Search Results

Search found 68566 results on 2743 pages for 'rich internet application'.

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 103/2743 | < Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >

  • Building a Store Locator ASP.NET Application Using Google Maps API (Part 1)

    Over the past couple of months I've been working on a couple of projects that have used the free <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/maps/">Google Maps API</a> to add interactive maps and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocoding">geocoding</a> capabilities to ASP.NET websites. In a nutshell, the Google Maps API allow you to display maps on your website, to add markers onto the map, and to compute the latitude and longitude of an address, among many other tasks.With some Google Maps API experience under my belt, I decided it would be fun to implement a store locator feature and share it here on 4Guys. A store locator lets a visitor enter an address or postal code and then shows the nearby stores. Typically, store locators display the

    Read the article

  • how to set the border = 0 on GtkBox (dialog-Vbox-Element) in Glade on Dialog, which was creadted via "quickly add dialog"

    - by Marian Lux
    To make the Toolbar look native in Ubuntu (like the application in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sO8hiPreNBg), I don't want to show a border. In my main window of my application I am able to set the property for the border width to zero on the GtkBox under tab "common". But on a dialog (created via "quickly add dialog") there is no option on the GtkBox to set the property under "common". The property for the border width sill not appears under common! What can I do to solve this problem? I tried to create a Window-Element and tried to delete the Dialog-Element. Result: Then I was able to set this property in Glade but I could not do anything with the Window-Element and its Child-Elements (e.g. set the native look for its toolbar) in the corresponding .py-File (for the ui-File) because I destroyed dependencies...

    Read the article

  • I am getting an error while writing my first app as shown in developer get-started tutorial

    - by TrickyJ
    I am trying to learn to develop apps in ubuntu and currently i am going through this tutorial. As shown in the video I am writing the below given codes: self.refreshbutton = self.builder.get_object("refreshbutton") def on_refreshbutton_clicked(self, widget): print "Refresh" As soon as I try to run my application it is giving me an error : I type this command to run my application : quickly run (trickybrowser:4418): Gtk-WARNING **: Theme parsing error: gtk-widgets.css:1971:11: Not using units is deprecated. Assuming 'px'. (trickybrowser:4418): Gtk-WARNING **: Failed to parse /usr/share/themes/mac-os-lion-theme-v2/gtk-3.0/settings.ini: Key file contains line '/* ' which is not a key-value pair, group, or comment Traceback (most recent call last): File "bin/trickybrowser", line 32, in <module> import trickybrowser File "/home/tricky/trickybrowser/trickybrowser/__init__.py", line 14, in <module> from trickybrowser import TrickybrowserWindow File "/home/tricky/trickybrowser/trickybrowser/TrickybrowserWindow.py", line 32 print "Refresh" ^ IndentationError: expected an indented block

    Read the article

  • To make or not to make...python-nautilus a dependency?

    - by George Edison
    That is the question! Okay, all silliness aside, I really am forced to make a difficult decision here. My application is written in C++ and allows other scripts to invoke methods via XML-RPC. One of these scripts is a Nautilus extension written in Python. The extension is packaged with the rest of the application and copied to the appropriate place when installed (/usr/share/nautilus-python/extensions). Now the problem is that the Nautilus extension requires the python-nautilus package to be installed to be operational. So therefore I have three options: Make the python-nautilus package a dependency. This option will ensure that anyone who installs my package will be able to use the Nautilus extension. However, this option will not be attractive to XFCE or KDE users - a ton of python-nautilus's dependencies will be installed on their machines and take up a lot of space - even if they never use Nautilus. Put the python-nautilus package in the suggests: or recommends: field. This option provides the end-user with a way to avoid installing the python-nautilus package (by providing the --no-install-suggests or --no-install-recommends argument to apt-get). However, this won't work when the user installs the package in the Software Center. (I always get mixed up as to which of those two fields are installed by default.) Prompt the user when the application is installed or first launched. This option is more complicated than the others but offers the best compromise between making it easy for the user to install python-nautilus (without going into a technical explanation) and not installing it when the user doesn't need it (or want it). I guess the best way to implement this is a simple prompt that invokes apt-get if the user would like the package installed. Don't install the package at all. This option ensures that nobody has python-nautilus installed on their machine unless they want it. However, this also means that my Nautilus extension will simply not run on the end-user's machine unless they manually install the package. Which of these options seems the best choice? Have I missed any pros and cons for each of the options?

    Read the article

  • Pirates, Treasure Chests and Architectural Mapping

    Pirate 1: Why do pirates create treasure maps? Pirate 2: I do not know.Pirate 1: So they can find their gold. Yes, that was a bad joke, but it does illustrate a point. Pirates are known for drawing treasure maps to their most prized possession. These documents detail the decisions pirates made in order to hide and find their chests of gold. The map allows them to trace the steps they took originally to hide their treasure so that they may return. As software engineers, programmers, and architects we need to treat software implementations much like our treasure chest. Why is software like a treasure chest? It cost money, time,  and resources to develop (Usually) It can make or save money, time, and resources (Hopefully) If we operate under the assumption that software is like a treasure chest then wouldn’t make sense to document the steps, rationale, concerns, and decisions about how it was designed? Pirates are notorious for documenting where they hide their treasure.  Shouldn’t we as creators of software do the same? By documenting our design decisions and rationale behind them will help others be able to understand and maintain implemented systems. This can only be done if the design decisions are correctly mapped to its corresponding implementation. This allows for architectural decisions to be traced from the conceptual model, architectural design and finally to the implementation. Mapping gives software professional a method to trace the reason why specific areas of code were developed verses other options. Just like the pirates we need to able to trace our steps from the start of a project to its implementation,  so that we will understand why specific choices were chosen. The traceability of a software implementation that actually maps back to its originating design decisions is invaluable for ensuring that architectural drifting and erosion does not take place. The drifting and erosion is prevented by allowing others to understand the rational of why an implementation was created in a specific manor or methodology The process of mapping distinct design concerns/decisions to the location of its implemented is called traceability. In this context traceability is defined as method for connecting distinctive software artifacts. This process allows architectural design models and decisions to be directly connected with its physical implementation. The process of mapping architectural design concerns to a software implementation can be very complex. However, most design decision can be placed in  a few generalized categories. Commonly Mapped Design Decisions Design Rationale Components and Connectors Interfaces Behaviors/Properties Design rational is one of the hardest categories to map directly to an implementation. Typically this rational is mapped or document in code via comments. These comments consist of general design decisions and reasoning because they do not directly refer to a specific part of an application. They typically focus more on the higher level concerns. Components and connectors can directly be mapped to architectural concerns. Typically concerns subdivide an application in to distinct functional areas. These functional areas then can map directly back to their originating concerns.Interfaces can be mapped back to design concerns in one of two ways. Interfaces that pertain to specific function definitions can be directly mapped back to its originating concern(s). However, more complicated interfaces require additional analysis to ensure that the proper mappings are created. Depending on the complexity some Behaviors\Properties can be translated directly into a generic implementation structure that is ready for business logic. In addition, some behaviors can be translated directly in to an actual implementation depending on the complexity and architectural tools used. Mapping design concerns to an implementation is a lot of work to maintain, but is doable. In order to ensure that concerns are mapped correctly and that an implementation correctly reflects its design concerns then one of two standard approaches are usually used. All Changes Come From ArchitectureBy forcing all application changes to come through the architectural model prior to implementation then the existing mappings will be used to locate where in the implementation changes need to occur. Allow Changes From Implementation Or Architecture By allowing changes to come from the implementation and/or the architecture then the other area must be kept in sync. This methodology is more complex compared to the previous approach.  One reason to justify the added complexity for an application is due to the fact that this approach tends to detect and prevent architectural drift and erosion. Additionally, this approach is usually maintained via software because of the complexity. Reference:Taylor, R. N., Medvidovic, N., & Dashofy, E. M. (2009). Software architecture: Foundations, theory, and practice Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons  

    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 | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >