Search Results

Search found 18079 results on 724 pages for 'compiler options'.

Page 9/724 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Rights Expiry Options in IRM 11g

    - by martin.abrahams
    Among the many enhancements in IRM 11g, we have introduced a couple of new rights expiry options that may be applied to any role. These options were supported in previous versions, but fell into the "advanced configuration" category. In 11g, the options can be applied simply by selecting a check-box in the properties of a role, as shown by the rather extreme example below, where the role allows access for just two minutes after they are sealed. The new options are: To define a role that expires automatically some period after it is assigned To define a role that evaluates expiry relative to the time that each document is sealed These options supplement the familiar options to allow open-ended access (limited by offline access and the ever-present option to revoke rights at any time) and the option to define time windows with specific start dates and end dates. The value of these options is easiest to illustrate with some publishing examples: You might define a role with a one year expiry to be assigned to users who purchase a one year subscription. For each individual user, the year would be calculated from the time that the role was assigned to them. You might define a role that allows documents to be accessed only for 24 hours from the time that they are published - perhaps as a preview mechanism designed to tempt users to sign up for a full subscription. Upon payment of a full fee, users can simply be reassigned a role that gives them greater access to exactly the same documents. In a corporate environment, you might use such roles for fixed term contractors or for workflows that involve information with a short lifespan, or perhaps as part of a compliance process that requires rights to be formally re-approved at intervals. Being role-based, the time constraints apply to any number of documents - including documents that have not yet been created. For example, a user with a one year subscription would have access to all documents published in the relevant classification during the year without any further configuration. Crucially, unlike other solutions, it is not the documents that expire, but the rights of particular users. Whereas some solutions make documents completely inaccessible for all users after expiry, Oracle IRM can allow some users to continue using documents while other users lose access. Equally crucially, a user whose rights have expired can always be granted fresh rights at any time - for example, because they renew their subscription or because a manager confirms that they still need the rights as part of a corporate compliance process. By applying expiry to rights rather than to documents, Oracle IRM avoids the risk of locking an organization out of its own information.

    Read the article

  • BizTalk Server 2009 - Architecture Options

    - by StuartBrierley
    I recently needed to put forward a proposal for a BizTalk 2009 implementation and as a part of this needed to describe some of the basic architecture options available for consideration.  While I already had an idea of the type of environment that I would be looking to recommend, I felt that presenting a range of options while trying to explain some of the strengths and weaknesses of those options was a good place to start.  These outline architecture options should be equally valid for any version of BizTalk Server from 2004, through 2006 and R2, up to 2009.   The following diagram shows a crude representation of the common implementation options to consider when designing a BizTalk environment.         Each of these options provides differing levels of resilience in the case of failure or disaster, with the later options also providing more scope for performance tuning and scalability.   Some of the options presented above make use of clustering. Clustering may best be described as a technology that automatically allows one physical server to take over the tasks and responsibilities of another physical server that has failed. Given that all computer hardware and software will eventually fail, the goal of clustering is to ensure that mission-critical applications will have little or no downtime when such a failure occurs. Clustering can also be configured to provide load balancing, which should generally lead to performance gains and increased capacity and throughput.   (A) Single Servers   This option is the most basic BizTalk implementation that should be considered. It involves the deployment of a single BizTalk server in conjunction with a single SQL server. This configuration does not provide for any resilience in the case of the failure of either server. It is however the cheapest and easiest to implement option of those available.   Using a single BizTalk server does not provide for the level of performance tuning that is otherwise available when using more than one BizTalk server in a cluster.   The common edition of BizTalk used in single server implementations is the standard edition. It should be noted however that if future demand requires increased capacity for a solution, this BizTalk edition is limited to scaling up the implementation and not scaling out the number of servers in use. Any need to scale out the solution would require an upgrade to the enterprise edition of BizTalk.   (B) Single BizTalk Server with Clustered SQL Servers   This option uses a single BizTalk server with a cluster of SQL servers. By utilising clustered SQL servers we can ensure that there is some resilience to the implementation in respect of the databases that BizTalk relies on to operate. The clustering of two SQL servers is possible with the standard edition but to go beyond this would require the enterprise level edition. While this option offers improved resilience over option (A) it does still present a potential single point of failure at the BizTalk server.   Using a single BizTalk server does not provide for the level of performance tuning that is otherwise available when using more than one BizTalk server in a cluster.   The common edition of BizTalk used in single server implementations is the standard edition. It should be noted however that if future demand requires increased capacity for a solution, this BizTalk edition is limited to scaling up the implementation and not scaling out the number of servers in use. You are also unable to take advantage of multiple message boxes, which would allow us to balance the SQL load in the event of any bottlenecks in this area of the implementation. Any need to scale out the solution would require an upgrade to the enterprise edition of BizTalk.   (C) Clustered BizTalk Servers with Clustered SQL Servers   This option makes use of a cluster of BizTalk servers with a cluster of SQL servers to offer high availability and resilience in the case of failure of either of the server types involved. Clustering of BizTalk is only available with the enterprise edition of the product. Clustering of two SQL servers is possible with the standard edition but to go beyond this would require the enterprise level edition.    The use of a BizTalk cluster also provides for the ability to balance load across the servers and gives more scope for performance tuning any implemented solutions. It is also possible to add more BizTalk servers to an existing cluster, giving scope for scaling out the solution as future demand requires.   This might be seen as the middle cost option, providing a good level of protection in the case of failure, a decent level of future proofing, but at a higher cost than the single BizTalk server implementations.   (D) Clustered BizTalk Servers with Clustered SQL Servers – with disaster recovery/service continuity   This option is similar to that offered by (C) and makes use of a cluster of BizTalk servers with a cluster of SQL servers to offer high availability and resilience in case of failure of either of the server types involved. Clustering of BizTalk is only available with the enterprise edition of the product. Clustering of two SQL servers is possible with the standard edition but to go beyond this would require the enterprise level edition.    As with (C) the use of a BizTalk cluster also provides for the ability to balance load across the servers and gives more scope for performance tuning the implemented solution. It is also possible to add more BizTalk servers to an existing cluster, giving scope for scaling the solution out as future demand requires.   In this scenario however, we would be including some form of disaster recovery or service continuity. An example of this would be making use of multiple sites, with the BizTalk server cluster operating across sites to offer resilience in case of the loss of one or more sites. In this scenario there are options available for the SQL implementation depending on the network implementation; making use of either one cluster per site or a single SQL cluster across the network. A multi-site SQL implementation would require some form of data replication across the sites involved.   This is obviously an expensive and complex option, but does provide an extraordinary amount of protection in the case of failure.

    Read the article

  • Compiler Dependencies [closed]

    - by asghar ashgari
    I'm a newbie researcher who's passion is programming languages (Web era). I'm wondering why all the Web frameworks and Web-based general purposes languages, have a huge number of dependencies when you want to install and then use (e.g., extend, alternate, etc.) their compilers. For example, Ruby on Rails or Scala. If I want to download their source code, and try to build it again, to me at least, feels like a can of worms. I have a MAC, so I need to install MACports, then update my XCode, then get the compiler source code that has bunch of other dependencies, then its hard to set things up; just to see the installed open-source compiler works fine.

    Read the article

  • Google Closure Compiler - what does the name mean?

    - by mikez302
    I am curious about the Google Closure Compiler. Why did they name it that? Does it have anything to do with lexical closures? EDIT: I tried researching it in the FAQ and documentation, as well as doing Google searches such as "closure compiler name". I couldn't find anything definite, hence the reason I am asking. I don't think I will get a profoundly helpful answer but I was hoping that I could at least satisfy my curiosity. I am not trying to solve a specific problem. I am just curious.

    Read the article

  • Switching from Debug into Release Mode with VS2010 as IDE and Intel C++ Compiler 13

    - by Drazick
    I have a code of a Plug In from an SDK. The code is in Debug Mode. I use Intel Compiler which only applies optimizations in Release Mode. Under configuration manager of the project only "Debug" mode is defined. How could I switch to "Release" mode and enable all Intel Compiler's optimizations? If I enable them on debug mode nothing is applied (Empty Report). I couldn't find the trick to do so. Thank You.

    Read the article

  • Theory: Can JIT Compiler be used to parse the whole program first, then execute later?

    - by unknownthreat
    Normally, JIT Compiler works by reads the byte code, translate it into machine code, and execute it. This is what I understand, but in theory, is it possible to make the JIT Compiler parses the whole program first, then execute the program later as machine code? I do not know how JIT Compiler works technically and exactly, so I don't know any feasibility in this case. But theoretically, is it possible? Or am I doing it wrong?

    Read the article

  • Parantheses around method invokation: why is the compiler complaining about assignment?

    - by polygenelubricants
    I know why the following code doesn't compile: public class Main { public static void main(String args[]) { main((null)); // this is fine! (main(null)); // this is NOT! } } What I'm wondering is why my compiler (javac 1.6.0_17, Windows version) is complaining "The left hand side of an assignment must be a variable". I'd expect something like "Don't put parantheses around a method invokation, dummy!", instead. So why is the compiler making a totally unhelpful complaint about something that is blatantly irrelevant? Is this the result of an ambiguity in the grammar? A bug in the compiler? If it's the former, could you design a language such that a compiler would never be so off-base about a syntax error like this?

    Read the article

  • Is a C++ compiler allowed to emit different machine code compiling the same program?

    - by sharptooth
    Consider a situation. We have some specific C++ compiler, a specific set of compiler settings and a specific C++ program. We compile that specific programs with that compiler and those settings two times, doing a "clean compile" each time. Should the machine code emitted be the same (I don't mean timestamps and other bells and whistles, I mean only real code that will be executed) or is it allowed to vary from one compilation to another?

    Read the article

  • why it is up to the compiler to decide what value to assign when assigning an out-of-range value to

    - by Allopen
    in C++ Primer 4th edition 2.1.1, it says "when assigning an out-of-range value to a signed type, it is up to the compiler to decide what value to assign". I can't understand it. I mean, if you have code like "char 5 = 299", certainly the compiler will generate asm code like "mov BYTE PTR _sc$[ebp], 43"(VC) or "movb $43, -2(%ebp)"(gcc+mingw), it IS decided by the compiler. but what if we assign a value that is given by the user input? like, via command line? and the asm code generated will be "movb %al, -1(%ebp)"(gcc+mingw) and " mov cl, BYTE PTR _i$[ebp] mov BYTE PTR _sc$[ebp], cl "(VC), so now how can compiler decide what will happen? I think now it is decided by the CPU. Can you give me a clear explanation?

    Read the article

  • Need help regarding one LALR(1) parsing.

    - by AppleGrew
    I am trying to parse a context-free language, called Context Free Art. I have created its parser in Javascript using a YACC-like JS LALR(1) parser generator JSCC. Take the example of following CFA (Context Free Art) code. This code is a valid CFA. startshape A rule A { CIRCLE { s 1} } Notice the A and s in above. s is a command to scale the CIRCLE, but A is just a name of this rule. In the language's grammar I have set s as token SCALE and A comes under token STRING (I have a regular expression to match string and it is at the bottom of of all tokens). This works fine, but in the below case it breaks. startshape s rule s { CIRCLE { s 1} } This too is a perfectly valid code, but since my parser marks s after rule as SCALE token so it errors out saying that it was expecting STRING. Now my question is, if there is any way to re-write the production rules of the parser to account for this? The related production rule is:- rule: RULE STRING '{' buncha_replacements '}' [* rule(%2, 1) *] | RULE STRING RATIONAL '{' buncha_replacements '}' [* rule(%2, 1*%3) *] ; One simple solution I can think of is create a copy of above rule with STRING replaced by SCALE, but this is just one of the many similar rules which would need such fixing. Furthermore there are many other terminals which can get matched to STRING. So that means way too many rules!

    Read the article

  • Benefits of 'Optimize code' option in Visual Studio build

    - by gt
    Much of our C# release code is built with the 'Optimize code' option turned off. I believe this is to allow code built in Release mode to be debugged more easily. Given that we are creating fairly simple desktop software which connects to backend Web Services, (ie. not a particularly processor-intensive application) then what if any sort of performance hit might be expected? And is any particular platform likely to be worse affected? Eg. multi-processor / 64 bit.

    Read the article

  • When to use certain optimizations such as -fwhole-program and -fprofile-generate with several shared libraries

    - by James
    Probably a simple answer; I get quite confused with the language used in the GCC documentation for some of these flags! Anyway, I have three libraries and a programme which uses all these three. I compile each of my libraries seperately with individual (potentially) different sets of warning flags. However, I compile all three libraries with the same set of optimisation flags. I then compile my main programme linking in these three libraries with its own set of warning flags and the same optimisation flags used during the libraries' compilation. 1) Do I have to compile the libraries with optimisation flags present or can I just use these flags when compiling the final programme and linking to the libraries? If the latter, will it then optimise all or just some (presumably that which is called) of the code in these libraries? 2) I would like to use -fwhole-program -flto -fuse-linker-plugin and the linker plugin gold. At which stage do I compile with these on ... just the final compilation or do these flags need to be present during the compilation of the libraries? 3) Pretty much the same as 2) however with, -fprofile-generate -fprofile-arcs and -fprofile-use. I understand one first runs a programme with generate, and then with use. However, do I have to compile each of the libraries with generate/use etc. or just the final programme? And if it is just the last programme, when I then compeil with -fprofile-use will it also optimise the libraries functionality? Many thanks, James

    Read the article

  • Languages and VMs: Features that are hard to optimize and why

    - by mrjoltcola
    I'm doing a survey of features in preparation for a research project. Name a mainstream language or language feature that is hard to optimize, and why the feature is or isn't worth the price paid, or instead, just debunk my theories below with anecdotal evidence. Before anyone flags this as subjective, I am asking for specific examples of languages or features, and ideas for optimization of these features, or important features that I haven't considered. Also, any references to implementations that prove my theories right or wrong. Top on my list of hard to optimize features and my theories (some of my theories are untested and are based on thought experiments): 1) Runtime method overloading (aka multi-method dispatch or signature based dispatch). Is it hard to optimize when combined with features that allow runtime recompilation or method addition. Or is it just hard, anyway? Call site caching is a common optimization for many runtime systems, but multi-methods add additional complexity as well as making it less practical to inline methods. 2) Type morphing / variants (aka value based typing as opposed to variable based) Traditional optimizations simply cannot be applied when you don't know if the type of someting can change in a basic block. Combined with multi-methods, inlining must be done carefully if at all, and probably only for a given threshold of size of the callee. ie. it is easy to consider inlining simple property fetches (getters / setters) but inlining complex methods may result in code bloat. The other issue is I cannot just assign a variant to a register and JIT it to the native instructions because I have to carry around the type info, or every variable needs 2 registers instead of 1. On IA-32 this is inconvenient, even if improved with x64's extra registers. This is probably my favorite feature of dynamic languages, as it simplifies so many things from the programmer's perspective. 3) First class continuations - There are multiple ways to implement them, and I have done so in both of the most common approaches, one being stack copying and the other as implementing the runtime to use continuation passing style, cactus stacks, copy-on-write stack frames, and garbage collection. First class continuations have resource management issues, ie. we must save everything, in case the continuation is resumed, and I'm not aware if any languages support leaving a continuation with "intent" (ie. "I am not coming back here, so you may discard this copy of the world"). Having programmed in the threading model and the contination model, I know both can accomplish the same thing, but continuations' elegance imposes considerable complexity on the runtime and also may affect cache efficienty (locality of stack changes more with use of continuations and co-routines). The other issue is they just don't map to hardware. Optimizing continuations is optimizing for the less-common case, and as we know, the common case should be fast, and the less-common cases should be correct. 4) Pointer arithmetic and ability to mask pointers (storing in integers, etc.) Had to throw this in, but I could actually live without this quite easily. My feelings are that many of the high-level features, particularly in dynamic languages just don't map to hardware. Microprocessor implementations have billions of dollars of research behind the optimizations on the chip, yet the choice of language feature(s) may marginalize many of these features (features like caching, aliasing top of stack to register, instruction parallelism, return address buffers, loop buffers and branch prediction). Macro-applications of micro-features don't necessarily pan out like some developers like to think, and implementing many languages in a VM ends up mapping native ops into function calls (ie. the more dynamic a language is the more we must lookup/cache at runtime, nothing can be assumed, so our instruction mix is made up of a higher percentage of non-local branching than traditional, statically compiled code) and the only thing we can really JIT well is expression evaluation of non-dynamic types and operations on constant or immediate types. It is my gut feeling that bytecode virtual machines and JIT cores are perhaps not always justified for certain languages because of this. I welcome your answers.

    Read the article

  • Delphi: All constants are constant, but some are more constant than others?

    - by Ian Boyd
    Consider: clHotlight: TColor = $00FF9933; clLink = clHotLight; //alias of clHotlight [Error] file.pas: Constant expression expected and the alternate wording that works: clHotlight = TColor($00FF9933); clLink = clHotLight; //alias of clHotlight Explain. Then consider: AdministratorGUID: TGUID = '{DE44EEA0-6712-11D4-ADD4-0006295717DA}'; SuperuserGUID = AdministratorGUID; //alias of AdministratorGUID [Error] file.pas: Constant expression expected And fix.

    Read the article

  • 'Lexical' scoping of type parameters in C#

    - by leppie
    I have 2 scenarios. This fails: class F<X> { public X X { get; set; } } error CS0102: The type 'F' already contains a definition for 'X' This works: class F<X> { class G { public X X { get; set; } } } The only logical explanation is that in the second snippet the type parameter X is out of scope, which is not true... Why should a type parameter affect my definitions in a type? IMO, for consistency, either both should work or neither should work. Any other ideas? PS: I call it 'lexical', but it probably is not not the correct term.

    Read the article

  • Printing the address of a struct object

    - by bdhar
    I have a struct like this typedef struct _somestruct { int a; int b; }SOMESTRUCT,*LPSOMESTRUCT; I am creating an object for the struct and trying to print it's address like this int main() { LPSOMESTRUCT val = (LPSOMESTRUCT)malloc(sizeof(SOMESTRUCT)); printf("0%x\n", val); return 0; } ..and I get this warning warning C4313: 'printf' : '%x' in format string conflicts with argument 1 of type 'LPSOMESTRUCT' So, I tried to cast the address to int like this printf("0%x\n", static_cast<int>(val)); But I get this error: error C2440: 'static_cast' : cannot convert from 'LPSOMESTRUCT' to 'int' What am I missing here? How to avoid this warning? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • the problem only happens when i try create a release...

    - by ace
    I'm sorry if im not presenting this right, but i trully cannot understand what the problem is. i have a project to hand in, a code of 600 lines defined within a main, .cpp, and header file. if i compile the project with just a debugger and no release, it's fine. when i create it with the release, the following error occurs, for every function!!! 1st error: |36|multiple definition of `countLines(int&, std::vector const&)'| 2nd error: |36|first defined here| if someone will allow me and i can send them the entire code, that would be awesome - i have to have this done within 3 hours.

    Read the article

  • Google Fonts API JSON Data in WordPress Options-Framework-Theme

    - by Rob
    I'm developing a child-theme off of the new Twenty Twelve theme using Wordpress 3.4.2 and the development version of the Options Theme Framework by Devin Price. In Devin's tutorial, it shows of a way to implement 15 Google Web Fonts into the Theme Options page, but not all of them (roughly 560). I know I can create a "manual list", like in the tutorial that states each one with fallbacks, but this is time consuming and unproductive as Google may or may not add to, update, change or remove some of these fonts from their list. The list I've created above will ultimately store unavailable fonts the user thinks is there because of what they can see in the drop-down menu and it won't have any new ones - making the list and some selections obsolete. On the Google Developer API Web Fonts page, it talks briefly on retrieving a "dynamic list" using JSON/JavaScript. I was wondering how would I be able to pull the Google Web Fonts API into my Wordpress Theme Options page so I'm not creating my own list or have to constantly release an update to solve this issue. Could someone please walk me through what I would need to paste into my options.php, functions.php, /inc/options-framework.php file etc. or even in a new one to implement this? I've also had a look into some screencasts, plugins and tutorials on how it works, but none of them are specific enough for people just starting out. Please keep in mind I'm not the best coder... Thank you.

    Read the article

  • An XEvent a Day (26 of 31) – Configuring Session Options

    - by Jonathan Kehayias
    There are 7 Session level options that can be configured in Extended Events that affect the way an Event Session operates.  These options can impact performance and should be considered when configuring an Event Session.  I have made use of a few of these periodically throughout this months blog posts, and in today’s blog post I’ll cover each of the options separately, and provide further information about their usage.  Mike Wachal from the Extended Events team at Microsoft, talked...(read more)

    Read the article

  • New DataCenter Options for Windows Azure

    - by ScottKlein
    Effective immediately, new compute and storage resource options are now available when selecting data center options in the Windows Azure Portal. "West US" and "East US" options are now available, for Compute and Storage. SQL Azure options for these two data centers will be available in the next few months. The official announcement can be found here.In terms of geo-replication:US East and West are paired together for Windows Azure Storage geo-replicationUS North and South are paired together for Windows Azure Storage geo-replicationThese two new data centers are now visible in the Windows Azure Management Portal effective immediately. Compute and Storage pricing remains the same across all data centers. Get started with Windows Azure through the free 90 day trial.

    Read the article

  • How to get IIS6 to respond to the OPTIONS verb?

    - by puffpio
    I have a WCF webservice hosted in IIS6 that another site will POST to in a cross domain manner using jquery. Because it is a cross domain POST, the browser first sends an OPTIONS verb with Access-Control-Request-Method: POST However, IIS6 does not respond back with anything. Is this something that I need to handle at a web service level or something at the IIS level?

    Read the article

  • Which compiler option I should choose?

    - by Surjya Narayana Padhi
    Hi Geeks, I have to use the third party static library for my qt application to run on windows. The third party provides me a .lib and .h file for use. These libraries are compiled with MSVC compiler. My qt Creator is using MinGW compiler to compile my application. I copied the .h and .lib file to my qt project directory and then added those in .pro file as follows QT += core gui TARGET = MyTest TEMPLATE = app LIBS += C:\Qt\2010.05\qt\MyTest\newApi.lib SOURCES += main.cpp\ mainwindow.cpp HEADERS += mainwindow.h \ newApi.h FORMS += mainwindow.ui Now I am getting some runtime error like this - Starting C:\Qt\2010.05\qt\MyTest-build-desktop\debug\MyTest.exe... C:\Qt\2010.05\qt\MyTest-build-desktop\debug\MyTest.exe exited with code -1073741515 Can any body suggest is this runtime error is due to mismatch of compiler? (because of my .lib file I added is comipled in MSVC compiler and my qt app is compiled using MinGW compiler) If not what may be the reason? Am I missing anything in adding the .h and .lib file to my qt project? If my MinGW compiler will not support the .lib file generated in MSVC compiler what may be the work-arround? Can I create the .lib files in MinGW compiler? or this format is supported only by MSVC compiler only? Please suggest...

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >