Search Results

Search found 14942 results on 598 pages for 'dependency management'.

Page 9/598 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Release/Change management - best aproach

    - by Bob Rivers
    I asked this question an year ago in StackOverflow and never got a good answer. Since Programmers seems to be a better place to ask it, I'll give it a try... What is the better way to work with release management? More specifically what would be the best way to release packages? For example, assuming that you have a relatively stable system, a good quality assurance process (QA), etc. How do you prefer to release new versions? Let's assume that we are talking about a mid to large "centralized" web system (no clients), in-house development. This system can be considered "vital" for a corporate operations. I have a tendency to prefer to do this by releasing packets at regular intervals, not greater than 1 to 3 months. During this period, I will include into the package,fixes and improvements and make the implementation in production environment only once. But I've seen some people who prefer to place small changes in production, but with a greater frequency. The claim of these people is that by doing so, it is easier to identify bugs that have gone through the process of QA: in a package with 10 changes and another with only 1, it is much easier to know what caused the problem in the package with just one change... What is the opinion came from you?

    Read the article

  • Stakeholder Management in OUM

    - by user719921
    Where is Stakeholder Management in OUM?  Stakeholder Management typically falls into the purview of the Project Manager, which means much of the associated guidance is found in the OUM Manage Focus Area (a.k.a. Manage).  There is no process in Manage named Stakeholder Management, but this “touch point” can be found in a variety of other processes including Bid Transition (BT), Communication Management (CMM) and Organizational Change Management (OCHM). •         Stakeholder management starts in the Bid Transition process with Stakeholder Analysis •         This Stakeholder Analysis is used to build the Project Team Communication Plan in the Communication Management process. •         Stakeholder management should be executed during the Execution and Control phase.  For example, as issues are resolved, the project manager should take the action item to follow up with the affected stakeholders to ensure they are aware that the issue has been resolved. •       The broader topic of Stakeholder management is also addressed very thoroughly in the Organizational Change Management process in the Implement Focus Area, which is a touch point to the Organizational Change Management process in Manage. Check it out and let me know your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • Agile project management, agile development: early integration

    - by Matías Fidemraizer
    I believe that agile works if everything is agile. In software development area, in my opinion, if team members' code is integrated early, code will be more in sync and this has a lot of pros: Early integration helps team members to avoid painful merges. Encourages better coding habits, because everyone makes sure that they don't break co-workers' code everyday. Both developers and architects (code reviewers) may detect bad design decisions or just wrong development directions in real-time, preventing useless work. Actually I'm talking about getting the latest version of code base and checking-in your own code to the source control in a daily basis. When you start your coding day (i.e. you arrive to your work), your first action is updating your code base with the latest version from the source control. In the other hand, when you're about an hour to leave from your work and go home, your last action is checking-in your code to the source control and be sure that your day work doesn't break the project's build process. Rather than updating and checking-in your code once you finished an entire task, I believe the best approach is fixing small and flexible personal milestones and checking-in the code once you finish one of these. I really believe that this coding approach fits better in the agile project management concept. Do you know some document, blog post, wiki, article or whatever that you can suggest me that could be in sync with my opinion?. And, do you find any problem working with this approach?. Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Object pools for efficient resource management

    - by GameDevEnthusiast
    How can I avoid using default new() to create each object? My previous demo had very unpleasant framerate hiccups during dynamic memory allocations (usually, when arrays are resized), and creating lots of small objects which often contain one pointer to some DirectX resource seems like an awful lot of waste. I'm thinking about: Creating a master look-up table to refer to objects by handles (for safety & ease of serialization), much like EntityList in source engine Creating a templated object pool, which will store items contiguously (more cache-friendly, fast iteration, etc.) and the stored elements will be accessed (by external systems) via the global lookup table. The object pool will use the swap-with-last trick for fast removal (it will invoke the object's ~destructor first) and will update the corresponding indices in the global table accordingly (when growing/shrinking/moving elements). The elements will be copied via plain memcpy(). Is it a good idea? Will it be safe to store objects of non-POD types (e.g. pointers, vtable) in such containers? Related post: Dynamic Memory Allocation and Memory Management

    Read the article

  • Identity Management: The New Olympic Sport

    - by Naresh Persaud
    How Virgin Media Lit Up the London Tube for the Olympics with Oracle If you are at Open World and have an interest in Identity Management, this promises to be an exciting session. Wed, October 3rd Session CON3957: Delivering Secure Wi-Fi on the Tube as an Olympics Legacy from London 2012 Session Time: 11:45am-12:45pm Session Location: Moscone West L3, Room 3003 Speakers: Perry Banton - IT Architect, Virgin Media                    Ben Bulpett - Director, aurionPro SENA In this session, Virgin Media, the U.K.'s first combined provider of broadband, TV, mobile, and home phone services, shares how it is providing free secure Wi-Fi services to the London Underground, using Oracle Virtual Directory and Oracle Entitlements Server, leveraging back-end legacy systems that were never designed to be externalized. As an Olympics 2012 legacy, the Oracle architecture will form a platform to be consumed by other Virgin Media services such as video on demand. Click here for more information.

    Read the article

  • Project Management Software / 1 maybe 2 developers

    - by Ominus
    I am looking for software that I can use to "manage" multiple projects (5 - 10). Here are the features I would like but any recommendation is welcome. Bug/Feature tracking on a per project basis. Some way to keep all documents, diagrams, specs, requirements, in one place with the project. Better yet a tool where all these things or most of them could be authored. Task management during the development phase with milestones and estimates/actuals. Git integration I have been doing contract work and i have been doing really well for myself as far as getting projects but its becoming VERY hard to manage everything in an efficient manner. I am trying to learn about best practices when it comes to software programming methodologies and the more I read the more i realize that I am just managing these projects poorly. I am getting things done but the more I take on the less "solid" everything is. I am afraid if I don't get some good solid tools/practices in place I am going to do my customers and myself a disservice. The problem is that there are SO many options that its hard to weed through them all. I was at a point today where I had decided that I would just code my own (there is some irony here)! Obviously everyone has their likes dislikes I would love to hear from some of you lone programmers and how you manage everything since our needs aren't exactly the same thing that a large team might need. I also want a solution that can scale to 2 maybe 3 developers if I end up hiring some people to help with my work load. Thanks again for your usual insights!

    Read the article

  • Quantify value for management

    - by nivlam
    We have two different legacy systems (window services in this case) that do exactly the same thing. Both of these systems have small differences for the different applications they serve. Both of these system's core functionality lies within a shared library. Most of the time, the updates occur in the shared library and we simply deploy the updated library to both of these systems. The systems themselves rarely change. Since both of these systems do essentially the same thing, our development team would like to consolidate these two systems into a single service. What can I do to convince management to allocate time for such a task? Some of the points I've noted are: Easier maintenance Decrease testing/QA time Unfortunately, this isn't enough. They would like us to provide them with hard numbers on the amount of hours this will save in the future and how this will speed up future development. Since most of the work is done in the shared library and the systems themselves never change, it's hard for us to quantify how many hours this will save. What kind of arguments can I make to justify the extra work to consolidate these systems?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 LTS initramfs-tools dependency issue

    - by Mike
    I know this has been asked several times, but each issue and resolution seems different. I've tried almost everything I could think of, but I can't fix this. I have a VM (VMware I think) running 12.04.03 LTS which has stuck dependencies. The VM is on a rented host, running a live system so I don't want to break it (further). uname -a Linux support 3.5.0-36-generic #57~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 20 18:21:09 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Some more: sudo apt-get update [sudo] password for tracker: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done You might want to run ‘apt-get -f install’ to correct these. The following packages have unmet dependencies. initramfs-tools : Depends: initramfs-tools-bin (< 0.99ubuntu13.1.1~) but 0.99ubuntu13.3 is installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try using -f. sudo apt-get install -f Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Correcting dependencies... Done The following extra packages will be installed: initramfs-tools The following packages will be upgraded: initramfs-tools 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded. 2 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0 B/50.3 kB of archives. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Y dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of initramfs-tools: initramfs-tools depends on initramfs-tools-bin (<< 0.99ubuntu13.1.1~); however: Version of initramfs-tools-bin on system is 0.99ubuntu13.3. dpkg: error processing initramfs-tools (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because the error message indicates it's a follow-up error from a previous failure. dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of apparmor: apparmor depends on initramfs-tools; however: Package initramfs-tools is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing apparmor (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because the error message indicates it's a follow-up error from a previous failure. Errors were encountered while processing: initramfs-tools apparmor E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) If I look at the policy behind initramfs-tools / bin I get: apt-cache policy initramfs-tools initramfs-tools: Installed: 0.99ubuntu13.1 Candidate: 0.99ubuntu13.3 Version table: 0.99ubuntu13.3 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates/main amd64 Packages *** 0.99ubuntu13.1 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 0.99ubuntu13 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main amd64 Packages apt-cache policy initramfs-tools-bin initramfs-tools-bin: Installed: 0.99ubuntu13.3 Candidate: 0.99ubuntu13.3 Version table: *** 0.99ubuntu13.3 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 0.99ubuntu13 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main amd64 Packages So the issue seems to be I have 0.99ubuntu13.3 for initramfs-tools-bin yet 0.99ubuntu13.1 for initramfs-tools, and can't upgrade to 0.99ubuntu13.3. I've performed apt-get clean/autoclean/install -f/upgrade -f many times but they won't resolve. I can think of only 2 other 'solutions': Edit the dpkg dependency list to trick it into doing the installation with a broken dependency. This seems very dodgy and it would be a last resort Downgrade both initramfs-tools and initramfs-tools-bin to 0.99ubuntu13 from the precise/main sources and hope that would get them in step. However I'm not sure if this will be possible, or whether it would introduce more issues. I'm not sure how this situation arise in the first place. /boot was 96% full; it's now 56% full (it's tiny - 64MB ... this is what I got from the hosting company). Can anyone offer advice please?

    Read the article

  • Rhino Mocks, Dependency Injection, and Separation of Concerns

    - by whatispunk
    I am new to mocking and dependency injection and need some guidance. My application is using a typical N-Tier architecture where the BLL references the DAL, and the UI references the BLL but not the DAL. Pretty straight forward. Lets say, for example, I have the following classes: class MyDataAccess : IMyDataAccess {} class MyBusinessLogic {} Each exists in a separate assembly. I want to mock MyDataAccess in the tests for MyBusinessLogic. So I added a constructor to the MyBusinessLogic class to take an IMyDataAccess parameter for the dependency injection. But now when I try to create an instance of MyBusinessLogic on the UI layer it requires a reference to the DAL. I thought I could define a default constructor on MyBusinessLogic to set a default IMyDataAccess implementation, but not only does this seem like a codesmell it didn't actually solve the problem. I'd still have a public constructor with IMyDataAccess in the signature. So the UI layer still requires a reference to the DAL in order to compile. One possible solution I am toying with is to create an internal constructor for MyBusinessLogic with the IMyDataAccess parameter. Then I can use an Accessor from the test project to call the constructor. But there's still that smell. What is the common solution here. I must just be doing something wrong. How could I improve the architecture?

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection and factory

    - by legenden
    Trying to figure out how to best handle the following scenario: Assume a RequestContext class which has a dependency to an external service, such as: public class RequestContext : IRequestContext { private readonly ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> _weatherService; public RequestContext(ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> weatherService, UserLocation location, string query) { _weatherService = weatherService; ... What sort of dependency should I require in the class that will ultimately instantiate RequestContext? It could be ServiceFactory<IWeatherService>, but that doesn't seem right, or I could create an IRequestContextFactory for it along the lines of: public class RequestContextFactory : IRequestContextFactory { private readonly ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> _weatherService; public RequestContextFactory(ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> weatherService) { _weatherService = weatherService; } public RequestContext Create(UserLocation location, string query) { return new RequestContext(_weatherService, location, query); } } And then pass the IRequestContextFactory through constructor injection. This seems like a good way to do it, but the problem with this approach is that I think it hinders discoverability (devs must know about the factory and implement it, which is not really apparent). Is there a better/more discoverable way that I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • How to update a custom dependency property when the datasource list changes

    - by John
    Hi We have a user control with a custom dependency property (DP). The DP is bound to an ObservableCollection. When a new item is added to the collection programatically, the databinding does not update the target DP. Why? We think it's because, unfortunately, in our case the target is not a ListBox or ListView, but a Canvas. The DP, when changed or initialized, is supposed to draw a Shape (!) onto the Canvas, and the shape's position and size is bound to the collection item's two properties: WIDTH, LEFT. Ideally we don't want to clear the Canvas and redraw all items just becasue one has been added (or deleted). But how? So: How can the custom DP take care of drawing the shape for the new collection item? What callback do we need, at what point in time does this have to happen, and what specific MetaDataOptions might there? Also, are there any good resources out there concerning all these dependency property options. They are quite confusing. MSDN does not really help with what we're trying to do. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Simplifying Testing through design considerations while utilizing dependency injection

    - by Adam Driscoll
    We are a few months into a green-field project to rework the Logic and Business layers of our product. By utilizing MEF (dependency injection) we have achieved high levels of code coverage and I believe that we have a pretty solid product. As we have been working through some of the more complex logic I have found it increasingly difficult to unit test. We are utilizing the CompositionContainer to query for types required by these complex algorithms. My unit tests are sometimes difficult to follow due to the lengthy mock object setup process that must take place, just right, to allow for certain circumstances to be verified. My unit tests often take me longer to write than the code that I'm trying to test. I realize this is not only an issue with dependency injection but with design as a whole. Is poor method design or lack of composition to blame for my overly complex tests? I've tried base classing tests, creating commonly used mock objects and ensuring that I utilize the container as much as possible to ease this issue but my tests always end up quite complex and hard to debug. What are some tips that you've seen to keep such tests concise, readable, and effective?

    Read the article

  • Stuck trying to get Log4Net to work with Dependency Injection

    - by Pure.Krome
    I've got a simple winform test app i'm using to try some Log4Net Dependency Injection stuff. I've made a simple interface in my Services project :- public interface ILogging { void Debug(string message); // snip the other's. } Then my concrete type will be using Log4Net... public class Log4NetLogging : ILogging { private static ILog Log4Net { get { return LogManager.GetLogger( MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType); } } public void Debug(string message) { if (Log4Net.IsDebugEnabled) { Log4Net.Debug(message); } } } So far so good. Nothing too hard there. Now, in a different project (and therefore namesapce), I try and use this ... public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { FileInfo fileInfo = new FileInfo("Log4Net.config"); log4net.Config.XmlConfigurator.Configure(fileInfo); } private void Foo() { // This would be handled with DI, but i've not set it up // (on the constructor, in this code example). ILogging logging = new Log4NetLogging(); logging.Debug("Test message"); } } Ok .. also pretty simple. I've hardcoded the ILogging instance but that is usually dependency injected via the constructor. Anyways, when i check this line of code... return LogManager.GetLogger(MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType); the DeclaringType type value is of the Service namespace, not the type of the Form (ie. X.Y.Z.Form1) which actually called the method. Without passing the type INTO method as another argument, is there anyway using reflection to figure out the real method that called it?

    Read the article

  • typedef struct, circular dependency, forward definitions

    - by BlueChip
    The problem I have is a circular dependency issue in C header files ...Having looked around I suspect the solution will have something to do with Forward Definitions, but although there are many similar problems listed, none seem to offer the information I require to resolve this one... I have the following 5 source files: // fwd1.h #ifndef __FWD1_H #define __FWD1_H #include "fwd2.h" typedef struct Fwd1 { Fwd2 *f; } Fwd1; void fwd1 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) ; #endif // __FWD1_H . // fwd1.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" void fwd1 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) { return; } . // fwd2.h #ifndef __FWD2_H #define __FWD2_H #include "fwd1.h" typedef struct Fwd2 { Fwd1 *f; } Fwd2; void fwd2 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) ; #endif // __FWD2_H . // fwd2.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" void fwd2 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) { return; } . // fwdMain.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" int main (int argc, char** argv, char** env) { Fwd1 *f1 = (Fwd1*)0; Fwd2 *f2 = (Fwd2*)0; fwd1(f1, f2); fwd2(f1, f2); return 0; } Which I am compiling with the command: gcc fwdMain.c fwd1.c fwd2.c -o fwd -Wall I have tried several ideas to resolve the compile errors, but have only managed to replace the errors with other errors ...How do I resolve the circular dependency issue with the least changes to my code? ...Ideally, as a matter of coding style, I would like to avoid putting the word "struct" all over my code.

    Read the article

  • C++ and Dependency Injection in unit testing

    - by lhumongous
    Suppose I have a C++ class like so: class A { public: A() { } void SetNewB( const B& _b ) { m_B = _b; } private: B m_B; } In order to unit test something like this, I would have to break A's dependency on B. Since class A holds onto an actual object and not a pointer, I would have to refactor this code to take a pointer. Additionally, I would need to create a parent interface class for B so I can pass in my own fake of B when I test SetNewB. In this case, doesn't unit testing with dependency injection further complicate the existing code? If I make B a pointer, I'm now introducing heap allocation, and some piece of code is now responsible for cleaning it up (unless I use ref counted pointers). Additionally, if B is a rather trivial class with only a couple of member variables and functions, why introduce a whole new interface for it instead of just testing with an instance of B? I suppose you could make the argument that it would be easier to refactor A by using an interface. But are there some cases where two classes might need to be tightly coupled?

    Read the article

  • DCI: How to implement Context with Dependency Injection?

    - by ciscoheat
    Most examples of a DCI Context are implemented as a Command pattern. When using Dependency Injection though, it's useful to have the dependencies injected in the constructor and send the parameters into the executing method. Compare the Command pattern class: public class SomeContext { private readonly SomeRole _someRole; private readonly IRepository<User> _userRepository; // Everything goes into the constructor for a true encapsuled command. public SomeContext(SomeRole someRole, IRepository<User> userRepository) { _someRole = someRole; _userRepository = userRepository; } public void Execute() { _someRole.DoStuff(_userRepository); } } With the Dependency injected class: public class SomeContext { private readonly IRepository<User> _userRepository; // Only what can be injected using the DI provider. public SomeContext(IRepository<User> userRepository) { _userRepository = userRepository; } // Parameters from the executing method public void Execute(SomeRole someRole) { someRole.DoStuff(_userRepository); } } The last one seems a bit nicer, but I've never seen it implemented like this so I'm curious if there are any things to consider.

    Read the article

  • ConfigServer Security and Firewall -- after setup, how much daily management required?

    - by Hope4You
    I'm looking at using ConfigServer Security and Firewall (CSF; iptables-based). After I configure it properly, how much daily ongoing management is required of me to keep my server secure? Am I going to be flooded with "alert" emails that I need to check? Or does the firewall automatically take care of most security threats for me? Note: I understand that there's more to server security than just a software firewall, but this question is specifically for CSF security management.

    Read the article

  • Notes on Oracle BPM PS6 Adaptive Case Management

    - by gcolman
    v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} I have recently been looking at the  latest release of the BPM Case Management feature in the Oracle BPM PS6 release. I had put together some notes to help me gain a better understanding of the context of the PS6 BPM Case Management. Hopefully, this along with the other resources will enable you to gain a clear picture of the flexibility of this feature. Oracle BPM PS6 release includes Case Management capability. This initial release aims to provide: Case Management Framework Integration of Case Management with BPM & SOA suite It is best to regard the current PS6 case management feature as a case management framework. The framework provides the building blocks for creating a case management system that is fully integrated into Oracle BPM suite. As of the current PS6 release, no UI tooling exists to help manage cases or the case lifecycle. Mark Foster has written a good blog which outlines Case Management within PS6 in the following link. I wanted to provide more context on Case Management from my perspective in this blog. PS6 Case Management - High level View BPM PS6 includes “Case” as a first class component in a SOA Suite composite. The Case components (added to the SOA Composite) are created when a BPM process is assigned to a case in JDveloper. The SOA Case component is defined and configured within JDevloper, which allows us to specify the case data structures and metadata such as stakeholders, outcomes, milestones, document stores etc. "Activities" are associated with a case, and become available to be executed via the case apis. Activities are BPM processes, Human Activities or Java call outs. The PS6 release includes some additional database tables to store the case metadata and case instance data (data object, comments, etc…). These new tables are created within the SOA_INFRA schema and the documents associated with that case into a document repository that is configured with the case. One of the main features of Case Management is the control of the case logic through case events and case business rules. A PS6 Case has an associated business rule component, which can be configured to control the availability and execution of activities within the case. The business rules component is able to act upon events that the PS6 Case Management framework generates during the lifecycle of that case. Events are fired during the lifetime of the case (e.g. Case created, activity started, activity ended, note added, document uploaded.) Internal Case state The internal state of a case is represented by the diagram below. This shows the internal states and the transition paths for a Case from one state to the next Each transition in state will create an event that can be enacted upon via the Case rules engine. The internal case state lifecycle is defined as follows Defining a case A Case is created and defined as a component of a JDeveloper BPM project. When you create a Case as part of a BPM project, JDeveloper, creates the following components within the SCA composite: Case component Case component interfaces (WSDL etc) Case Rules component (Oracle Business Rules) Adds the Case Component and Case Rules Component to the BPM SOA composite Case Configuration The following section gives a high level overview of the items that can be configured for a BPM Case. Case Activities A Case is associated with a set of activities that are to be performed as part of that Case. Case activities can be: SOA Human Tasks BPM processes Custom Task (Java Class) Case activities are created from pre-existing BPM process or human tasks, which, once defined, can be configured additionally as Case activities in JDeveloper and made available within the lifecycle of a case. I've described the following configurable components of a case (very!) briefly as: Milestones Milestones are (optional) user defined logical milestones that can be achieved within a case. No activities are associates with a milestone, but milestone attainment can be programmatically set and events raised when milestones are reached Outcomes User defined status of a completed case. An event is fired when an outcome is attained. Case Data Defines the data that will be stored with a case XML schemas define the data that is stored with the case. Case Documents Defines the location of documents that are attached to a case (e.g. WebCenter Content) User Defined Events Optional user defined events that can be fired or captured to drive case processing rules Stakeholders Defines the actors who can participate in the case (roles, users, groups) Defines permissions for individual case permissions (read case, create document etc…) Business Rules Business rules are the main component controlling the flow of a Case Each case has an associated business ruleset Rules are fired on receiving Case events (or User defined events) Life cycle events Milestone events Activity events Data events Document events Comment events User event Managing the Case Managing the lifecycle of a case is achieved in two ways: Managing case logic with Business Rules Managing the case lifecycle via the Case APIs. A BPM Case can be viewed as a set of case data & documents along with the activities that can be performed within a case and also the case lifecycle state expressed as milestones and internal lifecycle state. The management of the case life is achieved though both the configuration of business rules and the “manual” interaction with a case instance through the Case APIs. Business Rules and Case Events A key component within the Case management framework is the event model. The BPM Case Management solution internally utilizes Oracle EDN (Event Delivery Network) to publish and subscribe to events generated by the Case framework. Events are generated by the Case framework on each of the processes and stages that a case instance will travel on its lifetime. The following case events are part of the BPM Case: Life cycle events Milestone events Activity events Data events Document events Comment events User event The Case business rules are configured to listen for these events, and business logic can be coded into the Case rules component to enact upon an event being received. Case API & Interaction Along with the business rules component, Cases can be managed via the Case API interfaces. These interfaces allow for the building of custom applications to integrate into case management framework. The API’s allow for updating case comments & documents, executing case activities, updating milestones etc. As there is no in built case management UI functions within the PS6 release, Cases need to be managed via a custom built UI, interacting with selected case instances, launching case activities, closing cases etc. (There is expected to be a UI component within subsequent releases) Logical Case Flow The diagram below is intended to depict a logical view of the case steps for a typical case. A UI or other service calls the Case interface to create a Case instance The case instance is created & database data inserted A lifecycle event is raised indicating a case activity (created) event The case business rules capture the event and decide on an action to take Additionally other parties can subscribe to Case events via EDN The business rules may handle the event, e.g. configured to execute a case activity on case creation event The BPM/Human Workflow/Custom activity is executed A case activity event is raised on the execute activity A case work UI or business service can inspect the case instance and call other actions to progress that case, such as: Execute activity Add Note Add document Add case data Update Milestone Raise user defined event Suspend case Resume case Close Case Summary Having had a little time to play around with the APIs and the case configuration, I really like the flexibility and power of combining Oracle Business Rules and the BPM Case Management event model. Creating something this flexible and powerful without BPM Case Management would take a lot of time and effort. This is hopefully going to save my customers a lot of time and effort! I may make amendments to this post as my understanding of Case Management increases! Take a look at the following links for official documentation etc. http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E28280_01/doc.1111/e15176/case_mgmt_bpmpd.htm https://blogs.oracle.com/bpm/entry/just_in_case Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}

    Read the article

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