Vivid evidence of XI advantages

Colleagues,
Please, prompt the short way to grasp pro & con of usage SAP IX in comparing with other ways of integrating sw. Being not well familiar with XI i have to propose options, in one of which will be described the variant of usage XI in: a) integrating (sending messages) R/3 and BW; b) integrating R/3 and 3rd Appl (IBM' sw components, but not necessary).
The easier way is to use dedicated connectors rather than complicated product as XI. of course, that's a simplified assumption, but i'm ready to heed technical features that violate my ignorance.
thanks for all insights you provide.
Andrew,

Hi Andrei,
here are advantages from my point of view. Maybe other people have more ideas:
Pro:
a) Easy integration to all SAP solutions (RFC, IDOC, Proxy)
b) Big range of adapters for different technologies / tools (SOAP, Mail, JDBC, CDIX...)available in standard or offered by other companies (EDI e.g. by Seeburger)
c) Process functionalities inside XI to modify content in the communication channel on own defined rules fpr business purposes
d) Complex processes for communication possible instead of only sending and receiving (business process management) (connect e.g. asynchronous and synchronous steps, define complex communication scenarios)
e) Central monitoring for data communication for all your communication between different systems
f) And the marketing issue: SAP and its partners provide high volume of development capabilities to make XI always up-to-date for new requirements
Con:
Sometimes too big for little requirements on communication (with impact on the price you pay for the use of such a big tool)
For more information about XI have a look at
https://websmp201.sap-ag.de/xi
Regards
Dirk

Similar Messages

Needing Evidence on the Advantages of ABAP OO

I am looking for the warm and fuzzy that I've yet to experience while being convinced about this one particular advantage of OO. Particulary involving multiple creation of objects, or instances occurring at one time.
I know the syntax of local and global classes, have done quite a bit of reading, and am familiar with OO coding, but seem to be missing the real-world implications of its use and its superiority to Function Modules in Function Groups.
My understanding is that with data in Function Modules within a Function Group, unlike attributes in a class, a single value in a field has one existence (and value) at runtime for the Function Group. However, for attributes, or objects, in a class, multiple instances may occur at one time. While even as I say this it confuses me, because I do not think I've seen an example of a convincing custom application in SAP in my experience only. Not that I do not doubt SAP's intent, I just am not getting it.
Can any experienced, and already convinced, ABAP OO programmer try to explain an application (in its simplest terms, if possible) where I would create multiple objects where this principle can be seen. And then tell me why I wouldn't be able to accomplish the same thing with Function Modules within Function Groups. Especially, if you have experienced a real-world implementation of this claim using OO.
What I would really like is to have some code that uses Function Modules, then some classes, that both accomplish the same results, that would prove to me that OO, and its classes are superior to Function Modules in Function Groups.I suppose what I really need is an application where multiple instances of the same object is being used, and its advantages.
I will listen to any, or all explanantions. I will accept any code, links, etc. Anything, please to settle my thinking and convince me once and for all.
Thank-You.
Edited by: TMM on Jun 17, 2009 4:36 PM
Edited by: TMM on Jun 17, 2009 4:37 PM

This is real world stuff:
After an application has been developed, it has happened a few times that I've wanted to use the same logic (or very similarl) in a different context. By subclassing, I'm able to reuse what I've already developed, with little effort. All I've had to do is redefine one or two methods of the main class.
I often develop stuff that has to run on different versions of SAP. Subclassing here is very useful, as the subclass for ECC 6.0, for example, doesn't even have to pass syntax checking in 4.6c!
Using composition, I was able to develop an ["ABAP Decision" process type in BW|https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/com.sap.km.cm.docs/library/uuid/30664504-40dd-2a10-3794-db7b4190bef3] - re-using what SAP developed. The only coding I had to do was the variation from the standard sap.
I've developed a framework for writing Function Exits in BPS. For a new function exit, I subclass the main class, and override an initialisation method and a processing method. All the repeated stuff I was doing before is in the main class.
Generally, I find that developing in OO takes a little longer, but maintenance and support is much quicker. As the bulk of the cost of software development lies in the latter, this can only be a good thing. I also find that I'm reusing a lot of generic code I'm developing - e,g, I've developed a class for handling hierarchies in BW.
Currently, I'm working in the QM module, developing reports and smartforms for notifications. The first thing I did was create a class ZCL_NOTIFICATIONS, which is my Data Access class, getting the various bits of data that I need in my reports. This will be used in all my reports. Now, I could do this using Function Modules, but using the functional notation of objects, I can say
l_physnum = lr_notif->get_physnum( ).
rather than
CALL FUNCTION MODULE 'GET_PHYSNUM' IMPORTING e_physnum = l_physnum.
I think the former is neater. Also, if had a physnum in a different class, I can use the same name. With function modules, I'd have to have
GET_PHYSNUM_FOR_NOTIFICATION
GET_PHYSNUM_FOR_INVENTORY
Finally, with CONSTRUCTOR and CLASS-CONSTRUCTOR, initialisation can be done without having to remember to call the INITIALISATION function module of my function group.
matt

ABAP Object or function module?

Hello all!
I have to create a reusable routine. This routine should be select data from Z table for to get data with a parameter ID. I will pass a ID and expect result a internal table with some parameter values.
So, my question is: What i use for to do that? ABAP Object or function module?
I think that so easy to use function module. Why i should to use ABAP objects? What is positive points in use object and not function module?
For me, both do the same thing... i don't see any difference. Just object is more complicated.
Please, tell me why should i use object??
Edited by: Rodrigo Kenji Matsunaga on Dec 10, 2009 5:51 PM

I would go with Class.
Read through this discussion:
Needing Evidence on the Advantages of ABAP OO
Class would provide you a flexibility of inheritance. E.g. if you want to use the same data selection with little modification in your other applications, you can inherit some other class form this class. Redefine the method, call the Super's method and change the output before sending back to the caller.
Regards,
Naimesh Patel

Why does COMCAST work so hard to prevent me from taking advantage of MOCA/XB3?

I apologize in advance for the length of this post and its frustrated tone but I've spent so much time and effort trying to accomplish something that should have been quite straightforward with COMCAST but which has left me with a very biter taste in my mouth. I hope to get the attention of other concerned COMCAST customers in similar situations and the ears of people at COMCAST who can make a difference and change their current misguided policies and business models around MOCA. I also vent because of the long standing vexing problem of not being able to get the full use of the XFinity Internet I've been paying for every month for the last thirten years despite the recent availability of standardized network distribution technology in the form of MOCA 2.0 which is advertised by COMCAST as a feature of multiple versions of their latest Wireless Internet Gateways which customers are paying for but yet unable to utilize. See: http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2013/04/comcast-bows-faster-gateway-doubles-speeds-on-2-data-tiers In a blog post on Comcast’s site, Rob Slinkard, senior vice president, product management, communications and data services, wrote that while data tiers have increased their speeds over the years, thanks in part to DOCSIS 3.0 deployments, in-home wireless gateways aren’t always capable of passing those faster speeds around a home. Coupled with the plethora of devices in subscribers homes, an inefficient wireless gateway can be a chokepoint in subscribers’ home networks.
“Today we are launching a new device that solves this problem and creates the fastest in-home wireless network available anywhere in the U.S.,” Slinkard wrote. “The new Xfinity Wireless Gateway includes the 5.0 GHz radio frequency. This new frequency is being used by many of the latest consumer electronic products (like the iPhone 5, iPad 4 and Kindle Fire HD) and results in better speed and performance from connected devices.
“It also has been built to a new standard (MoCA 2.0), which allows the device to leverage a home’s existing coaxial cable network to create a faster and more efficient network of connected devices within the home.” It has been several years since I started this troublesome journey to extend WiFi/Internet access to my living room. My Comcast cable modem/eMTA and wireless gateway is installed upstairs on one side of my home and no matter what Wireless AP device or technology I use I cannot get a strong WiFi signal downstairs especially in my living room, kitchen and dining room where a majority of my Internet access takes place. In particular, my phones and tablets sometimes drop off the WiFi network due to dead-zones and I'm unable to successfully stream any movies at even a low 2-3Mbits on my media center or streaming devices, sometimes even for home movies stored on my personal server upstairs which is connected directly to the COMCAST Wireless gateway at Gigabit speeds. Over the years, I've spent hundreds of dollars on various WiFi access points, extenders, multiple powerline adapters etc.. all to no benefit. Unfortunately my decade-old home was not built with structured wiring and the AC power lines must be too noisy for powerline AV to work any better than WiFi and so I'm stuck with at most 1-3 Mbps of sustained bandwidth from my living room to both my personal media server upstairs and the Internet. This low speed, unreliable Internet access in the center of my home entertainment area is completely unacceptable to me. Then I learnt this year from Comcast's own press releases like the one quoted above in cedmagazine that their newest Wireless gateways (Cisco DPC3939 or Technicolor TC8706C) are equipped with MOCA 2.0. MOCA is designed exactly for the kind of network distribution problem that I have. MOCA takes the Internet/Ethernet and sends it over the already laid down cable/coaxial lines in your home at high speed using the unused bandwidth available on the coax wires. It is standardized and is pretty much plug and play if you have the devices. In theory with MOCA anyone can have a fully networked high speed broadband home relying on just the coaxial wiring that most homes already have. After years of changing my WiFi access points multiple times looking for better coverage, I finally decided to try the COMCAST all-in-one Wireless Internet Gateway and eMTA (Technicolor wireless Gateway 1) but after lots of troubles with poor signal reception, frequent disconnection/drops and faulty DNS configuration that cannot be changed by the end-user, I decided to request a change to the more capable XB3 Wireless Gateway 2 with MOCA 2.0 whole-house networking features. I started a web chat with the Comcast technical representative that worked in the department for gateway replacement. I told her about my WiFi distribution problem and that I already had the Technicolor Gateway and that I needed to get Gateway 2 -- the so-called XB3. She was very quick to tell me that she knew *exactly* what I wanted and had dealt with this before. I went into detail about MOCA, about the lack of MOCA 2.0 adapters available to purchase by consumers and that she should make sure that my replacement XB3 kit came with the necessary MOCA -> Ethernet adapter or MOCA WiFi AP that I would need to extend the Comcast Internet service to my living room. She acknowledged everything, said she was creating notes about MOCA adapter for the dept that would ship out the XB3. I couldn't believe how easy it was to order the XB3 and required MOCA adapter/WiFi AP. I was so pleasantly suprised and impressed by the customer service I thought I had received from Comcast. I made sure to give her the best review scores when the chat was complete and a Comcast survey was presented to me. Later I received a FedEx shipment notice and a few days later I was shocked when I opened the package to see that I had been shipped the exact same Technicolor (non-MOCA) single band WiFi gateway (Gateway 1) which I already had and which I had specifically told the customer support agent that I did not want again. I was shocked at the deception and false promises that I had received from this Comcast customer support specialist. Even though the entire chat conversation was recorded, she had no problem lying to me directly that she was sending me an XB3 when she clearly had no intention of doing so. I later took this unwanted Technicolor Wireless Gateway 1 back to the Comcast store in Auburn WA and there the customer service representative argued with me over and over about MOCA and it was clear that he had no idea what MOCA was or why it is such a boon to anyone who has problems getting WiFi coverage in a home. He also stated that he knew nothing about XB3 boxes and that the Comcast store did not have any and that he couldn't find any information about XB3 in his computer. He also gave me a Motorola HD PVR which he said was newer than the really ancient one I had but which still had component outputs for my older TV unlike the X1 (to my knowledge). A few weeks later, I went back again to the same store and requested an XB3 Wireless gateway 2. This time the customer service agent I spoke to seemed to have some idea that MOCA existed (she said she had it installed in her home) but then insisted that I could not get an XB3 with MOCA *unless* I also ordered an X1 Comcast HD PVR. Also she said that it required professional installation and I would be charged for that even though all I wanted in the first place was just the XB3 MOCA Gateway. I asked her if the XB3 kit came with a MOCA -> Ethernet adapter or MOCA WiFi AP for the living room and then it became clear that she really either did not understand the use of MOCA for network distribution or she was playing dumb. She kept on insisting that Comcast does *NOT* provide any MOCA adapters or WiFi access points to use with the XB3 to extend the home network. Frustrated, I kept on asking her why there was a required bundling of MOCA Wireless gateway with a specific model of COMCAST DVR that I didn't want and she just insisted that was the way things had to be done. I also explained to her that I had an older Plasma TV without HDMI inputs. She finally went to talk to her supervisor and came out with a XB3 and an X1 HD DVR. I didn't want the X1 but I was very eager to get a chance to use MOCA to allow me to use my Comcast Xfinity Internet reliably downstairs. I figured that perhaps the the new X1 PVR had a built-in MOCA client and an Ethernet port with which I could use to plug in my own WiFi access point and thus have both 100% signal strength downstairs as well as high bandwidth hardwired network link backhaul upstairs back to the XB3. Last night, I finally installed the XBR3 after multiple false starts with the device sometimes refusing to complete activation or losing complete connectivity to my hardwired PC, turned on MOCA (which was disabled by default) and then tried to install the X1 DVR but suddenly discovered at 1AM in the morning that the X1 really didn't have any component outputs. There was no way to hook it up to my TV. Anyway, I wanted so badly to get MOCA as a network extender working that didn't care at that point about the TV and just wanted to make sure that the MOCA worked. The XB3 upstairs said that it detected 2 MOCA devices in my home, everything looks good although it would have been nicer if the XB3 detailed what devices were connected via MOCA and perhaps what version of MOCA they were using. Anyway, since I could not see the X1 screen on my TV or perform any setup I may have needed to do to setup MOCA on the X1, I gave up with that and tried the older non-X1 Motorola DVR (DCX3501M/MOR200BN) which some googling showed that it too actually supported MOCA (see http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/11/motorola-rolls-out-the-latest-hd-dvr-the-dcx3501-m/) as well though it was not an X1 model. I setup the Motorola DVR and after it was activated, I plugged the media center into the the back of the Motorola DVR's ethernet port. The media center showed that it was trying to acquire an IP address but no matter what it could not succeed. I called up COMCAST technical support again. It was 1:30AM. As usual the technical customer service representative had no idea what MOCA was and couldn't even clarify if it was possible to connect my streaming media device into the back of the Motorola DVR using an Ethernet cable and get Internet access that way via MOCA. In all my encounters with COMCAST support personel so far I've noticed that they all claim to know what MOCA is but yet keep on saying things that demonstrate clearly that they have no idea what it it is, how it works, why a consumer would want to use it for network distribution and most shockingly have no idea whether or how MOCA home networking is supported by Comcast products. This representative insisted over and over that I needed to setup a truck roll appointment for a technician to help me troubleshoot my MOCA/DVR issue but yet she would not clarify the simple question about whether COMCAST supported the use of the Ethernet port on the Motorola DVR to provide Internet access to begin with and she was not willing to pass me on to a support person who knew what MOCA was and how it was supported by COMCAST. What was the point of staying at home to wait for a technician to troubleshoot a device scenario that may not even be supported by COMCAST to begin with? Are all these COMCAST technical support representatives not even trained on the products that COMCAST is selling/installing in our homes? Why are they all clueless about MOCA technology even though COMCAST itself touts this feature in every press release about their new Wireless Gateways? The very unhelpful customer service agent rudely transfered me to another number without any warning, the number had a recorded message saying nobody was available and then hung up on me. Now, that is the kind of customer service I'm used to from COMCAST. I spent the next 30 minutes googling Comcast X1 DVR to figure out if any of the new ones supported component outputs and ended up learning more than I wanted to about Comcast RNG reference designs, X1/X2 software and finally the important fact that the Comcast X1 HD DVR has two variants manufactured by two seperate companies PACE and ARRIS and that one of the variants by PACE has on-board component outputs. That is the X1 DVR that the local Auburn store support person should have given me after I had told her that I did not have HDMI inputs on my TV. It was 2:30am. This morning I called up COMCAST technical support again and the representative I spoke to was quite helpful at first with helping to determine that my Auburn COMCAST store had a dozen+ units of the X1 DVR with component outputs. He also gave me a free 90days HBO due to all the time I've wasted driving back and forths to the Comcast store and getting/returning products, which was nice although I usually don't watch premium cable channels or much TV anyway; but still an appreciated gesture. Now that I was going to get an X1 DVR that would work with my TV and which I had reason to believe had on-board MOCA for Internet access, I asked the tech support representative if COMCAST did not sell or rent a MOCA 2.0 -> Ethernet adapter or WiFi AP, how was I going to use this X1 to extend the Internet downstairs for my mobile devices and to my TV for streaming movies? That simple question seemed to unnerve him for some reason. Once I got into this questioning about MOCA it was deja-vu all over again. He claimed to fully understand MOCA, claimed that the X1 used it to access applications and the Internet but insisted that I need to have a truck-roll again to my home from the Wifi experts to "troubleshoot" my WiFi distribution problem. Geez. I'd already been through these unreasonable conversations before multiple times! I tried to explain that I did not want or need any truck roll (more importantly, I'm not taking a day off work to wait for a house visit). I didn't need someone to troubleshoot something if the support personal himself doesn't even know if it is supported to begin with. While trying to explain that all I was asking for was an answer if the X1 exposed the Internet via it's rear Ethernet port or how otherwise I was supposed to access the Internet via the MOCA coax outlet, the line was dropped. Again, the typical COMCAST customer support. I've done a lot more research on MOCA and COMCAST and my thinking now is that the possible reason why COMCAST goes out of its way to make it very difficult for consumers to deploy MOCA whole house networking using its gear and why every single one of their representatives I've spoken to about MOCA home networking have acted very antagonistic towards that topic is because COMCAST does *NOT* want customers to learn about or utilize MOCA for whole house networking unless they are using a locked-in MOCA that works only with COMCAST proprietary video on demand, DVR/Cloud-DVR and other closed ecosystem multimedia entertainment products. Basically, a COMCAST customer who can have easy high speed broadband wired and wireless access in every room of their house via MOCA 2.0 is also a customer that may be tempted to start using over-the-top Internet television, streaming and entertainment services such as Amazon Instant Video, Dramatize, DramaFever, Crackle, HBO, Hulu, myTV, NetD, Netflix, NowTV, Qello, RPI TV, WhereverTV and Chromecast that are not controlled by COMCAST and which COMCAST makes no extra money off of you when you do it in every room of your home due to the power of MOCA and the accessibility of COAX conenctors in most rooms of most homes. Basically COMCAST touts MOCA 2.0 and puts it into their latest Wireless gateways, DVRs and set top boxes not to help their customers easily have high speed whole house inter-networking but ONLY for the purpose of exploiting your in-home COAX wiring for their closed multimedia services like AnyRoom DVR etc.. That is why they allow their X1 and other DVRs and set top boxes to access the Internet via MOCA but then disable the rear ethernet ports so that your own entertainment streaming devices cannot also make use of the fast broadband connection. That is also why some of the COMCAST employees I've tried to get help from have stated in no uncertain terms that COMCAST will not sell or rent to me any device that allows my own devices to access the high speed MOCA 2.0 broadband connection that I pay for every month with my Xfinity Triple Play and Wireless Gateway rental fees. Look right here where COMCAST explains the benefits of the two main Wireless Gateways it rents to customers: http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/wireless-gateway-compare/For the Wireless Gateway 2 which I'm currently renting from them, COMCAST clearly marks out that this Gateway offers "MOCA". COMCAST then explains what MOCA is:
"MoCA: Multimedia over Coax Alliance. MoCA is a universal standard for home networking over the in-home coaxial cable. MoCA can be used to extend the Wi-Fi range of the Wireless Gateway 2, using a Wireless Ethernet Coax Bridge (WEC." Note though that COMCAST refuses to sell or rent you that Wireless Ethernet Coax Bridge to make use of your spanking new MOCA. At least that is what several COMCAST technical and support persons have told me. That document above though, is a COMCAST document aimed at current and future customers and it clearly explains the benefits of MOCA. But yet I'm supposed to believe that out of the six or so COMCAST technical and customer support personel I've spoken to about MOCA not a single one of them knows about this obvious purpose of MOCA and that they all refuse to rent or sell me equipment that allows my own devices to use the high speed MOCA broadband Internet that their own devices such as the X1 can access inside my home? I'm also supposed to believe that it is a coincidence that COMCAST spends the time, effort and cost to build in MOCA 2.0 into their DVRs and settop boxes but then blocks access to make use of it via the Ethernet ports on all their MOCA capable set top boxes and DVRs? These devices are all rented by COMCAST and they charge hefty monthly bills for it but then they disable my full use of the technology which I've already paid for? Finally, I wanted to find a store where I could buy my own MOCA 2.0 Wireless Ethernet Coax Bridge or MOCA compatible Wireless Access point in order to bypass COMCAST's blatent attempt to monopolize MOCA wholehouse broadband for just its own entertainment services. I couldn't find any ! It turns out that not a single manufacturer of MOCA 2.0 products (head-unit or adapters) will agree to sell any directly to a consumer - all of them will only sell to large ISPs and Cable companies like COMCAST. This makes absolutely no sense for such an important consumer technlogy. Imagine if all the Wifi AP and Cable Modem companies decided that you would not be able to buy their products and they would only sell to giant monopolistic companies like COMCAST that require that you indefinitely rent these devices and also insists on crippling them as well to remove basic functionality that the manufacturers had already built in for the benefit of the end-user? But then I thought back to the commotion a few months ago where people were buying the Cisco DPC3939 (ie, XB3) Wireless Gateway with MOCA 2.0 and having it activated without having to pay the ridiculous unending COMCAST rental fees and how quickly COMCAST acted to ban activation of Cisco DPC3939's that were purchased outright by customers by suggesting without any proof given whatsoever that the customers must have purchased "stolen" goods. How much does COMCAST make from overcharging so many customers for so long for "HD" DVRs (separate charge for DVR, separate charge for HD ability in 2014??), settop boxes, cable modems, eMTA etc..? I calculate that almost since the entire time I've been signed up to Comcast for Television in 2004, I've paid them at least $200/year for the right to use a slow, buggy and primitive 1080i 4:3 aspect ratio HD DVR with 250GB hard drive. Over ten years, I've paid COMCAST more than $2,000 for a device that I still don't own and has never offered anything to me but which I was forced to rent and use because COMCAST fought and lobbied during the late 90s and early 2000's to ensure that other companies could not make and sell consumer purchasable devices that were able to access the cable content I had already paid COMCAST for. Today, a 1 Terabyte hard drive along with a compact system able to both play & stream 4K UHD TV, install apps, play games and designed much better than anything that has ever come out of COMCAST costs about $200 to $300 in total at retail. COMCAST and other cable companies ensured that the burden of CableCard and restrictive licensing and usage rights and the complexity of the associated industry crypto regulations would kill off innovative products like Microsoft Windows Media Center which despite all its great features was unable to access Digital cable channel content especially as COMCAST started vigerously encrypting every single channel on their lineup -- even the usually free-to-air channels like ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS etc.. Never mind the extra $5 to $10 they charged you a month to "rent" a single cable card that allowed you to only watch or record one Digital cable channel even though their own Cable company DVRs and set top boxes did not require the additional rental of cablecards to access digital cable via two or even five channels. This was all to cripple competing 3rd party devices while giving an unfair advantage to their own crippled products. I've come to believe that the situation with the inexplicable crippling of MOCA by COMCAST is no different. COMCAST is going out of its way to lock out 3rd party television-like services, devices and streaming applications from using the whole house MOCA 2.0 broadband Internet that is made possible by their XB3 Wireless Gateway and the coax cables that *I* paid to be put into my own home even if it means cruelly denying *all* their customers a very elegant and cost effective solution to the common problem of poor WiFi Internet coverage in homes. Finally, as the last persuasive piece of evidence supporting this belief that COMCAST is actively working to prevent its customers from using MOCA 2.0 because it does not want them to have the *choice* and *opportunity* to access reliable Internet TV-like multimedia not purchased from or controlled by COMCAST, I refer you to the absurd mandatory bundling of the COMCAST XB3 MOCA 2.0 Wireless Gateway with the COMCAST MOCA 2.0 X1 DVR and Cloud based Entertainment device. Clearly COMCAST wants you to pay for and rent their own substandard Television streaming/DVR device even if you don't want it and prefer to use something else with better design, reliability, quality and content. They want to tax you every month for using the Coaxial cables that you paid for in your own home. It seems to me now that COMCAST believes that the great advance of MOCA 2.0 is soley a benefit for their bottom line a sole benefit to themselves of extending their broadband high speed Internet access monopoly into the market for streaming/online video services even if it is at the expense of providing a quality whole-house Internet service and associated devices and accessories that meet the needs of their numerous customers.

Among the alternatives not mentioned... Using a TiVo DVR, rather than the X1; a Roamio Plus or Pro would solve both the concern over the quality of the DVR, as well as providing the MoCA bridge capability the poster so desperately wanted the X1 DVR to provide. (Although the TiVo's support only MoCA 1.1.) Just get a third-party MoCA adapter for the distant location. Why the hang-up on having a device provided by Comcast? This seems especially ironic given the opinions expressed regarding payments over time to Comcast. If a MoCA 2.0 bridge was the requirement, they don't exist outside providers. So couldn't the poster have simply requested a replacement XB3 from the local office and configured it down to only providing MoCA bridging -- and perhaps as a wireless access point? Comcast would bill him the monthly rate for the extra device, but such is the state of MoCA 2.0. Much of the OP sounds like frustration over devices providing capabilities the poster *thinks* they should have.

What are the advantages and disadvantages to cookies?

Ok, so I am required to interview some expert for a Final in college. I choose to do my final on cookies throughout the different browsers. The downside is that it is nearly impossible to get a one-on-one interview from an expert in this field. This is my next option. So here are my questions, and I greatly appreciate the help.
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of cookies?
2. Where are the cookies stored, and is it possible for someone to access that information?
3. You hear horror stories of hackers accessing the different cookies saved on a person's computer, and from there gradually piecing together enough information about that person, to hack into nearly every account they have. How probable is this? What safeguards can a person take against this happening?
Once again, thank you for any help received.

I attended uni back in the 70's, and as I recall we had to do some actual research for our term papers - like from books in the library, and needed to "document" our research in a footnote for each page.
I guess times have changed a bit since then I guess - anecdotal evidence is permissible now?
Here's a search of articles in the Mozilla Developer Network documentation.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/tag/Cookies

What are the practical advantages of ECC RAM?

I have a 2009 8 core Mac Pro and a 2010 dual core iMac (one I use in the office, the other at home, but both get used for work). I'm thinking about replacing the iMac and I'm inclined to get another iMac, but one thing makes me wonder if I should get a Mac Pro -- the fact that the Mac Pro has ECC RAM.
But I don't really know how big of a difference ECC RAM makes. In general, both my Mac Pro and iMac seem stable -- I can keep them up and running for weeks at a time. Generally, the only reason I need to restart is to update the OS. I have occasionally had crashes on both, but those crashes are too rare for me to perceive a difference in frequency.
One difference I've noticed is that remote controlling the Mac Pro is more reliable than remote controlling the iMac (using Back to My Mac). But I don't know if this could be due to the ECC RAM in the Pro or to some other unknown factor.
So -- does anyone have any evidence regarding the practical benefits of ECC RAM in a Mac Pro? I have found articles about the benefits of ECC RAM in servers, but that is such a radically different usage scenario that I can't really figure out how it applies to my situaiton.

When the RAM is working perfectly, there is NO Advantage to using ECC RAM, and ECC RAM may be effectively a little slower than conventional RAM.
The advantage comes when you have problems of almost any sort, especially if you have a lot of RAM installed.
In a Mac with conventional RAM, if you have a complex problem, you may spend a lot of time wondering if your problems are caused by Memory Errors. Memory errors can be very difficult to "catch in the act" of failing, and running memory tests overnight and/or for several days and nights may be required to isolate the problem. The more RAM you have, the longer this testing may take, and may still be inconclusive. Festering Memory errors can cause your files to become corrupted over time.
Error Correcting Code (ECC) is a system supported by Hardware in the Xeon Processor. It generates eight additional syndrome bits -- additional parity bits formed from parity permutations on the data bits in a word -- and stores them with each word in memory. When read back, Hardware checks these parity trees in memory-cycle times, and any single-bit errors are corrected on the fly -- no slowdown. The correction also sets an error bit that is later collected by background software and tabulated in a report.
Double-bit errors are generally not correctable. By design, they halt the machine on a kernel panic, machine check, to avoid poisoning your data. So a Server with error correction will not garbage-up its data by propagating RAM memory errors into its data.
I have to agree with Linc Davis in that this is an Industrial Strength solution to a problem many users may never face. Personally, I use it on some of my systems (especially my home Server). I am glad it has been made available, and I am willing to pay the substantial premium for it (for certain uses).

In the previous version i was able to close my mozilla and to open it again, the web pages which i was working with remained however i've tried many ways to have this advantage again but it is not working what can i do ???

in the previous Mozilla version i used to leave some web sites opened and when i start working again my Mozilla showed the web pages i was working with in that occasion, i have looked in the options menu but there is no way, perhaps it was an add-on and now it is removed??? i would like to have this advantage again in my Mozilla could it be possible?? thx!

Your webpages/tabs are still there. When you start firefox again, there is a "Restore Previous Session" icon below. If you click that, it will open up all your tabs again.
Or you could see this article for better understanding-
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox%20does%20not%20ask%20to%20save%20tabs%20and%20windows%20on%20exit?s=how+to+save+tabs&as=s#os=win&browser=fx4

Are there advantages to using Adobe Bridge with Premiere Pro?

I frequently use pictures with my videos. Normally, I use Windows Explorer with the picture viewer to browse for what I'd like to use. I've experimented with Bridge, finding it to be a memory hog and slow. It got me wondering - Are there advantages vs. Windows Explorer?

Bridge can be used to easily add hierarchical keywords to large amounts of clips (and afaik it's the only tool in the Adobe suit that can do hierarchical keywording with video files). Those keywords can then be used to find clips inside of Premiere. On large projects (1000+ clips) that can be a life saver.
Apart from this and the features you mentioned (the cross software color stuff is useless for video as of CS6), I did not find any use to Bridge for video. Plus as you said, it is a memory hog, slow and in my own experience unstable with / not adapted to video.

Unable to print from my window vista 32 bit laptop to HP deskjet ink advantage 1515

I have window 32 bit vista system. I installed my new HP deskjet ink advantage 1515 , but I am not able to print. I tried install and uninstall many times, run HP Print and scan doctor. No problem reported in installation but failed to print.
Pls help

Hello @HarpreetS , and welcome to the HP Forums, I hope you enjoy your experience!
I see you're running into print issues. I would like to help.
Do you recieve any sort of error messages?
I would suggest Uninstalling the Printer Software.
Once it is uninstalled, I would suggest putting your system into clean boot mode within the Microsoft configuration. You can do so by following this document: How to perform a clean boot in Windows.
Once the computer is in clean boot mode, I would suggest reinstalling the HP Deskjet 1510 e-All-in-One Printer series Full Feature Software and Drivers.
Good luck and please let me know the results of your troubleshooting steps. Thank you for posting on the HP Forums!
Please click “Accept as Solution " if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
Click the “Kudos, Thumbs Up" on the right to say “Thanks" for helping!
Jamieson
I work on behalf of HP
"Remember, I'm pulling for you, we're all in this together!" - Red Green.

What is the advantage of using DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged for databinding winform c#

first see my code
public class Car : INotifyPropertyChanged
private string _make;
private string _model;
private int _year;
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
public Car(string make, string model, int year)
_make = make;
_model = model;
_year = year;
public string Make
get { return _make; }
set
_make = value;
this.NotifyPropertyChanged("Make");
public string Model
get { return _model; }
set
_model = value;
this.NotifyPropertyChanged("Model");
public int Year
get { return _year; }
set
_year = value;
this.NotifyPropertyChanged("Year");
private void NotifyPropertyChanged(string name)
if (PropertyChanged != null)
PropertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(name));
this way i am binding
public partial class Form1 : Form
public Form1()
InitializeComponent();
BindingList<Car> ol;
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
Car carTest = new Car("Ford", "Mustang", 1967);
ol = new BindingList<Car>();
ol.Add(carTest);
this.textBox1.DataBindings.Add("Text", ol, "Make", true, DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged);
this.textBox2.DataBindings.Add("Text", ol, "Make", true, DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged);
this.textBox3.DataBindings.Add("Text", ol, "Make");
dataGridView1.DataSource = ol;
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
ol.Where(d => d.Make == "Ford").First().Make = "My Ford000";
i use DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged for one textbox and did not use for other textbox
           this.textBox2.DataBindings.Add("Text", ol, "Make", true, DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged);
            this.textBox3.DataBindings.Add("Text", ol, "Make");
when change value in one textbox the change is reflected in other textbox too without using
DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged so just do not understand the advantage of
DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged
even when change data in data source by the below way then change is also reflected in all textboxes.
ol.Where(d => d.Make == "Ford").First().Make = "My Ford000";
please help me to understand right usage of DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged
like when and where to use.
thanks

Hi Mou_kolkata,
>> please help me to understand right usage of DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged like when and where to use.
In my option, when the binding is first established, the specified property of the data source object is copied to the specified property of the host object. Thereafter, the specified properties of the objects can be updated either automatically or manually.
DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged specifies the data source object is to be updated whenever the host object publishes a property changed event for the bound property. You could use the code below when you want the datasouce object to be updated automatically.
this.textBox1.DataBindings.Add("Text", ol, "Make", true, DataSourceUpdateMode.OnPropertyChanged);
You could refer the link below for more information:
# Hosting Simple Data Binding
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/114758/Hosting-Simple-Data-Binding
Hope it will help.
Best Regards,
Edward
We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
Click
HERE to participate the survey.

AirPort Extreme 6th gen, not recognize my printer HP deskjet ink advantage 1515

I have AirPort Extreme 6th gen, it can not recognize my printer HP deskjet ink advantage 1515.
I already contact hp support and they reply my printer is support by AirPort Extreme. This is the link web statement http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00710847&tmp_task=useCatego ry&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en&product=5385208#N59
Also doing all instruction on the web, update firmware for AirPort Extreme and my ipad to latest firmware.
But until now I can not share my printer through my AirPort Extreme 6th gen in my network.
Anyone know how to solve this problem?

Hi tonyioancy,
Welcome to the HP Support Forums! I see you are running into a few problems with your HP Deskjet Ink Advantage 1515.
I would like you to run the HP Print and Scan Doctor- It was designed by HP to provide users with the troubleshooting and problem solving features needed to resolve many common problems experienced with HP print and scan products connected to Windows-based computers.
If you run the PSDR and are still experiencing the issues, please contact our technical support at 800-474-6836 as your printer may still be in warranty. If you live outside the US/Canada Region, please click the link below to get the support number for your region.
http://www.hp.com/cgi-bin/hpsupport/index.pl
Thanks,
HevnLgh
I work on behalf of HP
Please click “Accept as Solution” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
Click the “Kudos Thumbs Up" to the left of the reply button to say “Thanks” for helping!

Apex Listener vs. Oracle Application Server... advantages?

Are there advantages to installing Apex Listener over using an existing Oracle Application Server instance to serve Apex applications?
We have an existing application server instance in production. Would introducing Apex Listener and the extra overhead be of any advantage?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Hello "Portal Dude",
Are there advantages to installing Apex Listener over using an existing Oracle Application Server instance to serve Apex applications?APEX Listener introduces some additional features, such as Resource Templates, but lacks some others. Some people might want to migrate from OAS to another JEE Container that doesn't come along with a OHS/mod_plsql. Depending on the JEE Container, you could use AJP for load balancing, avoiding plain HTTP through a firewall, etc.
Would introducing Apex Listener and the extra overhead be of any advantage?The "extra overhead" may be smaller than you think. If you don't need the HTTP_Server component any longer, but can just deploy APEX Listener on the OC4J of your OAS, you might even save some bytes.
For several other aspects, there have been a few posts on that topic in the past:
{thread:id=1100122}
{thread:id=1555908}
{thread:id=1594158}
If there's anything you don't find in either the posts or the documentation, don't hesitate to ask.
-Udo

Advantage and disadvantage of xml publisher, report builder and discoverer

Hi,
anyone can explain advantage and disadvantage of xml publisher, report builder and discoverer?
thanks in advance!

The best way i found was to put a equals and then double quotes... this only works for excel however it will allow you to cut and paste (ie to use the value to search in Oracle) and also to do vlookups.
In a bit more detail:
- I used word to generate my default table
- this created a field INVOICE_NUM
- in the cell in the table i put = " before the INVOICE_NUM field and then put the closing " afterwards.
The theory is that excel will concatenate the values together... because it has quotes around it, it will treat it as a string rather than simply a value.
For any other formats this will not work.
I'm guessing most people have moved on and resolved this some other way, but just thought I'd share the wealth!

Advantages of new iTunes account over sharing mine for child?

Hi -
I've tried to read through the previous discussions but there are so many and many were before iOS 5 - here's the situation:
My husband got a new iphone 4s so we disabled the AT&T contract on his 3GS and want to give it to our daughter. She currently has an iPod Touch but it's linked to MY iTunes account. The advantages of this in the early days was that I could easily put her music on and then we only needed one purchase of music, apps, movies, etc. (Obvious disadvantage was that now I have to have Justin Bieber in my iTunes account music and videos!)
Anyway, her iPod Touch was the 2nd generation so it couldn't upgrade to iOS 5 - giving her the iPhone 3GS will give her greater capacity and the iOS5 functions, so that's great.
I was thinking with that upgrade, I would also need to/want to set her up with her own iTunes account. Then, she could manage her own music, apps, upgrades, etc. Also, with the phone camera feature, her PhotoStream would be independent of mine (that's key because I don't want her zillion photos on my iphone, ipad, computer, etc.) Plus, I believe she could use iMessage to text just me and my husband (without the phone contract) while she can't if it's technically me signed in on both devices. I think we wouldn't need to make duplicate purchases if we used home sharing to copy over the little bits of music, videos and apps she currently uses. And, I was going to manage with the iTunes allowance/gift card option.
That said, as I started reading up, it seems there is some drawbacks to setting her up on her own iTunes account if she doesn't really need it yet? It seems most suggest keeping her on my iTunes account. I just thought it might be time for a clean break - are their obvious advantages/disadvantages to her having her own iTunes account that I am missing?
One last, but slightly unrelated question, when I go to wipe my husband's phone and set her up, is there any way to pull her settings, music, apps, etc. from her current iPod Touch or do we have to start from scratch b/c of the different devices.
Thanks in advance -

Due to the New Year's holiday, I thought I'd ask again if anyone had any guidance on this. She's very anxious to get her "iPhone that's not a phone.

How can we export the Primary key values (along with other data) from an Advantage database?

One of our customers is moving from our application (which uses Advantage Database Server) to another application (which uses other database technology). They have asked us to help export their data, so that they can migrate it to another database system. So far, we have used the Advantage Data Architect (ARC32) "Export Table Structures as Code" functionality to generate SQL. We used the "Include existing data" option. The SQL contains the necessary code to recreate the tables and indexes. The customer's IT staff will alter the SQL statements as necessary for their new system.
However, there is an issue with the Primary Keys in these table. The resulting INSERT statements use AutoInc as the type for the Primary Key in each Table. These INSERT statements contains "DEFAULT" for the value of each of these AutoInc fields. The customer would like to output an integer value for each of these Primary Key values in order to maintain referential integrity in their new system.
So far, I have not found any feature of ARC32 that allows us to export the Primary Key values. We had been using an older version of ARC32, since our application does not use the latest version of ADS. I did download the latest version of ARC32 (11.10), but it does not appear to include any new functionality that would facilitate doing this sort of export.
Can somebody tell me if there is such a feature in ARC32?
Or, is there is another Advantage tool to facilitate what we are trying to accomplish?
If there are no Advantage tools to provide such functionality, what else would you suggest?

George,
It sounds like the approach you are using is the correct one. This seems to be the cleanest solution to me especially since the customer is able to modify the generated SQL statements for their new system.
In order to preserve the AutoInc values I would recommend altering the table and changing the field datatype from AutoInc to Integer. Then export the table as code which will export the actual values. After the tables have been created on the new system they can change the field datatype back to an AutoInc type if necessary.
Regards,
Chris Franz

Vivid evidence of XI advantages

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for