Wls6 is better than wls7 i think

          hello i am a programmer,i usually use the jbuilder+wls6 as my development environment,when
          i debug my program,i used to follow the following path: "web applications->Configure
          a new Web Application..." within the next page,i give the "war(or jar)" file path.
          this method give me the convenient way to deploy my application. i never use the
          "Install a new Web Application..."function,because it require me upload the package
          file again and again,when i undeploy it,i must go to the weblogic directory to
          manually delete the war file(maybe it is the bug of wls,i think).
          but when i download the wls7 yesterday,i found that the "Configure a new Web Application..."
          function in wls7 reqire me to upload the war file.i can't find the same "Configure
          a new Web Application..." function as that of wls6,why?how can i implement such
          function in wls7?
          thank you!

Similar Messages

TS1398 problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

I don't understand what you are asking here. Can you try and ask again?

Hello . I have iphone 4 . I think ios 6 is better than ios 7 . Please send me ios 6 . Or help me .

Hello .
I have iphone 4 . I think ios 6 is better than ios 7 .
Please send me ios 6 . Or help me .

Mahyar moezzi wrote:
Please send me ios 6 .
Downgrading is Not supported by Apple.

HT4623 This really ***** that they sent out and update to the iPhone ISO6 and I can't send or receive pics! Being that its apple you would think they would know better than to send out a bad update like this! I'm paying for a service and I can even use it

This really ***** that they sent out and update to the iPhone ISO6 and I can't send or receive pics! Being that its apple you would think they would know better than to send out a bad update like this! I'm paying for a service and I can even use now!!! I'm very upset! Think about canceling my iPhone 5 order! This is terrible!

Wahhhhhhhhhh! Wahhhhhhhhhh!
Are you over your little tantrum now? Do you want help you would like to continue to act like a toddler?
If you want help, try telling us what happens when trying to send pics. Any errors?
If you want to whine... go somewhere else.

How can we say if Join better than using Sub Queries ??

Hi all,
I am trying to understand the rationale behind "Is _Inner Join_ better than using _Sub Query_ ?" for this scenario ...
I have these tables --
Table1 { *t1_Col_1* (PrimaryKey), t1_Col_2, t1_Col_3, t1_Col_4 }
-- Number of rows = ~4Million , t1_Col_3 has say 60% entries non-zero -----> (Condition 4)
Table2 { *t2_Col_1* (PK), t2_Col_2, t2_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~150Million, t2_Col_2 maps to t1_Col_1 -----> (Condition 1). This means for every distinct value of t1_Col_1 (its PK) we'll have multiple rows in Table2.
Table3 { *t3_Col_1* (PK), t3_Col_2, t3_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~50K, t3_Col_1 maps to t1_Col_2 -----> (Condition 2)
Table4 { *t4_Col_1* (PK), t4_Col_2, t4_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~1K, t4_Col_2 maps to t3_Col_2 -----> (Condition 3)
Now here are the 2 queries: -
Query using direct join --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1, Table2, Table3, Table4
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3 != 0
Query using SubQuery --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table2,
(SELECT t1_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1,Table3, Table4
WHERE
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3!= 0
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
Now the golden question is - How can I document with evidence that Type-1 is better than Type-2 or the other way ? I think the 3 things in comparison are: -
- Number of rows accessed (Type-1 better ?)
- Memory/Bytes used (Again Type-1 better ?)
- Cost ( ?? )
(PS - testing on both MySQL, Oracle10g)
Thanks,
A

So, is it right to conclude that Optimizer uses the optimal path and then processes the query resulting in nearly the same query execution time ?If the optimizer transforms two queries so that they end up the same, then they will run in the same time. Of course, sometimes it cannot do so because of the the way the data is defined (nulls are often a factor; constraints can help it) or the way the query is written, and sometimes it misses a possible optimization due to inaccurate statistics or other information not available to it, or limitations of the optimizer itself.
Is this the right place to ask for MySQL optimization ?Probably not.

For All Entries is NOT better than INNER JOIN in most cases

I quote from Siegfried Boes' excellent post here: Will writing an inner join be better or creating a view?
For all the FOR ALL ENTRIES lovers ... there is no proof for these reappearing recommendation.
There is nearly nobody who receives forum points, who recommends FOR ALL ENTRIES instead of Joins. What is the reason ???
It is easier to prove the opposite. A Join is a nested loop inside the database, a FOR ALL ENTRIES is partly outside of the database. FOR ALL ENTRIES works in blocks, joins on totals.
FOR ALL ENTRIES are not recommded on really large tables, because the chances are too high that
too many records are transferred.
People prefer FOR ALL ENTRIES, because JOINs are not so easy to understand. Joins can go wrong, but with a bit of understanding they can be fixed.
Some Joins are slow and can not be fixed, but then the FOR ALL ENTRIES would be extremely slow.
There are several kinds of views:
- projection views, i.e. only one table involved just fields reduced
- join views, several tables, joins conditions stored in dictionary
- materialized views, here the joined data are actually stored in the database. Storing and synchronisation has to be done manually.
Only the last one creates real overhead. It should be the exception.
Join Views and Joins are nearly identical. The view is better for reuse. The join is better in complicated, becuase if the access goes wrong, it can often be fixed by adding a hint. Hints can not be added to views.
Abraham Bukit points out:
If it is cluster table, (you can't use join). If it is buffered table, I would also say avoid join.
If they all are transaction table which are not buffered and are not cluster tables.
He further supports Siegfried's statement that FAE is easier to undestand than INNER JOINs.
Thomas Zloch says, regarding buffered tables:
At least think twice, maybe compare runtimes if in doubt.
So, unless someone has some EVIDENCE that FOR ALL ENTRIES is better, I don't think we want to see this discussed further.
Kind regards
Matt

To give food for thought here's an example I gave in a thread:
If you have a statement like
SELECT ... FOR ALL ENTRIES IN FAE_itab WHERE f = FAE_itab-f.
SAP sends it to the database depending how the parameter rsdb/prefer_union_all is set:
rsdb/prefer_union_all = 0 =>
SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[1]-f
          OR    f = FAE_itab[2]-f
          OR    f = FAE_itab[N]-f
You have some influence of the generated statement type: Instead of OR'ed fields an IN list can be used
if you have only a single coulmn N to compare:
rsdb/prefer_in_itab_opt parameter:
SELECT ... WHERE f IN (itab[1]-f, itab[2]-f, ..., itab[N]-f)
rsdb/prefer_union_all = 1 =>
SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[1]-f
UNION ALL SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[2]-f
UNION ALL SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[N]-f
see: Note 48230 - Parameters for the SELECT ... FOR ALL ENTRIES statement
As you can see for the 2nd parameter several statements are generated and combined with a UNION ALL,
the first setting generates statements with OR's (or uses IN if possible) for the entries in FAE_itab.
I give you a little example here (my parameters are set in a way that the OR's are translated to IN lists; i traced the execution in ST05)
Select myid into table t_tabcount from mydbtable
for all entries in t_table    " 484 entries
    where myid = t_table-myid .
ST05 trace:
|Transaction SEU_INT|Work process no 0|Proc.type DIA|Client 200|User |
|Duration |Obj. name |Op.    |Recs.|RC    |Statement|
| 640|mydbtable |PREPARE|   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( :A0 , :A1 , :A2 , :A3 , :A4 ) AND "myid" = :A5|
| 2|mydbtable |OPEN   |   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
| 2.536|mydbtable |FETCH |    0| 1403|   |
| 3|mydbtable |REOPEN |   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
| 118|mydbtable |FETCH | 0| |
| 2|mydbtable |REOPEN | | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ) AND "myid" = 72     |
| 3|mydbtable |REOPEN | | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 475 , 476 , 477 , 478 , 479 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
| 94|mydbtable |FETCH | 0| 1403|   |
| 2|mydbtable |REOPEN |   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 480 , 481 , 482 , 483 , 484 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
You see the IN list contained 5 entries each , wich made up about 97 statements for all 484 entries.
For every statment you have a single fetch operation wich means a separate access to the database.
If you would replace the FAE with a join you would only have one fetch to the database.
With the example above we can derive these observations:
1. From database point of view these settings kill performance when you access a big table and/or have a lot of entries or columns in your FAE_itab. Furthermore, you hide information what data you will access
at all and thus you block the database from creating a more efficient execution plan because it DOESN'T KNOW wich data you will select in the next step. I.e. it may be more efficient to scan the table in one shot instead of having many index accesses - but the database can make this decision only if it can examine ONE statement that has ALL the information of what data to retrieve.
2. A second impact is that with every statement execution you trigger the allocation of database resources
wich will contribute to the overhead described above.
Said that, FAE can never be a replacement for joining big tables (think of having a table with thousands of records in a FAE table )
Edited by: kishan P on Nov 2, 2010 2:16 PM - Format Fixed

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

PP CS5/5.5 chroma key better than AE CS4?

Hi everyone.
I think I read somewhere a while back that the chroma key in PP CS5/5.5 is better than AE CS4's Keylight. In fact, the PP effect may be an improved Keylight , but I can't recall this for certain.
Can anyone verify this?
Thx.
Paul

I've keyed with the same camera for a couple of years now, and it's got a pretty narrow band in which greens are easily keyed. DVCPRO HD is not well-reputed for its handling of greens, or at least as a result of it's use with an older 1/3" sensor. I've gotten the best results with the exposure on the screen at about 50-60IRE, but that's just in my scenarios. Most of my material is recorded to P2 cards (though I did one long shoot with OnLo and a green screen), but the footage encoding is the same--it's all DVCPRO HD. I've got some stuff that I did recently that keyed like buttah with Ultra--I literally had a solid key in 20 seconds with just picking the background color and tweaking a couple parameters.
So, since "brightly lit" and "lower lit" are subjective terms, it's hard to give you any specific recommendations other than to try to stick in a particular exposure range. All I know is that when your green screen footage is evenly lit and at mid-range exposure, Ultra does a pretty good job with minimal effort.

Why Annyconecct is better than vpn client ?

why anyconnect is better than cisco vpn client ?
what is its advangatges ?
i think that both are remoteaccess vpn .
why its better ?

The other thing is that, Cisco does not support traditional VPN on Windows 8.X. I have run in to lots of issues trying to install Cisco VPN client on Windows 8.x clients.. it sometimes work and sometimes it needs registry hacks etc.. really painful setup for the network engineer. So Anyconnect is preffered.
Also, since SSL uses port 443/SSL by default, it does not need any ALG (Application Layer Gateway) functionality in remote end user's routers to operate, and will simply work with normal PAT which is always on.. with traditional IPSec VPN, since it uses ESP, you need to have AGL turned on on the user's GW router (this is normally called IPSec VPN pass through mode) and this sometimes doesn't work the way you want specially on the older residential routers. When this happens you really don't have any other option for those users.. and your only response would be "Sorry your router does not support this kind of VPN or your router does something strange with the VPN so Please upgrade your router" which is something the normal residential user don't want to hear.. and something you want to tell them..
So SSL VPN is the way to go..
please rate helpful posts :)

Is the reception of iPhone 5c better than 5s.

Was advised at a Telstra store that the reception of the iPhone 5s was worse than that of the 5c. Am thinking of upgrading from 4s.
Has anyone experienced this?

Not sure about the 5C but the 5S is hugely worse than the 4S for data. And tethering is a dead loss in poor signal areas where it would work reliably with the 4S.
However it's not that simple - the 5S voice call performance seems BETTER than the 4S. I did a 45 minute call yesterday during a drive through several known blackspots where my 4S and indeed other non-Apple phones reliably drop the call, and not only did the 5S maintain the call but I didn't even have any dropped audio at all.
But despite the audio being solid I couldn't get ANY data out of it at all - and yes it was on 3G so should have been able to do voice and data simultaneously.
So my guess is a serious bug in the firmware or baseband around data handling rather than inherently poorer hardware in the 5S. Or at least that's what I hope as one wouldn't expect a newer phone to be worse than the previous model especially after the bizarre mess of the iPhone 4 and antennagate!

Is Intel better than Power PC?

Hi
Is Intel better than Power PC?
The reason I ask this is that Iv been transferring data from my old 350 G4 to my new Mac Book Via Fire wire (G4 in target mode) and Iv had some crashes with the Finder. This pretty much never happened with my old Mac. Force quitting does not save me like it use to if an app crashed. It just goes into a spin and stays there, thinking. Reminds me of Windows XP.
Any Ideas. Thoughts. Etc.
MacBook Mac OS X (10.4.7) 1G Ram

Daimon,
I would say it's a subjective answer based on use. Be glad that you have a machine that supports target mode. My B&W is a nightmare for transfers. The only irritating crashes I've had are the same as with any of my machines (Safari), which is probably due to a plugin.
I have had the experience of force quitting not quitting an application. A kill -9 doing the same thing. It looks like force quitting does quit the problem applications (processor usage drops back down), but they stay active in the dock. A restart functioned normally for me and that went away. The only applications this happens with were popcorn 2 and toast 7.1. Both of those are PPC apps that just made the intel transition and basically device drivers..so I would almost expect them to have been problematic. Everything else has been basically fine.
As to what's better. Security wise, there might be some concern about the Out-of-order execution distribution system of the PPC vs x86. PPC could be considered slightly more secure as it is difficult to gain data from the stack w/o being able to accurately predict the position. However, this is trivial first and is probably remedied a lot by the dual core setup....and it requires a level of access that Mac OS X doesn't just give up to anyone. When you get to performance...to me it's night and day.
I like to put a lot of my video content on my machine in a highly compressed state. It makes it convenient to watch movies or a series and you don't need to have a loud optical drive spinning around. If I was to use something like Handbrake or Instant Handbrake: http://handbrake.m0k.org/ to encode to h.264 on a G5 it would take long enough that I would have to go do something else. On the dual core chips it's almost unbelievable. It's not that the 950 chipset does hardware h.264 encoding (I know some ATI 1xxx cards have this capability, but the only intel data http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/ I've seen indicate MPEG-2 playback is the highest video optimization ), it's that SSE(1,2,3) on a dual core processor with an application designed for multiple cores/processors (not the same physically, but application wise it's close enough), flies. We're talking something going from 7 fps to 48 fps (better than real time).
There is definitely a Wow factor to these machines. Maybe you just need to try something like that to find it.
I think the instability is due to transitional software. Another thing you may want to consider is that many included applications and parts of Mac OS X aren't pushing the chips anywhere near the limit. Many things just use 100 of 200% . Wait a while and more things will be introduced or updated that make your new machine fly.
I haven't had a finder crash that I recall. Nor a beach ball I couldn't get out of. If it is just limited to the dock (as it appears to be for me), then it's a minor issue. There have been comments about the Rosetta process translated quitting (IIRC), and I will add that twice I have experienced a situation where PPC apps bounced w/o launching. A restart fixed that.
Windows isn't that bad. Even on a core duo (not a centrino duo Tiger is still easier to stabilize/ 'more stable'.
I think a lot of the issues you are having are just growing pains and transfer of apps or files that, while they may have been updated to 'universal binary', aren't designed for the chips in these machines from the ground up.
Give it some time and try some of the things that make these machines better, because subjectively...I think these machines are better.
Another idea...running PPC apps takes a LOT of memory for speed (otherwise you're paging like a maniac) so either up your machines memory or run one PPC app at a time.
Good Luck,
-j

Quick preview looks better than processed raw image...??

Hey all, probably a bit of a "newb" question here... so forgive me, and thank you...
Using a D7000 and often times when I shoot - the preview image on the camera looks BRIGHT, VIVID and ROBUST ... after import however - when reviewing my shots, JUST as I arrow over to the next shot - many of the preview images tend to look better than the processed image that aperture displays once it's done spinning it's wheels.
Perhaps I've messed up a Raw Fine Tuning setting?
When I click on quick preview and browse through an import, the pictures truly look nicer to me than the when aperture processes them.
Without question, the display on my acer monitor is a far cry from the miniature compressed image on the back of my nikon, however the more i shoot, the more I realize a disconnect between what I think I should see, and what I'm ultimately seeing in Aperture.
Are their specific settings to fine tune the import of raw d7000 shots?
Thanks much.. gk

I take it you're shooting and processing RAW images?
It's worth remembering that if you have a picture style selected (i.e. vivid etc), your camera might be applying extra contrast and saturation etc to the image you see on the back of the camera. Camera manufacturers do this so that we can give our pictures some extra punch and colour automatically.
I'd also be wary of comparing what you see on your camera to what you see on your monitor. Unless both are calibrated, you shouldn't trust either of them 100%. The best example of monitor calibration is going to look at TV's in an electronics store. You'll probably notice that in a wall of TV's, some pictures will be darker, some lighter, some more vivid, some more saturated. Using a calibration tool adjusts the picture your screen and monitor displays so that it is 'accurate'.
It's a bit like having a room full of scales and adjusting them so that they all read 1 kilogram when a 1 kilogram weight is placed on each of them. Calibrating monitors will mean that when you display an image on it, it will always look the same rather than getting the some light/some dark problem you saw in the TV store.
It's a tricky subject to explain (don't worry if it doesn't make sense), but you might like to have look around YouTube for videos on the subject.

Whether installing 64bit OS is better than 32bit in a 64 bit PC?

Hallo friends,
Now a days 64bit PCs are more common. But I think Operating systems and programs have not attained capacity to fully exploit the power of 64bit machines. (Of course Linux is better than MS counterparts in 64bit zone). If it is sensible to stick with 32bit for better experience in terms of stability and performance? What are the pros and cons of both methods? How we can attain maximum from 64bit PC? Since every one with a 64bit PC have tried both architectures, feed back opinions and suggestions in the above thread is anticipated from everyone.
Thanks to all
mvdvarrier

I've made some tests with current Arch i686 and x86_64 on a old AMD Turion 64ML-30
MD5 Bruteforce attack:
i686: 43,5s
x86_64: 31,2s
import md5
import sys
haslo = 'kogut'
hasz_hasla = md5.new(haslo).hexdigest()
def make_word(m, base_string=False):
znaki = 'qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm'
for i in znaki:
if base_string:
string = base_string + i
else:
string = i
if md5.new(string).hexdigest() == m:
print 'Podane Haslo to: ' + string
sys.exit()
elif len(string) < 5:
make_word(m=m, base_string=string)
make_word(hasz_hasla)
Untar Gentoo stage3 to /dev/null:
i686: 48,3s
x86_64: 42,3s
Make a thumb out of 3,1MB jpeg file with convert:
i686: 1,62s
x86_64: 1,28s
Make avi from Big Buck Bunny with ffmpeg:
(ffmpeg -i big_buck_bunny_480p_stereo.ogg a.avi) making mpeg didn't work on i686 - segmentation fault
i686: 276s
x86_64: 295s
Make mpeg from Big Buck Bunny with mencoder:
(mencoder big_buck_bunny_480p_stereo.ogg -oac lavc -ovc lavc -o a.mpeg)
i686: 263s
x86_64: 251s
Last edited by Riklaunim (2008-10-18 21:04:28)

WebLogic is better than OAS

WebLogic is better than OAS. What does this mean if we are running only Forms and Reports ? Is WebLogic using less RAM + processor for the same amount of work ? If yes, could we think of a percent ( 10-20 % less ) ?
Is WebLogic better only for Java staff or for Reports & Forms as well ?
Thanks for your response,
TPC

No difference.
The only way a daemon thread differs from a non-daemon thread is that a daemon thread won't prevent the JVM from exiting but a non-daemon thread will.

Newbie-why is Indesign better than PageMaker?

Ok, I know to be current, I have to upgrade, but I don't do long documents (really past 20 pages), I liked the window shade thing in PM7, and I'm afraid those windows for everything is going to make me confused and is more time consuming...
So even tho' I have the upgrade--list your top five reasons for liking it better than pagemaker?
Thanks for your help.

Even though I do have old version of PM and Ventura, I am really liking InDesign. I have been using it since CS3 came out. It is much more fluid like when designing. It is possible to not use tags(style sheets), but I recommend using styles anyway. I haven't really been using the program long enough to have a need for using character styles, but the paragraph styles are extremely handy, as well as the object styles. But then again my needs for the program are mild compared to most that roam this forum.
One of the things that I did notice missing is the ability to switch between reader spread and printer's spread. But it is possible to manually move each page by dragging and dropping.
I think the TOC is a little more interactive it's not as intimidating to a new user as Ventura's was. I have yet to try the index feature, but I am sure it is much more user friendly as well.
Good luck...

Wls6 is better than wls7 i think

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for