Search Results

Search found 8582 results on 344 pages for 'integration tests'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 76/344 | < Previous Page | 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83  | Next Page >

  • Mutation Testing

    You may have a twinge of doubt when your code passes all its unit tests. They might say that the code is OK, but if the code is definitely incorrect, will the unit tests fail? Mutation Testing is a relatively simple, but ingenious, way of checking that your tests will spot the fact that your code is malfunctioning. It is definitely something that every developer should be aware of.

    Read the article

  • Is there any IDE integration for JBoss AS 6?

    - by Jonathan Frank
    We have switched to JBoss 6 to make it possible to use a wider range of Java EE technologies. We chose JBoss because of its small memory footprint compared to other application servers, so we have no other choice. Do you know any developer tools that can be integrated with JBoss AS 6? Thanks in advance Jonathan Frank

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • SAP PI 7.1 Runtime Workbench error: Domain ??? (domain.null)

    - by Techboy
    Within the Runtime Workbench screen of my SAP PI 7.1 system I have the error: Domain ??? (domain.null) Integration Server Integration Engines Non-Central Adapter Engines J2SE Adapter Tools The SLD CIM instance, class XI Domain shows: CreationClassName: SAP_XIDomain Name: domain.null Caption: Domain null With the associations: XI Contained Integration Repository XI Contained Integration Server XI Contained Integration Server If I do this: Move these associations to the correct SAP_XIDomain Delete the SAP_XIDomain 'Domain null' Restart the SLD Restart the SAP PI system it all appears okay (i.e. the 'Domain null') issue does not appear. The 'Domain null' issue re-appears as soon as I go into the SAP Runtime Workbench. Please can you tell me why it says domain.null and how to resolve it?

    Read the article

  • Redgate ANTS Performance Profiler

    - by Jon Canning
    Seemingly forever I've been working on a business idea, it's a REST API delivering content to mobiles, and I've never really had much idea about its performance. Yes, I have a suite of unit tests and integration tests, but these only tell me that it works, not how well it works. I was also about to embark on a major refactor, swapping the database from MongoDB to RavenDB, and was curious to see if that impacted performance at all, so I needed a profiler that supported IIS Express that I can run my integration tests against, and Google gave me:   http://www.red-gate.com/supportcenter/content/ANTS_Performance_Profiler/help/7.4/app_iise   Excellent. Following the above guide an instance of IIS Express and is launched, as is Internet Explorer. The latter eventually becomes annoying, I would like to decide whether I want a browser opened, but thankfully the guide is wrong in that it can be closed and profiling will continue. So I ran my tests, stopped profiling, and was presented with a call tree listing the endpoints called and allowing me to drill down to the source code beneath.     Although useful and fascinating this wasn't what I was expecting to see, I was after the method timings from the entire test suite. Switching Show to Methods Grid presented me with a list of my methods, with the slowest lit up in red at the top. Marvellous.     I did find that if you switch to Methods Grid before Call tree has loaded, you do not get the red warnings.   StructureMap was very busy, and next on the list was a request filter that I didn't expect to be so overworked. Highlighting it, the source code was presented to me in the bottom window with timings and a nice red indicator to show me where to look. Oh horror, that reflection hack I put in months ago, I'd forgotten all about it. It was calling Validate<T>() which in turn was resolving a validator from StructureMap. Note to self, use //TODO: when leaving smelly code lying around.     Before refactoring, remember to Save Profile Results from the File menu. Annoyingly you are not prompted to save your results when exiting, and using Save Project will only leave you thankful that you have version control and can go back in time to run your tests again.   Having implemented StructureMap’s ForGenericType, I ran my tests again and:     Win, thankyou ANTS (What does ANTS stand for BTW?)   There's definitely room in my toolbox for a profiler; what started out as idle curiosity actually solved a potential problem. When presented with a new codebase I can see enormous benefit from getting an overview of the pipeline from the call tree before drilling into the code, and as a sanity check before release it gives a little more reassurance that you've done your best, and shows you exactly where to look if you haven’t.   Next I’m going to profile a load test.

    Read the article

  • If your unit test code "smells" does it really matter?

    - by Buttons840
    Usually I just throw my unit tests together using copy and paste and all kind of other bad practices. The unit tests usually end up looking quite ugly, they're full of "code smell," but does this really matter? I always tell myself as long as the "real" code is "good" that's all that matters. Plus, unit testing usually requires various "smelly hacks" like stubbing functions. How concerned should I be over poorly designed ("smelly") unit tests?

    Read the article

  • Code Coverage for Maven Integrated in NetBeans IDE 7.2

    - by Geertjan
    In NetBeans IDE 7.2, JaCoCo is supported natively, i.e., out of the box, as a code coverage engine for Maven projects, since Cobertura does not work with JDK 7 language constructs. (Although, note that Cobertura is supported as well in NetBeans IDE 7.2.) It isn't part of NetBeans IDE 7.2 Beta, so don't even try there; you need some development build from after that. I downloaded the latest development build today. To enable JaCoCo features in NetBeans IDE, you need do no different to what you'd do when enabling JaCoCo in Maven itself, which is rather wonderful. In both cases, all you need to do is add this to the "plugins" section of your POM: <plugin> <groupId>org.jacoco</groupId> <artifactId>jacoco-maven-plugin</artifactId> <version>0.5.7.201204190339</version> <executions> <execution> <goals> <goal>prepare-agent</goal> </goals> </execution> <execution> <id>report</id> <phase>prepare-package</phase> <goals> <goal>report</goal> </goals> </execution> </executions> </plugin> Now you're done and ready to examine the code coverage of your tests, whether they are JUnit or TestNG. At this point, i.e., for no other reason than that you added the above snippet into your POM, you will have a new Code Coverage menu when you right-click on the project node: If you click Show Report above, the Code Coverage Report window opens. Here, once you've run your tests, you can actually see how many classes have been covered by your tests, which is pretty useful since 100% tests passing doesn't mean much when you've only tested one class, as you can see very graphically below: Then, when you click the bars in the Code Coverage Report window, the class under test is shown, with the methods for which tests exist highlighted in green and those that haven't been covered in red: (Note: Of course, striving for 100% code coverage is a bit nonsensical. For example, writing tests for your getters and setters may not be the most useful way to spend one's time. But being able to measure, and visualize, code coverage is certainly useful regardless of the percentage you're striving to achieve.) Best of all about all this is that everything you see above is available out of the box in NetBeans IDE 7.2. Take a look at what else NetBeans IDE 7.2 brings for the first time to the world of Maven: http://wiki.netbeans.org/NewAndNoteworthyNB72#Maven

    Read the article

  • What should be done first: Code reviews or Unit tests?

    - by goldenmean
    Hello, If a developer implements code for some module and wants to get it reviewed. What should be the order : *First unit test the module after designing test cases for the module, debugging and fixing the bugs and then give the modified code for peer code review (Pros- Code to be reviewed is 'clean' to a good extent. Reduces some avoidable review comments and rework. Cons- Developer might spend large time debugging/fixing a bug which could have pointed/anticipated in peer code reviews) Or *First do the code review with peers and then go for unit testing. What are your thoughts/experience on this? I believe this approach for unit testing, code reviewing should be programming language agnostic, but it would be interesting to know otherwise(if applicable) with specific examples. -AD

    Read the article

  • Testing Reference Data Mappings

    - by Michael Stephenson
    Background Mapping reference data is one of the common scenarios in BizTalk development and its usually a bit of a pain when you need to manage a lot of reference data whether it be through the BizTalk Cross Referencing features or some kind of custom solution. I have seen many cases where only a couple of the mapping conditions are ever tested. Approach As usual I like to see these things tested in isolation before you start using them in your BizTalk maps so you know your mapping functions are working as expected. This approach can be used for almost all of your reference data type mapping functions where you can take advantage of MSTests data driven tests to test lots of conditions without having to write millions of tests. Walk Through Rather than go into the details of this here, I'm going to call out to one of my colleagues who wrote a nice little walk through about using data driven tests a while back. Check out Callum's blog: http://callumhibbert.blogspot.com/2009/07/data-driven-tests-with-mstest.html

    Read the article

  • Tips for achieving "continual" delivery

    - by Ben
    A team is experiencing difficulty releasing software on a frequent basis (once every week). What follows is a typical release timeline: During the iteration: Developers work on stories on the backlog on short-lived (this is enthusiastically enforced) feature branches based on the master branch. Developers frequently pull their feature branches into the integration branch, which is continually built and tested (as far as the test coverage goes) automatically. The testers have the ability to auto-deploy integration to a staging environment and this occurs multiple times per week, enabling continual running of their test suites. Every Monday: there is a release planning meeting to determine which stories are "known good" (based on the testers' work), and hence will be in the release. If there is a known issue with a story, the source branch is pulled out of integration. no new code (only bug fixes requested by the testers) may be pulled into integration on this Monday to ensure the testers have a stable codebase to cut a release from. Every Tuesday: The testers have tested the integration branch as much as they possibly can have given the time available and there are no known bugs so a release is cut and pushed out to the production nodes slowly. This sounds OK in practise, but we have found that it is incredibly difficult to achieve. The team sees the following symptoms "subtle" bugs are found on production that were not identified on the staging environment. last minute hot-fixes continue into the Tuesday. problems on the production environment require roll-backs which blocks continued development until a successful live deployment is achieved and the master branch can be updated (and hence branched from). I think test coverage, code quality, ability to regression test quickly, last minute changes and environmental differences are at play here. Can anyone offer any advice regarding how best to achieve "continual" delivery?

    Read the article

  • Database unit testing is now available for SSDT

    - by jamiet
    Good news was announced yesterday for those that are using SSDT and want to write unit tests, unit testing functionality is now available. The announcement was made on the SSDT team blog in post Available Today: SSDT—December 2012. Here are a few thoughts about this news. Firstly, there seems to be a general impression that database unit testing was not previously available for SSDT – that’s not entirely true. Database unit testing was most recently delivered in Visual Studio 2010 and any database unit tests written therein work perfectly well against SQL Server databases created using SSDT (why wouldn’t they – its just a database after all). In other words, if you’re running SSDT inside Visual Studio 2010 then you could carry on freely writing database unit tests; some of the tight integration between the two (e.g. right-click on an object in SQL Server Object Explorer and choose to create a unit test) was not there – but I’ve never found that to be a problem. I am currently working on a project that uses SSDT for database development and have been happily running VS2010 database unit tests for a few months now. All that being said, delivery of database unit testing for SSDT is now with us and that is good news, not least because we now have the ability to create unit tests in VS2012. We also get tight integration with SSDT itself, the like of which I mentioned above. Having now had a look at the new features I was delighted to find that one of my big complaints about database unit testing has been solved. As I reported here on Connect a refactor operation would cause unit test code to get completely mangled. See here the before and after from such an operation: SELECT    * FROM    bi.ProcessMessageLog pml INNER JOIN bi.[LogMessageType] lmt     ON    pml.[LogMessageTypeId] = lmt.[LogMessageTypeId] WHERE    pml.[LogMessage] = 'Ski[LogMessageTypeName]of message: IApplicationCanceled' AND        lmt.[LogMessageType] = 'Warning'; which is obviously not ideal. Thankfully that seems to have been solved with this latest release. One disappointment about this new release is that the process for running tests as part of a CI build has not changed from the horrendously complicated process required previously. Check out my blog post Setting up database unit testing as part of a Continuous Integration build process [VS2010 DB Tools - Datadude] for instructions on how to do it. In that blog post I describe it as “fiddly” – I was being kind when I said that! @Jamiet

    Read the article

  • Control for ASP.NET that allows Global Address List (GAL) integration.

    - by jamone
    I know I can use System.DirectoryServices to roll my own GAL Name/email selector control and I've seen plenty of people explaining the basics of how to do that, but surly someone knows of one that I can download from somewhere. It just seems like a waste to have to remake it when so many people need it. Something remotely similar to Outlooks GAL Select Names dialog. It could be simpler.

    Read the article

  • Take Two: Comparing JVMs on ARM/Linux

    - by user12608080
    Although the intent of the previous article, entitled Comparing JVMs on ARM/Linux, was to introduce and highlight the availability of the HotSpot server compiler (referred to as c2) for Java SE-Embedded ARM v7,  it seems, based on feedback, that everyone was more interested in the OpenJDK comparisons to Java SE-E.  In fact there were two main concerns: The fact that the previous article compared Java SE-E 7 against OpenJDK 6 might be construed as an unlevel playing field because version 7 is newer and therefore potentially more optimized. That the generic compiler settings chosen to build the OpenJDK implementations did not put those versions in a particularly favorable light. With those considerations in mind, we'll institute the following changes to this version of the benchmarking: In order to help alleviate an additional concern that there is some sort of benchmark bias, we'll use a different suite, called DaCapo.  Funded and supported by many prestigious organizations, DaCapo's aim is to benchmark real world applications.  Further information about DaCapo can be found at http://dacapobench.org. At the suggestion of Xerxes Ranby, who has been a great help through this entire exercise, a newer Linux distribution will be used to assure that the OpenJDK implementations were built with more optimal compiler settings.  The Linux distribution in this instance is Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot. Having experienced difficulties getting Ubuntu 11.10 to run on the original D2Plug ARMv7 platform, for these benchmarks, we'll switch to an embedded system that has a supported Ubuntu 11.10 release.  That platform is the Freescale i.MX53 Quick Start Board.  It has an ARMv7 Coretex-A8 processor running at 1GHz with 1GB RAM. We'll limit comparisons to 4 JVM implementations: Java SE-E 7 Update 2 c1 compiler (default) Java SE-E 6 Update 30 (c1 compiler is the only option) OpenJDK 6 IcedTea6 1.11pre 6b23~pre11-0ubuntu1.11.10.2 CACAO build 1.1.0pre2 OpenJDK 6 IcedTea6 1.11pre 6b23~pre11-0ubuntu1.11.10.2 JamVM build-1.6.0-devel Certain OpenJDK implementations were eliminated from this round of testing for the simple reason that their performance was not competitive.  The Java SE 7u2 c2 compiler was also removed because although quite respectable, it did not perform as well as the c1 compilers.  Recall that c2 works optimally in long-lived situations.  Many of these benchmarks completed in a relatively short period of time.  To get a feel for where c2 shines, take a look at the first chart in this blog. The first chart that follows includes performance of all benchmark runs on all platforms.  Later on we'll look more at individual tests.  In all runs, smaller means faster.  The DaCapo aficionado may notice that only 10 of the 14 DaCapo tests for this version were executed.  The reason for this is that these 10 tests represent the only ones successfully completed by all 4 JVMs.  Only the Java SE-E 6u30 could successfully run all of the tests.  Both OpenJDK instances not only failed to complete certain tests, but also experienced VM aborts too. One of the first observations that can be made between Java SE-E 6 and 7 is that, for all intents and purposes, they are on par with regards to performance.  While it is a fact that successive Java SE releases add additional optimizations, it is also true that Java SE 7 introduces additional complexity to the Java platform thus balancing out any potential performance gains at this point.  We are still early into Java SE 7.  We would expect further performance enhancements for Java SE-E 7 in future updates. In comparing Java SE-E to OpenJDK performance, among both OpenJDK VMs, Cacao results are respectable in 4 of the 10 tests.  The charts that follow show the individual results of those four tests.  Both Java SE-E versions do win every test and outperform Cacao in the range of 9% to 55%. For the remaining 6 tests, Java SE-E significantly outperforms Cacao in the range of 114% to 311% So it looks like OpenJDK results are mixed for this round of benchmarks.  In some cases, performance looks to have improved.  But in a majority of instances, OpenJDK still lags behind Java SE-Embedded considerably. Time to put on my asbestos suit.  Let the flames begin...

    Read the article

  • Benefits of Behavior Driven Development

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/07/26/benefits-of-behavior-driven-development.aspxContinuing my previous article on BDD, I wanted to point out some benefits of BDD and since BDD is an extension of Test Driven Development (TDD), you get those as well. I’ll add another article on some possible downsides of this approach. There are many articles about the benefits of TDD and they apply to BDD. I’ve pointed out some here and copied some of the main points for each article, but there are many more including the book The Art of Unit Testing by Roy Osherove. http://geekswithblogs.net/leesblog/archive/2008/04/30/the-benefits-of-test-driven-development.aspx (Lee Brandt) Stability Accountability Design Ability Separated Concerns Progress Indicator http://tddftw.com/benefits-of-tdd/ Help maintainers understand the intention behind the code Bring validation and proper data handling concerns to the forefront. Writing the tests first is fun. Better APIs come from writing testable code. TDD will make you a better developer. http://www.slideshare.net/dhelper/benefit-from-unit-testing-in-the-real-world (from Typemock). Take a look at the slides, especially the extra time required for TDD (slide 10) and the next one of the bugs avoided using TDD (slide 11). Less bugs (slide 11) about testing and development (13) Increase confidence in code (14) Fearlessly change your code (14) Document Requirements (14) also see http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2013/06/01/roc-rocks.aspx Discover usability issues early (14) All these points and articles are great and there are many more. The following are my additions to the benefits of BDD from using it in real projects for my company. July 2013 on MSDN - Behavior-Driven Design with SpecFlow Scott Allen did a very informative TDD and MVC module, but to me he is doing BDDCompile and Execute Requirements in Microsoft .NET ~ Video from TechEd 2012 Communication I was working through a complicated task that the decision tree kept growing. After writing out the Given, When, Then of the scenario, I was able tell QA what I had worked through for their initial test cases. They were able to add from there. It is also useful to use this language with other developers, managers, or clients to help make informed decisions on if it meets the requirements or if it can simplified to save time (money). Thinking through solutions, before starting to code This was the biggest benefit to me. I like to jump into coding to figure out the problem. Many times I don't understand my path well enough and have to do some parts over. A past supervisor told me several times during reviews that I need to get better at seeing "the forest for the trees". When I sit down and write out the behavior that I need to implement, I force myself to think things out further and catch scenarios before they get to QA. A co-worker that is new to BDD and we’ve been using it in our new project for the last 6 months, said “It really clarifies things”. It took him awhile to understand it all, but now he’s seeing the value of this approach (yes there are some downsides, but that is a different issue). Developers’ Confidence This is huge for me. With tests in place, my confidence grows that I won’t break code that I’m not directly changing. In the past, I’ve worked on projects with out tests and we would frequently find regression bugs (or worse the users would find them). That isn’t fun. We don’t catch all problems with the tests, but when QA catches one, I can write a test to make sure it doesn’t happen again. It’s also good for Releasing code, telling your manager that it’s good to go. As time goes on and the code gets older, how confident are you that checking in code won’t break something somewhere else? Merging code - pre release confidence If you’re merging code a lot, it’s nice to have the tests to help ensure you didn’t merge incorrectly. Interrupted work I had a task that I started and planned out, then was interrupted for a month because of different priorities. When I started it up again, and un-shelved my changes, I had the BDD specs and it helped me remember what I had figured out and what was left to do. It would have much more difficult without the specs and tests. Testing and verifying complicated scenarios Sometimes in the UI there are scenarios that get tricky, because there are a lot of steps involved (click here to open the dialog, enter the information, make sure it’s valid, when I click cancel it should do {x}, when I click ok it should close and do {y}, then do this, etc….). With BDD I can avoid some of the mouse clicking define the scenarios and have them re-run quickly, without using a mouse. UI testing is still needed, but this helps a bunch. The same can be true for tricky server logic. Documentation of Assumptions and Specifications The BDD spec tests (Jasmine or SpecFlow or other tool) also work as documentation and show what the original developer was trying to accomplish. It’s not a different Word document, so developers will keep this up to date, instead of letting it become obsolete. What happens if you leave the project (consulting, new job, etc) with no specs or at the least good comments in the code? Sometimes I think of a new scenario, so I add a failing spec and continue in the same stream of thought (don’t forget it because it was on a piece of paper or in a notepad). Then later I can come back and handle it and have it documented. Jasmine tests and JavaScript –> help deal with the non-typed system I like JavaScript, but I also dislike working with JavaScript. I miss C# telling me if a property doesn’t actually exist at build time. I like the idea of TypeScript and hope to use it more in the future. I also use KnockoutJs, which has observables that need to be called with ending (), since the observable is a function. It’s hard to remember when to use () or not and the Jasmine specs/tests help ensure the correct usage.   This should give you an idea of the benefits that I see in using the BDD approach. I’m sure there are more. It talks a lot of practice, investment and experimentation to figure out how to approach this and to get comfortable with it. I agree with Scott Allen in the video I linked above “Remember that TDD can take some practice. So if you're not doing test-driven design right now? You can start and practice and get better. And you'll reach a point where you'll never want to get back.”

    Read the article

  • Quickbooks integration: IPP/IDS: can these by used for actual data exchange?

    - by Parand
    Poking around options for integrating an online app with Quickbooks, I've made a lot of headway with QBWC, but it's fairly ugly. From an end user perspective the usability of QBWC is pretty low. Intuit is now pushing Intuit Partner Platform (IPP) and Intuit Data Services (IDS). I can't quite figure out what these are about: Is IPP limited to using Flex, or can it work with existing web apps? Are there APIs for actual data exchange? Is it possible to interact with desktop Quickbooks using IPP or IDS? If there is sample code, particularly in Python, some pointers would be great.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Partner Architects Training

    - by mseika
    Dear Oracle Partner, There is a lot more to Oracle technology than meets the eye. Sure, you already belong to a small circle of our most experienced and committed partners. But are you making the best use possible of our technology solutions? Put it to the test.  Join the “Oracle Partner Architects Training”. It is aimed at providing your experts, architects and consultants with in-depth architectural knowledge about Oracle technology. Here is your chance to learn from the best. Seasoned speakers, exclusive content and no product marketing. Oracle technology beyond the obvious. Choose from any of the 40 recorded training sessions. Topics include:  • Security• Service integration • Database and options• Data integration • BI and applications• Applications and infrastructure• Hardware and software combinations The market and Oracle value specialized partners More information about specialization can be found on opn.oracle.com. Click through to OPN Program/Specialize “What’s in it for us?” Quite simply: the opportunity to gain the differentiation and competitive edge you need to stand out in the marketplace. • Differentiate your company through expertise in leading Oracle IT solutions;• Get your experts, architects and consultants up to speed on specialized services and solutions;• Make our customers’ shortlists. They are looking for value-added solutions for their business.   Recordings All sessions are recorded. After registering for a session in oraevents, you will receive the info to access the webex recording. Your timing, your tempo.  Registration and more information Visit architects.oraevents.eu to sign up for the recorded sessions. NOTE: Looking to get your consultants Oracle certified? One more reason to join the Oracle Partner Architects Training. It is the fast track to getting their expertise validated with an Oracle certificate. Training schedule  Choose from any of the 40 recorded training sessions: SECURITY THE PRACTICAL APPROACH •  Identity governance• Access management• Data privacy and protection• End-to-end security, layers of exposures•  Identity & access management, why and where to start?• Data security, how? SERVICE INTEGRATION A NEW ROADTO ENTERPRISE-WIDE SERVICE INTEGRATION • Oracle RUEI: maximize business value by insight into real end-user experiences•  Governance challenges in the services landscape•  Creating an agile enterprise (by Jeff Davies)• Oracle’s approach to SOA (by Jeff Davies) - guiding and accelerating SOA success• Technical case study – the SOA challenge• Oracle’s unified business process management suite 11g (incl. demo) DATABASE DATABASE AND OPTIONS, GOINGWIDE •  Understanding service level agreements for databases• Database lifecycle management• Data centric information lifecycle management DATA INTEGRATION  DIS FOR ARCHITECTS • Data integration solutions: an overview• ODI and goldengate• Data quality

    Read the article

  • How to inject ServletContext for JUnit tests with Spring?

    - by Juri Glass
    Hi I want to unit test a RESTful interface written with Apache CXF. I use a ServletContext to load some resources, so I have: @Context private ServletContext servletContext; If I deploy this on Glassfish, the ServletContext is injected and it works like expected. But I don't know how to inject the ServletContext in my service class, so that I can test it with a JUnit test. I use Spring 3.0, JUnit 4, CXF 2.2.3 and Maven.

    Read the article

  • Benchmarks Using Oracle Solaris 11

    - by Brian
    The following is a list of links to recent benchmarks which used Oracle Solaris 11. Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database Performance on SPARC T4-2 World Record Performance on PeopleSoft Enterprise Financials Benchmark on SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4 Servers Running Oracle Solaris 11 and Oracle RAC Deliver World Record on PeopleSoft HRMS 9.1 SPEC CPU2006 Results on Oracle's Sun x86 Servers SPARC T4-4 Beats 8-CPU IBM POWER7 on TPC-H @3000GB Benchmark SPARC T4-2 Delivers World Record SPECjvm2008 Result with Oracle Solaris 11 SPARC T4-2 Server Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on ZFS Encryption Tests SPARC T4 Processor Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on AES Encryption Tests SPARC T4 Processor Outperforms IBM POWER7 and Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on OpenSSL AES Encryption Test SPARC T4-1 Server Outperforms Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on IPsec Encryption Tests SPARC T4-2 Server Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on SSL Network Tests SPARC T4-2 Server Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on Oracle Database Tablespace Encryption Queries

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83  | Next Page >