Search Results

Search found 65503 results on 2621 pages for 'real application testing'.

Page 11/2621 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • What Will Happen to Real Estate Leases when Operating Leases are Gone?

    - by Theresa Hickman
    Many people are concerned about what will happen to real estate leases when FASB and IASB abolish operating leases. They plan to unveil the proposed standards on treating leases this summer as part of the convergence project but no "finalized ruling" is expected for at least a year because it will need to get formal consensus from many players, such as the SEC, American Association of Investors, Congress, the Big Four, American Associate of Realtors, the international equivalents of these, etc. If your accounting is a bit rusty, an Operating Lease is where you lease equipment or some asset for a shorter period than the actual (expected) life of the asset and then give the asset back while it still has some useful life in it. (Think leasing a car). Because an Operating Lease does not contain any of the provisions that would qualify it as a Capital Lease, the lease is not treated as a sale or purchase and hits the lessee's rental expense and the lessor's revenue. So it all stays on the P&L (assuming no prepayments are made). Capital Leases, on the other hand, hit lessee's and lessor's balance sheets because the asset is treated as a sale. (I'm ignoring interest and depreciation here to emphasize my point). Question: What will happen to real estate leases when Operating Leases go away and how will Oracle Financials address these changes? Before I attempt to address these questions, here's a real-life example to expound on some of the issues: Let's say a U.S. retailer leases a store in a mall for 15 years. Under U.S. GAAP, the lease is considered an operating or expense lease. Will that same lease be considered a capital lease under IFRS? Real estate leases are supposedly going to be capitalized under IFRS. If so, will everyone need to change all leases from operating to capital? Or, could we make some adjustments so we report the lease as an expense for operations reporting but capitalize it for SEC reporting? Would all aspects of the lease be capitalized, or would some line items still be expensed? For example, many retail store leases are defined to include (1) the agreed-to rent amount; (2) a negotiated increase in base rent, e.g., maybe a 5% increase in Year 5; (3) a sales rent component whereby the retailer pays a variable additional amount based on the sales generated in the prior month; (4) parking lot maintenance fees. Would the entire lease be capitalized, or would some portions still be expensed? To help answer these questions, I met up with our resident accounting expert and walking encyclopedia, Seamus Moran. Here's what he had to say: Oracle is aware of the potential changes specific to reporting/capitalization of real estate leases; i.e., we are aware that FASB and IASB have identified real estate leases as one of the areas for standards convergence. Oracle stays apprised of the on-going convergence through our domain expertise staff, our relationship with customers, our market awareness, and, of course, our relationships with the Big 4. This is part of our normal process with respect to regulatory compliance worldwide. At this time, Oracle expects that the standards convergence committee will make a recommendation about reporting standards for real estate leases in about a year. Following typical procedures, we also expect that the recommendation will be up for review for a year, and customers will then need to start reporting to the new standard about a year after that. So that means we would expect the first customer to report under the new standard in maybe 3 years. Typically, after the new standard is finalized and distributed, we find that our customers then begin to evaluate how they plan to meet the new standard. And through groups like the Customer Advisory Boards (CABs), our customers tell us what kind of product changes are needed in order to satisfy their new reporting requirements. Of course, Oracle is also working with the Big 4 and Accenture and other implementers in order to ascertain that these recommended changes will indeed meet new reporting standards. So the best advice we can offer right now is, stay apprised of the standards convergence committee; know that Oracle is also staying abreast of developments; get involved with your CAB so your voice is heard; know that Oracle products continue to be GAAP compliant, and we will continue to maintain that as our standard. But exactly what is that "standard"--we need to wait on the standards convergence committee. In a nut shell, operating leases will become either capital leases or month to month rentals, but it is still too early, too political and too uncertain to call out at this point.

    Read the article

  • Survey: how do you unit test your T-SQL?

    - by Alexander Kuznetsov
    How do you unit test your T-SQL? Which libraries/tools do you use? What percentage of your code is covered by unit tests and how do you measure it? Do you think the time and effort which you invested in your unit testing harness has paid off or not? Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Junit: splitting integration test and Unit tests.

    - by jeff porter
    Hello all, I've inherited a load of Junit test, but these tests (apart from most not working) are a mixture of actual unit test and integration tests (requiring external systems, db etc). So I'm trying to think of a way to actually separate them out, so that I can run the unit test nice and quickly and the integration tests after that. The options are.. 1: Split them into separate directories. 2: Move to Junit4 and annotate the classes to separate them. 3: Use a file naming convention to tell what a class is , i.e. AdapterATest and AdapterAIntergrationTest. 3 has the issue that Eclipse has the option to "Run all tests in the selected project/package or folder". So it would make it very hard to just run the integration tests. 2: runs the risk that developers might start writing integration tests in unit test classes and it just gets messy. 1: Seems like the neatest solution, but my gut says there must be a better solution out there. So that is my question, how do you lot break apart integration tests and proper unit tests?

    Read the article

  • What to choose API based server or Socket based server for data driven application

    - by Imdad
    I am working on a project which has a Desktop Application for MAC/COCOA, a native application for iPhone another native application in iPad. All the application do almost same thing. The applications are data driven applications. Every communication to server is made via a restful API developed in PHP. When a user logs in a lot of data is fetched from server. And to remain in sync with server pooling is done. As there are lot of data to pool it makes application slower and un-reliable. A possible solution that comes into my mind is to use Socket based server. My question is that will it reasonably improve the performance? And which technology (of sockets) will be good as a server side solution for data driven application? I have heard a lot about Node.js. Please give your suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Test Doubles : Do they go in "source packages" or "test packages"?

    - by sbrattla
    I've got a couple of data access objects (DefaultPersonServices.class, DefaultAddressServices.class) which is responsible for various CRUD operations in a database. A few different classes use these services, but as the services requires that a connection is established with a database I can't really use them in unit tests as they take too long. Thus, I'd like to create a test doubles for them and simply do FakePersonServices.class and FakeAddressService.class implementations which I can use throughout testing. Now, this is all good (I assume)...but my question relates to where I put the test doubles. Should I keep them along with the default implementations (aka "real" implementations) or should I keep them in a corresponding test package. The default implementations are found in Source Packages : com.company.data.services. Should I keep the test doubles here too, or should the test doubles rather be in Test Packages : com.company.data.services?

    Read the article

  • What Are Some Tips For Writing A Large Number of Unit Tests?

    - by joshin4colours
    I've recently been tasked with testing some COM objects of the desktop app I work on. What this means in practice is writing a large number (100) unit tests to test different but related methods and objects. While the unit tests themselves are fairly straight forward (usually one or two Assert()-type checks per test), I'm struggling to figure out the best way to write these tests in a coherent, organized manner. What I have found is that copy and Paste coding should be avoided. It creates more problems than it's worth, and it's even worse than copy-and-paste code in production code because test code has to be more frequently updated and modified. I'm leaning toward trying an OO-approach using but again, the sheer number makes even this approach daunting from an organizational standpoint due to concern with maintenance. It also doesn't help that the tests are currently written in C++, which adds some complexity with memory management issues. Any thoughts or suggestions?

    Read the article

  • How to write automated tests for SQL queries?

    - by James
    The current system we are adopting at work is to write some extremely complex queries which perform multiple calculations and have multiple joins / sub-queries. I don't think I am experienced enough to say if this is correct or not so I am agreeing and attempting to function with this system as it has clear benefits. The problem we are having at the moment is that the person writing the queries makes a lot of mistakes and assumes everything is correct. We have now assigned a tester to analyse all of the queries but this still proves extremely time consuming and stressful. I would like to know how we could create an automated procedure (without specifically writing it with code if possible as I can work out how to do that the long way) to verify a set of 10+ different inputs, verify the output data and say if the calculations are correct. I know I could write a script using specific data in the database and create a script using c# (the db is SQL Server) and verify all the values coming out but I would like to know what the official "standard" is as my experience is lacking in this area and I would like to improve. I am happy to add more information if required, add a comment if necessary. Thank you. Edit: I am using c#

    Read the article

  • If you should only have one assertion per test; how to test multiple inputs?

    - by speg
    I'm trying to build up some test cases, and have read that you should try and limit the number of assertions per test case. So my question is, what is the best way to go about testing a function w/ multiple inputs. For example, I have a function that parses a string from the user and returns the number of minutes. The string can be in the form "5w6h2d1m", where w, h, d, m correspond to the number of weeks, hours, days, and minutes. If I wanted to follow the '1 assertion per test rule' I'd have to make multiple tests for each variation of input? That seems silly so instead I just have something like: self.assertEqual(parse_date('5m'), 5) self.assertEqual(parse_date('5h'), 300) self.assertEqual(parse_date('5d') ,7200) self.assertEqual(parse_date('1d4h20m'), 1700) In the one test case. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • What does well written, readable tests look like?

    - by Industrial
    Doing unit testing for the first time at a large scale, I find myself writing a lot of repetitive unit tests for my business logic. Sure, to create complete test suites I need to test all possibilities but readability feels compromised doing what I do - as shown in the psuedocode below. How would a well written, readable test suit look like? describe "UserEntity" -> it "valid name validates" ... it "invalid name doesnt validate" ... it "valid list of followers validate" ..

    Read the article

  • SQL University: What and why of database testing

    - by Mladen Prajdic
    This is a post for a great idea called SQL University started by Jorge Segarra also famously known as SqlChicken on Twitter. It’s a collection of blog posts on different database related topics contributed by several smart people all over the world. So this week is mine and we’ll be talking about database testing and refactoring. In 3 posts we’ll cover: SQLU part 1 - What and why of database testing SQLU part 2 - What and why of database refactoring SQLU part 2 – Tools of the trade With that out of the way let us sharpen our pencils and get going. Why test a database The sad state of the industry today is that there is very little emphasis on testing in general. Test driven development is still a small niche of the programming world while refactoring is even smaller. The cause of this is the inability of developers to convince themselves and their managers that writing tests is beneficial. At the moment they are mostly viewed as waste of time. This is because the average person (let’s not fool ourselves, we’re all average) is unable to think about lower future costs in relation to little more current work. It’s orders of magnitude easier to know about the current costs in relation to current amount of work. That’s why programmers convince themselves testing is a waste of time. However we have to ask ourselves what tests are really about? Maybe finding bugs? No, not really. If we introduce bugs, we’re likely to write test around those bugs too. But yes we can find some bugs with tests. The main point of tests is to have reproducible repeatability in our systems. By having a code base largely covered by tests we can know with better certainty what a small code change can break in other parts of the system. By having repeatability we can make code changes with confidence, since we know we’ll see what breaks in other tests. And here comes the inability to estimate future costs. By spending just a few more hours writing those tests we’d know instantly what broke where. Imagine we fix a reported bug. We check-in the code, deploy it and the users are happy. Until we get a call 2 weeks later about a certain monthly process has stopped working. What we don’t know is that this process was developed by a long gone coworker and for some reason it relied on that same bug we’ve happily fixed. There’s no way we could’ve known that. We say OK and go in and fix the monthly process. But what we have no clue about is that there’s this ETL job that relied on data from that monthly process. Now that we’ve fixed the process it’s giving unexpected (yet correct since we fixed it) data to the ETL job. So we have to fix that too. But there’s this part of the app we coded that relies on data from that exact ETL job. And just like that we enter the “Loop of maintenance horror”. With the loop eventually comes blame. Here’s a nice tip for all developers and DBAs out there: If you make a mistake man up and admit to it. All of the above is valid for any kind of software development. Keeping this in mind the database is nothing other than just a part of the application. But a big part! One reason why testing a database is even more important than testing an application is that one database is usually accessed from multiple applications and processes. This makes it the central and vital part of the enterprise software infrastructure. Knowing all this can we really afford not to have tests? What to test in a database Now that we’ve decided we’ll dive into this testing thing we have to ask ourselves what needs to be tested? The short answer is: everything. The long answer is: read on! There are 2 main ways of doing tests: Black box and White box testing. Black box testing means we have no idea how the system internals are built and we only have access to it’s inputs and outputs. With it we test that the internal changes to the system haven’t caused the input/output behavior of the system to change. The most important thing to test here are the edge conditions. It’s where most programs break. Having good edge condition tests we can be more confident that the systems changes won’t break. White box testing has the full knowledge of the system internals. With it we test the internal system changes, different states of the application, etc… White and Black box tests should be complementary to each other as they are very much interconnected. Testing database routines includes testing stored procedures, views, user defined functions and anything you use to access the data with. Database routines are your input/output interface to the database system. They count as black box testing. We test then for 2 things: Data and schema. When testing schema we only care about the columns and the data types they’re returning. After all the schema is the contract to the out side systems. If it changes we usually have to change the applications accessing it. One helpful T-SQL command when doing schema tests is SET FMTONLY ON. It tells the SQL Server to return only empty results sets. This speeds up tests because it doesn’t return any data to the client. After we’ve validated the schema we have to test the returned data. There no other way to do this but to have expected data known before the tests executes and comparing that data to the database routine output. Testing Authentication and Authorization helps us validate who has access to the SQL Server box (Authentication) and who has access to certain database objects (Authorization). For desktop applications and windows authentication this works well. But the biggest problem here are web apps. They usually connect to the database as a single user. Please ensure that that user is not SA or an account with admin privileges. That is just bad. Load testing ensures us that our database can handle peak loads. One often overlooked tool for load testing is Microsoft’s OSTRESS tool. It’s part of RML utilities (x86, x64) for SQL Server and can help determine if our database server can handle loads like 100 simultaneous users each doing 10 requests per second. SQL Profiler can also help us here by looking at why certain queries are slow and what to do to fix them.   One particular problem to think about is how to begin testing existing databases. First thing we have to do is to get to know those databases. We can’t test something when we don’t know how it works. To do this we have to talk to the users of the applications accessing the database, run SQL Profiler to see what queries are being run, use existing documentation to decipher all the object relationships, etc… The way to approach this is to choose one part of the database (say a logical grouping of tables that go together) and filter our traces accordingly. Once we’ve done that we move on to the next grouping and so on until we’ve covered the whole database. Then we move on to the next one. Database Testing is a topic that we can spent many hours discussing but let this be a nice intro to the world of database testing. See you in the next post.

    Read the article

  • Real-time offline folder-to-folder backup application needed (Windows)

    - by niktech
    I recently started using Intel Matrix Storage RAID solution that allowed me to use my 5 1TB drives for two RAID volumes. First one a 1TB RAID 0 striped across all 5 drives and second one a RAID 5 across the rest of the free space on all drives (around 2.85TB usable space). The RAID 0 I use for OS, applications and games while the RAID 5 I use as a more-permanent type storage (photos, etc). Now I do realize that running the OS and applications on RAID 0 across 5 drives is very dangerous, which is what brings up the following question. Is there a reliable freeware realtime backup application that can backup a set of folders from one drive to another drive (no online backups needed)? I've already tried a few (Mozy, Yadis, Comodo Backup, GFI Backup, Idoo, Crash Plan) but none meet my requirements: Low CPU and RAM usage. Realtime Backups - as soon as a file is modified in the source folder, it is added to the backup queue which will be processed with the lowest priority when the CPU is idle. This backup queue should persist in cases of computer restarts (ie: the source and destination folders should always have the same set of files, except for the ones waiting in the backup queue). Incremental Backups - if only 10 bytes changed in a 1GB file, the app should only copy those 10 new bytes. Ability to back up locked and opened files (some apps, like Yadis, can't back up critical files like browser favorites). Ability to run as a service (no need for any user to log-in to have the app started). Optional requirements: Compression of the destination into a well-known format (RAR, Zip) that can be directly read without the use of the application. Preset source folders (such as Browser Favorites, Game Saves, Application Settings, etc). The idea is to use RAID 0 array as "semi-persistent RAM-like" storage which in case of a failure can be quickly rebuilt by reinstalling the OS, apps and games and copying over the settings, saves, favorites from the RAID 5. I'm also thinking of taking this RAID 0 as RAM idea to the extreme with SSDs (as soon as we get some nice 6Gb/s SATA III SSDs out there), where a couple of SSDs chained in RAID 0 will work as yet another semi-persistent cache layer sitting between the RAM and the HD. I'm just hoping there already exists an application that satisfies these requirements... otherwise I'll have to write one myself, which I would prefer not to do.

    Read the article

  • Regression testing for firewall changes

    - by James C
    We have a number of firewalls in place around our organisation and in some cases packets can pass through four levels of firewall limiting the flow TCP traffic. A concept that I'm used to from software testing is regression testing, allowing you to run a test suite against a changed application to verify that the new changes haven't affected any old features. Does anyone have any experience or an offer any solutions to being able to perform the same type of thing with firewall changes and network testing? The problem becomes a lot more complicated because you'd ideally want to be originating (and testing receipt) of packets across many machines.

    Read the article

  • Verfication vs validation again, does testing belong to verification? If so, which?

    - by user970696
    I have asked before and created a lot of controversy so I tried to collect some data and ask similar question again. E.g. V&V where all testing is only validation: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-5-2005-68117.asp According to ISO 12207, testing is done in validation: •Prepare Test Requirements,Cases and Specifications •Conduct the Tests In verification, it mentiones. The code implements proper event sequence, consistent interfaces, correct data and control flow, completeness, appropriate allocation timing and sizing budgets, and error definition, isolation, and recovery. and The software components and units of each software item have been completely and correctly integrated into the software item Not sure how to verify without testing but it is not there as a technique. From IEEE: Verification: The process of evaluating software to determine whether the products of a given development phase satisfy the conditions imposed at the start of that phase. [IEEE-STD-610]. Validation: The process of evaluating software during or at the end of the development process to determine whether it satisfies specified requirements. [IEEE-STD-610] At the end of development phase? That would mean UAT.. So the question is, what testing (unit, integration, system, uat) will be considered verification or validation? I do not understand why some say dynamic verification is testing, while others that only validation. An example: I am testing an application. System requirements say there are two fields with max. lenght of 64 characters and Save button. Use case say: User will fill in first and last name and save. When checking the fields and Save button presence, I would say its verification. When I follow the use case, its validation. So its both together, done on the system as a whole.

    Read the article

  • How to verify the code that could take a substantial time to compile? [on hold]

    - by user18404
    As a follow up to my prev question: What is the best aproach for coding in a slow compilation environment To recap: I am stuck with a large software system with which a TDD ideology of "test often" does not work. And to make it even worse the features like pre-compiled headers/multi-threaded compilation/incremental linking, etc is not available to me - hence I think that the best way out would be to add the extensive logging into the system and to start "coding in large chunks", which I understand as code for a two-three hours first (as opposed to 15-20 mins in TDD) - thoroughly eyeball the code for a 15 minutes and only after all that do the compilation and run the tests. As I have been doing TDD for a quite a while, my code eyeballing / code verification skills got rusty (you don't really need this that much if you can quickly verify what you've done in 5 seconds by running a test or two) - so I am after a recommendations on how to learn these source code verification/error spotting skills again. I know I was able to do that easily some 5-10 years ago when I din't have much support from the compiler/unit testing tools I had until recently, thus there should be a way to get back to the basics.

    Read the article

  • How can I test linkable/executable files that require re-hosting or retargeting?

    - by hagubear
    Due to data protection, I cannot discuss fine details of the work itself so apologies PROBLEM CASE Sometimes my software projects require merging/integration with third party (customer or other suppliers) software. these software are often in linkable executables or object code (requires that my source code is retargeted and linked with it). When I get the executables or object code, I cannot validate its operation fully without integrating it with my system. My initial idea is that executables are not meant to be unit tested, they are meant to be linkable with other system, but what is the guarantee that post-linkage and integration behaviour will be okay? There is also no sufficient documentation available (from the customer) to indicate how to go about integrating the executables or object files. I know this is philosophical question, but apparently not enough research could be found at this moment to conclude to a solution. I was hoping that people could help me go to the right direction by suggesting approaches. To start, I have found out that Avionics OEM software is often rehosted and retargeted by third parties e.g. simulator makers. I wonder how they test them. Surely, the source code will not be supplied due to IPR rgulations. UPDATE I have received reasonable and very useful suggestions regarding this area. My current struggle has shifted into testing 3rd party OBJECT code that needs to be linked with my own source code (retargeted) on my host machine. How can I even test object code? Surely, I need to link them first to even think about doing anything. Is it the post-link behaviour that needs to be determined and scripted (using perl,Tcl, etc.) so that inputs and outputs could be verified? No clue!! :( thanks,

    Read the article

  • Application that will install application

    - by user23950
    I'm thinking of a software that comes with pc decrapifier. Which can do the exact opposite of what pc decrapifier can do. Install a number of applications in one click. Is there an application like that?Not a web app please, I already know of that but I forgot the name, so if you know that please comment.

    Read the article

  • Software requirements for replicating a Windows application

    - by gpuguy
    I developed an application using Windows Form in C++ (IDE MSVC 2010). Some part of application also has MFC, and OpenCv. I want to send the application to my cleint for interim testing on his own machine. I have not developed any installer for the same, and so I will be sending him the.EXE file. I want that the client should not face any difficulty in replicating the experiment, and thus saves his time. Can somebody suggest me what all softwares(such as, MSVC, .NET Framework, Windows SDK etc) should already be installed on the client's machine for successfull testing of the application? Note: OS (Windows 7) and hardware is exactly same at both sides.

    Read the article

  • Chossing an application server for an web application development

    - by harigm
    My manager has asked me to suggest an application server for the web application development work, What are the factors that needs to be considered before we select any application server for web application development in Java J2ee development? If I select one now and IN future, if I want to change to some other application server, Is if that minimum effort to change?

    Read the article

  • Choosing an application server for web application development

    - by harigm
    My manager has asked me to suggest an application server for web application development work. What are the factors that needs to be considered before we select any application server for web application development in Java J2EE development? If I select one now and IN future and I want to change to some other application server, is that minimum effort to change?

    Read the article

  • Application switcher is broken

    - by Byron Hawkins
    After a normal update of my Ubuntu 12.04 install last week, my application switcher has stopped working. I've tried all different settings in CompizConfig, including a variety of shortcut keys and both switcher versions ("Application Switcher" and "Static Application Switcher"). So far there has been no way to get any form of application switcher to appear on my screen. Can anyone give me an idea what might be wrong, or where I might look for more information? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • Real time writing to disk

    - by Jesper
    Is there any software out there that can help me track, in real time, files being changed and/or created on my Windows (Windows 7) system? I'm trying to figure out all files being changed when setting up Windows Live Mail as I want to sync all relevant files between two computers. And no, the storage folder is not enough. I'm grateful for any help. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Real time writing to disc

    - by Jesper
    Hi, Is there any software out there that can help me track in real time, files being changed and/or created on my windows (windows 7) system? Im trying to figure out all files being changed when setting up Windows Live Mail as I want to sync all relevant files between two computers. And no, the storage folder is not enough. grateful for any help, jesper

    Read the article

  • Curing the Database-Application mismatch

    - by Phil Factor
    If an application requires access to a database, then you have to be able to deploy it so as to be version-compatible with the database, in phase. If you can deploy both together, then the application and database must normally be deployed at the same version in which they, together, passed integration and functional testing.  When a single database supports more than one application, then the problem gets more interesting. I’ll need to be more precise here. It is actually the application-interface definition of the database that needs to be in a compatible ‘version’.  Most databases that get into production have no separate application-interface; in other words they are ‘close-coupled’.  For this vast majority, the whole database is the application-interface, and applications are free to wander through the bowels of the database scot-free.  If you’ve spurned the perceived wisdom of application architects to have a defined application-interface within the database that is based on views and stored procedures, any version-mismatch will be as sensitive as a kitten.  A team that creates an application that makes direct access to base tables in a database will have to put a lot of energy into keeping Database and Application in sync, to say nothing of having to tackle issues such as security and audit. It is not the obvious route to development nirvana. I’ve been in countless tense meetings with application developers who initially bridle instinctively at the apparent restrictions of being ‘banned’ from the base tables or routines of a database.  There is no good technical reason for needing that sort of access that I’ve ever come across.  Everything that the application wants can be delivered via a set of views and procedures, and with far less pain for all concerned: This is the application-interface.  If more than zero developers are creating a database-driven application, then the project will benefit from the loose-coupling that an application interface brings. What is important here is that the database development role is separated from the application development role, even if it is the same developer performing both roles. The idea of an application-interface with a database is as old as I can remember. The big corporate or government databases generally supported several applications, and there was little option. When a new application wanted access to an existing corporate database, the developers, and myself as technical architect, would have to meet with hatchet-faced DBAs and production staff to work out an interface. Sure, they would talk up the effort involved for budgetary reasons, but it was routine work, because it decoupled the database from its supporting applications. We’d be given our own stored procedures. One of them, I still remember, had ninety-two parameters. All database access was encapsulated in one application-module. If you have a stable defined application-interface with the database (Yes, one for each application usually) you need to keep the external definitions of the components of this interface in version control, linked with the application source,  and carefully track and negotiate any changes between database developers and application developers.  Essentially, the application development team owns the interface definition, and the onus is on the Database developers to implement it and maintain it, in conformance.  Internally, the database can then make all sorts of changes and refactoring, as long as source control is maintained.  If the application interface passes all the comprehensive integration and functional tests for the particular version they were designed for, nothing is broken. Your performance-testing can ‘hang’ on the same interface, since databases are judged on the performance of the application, not an ‘internal’ database process. The database developers have responsibility for maintaining the application-interface, but not its definition,  as they refactor the database. This is easily tested on a daily basis since the tests are normally automated. In this setting, the deployment can proceed if the more stable application-interface, rather than the continuously-changing database, passes all tests for the version of the application. Normally, if all goes well, a database with a well-designed application interface can evolve gracefully without changing the external appearance of the interface, and this is confirmed by integration tests that check the interface, and which hopefully don’t need to be altered at all often.  If the application is rapidly changing its ‘domain model’  in the light of an increased understanding of the application domain, then it can change the interface definitions and the database developers need only implement the interface rather than refactor the underlying database.  The test team will also have to redo the functional and integration tests which are, of course ‘written to’ the definition.  The Database developers will find it easier if these tests are done before their re-wiring  job to implement the new interface. If, at the other extreme, an application receives no further development work but survives unchanged, the database can continue to change and develop to keep pace with the requirements of the other applications it supports, and needs only to take care that the application interface is never broken. Testing is easy since your automated scripts to test the interface do not need to change. The database developers will, of course, maintain their own source control for the database, and will be likely to maintain versions for all major releases. However, this will not need to be shared with the applications that the database servers. On the other hand, the definition of the application interfaces should be within the application source. Changes in it have to be subject to change-control procedures, as they will require a chain of tests. Once you allow, instead of an application-interface, an intimate relationship between application and database, we are in the realms of impedance mismatch, over and above the obvious security problems.  Part of this impedance problem is a difference in development practices. Whereas the application has to be regularly built and integrated, this isn’t necessarily the case with the database.  An RDBMS is inherently multi-user and self-integrating. If the developers work together on the database, then a subsequent integration of the database on a staging server doesn’t often bring nasty surprises. A separate database-integration process is only needed if the database is deliberately built in a way that mimics the application development process, but which hampers the normal database-development techniques.  This process is like demanding a official walking with a red flag in front of a motor car.  In order to closely coordinate databases with applications, entire databases have to be ‘versioned’, so that an application version can be matched with a database version to produce a working build without errors.  There is no natural process to ‘version’ databases.  Each development project will have to define a system for maintaining the version level. A curious paradox occurs in development when there is no formal application-interface. When the strains and cracks happen, the extra meetings, bureaucracy, and activity required to maintain accurate deployments looks to IT management like work. They see activity, and it looks good. Work means progress.  Management then smile on the design choices made. In IT, good design work doesn’t necessarily look good, and vice versa.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >