Search Results

Search found 31536 results on 1262 pages for 'database driven'.

Page 101/1262 | < Previous Page | 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108  | Next Page >

  • Free eBook: Defensive Database Programming

    Resilient T-SQL code is code that is designed to last, and to be safely reused by others. The goal of defensive database programming, the goal of this book, is to help you to produce resilient T-SQL code that robustly and gracefully handles cases of unintended use, and is resilient to common changes to the database environment. 12 must-have SQL Server toolsThe award-winning SQL Developer Bundle contains 12 tools for faster, simpler SQL Server development. Download a free trial.

    Read the article

  • ???????/???Oracle Database Core Tech Seminar Oracle Data Guard,Oracle Recovery Manager(RMAN),Flashback

    - by user788995
    ????? ??:2012/05/14 ??:??????/?? Oracle Database????????????????Core Tech Seminar? ????????????????????????????????????Oracle Data Guard?Oracle Recovery Manager?Oracle Flashback Technology????????????·?????????? Active Data GuardRecovery Manager(RMAN)Flashback?????? ????????? ????????????????? http://otndnld.oracle.co.jp/ondemand/otn-seminar/movie/D3-22.wmv http://otndnld.oracle.co.jp/ondemand/otn-seminar/movie/mp4/D3-22.mp4 http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/jp/ondemand/database/db-new/d3-22-dl-1626591-ja.pdf

    Read the article

  • Accidently overwrote system.dbf - What now?

    - by Filip Ekberg
    I accidentally overwrote system.dbf in /usr/lib/oracle/xe/oradata/XE/system.dbf Well I did not actually do it accidentally, however I overwrote it because of other failures in the database. And when I try running the following: SQL> shutdown ORA-01109: database not open Database dismounted. ORACLE instance shut down. SQL> startup ORACLE instance started. Total System Global Area 289406976 bytes Fixed Size 1258488 bytes Variable Size 92277768 bytes Database Buffers 192937984 bytes Redo Buffers 2932736 bytes Database mounted. ORA-01589: must use RESETLOGS or NORESETLOGS option for database open Now I want to try to Recover the database because starting it in mounted or standard surely doesn't work. SQL> recover database using backup controlfile; ORA-00283: recovery session canceled due to errors ORA-01110: data file 1: '/usr/lib/oracle/xe/oradata/XE/system.dbf' ORA-01122: database file 1 failed verification check ORA-01110: data file 1: '/usr/lib/oracle/xe/oradata/XE/system.dbf' ORA-01206: file is not part of this database - wrong database id How do I solve this? Is it even possible? My "real" problem was that I ran the /etc/init.d/oracle-xe configure and it overwrote my old configuration and probably removed passwords and such so my tables were gone, however I found the mytablespace.dbf so I hope that it is possible to recover? Please shed some light on this.

    Read the article

  • S#arp Architecture 1.5 released

    - by AlecWhittington
    The past two weeks have been wonderful for me, spending 12 days on Oahu, Hawaii. Then followed up with the S#arp Architecture 1.5 release. It has been a short 4 months since taking over as the project lead and this is my first major milestone. With this release, we advance S# even more forward with the ASP.NET MVC 2 enhancements. What's is S#? Pronounced "Sharp Architecture," this is a solid architectural foundation for rapidly building maintainable web applications leveraging the ASP.NET MVC framework...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Duplication in parallel inheritance hierarchies

    - by flamingpenguin
    Using an OO language with static typing (like Java), what are good ways to represent the following model invariant without large amounts of duplication. I have two (actually multiple) flavours of the same structure. Each flavour requires its own (unique to that flavour data) on each of the objects within that structure as well as some shared data. But within each instance of the aggregation only objects of one (the same) flavour are allowed. FooContainer can contain FooSources and FooDestinations and associations between the "Foo" objects BarContainer can contain BarSources and BarDestinations and associations between the "Bar" objects interface Container() { List<? extends Source> sources(); List<? extends Destination> destinations(); List<? extends Associations> associations(); } interface FooContainer() extends Container { List<? extends FooSource> sources(); List<? extends FooDestination> destinations(); List<? extends FooAssociations> associations(); } interface BarContainer() extends Container { List<? extends BarSource> sources(); List<? extends BarDestination> destinations(); List<? extends BarAssociations> associations(); } interface Source { String getSourceDetail1(); } interface FooSource extends Source { String getSourceDetail2(); } interface BarSource extends Source { String getSourceDetail3(); } interface Destination { String getDestinationDetail1(); } interface FooDestination extends Destination { String getDestinationDetail2(); } interface BarDestination extends Destination { String getDestinationDetail3(); } interface Association { Source getSource(); Destination getDestination(); } interface FooAssociation extends Association { FooSource getSource(); FooDestination getDestination(); String getFooAssociationDetail(); } interface BarAssociation extends Association { BarSource getSource(); BarDestination getDestination(); String getBarAssociationDetail(); }

    Read the article

  • Sharp Architecture 1.9.5 Released

    - by AlecWhittington
    The S#arp Architecture team is proud to announce the release of version 1.9.5. This version has had the following changes: Upgraded to MVC 3 RTM Solution upgraded to .NET 4 Implementation of IDependencyResolver provided, but not implemented This marks the last scheduled release of 1.X for S#arp Architecture . The team is working hard to get the 2.0 release out the door and we hope to have a preview of that coming soon. With regards to IDependencyResolver, we have provided an implementation, but have...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Are CQRS/DDD/Event Sourcing and REST compatible?

    - by Robin Green
    REST seems to promote the idea of a canonical URL for a resource, and PUTing/POSTing back a modified representation of that resource in order to change it. However, with CQRS - Command Query Responsibility Segregation - one can theoretically have a completely different "API" for reading and for writing, which seems to conflict with the REST ideal of one URL for a resource, and no RPC-style "verbs inside the request body". DDD and Event Sourcing sometimes go together with CQRS, which is why I mention them in this question. So, can CQRS be used together with REST? Or is it against the REST way of doing things? What about DDD? And Event Sourcing? Can they be used with REST?

    Read the article

  • Which design pattern to use when using ORM?

    - by RPK
    I am writing a small ASP.NET Web Forms application. In my solution explorer, I added various class library projects to define layers, viz: Model Repository Presentation WebUI Someone suggested me that this layered approach is not of much sense if I am using ORM tool like PetaPoco, which itself takes care of separation of data access layer. I want to use PetaPoco micro-ORM and want to know which design pattern is suitable with ORM tools. Do I still need several class library projects to separate the concerns?

    Read the article

  • S#arp Architecture 1.5.2 released

    - by AlecWhittington
    It has been a few weeks since S#arp Architecture 1.5 RTM has been released. While it was a major success a few issues were found that needed to be addressed. These mostly involved the Visual Studio templates. What's new in S#arp Architecture 1.5.2? Merged the SharpArch.* assemblies into a single assembly (SharpArch.dll) Updated both VS 2008 and 2010 templates to reflect the use of the merged assembly Updated SharpArch.build with custom script that allows the merging of the assemblies. Copys new merged...(read more)

    Read the article

  • DDD Model Design and Repository Persistence Performance Considerations

    - by agarhy
    So I have been reading about DDD for some time and trying to figure out the best approach on several issues. I tend to agree that I should design my model in a persistent agnostic manner. And that repositories should load and persist my models in valid states. But are these approaches realistic practically? I mean its normal for a model to hold a reference to a collection of another type. Persisting that model should mean persist the entire collection. Fine. But do I really need to load the entire collection every time I load the model? Probably not. So I can have specialized repositories. Some that load maybe a subset of the object graph via DTOs and others that load the entire object graph. But when do I use which? If I have DTOs, what's stopping client code from directly calling them and completely bypassing the model? I can have mappers and factories to create my models from DTOs maybe? But depending on the design of my models that might not always work. Or it might not allow my models to be created in a valid state. What's the correct approach here?

    Read the article

  • Circular dependency and object creation when attempting DDD

    - by Matthew
    I have a domain where an Organization has People. Organization Entity public class Organization { private readonly List<Person> _people = new List<Person>(); public Person CreatePerson(string name) { var person = new Person(organization, name); _people.Add(person); return person; } public IEnumerable<Person> People { get { return _people; } } } Person Entity public class Person { public Person(Organization organization, string name) { if (organization == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("organization"); } Organization = organization; Name = name; } public Organization { get; private set; } public Name { get; private set; } } The rule for this relationship is that a Person must belong to exactly one Organization. The invariants I want to guarantee are: A person must have an organization this is enforced via the Person's constuctor An organization must know of its people this is why the Organization has a CreatePerson method A person must belong to only one organization this is why the organization's people list is not publicly mutable (ignoring the casting to List, maybe ToEnumerable can enforce that, not too concerned about it though) What I want out of this is that if a person is created, that the organization knows about its creation. However, the problem with the model currently is that you are able to create a person without ever adding it to the organizations collection. Here's a failing unit-test to describe my problem [Test] public void AnOrganizationMustKnowOfItsPeople() { var organization = new Organization(); var person = new Person(organization, "Steve McQueen"); CollectionAssert.Contains(organization.People, person); } What is the most idiomatic way to enforce the invariants and the circular relationship?

    Read the article

  • Can an aggregate root hold references of members of another aggregate root?

    - by Rushino
    Hello, I know outside aggregates cant change anything inside an aggregate without passing by his root. That said i would like to know if an aggregate root can hold references of members (objects insides) of another aggregate root? (fellowing DDD rules) Example : a Calendar contain a list of phases which contain a list of sequences which contain a list of assignations Calendar is root because phases and sequences and assignations only work in context of a calendar. You also have Students and Groups of student (called groups) It is possible (fellowing DDD rules) to make Groups holding references of assignations or it need to pass by the root for accessing groups from assignations ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • S#arp Architecture 1.5.1 released

    - by AlecWhittington
    So far we have had some great success with the 1.5 release of S#arp Architecture, but there were a few issues that made it into the release that needed to be corrected. These issues were: Unnecessary assemblies in the root /bin and SolutionItemsContainer folders Nant folder removed from root /bin - this was causing issues with the build scripts that come with the project if the user did not have Nant installed and available via a path variable VS 2010 template - the CrudScaffoldingForEnterpriseApp...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Should a domain expert make class diagrams?

    - by Matthieu
    The domain expert in our team uses UML class diagrams to model the domain model. As a result, the class diagrams are more of technical models rather than domain models (it serves of some sort of technical specifications for developpers because they don't have to do any conception, they just have to implement the model). In the end, the domain expert ends up doing the job of the architect/technical expert right? Is it normal for a domain expert (not a developer or technical profile) to do class diagrams? If not, what kind of modeling should he be using?

    Read the article

  • TDD with limited resources

    - by bunglestink
    I work in a large company, but on a just two man team developing desktop LOB applications. I have been researching TDD for quite a while now, and although it is easy to realize its benefits for larger applications, I am having a hard time trying to justify the time to begin using TDD on the scale of our applications. I understand its advantages in automating testing, improving maintainability, etc., but on our scale, writing even basic unit tests for all of our components could easily double development time. Since we are already undermanned with extreme deadlines, I am not sure what direction to take. While other practices such as agile iterative development make perfect since, I am kind of torn over the productivity trade-offs of TDD on a small team. Are the advantages of TDD worth the extra development time on small teams with very tight schedules?

    Read the article

  • Programming and Ubiquitous Language (DDD) in a non-English domain

    - by Sandor Drieënhuizen
    I know there are some questions already here that are closely related to this subject but none of them take Ubiquitous Language as the starting point so I think that justifies this question. For those who don't know: Ubiquitous Language is the concept of defining a (both spoken and written) language that is equally used across developers and domain experts to avoid inconsistencies and miscommunication due to translation problems and misunderstanding. You will see the same terminology show up in code, conversations between any team member, functional specs and whatnot. So, what I was wondering about is how to deal with Ubiquitous Language in non-English domains. Personally, I strongly favor writing programming code in English completely, including comments but ofcourse excluding constants and resources. However, in a non-English domain, I'm forced to make a decision either to: Write code reflecting the Ubiquitous Language in the natural language of the domain. Translate the Ubiquitous Language to English and stop communicating in the natural language of the domain. Define a table that defines how the Ubiquitous Language translates to English. Here are some of my thoughts based on these options: 1) I have a strong aversion against mixed-language code, that is coding using type/member/variable names etc. that are non-English. Most programming languages 'breathe' English to a large extent and most of the technical literature, design pattern names etc. are in English as well. Therefore, in most cases there's just no way of writing code entirely in a non-English language so you end up with mixed languages anyway. 2) This will force the domain experts to start thinking and talking in the English equivalent of the UL, something that will probably not come naturally to them and therefore hinders communication significantly. 3) In this case, the developers communicate with the domain experts in their native language while the developers communicate with each other in English and most importantly, they write code using the English translation of the UL. I'm sure I don't want to go for the first option and I think option 3 is much better than option 2. What do you think? Am I missing other options? UPDATE Today, about year later, having dealt with this issue on a daily basis, I have to say that option 3 has worked out pretty well for me. It wasn't as tedious as I initially feared and translating in real time while talking to the client wasn't a problem either. I also found the following advantages to be true, based on my experience. Translating the UL makes you pay more attention to defining the UL and even the domain itself, especially when you don't know how to translate a term and you have to start looking through dictionaries etc. This has even caused me to reconsider domain modeling decisions a few times. It helps you make your knowledge of the English language more profound. Obviously, your code is much more pleasant to look at instead of being a mind boggling obscenity.

    Read the article

  • DDD: Service or Repository

    - by tikhop
    I am developing an app in DDD manner. And I have a little problem with it. I have a Fare (airline fare) and FareRepository objects. And at some point I should load additional fare information and set this information to existing Fare. I guess that I need to create an Application Service (FareAdditionalInformationService) that will deal with obtaining data from the server and than update existing Fare. However, some people said me that it is necessary to use FareRepository for this problem. I don't know wich place is better for my problem Service or Repository.

    Read the article

  • Resources for popular domain models

    - by Songo
    I have come across many situations where I had to build a system for a library or a clinic or other popular domains. The thing is a domain model for a library was probably done 1000 times already with different level of details of course. Here is an example. Is there a popular website or community where one can find ready made domain models for popular systems? The whole purpose I'm trying to achieve is to quickly get a grasp of the domain I'm modeling and customize it to my needs. Re-inventing the wheel seems really absurd when the same system might have been modeled properly previously. Note I know Google might sound like the perfect source, but there is a repository out there that people can post there models, so that others can share them.

    Read the article

  • Do immutable objects and DDD go together?

    - by SnOrfus
    Consider a system that uses DDD (as well: any system that uses an ORM). The point of any system realistically, in nearly every use case, will be to manipulate those domain objects. Otherwise there's no real effect or purpose. Modifying an immutable object will cause it to generate a new record after the object is persisted which creates massive bloat in the datasource (unless you delete previous records after modifications). I can see the benefit of using immutable objects, but in this sense, I can't ever see a useful case for using immutable objects. Is this wrong?

    Read the article

  • Do immutable objects and DDD go together?

    - by SnOrfus
    Consider a system that uses DDD (as well: any system that uses an ORM). The point of any system realistically, in nearly every use case, will be to manipulate those domain objects. Otherwise there's no real effect or purpose. Modifying an immutable object will cause it to generate a new record after the object is persisted which creates massive bloat in the datasource (unless you delete previous records after modifications). I can see the benefit of using immutable objects, but in this sense, I can't ever see a useful case for using immutable objects. Is this wrong?

    Read the article

  • Accessing Repositories from Domain

    - by Paul T Davies
    Say we have a task logging system, when a task is logged, the user specifies a category and the task defaults to a status of 'Outstanding'. Assume in this instance that Category and Status have to be implemented as entities. Normally I would do this: Application Layer: public class TaskService { //... public void Add(Guid categoryId, string description) { var category = _categoryRepository.GetById(categoryId); var status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId); var task = Task.Create(category, status, description); _taskRepository.Save(task); } } Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, Status status, string description) { return new Task { Category = category, Status = status, Description = descrtiption }; } } I do it like this because I am consistently told that entities should not access the repositories, but it would make much more sense to me if I did this: Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, string description) { return new Task { Category = category, Status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId), Description = descrtiption }; } } The status repository is dependecy injected anyway, so there is no real dependency, and this feels more to me thike it is the domain that is making thedecision that a task defaults to outstanding. The previous version feels like it is the application layeer making that decision. Any why are repository contracts often in the domain if this should not be a posibility? Here is a more extreme example, here the domain decides urgency: Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, string description) { var task = new Task { Category = category, Status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId), Description = descrtiption }; if(someCondition) { if(someValue > anotherValue) { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.UrgentId); } else { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.SemiUrgentId); } } else { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.NotId); } return task; } } There is no way you would want to pass in all possible versions of Urgency, and no way you would want to calculate this business logic in the application layer, so surely this would be the most appropriate way? So is this a valid reason to access repositories from the domain?

    Read the article

  • Programming and Ubiquitous Language (DDD) in a non-English domain

    - by Sandor Drieënhuizen
    I know there are some questions already here that are closely related to this subject but none of them take Ubquitous Language as the starting point so I think that justifies this question. For those who don't know: Ubiquitous Language is the concept of defining a (both spoken and written) language that is equally used across developers and domain experts to avoid inconsistencies and miscommunication due to translation problems and misunderstanding. You will see the same terminology show up in code, conversations between any team member, functional specs and whatnot. So, what I was wondering about is how to deal with Ubiquitous Language in non-English domains. Personally, I strongly favor writing programming code in English completely, including comments but ofcourse excluding constants and resources. However, in a non-English domain, I'm forced to make a decision either to: Write code reflecting the Ubiquitous Language in the natural language of the domain. Translate the Ubiquitous Language to English and stop communicating in the natural language of the domain. Define a table that defines how the Ubiquitous Language translates to English. Here are some of my thoughts based on these options: 1) I have a strong aversion against mixed-language code, that is coding using type/member/variable names etc. that are non-English. Most programming languages 'breathe' English to a large extent and most of the technical literature, design pattern names etc. are in English as well. Therefore, in most cases there's just no way of writing code entirely in a non-English language so you end up with a mixed languages. 2) This will force the domain experts to start thinking and talking in the English equivalent of the UL, something that will probably not come naturally to them and therefore hinders communication significantly. 3) In this case, the developers communicate with the domain experts in their native language while the developers communicate with each other in English and most importantly, they write code using the English translation of the UL. I'm sure I don't want to go for the first option and I think option 3 is much better than option 2. What do you think? Am I missing other options?

    Read the article

  • Are factors such as Intellisense support and strong typing enough to justify the use of an 'Anaemic Domain Model'?

    - by David Osborne
    It's easy to accept that objects should be used in all layers except a layer nominated as a data layer. However, it's just as easy to end-up with an 'anaemic domain model' that is just an object representation of data with no real functionality ( http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html ). However, using objects in this fashion brings the benefit of factors such as Intellisense support, strong typing, readability, discoverability, etc. Are these factors strong arguments for an otherwise, anaemic domain model?

    Read the article

  • How to fix “Unit Test Runner failed to load test assembly”

    - by ybbest
    I encountered this issue a couple times during my recent project, every time I forgot what actually cause the issue. Therefore, I decide to write a quick blog post to make sure I can identify the issue quickly. Problem: Run unit test using a test runner and received a Unit Test Runner failed to load test assembly exception. Analysis: Basically, I have changed some code and start the test runner to run tests. The same dll have already been deployed to GAC. So the test runner actually tries to use the old version of the assembly thus could not load the assembly. Solution: Deploy the current version of dll to the GAC and re-run your test, it works like a charm.

    Read the article

  • S#arp Architecture 1.5 Beta 1 released

    - by AlecWhittington
    Well it is official, I just finished my first release for S#arp Architecture . While this is only a beta release, it does contain some big upgrades and we are hoping to get any bugs handled quickly so that we can get the RTM release completed. This will be a short post, with a more detailed posts coming in the next few days. A big thanks goes out to Billy McCafferty , Michael Aird, Hoang Tang, and everyone else that had a say in this release. Release notes Built on top of ASP.NET MVC 2 RTM release...(read more)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108  | Next Page >