With the recent (April 2010) SOA Suite 11g R1 Patch Set 2 (11.1.1.3.0), several new capabilities have been added to the SOA Suite.

Read the original here:
Publish SOA Composite application as EJB to be invoked from Java applications using EJB Binding

Donderdag as. is de AMIS Query van Doug Burns over SQL Tuning, gebruikmakend van de Oracle Enterprise Manager (Tuning en Diagnostics pack). Misschien verwachten velen een hoog “DBA” gehalte, maar niets is minder waar… Deze presentatie bevat bijna geen enkele slides en is echt een aanrader om bij te wonen.

Read the rest here:
Laatste “Plug” – Cuddly Toys Not Included – Een AMIS Query met Doug Burns

In a recent post I described how we can use the EJB Binding in SOA Suite 11g PS2 to invoke a SOA Composite application through RMI as a remote EJB. This interaction can be fully based on Java interfaces – no WSDL or XML required

See the original post here:
Invoke SOA Composite application through RMI as remote EJB (using binding.adf)

‘Oracle Team Productivity Center (TPC) is an Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) tool that enables software development teams to collaborate and work productively together when developing applications using JDeveloper.’ (OTN TPC page) TPC provides unified access to different ALM repositories from within JDeveloper and it allows to define relations between the so-called work-items in these (separate) repositories.

See more here:
Oracle Team Productivity Center

> Part of the answer, I think, is to make performance less reliant on good > optimization. In XSLT , the key() function goes a long way towards this: > by giving programmers a tool to control when indexes are built and used, > performance of many join constructs becomes much more predictable > > I’ve always felt that the anathema felt > in the database query community towards such constructs is misplaced – > alhough it’s great when optimizers are good enough that they aren’t needed, > I’ve seen programmers tearing their hair out trying to second-guess the > optimizer, and in such cases it’s not clear we’re doing programmers a > service. This is indeed somewhat funny.

See the original post:
Requirements on Optimizers [was ANSWERS to "What's
wrong with XQuery" question]

On 7/25/2010 9:51 AM, Martin Probst wrote: > > Part of the answer, I think, is to make performance less reliant on good > > optimization. In XSLT , the key() function goes a long way towards this: > > by giving programmers a tool to control when indexes are built and used, > > performance of many join constructs becomes much more predictable > > > > > > > It might be nice to have language constructs saying ” guarantee to me > that you do this in O(something), otherwise fail”. > That’s exactly right – for applications with sufficient scale, it’s just not enough to know that a given expression will be evaluated correctly: it’s also critical to understand whether indexed lookup will be applied so as to guarantee completion (or failure) before the universe ends

Read more from the original source:
Requirements on Optimizers [was ANSWERS to "What's
wrong with XQuery" question]

Interesting idea In the java and c++ case the libraries are more implementations then specifications And in particular the collection classes (both Languages) the classes themselves Are architected around separating specific algorithm models from abstract non algorithmic interfaces. I don’t see quite the same thing in either xquery languages or stdlibs However I do see it in implementation extensions Maybe when xquery libs achieve the same maturity as java and c++ libs well start to see algorithmic metrics as part of the docs if not the specs David A Lee On Jul 25, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Pavel Minaev wrote: > Nonetheless it’s fairly common, though typically not in the languages > themselves, but rather libraries.

See the article here:
Requirements on Optimizers

Although we were talking about a lack of interest in XML in the web community, I found it rather heartening to see some good participation in the interest of bringing E4X support to Chrome’s V8 engine (as E4X is already in Firefox), with the intention of getting critical mass to lead to adoption by the other browsers. V8 has indicated in theory their willingness to integrate good code, as long as it is produced by a third-party: http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=235#c19 Several there have already mentioned being willing to donate to try to make it happen, including with the hope that if more browsers besides Mozilla support E4X, there may be potential to see it become standard across browsers

Visit link:
E4X and XQuery

If you are making a HTTPService call in Flex, you need to make sure that the domain specified in the url attribute is the domain from where your application was downloaded or there is a crossdomain. xml file granting access to your …

Here is the original post:
Accessing a URL with Flex and YQL when there is no crossdomain.xml …

I think if I were writing a library for a vocabulary where schema validation is the norm (like FpML , say), and assuming that the schema is suitable for use in XQuery (most element names either global or having a named complex type) then I would declare the functions with types that assume the data is pre-validated. I wouldn’t expect client code to be invoking validate{} explicitly – I would expect that most of the time, the function is called to operate directly on input data, which is validated at source outside the query. (But that might not be how Zorba works, I don’t know.) The main reason is that it’s a good idea in an interface definition to be as precise as possible about what you expect to cross the interface

See the rest here:
Schema Typed Parameters and Return Values in Library
Modules