Search Results

Search found 4918 results on 197 pages for 'architecture'.

Page 7/197 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • What is the standard system architecture for MongoDB

    - by learner
    I know this question is too vague, so I would like to add some key numbers to give insights about what the scenario is Each Document size - 360KB Total Documents - 1.5 million Document created/day - 2k read intensive - YES Availability requirement - HIGH With these requirements in mind, here is what I believe should be the architecture, but not too sure, please share your experiences and point me to right directions 2 Linux Box(Ubuntu 11 would do)(on a different rack setup for availability) 64-bit Mongo Database 1-master(for read/wr1te) and 1-slave(read-only with replication ON) Sharding not needed at this point in time Thank you in advance

    Read the article

  • Sun 280R architecture

    - by Andy
    How do I find out which architecture my Sun 280R is based on (eg . 501-6485 or 501-6690 etc) The command arch returns "sun4". Im running Solaris 10 Thanks

    Read the article

  • foreign-architecture

    - by speedy-MACHO
    Always when I install something, I get the following error multiple times: Unknown configuration key 'foreign-architecture' found in your 'dpkg' configuration files. This warning will become a hard error at a later date, so please remove the offending configuration options and replace them with 'dpkg --add-architecture' invocations at the command line. When I try dpkg --add-architecture I get: Unknown configuration key `foreign-architecture' found in your `dpkg' configuration files. This warning will become a hard error at a later date, so please remove the offending configuration options and replace them with `dpkg --add-architecture' invocations at the command line. dpkg: error: --add-architecture takes one argument Type dpkg --help for help about installing and deinstalling packages [*]; Use `dselect' or `aptitude' for user-friendly package management; Type dpkg -Dhelp for a list of dpkg debug flag values; Type dpkg --force-help for a list of forcing options; Type dpkg-deb --help for help about manipulating *.deb files; Options marked [*] produce a lot of output - pipe it through `less' or `more' ! I've no problems yet, but since it says This warning will become a hard error at a later date I better do something about this. When I search 'foreign-architecture', I find an empty file, containing not a single byte. I somehow can't delete that file. Please help, it's a kind of creapy...

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to diagrammatically represent a system threading architecture?

    - by thegreendroid
    I am yet to find the perfect way to diagrammatically represent the overall threading architecture for a system (using UML or otherwise). I am after a diagramming technique that would show all the threads in a given system and how they interact with each other. There are a few similar questions - Drawing Thread Interaction, UML Diagrams of Multithreaded Applications and Intuitive UML Approach to Depict Threads but they don't fully answer my question. What are some of the techniques that you've found useful to depict the overall threading architecture for a system?

    Read the article

  • Are there any good Java/JVM libraries for my Expression Tree architecture?

    - by Snuggy
    My team and I are developing an enterprise-level application and I have devised an architecture for it that's best described as an "Expression Tree". The basic idea is that the leaf nodes of the tree are very simple expressions (perhaps simple values or strings). Nodes closer to the trunk will get more and more complex, taking the simpler nodes as their inputs and returning more complex results for their parents. Looking at it the other way, the application performs some task, and for this it creates a root expression. The root expression divides its input into smaller units and creates child expressions, which when evaluated it can use to build it's own result. The subdividing process continues until the simplest leaf nodes. There are two very important aspects of this architecture: It must be possible to manipulate nodes of the tree after it is built. The nodes may be given new input values to work with and any change in result for that node needs to be propagated back up the tree to the root node. The application must make best use of available processors and ultimately be scalable to other computers in a grid or in the cloud. Nodes in the tree will often be updating concurrently and notifying other interested nodes in the tree when they get a new value. Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to discuss my actual application, but to aid understanding a little bit, you might imagine a kind of spreadsheet application being implemented with a similar architecture, where changes to cells in the table are propagated all over the place to other cells that need the result. The spreadsheet could get so massive that applying multi-core multi-computer distributed system to solve it would be of benefit. I've got my prototype "Expression Engine" working nicely on a single multi-core PC but I've started to run into a few concurrency issues (as expected because I haven't been taking too much care so far) so it's now time to start thinking about migrating the Engine to a more robust library, and that leads to a number of related questions: Is there any precedent for my "Expression Tree" architecture that I could research? What programming concepts should I consider. I realise this approach has many similarities to a functional programming style, and I'm already aware of the concepts of using futures and actors. Are there any others? Are there any languages or libraries that I should study? This question is inspired by my accidental discovery of Scala and the Akka library (which has good support for Actors, Futures, Distributed workloads etc.) and I'm wondering if there is anything else I should be looking at as well?

    Read the article

  • Sharp Architecture for Winform apps?

    - by CF_Maintainer
    The Sharp Architecture Contrib seems to suggest it is possible. It seemed like they had a dependency on "PostSharp" which has now been replaced with Castle interceptors. Has anyone used the Sharp Architecture for a non Web project? How was the experience? Does that mean one is locked in with castle as the IoC container when using Sharp architecture for non web purposes? If not Sharp Architecture, then what are some of the favored application frameworks for the non web world [spring.NET?] ? If one were to start a green field Winforms app, what application framework would be desirable?

    Read the article

  • SAAS architecture and salesforce database architecture

    - by Farax
    Hello all, I am architecting a software project and I want to create a SAAS (Software As a service) one. I want to model my application along the lines of Salesforce. I really like there customization features but I am not sure how they really go about it. I read that they create an ID for every field that is required and then store the corresponding data too. Can anyone guide me as to how this is possible. For example, if I want to store an employee record. 2 fields (firstname, lastname) are already given and the user adds a third field(say DOB), how is data going to be stored? I would also appreciate if someone could give me some resources to practical examples of implementing a SAAS architecture. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to properly diagram lambda expressions or traversals through them in Architecture Explorer?

    - by MainMa
    I'm exploring a piece of code in Architecture Explorer in Visual Studio 2010 to study the relations between methods. I noticed a strange behavior. Take the following source code. It generates a hello message based on a template and a template engine, the template engine being a method (a sort of strategy pattern simplified at a maximum for demo purposes). public string GenerateHelloMessage(string personName) { return this.ApplyTemplate( this.DefaultTemplateEngine, this.GenerateLocalizedHelloTemplate(), personName); } private string GenerateLocalizedHelloTemplate() { return "Hello {0}!"; } public string ApplyTemplate( Func<string, string, string> templateEngine, string template, string personName) { return templateEngine(template, personName); } public string DefaultTemplateEngine(string template, string personName) { return string.Format(template, personName); } The graph generated from this code is this one: Change the first method from this: public string GenerateHelloMessage(string personName) { return this.ApplyTemplate( this.DefaultTemplateEngine, this.GenerateLocalizedHelloTemplate(), personName); } to this: public string GenerateHelloMessage(string personName) { return this.ApplyTemplate( (a, b) => this.DefaultTemplateEngine(a, b), this.GenerateLocalizedHelloTemplate(), personName); } and the graph becomes: While semantically identical, those two versions of code produce different dependency graphs, and Architecture Explorer shows no trace of the lambda expression (while Visual Studio's code coverage, for example, shows them, as well as Code analysis seems to be able to understand that the link exists). How would it be possible, without changing the source code, to: Either force Architecture Explorer to display everything, including lambda expressions, Or make it traverse lambda expressions while drawing a dependency through them (so in this case, drawing the dependency from GenerateHelloMessage to DefaultTemplateEngine in the second example)?

    Read the article

  • An Actionable Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture

    - by TedMcLaughlan
    The recent “Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture” (US Executive Office of the President, May 2 2012) is extremely timely and well-organized guidance for the Federal IT investment and deployment community, as useful for Federal Departments and Agencies as it is for their stakeholders and integration partners. The guidance not only helps IT Program Planners and Managers, but also informs and prepares constituents who may be the beneficiaries or otherwise impacted by the investment. The FEA Common Approach extends from and builds on the rapidly-maturing Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) and its associated artifacts and standards, already included to a large degree in the annual Federal Portfolio and Investment Management processes – for example the OMB’s Exhibit 300 (i.e. Business Case justification for IT investments).A very interesting element of this Approach includes the very necessary guidance for actually using an Enterprise Architecture (EA) and/or its collateral – good guidance for any organization charged with maintaining a broad portfolio of IT investments. The associated FEA Reference Models (i.e. the BRM, DRM, TRM, etc.) are very helpful frameworks for organizing, understanding, communicating and standardizing across agencies with respect to vocabularies, architecture patterns and technology standards. Determining when, how and to what level of detail to include these reference models in the typically long-running Federal IT acquisition cycles wasn’t always clear, however, particularly during the first interactions of a Program’s technical and functional leadership with the Mission owners and investment planners. This typically occurs as an agency begins the process of describing its strategy and business case for allocation of new Federal funding, reacting to things like new legislation or policy, real or anticipated mission challenges, or straightforward ROI opportunities (for example the introduction of new technologies that deliver significant cost-savings).The early artifacts (i.e. Resource Allocation Plans, Acquisition Plans, Exhibit 300’s or other Business Case materials, etc.) of the intersection between Mission owners, IT and Program Managers are far easier to understand and discuss, when the overlay of an evolved, actionable Enterprise Architecture (such as the FEA) is applied.  “Actionable” is the key word – too many Public Service entity EA’s (including the FEA) have for too long been used simply as a very highly-abstracted standards reference, duly maintained and nominally-enforced by an Enterprise or System Architect’s office. Refreshing elements of this recent FEA Common Approach include one of the first Federally-documented acknowledgements of the “Solution Architect” (the “Problem-Solving” role). This role collaborates with the Enterprise, System and Business Architecture communities primarily on completing actual “EA Roadmap” documents. These are roadmaps grounded in real cost, technical and functional details that are fully aligned with both contextual expectations (for example the new “Digital Government Strategy” and its required roadmap deliverables - and the rapidly increasing complexities of today’s more portable and transparent IT solutions.  We also expect some very critical synergies to develop in early IT investment cycles between this new breed of “Federal Enterprise Solution Architect” and the first waves of the newly-formal “Federal IT Program Manager” roles operating under more standardized “critical competency” expectations (including EA), likely already to be seriously influencing the quality annual CPIC (Capital Planning and Investment Control) processes.  Our Oracle Enterprise Strategy Team (EST) and associated Oracle Enterprise Architecture (OEA) practices are already engaged in promoting and leveraging the visibility of Enterprise Architecture as a key contributor to early IT investment validation, and we look forward in particular to seeing the real, citizen-centric benefits of this FEA Common Approach in particular surface across the entire Public Service CPIC domain - Federal, State, Local, Tribal and otherwise. Read more Enterprise Architecture blog posts for additional EA insight!

    Read the article

  • Managing hosts and iptables in scalable architecture

    - by hakunin
    Let's say I have a load balancer in front of 3 app servers. Let's say I also have these services available at certain IPs: Postgres server Redis server ElasticSearch server Memcached server 1 Memcached server 2 Memcached server 3 So that's 6 nodes at 6 different IP addresses. Naturally, every one of my 3 app servers needs to talk to these 6 servers above. Then, to make it a bit funkier, I also have 3 worker servers. And each worker also talks to the above 6 servers, but thankfully workers and apps never need to talk to each other. Now's the kicker. Everything is on Digital Ocean VPS. What that means is: you have no private network, no private IPs. You only have separate, random IP address on each machine. You can't mask them or anything. So in order to build a secure environment I would have to configure some iptables. For example: Open app servers be accessed by load balancer server Open redis, ES, PG, and each memcached servers to be accessed by each app's IP and each worker's IP This means that every time I add an app or worker I have to also reconfigure iptables in those above 6 servers to welcome the new app or worker. Is there a way to simplify this type of setup? I was thinking — what if there was a gateway machine between apps/workers and the above 6 machines. This way all the interaction would always happen via the gateway server, and when I add a new app or worker I wouldn't need to teach the 6 servers to let it in. If I went this route, then I'd hope a small 512mb server could handle that perhaps, and there wouldn't be almost any overhead. Or would there? Please help with best way to handle this situation. I would appreciate an answer as concrete as possible. I don't think this is too specific, because this general architecture is very common, and Digital Ocean is becoming increasingly popular. A concrete solution here would be much appreciated by many.

    Read the article

  • Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture (EA)

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

    Read the article

  • Podcast Show Notes: Architecture in a Post-SOA World

    - by Bob Rhubart
    All three segments of my conversation with Oracle ACE Director Hajo Normann, SOA author Jeff Davies, and enterprise architect Pat Shepherd are now available. This conversation was recorded on March 9, 2010, and covered a lot of territory, from the lingering fear of SOA among many in IT, to the misinformation behind that fear, to a discussion of the future of enterprise architecture. Listen to Part 1 Listen to Part 2 Listen to Part 3 If you’d like to engage any of the panelists in your own conversation, the links below will help: Hajo Normann is a SOA architect and consultant at EDS in Frankfurt Blog | LinkedIn | Oracle Mix | Oracle ACE Profile | Books Jeff Davies is a Senior Product Manager at Oracle, and is the primary author of The Definitive Guide to SOA: Oracle Service Bus Homepage | Blog | LinkedIn | Oracle Mix Pat Shepherd is an enterprise architect with the Oracle Enterprise Solutions Group. Oracle Mix | LinkedIn | Blog New panelists and new topics coming next week, so stay tuned: RSS   Technorati Tags: oracle,otn,arch2arch,architect,communiity,enterprise architecture,podcast,soa,service-oriented architecture del.icio.us Tags: oracle,otn,arch2arch,architect,communiity,enterprise architecture,podcast,soa,service-oriented architecture

    Read the article

  • Architecture Forum in the North 2010 - Hosted by Black Marble

    - by Stuart Brierley
    On Thursday the 8th of December I attended the "Architecture Forum in the North 2010" hosted by Black Marble. The third time this annual event has been held, it was pitched as featuring Black Marble and Microsoft UK architecture experts focusing on “Tools and Methods for Architects.... a unique opportunity to provide IT Managers, IT and software architects from Northern businesses the chance to learn about the latest technologies and best practices from Microsoft in the field of Architecture....insightful information about the latest techniques, demonstrating how with Microsoft’s architecture tools and technologies you can address your current business needs." Following a useful overview of the Architecture features of Visual Studio 2010, the rest of the day was given over to various features and ways to make use of Microsoft's Azure offerings.  While I did feel that a wider spread of technologies could have been covered (maybe a bit of Sharepoint or BizTalk even), the technological and architectural overviews of the Azure platform were well presented, informative and useful. The day was well organised and all those involved were friendly and approachable for questions and discussions.  If you are in "the North" and get a chance to attend next year I would highly recommend it.

    Read the article

  • Architecture: Bringing Value to the Table

    - by Bob Rhubart
    A recent TechTarget article features an interview with Business Architecture expert William Ulrich (Take a business-driven approach to application modernization ). In that article Ulrich offers this advice: "Moving from one technical architecture might be perfectly viable on a project by project basis, but when you're looking at the big picture and you want to really understand how to drive business value so that the business is pushing money into IT instead of IT pulling money back, you have to understand the business architecture. When we do that we're going to really be able to start bringing value to the table." In many respects that big picture view is what software architecture is all about. As an architect, your technical skills must be top-notch. But if you don't apply that technical knowledge within the larger context of moving the business forward, what are you accomplishing? If you're interested in more insight from William Ulrich, you can listen to the ArchBeat Podcast interview he did last year, in which he and co-author Neal McWhorter talked about their book, Business Architecture: The Art and Practice of Business Transformation.

    Read the article

  • Kepler, la nouvelle architecture GPU de NVIDIA : présentation de la technologie et de ses performances

    Kepler, la nouvelle architecture de processeur graphique de NVIDIA Présentation des nouvelles technologies et des performances Annoncée depuis plusieurs mois, la nouvelle architecture de carte graphique de NVIDIA est officiellement annoncée la semaine dernière. Cette nouvelle architecture est destinée à concurrencer la nouvelle architecture de AMD sortie le mois dernier. La première carte de cette gamme se nomme GTX 680 et est basée sur la puce GK104. Pour la génération précédente (architecture FERMI), NVIDIA s'était focalisé sur l'ajout de la tessellation et l'amélioration des performances. Pour Kepler, NVIDIA a travaillé principalement sur la consommation d'énergie : gravure 28nm, nouveaux SMX, GP...

    Read the article

  • Are the technologies used in an application part of the architecture, or do they represent implementation/detailed design details?

    - by m3th0dman
    When designing and writing documentation for a project an architecture needs to be clearly defined: what are the high-level modules of the system, what are their responsibilities, how do they communicate with each other, what protocols are used etc. But in this list, should the concrete technologies be specified or this is actually an implementation detail and need to be specified at a lower level? For example, consider a distributed application that has two modules which communicate asynchronously via AMQP protocol, mediated by a message broker. The fact that these modules use the Spring AMQP library for sending and receiving messages is a fact that needs to be specified in the architecture or is a lower-level detailed design/implementation detail?

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to multiple inheritance for my architecture (NPCs in a Realtime Strategy game)?

    - by Brettetete
    Coding isn't that hard actually. The hard part is to write code that makes sense, is readable and understandable. So I want to get a better developer and create some solid architecture. So I want to do create an architecture for NPCs in a video-game. It is a Realtime Strategy game like Starcraft, Age of Empires, Command & Conquers, etc etc.. So I'll have different kinds of NPCs. A NPC can have one to many abilities (methods) of these: Build(), Farm() and Attack(). Examples: Worker can Build() and Farm() Warrior can Attack() Citizen can Build(), Farm() and Attack() Fisherman can Farm() and Attack() I hope everything is clear so far. So now I do have my NPC Types and their abilities. But lets come to the technical / programmatical aspect. What would be a good programmatic architecture for my different kinds of NPCs? Okay I could have a base class. Actually I think this is a good way to stick with the DRY principle. So I can have methods like WalkTo(x,y) in my base class since every NPC will be able to move. But now lets come to the real problem. Where do I implement my abilities? (remember: Build(), Farm() and Attack()) Since the abilities will consists of the same logic it would be annoying / break DRY principle to implement them for each NPC (Worker,Warrior, ..). Okay I could implement the abilities within the base class. This would require some kind of logic that verifies if a NPC can use ability X. IsBuilder, CanBuild, .. I think it is clear what I want to express. But I don't feel very well with this idea. This sounds like a bloated base class with too much functionality. I do use C# as programming language. So multiple inheritance isn't an opinion here. Means: Having extra base classes like Fisherman : Farmer, Attacker won't work.

    Read the article

  • Can manager classes be a sign of bad architecture?

    - by Paul
    Lately I've begun to think that having lots of manager classes in your design is a bad thing. The idea hasn't matured enough for me to make a compelling argument, but here's a few general points: I found it's a lot harder for me to understand systems that rely heavily on "managers". This is because, in addition to the actual program components, you also have to understand how and why the manager is used. Managers, a lot of the time, seem to be used to alleviate a problem with the design, like when the programmer couldn't find a way to make the program Just WorkTM and had to rely on manager classes to make everything operate correctly. Of course, mangers can be good. An obvious example is an EventManager, one of my all time favorite constructs. :P My point is that managers seem to be overused a lot of the time, and for no good reason other than mask a problem with the program architecture. Are manager classes really a sign of bad architecture?

    Read the article

  • MVVM application architecture, where to put dependency injection configuration class, BusinessLayer and Common interfaces?

    - by gt.guybrush
    Planning my architecture for an MVVM application I come to this: MyApp.UI View MyApp.BusinessLayer ViewModel MyApp.DataAccessLayer RepositoryImplEF MyApp.DomainLayer DomainObject RepositoryInterface MyApp.Common Logging Security Utility (contains some reflection method used by many levels) CustomException MyApp.UnitTest I was inspired by Domain-driven-desing, test-driven-development and onion architecture but not sure to have done all well. I am not sure of a couple of things: where to put dependency injection configuration class? In the common project? where to put BusinessLayer interfaces? in Domain layer? where to put Common interfaces? in Domain layer? But Common in referenced from domain (for some reflection utilities and for DI if the response to 1. is yes) and circular reference isn't good

    Read the article

  • Enterprise Architecture IS (should not be) Arbitrary

    - by pat.shepherd
    I took a look at a blog entry today by Jordan Braunstein where he comments on another blog entry titled “Yes, “Enterprise Architecture is Relative BUT it is not Arbitrary.”  The blog makes some good points such as the following: Lock 10 architects in 10 separate rooms; provide them all an identical copy of the same business, technical, process, and system requirements; have them design an architecture under the same rules and perspectives; and I guarantee your result will be 10 different architectures of varying degrees. SOA Today: Enterprise Architecture IS Arbitrary Agreed, …to a degree….but less so if all 10 truly followed one of the widely accepted EA frameworks. My thinking is that EA frameworks all focus on getting the business goals/vision locked down first as the primary drivers for decisions made lower down the architecture stack.  Many people I talk to, know about frameworks such as TOGAF, FEA, etc. but seldom apply the tenants to the architecture at hand.  We all seem to want to get right into the Visio diagrams and boxes and arrows and connecting protocols and implementation details and lions and tigers and bears (Oh, my!) too early. If done properly the Business, Application and Information architectures are nailed down BEFORE any technological direction (SOA or otherwise) is set.  Those 3 layers and Governance (people and processes), IMHO, are layers that should not vary much as they have everything to do with understanding the business -- from which technological conclusions can later be drawn. I really like what he went on to say later in the post about the fact that architecture attempts to remove the amount of variance between the 10 different architect’s work.  That is the real heart of what EA is about; REMOVING THE ARBRITRARITY.

    Read the article

  • Podcast Show Notes: Redefining Information Management Architecture

    - by Bob Rhubart-Oracle
    Nothing in IT stands still, and this is certainly true of business intelligence and information management. Big Data has certainly had an impact, as have Hadoop and other technologies. That evolution was the catalyst for the collaborative effort behind a new Information Management Reference Architecture. The latest OTN ArchBeat series features a conversation with Andrew Bond, Stewart Bryson, and Mark Rittman, key players in that collaboration. These three gentlemen know each other quite well, which comes across in a conversation that is as lively and entertaining as it is informative. But don't take my work for it. Listen for yourself! The Panelists(Listed alphabetically) Andrew Bond, head of Enterprise Architecture at Oracle Oracle ACE Director Stewart Bryson, owner and Co-Founder of Red Pill Analytics Oracle ACE Director Mark Rittman, CIO and Co-Founder of Rittman Mead The Conversation Listen to Part 1: The panel discusses how new thinking and new technologies were the catalyst for a new approach to business intelligence projects. Listen to Part 2: Why taking an "API" approach is important in building an agile data factory. Listen to Part 3: Shadow IT, "sandboxing," and how organizational changes are driving the evolution in information management architecture. Additional Resources The Reference Architecture that is the focus of this conversation is described in detail in these blog posts by Mark Rittman: Introducing the Updated Oracle / Rittman Mead Information Management Reference Architecture Part 1: Information Architecture and the Data Factory Part 2: Delivering the Data Factory Be a Guest Producer for an ArchBeat Podcast Want to be a guest producer for an OTN ArchBeat podcast? Click here to learn how to make it happen.

    Read the article

  • What enterprise architecture tools support DoDAF 2.0?

    - by David Hunt
    What tools best support the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) Version 2.0, including support for transfer of the architecture data in accordance with the DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) Physical Exchange Specification (PES)? My initial research found that MagicDraw and Casewise claim support for version 2.0; and several other tools have support for earlier (or unspecified) DoDAF/MoDAF versions including Sparx Enterprise Architect, Troux, IDS Scheer ARIS, Artisan Studio and Rational System Architect. Experiences with any enterprise architecture tools and DoDAF 2.0 would be appreciated. The immediate need is for Data and Information Viewpoint models (DIV-1, DIV-2/OV-7, DIV-3/SV-11), but models in the other Viewpoints will be developed. Thanks -

    Read the article

  • Reasons not to use MVC architecture for web application

    - by jaywon
    In the past I have primarily built all my web applications using an N-tier architecture, implementing the BLL and DAL layers. Recently, I have started doing some RoR development as well as looking into ASP.NET MVC. I understand the differences between the different architectures(as referenced by some other SO posts), but I can't really think of any reasons why I wouldn't choose an MVC model going forward. Is there any reasons/times in your experience when an MVC architecture would not be suitable, or any reasons why you would choose a BLL/DAL architecture instead?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >