Search Results

Search found 9381 results on 376 pages for 'vs macros'.

Page 144/376 | < Previous Page | 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151  | Next Page >

• SQL Server Developer Tools &ndash; Codename Juneau vs. Red-Gate SQL Source Control

  - by Ajarn Mark Caldwell

  So how do the new SQL Server Developer Tools (previously code-named Juneau) stack up against SQL Source Control?  Read on to find out. At the PASS Community Summit a couple of weeks ago, it was announced that the previously code-named Juneau software would be released under the name of SQL Server Developer Tools with the release of SQL Server 2012.  This replacement for Database Projects in Visual Studio (also known in a former life as Data Dude) has some great new features.  I won’t attempt to describe them all here, but I will applaud Microsoft for making major improvements.  One of my favorite changes is the way database elements are broken down.  Previously every little thing was in its own file.  For example, indexes were each in their own file.  I always hated that.  Now, SSDT uses a pattern similar to Red-Gate’s and puts the indexes and keys into the same file as the overall table definition. Of course there are really cool features to keep your database model in sync with the actual source scripts, and the rename refactoring feature is now touted as being more than just a search and replace, but rather a “semantic-aware” search and replace.  Funny, it reminds me of SQL Prompt’s Smart Rename feature.  But I’m not writing this just to criticize Microsoft and argue that they are late to the party with this feature set.  Instead, I do see it as a viable alternative for folks who want all of their source code to be version controlled, but there are a couple of key trade-offs that you need to know about when you choose which tool set to use. First, the basics Both tool sets integrate with a wide variety of source control systems including the most popular: Subversion, GIT, Vault, and Team Foundation Server.  Both tools have integrated functionality to produce objects to upgrade your target database when you are ready (DACPACs in SSDT, integration with SQL Compare for SQL Source Control).  If you regularly live in Visual Studio or the Business Intelligence Development Studio (BIDS) then SSDT will likely be comfortable for you.  Like BIDS, SSDT is a Visual Studio Project Type that comes with SQL Server, and if you don’t already have Visual Studio installed, it will install the shell for you.  If you already have Visual Studio 2010 installed, then it will just add this as an available project type.  On the other hand, if you regularly live in SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) then you will really enjoy the SQL Source Control integration from within SSMS.  Both tool sets store their database model in script files.  In SSDT, these are on your file system like other source files; in SQL Source Control, these are stored in the folder structure in your source control system, and you can always GET them to your file system if you want to browse them directly. For me, the key differentiating factors are 1) a single, unified check-in, and 2) migration scripts.  How you value those two features will likely make your decision for you. Unified Check-In If you do a continuous-integration (CI) style of development that triggers an automated build with unit testing on every check-in of source code, and you use Visual Studio for the rest of your development, then you will want to really consider SSDT.  Because it is just another project in Visual Studio, it can be added to your existing Solution, and you can then do a complete, or unified single check-in of all changes whether they are application or database changes.  This is simply not possible with SQL Source Control because it is in a different development tool (SSMS instead of Visual Studio) and there is no way to do one unified check-in between the two.  You CAN do really fast back-to-back check-ins, but there is the possibility that the automated build that is triggered from the first check-in will cause your unit tests to fail and the CI tool to report that you broke the build.  Of course, the automated build that is triggered from the second check-in which contains the “other half” of your changes should pass and so the amount of time that the build was broken may be very, very short, but if that is very, very important to you, then SQL Source Control just won’t work; you’ll have to use SSDT. Refactoring and Migrations If you work on a mature system, or on a not-so-mature but also not-so-well-designed system, where you want to refactor the database schema as you go along, but you can’t have data suddenly disappearing from your target system, then you’ll probably want to go with SQL Source Control.  As I wrote previously, there are a number of changes which you can make to your database that the comparison tools (both from Microsoft and Red Gate) simply cannot handle without the possibility (or probability) of data loss.  Currently, SSDT only offers you the ability to inject PRE and POST custom deployment scripts.  There is no way to insert your own script in the middle to override the default behavior of the tool.  In version 3.0 of SQL Source Control (Early Access version now available) you have that ability to create your own custom migration script to take the place of the commands that the tool would have done, and ensure the preservation of your data.  Or, even if the default tool behavior would have worked, but you simply know a better way then you can take control and do things your way instead of theirs. You Decide In the environment I work in, our automated builds are not triggered off of check-ins, but off of the clock (currently once per night) and so there is no point at which the automated build and unit tests will be triggered without having both sides of the development effort already checked-in.  Therefore having a unified check-in, while handy, is not critical for us.  As for migration scripts, these are critically important to us.  We do a lot of new development on systems that have already been in production for years, and it is not uncommon for us to need to do a refactoring of the database.  Because of the maturity of the existing system, that often involves data migrations or other additional SQL tasks that the comparison tools just can’t detect on their own.  Therefore, the ability to create a custom migration script to override the tool’s default behavior is very important to us.  And so, you can see why we will continue to use Red Gate SQL Source Control for the foreseeable future.

  Read the article

• SEO blog Indexing: wordpress.com subdomain vs a registered domain?

  - by rumspringa00

  I've used WordPress for a few of my client's sites, mostly small businesses and eCommerce sites. I have found through Google Analytics as well as the All in One Webmaster plugin that when it comes to social media, using WordPress is a surefire way of getting your site indexed by Google and occasionally Bing and Yahoo. Since I am a heavy WP user, I'd like to contribute by registering a dot WordPress domain for my portfolio. When using a WP installation concurrently with a WP domain, e.g. myportfolio.wordpress.com, will the site be more or less likely to be indexed rather a generic myportfolio.com domain? I've seen mixed opinions where people seem to favor a WP domain for URL output where others say that it's a moot point, and that Google will not favor a WP domain over a dot com domain as long as your meta tags are updated and content is keyword optimized. I tend to disagree and believe a WP domain would more likely be indexed and output more URLs over an individual, laconic domain like myportfolio.com. Am I wrong?

  Read the article

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

  - by user970696

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

  Read the article

• What are the advantages and disadventages of git or bzr + rsync vs rdiff-backup?

  - by Azendale

  I used to use rsync to do backups, but then I switched to rdiff-backup to incremental backups. Recently, I discovered git and bzr while working on a coding project. So, I was thinking, I could have my backup disk be a repository in either git or bzr. Then I could rsync to the repository, and commit the changes. Would there be any performance concerns with this? Any other issues that I'm not thinking of? The benefit I see in using rsync is that you can restart an interrupted transfer, while rdiff-backup reverts to the last version, and then starts again. Any reason not to do it this way? Anything I'm not thinking of?

  Read the article

• Synchronous vs. asynchronous for publish subscribe communication between JavaScript objects

  - by natlee75

  I implemented the publish subscribe pattern in a JavaScript module to be used by entirely client-side oriented JavaScript objects. This module has nothing to do with client-server communications in any way, shape or form. My question is whether it's better for the publish method in such a module to be synchronous or asynchronous, and why. As a very simplified example let's say I'm building a custom UI for an HTML5 video player widget: One of my modules is the "video" module that contains the VIDEO element and handles the various features and events associated with that element. This would probably have a namespace something like "widgets.player.video." Another is the "controls" module that has the various buttons - play, pause, volume, scrub, fullscreen, etc. This might have a namespace along the lines of "widgets.player.controls." These two modules are children of a parent "player" module ("widgets.player" ??), and as such would have no inherent knowledge of each other when instantiated as children of the "player" object. The "controls" elements would obviously need to be able to effect some changes on the video (click "Play" and the video should play), and vice versa (video's "timeUpdate" event fires and the visual display of the current time in the controls should update). I could tightly couple these modules and pass references to each other, but I'd rather take a more loosely coupled approach by setting up a pubsub type module that both can subscribe to and publish from. SO (thanks for bearing with me) in this kind of a scenario is there an advantage one way or another for synchronous publication versus asynchronous publication? I've seen some solutions posted online that allow for either/or with a boolean flag whereas others automatically do it asynchronously. I haven't personally seen an implementation that just automatically goes with synchronous publication... is this because there's no advantage to it? I know that I can accomplish this with features provided by jQuery, but it seems that there may be too much overhead involved here. The publish subscribe pattern can be implemented with relatively lightweight code designed specifically for this particular purpose so I'd rather go with that then a more general purpose eventing system like jQuery's (which I'll use for more general eventing needs :-).

  Read the article

• Upgrading visual studio with Crystal Reports

  - by jkrebsbach

  In the process up updating an app from Visual Studio 2003 to VS 2008.  It happens to have a couple dozen crystal reports that it executes regarly. Upgraded visual studio to 2008, and when attempting to generate the reports an exception was thrown. A significant portion of the rendering engine for Crystal Reports is not coming from Crystal, it's coming from Visual Studio and those methods and properties have changed over the years.  I needed to upgrade the report generating methods from the VS 2003 way of doing things to the VS 2008 way for the report to generate successfully. Not only that, but this means that while we were previously rendering with Crystal 9 in VS 2003, Visual Studio 2008 will render per Crystal 10, which treats things like column widths in Excel different (by default, at least) so now we have to go through all of our reports and compare outputs for Crystal just to upgrade the Visual Studio environment that I foolishly believed would  not be affected.

  Read the article

• VS2012 Coded UI Test closes browser by default

  - by Tarun Arora

  *** Thanks to Steve St. Jean for asking this question and Shubhra Maji for answering this question on the ALM champs list *** 01 – Introduction The default behaviour of coded UI tests running in an Internet Explorer browser has changed between MTM 2010 and MTM 2012. When running a Coded UI test recorded in MTM 2012 or VS 2012 at the end of the test execution the instance of the browser is closed by default. 02 – Description Let’s take an example. As you can see the CloseDinnerNowWeb() method is commented out.  In VS 2010, upon running this test the browser would be left open after the test execution completes. In VS 2012 RTM the behaviour has changed. At the end of the test run, the IE window is closed even though there is no command from the test to do so. In the example below when the test runs, it opens 2 IE windows to the website. When the test run completes both the windows are closed, even though there is no command in the test to close the window. 03 – How to change the CUIT behaviour not to close the IE window after test execution? This change to this functionality in VS 2012 is by design. It is however possible to rollback the behaviour to how it originally was in VS 2010 i.e. the IE window will not close after the test execution unless otherwise commanded by the test to do so. To go back to the original functionality, set BrowserWindow.CloseOnPlaybackCleanup = false More details on the CloseOnPlaybackCleanup property can be found here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.visualstudio.testtools.uitesting.applicationundertest.closeonplaybackcleanup.aspx  HTH

  Read the article

• MySQL Windows vs. Linux: performance, caveats, pros and cons?

  - by gravyface

  Looking for (preferrably) some hard data or at least some experienced anecdotal responses with regards to hosting a MySQL database (roughly 5k transactions a day, 60-70% more reads than writes, < 100k of data per transaction i.e. no large binary objects like images, etc.) on Windows 2003/2008 vs. a Debian-based derivative (Ubuntu/Debian, etc.). This server will function only as a database server with a separate Web server on another physical box; this server will require remote access for management (SSH for Linux, RDP for Windows). I suspect that the Linux kernel/OS will compete less than the Windows Server for resources, but for this I can't be certain. There's also security footprint: even with Windows 2008, I'm thinking that the Linux box can be locked down more easily than the Windows Server. Anyone have any experience with both configurations?

  Read the article

• Is there a perf hit using mule as a container vs. standard JEE container like Weblogic?

  - by Victor Grazi

  Our team is considering using Mule in a large scale medium volume internal facing transactional banking application. At first Mule would just be used as an application server although it is possible some of its esb/orchestration features would be used in the future. I have no experience with mule, being new on the team. But my gut says Mule would not be as performant as Weblogic or Glassfish as a deployment container. Does anyone have any comparison stories to share that might shed light?

  Read the article

• Office arangement - comfort vs. teamwork?

  - by finrod

  Our team works in an open-space office. Luckily the cubicles are quite big (L shaped tables for everyone!), there is quite a lot of space so we are not sandwiched. Without going into further detail, there are comfortable spots (window), normal spots and stupid spots (near the corridor). Until recently, the development team of twelve engineers was seated so that all types of spots were occupied and we were all close together. In the old arrangement, verbal communication was very easy - half of the team was withing talking distance. The other half was like ten steps away. Often times I could ask, discuss, solve problems without leaving the cube. Most of the communication is work related, no bullshit or mental masturbation that would unnecessarily distract others. Now we have moved to another part of the building and have larger space to occupy. At this point, everyone could pick their spot. Naturally all stupid spots are left empty (for the poor newcomers to occupy bwehaha). In the new arrangement, the development team is stretched across the floor and some of the key engineers are seated 'far' from each other - definitely not within talking distance. I have yet to experience how this works out but am getting concerned that team work and communication may have been traded for personal comfort. Finally the questions... What do you think is better office arrangement? Such that allows for free verbal communication but trading for some developer's comfort, or such that potentially hinders verbal communication but makes developer's more comfortable in their spot? Or maybe it does not matter at all and we will evolve to be efficient in any arrangement? What is your personal experience? Note - yes I read books and posts how workplace is important in our job. However in this case - we are all still in open space and the difference between the different spots are not really groundbreaking. So I'm thinking the little comfort that few developers gain is not worth the loss of easy communication.

  Read the article

• Using implode, explode etc.. on one line vs separating them into multiple lines with meaningful variable names

  - by zhenka

  I see a lot of people coding in PHP being rather proud if they manage to write a complicated one line statement that does clever things. But what is the advantage? It is not only harder to keep in once head while writing, but makes code much less readable. In my opinion reading short statements, if well written, can be like reading an essay, while complicated one liners can potentially make me pause and think for much longer then it would take for the coder to simply separate them into meaningful units. Am I wrong in thinking this? How would you go about proving your point to another programmer regarding this?

  Read the article

• Ruby - when to use instance variables vs parameters between methods?

  - by Michael Durrant

  I'm writing several methods that call other methods. To pass the information I have a couple of choices: Pass the information as parameters Set instance variables so that other methods can access them When should I choose one option over the other? It seems that the first option is good as it is very specific about what is being passed. the downside seems to be that a lot of values are being passed around. The second method doesn't require passing all the values around but seems to lead to a lot of magic where methods set instance variables 'somewhere' Should I always be very explicit about gets passed to other methods in the class? Are there exceptions so this?

  Read the article

• Older raid controllers in raid 5 vs. Jbod and SW raid

  - by TEB

  Hi. Im in the fortunate position to have 6 Supermicro older VOD servers with the following config: Supermicro 3U case, 3xPSU Dual Xeon 3ghz P4 class cpu (5 years old.. havnt checked the exact type) 4GB Ram 3ware 9500-8 SATA controller 8 SATA SLOTS and alot of free drives. 2GB FLASH Bootdrive What im curious about is the RAID5 performance on these old beasts in HW mode vs. SW on Linux with the controller set in JBOD mode. Im thinking on using Centos 5.5 or Ubuntu or ZFS RaidZ on Opensolaris. Any tips? or reccomendations ? best regards TEB

  Read the article

• Deprecated vs. Denigrated in JavaDoc?

  - by jschoen

  In the JavaDoc for X509Certificate getSubjectDN() it states: Denigrated, replaced by getSubjectX500Principal(). I am used to seeing Deprecated in the for methods that should not be used any longer, but not Denigrated. I found a bug report about this particular case where it was closed with comment: This isn't a bug. "Deprecated" is meant to be used only in serious cases. When we are using a method that is Deprecated, the general suggested action is to stop using the method. So what is the suggested action when a method is marked as Denigrated?

  Read the article

• Making it myself vs. modifying someone else's code as a beginner

  - by JamesGold

  I just started getting into open source projects mainly for the learning experience. I've made a few tiny contributions to some small projects. Most of my time has been spent just reading over other people's code and trying to understand how it works. Often times I find myself frustrated by a lack of documentation and unit tests. There are also times where I think I can see a more intuitive solution to a problem, but implementing it would require large restructuring of code. I see all this and wonder to myself why I don't just start clean on the whole thing by myself and do things "the right way"? I'd also enjoy the experience of building it from scratch, as it would force me to learn skills that I might not learn by working on other people's code. On the other hand, working on other people's code is also a great experience because it requires me to understand and work with other people's code and collaborate with them. It's just harder, IMO. Thoughts?

  Read the article

• When to use an Array vs When to use a Vector, when dealing with GameObjects?

  - by user32465

  I understand that from other answers, Arrays and Vectors are the best choices. Many on SE claim that Linked Lists and Maps are bad for video game programming. I understand that for the most part, I can use Arrays. However, I don't really understand exactly when to use Vectors over Arrays. Why even use Vectors? Wouldn't it be best if I simply always used an Array, that way I know how much memory my game needs? Specifically my game would only ever load a single "Map" area of tiles, such as Map[100][100], so I could very easily have an array of GameObjectContainer GameObjects[100][100], which would reserve an entire map's worth of possible gameobjects, correct? So why use a Vector instead? Memory is quite large on modern hardware.

  Read the article

• portfolio building, working for closed-source vs open-source?

  - by jondavidjohn

  I've currently graduated from my first run at higher education, landed my first full-time gig as a web application developer, and absolutely love it. My question is that in looking for jobs I ran across many jobs that require a certain level of experience and code examples. Much of the work I am doing is both protected by a login, and closed source. How does someone, that is just starting out and needs to be building a resume, go about preparing for the next job. (no matter how much i love my current job, i feel like it's only responsible to always be preparing)

  Read the article

• How important is Domain knowledge vs. Technical knowledge?

  - by Mayank

  I am working on a Trading and Risk Management application and although from a C# background, I have been asked to work on SSIS packages. Now I can live with that. The pain point is that there is too much emphasis on business understanding. Trading (Energy Trading to be exact) is a HUGE area and understanding every little bit of it is overwhelming. But for the past two months I have been working on understanding the business terms - Mark To Market, Risk Metrics, Positions, PnL, Greeks, Instruments, Book Structure... every little detail (you get the point). Now IMHO, this is the job of a BA. Sure it is very important for developers to understand the business but where do you draw the line? When I talked to my manager about this, he almost mocked me by saying that anybody can learn a technology in a week. It's the business that's harder. My long term aspiration is to remain on the technical side, probably become an architect (if possible). If I wanted to focus so much on business I would have pursued an MBA! I want to know if I am wrong or too naive in understanding the business importance or is my frustration justified?

  Read the article

• EntityFramework.SqlServerCompact VS 2010 error fix for "The operation could not be completed. Unspecified error"

  - by mrad

  Installed  package  EntityFramework.SqlServerCompactand after running my project was getting this error  "The operation could not be completed. Unspecified error" Two ways to fix this:1. Install "Visual Studio 2010 SP1 Tools for SQL Server Compact 4" - Web Platforms Installer 2. Download directly offline installer from http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=212219  After running it works great

  Read the article

• Pros and Cons of Facebook's React vs. Web Components (Polymer)

  - by CletusW

  What are the main benefits of Facebook's React over the upcoming Web Components spec and vice versa (or perhaps a more apples-to-apples comparison would be to Google's Polymer library)? According to this JSConf EU talk and the React homepage, the main benefits of React are: Decoupling and increased cohesion using a component model Abstraction, Composition and Expressivity Virtual DOM & Synthetic events (which basically means they completely re-implemented the DOM and its event system) Enables modern HTML5 event stuff on IE 8 Server-side rendering Testability Bindings to SVG, VML, and <canvas> Almost everything mentioned is being integrated into browsers natively through Web Components except this virtual DOM concept (obviously). I can see how the virtual DOM and synthetic events can be beneficial today to support old browsers, but isn't throwing away a huge chunk of native browser code kind of like shooting yourself in the foot in the long term? As far as modern browsers are concerned, isn't that a lot of unnecessary overhead/reinventing of the wheel? Here are some things I think React is missing that Web Components will care of. Correct me if I'm wrong. Native browser support (read "guaranteed to be faster") Write script in a scripting language, write styles in a styling language, write markup in a markup language. Style encapsulation using Shadow DOM React instead has this, which requires writing CSS in JavaScript. Not pretty. Two-way binding

  Read the article

• Programming *into* a language vs. writing C code in Ruby

  - by bastibe

  Code Complete states that you should aways code into a language as opposed to code in it. By that, they mean Don't limit your programming thinking only to the concepts that are supported automatically by your language. The best programmers think of what they want to do, and then they assess how to accomplish their objectives with the programming tools at their disposal. (chapter 34.4) Doesn't this lead to using one style of programming in every language out there, regardless of the particular strengths and weaknesses of the language at hand? Or, to put the question in a more answerable format: Would you propose that one should try to encode one's problem as neatly as possible with the particulars of one's language, or should you rather search the most elegant solution overall, even if that means that you need to implement possibly awkward constructs that do not exist natively in one's language?

  Read the article

• How important is a big-name school for fresh grads?

  - by Fishtoaster

  How important, if at all, is what school you go to towards your job prospects coming out of college? That is, how much difference is there between how a graduate of MIT/Stanford/etc treated vs RIT vs Monroe Community College vs Joe's Discount Diploma shop? I'm asking specifically outside of the education itself, and more towards the perceived value of your degree to prospective employers. What do you think?

  Read the article

• Google Dart vs CoffeeScript? Which one should one learn?

  - by garbage collection

  I was thinking about learning CoffeeScript some time in the future. In the mean time, Google came out with Dart that seems to do what CoffeeScript does. Google says: Dart code can be executed in two different ways: either on a native virtual machine or on top of a JavaScript engine by using a compiler that translates Dart code to JavaScript. This means you can write a web application in Dart and have it compiled and run on any modern browser. Does anyone know advantages and disadvantages of learning Dart or CoffeeScript?

  Read the article

• What are the benefits vs costs of comment annotation in PHP?

  - by Patrick

  I have just started working with symfony2 and have run across comment annotations. Although comment annotation is not an inherent part of PHP, symfony2 adds support for this feature. My understanding of commenting is that it should make the code more intelligible to the human. The computer shouldn't care what is in comments. What benefits come from doing this type of annotation versus just putting a command in the normal PHP code? ie- /** * @Route("/{id}") * @Method("GET") * @ParamConverter("post", class="SensioBlogBundle:Post") * @Template("SensioBlogBundle:Annot:post.html.twig", vars={"post"}) * @Cache(smaxage="15") */ public function showAction(Post $post) { }

  Read the article

• Consistency vs. Usability?

  - by dsimcha

  When designing an API, consistency often aids usability. However, sometimes they conflict where an extra API feature can be added to streamline a common case. It seems like there's somewhat of a divide over what to do here. Some designs (the Java standard library come to mind) favor consistency even if it makes common cases more verbose. Others (the Python standard library comes to mind) favor usability even if it means treating the common case as "special" to make it easier. What is your opinion on how consistency and usability should be balanced?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151  | Next Page >