Some IBM software products were distributed free (no charge for the software itself, a common practice early in the industry). The term "Program Product" was used by IBM to denote that it's freely available[NB 2] but not for free.[185] Prior to June 1969, the majority of software packages written by IBM were available at no charge to IBM customers; with the June 1969 announcement, new software not designated as "System Control Programming" became Program Products, although existing non-system software remained available for free.[185]
The Watson Customer Engagement (commonly known as WCE and formerly known as IBM Commerce) business unit supports marketing, commerce, and supply chain software development and product offerings for IBM. Software and solutions offered as part of these three portfolios by WCE are as follows:
Ibm Rational Software Architect 85 133
First, why would you want to impose such a standard in the first place? In general, when you want to introduce empirical confidence in your process. What do I mean by "empirical confidence"? Well, the real goal correctness. For most software, we can't possibly know this across all inputs, so we settle for saying that code is well-tested. This is more knowable, but is still a subjective standard: It will always be open to debate whether or not you have met it. Those debates are useful and should occur, but they also expose uncertainty.
Code coverage analysis is part of the dynamic code analysis (as opposed to the static one, i.e. Lint). Problems found during the dynamic code analysis (by tools such as the purify family, -03.ibm.com/software/products/en/rational-purify-family) are things like uninitialized memory reads (UMR), memory leaks, etc. These problems can only be found if the code is covered by an executed test case. The code that is the hardest to cover in a test case is usually the abnormal cases in the system, but if you want the system to fail gracefully (i.e. error trace instead of crash) you might want to put some effort into covering the abnormal cases in the dynamic code analysis as well. With just a little bit of bad luck, a UMR can lead to a segfault or worse.
I consider that this can be "tested" in an Agile process by analyzing the code we have the architecture, functionality (user stories), and then come up with a number. Based on my experience in the Telecom area I would say that 60% is a good value to check.
Data Warehousing requires effective methods for processing and storing large amounts of data. OLAP applications form an additional tier in the data warehouse architecture and in order to interact acceptably with the user, typically data pre-computation is required. In such a case compressed representations have the potential to improve storage and processing efficiency. This paper proposes a compressed database system which aims to provide an effective storage model. We show that in several other stages of the Data Warehouse architecture compression can also be employed. Novel systems engineering is adopted to ensure that compression/decompression overheads are limited, and that data reorganisations are of controlled complexity and can be carried out incrementally. The basic architecture is described and experimental results on the TPC-D and other datasets show the performance of our system.
2ff7e9595c
Comments