Search Results

Search found 2636 results on 106 pages for 'transaction isolation'.

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 44/106 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • Webcast: The ART of Migrating and Modernizing IBM Mainframe Applications

    - by todd.little
    Tuxedo provides an excellent platform to migrate mainframe applications to distributed systems. As the only distributed transaction processing monitor that offers quality of service comparable or better than mainframe systems, Tuxedo allows customers to migrate their existing mainframe based applications to a platform with a much lower total cost of ownership. Please join us on Thursday April 29 at 10:00am Pacific Time for this exciting webcast covering the new Oracle Tuxedo Application Runtime for CICS and Batch 11g. Find out how easy it is to migrate your CICS and mainframe batch applications to Tuxedo.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Exadata Resource Kit available

    - by javier.puerta(at)oracle.com
    To learn more about how easy it is to achieve extreme database application performance, we now invite you to access the Oracle Exadata Resource Kit, featuring: The Oracle Exadata Launch Webcast with Mark Hurd, President, Oracle IDC's report on how Oracle Exadata exceeds expectations A technical overview of Oracle Exadata Database Machine Customer case studies, videos, podcasts, and more Don't miss this chance to learn how Oracle Exadata provides extreme performance by combining data warehousing and online transaction processing applications in a single machine. Access the Oracle Exadata Resource Kit today.

    Read the article

  • Recording Topics manually and automatically

    - by maria.cozzolino(at)oracle.com
    When you are recording UPK topics, the default mode for recording is manual recording, where you tell the system when to record each screen shot. This mode allows you to take the exact screen shot you need. However, it does get a bit tedious when you are recording long topics, especially if you forget to take a few screen shots. In UPK 3.5, a new version of recording was introduced - Automatic Recording. It was designed to simplify the recording process by automatically capturing screen shots as you perform your transaction. If you haven't experimented with Automatic Recording, I'd recommend you give it a try - it might make your recording life easier. If you are recording with sound, you can also narrate your topic while recording it. To turn on Automatic Recording: 1. In Tools/Options, there are two recorder tabs. The first tab, under content defaults, includes settings that you may want to share between developers, like whether keyboard shortcuts are automatically captured. 2. The second tab is the one that contains the personal preferences, like screen shot capture key and whether to record automatically or manually. On this tab, choose the option for Automatic Recording. 3. Save the settings. Note that this setting will NOT impact content defaults; this is for your user only. When you launch the recorder, you will notice a slightly different message with guidance on how to start and stop automatic recording. Once you start recording, the recorder window is hidden until the end of the recording session to allow you to capture your transaction. In the task tray, there is a series of icons that let you know that you are capturing content. You can pause the recording, as well as set and view your sound levels if you are using sound. A camera appears during each screen capture to help you know when the system is capturing a screen shot, and a context indicator appears to show the recognition. With automatic recording, you can let the system capture the necessary screen shots. It may provide a more natural recording experience, and is probably easier for the untrained developer. On the other hand, you have a bit more control with manual recording on which screen shot appears, but it also means you have to remember to capture the screen shot. :) We'd be interested in hearing which type of recording you do, and any rationale on why you made that choice. Please comment and let us know. --Maria Cozzolino, Manager of UPK Software Requirements and UI Design

    Read the article

  • Restricting logons during certain hours for certain users

    - by simonsabin
    Following a an email in a DL I decided to look at implementing a logon restriction system to prevent users from logging on at certain ties of the day. The poster had a solution but wanted to add auditing. I immediately thought of the My post on logging messages during a transaction because I new that part of the logon trigger functionality is that you rollback the connection. I therefore assumed you had to do the logging like I talk about in that post (otherwise the logging wouldn’t persist beyond...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Is RTD Stateless or Stateful?

    - by [email protected]
    Yes.   A stateless service is one where each request is an independent transaction that can be processed by any of the servers in a cluster.  A stateful service is one where state is kept in a server's memory from transaction to transaction, thus necessitating the proper routing of requests to the right server. The main advantage of stateless systems is simplicity of design. The main advantage of stateful systems is performance. I'm often asked whether RTD is a stateless or stateful service, so I wanted to clarify this issue in depth so that RTD's architecture will be properly understood. The short answer is: "RTD can be configured as a stateless or stateful service." The performance difference between stateless and stateful systems can be very significant, and while in a call center implementation it may be reasonable to use a pure stateless configuration, a web implementation that produces thousands of requests per second is practically impossible with a stateless configuration. RTD's performance is orders of magnitude better than most competing systems. RTD was architected from the ground up to achieve this performance. Features like automatic and dynamic compression of prediction models, automatic translation of metadata to machine code, lack of interpreted languages, and separation of model building from decisioning contribute to achieving this performance level. Because  of this focus on performance we decided to have RTD's default configuration work in a stateful manner. By being stateful RTD requests are typically handled in a few milliseconds when repeated requests come to the same session. Now, those readers that have participated in implementations of RTD know that RTD's architecture is also focused on reducing Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) with features like automatic model building, automatic time windows, automatic maintenance of database tables, automatic evaluation of data mining models, automatic management of models partitioned by channel, geography, etcetera, and hot swapping of configurations. How do you reconcile the need for a low TCO and the need for performance? How do you get the performance of a stateful system with the simplicity of a stateless system? The answer is that you make the system behave like a stateless system to the exterior, but you let it automatically take advantage of situations where being stateful is better. For example, one of the advantages of stateless systems is that you can route a message to any server in a cluster, without worrying about sending it to the same server that was handling the session in previous messages. With an RTD stateful configuration you can still route the message to any server in the cluster, so from the point of view of the configuration of other systems, it is the same as a stateless service. The difference though comes in performance, because if the message arrives to the right server, RTD can serve it without any external access to the session's state, thus tremendously reducing processing time. In typical implementations it is not rare to have high percentages of messages routed directly to the right server, while those that are not, are easily handled by forwarding the messages to the right server. This architecture usually provides the best of both worlds with performance and simplicity of configuration.   Configuring RTD as a pure stateless service A pure stateless configuration requires session data to be persisted at the end of handling each and every message and reloading that data at the beginning of handling any new message. This is of course, the root of the inefficiency of these configurations. This is also the reason why many "stateless" implementations actually do keep state to take advantage of a request coming back to the same server. Nevertheless, if the implementation requires a pure stateless decision service, this is easy to configure in RTD. The way to do it is: Mark every Integration Point to Close the session at the end of processing the message In the Session entity persist the session data on closing the session In the session entity check if a persisted version exists and load it An excellent solution for persisting the session data is Oracle Coherence, which provides a high performance, distributed cache that minimizes the performance impact of persisting and reloading the session. Alternatively, the session can be persisted to a local database. An interesting feature of the RTD stateless configuration is that it can cope with serializing concurrent requests for the same session. For example, if a web page produces two requests to the decision service, these requests could come concurrently to the decision services and be handled by different servers. Most stateless implementation would have the two requests step onto each other when saving the state, or fail one of the messages. When properly configured, RTD will make one message wait for the other before processing.   A Word on Context Using the context of a customer interaction typically significantly increases lift. For example, offer success in a call center could double if the context of the call is taken into account. For this reason, it is important to utilize the contextual information in decision making. To make the contextual information available throughout a session it needs to be persisted. When there is a well defined owner for the information then there is no problem because in case of a session restart, the information can be easily retrieved. If there is no official owner of the information, then RTD can be configured to persist this information.   Once again, RTD provides flexibility to ensure high performance when it is adequate to allow for some loss of state in the rare cases of server failure. For example, in a heavy use web site that serves 1000 pages per second the navigation history may be stored in the in memory session. In such sites it is typical that there is no OLTP that stores all the navigation events, therefore if an RTD server were to fail, it would be possible for the navigation to that point to be lost (note that a new session would be immediately established in one of the other servers). In most cases the loss of this navigation information would be acceptable as it would happen rarely. If it is desired to save this information, RTD would persist it every time the visitor navigates to a new page. Note that this practice is preferred whether RTD is configured in a stateless or stateful manner.  

    Read the article

  • Framework 4 Features: User Propogation to the Database

    - by Anthony Shorten
    Once of the features I mentioned in a previous entry was the ability for Oracle Utilities Application Framework V4 to automatically propogate the end user to the database connection. This bears more explanation. In the past releases of the Oracle Utilities Application Framework, all database connections are pooled and shared within a channel of access. So for example, the online connections on the Business Application Server share a common pool of connections and the batch in a thread pool shares a seperate pool of connections. The connections are pooled for performance reasons (the most expensive part of a typical transaction is opening and closing connections so we save time by having them ready beforehand). The idea is that when a business function needs some SQL to be execute it takes a spare connection from the pool, executes the SQL and then returns the connection back to the pool for reuse. Unfortunelty to support the pool being started and ready before the transactions arrives means that you need to have a shared userid (as you dont know the users who need them beforehand). Therefore each connection uses the same database user to execute the SQL it needs. This is acceptable for executing transactions, generally but does not allow the DBA or other tools to ascertain which end user is actually running the transaction. In Oracle Utilities Application Framework V4, we now set the CLIENT_IDENTIFIER to the end userid (not the Login Id) when the connection is taken from the pool and used and reset it back to blank when returned to the pool. The CLIENT_IDENTIFIER is a feature that is present in the Oracle Database connection information. From a monitoring perspective, when a connection to the database is actively running SQL, the end user is now able to be determined by querying the CLIENT_IDENTIFIER on the session object within the database. This can be done in the DBA's favorite monitoring tool (even just some SQL on the v$session table is enough). This has other implications as well. Oracle sells a lot of other security addons to the database and so do third parties. If a site wants to have additional levels of security or auditing in the database then the CLIENT_IDENTIFIER, if supported, is now available to be recorded or used by those products to provide additional levels of security. This facility was one of the highly "nice to haves" that customers would ask us about so we now allow it to be used to allow finer grained monitoring and additional security facilities. Note: This facility is only available for customers using the Oracle Database versions of our products.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to have multiple sets of key columns in a table?

    - by Peter Larsson
    Filtered indexes is one of my new favorite things with SQL Server 2008. I am currently working on designing a new datawarehouse. There are two restrictions doing this It has to be fed from the old legacy system with both historical data and new data It has to be fed from the new business system with new data When we incorporate the new business system, we are going to do that for one market only. It means the old legacy business system still will produce new data for other markets (together with historical data for all markets) and the new business system produce new data to that one market only. Sounds interesting this far? To accomplish this I did a thorough research about the business requirements about the business intelligence needs. Then I went on to design the sucker. How does this relate to filtered indexes you ask? I'll give one example, the Stock transaction table. Well, the key columns for the old legacy system are different from the key columns from the new business system. The old legacy system has a key of 5 columns Movement date Movement time Product code Order number Sequence number within shipment And to all thing, I found out that the Movement Time column is not really a time. It starts out like a time HH:MM:SS but seconds are added for each delivery within the shipment, so a Movement Time can look like "12:11:68". The sequence number is ordered over the distributors for shipment. As I said, it is a legacy system. The new business system has one key column, the Movement DateTime (accuracy down to 100th of nanosecond). So how to deal with this? On thing would be to have two stock transaction tables, one for legacy system and one for the new business system. But that would lead to a maintenance overhead and using partitioned views for getting data out of the warehouse. Filtered index will be of a great use here. MovementDate DATETIME2(7) MovementTime CHAR(8) NULL ProductCode VARCHAR(15) NOT NULL OrderNumber VARCHAR(30) NULL SequenceNumber INT NULL The sequence number is not even used in the new system, so I created a clustered index for a new IDENTITY column to make a new identity column which can be shared by both systems. Then I created one unique filtered index for old system like this CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_Legacy (MovementDate, MovementTime, ProductCode, SequenceNumber) INCLUDE (OrderNumber, Col5, Col6, ... ) WHERE SequenceNumber IS NOT NULL And then I created a new unique filtered index for the new business system like this CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_Business (MovementDate) INCLUDE (ProductCode, OrderNumber, Col12, ... ) WHERE SequenceNumber IS NULL This way I can have multiple sets of key columns on same base table which is shared by both systems.

    Read the article

  • DRY and SRP

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/06/11/dry-and-srp.aspxKent Beck’s XP Simplicity Rules (aka Four Rules of Simple Design) are a prioritized list of rules that when applied to your code generally yield a great design.  As you’ll see from the above link the list has slightly evolved over time.  I find today they are usually listed as: All Tests Pass Don’t Repeat Yourself (DRY) Express Intent Minimalistic These are prioritized.  If your code doesn’t work (rule 1) then everything else is forfeit.  Go back to rule one and get the code working before worrying about anything else. Over the years the community have debated whether the priority of rules 2 and 3 should be reversed.  Some say a little duplication in the code is OK as long as it helps express intent.  I’ve debated it myself.  This recent post got me thinking about this again, hence this post.   I don’t think it is fair to compare “Expressing Intent” against “DRY”.  This is a comparison of apples to oranges.  “Expressing Intent” is a principal of code quality.  “Repeating Yourself” is a code smell.  A code smell is merely an indicator that there might be something wrong with the code.  It takes further investigation to determine if a violation of an underlying principal of code quality has actually occurred. For example “using nouns for method names”, “using verbs for property names”, or “using Booleans for parameters” are all code smells that indicate that code probably isn’t doing a good job at expressing intent.  They are usually very good indicators.  But what principle is the code smell of Duplication pointing to and how good of an indicator is it? Duplication in the code base is bad for a couple reasons.  If you need to make a change and that needs to be made in a number of locations it is difficult to know if you have caught all of them.  This can lead to bugs if/when one of those locations is overlooked.  By refactoring the code to remove all duplication there will be left with only one place to change, thereby eliminating this problem. With most projects the code becomes the single source of truth for a project.  If a production code base is inconsistent with a five year old requirements or design document the production code that people are currently living with is usually declared as the current reality (or truth).  Requirement or design documents at this age in a project life cycle are usually of little value. Although comparing production code to external documentation is usually straight forward, duplication within the code base muddles this declaration of truth.  When code is duplicated small discrepancies will creep in between the two copies over time.  The question then becomes which copy is correct?  As different factions debate how the software should work, trust in the software and the team behind it erodes. The code smell of Duplication points to a violation of the “Single Source of Truth” principle.  Let me define that as: A stakeholder’s requirement for a software change should never cause more than one class to change. Violation of the Single Source of Truth principle will always result in duplication in the code.  However, the inverse is not always true.  Duplication in the code does not necessarily indicate that there is a violation of the Single Source of Truth principle. To illustrate this, let’s look at a retail system where the system will (1) send a transaction to a bank and (2) print a receipt for the customer.  Although these are two separate features of the system, they are closely related.  The reason for printing the receipt is usually to provide an audit trail back to the bank transaction.  Both features use the same data:  amount charged, account number, transaction date, customer name, retail store name, and etcetera.  Because both features use much of the same data, there is likely to be a lot of duplication between them.  This duplication can be removed by making both features use the same data access layer. Then start coming the divergent requirements.  The receipt stakeholder wants a change so that the account number has the last few digits masked out to protect the customer’s privacy.  That can be solve with a small IF statement whilst still eliminating all duplication in the system.  Then the bank wants to take a picture of the customer as well as capture their signature and/or PIN number for enhanced security.  Then the receipt owner wants to pull data from a completely different system to report the customer’s loyalty program point total. After a while you realize that the two stakeholders have somewhat similar, but ultimately different responsibilities.  They have their own reasons for pulling the data access layer in different directions.  Then it dawns on you, the Single Responsibility Principle: There should never be more than one reason for a class to change. In this example we have two stakeholders giving two separate reasons for the data access class to change.  It is clear violation of the Single Responsibility Principle.  That’s a problem because it can often lead the project owner pitting the two stakeholders against each other in a vein attempt to get them to work out a mutual single source of truth.  But that doesn’t exist.  There are two completely valid truths that the developers need to support.  How is this to be supported and honour the Single Responsibility Principle?  The solution is to duplicate the data access layer and let each stakeholder control their own copy. The Single Source of Truth and Single Responsibility Principles are very closely related.  SST tells you when to remove duplication; SRP tells you when to introduce it.  They may seem to be fighting each other, but really they are not.  The key is to clearly identify the different responsibilities (or sources of truth) over a system.  Sometimes there is a single person with that responsibility, other times there are many.  This can be especially difficult if the same person has dual responsibilities.  They might not even realize they are wearing multiple hats. In my opinion Single Source of Truth should be listed as the second rule of simple design with Express Intent at number three.  Investigation of the DRY code smell should yield to the proper application SST, without violating SRP.  When necessary leave duplication in the system and let the class names express the different people that are responsible for controlling them.  Knowing all the people with responsibilities over a system is the higher priority because you’ll need to know this before you can express it.  Although it may be a code smell when there is duplication in the code, it does not necessarily mean that the coder has chosen to be expressive over DRY or that the code is bad.

    Read the article

  • Move Data into the grid for scalable, predictable response times

    - by JuergenKress
    CloudTran is pleased to introduce the availability of the CloudTran Transaction and Persistence Manager for creating scalable, reliable data services on the Oracle Coherence In-Memory Data Grid (IMDG). Use of IMDG architectures has been key to handling today’s web-scale loads because it eliminates database latency by storing important and frequently access data in memory instead of on disk. The CloudTran product lets developers easily use an IMDG for full ACID-compliant transactions without having to be concerned about the location or spread of data. The system has its own implementation of fast, scalable distributed transactions that does NOT depend on XA protocols but still guarantees all ACID properties. Plus, CloudTran asynchronously replicates data going into the IMDG to back-end datastores and back-up data centers, again ensuring ACID properties. CloudTran can be accessed through Java Persistence API (JPA via TopLink Grid) and now, through a new Low-Level API, or LLAPI. This is ideal for use in SOA applications that need data reliability, high availability, performance, and scalability. It is still in its limited beta release, the LLAPI gives developers the ability to use standard put/remove logic available in Coherence and then wrap logic with simple Spring annotations or XML+AspectJ to start transactions. An important feature of LLAPI is the ability to join transactions. This is a common outcome for SOA applications that need to reduce network traffic by aggregating data into single cache entries and then doing SOA service processing in the node holding the data. This results in the need to orchestrate transaction processing across multiple service calls. CloudTran has the capability to handle these “multi-client” transactions at speed with no loss in ACID properties. Developing software around an IMDG like Oracle Coherence is an important choice for today’s web-scale applications and services. But this introduces new architectural considerations to maintain scalability in light of increased network loads and data movement. Without using CloudTran, developers are faced with an incredibly difficult task to ensure data reliability, availability, performance, and scalability when working with an IMDG. Working with highly distributed data that is entirely volatile while stored in memory presents numerous edge cases where failures can result in data loss. The CloudTran product takes care of all of this, leaving developers with the confidence and peace of mind that all data is processed correctly. For those interested in evaluating the CloudTran product and IMDGs, take a look at this link for more information: http://www.CloudTran.com/downloadAPI.ph , or send your questions to [email protected]. SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit  www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Mix Forum Technorati Tags: CloudTran,data grid,M,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,BPM,Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • Uploaded Four New ADF Examples

    - by Steve Muench
    I've uploaded four new examples for your learning pleasure:  162. Set Binding to Attr Value from Selected SelectBooleanRadio Button in Data-Driven Button Group 163. Binding SelectBooleanRadio to True/False Value in DB Row 164. Method Action Invoking Managed Bean Method Without Making Bean a DataControl 165. Using a Headless Taskflow to Perform Work in an Autononmous Transaction Enjoy.

    Read the article

  • authorize.net SIM PCI compliance

    - by David
    Does anyone know if authorize.net's SIM rids you of having to be PCI compliant? The payment form is hosted on authorize.net's site and they're processing the payment. I know you can do a relay response which basically puts some of the transaction details in a url that goes back to your website(to display a receipt). I'm not sure what all information gets put into the url though. I'm wondering if that makes you have to become PCI compliant?

    Read the article

  • Log Growing Pains

    Understanding the transaction log seems to be a very difficult concept fro mos DBAs to grasp. Jason Brimhall brings us a new article that helps to troubleshoot the cause of log growths.

    Read the article

  • Idera Compliance Manager 3.5 and SQL Server 2012 Release Candidate

    Unlike most conventional database auditing solutions, SQL Compliance Manager places a blanket over data access with real-time auditing. Clients can pinpoint any malicious intent with sensitive column auditing. This feature gives specifics as to who has accessed information located within an audited table's sensitive columns. With transaction status auditing, database administrators can detect suspicious activity by auditing the status of transactions that execute DML statements on an audited database with the help of rollbacks and save-points. In addition, SQL Compliance Manager lives up t...

    Read the article

  • Walmart's Mobile Self-Checkout

    - by David Dorf
    Reuters recently reported that Walmart was testing an iPhone-based self-checkout at a store near its headquarters.  Consumers scan items as they're placed in the physical basket, then the virtual basket is transferred to an existing self-checkout station where payment is tendered.  A very solid solution, but not exactly original. Before we go further, let's look at the possible cost savings for Walmart.  According to the article: Pushing more shoppers to scan their own items and make payments without the help of a cashier could save Wal-Mart millions of dollars, Chief Financial Officer Charles Holley said on March 7. The company spends about $12 million in cashier wages every second at its Walmart U.S. stores. Um, yeah. Using back-of-the-napkin math, I calculated Walmart's cashiers are making $157k per hour.  A more accurate statement would be saving $12M per year for each second saved on the average transaction time.  So if this self-checkout approach saves 2 seconds per transaction on average, Walmart would save $24M per year on labor.  Maybe.  Sometimes that savings will be used to do other tasks in the store, so it may not directly translate to less employees. When I saw this approach demonstrated in Sweden, there were a few differences, which may or may not be in Walmart's plans.  First, the consumers were identified based on their loyalty card.  In order to offset the inevitable shrink, retailers need to save on labor but also increase basket size, typically via in-aisle promotions.  As they scan items, retailers should target promos, and that's easier to do if you know some shopping history.  Last I checked, Walmart had no loyalty program. Second, at the self-checkout station consumers were randomly selected for an audit in which they must re-scan all the items just like you do at a typical self-checkout.  If you were found to be stealing, your ability to use the system can be revoked.  That's a tough one in the US, especially when the system goes wrong, either by mistake or by lying.  At least in my view, the Swedes are bit more trustworthy than the people of Walmart. So while I think the idea of mobile self-checkout has merit, perhaps its not right for Walmart.

    Read the article

  • WebCenter Customer Spotlight: Indecopi

    - by me
    Author: Peter Reiser - Social Business Evangelist, Oracle WebCenter  Solution SummaryIndecopi Optimizes Patent Approval Management and Accelerates Customer Service Times by 40% Indecopi is a decentralized public agency that promotes the country’s markets and protects consumer rights. It promotes fair and honest competition and safeguards all forms of intellectual property through three directorates: Author’s Rights, Inventions and New Technologies, and Trademarks. The business challenge was to unify the agency’s technology infrastructure to create a business process management strategy, consolidate the organization’s Web platform and improve and automate information services for citizens and businesses, and streamline patent procedures by digitizing documentation. Indecopi optimized patent information services , organized information, provided around-the-clock online access to users, and developed a Web site that provides internal and external users access to DIN information, such as patent documentation, through a user-friendly interface. Indecopi achieved impressive business result by reducing use of paper files by 50%, accelerating transaction approvals,  reduce nonvalue-added activities by 85% and  accelerated customer service times by 40%. Company OverviewPeru’s Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual (Indecopi), the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, is a decentralized public agency that promotes the country’s markets and protects consumer rights. It promotes fair and honest competition and safeguards all forms of intellectual property through three directorates: Author’s Rights, Inventions and New Technologies, and Trademarks. Business ChallengesIndecopi's challenge was to unify the agency’s technology infrastructure to create a business process management strategy, starting with the Directorate of Inventions and New Technologies (DIN), consolidate the organization’s Web platform to meet new demands for software and process development, such as for patent applications, and improve and automate information services for citizens and businesses and streamline patent procedures by digitizing documentation. Solution DeployedIndecopi optimized patent information services with Oracle Business Process Management, automating processes to deliver expedient searches, and to create new services, such as alerts to users. They organized information and provided around-the-clock online access to users with Oracle WebCenter Content. In addition they used Oracle WebLogic Server to develop a Web site that provides internal and external users access to DIN information, such as patent documentation, through a user-friendly interface. Business Results Indecopi achieved impressive business results Reduced use of paper files by 50% Accelerated transaction approvals  reduce nonvalue-added activities, such as manual document copying to obtain patents, by 85% Accelerated customer service times by 40% by optimizing procedures, such as searches and online information related to granting patents “Oracle Business Process Manager has been a paradigm shift in process management. By digitalizing and automating our patents information services, we can now manage everything in the simplest way possible, expanding our options for the creation of new services.” Sergio Rodríguez, Assistant Director, Inventions and New Technologies Directorate, Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y la Propiedad Intelectual Additional Information Indecopi Customer Snapshot Oracle WebCenter Content

    Read the article

  • Google attaque le FISC américain pour avoir trop payé d'impôts en 2004, il réclame le remboursement de plus de 80 millions de dollars de taxes

    Google attaque le FISC américain, il aurait payé trop d'impôts en 2004 Et lui réclame plus de 80 millions de dollarsGoogle vient d'entamer une procédure contre l'U.S. Internal Revenue Service, l'équivalent du FISC, pour récupérer 83.5 millions de dollars qui, d'après le géant d'Internet, lui seraient dûs.Le litige porte sur une opération boursière concernant des warrants (des bons de souscription à fort effet de levier, souvent qualifiés de spéculatifs) lors d'une transaction avec AOL.Les warrants sont des options d'achat - ou de vente - d'un produit sous-jacent (ici des actions de Google) qui permettent à leurs détenteurs (ici AOL) d'acheter - ou de vendre - ce sous-jacent à un prix fixe détermi...

    Read the article

  • Revenue Recognition: Performance Obligation Pass a Hurdle

    - by Theresa Hickman
    I met up with Seamus Moran, our resident accounting expert, to get his thoughts about the latest happenings with IFRS. Last week, on March 13,  the comment period on the FASB and IASB exposure draft “Revenue From Contracts with Customers” closed.  FASB and IASB have just over 20 comment letters – a very small number.  The implication is that that the exposure draft does reflect general acceptance, and therefore will be published as both a US and Internationally Generally Accepted Accounting Standard. At a recent conference call, FASB and IASB expected to complete their report to both Boards on the comments by early summer, complete their deliberation of the comments by the fall and draft the final standard text by late this year. It is assumed the concept of Performance Obligations would become US GAAP and IFRS in place of the existing standards.  They confirmed that all existing US GAAP and IFRS guidelines would be withdrawn, and that they were in dialogue with the SEC on withdrawing the SEC guidelines on the revenue issue as well.The open question is when will Performance Obligations become effective?  The Boards have said that they would like this Revenue Recognition standard and the the Lease Accounting standard to be effective at the same time because what isn’t either insurance, interest, or a lease is a revenue arrangement.  However, ascertaining what is generally acceptable in respect of Leases is proving a little elusive, and the Boards have recently diverged a little on the P&L side of the accounting (although both are in agreement that there will be no off-balance sheet leases).  It is therefore likely that the Lease standard might be delayed. One wonders if the Boards will  define effectivity of the Revenue standard independently of the Lease standard or if they will stick with their resolve to make them co-effective.  The Boards have also said that neither standard will be effective before June 2015.Here is the gist of the new Revenue Recognition principle and the steps to apply it:Recognize revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services in an amount that reflects the consideration expected to be entitled in exchange for those goods and services.Steps to apply the core principles: Identify the contract with the customer Identify the separate performance obligations Determine the transaction price Allocate the the transaction price Recognize Revenue when a performance obligation is satisfied  

    Read the article

  • Les brevets Novell rachetés par une alliance entre Microsoft, Apple, Oracle et EMC d'après l'autorité antitrust Allemande

    Les brevets Novell rachetés par une alliance entre Microsoft, Apple, Oracle et EMC Selon un document publié par l'autorité fédérale anti-trust Allemande Mise à jour du 17/12/2010 par Idelways Après le rachat de Novell par Attachmate (lire ci-avant) et l'acquisition comme partie de cette transaction de 882 brevets par le « CPTN Holdings », présenté en tant que "consortium de sociétés technologiques mené par Microsoft", l'identité des partenaires de Microsoft dans ce rachat vient d'être révélée. Ou plutôt dénichée. Il s'agirait d'Oracle, Apple et EMC (spécialiste des infrastructures et des solution...

    Read the article

  • Move Data into the Grid for Scalable, Predictable Response Times

    - by JuergenKress
    CloudTran is pleased to introduce the availability of the CloudTran Transaction and Persistence Manager for creating scalable, reliable data services on the Oracle Coherence In-Memory Data Grid (IMDG). Use of IMDG architectures has been key to handling today’s web-scale loads because it eliminates database latency by storing important and frequently access data in memory instead of on disk. The CloudTran product lets developers easily use an IMDG for full ACID-compliant transactions without having to be concerned about the location or spread of data. The system has its own implementation of fast, scalable distributed transactions that does NOT depend on XA protocols but still guarantees all ACID properties. Plus, CloudTran asynchronously replicates data going into the IMDG to back-end datastores and back-up data centers, again ensuring ACID properties. CloudTran can be accessed through Java Persistence API (JPA via TopLink Grid) and now, through a new Low-Level API, or LLAPI. This is ideal for use in SOA applications that need data reliability, high availability, performance, and scalability. Still in limited beta release, the LLAPI gives developers the ability to use standard put/remove logic available in Coherence and then wrap logic with simple Spring annotations or XML+AspectJ to start transactions. An important feature of LLAPI is the ability to join transactions. This is a common outcome for SOA applications that need to reduce network traffic by aggregating data into single cache entries and then doing SOA service processing in the node holding the data. This results in the need to orchestrate transaction processing across multiple service calls. CloudTran has the capability to handle these “multi-client” transactions at speed with no loss in ACID properties. Developing software around an IMDG like Oracle Coherence is an important choice for today’s web-scale applications and services. But this introduces new architectural considerations to maintain scalability in light of increased network loads and data movement. Without using CloudTran, developers are faced with an incredibly difficult task to ensure data reliability, availability, performance, and scalability when working with an IMDG. Working with highly distributed data that is entirely volatile while stored in memory presents numerous edge cases where failures can result in data loss. The CloudTran product takes care of all of this, leaving developers with the confidence and peace of mind that all data is processed correctly. For those interested in evaluating the CloudTran product and IMDGs, take a look at this link for more information: http://www.CloudTran.com/downloadAPI.php, or, send your questions to [email protected]. WebLogic Partner Community For regular information become a member in the WebLogic Partner Community please visit: http://www.oracle.com/partners/goto/wls-emea ( OPN account required). If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. BlogTwitterLinkedInMixForumWiki Technorati Tags: Coherence,cloudtran,cache,WebLogic Community,Oracle,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • Google attaque le FISC américain pour avoir trop payé d'impôts en 1984, il réclame le remboursement de plus de 80 millions de dollars de taxes

    Google attaque le FISC américain, il aurait payé trop d'impôts en 2004 Et lui réclame plus de 80 millions de dollarsGoogle vient d'entamer une procédure contre l'U.S. Internal Revenue Service, l'équivalent du FISC, pour récupérer 83.5 millions de dollars qui, d'après le géant d'Internet, lui seraient dûs.Le litige porte sur une opération boursière concernant des warrants (des bons de souscription à fort effet de levier, souvent qualifiés de spéculatifs) lors d'une transaction avec AOL.Les warrants sont des options d'achat - ou de vente - d'un produit sous-jacent (ici des actions de Google) qui permettent à leurs détenteurs (ici AOL) d'acheter - ou de vendre - ce sous-jacent à un prix fixe détermi...

    Read the article

  • Efficient, partial, point-in-time database restores

    - by GavinPayneUK
    This article is about a situation that many of us could describe the theoretical approach to solving, but then struggle to understand why SQL Server wasn’t following that theoretical approach when you tried it for real. Earlier this week, I had a client ask about the best way to perform: a partial database restore, 1 of 1300 filegroups; to a specific point in time; using a differential backup, and therefore; without restoring each transaction log backup taken since the full backup. The last point...(read more)

    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 | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >