Search Results

Search found 235 results on 10 pages for 'ea'.

Page 1/10 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >

  • Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture (EA)

    - by TedMcLaughlan
    Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture A taxonomy of subject areas, from which to develop a prioritized marketing and communications plan to evangelize EA activities within and among US Federal Government organizations and constituents. Any and all feedback is appreciated, particularly in developing and extending this discussion as a tool for use – more information and details are also available. "Selling" the discipline of Enterprise Architecture (EA) in the Federal Government (particularly in non-DoD agencies) is difficult, notwithstanding the general availability and use of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) for some time now, and the relatively mature use of the reference models in the OMB Capital Planning and Investment (CPIC) cycles. EA in the Federal Government also tends to be a very esoteric and hard to decipher conversation – early apologies to those who agree to continue reading this somewhat lengthy article. Alignment to the FEAF and OMB compliance mandates is long underway across the Federal Departments and Agencies (and visible via tools like PortfolioStat and ITDashboard.gov – but there is still a gap between the top-down compliance directives and enablement programs, and the bottom-up awareness and effective use of EA for either IT investment management or actual mission effectiveness. "EA isn't getting deep enough penetration into programs, components, sub-agencies, etc.", verified a panelist at the most recent EA Government Conference in DC. Newer guidance from OMB may be especially difficult to handle, where bottom-up input can't be accurately aligned, analyzed and reported via standardized EA discipline at the Agency level – for example in addressing the new (for FY13) Exhibit 53D "Agency IT Reductions and Reinvestments" and the information required for "Cloud Computing Alternatives Evaluation" (supporting the new Exhibit 53C, "Agency Cloud Computing Portfolio"). Therefore, EA must be "sold" directly to the communities that matter, from a coordinated, proactive messaging perspective that takes BOTH the Program-level value drivers AND the broader Agency mission and IT maturity context into consideration. Selling EA means persuading others to take additional time and possibly assign additional resources, for a mix of direct and indirect benefits – many of which aren't likely to be realized in the short-term. This means there's probably little current, allocated budget to work with; ergo the challenge of trying to sell an "unfunded mandate". Also, the concept of "Enterprise" in large Departments like Homeland Security tends to cross all kinds of organizational boundaries – as Richard Spires recently indicated by commenting that "...organizational boundaries still trump functional similarities. Most people understand what we're trying to do internally, and at a high level they get it. The problem, of course, is when you get down to them and their system and the fact that you're going to be touching them...there's always that fear factor," Spires said. It is quite clear to the Federal IT Investment community that for EA to meet its objective, understandable, relevant value must be measured and reported using a repeatable method – as described by GAO's recent report "Enterprise Architecture Value Needs To Be Measured and Reported". What's not clear is the method or guidance to sell this value. In fact, the current GAO "Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0)", a.k.a. the "EAMMF", does not include words like "sell", "persuade", "market", etc., except in reference ("within Core Element 19: Organization business owner and CXO representatives are actively engaged in architecture development") to a brief section in the CIO Council's 2001 "Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture", entitled "3.3.1. Develop an EA Marketing Strategy and Communications Plan." Furthermore, Core Element 19 of the EAMMF is advised to be applied in "Stage 3: Developing Initial EA Versions". This kind of EA sales campaign truly should start much earlier in the maturity progress, i.e. in Stages 0 or 1. So, what are the understandable, relevant benefits (or value) to sell, that can find an agreeable, participatory audience, and can pave the way towards success of a longer-term, funded set of EA mechanisms that can be methodically measured and reported? Pragmatic benefits from a useful EA that can help overcome the fear of change? And how should they be sold? Following is a brief taxonomy (it's a taxonomy, to help organize SME support) of benefit-related subjects that might make the most sense, in creating the messages and organizing an initial "engagement plan" for evangelizing EA "from within". An EA "Sales Taxonomy" of sorts. We're not boiling the ocean here; the subjects that are included are ones that currently appear to be urgently relevant to the current Federal IT Investment landscape. Note that successful dialogue in these topics is directly usable as input or guidance for actually developing early-stage, "Fit-for-Purpose" (a DoDAF term) Enterprise Architecture artifacts, as prescribed by common methods found in most EA methodologies, including FEAF, TOGAF, DoDAF and our own Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework (OEAF). The taxonomy below is organized by (1) Target Community, (2) Benefit or Value, and (3) EA Program Facet - as in: "Let's talk to (1: Community Member) about how and why (3: EA Facet) the EA program can help with (2: Benefit/Value)". Once the initial discussion targets and subjects are approved (that can be measured and reported), a "marketing and communications plan" can be created. A working example follows the Taxonomy. Enterprise Architecture Sales Taxonomy Draft, Summary Version 1. Community 1.1. Budgeted Programs or Portfolios Communities of Purpose (CoPR) 1.1.1. Program/System Owners (Senior Execs) Creating or Executing Acquisition Plans 1.1.2. Program/System Owners Facing Strategic Change 1.1.2.1. Mandated 1.1.2.2. Expected/Anticipated 1.1.3. Program Managers - Creating Employee Performance Plans 1.1.4. CO/COTRs – Creating Contractor Performance Plans, or evaluating Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP) 1.2. Governance & Communications Communities of Practice (CoP) 1.2.1. Policy Owners 1.2.1.1. OCFO 1.2.1.1.1. Budget/Procurement Office 1.2.1.1.2. Strategic Planning 1.2.1.2. OCIO 1.2.1.2.1. IT Management 1.2.1.2.2. IT Operations 1.2.1.2.3. Information Assurance (Cyber Security) 1.2.1.2.4. IT Innovation 1.2.1.3. Information-Sharing/ Process Collaboration (i.e. policies and procedures regarding Partners, Agreements) 1.2.2. Governing IT Council/SME Peers (i.e. an "Architects Council") 1.2.2.1. Enterprise Architects (assumes others exist; also assumes EA participants aren't buried solely within the CIO shop) 1.2.2.2. Domain, Enclave, Segment Architects – i.e. the right affinity group for a "shared services" EA structure (per the EAMMF), which may be classified as Federated, Segmented, Service-Oriented, or Extended 1.2.2.3. External Oversight/Constraints 1.2.2.3.1. GAO/OIG & Legal 1.2.2.3.2. Industry Standards 1.2.2.3.3. Official public notification, response 1.2.3. Mission Constituents Participant & Analyst Community of Interest (CoI) 1.2.3.1. Mission Operators/Users 1.2.3.2. Public Constituents 1.2.3.3. Industry Advisory Groups, Stakeholders 1.2.3.4. Media 2. Benefit/Value (Note the actual benefits may not be discretely attributable to EA alone; EA is a very collaborative, cross-cutting discipline.) 2.1. Program Costs – EA enables sound decisions regarding... 2.1.1. Cost Avoidance – a TCO theme 2.1.2. Sequencing – alignment of capability delivery 2.1.3. Budget Instability – a Federal reality 2.2. Investment Capital – EA illuminates new investment resources via... 2.2.1. Value Engineering – contractor-driven cost savings on existing budgets, direct or collateral 2.2.2. Reuse – reuse of investments between programs can result in savings, chargeback models; avoiding duplication 2.2.3. License Refactoring – IT license & support models may not reflect actual or intended usage 2.3. Contextual Knowledge – EA enables informed decisions by revealing... 2.3.1. Common Operating Picture (COP) – i.e. cross-program impacts and synergy, relative to context 2.3.2. Expertise & Skill – who truly should be involved in architectural decisions, both business and IT 2.3.3. Influence – the impact of politics and relationships can be examined 2.3.4. Disruptive Technologies – new technologies may reduce costs or mitigate risk in unanticipated ways 2.3.5. What-If Scenarios – can become much more refined, current, verifiable; basis for Target Architectures 2.4. Mission Performance – EA enables beneficial decision results regarding... 2.4.1. IT Performance and Optimization – towards 100% effective, available resource utilization 2.4.2. IT Stability – towards 100%, real-time uptime 2.4.3. Agility – responding to rapid changes in mission 2.4.4. Outcomes –measures of mission success, KPIs – vs. only "Outputs" 2.4.5. Constraints – appropriate response to constraints 2.4.6. Personnel Performance – better line-of-sight through performance plans to mission outcome 2.5. Mission Risk Mitigation – EA mitigates decision risks in terms of... 2.5.1. Compliance – all the right boxes are checked 2.5.2. Dependencies –cross-agency, segment, government 2.5.3. Transparency – risks, impact and resource utilization are illuminated quickly, comprehensively 2.5.4. Threats and Vulnerabilities – current, realistic awareness and profiles 2.5.5. Consequences – realization of risk can be mapped as a series of consequences, from earlier decisions or new decisions required for current issues 2.5.5.1. Unanticipated – illuminating signals of future or non-symmetric risk; helping to "future-proof" 2.5.5.2. Anticipated – discovering the level of impact that matters 3. EA Program Facet (What parts of the EA can and should be communicated, using business or mission terms?) 3.1. Architecture Models – the visual tools to be created and used 3.1.1. Operating Architecture – the Business Operating Model/Architecture elements of the EA truly drive all other elements, plus expose communication channels 3.1.2. Use Of – how can the EA models be used, and how are they populated, from a reasonable, pragmatic yet compliant perspective? What are the core/minimal models required? What's the relationship of these models, with existing system models? 3.1.3. Scope – what level of granularity within the models, and what level of abstraction across the models, is likely to be most effective and useful? 3.2. Traceability – the maturity, status, completeness of the tools 3.2.1. Status – what in fact is the degree of maturity across the integrated EA model and other relevant governance models, and who may already be benefiting from it? 3.2.2. Visibility – how does the EA visibly and effectively prove IT investment performance goals are being reached, with positive mission outcome? 3.3. Governance – what's the interaction, participation method; how are the tools used? 3.3.1. Contributions – how is the EA program informed, accept submissions, collect data? Who are the experts? 3.3.2. Review – how is the EA validated, against what criteria?  Taxonomy Usage Example:   1. To speak with: a. ...a particular set of System Owners Facing Strategic Change, via mandate (like the "Cloud First" mandate); about... b. ...how the EA program's visible and easily accessible Infrastructure Reference Model (i.e. "IRM" or "TRM"), if updated more completely with current system data, can... c. ...help shed light on ways to mitigate risks and avoid future costs associated with NOT leveraging potentially-available shared services across the enterprise... 2. ....the following Marketing & Communications (Sales) Plan can be constructed: a. Create an easy-to-read "Consequence Model" that illustrates how adoption of a cloud capability (like elastic operational storage) can enable rapid and durable compliance with the mandate – using EA traceability. Traceability might be from the IRM to the ARM (that identifies reusable services invoking the elastic storage), and then to the PRM with performance measures (such as % utilization of purchased storage allocation) included in the OMB Exhibits; and b. Schedule a meeting with the Program Owners, timed during their Acquisition Strategy meetings in response to the mandate, to use the "Consequence Model" for advising them to organize a rapid and relevant RFI solicitation for this cloud capability (regarding alternatives for sourcing elastic operational storage); and c. Schedule a series of short "Discovery" meetings with the system architecture leads (as agreed by the Program Owners), to further populate/validate the "As-Is" models and frame the "To Be" models (via scenarios), to better inform the RFI, obtain the best feedback from the vendor community, and provide potential value for and avoid impact to all other programs and systems. --end example -- Note that communications with the intended audience should take a page out of the standard "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO) playbook, using keywords and phrases relating to "value" and "outcome" vs. "compliance" and "output". Searches in email boxes, internal and external search engines for phrases like "cost avoidance strategies", "mission performance metrics" and "innovation funding" should yield messages and content from the EA team. This targeted, informed, practical sales approach should result in additional buy-in and participation, additional EA information contribution and model validation, development of more SMEs and quick "proof points" (with real-life testing) to bolster the case for EA. The proof point here is a successful, timely procurement that satisfies not only the external mandate and external oversight review, but also meets internal EA compliance/conformance goals and therefore is more transparently useful across the community. In short, if sold effectively, the EA will perform and be recognized. EA won’t therefore be used only for compliance, but also (according to a validated, stated purpose) to directly influence decisions and outcomes. The opinions, views and analysis expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Oracle.

    Read the article

  • The (non) Importance of Language

    - by Eric A. Stephens
    Working with a variety of clients on EA initiatives one begins to realize that not everyone is a fan of EA. Specifically, they are not a fan of the "a-word". Some organizations have abused this term with creating and assigning the title to just about anyone who demonstrates above average prowess with a particular technology. Other organizations will assign the title to those managers left with no staff after a reorg. Some companies, unfortunately, have simply had a bad go of it with regard to EA...or any "A" for that matter. What we call "EA" is almost irrelevant. But what is not negotiable for those to succeed in business is to manage change. That is what EA is all about. I recall sitting in Zachman training led by himself. He posits the only organizations that don't need EA (or whatever you want to call it) are those that are not changing. My experience suggests those orgs that aren't changing aren't growing. And if you aren't growing, you're dying. Any EA program will not succeed unless there is a desire to change. No desire to change suggests the EA/Advisor/Change Agent should just walk the other way.

    Read the article

  • Forex EA simple coding question [closed]

    - by Evgeny
    I simply want to close all open orders in my EA when equity reaches -250$. I found an EA online that closes all orders. It has one CloseAll() function that closes all orders. So I copied it to my EA and called it in start() function like that: if(AccountBalance()-AccountEquity()< -250) CloseAll(); But EA works as usual, not restarting. If any programmer would point me in the right direction that would be great.

    Read the article

  • The Enterprise Architect (EA) diary - day 22 (from business processes to implemented applications)

    - by nattYGUR
    After spending time on keeping our repository up to date (add new ETRM application and related data flows as well as changing databases to DB clusters), collecting more data for the root cause analysis and spending time for writing proposal to creating new software infrastructure team ( that will help us to clean the table from a pile of problems that just keep on growing due to BAU control over IT dev team resources). I spend time to adapt our EA tool to support a diagram flow from high level business processes to implementation of new applications that will better support the business process. http://www.theeagroup.net/ea/Default.aspx?tabid=1&newsType=ArticleView&articleId=195

    Read the article

  • Current State EA: Focus on the Integration!!!

    - by Eric A. Stephens
    A recent project has me at the front end of a large implementation effort covering multiple software components. In addition to the challenges of integrating 15-20 separate and new software components there is the challenge of integrating the portfolio into an existing environment. Like other clients I've worked with and other environments I've worked in for many years, this is typical. The applications are undocumented and under patched leading to a mystery for any architect leading change.  We can boil down most architecture development methodologies (ADM) into first understanding the current/baseline state and then envisioning one or more future states. Many pundits emphasize the need to focus on the future/target states. I agree since enterprise architecture (EA) is about where you are going and not so much where you have been. But to be effective in the future, I contend some focused time needs to be spent on the current state. And specifically on the integration. Integration is always the difficult part of a project (I might put it more coarsely at a cocktail party). While I don't have a case study, my anecdotal experience suggests poorly integrated application portfolios tend to cost more to operate and create entropy when trying to respond to new changes and opportunities. In the aforementioned project, I was able to get one of our EAs assigned to focus on just integration almost immediately. While we're still early in the process, this EA is uncovering all sorts of information that will greatly assist our future state planning for this solution. This information is driving early decision making that we anticipate will accelerate our efforts moving forward. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    Read the article

  • Even EA's Have Bad Days - it's Time to Reset

    - by Pat Shepherd
    I saw this article and thought I'd share it because, even we EA's have bad days and the 7 points listed are a great way for you to hit the "reset" button. From Geoffrey James on INC.COM, here are 7 ways to change your view of things when, say, you are hitting a frustration point coordinating stakeholders to agree on an approach (never happens, right?) Positive Thinking: 7 Easy Ways to Improve a Bad Day http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/positive-thinking-7-easy-ways-to-improve-a-bad-day.html To paraphrase:          You can decide (in an instant) to change patterns of the past          Believe in (or even visualize) good things happening, and they will          Keep a healthy perspective on the work-life / life-life continuum (what things REALLY matter in the big scheme of things)                  Focus on the good (the laws of positive-attraction apply)

    Read the article

  • CIO Magazine's State of the CIO and its Impact on Your EA

    - by david.olivencia(at)oracle.com
    CIO Magazine today released its State of the CIO report.  As most Enterpise Architects report to (or report very close to) the CIO, the report provides interesting insights as to where most CIOs minds and priorities are.  The information will allow Enterprise Architects  to better align plans, approaches, models, and stratagies. The report's summary can be found here:  http://assets.cio.com/documents/cache/pdfs/2011/dec15_gatefold.pdf   Specifically the article highlights: * How IT Makes A Difference * Critical Leadership Skills * Business Focused CIOs * Areas of Increasing Responsibility * Plans for 2015   Enterprise Architects what insights from this report will alter they way you successfully lead in 2011?   David Olivencia | Solution Director, Enterprise Architecture & Exa ServicesOracle Consulting Latin America and Caribbean

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Subquery or Join – Various Options – SQL Server Engine Knows the Best – Part 2

    - by pinaldave
    This blog post is part 2 of the earlier written article SQL SERVER – Subquery or Join – Various Options – SQL Server Engine knows the Best by Paulo R. Pereira. Paulo has left excellent comment to earlier article once again proving the point that SQL Server Engine is smart enough to figure out the best plan itself and uses the same for the query. Let us go over his comment as he has posted. “I think IN or EXISTS is the best choice, because there is a little difference between ‘Merge Join’ of query with JOIN (Inner Join) and the others options (Left Semi Join), and JOIN can give more results than IN or EXISTS if the relationship is 1:0..N and not 1:0..1. And if I try use NOT IN and NOT EXISTS the query plan is different from LEFT JOIN too (Left Anti Semi Join vs. Left Outer Join + Filter). So, I found a case where EXISTS has a different query plan than IN or ANY/SOME:” USE AdventureWorks GO -- use of SOME SELECT * FROM HumanResources.Employee E WHERE E.EmployeeID = SOME ( SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeAddress EA UNION ALL SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeDepartmentHistory EA ) -- use of IN SELECT * FROM HumanResources.Employee E WHERE E.EmployeeID IN ( SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeAddress EA UNION ALL SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeDepartmentHistory EA ) -- use of EXISTS SELECT * FROM HumanResources.Employee E WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeAddress EA UNION ALL SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeDepartmentHistory EA ) When looked into execution plan of the queries listed above indeed we do get different plans for queries and SQL Server Engines creates the best (least cost) plan for each query. Click on image to see larger images. Thanks Paulo for your wonderful contribution. Reference : Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, Readers Contribution, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Joins, SQL Optimization, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Subquery or Join – Various Options – SQL Server Engine knows the Best

    - by pinaldave
    This is followup post of my earlier article SQL SERVER – Convert IN to EXISTS – Performance Talk, after reading all the comments I have received I felt that I could write more on the same subject to clear few things out. First let us run following four queries, all of them are giving exactly same resultset. USE AdventureWorks GO -- use of = SELECT * FROM HumanResources.Employee E WHERE E.EmployeeID = ( SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeAddress EA WHERE EA.EmployeeID = E.EmployeeID) GO -- use of in SELECT * FROM HumanResources.Employee E WHERE E.EmployeeID IN ( SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeAddress EA WHERE EA.EmployeeID = E.EmployeeID) GO -- use of exists SELECT * FROM HumanResources.Employee E WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeAddress EA WHERE EA.EmployeeID = E.EmployeeID) GO -- Use of Join SELECT * FROM HumanResources.Employee E INNER JOIN HumanResources.EmployeeAddress EA ON E.EmployeeID = EA.EmployeeID GO Let us compare the execution plan of the queries listed above. Click on image to see larger image. It is quite clear from the execution plan that in case of IN, EXISTS and JOIN SQL Server Engines is smart enough to figure out what is the best optimal plan of Merge Join for the same query and execute the same. However, in the case of use of Equal (=) Operator, SQL Server is forced to use Nested Loop and test each result of the inner query and compare to outer query, leading to cut the performance. Please note that here I no mean suggesting that Nested Loop is bad or Merge Join is better. This can very well vary on your machine and amount of resources available on your computer. When I see Equal (=) operator used in query like above, I usually recommend to see if user can use IN or EXISTS or JOIN. As I said, this can very much vary on different system. What is your take in above query? I believe SQL Server Engines is usually pretty smart to figure out what is ideal execution plan and use it. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Joins, SQL Optimization, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • ea: import requirements from csv file

    - by bolekprez
    During import requirements from csv file I have a message: Bad object type when creating new record of type '' File I was trying to import: GUID$Name$Notes$Scope {BF467CF6-FF97-4dd4-894C-3F09E713678C}$NameOfReq$description$Public {71B26F9A-5418-499e-B635-F2DB158D3FF1}$Requirement1$$Public {0}$Requir1$blah$Public First 2 (+header) lines becomes from existing requirements and there is no problem with import. Last line should create a new object of requirement in enterprise architect, but there is a message mentioned above. Any solution? How should proper file to create (import from csv file) a new requirements look like?

    Read the article

  • On Her Majesty's Secret Source Code: .NET Reflector 7 Early Access Builds Now Available

    - by Bart Read
    Dodgy Bond references aside, I'm extremely happy to be able to tell you that we've just released our first .NET Reflector 7 Early Access build. We're going to make these available over the coming weeks via the main .NET Reflector download page at: http://reflector.red-gate.com/Download.aspx Please have a play and tell us what you think in the forum we've set up. Also, please let us know if you run into any problems in the same place. The new version so far comes with numerous decompilation improvements including (after 5 years!) support for iterator blocks - i.e., the yield statement first seen in .NET 2.0. We've also done a lot of work to solidify the support for .NET 4.0. Clive's written about the work he's done to support iterator blocks in much more detail here, along with the odd problem he's encountered when dealing with compiler generated code: http://www.simple-talk.com/community/blogs/clivet/96199.aspx. On the UI front we've started what will ultimately be a rewrite of the entire front-end, albeit broken into stages over two or three major releases. The most obvious addition at the moment is tabbed browsing, which you can see in Figure 1. Figure 1. .NET Reflector's new tabbed decompilation feature. Use CTRL+Click on any item in the assembly browser tree, or any link in the source code view, to open it in a new tab. This isn't by any means finished. I'll be tying up loose ends for the next few weeks, with a major focus on performance and resource usage. .NET Reflector has historically been a largely single-threaded application which has been fine up until now but, as you might expect, the addition of browser-style tabbing has pushed this approach somewhat beyond its limit. You can see this if you refresh the assemblies list by hitting F5. This shows up another problem: we really need to make Reflector remember everything you had open before you refreshed the list, rather than just the last item you viewed - I discovered that it's always done the latter, but it used to hide all panes apart from the treeview after a Refresh, including the decompiler/disassembler window. Ultimately I've got plans to add the whole VS/Chrome/Firefox style ability to drag a tab into the middle of nowhere to spawn a new window, but I need to be mindful of the add-ins, amongst other things, so it's possible that might slip to a 7.5 or 8.0 release. You'll also notice that .NET Reflector 7 now needs .NET 3.5 or later to run. We made this jump because we wanted to offer ourselves a much better chance of adding some really cool functionality to support newer technologies, such as Silverlight and Windows Phone 7. We've also taken the opportunity to start using WPF for UI development, which has frankly been a godsend. The learning curve is practically vertical but, I kid you not, it's just a far better world. Really. Stop using WinForms. Now. Why are you still using it? I had to go back and work on an old WinForms dialog for an hour or two yesterday and it really made me wince. The point is we'll be able to move the UI in some exciting new directions that will make Reflector easier to use whilst continuing to develop its functionality without (and this is key) cluttering the interface. The 3.5 language enhancements should also enable us to be much more productive over the longer term. I know most of you have .NET Fx 3.5 or 4.0 already but, if you do need to install a new version, I'd recommend you jump straight to 4.0 because, for one thing, it's faster, and if you're starting afresh there's really no reason not to. Despite the Fx version jump the Visual Studio add-in should still work fine in Visual Studio 2005, and obviously will continue to work in Visual Studio 2008 and 2010. If you do run into problems, again, please let us know here. As before, we continue to support every edition of Visual Studio exception the Express Editions. Speaking of Visual Studio, we've also been improving the add-in. You can now open and explore decompiled code for any referenced assembly in any project in your solution. Just right-click on the reference, then click Decompile and Explore on the context menu. Reflector will pop up a progress box whilst it decompiles your assembly (Figure 2) - you can move this out of the way whilst you carry on working. Figure 2. Decompilation progress. This isn't modal so you can just move it out of the way and carry on working. Once it's done you can explore your assembly in the Reflector treeview (Figure 3), also accessible via the .NET Reflector Explore Decompiled Assemblies main menu item. Double-click on any item to open decompiled source in the Visual Studio source code view. Use right-click and Go To Definition on the source view context menu to navigate through the code. Figure 3. Using the .NET Reflector treeview within Visual Studio. Double-click on any item to open decompiled source in the source code view. There are loads of other changes and fixes that have gone in, often under the hood, which I don't have room to talk about here, and plenty more to come over the next few weeks. I'll try to keep you abreast of new functionality and changes as they go in. There are a couple of smaller things worth mentioning now though. Firstly, we've reorganised the menus and toolbar in Reflector itself to more closely mirror what you might be used to in other applications. Secondly, we've tried to make some of the functionality more discoverable. For example, you can now switch decompilation target framework version directly from the toolbar - and the default is now .NET 4.0. I think that about covers it for the moment. As I said, please use the new version, and send us your feedback. Here's that download URL again: http://reflector.red-gate.com/Download.aspx. Until next time! Technorati Tags: .net reflector,7,early access,new version,decompilation,tabbing,visual studio,software development,.net,c#,vb

    Read the article

  • Oi! What's going on with the .NET Reflector update mechanism?

    - by Bart Read
    Anyone who's been using .NET Reflector for any length of time will by now be used to its built-in update mechanism. Every 6 months or so it will ask you to upgrade to the latest version and, if you don't, will refuse to work after a few weeks have passed. Love it or hate it, it mostly works pretty well, unless your internet connection is down, in which case it can be a pain in the ass (we're discussing options to improve this situation at the moment because, if you haven't fired it up for a while,...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Basic is Best

    - by Eric A. Stephens
    Fellow foodies will recognize the recent movement towards "farm-to-table" restaurants. These venues attempt to simplify their menus and source ingredients as close to the source as possible. I had the opportunity to dine at such a restaurant the other evening. I was gushing about the appetizer to my server when she described the preparation for the item and then punctuated her comments with "basic is best". I reminded my fellow enterprise architect diners there was an architecture lesson in that statement. They rolled their eyes and chuckled. But they also knew I was right. I'm reminded of Frederick Brooks' book The Mythical Man Month and his latest The Design of Design. The former must read book talks about complexity. But he refrains from damning all complexity. The world we live in and enterprises we strive to transform with enterprise architecture are complicated organisms, much like the human body. But sometimes a simple solution is the best approach. Fewer applications (think: portfolio rationalization). Fewer components. Fewer lines of code. Whatever level of abstraction you are working at, less is more. I'm reminded of the enterprise architecture principle "Control Technical Diversity". At one firm I created pithy catch phrases for each principles. I named this one "Less is More". But perhaps another variation is what my server said the other night, "Basic is Best".

    Read the article

  • MySQL 5 multiple JOIN syntax not working in MySQL 4

    - by draco
    Hello all, the current SQL query works fine locally on MAMP 1.8.4 running MySQL 5.1.37. SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU USING (users_id) JOIN events_admins EA USING (admins_id) ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 10 However, when I bring this query live to production server which is running MySQL 4.1.22-standard, the following error occurred (whether or not there are data in the entry). A Database Error Occurred Error Number: 1054 Unknown column 'sceclub_exclaim2007.EU.admins_id' in 'on clause' SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU USING (users_id) JOIN events_admins EA USING (admins_id) ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 20 This is based on CodeIgniter 1.7.2 and both production and development are running the same set of database. Database tables events_users: users_id users_name users_credits users_matric users_redeem events_admins: admins_id admins_email admins_name admins_pass admins_date admins_modified admins_last_login events_attendance: attendance_id users_id events_id events_events: events_id events_name events_venue events_time events_desc events_pass events_log:log_id admins_id log_actions log_date log_value users_id log_type I'm new to MySQL so I'm not aware of any difference in versions or what could be a possible cause, thank you in advance! Tried googling for MySQL4 difference to no avail too. Also tried using SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU where EL.users_id = EU.users_id JOIN events_admins EA USING EL.admins_id = EA.admins_id ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 10 But then I got the error in both production and development. A Database Error Occurred Error Number: 1064 You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'JOIN events_admins EA USING EL.admins_id = EA.admins_id ORDER BY' at line 8 SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU where EL.users_id = EU.users_id JOIN events_admins EA USING EL.admins_id = EA.admins_id ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 20 If you can point me to some resources where I can read up more on MySQL 4 syntax to achieve the same thing effect like I did with MySQL 5 syntax, please let me know. Thanks again!

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Convert IN to EXISTS – Performance Talk

    - by pinaldave
    In recent training one of the attendee asked if I can show simple method to convert IN clause to EXISTS clause. Here is the simple example. USE AdventureWorks GO -- use of = SELECT * FROM HumanResources.Employee E WHERE E.EmployeeID = ( SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeAddress EA WHERE EA.EmployeeID = E.EmployeeID) GO -- use of exists SELECT * FROM HumanResources.Employee E WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT EA.EmployeeID FROM HumanResources.EmployeeAddress EA WHERE EA.EmployeeID = E.EmployeeID) GO It is NOT necessary that every time when IN is replaced by EXISTS it gives better performance. However, in our case listed above it does for sure give better performance. Click on below image to see the execution plan. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Optimization, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • BOEING, EA and UNDERWRITER LABS @ Oracle Open World 2012 General Session (GEN9504): Innovation Platform for Oracle Apps, including Oracle Fusion Applications

    - by Sanjeev Sharma
     What does it take to deliver social, mobile, cloud and business analytic      capabilities? Oracle Fusion Middleware is the leading innovation platform for today’s new    business  applications and the building-block of Oracle Fusion Applications.  Join Amit Zavery,  Vice President of Fusion Middleware Product Management discuss Oracle Fusion  Applications’ architecture and the strategy roadmap for Oracle Fusion Middleware. Underwriter Laboratories is the world’s leading provider of product safety and certification testing services.  To support its business growth from $1B to $5B in the next 5 years Underwriter Laboratories is undergoing a major business transformation. Underpinning Underwriter Laboratories's growth plans and associated business transformation is a major Datacenter Modernization effort to consolidate its existing Oracle Applications (E-Business Suite, Siebel CRM, BI etc.) and middleware components (Oracle SOA Suite, Oracle AIA etc.) on a standardized application platform. Underwriter Labs has identified Oracle Engineered Systems (Exalogic and Exadata) as the cornerstone of its Datacenter Modernization endeavor which will eventually support 10,000 employees, 87,000 manufactures and 600,000 catalog items.  Hear senior business leaders from Boeing, Electronic Arts and Underwriters  Laboratories discuss how their organizations are leveraging Oracle Fusion Middleware and  Oracle Applications to improve productivity, lower IT costs and lay a  foundation for business  innovation at the following general session at Oracle Open World 2012: Session:  GEN9504 - General Session: Innovation Platform for Oracle Apps, Including Oracle Fusion ApplicationsDate: Monday, 1 Oct, 2012Time: 10:45 am - 11:45 am (PST)Venue: Moscone West (3002 / 3004)

    Read the article

  • Growing Into Enterprise Architecture

    - by pat.shepherd
    I am writing this post as I am in an Enterprise Architecture class, specifically on the Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework (OEAF).  I have been a long believer that SOA’s key strength is that it is the first IT approach that blends or unifies business and technology.  That is a common view and is certainly valid but is not completely true (or at least accurate).  As my personal view of EA is growing, I realize more than ever that doing EA is FAR MORE than creating a reference architecture, creating a physical architecture or picking a technology to standardize on.  Those are parts of the puzzle but not the whole puzzle by any stretch. I am now a firm believer that the various EA frameworks out there provide the rigor and structure required to allow the bridging of business strategy / vision to IT strategy / vision. The flow goes something like this: Business Strategy –> Business / Application / Information / Technology Architecture –> SOA Reference Architecture –> SOA Functional Architecture.  Governance is imbued throughout to help map, measure and verify the business-to-IT coherence. With those in place, then (and only then) can SOA fulfill it’s potential to be more that an integration strategy, more than a reuse strategy; but also a foundation for tying the results of IT to business vision. Fortunately, EA is a an ongoing process that it is never too late to get started with an understanding of frameworks such as TOGAF, FEA, or OEAF.  Also, EA is never ending in that it always needs to be apply, even once a full-blown Enterprise Architecture is established it needs to be constantly evolved.  For those who are getting deeper into EA as a discipline, there is plenty runway to grow as your company/customer begins to look more seriously at EA. I will close with a pointer to a Great Book I have recently read on this subject: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy (http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Architecture-Strategy-Foundation-Execution/dp/1591398398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268842865&sr=1-1)

    Read the article

  • Hybrid IT or Cloud Initiative – a Perfect Enterprise Architecture Maturation Opportunity

    - by Ted McLaughlan
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* 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:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} All too often in the growth and maturation of Enterprise Architecture initiatives, the effort stalls or is delayed due to lack of “applied traction”. By this, I mean the EA activities - whether targeted towards compliance, risk mitigation or value opportunity propositions – may not be attached to measurable, active, visible projects that could advance and prove the value of EA. EA doesn’t work by itself, in a vacuum, without collaborative engagement and a means of proving usefulness. A critical vehicle to this proof is successful orchestration and use of assets and investment resources to meet a high-profile business objective – i.e. a successful project. More and more organizations are now exploring and considering some degree of IT outsourcing, buying and using external services and solutions to deliver their IT and business requirements – vs. building and operating in-house, in their own data centers. The rapid growth and success of “Cloud” services makes some decisions easier and some IT projects more successful, while dramatically lowering IT risks and enabling rapid growth. This is particularly true for “Software as a Service” (SaaS) applications, which essentially are complete web applications hosted and delivered over the Internet. Whether SaaS solutions – or any kind of cloud solution - are actually, ultimately the most cost-effective approach truly depends on the organization’s business and IT investment strategy. This leads us to Enterprise Architecture, the connectivity between business strategy and investment objectives, and the capabilities purchased or created to meet them. If an EA framework already exists, the approach to selecting a cloud-based solution and integrating it with internal IT systems (i.e. a “Hybrid IT” solution) is well-served by leveraging EA methods. If an EA framework doesn’t exist, or is simply not mature enough to address complex, integrated IT objectives – a hybrid IT/cloud initiative is the perfect project to advance and prove the value of EA. Why is this? For starters, the success of any complex IT integration project - spanning multiple systems, contracts and organizations, public and private – depends on active collaboration and coordination among the project stakeholders. For a hybrid IT initiative, inclusive of one or more cloud services providers, the IT services, business workflow and data governance challenges alone can be extremely complex, requiring many diverse layers of organizational expertise and authority. Establishing subject matter expertise, authorities and strategic guidance across all the disciplines involved in a hybrid-IT or hybrid-cloud system requires top-level, comprehensive experience and collaborative leadership. Tools and practices reflecting industry expertise and EA alignment can also be very helpful – such as Oracle’s “Cloud Candidate Selection Tool”. Using tools like this, and facilitating this critical collaboration by leading, organizing and coordinating the input and expertise into a shared, referenceable, reusable set of authority models and practices – this is where EA shines, and where Enterprise Architects can be most valuable. The “enterprise”, in this case, becomes something greater than the core organization – it includes internal systems, public cloud services, 3rd-party IT platforms and datacenters, distributed users and devices; a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Through facilitated project collaboration, leading to identification or creation of solid governance models and processes, a durable and useful Enterprise Architecture framework will usually emerge by itself, if not actually identified and managed as such. The transition from planning collaboration to actual coordination, where the program plan, schedule and resources become synchronized and aligned to other investments in the organization portfolio, is where EA methods and artifacts appear and become most useful. The actual scope and use of these artifacts, in the context of this project, can then set the stage for the most desirable, helpful and pragmatic form of the now-maturing EA framework and community of practice. Considering or starting a hybrid-IT or hybrid-cloud initiative? Running into some complex relationship challenges? This is the perfect time to take advantage of your new, growing or possibly latent Enterprise Architecture practice.

    Read the article

  • Failing Sata HDD

    - by DaveCol
    I think my HDD is fried... Could someone confirm or help me restore it? I was using Hardware RAID 1 Configuration [2 x 160GB SATA HDD] on a CentOS 4 Installation. All of a sudden I started seeing bad sectors on the second HDD which stopped being mirrored. I have removed the RAID array and have tested with SMART which showed the following error: 187 Unknown_Attribute 0x003a 001 001 051 Old_age Always FAILING_NOW 4645 I have no clue what this means, or if I can recover from it. Could someone give me some ideas on how to fix this, or what HDD to get to replace this? Complete SMART report: Smartctl version 5.33 [i686-redhat-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-4 Bruce Allen Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/ === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Device Model: GB0160CAABV Serial Number: 6RX58NAA Firmware Version: HPG1 User Capacity: 160,041,885,696 bytes Device is: Not in smartctl database [for details use: -P showall] ATA Version is: 7 ATA Standard is: ATA/ATAPI-7 T13 1532D revision 4a Local Time is: Tue Oct 19 13:42:42 2010 COT SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED See vendor-specific Attribute list for marginal Attributes. General SMART Values: Offline data collection status: (0x82) Offline data collection activity was completed without error. Auto Offline Data Collection: Enabled. Self-test execution status: ( 0) The previous self-test routine completed without error or no self-test has ever been run. Total time to complete Offline data collection: ( 433) seconds. Offline data collection capabilities: (0x5b) SMART execute Offline immediate. Auto Offline data collection on/off support. Suspend Offline collection upon new command. Offline surface scan supported. Self-test supported. No Conveyance Self-test supported. Selective Self-test supported. SMART capabilities: (0x0003) Saves SMART data before entering power-saving mode. Supports SMART auto save timer. Error logging capability: (0x01) Error logging supported. General Purpose Logging supported. Short self-test routine recommended polling time: ( 2) minutes. Extended self-test routine recommended polling time: ( 54) minutes. SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 100 253 006 Pre-fail Always - 0 3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0002 097 097 000 Old_age Always - 0 4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0033 100 100 020 Pre-fail Always - 152 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 095 095 036 Pre-fail Always - 214 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 078 060 030 Pre-fail Always - 73109713 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 083 083 000 Old_age Always - 15133 10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail Always - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0033 100 100 020 Pre-fail Always - 154 184 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 038 038 000 Old_age Always - 62 187 Unknown_Attribute 0x003a 001 001 051 Old_age Always FAILING_NOW 4645 189 Unknown_Attribute 0x0022 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0 190 Unknown_Attribute 0x001a 061 055 000 Old_age Always - 656408615 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0000 039 045 000 Old_age Offline - 39 (Lifetime Min/Max 0/22) 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x0032 070 059 000 Old_age Always - 12605265 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0000 100 100 000 Old_age Offline - 1 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0000 100 100 000 Old_age Offline - 0 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x0000 200 200 000 Old_age Offline - 62 SMART Error Log Version: 1 ATA Error Count: 4645 (device log contains only the most recent five errors) CR = Command Register [HEX] FR = Features Register [HEX] SC = Sector Count Register [HEX] SN = Sector Number Register [HEX] CL = Cylinder Low Register [HEX] CH = Cylinder High Register [HEX] DH = Device/Head Register [HEX] DC = Device Command Register [HEX] ER = Error register [HEX] ST = Status register [HEX] Powered_Up_Time is measured from power on, and printed as DDd+hh:mm:SS.sss where DD=days, hh=hours, mm=minutes, SS=sec, and sss=millisec. It "wraps" after 49.710 days. Error 4645 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 15132 hours (630 days + 12 hours) When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle. After command completion occurred, registers were: ER ST SC SN CL CH DH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 51 00 7b 86 b1 ea Error: UNC at LBA = 0x0ab1867b = 179406459 Commands leading to the command that caused the error were: CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC Powered_Up_Time Command/Feature_Name -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------------- -------------------- c8 00 02 7b 86 b1 ea 00 00:38:52.796 READ DMA ec 03 45 00 00 00 a0 00 00:38:52.796 IDENTIFY DEVICE ef 03 45 00 00 00 a0 00 00:38:52.794 SET FEATURES [Set transfer mode] ec 00 00 7b 86 b1 a0 00 00:38:49.991 IDENTIFY DEVICE c8 00 04 79 86 b1 ea 00 00:38:49.935 READ DMA Error 4644 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 15132 hours (630 days + 12 hours) When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle. After command completion occurred, registers were: ER ST SC SN CL CH DH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 51 00 7b 86 b1 ea Error: UNC at LBA = 0x0ab1867b = 179406459 Commands leading to the command that caused the error were: CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC Powered_Up_Time Command/Feature_Name -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------------- -------------------- c8 00 04 79 86 b1 ea 00 00:38:41.517 READ DMA ec 03 45 00 00 00 a0 00 00:38:41.515 IDENTIFY DEVICE ef 03 45 00 00 00 a0 00 00:38:41.515 SET FEATURES [Set transfer mode] ec 00 00 7b 86 b1 a0 00 00:38:49.991 IDENTIFY DEVICE c8 00 06 77 86 b1 ea 00 00:38:49.935 READ DMA Error 4643 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 15132 hours (630 days + 12 hours) When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle. After command completion occurred, registers were: ER ST SC SN CL CH DH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 51 00 7b 86 b1 ea Error: UNC at LBA = 0x0ab1867b = 179406459 Commands leading to the command that caused the error were: CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC Powered_Up_Time Command/Feature_Name -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------------- -------------------- c8 00 06 77 86 b1 ea 00 00:38:41.517 READ DMA ec 03 45 00 00 00 a0 00 00:38:41.515 IDENTIFY DEVICE ef 03 45 00 00 00 a0 00 00:38:41.515 SET FEATURES [Set transfer mode] ec 00 00 7b 86 b1 a0 00 00:38:41.513 IDENTIFY DEVICE c8 00 06 77 86 b1 ea 00 00:38:38.706 READ DMA Error 4642 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 15132 hours (630 days + 12 hours) When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle. After command completion occurred, registers were: ER ST SC SN CL CH DH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 51 00 7b 86 b1 ea Error: UNC at LBA = 0x0ab1867b = 179406459 Commands leading to the command that caused the error were: CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC Powered_Up_Time Command/Feature_Name -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------------- -------------------- c8 00 06 77 86 b1 ea 00 00:38:41.517 READ DMA ec 03 45 00 00 00 a0 00 00:38:41.515 IDENTIFY DEVICE ef 03 45 00 00 00 a0 00 00:38:41.515 SET FEATURES [Set transfer mode] ec 00 00 7b 86 b1 a0 00 00:38:41.513 IDENTIFY DEVICE c8 00 06 77 86 b1 ea 00 00:38:38.706 READ DMA Error 4641 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 15132 hours (630 days + 12 hours) When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle. After command completion occurred, registers were: ER ST SC SN CL CH DH -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 51 00 7b 86 b1 ea Error: UNC at LBA = 0x0ab1867b = 179406459 Commands leading to the command that caused the error were: CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC Powered_Up_Time Command/Feature_Name -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------------- -------------------- c8 00 06 77 86 b1 ea 00 00:38:41.517 READ DMA ec 03 45 00 00 00 a0 00 00:38:41.515 IDENTIFY DEVICE ef 03 45 00 00 00 a0 00 00:38:41.515 SET FEATURES [Set transfer mode] ec 00 00 7b 86 b1 a0 00 00:38:41.513 IDENTIFY DEVICE c8 00 06 77 86 b1 ea 00 00:38:38.706 READ DMA SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 Num Test_Description Status Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Short offline Completed without error 00% 15131 - # 2 Short offline Completed without error 00% 15131 - SMART Selective self-test log data structure revision number 1 SPAN MIN_LBA MAX_LBA CURRENT_TEST_STATUS 1 0 0 Not_testing 2 0 0 Not_testing 3 0 0 Not_testing 4 0 0 Not_testing 5 0 0 Not_testing Selective self-test flags (0x0): After scanning selected spans, do NOT read-scan remainder of disk. If Selective self-test is pending on power-up, resume after 0 minute delay.

    Read the article

  • How can architects work with self-organizing Scrum teams?

    - by Martin Wickman
    An organization with a number of agile Scrum teams also has a small group of people appointed as "enterprise architects". The EA group acts as control and gatekeeper for quality and adherence to decisions. This leads to overlaps between the team decision and EA decisions. For instance, the team might want to use library X or want to use REST instead of SOAP, but the EA does not approve of that. Now, this can lead to frustration when team decisions are overruled. Taken far enough, it can potentially lead to a situation where the EA people "grabs" all power and the team ends up feeling demotivated and not very agile at all. The Scrum guides has this to say about it: Self-organizing: No one (not even the Scrum Master) tells the Development Team how to turn Product Backlog into Increments of potentially releasable functionality. Is that reasonable? Should the EA team be disbanded? Should the teams refuse or simply comply?

    Read the article

  • How to properly test Hibernate length restriction?

    - by Cesar
    I have a POJO mapped with Hibernate for persistence. In my mapping I specify the following: <class name="ExpertiseArea"> <id name="id" type="string"> <generator class="assigned" /> </id> <version name="version" column="VERSION" unsaved-value="null" /> <property name="name" type="string" unique="true" not-null="true" length="100" /> ... </class> And I want to test that if I set a name longer than 100 characters, the change won't be persisted. I have a DAO where I save the entity with the following code: public T makePersistent(T entity){ transaction = getSession().beginTransaction(); transaction.begin(); try{ getSession().saveOrUpdate(entity); transaction.commit(); }catch(HibernateException e){ logger.debug(e.getMessage()); transaction.rollback(); } return entity; } Actually the code above is from a GenericDAO which all my DAOs inherit from. Then I created the following test: public void testNameLengthMustBe100orLess(){ ExpertiseArea ea = new ExpertiseArea( "1234567890" + "1234567890" + "1234567890" + "1234567890" + "1234567890" + "1234567890" + "1234567890" + "1234567890" + "1234567890" + "1234567890"); assertTrue("Name should be 100 characters long", ea.getName().length() == 100); ead.makePersistent(ea); List<ExpertiseArea> result = ead.findAll(); assertEquals("Size must be 1", result.size(),1); ea.setName(ea.getName()+"1234567890"); ead.makePersistent(ea); ExpertiseArea retrieved = ead.findById(ea.getId(), false); assertTrue("Both objects should be equal", retrieved.equals(ea)); assertTrue("Name should be 100 characters long", (retrieved.getName().length() == 100)); } The object is persisted ok. Then I set a name longer than 100 characters and try to save the changes, which fails: 14:12:14,608 INFO StringType:162 - could not bind value '12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890' to parameter: 2; data exception: string data, right truncation 14:12:14,611 WARN JDBCExceptionReporter:100 - SQL Error: -3401, SQLState: 22001 14:12:14,611 ERROR JDBCExceptionReporter:101 - data exception: string data, right truncation 14:12:14,614 ERROR AbstractFlushingEventListener:324 - Could not synchronize database state with session org.hibernate.exception.DataException: could not update: [com.exp.model.ExpertiseArea#33BA7E09-3A79-4C9D-888B-4263314076AF] //Stack trace 14:12:14,615 DEBUG GenericDAO:87 - could not update: [com.exp.model.ExpertiseArea#33BA7E09-3A79-4C9D-888B-4263314076AF] 14:12:14,616 DEBUG JDBCTransaction:186 - rollback 14:12:14,616 DEBUG JDBCTransaction:197 - rolled back JDBC Connection That's expected behavior. However when I retrieve the persisted object to check if its name is still 100 characters long, the test fails. The way I see it, the retrieved object should have a name that is 100 characters long, given that the attempted update failed. The last assertion fails because the name is 110 characters long now, as if the ea instance was indeed updated. What am I doing wrong here?

    Read the article

  • links for 2010-06-04

    - by Bob Rhubart
    @biemond: JEJB Transport and manipulating the Java Response in OSB 11g "JEJB Transport works like the EJB Transport," says Oracle ACE Edwin Biemond, "but the request and response objects are not translated to XML so you can't use XQuery etc. To make things not too hard, OSB 11g makes a XML presentation of the request method and its parameters, which you can use in the Proxy Service." (tags: oracleace soa oracle jejb java) @bex: Oracle UCM jQuery Plugin  "This connector allows you to use jQuery to make UCM Service calls through AJAX, and easily display the results,: says Oracle Ace Director Bex Huff. "This is 100% pure JavaScript, no Java, Idoc, or ADF required!" (tags: oracleace ucm oracle otn enterprise2.0) Oracle Solaris Studio Express 6/10 and its Customer Feedback Program are now available (Oracle Developer Tools Blog) "Oracle Solaris Studio Express 6/10 is available on Solaris 10 (SPARC, x86), OEL 5 (x86), RHEL 5 (x86), SuSE 11 (x86) today and will be available for OpenSolaris in the near future," says Pieter Humphrey. (tags: oracle otn solaris sparc liunux) @soatoday: EA and SOA Should Report to COO "So, who gets EA-- the CIO or VP of a Business? I argue neither! After all, a typical EA goal is to connect the Business and IT together to impart better structure and visibility across the enterprise. I firmly believe that neither should own EA so that neither imparts too much of their organization (i.e bias) on the EA process and deliverables. EA needs to be independent, and it's for all the right reasons." -- Orace ACE Director JOrdan Braunstein (tags: oracleace entarch soa)

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >