Search Results

Search found 109 results on 5 pages for 'd inevitable'.

Page 4/5 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >

  • Working for free?

    - by Jonny
    I came across this article Work for Free that got me thinking. The goal of every employer is to gain more value from workers than the firm pays out in wages; otherwise, there is no growth, no advance, and no advantage for the employer. Conversely, the goal of every employee should be to contribute more to the firm than he or she receives in wages, and thereby provide a solid rationale for receiving raises and advancement in the firm. I don't need to tell you that the refusenik didn't last long in this job. In contrast, here is a story from last week. My phone rang. It was the employment division of a major university. The man on the phone was inquiring about the performance of a person who did some site work on Mises.org last year. I was able to tell him about a remarkable young man who swung into action during a crisis, and how he worked three 19-hour days, three days in a row, how he learned new software with diligence, how he kept his cool, how he navigated his way with grace and expertise amidst some 80 different third-party plug-ins and databases, how he saw his way around the inevitable problems, how he assumed responsibility for the results, and much more. What I didn't tell the interviewer was that this person did all this without asking for any payment. Did that fact influence my report on his performance? I'm not entirely sure, but the interviewer probably sensed in my voice my sense of awe toward what this person had done for the Mises Institute. The interviewer told me that he had written down 15 different questions to ask me but that I had answered them all already in the course of my monologue, and that he was thrilled to hear all these specifics. The person was offered the job. He had done a very wise thing; he had earned a devotee for life. The harder the economic times, the more employers need to know what they are getting when they hire someone. The job applications pour in by the buckets, all padded with degrees and made to look as impressive as possible. It's all just paper. What matters today is what a person can do for a firm. The resume becomes pro forma but not decisive under these conditions. But for a former boss or manager to rave about you to a potential employer? That's worth everything. What do you think? Has anyone here worked for free? If so, has it benefited you in any way? Why should(nt) you work for free (presuming you have the money from other means to keep you going)? Can you share your experience? Me, I am taking a year out of college and haven't gotten a degree yet so that's probably why most of my job applications are getting ignored. So im thinking about working for free for the experience?

    Read the article

  • Process Power to the People that Create Engagement

    - by Michael Snow
    Organizations often speak about their engagement problems as if the problem is the people they are trying to engage - employees,  partners, customers and citizens.  The reality of most engagement problems is that the processes put in place to engage are impersonal, inflexible, unintuitive, and often completely ignorant of the population they are trying to serve. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Delight? How appropriate during this short week of the US Independence Day Holiday that we're focusing on People, Process and Engagement. As we celebrate this holiday in the US and the historic independence we gained (sorry Brits!) - it's interesting to think back to 1776 to the creation of that pivotal document, the Declaration of Independence. What tremendous pressure to create an engaging document and founding experience they must have felt. "On June 11, 1776, in anticipation of the impending vote for independence from Great Britain, the Continental Congress appointed five men — Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston — to write a declaration that would make clear to people everywhere why this break from Great Britain was both necessary and inevitable. The committee then appointed Jefferson to draft a statement. Jefferson produced a "fair copy" of his draft declaration, which became the basic text of his "original Rough draught." The text was first submitted to Adams, then Franklin, and finally to the other two members of the committee. Before the committee submitted the declaration to Congress on June 28, they made forty-seven emendations to the document. During the ensuing congressional debates of July 1-4, 1776, Congress adopted thirty-nine further revisions to the committee draft. (http://www.constitution.org) If anything was an attempt for engaging the hearts and minds of the 13 Colonies at the time, this document certainly succeeded in its mission. ...Their tools at the time were pen and ink and parchment. Although the final document would later be typeset with lead type for a printing press to distribute to the colonies, all of the original drafts were hand written. And today's enterprise complains about using "Review and Track Changes" at times.  Can you imagine the manual revision control process? or lack thereof?  Collaborative process? Time delays? Would  implementing a better process have helped our founding fathers collaborate better? Declaration of Independence rough draft below. One of many during the creation process. Great comparison across multiple versions of the document here. (from http://www.ushistory.org/): While you may not be creating a new independent nation, getting your employees to engage is crucial to your success as a company in today's world. Oracle WebCenter provides the tools that power engagement. Employees that have better tools for communication, collaboration and getting their job done are more engaged employees. Better engaged employees create more engaged customers and partners. 12.00 Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 -"/ /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}

    Read the article

  • In the Firing Line: The impact of project and portfolio performance on the CEO

    - by Melissa Centurio Lopes
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt: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;} What are the primary measurements for rating CEO performance? For corporate boards, business analysts, investors, and the trade press the metrics they deploy are relatively binary in nature; what is being done to generate earnings, and what is being done to build and sustain high performance? As for the market, interest is primarily aroused when operational and financial performance falls outside planned commitments for the year. When organizations announce better than predicted results, they usually experience an immediate increase in share price. Likewise, poor results have an obviously negative impact on the share price and impact the role and tenure of the incumbent CEO. The danger for the CEO is that the risk of failure is ever present, ranging from manufacturing delays and supply chain issues to labor shortages and scope creep. This risk is enhanced by the involvement of secondary suppliers providing services critical to overall work schedules, and magnified further across a portfolio of programs and projects underway at any one time – and all set within a global context. All can impact planned return on investment and have an inevitable impact on the share price – the primary empirical measure of day-to-day performance. Read this complete complementary report, In the Firing Line and explore what is the direct link between the health of the portfolio and CEO performance. This report will provide an overview of the responsibility the CEO has for implementing and maintaining a culture of accountability, offer examples of some of the higher profile project failings in recent years, and detail the capabilities available to the CEO to mitigate the risks residing in their own portfolios. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt: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;}

    Read the article

  • Use of SAX parser in Android - OutOfMemory Issue

    - by Sephy
    Hi everybody, I have been using a SAX parser for a while now to get data from various XML, but today i'm banging my head on a new problem with a hudge XML (compared to the previous ones . here around 12k lines) with a lot of repetitive items in it. Most of the time, the items are part of a block : <content> <item lbl="blabla"> <item lbl="blabla"/> <item lbl="blabla"/> </item> <item lbl="blabla"> <item lbl="blabla"/> <item lbl="blabla"/> <item lbl="blabla"/> <item lbl="blabla"/> <item lbl="blabla"/> <item lbl="blabla"/> </item> </content> The blabla part is of course changing...But, I would like to keep the structure of items (they are titles and subtitles). And for that, I append each blabla with a starting and ending tag blabla, where x is the position in the tree of items (1, 2, 3 or 4). The slightly problematic part is that with that, I'm creating thousands of useless objects and the garbage collector doesn't have time to clean after the parser, and the inevitable OutOfMemory comes in my face... I have no idea of how to deal with it; The best technique would be if I could take the whole content of , but i'm not sure that this is possible with a SAX parser. Any help is welcome and any solution deeply thanked...

    Read the article

  • Question about effective logging in C#

    - by MartyIX
    I've written a simple class for debugging and I call the method Debugger.WriteLine(...) in my code like this: Debugger.WriteLine("[Draw]", "InProgress", "[x,y] = " + x.ToString("0.00") + ", " + y.ToString("0.00") + "; pos = " + lastPosX.ToString() + "x" + lastPosY.ToString() + " -> " + posX.ToString() + "x" + posY.ToString() + "; SS = " + squareSize.ToString() + "; MST = " + startTime.ToString("0.000") + "; Time = " + time.ToString() + phase.ToString(".0000") + "; progress = " + progress.ToString("0.000") + "; step = " + step.ToString() + "; TimeMovementEnd = " + UI.MovementEndTime.ToString()); The body of the procedure Debugger.WriteLine is compiled only in Debug mode (directives #if, #endif). What makes me worry is that I often need ToString() in Debugger.WriteLine call which is costly because it creates still new strings (for changing number for example). How to solve this problem? A few points/questions about debugging/tracing: I don't want to wrap every Debugger.WriteLine in an IF statement or to use preprocessor directives in order to leave out debugging methods because it would inevitable lead to a not very readable code and it requires too much typing. I don't want to use any framework for tracing/debugging. I want to try to program it myself. Are Trace methods (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.diagnostics.trace.aspx) left out if compiling in release mode? If it is so is it possible that my methods would behave similarly? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fht0f5be.aspx output = String.Format("You are now {0} years old.", years); Which seems nice. Is it a solution for my problem with ToString()?

    Read the article

  • What if you used the wrong language?

    - by HS
    A reply to another question made me remember a project from some years ago when it turned out that Java was not the right tool to use. I typically only learn a new language when I have a problem that it solves better than the ones I already know. [...] Then I write whatever program I wanted to learn that language for in the first place. [...] By the time I've gotten my target program written, I've usually got a decent handle on the language, not to mention any other features it has, and I've got other ideas to use it for. I did just that back then with Java, because the client thought it to be the right language to use (platform independent) and initial evaluation confirmed that. However, much later in the project there were some issue (can't really remember all the details by now). So, the project that started as a nice learning experience turned into a nightmare toward the end. I was at the brink of switching over to my trusted C++ and doing a complete rewrite. The client was not so much of a problem to convince back then, but my supervisor was strongly opposed because of all the work that already went into the Java version. In hindsight, he was right and the project was complete more or less with the intended features kind of working, but it was the project that I am least proud of by now. Long story short: what do you think, when is it too much and the switch to another technology is worthwhile? I personally would estimate the point of no return to be around 50% of the planned effort, but really want to know, if anyone has real experience with such a switch. And to answer the inevitable question: I do not really care, if the technology switched to is proven or another new thing. The latter would basically need more initial scrutiny based on the past experiences in the problematic project.

    Read the article

  • What can cause my code to run slower when the server JIT is activated?

    - by durandai
    I am doing some optimizations on an MPEG decoder. To ensure my optimizations aren't breaking anything I have a test suite that benchmarks the entire codebase (both optimized and original) as well as verifying that they both produce identical results (basically just feeding a couple of different streams through the decoder and crc32 the outputs). When using the "-server" option with the Sun 1.6.0_18, the test suite runs about 12% slower on the optimized version after warmup (in comparison to the default "-client" setting), while the original codebase gains a good boost running about twice as fast as in client mode. While at first this seemed to be simply a warmup issue to me, I added a loop to repeat the entire test suite multiple times. Then execution times become constant for each pass starting at the 3rd iteration of the test, still the optimized version stays 12% slower than in the client mode. I am also pretty sure its not a garbage collection issue, since the code involves absolutely no object allocations after startup. The code consists mainly of some bit manipulation operations (stream decoding) and lots of basic floating math (generating PCM audio). The only JDK classes involved are ByteArrayInputStream (feeds the stream to the test and excluding disk IO from the tests) and CRC32 (to verify the result). I also observed the same behaviour with Sun JDK 1.7.0_b98 (only that ist 15% instead of 12% there). Oh, and the tests were all done on the same machine (single core) with no other applications running (WinXP). While there is some inevitable variation on the measured execution times (using System.nanoTime btw), the variation between different test runs with the same settings never exceeded 2%, usually less than 1% (after warmup), so I conclude the effect is real and not purely induced by the measuring mechanism/machine. Are there any known coding patterns that perform worse on the server JIT? Failing that, what options are available to "peek" under the hood and observe what the JIT is doing there?

    Read the article

  • Is there a safe / standard way to manage unstructured memory in C++?

    - by andand
    I'm building a toy VM that requires a block of memory for storing and accessing data elements of different types and of different sizes. I've done this by writing a wrapper class around a uint8_t[] data block of the needed size. That class has some template methods to write / read typed data elements to / from arbitrary locations in the memory block, both of which check to make certain the bounds aren't violated. These methods use memmove in what I hope is a more or less safe manner. That said, while I am willing to press on in this direction, I've got to believe that other with more expertise have been here before and might be willing to share their wisdom. In particular: 1) Is there a class in one of the C++ standards (past, present, future) that has been defined to perform a function similar to what I have outlined above? 2) If not, is there a (preferably free as in beer) library out there that does? 3) Short of that, besides bounds checking and the inevitable issue of writing one type to a memory location and reading a different from that location, are there other issues I should be aware of? Thanks.-&&

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice in regards to building composite dtos off of an aggregate root with domain

    - by Chance
    I'm trying to figure out the best approach/practice for assembling a composite data transfer object off of an aggregate root and would love to hear people's thoughts on this. For example, lets say I have a root that has a few domain objects as children. I want to assemble a specific view dto, based on some business logic, that either has attributes or full dto's of it's objects. What I'm struggling with is trying to figure out where that assembly should happen. I can see it going on the domain object of the aggregate root as there is some business logic associated with it. The benefits of this approach from what I've deduced thus far is that it should reduce the inevitable business logic from bleeding outisde of the domain object. It also allows for private methods that take care of tasks that could become more complex from an external builder. The downsides being that the domain object becomes much more entrenched in the application's workflow and represents much more than just the domain object. It also could become very large in the scenario where you need multiple composite Dtos. Alternatively, I could also see it belonging to some form of transfer object assembler where there is a builder for each domain object. The domain objects would still be responsible for GetDto() and UpdateFromDto(dto). Outside of that, the builder would handle the construction and deconstruction of composite dtos. The downside is kind of mentioned above, where I fear this will easily lead to developers unfamiliar with DDD bleeding a ton of business logic into the assembler which is what I want to desperately avoid. Any thoughts would be greatly apperciated.

    Read the article

  • git commit best practices

    - by Ivan Z. Siu
    I am using git to manage a C++ project. When I am working on the projects, I find it hard to organize the changes into commits when changing things that are related to many places. For example, I may change a class interface in a .h file, which will affect the corresponding .cpp file, and also other files using it. I am not sure whether it is reasonable to put all the stuff into one big commit. Intuitively, I think the commits should be modular, each one of them corresponds to a functional update/change, so that the collaborators could pick things accordingly. But seems that sometimes it is inevitable to include lots of files and changes to make a functional change actually work. Searching did not yield me any good suggestion or tips. Hence I wonder if anyone could give me some best practices when doing commits. Thanks! PS. I've been using git for a while and I know how to interactively add/rebase/split/amend/... What I am asking is the PHILOSOPHY part.

    Read the article

  • How can I help fellow students struggling in programming classes?

    - by David Barry
    I'm a computer science student finishing up my second semester of programming classes. I've enjoyed them quite a bit, and learned a lot, but it seems other students are struggling with the concepts and assignments more than I am. When an assignment is due, the inevitable group email comes out the day or two before with people needing some help either with a specific part of the problem, or sometimes people just seem to have a hard time knowing where to start. I'd really like to be able to help out, but I have a hard time thinking of the right way to give them help without giving them the answer. When I'm having trouble understanding a concept, a code snippet can go along way to helping me, but at the same time if it makes a lot of sense, it can be difficult to think of another way to go about it. Plus the Academic Integrity section of each assignment is always looming overhead warning against sharing code with others. I've tried using pseudo code to help give others an idea on program flow, leaving them to figure out how to implement certain aspects of it, but I didn't get too much feedback and don't know how much it actually helped them out, or if it just confused them further. So I'm basically looking to see if anyone has experience with this, or good ways that I can help out other students to nudge them in the right direction or help them think about the problem in the right way.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to tie nested generics?

    - by Michael Deardeuff
    Is it possible to tie nested generics/captures together? I often have the problem of having a Map lookup of class to genericized item of said class. In concrete terms I want something like this (no, T is not declared anywhere). private Map<Class<T>, ServiceLoader<T>> loaders = Maps.newHashMap(); In short, I want loaders.put/get to have semantics something like these: <T> ServiceLoader<T> get(Class<T> klass) {...} <T> void put(Class<T> klass, ServiceLoader<T> loader) {...} Is the following the best I can do? Do I have to live with the inevitable @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") somewhere down the line? private Map<Class<?>, ServiceLoader<?>> loaders = Maps.newHashMap();

    Read the article

  • How to easily apply a function to a collection in C++

    - by Jesse Beder
    I'm storing images as arrays, templated based on the type of their elements, like Image<unsigned> or Image<float>, etc. Frequently, I need to perform operations on these images; for example, I might need to add two images, or square an image (elementwise), and so on. All of the operations are elementwise. I'd like get as close as possible to writing things like: float Add(float a, float b) { return a+b; } Image<float> result = Add(img1, img2); and even better, things like complex ComplexCombine(float a, float b) { return complex(a, b); } Image<complex> result = ComplexCombine(img1, img2); or struct FindMax { unsigned currentMax; FindMax(): currentMax(0) {} void operator(unsigned a) { if(a > currentMax) currentMax = a; } }; FindMax findMax; findMax(img); findMax.currentMax; // now contains the maximum value of 'img' Now, I obviously can't exactly do that; I've written something so that I can call: Image<float> result = Apply(img1, img2, Add); but I can't seem to figure out a generic way for it to detect the return type of the function/function object passed, so my ComplexCombine example above is out; also, I have to write a new one for each number of arguments I'd like to pass (which seems inevitable). Any thoughts on how to achieve this (with as little boilerplate code as possible)?

    Read the article

  • System.Threading.Timer won't trigger

    - by mijatovic
    Hello guys, I am new here... I have one question, if somebody can help me. It is about timers (System.Threading.Timer). I want to break inevitable recursion: I have two columns in datarow and they are mutually dependant (price_without_VAT and price_with_VAT). Setting one of them will definitely cause StackOverflowException. So here's the idea: bool flag = true; void Reset(object state) { flag = true; } Now, wrap the method for changing value of one of the columns: { if(flag) { flag = false; System.Threading.Timer tmr = new System.Threading.Timer(new System.Threading.TimerCallback(Reset), null, 10, System.Threading.Timeout.Infinite); datarow.other_column = value; } } datarow.other_column.value line will immediately trigger the above method, but there will be no recursion because flag is false. In 10 ms flag should be back to true, and everything is back to normal. Now, when i follow the code in DEBUGGER, everything works fine, but when I start app NORMALLY Reset function simply will not trigger, flag is stuck to false forever and everything false apart. I play around with due_time parameter but nothing seems to help. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 x64 "upgrade" repair fails

    - by Polynomial
    I've been running into issues with Windows Update, which I can't seem to fix. The hotfixes don't work, nor does the Windows update readyness tool, or the manual SP1 upgrade. I get various esoteric errors which nobody seems to have a fix for. Looks like some of the update cache is corrupt and digital signatures seem to be broken on some packages / Windows Update components. Long story short, I have discovered the only option is to do a repair operation on the OS, to repair everything. It's so corrupt that only a complete replacement will fix it. According to various sources (including MSKB) one can perform a repair by running an in-place upgrade. I've got the Windows 7 Ultimate retail disc, which I've inserted into my machine. I ran setup.exe and went through in the following order: Install now Go online to get latest updates (I've also tried not getting updates) Wait for updates to be downloaded Select Windows 7 Ultimate (x64 architecture) and click next Accept the T&Cs, click next Click Upgrade At this point it spends a minute on the "checking compatibility" screen, after which I get the following error: The following issues are preventing Windows from upgrading. Cancel the upgrade, complete each task, and then restart the upgrade to continue. You can’t upgrade 64-bit Windows to a 32-bit version of Windows. To upgrade, obtain a 64-bit version of the installation disc, or go online to see how to install Windows 7 and keep your files and settings. 32-bit Windows cannot be upgraded to a 64-bit version of Windows. To upgrade, obtain a 32-bit version of the Windows installation disc. It also mentions a warning about potential conflicts with a storage driver and VS2010, but that doesn't seem to be the blocking issue. My currently installed version of Windows is Ultimate 64-bit (absolutely sure of this) and the disc is definitely a x86 / x64 combined Ultimate retail disc. There seem to be a few people who have run into this (e.g. this question), but I've not seen any answers. I've checked the event viewer, but can't spot anything in there that's related. Any idea how I can get this working? P.S: Just to pre-empt the inevitable "are you suuuuuuuuuuuuure it's x64 Ultimate?" questions:

    Read the article

  • Disable Acer eRecovery system

    - by Joel Coehoorn
    The meat of this question is that I'm looking for a way to either require a password before using a recovery partition or "break" the recovery partition (specifically, Acer eRecovery) in a way that I can later "unbreak" only by booting normally into windows first. Here's the full details: I have a set of new Acer Veriton n260g machines in a computer lab. A lot work went into setting up this lab to work well - for example, Office 2007 and other programs needed by the students were installed, all windows updates are applied, and a default desktop is setup. All in all it's several hours work to fully set up one machine. Unfortunately, I don't currently have the ability to easily image these machines, and even if I did I would want to avoid downtime even while an image is restored. Therefore, I've taken steps to lock them down — namely DeepFreeze and a bios password to prevent booting from anywhere but the frozen hard drive. DeepFreeze is an amazing product — as long as you boot from the frozen hard drive, there is no way to actually make permanent changes to that hard drive. Anything you do is wiped after the machine restarts. It lets me give students the leeway to do what they want on lab computers without worrying about them breaking something. The problem is that even with the bios locked and set to only boot from the hard drive, these Acers still have a simple way to choose a different boot source: shut them down and put a paper click in a little hole at the top while you turn it on again. This puts them into the "Acer eRecovery" mode. This by itself is no big deal — you can still power cycle with no impact. But if you then click through the menu to reset the machine (we're now past the point of curiosity and on to intent) it will wipe the hard drive and restore it to the original state. Of course, a few students have already figured this out and reset a couple machines. That's unfortunate, but inevitable. I don't want to destroy the ability to do this entirely (which I could by repartitioning the drives to remove the recovery partition) but I would like a way to require a password first, or "break" the recovery system in a way that I can "unbreak" only if I first un-freeze the hard drive in DeepFreeze. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Recommendations or advice for shared computer control

    - by Telemachus
    Basic scenario: we are a school (overwhelmingly Mac, some Windows machines via BootCamp), and we are considering using DeepFreeze to guard the state of our shared machines. We have roughly 250 machines that are either shared laptops (which move around quite a bit) or common desktops in public spaces. Obviously, we spend a lot of time maintaining the machines and trying to reverse the inevitable drift as people make changes to the computers. We would like to control the integrity of the build we initially put onto the machines without handcuffing users and especially without using Mac's Parental Control software. (We've had nothing but bad experiences with it.) We've been testing DeepFreeze, and so far it's very impressive. But I'm curious to hear if people who have used DeepFreeze or any similar software have any advice or tips. To get things started, I will post my own pros and cons. Pros: The state of the machine is frozen in our chosen state. All changes made to the machine after that disappear upon restart. (This frozen state really appears to cover everything. I have yet to do something to a test machine that isn't instantly healed.) Tons of trivial but time-consuming maintenance is gone in an instant. Also, lots of not-so-trivial breakage should be avoided. There are good options, however, that allow you to create storage spaces either globally or per user. (Otherwise, stored files disappear upon reboot. For some machines, this is a good option itself. Simply warn people: save externally or else; this machine is a kiosk, not your storage space.) Cons: Anytime we actually need to make a change (upgrade basic software, add a printer or an airport permanently, add new software), the process is a bit more complex. Reboot into a special mode (thaw state), make changes, reboot back into frozen mode. If (when?) we forget this, we will end up making changes that disappear after the next reboot. Users will forget to save files correctly (in the right place or externally), and we will have loud, unpleasant conversations explaining that we can't recover the document they worked on all afternoon yesterday. The machine rebooted. The file is gone. These are my initial thoughts, but I would love to hear from other people who have experience with DeepFreeze or any similar software. What should we be careful about? Do the pros outweigh the cons? What gains or problems am I not seeing? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Book Review Charlene Li's New Book: Open Leadership

    - by david.talamelli
    A few weeks ago, I was surprised when I looked in our mail box. I had received an Advance Copy of Charlene Li's new book titled "Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead". Charlene sent a tweet a while back asking anyone interested in receiving the book to submit their details. I sent off my details and didn't think I would hear anything back, so it was a pleasant surprise. With that I almost feel bad that it has taken me 3 weeks to read her book. It took this long mainly because it has been hard to fit in some quality reading time for myself with work, the kids, volunteering, etc..... I am happy to report I have finished her book and wanted to run through my initial thoughts with you. I first came across Charlene Li after reading her book "Groundswell" a few years ago, her latest book "Open Leadership" is a follow on from Groundswell and to me it seems like a natural progression from the question "Ok the business landscape is changing, what do we do now?" For me these two books have a different writing style to them. Groundswell from memory spoke about broad social media concepts and adoption and alerted us to some of the changes taking place in the SM landscape. Open Leadership seems to be focussed on taking those broad concepts and finding ways to implement them into your environment. That is breaking broad concepts down into individual action items that can be measured and analysed. As the business world changes Leaders must change their approach and let go of control to more control. One of the things I love reading about is seeing real life examples of how people and organisations are making these things happen. In this book Charlene has collected some great collateral and case studies from companies such as Cisco, Best Buy, The Red Cross and The State Bank of India (as a side-note, I wish now that I submitted my input for the Leaders I work with here at Oracle - there are some great examples here of people who empower their staff). As society becomes more adept at using social media it is inevitable that Leaders must become open with their employees, clients and partners. From the book some of the key points I took away are (I actually took away a lot more from this book, this is just an overview) : 1) Organisations should encourage risk taking. Without being a "hacker", how can we improve ourselves, our processes, our business, etc... The old saying you only fail by not trying applies here. If Leaders create a culture where people are afraid to stick their neck out - how will you innovate? 2) Leaders need to lead by example - if you want to promote an open and transparent business, a Leader needs to exemplify the traits they would like to see out of their employees. 3) The definition of a Leader is changing, open leadership is about being a catalyst to change that uses networks to spread a vision as opposed to traditional leadership that is viewed as a role. 4) There is a cultural and business shift taking place. Information is more wide-spread and is being disseminated faster than any other time in the past. Leaders who are open and transparent will thrive in this new business environment. 5) Leadership is not defined by a title - it is defined by a person's actions. Also anyone can be a Leader or has Leadership potential in them- it is a matter of drawing that out of people. I found this book useful and I also found myself looking at my own actions and the actions of others around me (including my management) to see how open and transparent I am in my work. For me I am glad I read this book as it validated my own thoughts of the changes we are seeing take place. This book has certainly given me some new ideas and helped me push my own boundaries of what I can do. The book has a number of action plans at the end of some of the chapters such as "Conducting you Openness Audit" that I think have helped me take thoughts and ideas and turn them into concrete action items. I have included a link to the introduction of the book here if anyone wants to have a read of it. If anyone else has read this book, it would be great to hear your thoughts/comments/review. Leave your comments below. This article was originally posted on David Talamelli's Blog - David's Journal on Tap

    Read the article

  • Why lock-free data structures just aren't lock-free enough

    - by Alex.Davies
    Today's post will explore why the current ways to communicate between threads don't scale, and show you a possible way to build scalable parallel programming on top of shared memory. The problem with shared memory Soon, we will have dozens, hundreds and then millions of cores in our computers. It's inevitable, because individual cores just can't get much faster. At some point, that's going to mean that we have to rethink our architecture entirely, as millions of cores can't all access a shared memory space efficiently. But millions of cores are still a long way off, and in the meantime we'll see machines with dozens of cores, struggling with shared memory. Alex's tip: The best way for an application to make use of that increasing parallel power is to use a concurrency model like actors, that deals with synchronisation issues for you. Then, the maintainer of the actors framework can find the most efficient way to coordinate access to shared memory to allow your actors to pass messages to each other efficiently. At the moment, NAct uses the .NET thread pool and a few locks to marshal messages. It works well on dual and quad core machines, but it won't scale to more cores. Every time we use a lock, our core performs an atomic memory operation (eg. CAS) on a cell of memory representing the lock, so it's sure that no other core can possibly have that lock. This is very fast when the lock isn't contended, but we need to notify all the other cores, in case they held the cell of memory in a cache. As the number of cores increases, the total cost of a lock increases linearly. A lot of work has been done on "lock-free" data structures, which avoid locks by using atomic memory operations directly. These give fairly dramatic performance improvements, particularly on systems with a few (2 to 4) cores. The .NET 4 concurrent collections in System.Collections.Concurrent are mostly lock-free. However, lock-free data structures still don't scale indefinitely, because any use of an atomic memory operation still involves every core in the system. A sync-free data structure Some concurrent data structures are possible to write in a completely synchronization-free way, without using any atomic memory operations. One useful example is a single producer, single consumer (SPSC) queue. It's easy to write a sync-free fixed size SPSC queue using a circular buffer*. Slightly trickier is a queue that grows as needed. You can use a linked list to represent the queue, but if you leave the nodes to be garbage collected once you're done with them, the GC will need to involve all the cores in collecting the finished nodes. Instead, I've implemented a proof of concept inspired by this intel article which reuses the nodes by putting them in a second queue to send back to the producer. * In all these cases, you need to use memory barriers correctly, but these are local to a core, so don't have the same scalability problems as atomic memory operations. Performance tests I tried benchmarking my SPSC queue against the .NET ConcurrentQueue, and against a standard Queue protected by locks. In some ways, this isn't a fair comparison, because both of these support multiple producers and multiple consumers, but I'll come to that later. I started on my dual-core laptop, running a simple test that had one thread producing 64 bit integers, and another consuming them, to measure the pure overhead of the queue. So, nothing very interesting here. Both concurrent collections perform better than the lock-based one as expected, but there's not a lot to choose between the ConcurrentQueue and my SPSC queue. I was a little disappointed, but then, the .NET Framework team spent a lot longer optimising it than I did. So I dug out a more powerful machine that Red Gate's DBA tools team had been using for testing. It is a 6 core Intel i7 machine with hyperthreading, adding up to 12 logical cores. Now the results get more interesting. As I increased the number of producer-consumer pairs to 6 (to saturate all 12 logical cores), the locking approach was slow, and got even slower, as you'd expect. What I didn't expect to be so clear was the drop-off in performance of the lock-free ConcurrentQueue. I could see the machine only using about 20% of available CPU cycles when it should have been saturated. My interpretation is that as all the cores used atomic memory operations to safely access the queue, they ended up spending most of the time notifying each other about cache lines that need invalidating. The sync-free approach scaled perfectly, despite still working via shared memory, which after all, should still be a bottleneck. I can't quite believe that the results are so clear, so if you can think of any other effects that might cause them, please comment! Obviously, this benchmark isn't realistic because we're only measuring the overhead of the queue. Any real workload, even on a machine with 12 cores, would dwarf the overhead, and there'd be no point worrying about this effect. But would that be true on a machine with 100 cores? Still to be solved. The trouble is, you can't build many concurrent algorithms using only an SPSC queue to communicate. In particular, I can't see a way to build something as general purpose as actors on top of just SPSC queues. Fundamentally, an actor needs to be able to receive messages from multiple other actors, which seems to need an MPSC queue. I've been thinking about ways to build a sync-free MPSC queue out of multiple SPSC queues and some kind of sign-up mechanism. Hopefully I'll have something to tell you about soon, but leave a comment if you have any ideas.

    Read the article

  • What Counts For A DBA: Foresight

    - by drsql
    Of all the valuable attributes of a DBA covered so far in this series, ranging from passion to humility to practicality, perhaps one of the most important attributes may turn out to be the most seemingly-nebulous: foresight. According to Free Dictionary foresight is the "perception of the significance and nature of events before they have occurred". Foresight does not come naturally to most people, as the parent of any teenager will attest. No matter how clearly you see their problems coming they won't listen, and have to fail before eventually (hopefully) learning for themselves. Having graduated from the school of hard knocks, the DBA, the naive teenager no longer, acquires the ability to foretell how events will unfold in response to certain actions or attitudes with the unerring accuracy of a doom-laden prophet. Like Simba in the Lion King, after a few blows to the head, we foretell that a sore head that will be the inevitable consequence of a swing of Rafiki's stick, and we take evasive action. However, foresight is about more than simply learning when to duck. It's about taking the time to understand and prevent the habits that caused the stick to swing in the first place. And based on this definition, I often think there is a lot less foresight on display in my industry than there ought to be. Most DBAs reading this blog will spot a line such as the following in a piece of "working" code, understand immediately why it is less than optimimum, and take evasive action. …WHERE CAST (columnName as int) = 1 However, the programmers who regularly write this sort of code clearly lack that foresight, and this and numerous other examples of similarly-malodorous code prevail throughout our industry (and provide premium-grade fertilizer for the healthy growth of many a consultant's bank account). Sometimes, perhaps harried by impatient managers and painfully tight deadlines, everyone makes mistakes. Yes, I too occasionally write code that "works", but basically stinks. When the problems manifest, it is sometimes accompanied by a sense of grim recognition that somewhere in me existed the foresight to know that that approach would lead to this problem. However, in the headlong rush, warning signs got overlooked, lessons learned previously, which could supply the foresight to the current project, were lost and not applied.   Of course, the problem often is a simple lack of skills, training and knowledge in the relevant technology and/or business space; programmers and DBAs forced to do their best in the face of inadequate training, or to apply their skills in areas where they lack experience. However, often the problem goes deeper than this; I detect in some DBAs and programmers a certain laziness of attitude.   They veer from one project to the next, going with "whatever works", unwilling or unable to take the time to understand where their actions are leading them. Of course, the whole "Agile" mindset is often interpreted to favor flexibility and rapid production over aiming to get things right the first time. The faster you try to travel in the dark, frequently changing direction, the more important it is to have someone who has the foresight to know at least roughly where you are heading. This is doubly true for the data tier which, no matter how you try to deny it, simply cannot be "redone" every month as you learn aspects of the world you are trying to model that, with a little bit of foresight, you would have seen coming.   Sometimes, when as a DBA you can glance briefly at 200 lines of working SQL code and know instinctively why it will cause problems, foresight can feel like magic, but it isn't; it's more like muscle memory. It is acquired as the consequence of good experience, useful communication with those around you, and a willingness to learn continually, through continued education as well as from failure. Foresight can be deployed only by finding time to understand how the lessons learned from other DBAs, and other projects, can help steer the current project in the right direction.   C.S. Lewis once said "The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is." It cannot be avoided; the quality of what you build now is going to affect you, and others, at some point in the future. Take the time to acquire foresight; it is a love letter to your future self, to say you cared.

    Read the article

  • Death March

    - by Nick Harrison
    It is a horrible sight to watch a project fail. There are few things as bad. Watching a project fail regardless of the reason is almost like sitting in a room with a "Dementor" from Harry Potter. It will literally suck all of the life and joy out of the room. Nearly every project that I have seen fail has failed because of political challenges or management challenges. Sometimes there are technical challenges that bring a project to its knees, but usually projects fail for less technical reasons. Here a few observations about projects failing for political reasons. Both the client and the consultants have to be committed to seeing the project succeed. Put simply, you cannot solve a problem when the primary stake holders do not truly want it solved. This could come from a consultant being more interested in extended the engagement. It could come from a client being afraid of what will happen to them once the problem is solved. It could come from disenfranchised stake holders. Sometimes a project is beset on all sides. When you find yourself working on a project that has this kind of threat, do all that you can to constrain the disruptive influences of the bad apples. If their influence cannot be constrained, you truly have no choice but to move on to a new project. Tough choices have to be made to make a project successful. These choices will affect everyone involved in the project. These choices may involve users not getting a change request through that they want. Developers may not get to use the tools that they want. Everyone may have to put in more hours that they originally planned. Steps may be skipped. Compromises will be made, but if everyone stays committed to the end goal, you can still be successful. If individuals start feeling disgruntled or resentful of the compromises reached, the project can easily be derailed. When everyone is not working towards a common goal, it is like driving with one foot on the break and one foot on the accelerator. Not only will you not get to where you are planning, you will also damage the car and possibly the passengers as well.   It is important to always keep the end result in mind. Regardless of the development methodology being followed, the end goal is not comprehensive documentation. In all cases, it is working software. Comprehensive documentation is nice but useless if the software doesn't work.   You can never get so distracted by the next goal that you fail to meet the current goal. Most projects are ultimately marathons. This means that the pace must be sustainable. Regardless of the temptations, you cannot burn the team alive. Processes will fail. Technology will get outdated. Requirements will change, but your people will adapt and learn and grow. If everyone on the team from the most senior analyst to the most junior recruit trusts and respects each other, there is no challenge that they cannot overcome. When everyone involved faces challenges with the attitude "This is my project and I will not let it fail" "You are my teammate and I will not let you fail", you will in fact not fail. When you find a team that embraces this attitude, protect it at all cost. Edward Yourdon wrote a book called Death March. In it, he included a graph for categorizing Death March project types based on the Happiness of the Team and the Chances of Success.   Chances are we have all worked on Death March projects. We will all most likely work on more Death March projects in the future. To a certain extent, they seem to be inevitable, but they should never be suicide or ugly. Ideally, they can all be "Mission Impossible" where everyone works hard, has fun, and knows that there is good chance that they will succeed. If you are ever lucky enough to work on such a project, you will know that sense of pride that comes from the eventual success. You will recognize a profound bond with the team that you worked with. Chances are it will change your life or at least your outlook on life. If you have not already read this book, get a copy and study it closely. It will help you survive and make the most out of your next Death March project.

    Read the article

  • How You Helped Shape Java EE 7...

    - by reza_rahman
    I have been working with the JCP in various roles since EJB 3/Java EE 5 (much of it on my own time), eventually culminating in my decision to accept my current role at Oracle (despite it's inevitable set of unique challenges, a role I find by and large positive and fulfilling). During these years, it has always been clear to me that pretty much everyone in the JCP genuinely cares about openness, feedback and developer participation. Perhaps the most visible sign to date of this high regard for grassroots level input is a survey on Java EE 7 gathered a few months ago. The survey was designed to get open feedback on a number of critical issues central to the Java EE 7 umbrella specification including what APIs to include in the standard. When we started the survey, I don't think anyone was certain what the level of participation from developers would really be. I also think everyone was pleasantly surprised that a large number of developers (around 1100) took the time out to vote on these very important issues that could impact their own professional life. And it wasn't just a matter of the quantity of responses. I was particularly impressed with the quality of the comments made through the survey (some of which I'll try to do justice to below). With Java EE 7 under our belt and the horizons for Java EE 8 emerging, this is a good time to thank everyone that took the survey once again for their thoughts and let you know what the impact of your voice actually was. As an aside, you may be happy to know that we are working hard behind the scenes to try to put together a similar survey to help kick off the agenda for Java EE 8 (although this is by no means certain). I'll break things down by the questions asked in the survey, the responses and the resulting change in the specification. APIs to Add to Java EE 7 Full/Web Profile The first question in the survey asked which of four new candidate APIs (WebSocket, JSON-P, JBatch and JCache) should be added to the Java EE 7 Full and Web profile respectively. Developers by and large wanted all the new APIs added to the full platform. The comments expressed particularly strong support for WebSocket and JCache. Others expressed dissatisfaction over the lack of a JSON binding (as opposed to JSON processing) API. WebSocket, JSON-P and JBatch are now part of Java EE 7. In addition, the long-awaited Java EE Concurrency Utilities API was also included in the Full Profile. Unfortunately, JCache was not finalized in time for Java EE 7 and the decision was made not to hold up the Java EE release any longer. JCache continues to move forward strongly and will very likely be included in Java EE 8 (it will be available much sooner than Java EE 8 to boot). An emergent standard for JSON-B is also a strong possibility for Java EE 8. When it came to the Web Profile, developers were supportive of adding WebSocket and JSON-P, but not JBatch and JCache. Both WebSocket and JSON-P are now part of the Web Profile, now also including the already popular JAX-RS API. Enabling CDI by Default The second question asked whether CDI should be enabled in Java EE by default. The overwhelming majority of developers supported the default enablement of CDI. In addition, developers expressed a desire for better CDI/Java EE alignment (with regards to EJB and JSF in particular). Some developers expressed legitimate concerns over the performance implications of enabling CDI globally as well as the potential conflict with other JSR 330 implementations like Spring and Guice. CDI is enabled by default in Java EE 7. Respecting the legitimate concerns, CDI 1.1 was very careful to add additional controls around component scanning. While a lot of work was done in Java EE 6 and Java EE 7 around CDI alignment, further alignment is under serious consideration for Java EE 8. Consistent Usage of @Inject The third question was around using CDI/JSR 330 @Inject consistently vs. allowing JSRs to create their own injection annotations (e.g. @BatchContext). A majority of developers wanted consistent usage of @Inject. The comments again reflected a strong desire for CDI/Java EE alignment. A lot of emphasis in Java EE 7 was put into using @Inject consistently. For example, the JBatch specification is focused on using @Inject wherever possible. JAX-RS remains an exception with it's existing custom injection annotations. However, the JAX-RS specification leads understand the importance of eventual convergence, hopefully in Java EE 8. Expanding the Use of @Stereotype The fourth question was about expanding CDI @Stereotype to cover annotations across Java EE beyond just CDI. A solid majority of developers supported the idea of making @Stereotype more universal in Java EE. The comments maintained the general theme of strong support for CDI/Java EE alignment Unfortunately, there was not enough time and resources in Java EE 7 to implement this fairly pervasive feature. However, it remains a serious consideration for Java EE 8. Expanding Interceptor Use The final set of questions was about expanding interceptors further across Java EE. Developers strongly supported the concept. Along with injection, interceptors are now supported across all Java EE 7 components including Servlets, Filters, Listeners, JAX-WS endpoints, JAX-RS resources, WebSocket endpoints and so on. I hope you are encouraged by how your input to the survey helped shape Java EE 7 and continues to shape Java EE 8. Participating in these sorts of surveys is of course just one way of contributing to Java EE. Another great way to stay involved is the Adopt-A-JSR Program. A large number of developers are already participating through their local JUGs. You could of course become a Java EE JSR expert group member or observer. You should stay tuned to The Aquarium for the progress of Java EE 8 JSRs if that's something you want to look into...

    Read the article

  • Regression testing with Selenium GRID

    - by Ben Adderson
    A lot of software teams out there are tasked with supporting and maintaining systems that have grown organically over time, and the web team here at Red Gate is no exception. We're about to embark on our first significant refactoring endeavour for some time, and as such its clearly paramount that the code be tested thoroughly for regressions. Unfortunately we currently find ourselves with a codebase that isn't very testable - the three layers (database, business logic and UI) are currently tightly coupled. This leaves us with the unfortunate problem that, in order to confidently refactor the code, we need unit tests. But in order to write unit tests, we need to refactor the code :S To try and ease the initial pain of decoupling these layers, I've been looking into the idea of using UI automation to provide a sort of system-level regression test suite. The idea being that these tests can help us identify regressions whilst we work towards a more testable codebase, at which point the more traditional combination of unit and integration tests can take over. Ending up with a strong battery of UI tests is also a nice bonus :) Following on from my previous posts (here, here and here) I knew I wanted to use Selenium. I also figured that this would be a good excuse to put my xUnit [Browser] attribute to good use. Pretty quickly, I had a raft of tests that looked like the following (this particular example uses Reflector Pro). In a nut shell the test traverses our shopping cart and, for a particular combination of number of users and months of support, checks that the price calculations all come up with the correct values. [BrowserTheory] [Browser(Browsers.Firefox3_6, "http://www.red-gate.com")] public void Purchase1UserLicenceNoSupport(SeleniumProvider seleniumProvider) {     //Arrange     _browser = seleniumProvider.GetBrowser();     _browser.Open("http://www.red-gate.com/dynamic/shoppingCart/ProductOption.aspx?Product=ReflectorPro");                  //Act     _browser = ShoppingCartHelpers.TraverseShoppingCart(_browser, 1, 0, ".NET Reflector Pro");     //Assert     var priceResult = PriceHelpers.GetNewPurchasePrice(db, "ReflectorPro", 1, 0, Currencies.Euros);         Assert.Equal(priceResult.Price, _browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl01_Price"));     Assert.Equal(priceResult.Tax, _browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Tax"));     Assert.Equal(priceResult.Total, _browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Total")); } These tests are pretty concise, with much of the common code in the TraverseShoppingCart() and GetNewPurchasePrice() methods. The (inevitable) problem arose when it came to execute these tests en masse. Selenium is a very slick tool, but it can't mask the fact that UI automation is very slow. To give you an idea, the set of cases that covers all of our products, for all combinations of users and support, came to 372 tests (for now only considering purchases in dollars). In the world of automated integration tests, that's a very manageable number. For unit tests, it's a trifle. However for UI automation, those 372 tests were taking just over two hours to run. Two hours may not sound like a lot, but those cases only cover one of the three currencies we deal with, and only one of the many different ways our systems can be asked to calculate a price. It was already pretty clear at this point that in order for this approach to be viable, I was going to have to find a way to speed things up. Up to this point I had been using Selenium Remote Control to automate Firefox, as this was the approach I had used previously and it had worked well. Fortunately,  the guys at SeleniumHQ also maintain a tool for executing multiple Selenium RC tests in parallel: Selenium Grid. Selenium Grid uses a central 'hub' to handle allocation of Selenium tests to individual RCs. The Remote Controls simply register themselves with the hub when they start, and then wait to be assigned work. The (for me) really clever part is that, as far as the client driver library is concerned, the grid hub looks exactly the same as a vanilla remote control. To create a new browser session against Selenium RC, the following C# code suffices: new DefaultSelenium("localhost", 4444, "*firefox", "http://www.red-gate.com"); This assumes that the RC is running on the local machine, and is listening on port 4444 (the default). Assuming the hub is running on your local machine, then to create a browser session in Selenium Grid, via the hub rather than directly against the control, the code is exactly the same! Behind the scenes, the hub will take this request and hand it off to one of the registered RCs that provides the "*firefox" execution environment. It will then pass all communications back and forth between the test runner and the remote control transparently. This makes running existing RC tests on a Selenium Grid a piece of cake, as the developers intended. For a more detailed description of exactly how Selenium Grid works, see this page. Once I had a test environment capable of running multiple tests in parallel, I needed a test runner capable of doing the same. Unfortunately, this does not currently exist for xUnit (boo!). MbUnit on the other hand, has the concept of concurrent execution baked right into the framework. So after swapping out my assembly references, and fixing up the resulting mismatches in assertions, my example test now looks like this: [Test] public void Purchase1UserLicenceNoSupport() {    //Arrange    ISelenium browser = BrowserHelpers.GetBrowser();    var db = DbHelpers.GetWebsiteDBDataContext();    browser.Start();    browser.Open("http://www.red-gate.com/dynamic/shoppingCart/ProductOption.aspx?Product=ReflectorPro");                 //Act     browser = ShoppingCartHelpers.TraverseShoppingCart(browser, 1, 0, ".NET Reflector Pro");    var priceResult = PriceHelpers.GetNewPurchasePrice(db, "ReflectorPro", 1, 0, Currencies.Euros);    //Assert     Assert.AreEqual(priceResult.Price, browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl01_Price"));     Assert.AreEqual(priceResult.Tax, browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Tax"));     Assert.AreEqual(priceResult.Total, browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Total")); } This is pretty much the same as the xUnit version. The exceptions are that the attributes have changed,  the //Arrange phase now has to handle setting up the ISelenium object, as the attribute that previously did this has gone away, and the test now sets up its own database connection. Previously I was using a shared database connection, but this approach becomes more complicated when tests are being executed concurrently. To avoid complexity each test has its own connection, which it is responsible for closing. For the sake of readability, I snipped out the code that closes the browser session and the db connection at the end of the test. With all that done, there was only one more step required before the tests would execute concurrently. It is necessary to tell the test runner which tests are eligible to run in parallel, via the [Parallelizable] attribute. This can be done at the test, fixture or assembly level. Since I wanted to run all tests concurrently, I marked mine at the assembly level in the AssemblyInfo.cs using the following: [assembly: DegreeOfParallelism(3)] [assembly: Parallelizable(TestScope.All)] The second attribute marks all tests in the assembly as [Parallelizable], whilst the first tells the test runner how many concurrent threads to use when executing the tests. I set mine to three since I was using 3 RCs in separate VMs. With everything now in place, I fired up the Icarus* test runner that comes with MbUnit. Executing my 372 tests three at a time instead of one at a time reduced the running time from 2 hours 10 minutes, to 55 minutes, that's an improvement of about 58%! I'd like to have seen an improvement of 66%, but I can understand that either inefficiencies in the hub code, my test environment or the test runner code (or some combination of all three most likely) contributes to a slightly diminished improvement. That said, I'd love to hear about any experience you have in upping this efficiency. Ultimately though, it was a saving that was most definitely worth having. It makes regression testing via UI automation a far more plausible prospect. The other obvious point to make is that this approach scales far better than executing tests serially. So if ever we need to improve performance, we just register additional RC's with the hub, and up the DegreeOfParallelism. *This was just my personal preference for a GUI runner. The MbUnit/Gallio installer also provides a command line runner, a TestDriven.net runner, and a Resharper 4.5 runner. For now at least, Resharper 5 isn't supported.

    Read the article

  • Source-control 'wet-work'?

    - by Phil Factor
    When a design or creative work is flawed beyond remedy, it is often best to destroy it and start again. The other day, I lost the code to a long and intricate SQL batch I was working on. I’d thought it was impossible, but it happened. With all the technology around that is designed to prevent this occurring, this sort of accident has become a rare event.  If it weren’t for a deranged laptop, and my distraction, the code wouldn’t have been lost this time.  As always, I sighed, had a soothing cup of tea, and typed it all in again.  The new code I hastily tapped in  was much better: I’d held in my head the essence of how the code should work rather than the details: I now knew for certain  the start point, the end, and how it should be achieved. Instantly the detritus of half-baked thoughts fell away and I was able to write logical code that performed better.  Because I could work so quickly, I was able to hold the details of all the columns and variables in my head, and the dynamics of the flow of data. It was, in fact, easier and quicker to start from scratch rather than tidy up and refactor the existing code with its inevitable fumbling and half-baked ideas. What a shame that technology is now so good that developers rarely experience the cleansing shock of losing one’s code and having to rewrite it from scratch.  If you’ve never accidentally lost  your code, then it is worth doing it deliberately once for the experience. Creative people have, until Technology mistakenly prevented it, torn up their drafts or sketches, threw them in the bin, and started again from scratch.  Leonardo’s obsessive reworking of the Mona Lisa was renowned because it was so unusual:  Most artists have been utterly ruthless in destroying work that didn’t quite make it. Authors are particularly keen on writing afresh, and the results are generally positive. Lawrence of Arabia actually lost the entire 250,000 word manuscript of ‘The Seven Pillars of Wisdom’ by accidentally leaving it on a train at Reading station, before rewriting a much better version.  Now, any writer or artist is seduced by technology into altering or refining their work rather than casting it dramatically in the bin or setting a light to it on a bonfire, and rewriting it from the blank page.  It is easy to pick away at a flawed work, but the real creative process is far more brutal. Once, many years ago whilst running a software house that supplied commercial software to local businesses, I’d been supervising an accounting system for a farming cooperative. No packaged system met their needs, and it was all hand-cut code.  For us, it represented a breakthrough as it was for a government organisation, and success would guarantee more contracts. As you’ve probably guessed, the code got mangled in a disk crash just a week before the deadline for delivery, and the many backups all proved to be entirely corrupted by a faulty tape drive.  There were some fragments left on individual machines, but they were all of different versions.  The developers were in despair.  Strangely, I managed to re-write the bulk of a three-month project in a manic and caffeine-soaked weekend.  Sure, that elegant universally-applicable input-form routine was‘nt quite so elegant, but it didn’t really need to be as we knew what forms it needed to support.  Yes, the code lacked architectural elegance and reusability. By dawn on Monday, the application passed its integration tests. The developers rose to the occasion after I’d collapsed, and tidied up what I’d done, though they were reproachful that some of the style and elegance had gone out of the application. By the delivery date, we were able to install it. It was a smaller, faster application than the beta they’d seen and the user-interface had a new, rather Spartan, appearance that we swore was done to conform to the latest in user-interface guidelines. (we switched to Helvetica font to look more ‘Bauhaus’ ). The client was so delighted that he forgave the new bugs that had crept in. I still have the disk that crashed, up in the attic. In IT, we have had mixed experiences from complete re-writes. Lotus 123 never really recovered from a complete rewrite from assembler into C, Borland made the mistake with Arago and Quattro Pro  and Netscape’s complete rewrite of their Navigator 4 browser was a white-knuckle ride. In all cases, the decision to rewrite was a result of extreme circumstances where no other course of action seemed possible.   The rewrite didn’t come out of the blue. I prefer to remember the rewrite of Minix by young Linus Torvalds, or the rewrite of Bitkeeper by a slightly older Linus.  The rewrite of CP/M didn’t do too badly either, did it? Come to think of it, the guy who decided to rewrite the windowing system of the Xerox Star never regretted the decision. I’ll agree that one should often resist calls for a rewrite. One of the worst habits of the more inexperienced programmer is to denigrate whatever code he or she inherits, and then call loudly for a complete rewrite. They are buoyed up by the mistaken belief that they can do better. This, however, is a different psychological phenomenon, more related to the idea of some motorcyclists that they are operating on infinite lives, or the occasional squaddies that if they charge the machine-guns determinedly enough all will be well. Grim experience brings out the humility in any experienced programmer.  I’m referring to quite different circumstances here. Where a team knows the requirements perfectly, are of one mind on methodology and coding standards, and they already have a solution, then what is wrong with considering  a complete rewrite? Rewrites are so painful in the early stages, until that point where one realises the payoff, that even I quail at the thought. One needs a natural disaster to push one over the edge. The trouble is that source-control systems, and disaster recovery systems, are just too good nowadays.   If I were to lose this draft of this very blog post, I know I’d rewrite it much better. However, if you read this, you’ll know I didn’t have the nerve to delete it and start again.  There was a time that one prayed that unreliable hardware would deliver you from an unmaintainable mess of a codebase, but now technology has made us almost entirely immune to such a merciful act of God. An old friend of mine with long experience in the software industry has long had the idea of the ‘source-control wet-work’,  where one hires a malicious hacker in some wild eastern country to hack into one’s own  source control system to destroy all trace of the source to an application. Alas, backup systems are just too good to make this any more than a pipedream. Somehow, it would be difficult to promote the idea. As an alternative, could one construct a source control system that, on doing all the code-quality metrics, would systematically destroy all trace of source code that failed the quality test? Alas, I can’t see many managers buying into the idea. In reading the full story of the near-loss of Toy Story 2, it set me thinking. It turned out that the lucky restoration of the code wasn’t the happy ending one first imagined it to be, because they eventually came to the conclusion that the plot was fundamentally flawed and it all had to be rewritten anyway.  Was this an early  case of the ‘source-control wet-job’?’ It is very hard nowadays to do a rapid U-turn in a development project because we are far too prone to cling to our existing source-code.

    Read the article

  • Source-control 'wet-work'?

    - by Phil Factor
    When a design or creative work is flawed beyond remedy, it is often best to destroy it and start again. The other day, I lost the code to a long and intricate SQL batch I was working on. I’d thought it was impossible, but it happened. With all the technology around that is designed to prevent this occurring, this sort of accident has become a rare event.  If it weren’t for a deranged laptop, and my distraction, the code wouldn’t have been lost this time.  As always, I sighed, had a soothing cup of tea, and typed it all in again.  The new code I hastily tapped in  was much better: I’d held in my head the essence of how the code should work rather than the details: I now knew for certain  the start point, the end, and how it should be achieved. Instantly the detritus of half-baked thoughts fell away and I was able to write logical code that performed better.  Because I could work so quickly, I was able to hold the details of all the columns and variables in my head, and the dynamics of the flow of data. It was, in fact, easier and quicker to start from scratch rather than tidy up and refactor the existing code with its inevitable fumbling and half-baked ideas. What a shame that technology is now so good that developers rarely experience the cleansing shock of losing one’s code and having to rewrite it from scratch.  If you’ve never accidentally lost  your code, then it is worth doing it deliberately once for the experience. Creative people have, until Technology mistakenly prevented it, torn up their drafts or sketches, threw them in the bin, and started again from scratch.  Leonardo’s obsessive reworking of the Mona Lisa was renowned because it was so unusual:  Most artists have been utterly ruthless in destroying work that didn’t quite make it. Authors are particularly keen on writing afresh, and the results are generally positive. Lawrence of Arabia actually lost the entire 250,000 word manuscript of ‘The Seven Pillars of Wisdom’ by accidentally leaving it on a train at Reading station, before rewriting a much better version.  Now, any writer or artist is seduced by technology into altering or refining their work rather than casting it dramatically in the bin or setting a light to it on a bonfire, and rewriting it from the blank page.  It is easy to pick away at a flawed work, but the real creative process is far more brutal. Once, many years ago whilst running a software house that supplied commercial software to local businesses, I’d been supervising an accounting system for a farming cooperative. No packaged system met their needs, and it was all hand-cut code.  For us, it represented a breakthrough as it was for a government organisation, and success would guarantee more contracts. As you’ve probably guessed, the code got mangled in a disk crash just a week before the deadline for delivery, and the many backups all proved to be entirely corrupted by a faulty tape drive.  There were some fragments left on individual machines, but they were all of different versions.  The developers were in despair.  Strangely, I managed to re-write the bulk of a three-month project in a manic and caffeine-soaked weekend.  Sure, that elegant universally-applicable input-form routine was‘nt quite so elegant, but it didn’t really need to be as we knew what forms it needed to support.  Yes, the code lacked architectural elegance and reusability. By dawn on Monday, the application passed its integration tests. The developers rose to the occasion after I’d collapsed, and tidied up what I’d done, though they were reproachful that some of the style and elegance had gone out of the application. By the delivery date, we were able to install it. It was a smaller, faster application than the beta they’d seen and the user-interface had a new, rather Spartan, appearance that we swore was done to conform to the latest in user-interface guidelines. (we switched to Helvetica font to look more ‘Bauhaus’ ). The client was so delighted that he forgave the new bugs that had crept in. I still have the disk that crashed, up in the attic. In IT, we have had mixed experiences from complete re-writes. Lotus 123 never really recovered from a complete rewrite from assembler into C, Borland made the mistake with Arago and Quattro Pro  and Netscape’s complete rewrite of their Navigator 4 browser was a white-knuckle ride. In all cases, the decision to rewrite was a result of extreme circumstances where no other course of action seemed possible.   The rewrite didn’t come out of the blue. I prefer to remember the rewrite of Minix by young Linus Torvalds, or the rewrite of Bitkeeper by a slightly older Linus.  The rewrite of CP/M didn’t do too badly either, did it? Come to think of it, the guy who decided to rewrite the windowing system of the Xerox Star never regretted the decision. I’ll agree that one should often resist calls for a rewrite. One of the worst habits of the more inexperienced programmer is to denigrate whatever code he or she inherits, and then call loudly for a complete rewrite. They are buoyed up by the mistaken belief that they can do better. This, however, is a different psychological phenomenon, more related to the idea of some motorcyclists that they are operating on infinite lives, or the occasional squaddies that if they charge the machine-guns determinedly enough all will be well. Grim experience brings out the humility in any experienced programmer.  I’m referring to quite different circumstances here. Where a team knows the requirements perfectly, are of one mind on methodology and coding standards, and they already have a solution, then what is wrong with considering  a complete rewrite? Rewrites are so painful in the early stages, until that point where one realises the payoff, that even I quail at the thought. One needs a natural disaster to push one over the edge. The trouble is that source-control systems, and disaster recovery systems, are just too good nowadays.   If I were to lose this draft of this very blog post, I know I’d rewrite it much better. However, if you read this, you’ll know I didn’t have the nerve to delete it and start again.  There was a time that one prayed that unreliable hardware would deliver you from an unmaintainable mess of a codebase, but now technology has made us almost entirely immune to such a merciful act of God. An old friend of mine with long experience in the software industry has long had the idea of the ‘source-control wet-work’,  where one hires a malicious hacker in some wild eastern country to hack into one’s own  source control system to destroy all trace of the source to an application. Alas, backup systems are just too good to make this any more than a pipedream. Somehow, it would be difficult to promote the idea. As an alternative, could one construct a source control system that, on doing all the code-quality metrics, would systematically destroy all trace of source code that failed the quality test? Alas, I can’t see many managers buying into the idea. In reading the full story of the near-loss of Toy Story 2, it set me thinking. It turned out that the lucky restoration of the code wasn’t the happy ending one first imagined it to be, because they eventually came to the conclusion that the plot was fundamentally flawed and it all had to be rewritten anyway.  Was this an early  case of the ‘source-control wet-job’?’ It is very hard nowadays to do a rapid U-turn in a development project because we are far too prone to cling to our existing source-code.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >