of a user story into complexity of attributes/sub-attributes, or is using completed user stories as indicators in estimating future user stories more of an informal process?

    Read the article

  • #altnetseattle &ndash; CQRS

    - by GeekAgilistMercenary
    This is a topic I know nothing about, and thus, may be supremely disparate notes.  Have fun translating.  : )   . . .and coolness that the session is well past capacity. Separates things form the UI and everything that needs populated is done through commands.  The domain and reports have separate storage. Events populate these stores of data, such as "sold event". What it looks like, is that the domain controls the requests by event, which would be a product order or something similar. Event sourcing is a key element of the logic. DDD (Domain Driven Design) is part of the core basis for this methodology/structure. The architecture/methodology/structure is perfect for blade style plugin hardware as needed. Good blog entry DDDD: Why I love CQRS and another Command and Query Responsibility Segregation (CQRS), more, CQRS à la Greg Young, a bit by Udi Dahan and there are more.  Google, Bing, etc are there for a reason. It appears the core underpinning architectural element of this is the break out of unique identifiable actions, or I suppose better described as events.  Those events then act upon specific pipelines such as read requests, write requests, etc.  I will be doing more research on this topic and will have something written up shortly.  At this time it seems like nothing new, just a large architectural break out of identifiable needs of the entire enterprise system.  The reporting is in one segment of the architecture, the domain is in another, hydration broken out to interfaces, and events are executed to incur events on the Reports, or what appears by the description to be events on the domain. Anyway, more to come on this later.

    Read the article

  • Lazy coding is fun

    - by Anthony Trudeau
    Every once in awhile I get the opportunity to write an application that is important enough to do, but not important enough to do the right way -- meaning standards, best practices, good architecture, et al.  I call it lazy coding.  The industry calls it RAD (rapid application development). I started on the conversion tool at the end of last week.  It will convert our legacy data to a completely new system which I'm working on piece by piece.  It will be used in the future, but only the new parts because it'll only be necessary to convert the individual pieces of the data once.  It was the perfect opportunity to just whip something together, but it was still functional unlike a prototype or proof of concept.  Although I would never write an application like this for a customer (internal or external) this methodology (if you can call it that) works great for something like this. I wouldn't be surprised if I get flamed for equating RAD to lazy coding or lacking standards, best practice, or good architecture.  Unfortunately, it fits in the current usage.  Although, it's possible to create a good, maintainable application using the RAD methodology, it's just too ripe for abuse and requires too much discipline for someone let alone a team to do right. Sometimes it's just fun to throw caution to the wind and start slamming code.

    Read the article

  • Modular programming is the method of programming small task or programs

    Modular programming is the method of programming small task or sub-programs that can be arranged in multiple variations to perform desired results. This methodology is great for preventing errors due to the fact that each task executes a specific process and can be debugged individually or within a larger program when combined with other tasks or sub programs. C# is a great example of how to implement modular programming because it allows for functions, methods, classes and objects to be use to create smaller sub programs. A program can be built from smaller pieces of code which saves development time and reduces the chance of errors because it is easier to test a small class or function for a simple solutions compared to testing a full program which has layers and layers of small programs working together.Yes, it is possible to write the same program using modular and non modular programming, but it is not recommend it. When you deal with non modular programs, they tend to contain a lot of spaghetti code which can be a pain to develop and not to mention debug especially if you did not write the code. In addition, in my experience they seem to have a lot more hidden bugs which waste debugging and development time. Modular programming methodology in comparision to non-mondular should be used when ever possible due to the use of small components. These small components allow business logic to be reused and is easier to maintain. From the user’s view point, they cannot really tell if the code is modular or not with today’s computers.

    Read the article

  • Software management for 2 programmers

    - by kajo
    Hi all, me and my very good friend do a small bussiness. We have company and we develop web apps using Scala. We have started 3 months ago and we have a lot of work now. We cannot afford to employ another programmer because we can't pay him now. Until now we try to manage entire developing process very simply. We use excel sheets for simple bug tracking and we work on client requests on the fly. We have no plan for next week or something similar. But now I find it very inefficient and useless. I am trying to find some rules or some methodology for small team or for only two guys. For example Scrum is, imo, unadapted for us. There are a lot of roles (ScrumMaster, Product Owner, Team...) and it seems overkill. Can you something advise me? Have you any experiences with software management in small teams? Is any methodology of current agile development fitten for pair of programmers? Is there any software management for simple bug tracking, maybe wiki or time management for two coders? thanks a lot for sharing.

    Read the article

  • Forcing logon to Air Watch server upon joining wifi

    - by DKNUCKLES
    I'm setting up a wireless controller that I would like to leave as unsecured. When a user connects to this network they need to be forwarded to a specific page where they can authenticate with the Air Watch system they have in place. Once authentication takes place, a profile will be downloaded to their device and we can administer the devices accordingly. I'm mulling over how I can force the page to the user when they log in. The methodology I'm thinking about working with is creating a NAT rule for that VSC that would forward all port 80 and 443 traffic to the airwatch server. Once they authenticate, a profile will be downloaded which will connect the devices to an Virtual Access Point who's SSID isn't broadcasted. Is this methodology correct or can someone think of an easier / more efficient way of accomplishing this? The controller is an HP MSM720 for what it's worth.

    Read the article

  • Software management for 2 programmers

    - by kajo
    me and my very good friend do a small bussiness. We have company and we develop web apps using Scala. We have started 3 months ago and we have a lot of work now. We cannot afford to employ another programmer because we can't pay him now. Until now we try to manage entire developing process very simply. We use excel sheets for simple bug tracking and we work on client requests on the fly. We have no plan for next week or something similar. But now I find it very inefficient and useless. I am trying to find some rules or some methodology for small team or for only two guys. For example Scrum is, imo, unadapted for us. There are a lot of roles (ScrumMaster, Product Owner, Team...) and it seems overkill. Can you something advise me? Have you any experiences with software management in small teams? Is any methodology of current agile development fitten for pair of programmers? Is there any software management for simple bug tracking, maybe wiki or time management for two coders? thanks a lot for sharing.

    Read the article

  • The effects of Agile Programming can alter the five desirable properties of modeling tools and techniques

    The effects of Agile Programming can alter the five desirable properties of modeling tools and techniques as documented by Pfleeger. The agile methodology does promote human understanding and communication through the use of short iterative software development life cycles which forces stakeholders to review the project and adjust the project for any requirement changes.  Due to the consistent evaluations of a project and requirements, process are continually being refined, upgraded, and compared against other alternatives to ensure the best design delivered to the client. Due to the short repetitive development cycles, increased time is devoted to process management due to the fact that requirements and designs could be constantly changing. This requires additional forecasting, monitoring, and planning for each iteration. Because things can change so rapidly, automated guidance in performing process must be updated for each iteration because the environment and the available reusable process could change. In addition, the original guidance and suggestions for the project also need to be updated to account for these changes as well.   In essence the automation of process execution is supported by the agile methodology because during every iteration all processes must be tested, evaluated to ensure process integrity and compliance with the customer’s requirements. I do not think the agile approach diminishes modeling, in fact I think it increases the modeling because before the start of every development cycle, modeling must be checked for accuracy based on the changed requirements. So in essence the reduced time spent initially designing the models is in fact gained as the project completes every iteration of the project.

    Read the article

  • design in agile process

    - by ying
    Recently I had an interview with dev team in a company. The team uses agile + TDD. The code exercise implements a video rental store which generates statement to calc total rental fee for each type of video (new release, children, etc) for a customer. The existing code use object like: Statement to generate statement and calc fee where big switch statement sits to use enum to determine how to calc rental fee customer holds a list of rentals movie base class and derived class for each type of movie (NEW, CHILDREN, ACTION, etc) The code originally doesn't compile as the owner was assumed to be hit by a bus. So here is what I did: outlined the improvement over object model to have better responsibility for each class. use strategy pattern to replace switch statement and weave them in config But the team says it's waste of time because there is no requirement for it and UAT test suite works and is the only guideline goes into architecture decision. The underlying story is just to get pricing feature out and not saying anything about how to do it. So the discussion is focused on why should time be spent on refactor the switch statement. In my understanding, agile methodology doesn't mean zero design upfront and such code smell should be avoided at the beginning. Also any unit/UAT test suite won't detect such code smell, otherwise sonar, findbugs won't exist. Here I want to ask: is there such a thing called agile design in the agile methodology? Just like agile documentation. how to define agile design upfront? how to know enough is enough? In my understanding, ballpark architecture and data contract among components should be defined before/when starting project, not the details. Am I right? anyone can explain what the team is really looking for in this kind of setup? is it design aspect or agile aspect? how to implement minimum viable product concept in the agile process in the real world project? Is it must that you feel embarrassed to be MVP?

    Read the article

  • Parse text file on click - and then display

    - by John R
    I am thinking of a methodology for rapid retrieval of code snippets. I imagine an HTML table with a setup like this: one two ... ten one oneTwo() oneTen() two twoOne() twoTen() ... ten tenOne() tenTwo() When a user clicks a function in this HTML table, a snippet of code is shown in another div tag or perhaps a popup window (I'm open to different solutions). I want to maintain only one PHP file named utitlities.php that contains a class called 'util'. This file & class will hold all the functions referenced in the above table (it is also used on various projects and is functional code). A key idea is that I do not want to update the HTML documentation everytime I write/update a new function in utilities.php. I should be able to click a function in the table and have PHP open the utilities file, parse out the apropriate function and display it in an HTML window. Questions: 1) I will be coding this in PHP and JavaScript but am wondering if similar scripts are available (for all or part) so I don't reinvent the wheel. 2) Quick & easy Ajax suggestions appreciated too (probably will use jquery, but am rusty). 3) Methodology for parsing out the functions from the utilities.php file (I'm not to good with regex).

    Read the article

  • Parse text file on click and display

    - by John R
    I am thinking of a methodology for rapid retrieval of code snippets. I imagine an HTML table with a setup like this: one two ... ten one oneTwo() oneTen() two twoOne() twoTen() ... ten tenOne() tenTwo() When a user clicks a function in this HTML table, a snippet of code is shown in another div tag or perhaps a popup window (I'm open to different solutions). I want to maintain only one PHP file named utitlities.php that contains a class called 'util'. This file & class will hold all the functions referenced in the above table (it is also used on various projects and is functional code). A key idea is that I do not want to update the HTML documentation everytime I write/update a new function in utilities.php. I should be able to click a function in the table and have PHP open the utilities file, parse out the apropriate function and display it in an HTML window. Questions: 1) I will be coding this in PHP and JavaScript but am wondering if similar scripts are available (for all or part) so I don't reinvent the wheel. 2) Quick & easy Ajax suggestions appreciated too (probably will use jquery, but am rusty). 3) Methodology for parsing out the functions from the utilities.php file (I'm not to good with regex).

    Read the article

  • How to keep the trunk stable when tests take a long time?

    - by Oak
    We have three sets of test suites: A "small" suite, taking only a couple of hours to run A "medium" suite that takes multiple hours, usually ran every night (nightly) A "large" suite that takes a week+ to run We also have a bunch of shorter test suites, but I'm not focusing on them here. The current methodology is to run the small suite before each commit to the trunk. Then, the medium suite runs every night, and if in the morning it turned out it failed, we try to isolate which of yesterday's commits was to blame, rollback that commit and retry the tests. A similar process, only at a weekly instead of nightly frequency, is done for the large suite. Unfortunately, the medium suite does fail pretty frequently. That means that the trunk is often unstable, which is extremely annoying when you want to make modifications and test them. It's annoying because when I check out from the trunk, I cannot know for certain it's stable, and if a test fails I cannot know for certain if it's my fault or not. My question is, is there some known methodology for handling these kinds of situations in a way which will leave the trunk always in top shape? e.g. "commit into a special precommit branch which will then periodically update the trunk every time the nightly passes". And does it matter if it's a centralized source control system like SVN or a distributed one like git? By the way I am a junior developer with a limited ability to change things, I'm just trying to understand if there's a way to handle this pain I am experiencing.

    Read the article

  • Using SQL Source Control with Fortress or Vault &ndash; Part 1

    - by AjarnMark
    I am fanatical when it comes to managing the source code for my company.  Everything that we build (in source form) gets put into our source control management system.  And I’m not just talking about the UI and middle-tier code written in C# and ASP.NET, but also the back-end database stuff, which at times has been a pain.  We even script out our Scheduled Jobs and keep a copy of those under source control. The UI and middle-tier stuff has long been easy to manage as we mostly use Visual Studio which has integration with source control systems built in.  But the SQL code has been a little harder to deal with.  I have been doing this for many years, well before Microsoft came up with Data Dude, so I had already established a methodology that, while not as smooth as VS, nonetheless let me keep things well controlled, and allowed doing my database development in my tool of choice, Query Analyzer in days gone by, and now SQL Server Management Studio.  It just makes sense to me that if I’m going to do database development, let’s use the database tool set.  (Although, I have to admit I was pretty impressed with the demo of Juneau that Don Box did at the PASS Summit this year.)  So as I was saying, I had developed a methodology that worked well for us (and I’ll probably outline in a future post) but it could use some improvement. When Solutions and Projects were first introduced in SQL Management Studio, I thought we were finally going to get our same experience that we have in Visual Studio.  Well, let’s say I was underwhelmed by Version 1 in SQL 2005, and apparently so were enough other people that by the time SQL 2008 came out, Microsoft decided that Solutions and Projects would be deprecated and completely removed from a future version.  So much for that idea. Then I came across SQL Source Control from Red-Gate.  I have used several tools from Red-Gate in the past, including my favorites SQL Compare, SQL Prompt, and SQL Refactor.  SQL Prompt is worth its weight in gold, and the others are great, too.  Earlier this year, we upgraded from our earlier product bundles to the new Developer Bundle, and in the process added SQL Source Control to our collection.  I thought this might really be the golden ticket I was looking for.  But my hopes were quickly dashed when I discovered that it only integrated with Microsoft Team Foundation Server and Subversion as the source code repositories.  We have been using SourceGear’s Vault and Fortress products for years, and I wholeheartedly endorse them.  So I was out of luck for the time being, although there were a number of people voting for Vault/Fortress support on their feedback forum (as did I) so I had hope that maybe next year I could look at it again. But just a couple of weeks ago, I was pleasantly surprised to receive notice in my email that Red-Gate had an Early Access version of SQL Source Control that worked with Vault and Fortress, so I quickly downloaded it and have been putting it through its paces.  So far, I really like what I see, and I have been quite impressed with Red-Gate’s responsiveness when I have contacted them with any issues or concerns that I have had.  I have had several communications with Gyorgy Pocsi at Red-Gate and he has been immensely helpful and responsive. I must say that development with SQL Source Control is very different from what I have been used to.  This post is getting long enough, so I’ll save some of the details for a separate write-up, but the short story is that in my regular mode, it’s all about the script files.  Script files are King and you dare not make a change to the database other than by way of a script file, or you are in deep trouble.  With SQL Source Control, you make your changes to your development database however you like.  I still prefer writing most of my changes in T-SQL, but you can also use any of the GUI functionality of SSMS to make your changes, and SQL Source Control “manages” the script for you.  Basically, when you first link your database to source control, the tool generates scripts for every primary object (tables and their indexes are together in one script, not broken out into separate scripts like DB Projects do) and those scripts are checked into your source control.  So, if you needed to, you could still do a GET from your source control repository and build the database from scratch.  But for the day-to-day work, SQL Source Control uses the same technique as SQL Compare to determine what changes have been made to your development database and how to represent those in your repository scripts.  I think that once I retrain myself to just work in the database and quit worrying about having to find and open the right script file, that this will actually make us more efficient. And for deployment purposes, SQL Source Control integrates with the full SQL Compare utility to produce a synchronization script (or do a live sync).  This is similar in concept to Microsoft’s DACPAC, if you’re familiar with that. If you are not currently keeping your database development efforts under source control, definitely examine this tool.  If you already have a methodology that is working for you, then I still think this is worth a review and comparison to your current approach.  You may find it more efficient.  But remember that the version which integrates with Vault/Fortress is still in pre-release mode, so treat it with a little caution.  I have found it to be fairly stable, but there was one bug that I found which had inconvenient side-effects and could have really been frustrating if I had been running this on my normal active development machine.  However, I can verify that that bug has been fixed in a more recent build version (did I mention Red-Gate’s responsiveness?).

    Read the article

  • Lessons learnt in implementing Scrum in a Large Organization that has traditional values

    - by MarkPearl
    I recently had the experience of being involved in a “test” scrum implementation in a large organization that was used to a traditional project management approach. Here are some lessons that I learnt from it. Don’t let the Project Manager be the Product Owner First lesson learnt is to identify the correct product owner – in this instance the product manager assumed the role of the product owner which was a mistake. The product owner is the one who has the most to loose if the project fails. With a methodology that advocates removing the role of the project manager from the process then it is not in the interests of the person who is employed as a project manager to be the product owner – in fact they have the most to gain should the project fail. Know the time commitments of team members to the Project Second lesson learnt is to get a firm time commitment of the members on a team for the sprint and to hold them to it. In this project instance many of the issues we faced were with team members having to double up on supporting existing projects/systems and the scrum project. In many situations they just didn’t get round to doing any work on the scrum project for several days while they tried to meet other commitments. Initially this was not made transparent to the team – in stand up team members would say that had done some work but would be very vague on how much time they had actually spent using the blackhole of their other legacy projects as an excuse – putting up a time burn down chart made time allocations transparent and easy to hold the team to. In addition, how can you plan for a sprint without knowing the actual time available of the members – when I mean actual time, the exercise of getting them to go through all their appointments and lunch times and breaks and removing them from their time commitment helps get you to a realistic time that they can dedicate. Make sure you meet your minimum team sizes In a recent post I wrote about the difference between a partnership and a team. If you are going to do scrum in a large organization make sure you have a minimum team size of at least 3 developers. My experience with larger organizations is that people have a tendency to be sick more, take more leave and generally not be around – if you have a team size of two it is so easy to loose momentum on the project – the more people you have in the team (up to about 9) the more the momentum the project will have when people are not around. Swapping from one methodology to another can seem as waste to the customer It sounds bad, but most customers don’t care what methodology you use. Often they have bought into the “big plan upfront”. If you can, avoid taking a project on midstream from a traditional approach unless the customer has not bought into the process – with this particular project they had a detailed upfront planning breakaway with the customer using the traditional approach and then before the project started we moved onto a scrum implementation – this seemed as waste to the customer. We should have managed the customers expectation properly. Don’t play the role of the scrum master if you can’t be the scrum master With this particular implementation I was the “scrum master”. But all I did was go through the process of the formal meetings of scrum – I attended stand up, retrospectives and planning – but I was not hands on the ground. I was not performing the most important role of removing blockages – and by the end of the project there were a number of blockages “cropping up”. What could have been a better approach was to take someone on the team and train them to be the scrum master and be present to coach them. Alternatively actually be on the team on a fulltime basis and be the scrum master. By just going through the meetings of scrum didn’t mean we were doing scrum. So we failed with this one, if you fail look at it from an agile perspective As this particular project drew to a close and it became more and more apparent that it was not going to succeed the failure of it became depressing. Emotions were expressed by various people on the team that we not encouraging and enforced the failure. Embracing the failure and looking at it for what it is instead of taking it as the end of the world can change how you grow from the experience. Acknowledging that it failed and then focussing on learning from why and how to avoid the failure in the future can change how you feel emotionally about the team, the project and the organization.

    Read the article

  • The right way to start out in game development/design [closed]

    - by Marco Sacristão
    Greetings everyone I'm a 19 year old student looking for some help in the field of game development. This question may or may not seem a bit overused, but the fact is that game development has been my life long dream, and after several hours of search I've realized that I've been going in circles for the past three or four months whilst doing such research on how to really get down and dirty with game development, therefor I decided to ask you guys if you could help me out at all. Let me start off with some information about me and things i've already learned about GameDev which might help you out on helping me out (wordplay!): I'm not an expert programmer, but I do have knowledge on how to program in several languages including C and Java (Currently learning Java in my degree in Computer Engineering), but my methodology might not be most correct in terms of syntax (hence my difficulty in starting out, i'm afraid that the starting point might not be the most correct, and it would deploy a wrongful development methodology that would be to corrected later on, in terms of game development or other projects). I have yet to work in a project as large as a game, never in my learning curve of programming I've done a project to the scale of a video game, only very small software (PHP Front-ends and Back-ends, with some basic JQuery and CSS knowledge). I'm not the biggest mathematician or physicist, but I already know that is not a problem, because there are several game engines already available for use and integration with home-made projects (Box2D, etc). I've also learned about some libraries that could be included in said projects, to ease out some process in game development, like SDL for example. I do not know how sprites, states, particles or any specific game-related techniques work. With that being said, you can see that I have some ideas on game development, but I have absolutely no clue on how to design and produce a game, or even how game-like mechanics work. It does not have to be a complex game just to start out, I'd rather learn the basic of game design (Like 2D drawing, tiling, object collision) and test that out in a language that I feel comfortable in which could be later on migrated to other platforms, as long that what I've learned is the correct way to do things, and not just something that I've learned from some guy on Youtube by replicating that code on the video. I'm sorry if my question is not in the best format possible, but I've got so many questions on my mind that are still un-answered that I don't know were to start! Thank you for reading.

    Read the article

  • ADF for German Speakers

    - by shay.shmeltzer
    If you know German and you are using ADF then you'll be interested in the ADF special interest group the guys over at Germany established - The deutschen ADF Community. Details here: http://www.oracle.com/global/de/community/adf/index.html If you are an English speaker - then at least you have the ADF Enterprise Methodology Group - which you should join if you haven't already.

    Read the article

  • Writing the tests for FluentPath

    - by Latest Microsoft Blogs
    Writing the tests for FluentPath is a challenge. The library is a wrapper around a legacy API (System.IO) that wasn’t designed to be easily testable. If it were more testable, the sensible testing methodology would be to tell System.IO to act against Read More......(read more)

    Read the article

  • Task Flow Design Paper Revised

    - by Duncan Mills
    Thanks to some discussion over at the ADF Methodology Group and contributions from Simon Lessard and Jan Vervecken I have been able to make some refinements to the Task Flow Design Fundamentals paper on OTN.As a bonus, whilst I was making some edits anyway I've included some of Frank Nimphius's memory scope diagrams which are a really useful tool for understanding how request, view, backingBean and pageFlow scopes all fit together.

    Read the article

  • Oracle's Fusion User Experience Raises the Bar

    Hear Jeremy Ashley, Oracle's Vice President of Applications User Experience, and Patanjali Venkatacharya, Applications User Experience Architect, speak with Cliff about Oracle's innovative user experience methodology and the benefits it provides customers.

    Read the article

  • Right approach to convert a word document that contains forms in a web app

    - by carlo
    I would know if someone can suggest a good approach to convert a word document that contains forms in a web app, specifically in an application built with WaveMaker.(but I'm curious also with a general approach not strictly dependent on the technology that I have mentioned). For example, if I have a page in a word document, that maps the fields of a user entity, what could be my "programmer approach" to convert it without much use of copy-paste, but with a dynamic methodology ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >