RE: Yet another attempt to fix D-AC004

Hi Org.,
Well iam a memeber of ur mailing list..
i need a favour from you people, who can send me the relevant code



we have developed a dotnet application there i need to develop a bargraph
based on the data.
could you send some code on dotnet based on graphs which sould be of client
side scripting and compatibale to all browsers....

well i know there is a graph object is there to achieve that but it is
server side one where load is more ...



the following is my table script
based on this i need to devlop a stored procdeure and after executing the 
sp
based on the output data i need to show a graph..this is my requirement

i will give u a very high level of the application

project name :DTS (DEFECT TRACKING SYSTEM)

here all the project which is been developed in our co.,
will be there if u click on the respective project based on the date
selection the data is populated..... (TILL NOW THE EXISTING APPLICATION IS
BEEN DEVELOPED) THIS IS FIRST PHASE


THE 2 PHASE IS
BASED ON THE RESPECTIVE PROJECT DATA I NEED TO GIVE A GRAPHICAL
REPRESENTATION TO THE USER..

FOR THIS THE FOLLOWING TABLE IS THE  MASTER TABLE FOR GETTING DATA,,AND THE
FLOW CONTINUIOUS
IAM GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THE SECOND PHASE COULD YOU SEND ME THE
RELEVANT......

if exists (select * from sysobjects where id =
object_id(N'[dbo].[tblDefects]') and OBJECTPROPERTY(id, N'IsUserTable') = 
1)
drop table [dbo].[tblDefects]
GO

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tblDefects] (
[ID_Defect] [int] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,
	[ID_Project] [int] NOT NULL ,
	[ID_WorkProduct] [int] NOT NULL ,
	[ID_Release] [int] NULL ,
	[ID_Cycle] [int] NOT NULL ,
	[C_DefectStatus] [varchar] (4) NOT NULL ,
	[C_DefectSeverity] [varchar] (4) NOT NULL ,
	[C_DefectType] [varchar] (6) NOT NULL ,
	[C_DefectOriginPhase] [varchar] (4) NOT NULL ,
	[C_DefectFoundPhase] [varchar] (4) NOT NULL ,
	[ID_AssignedTo] [int] NOT NULL ,
	[ID_ReviewEffort] [int] NULL ,
	[C_DetectionEvent] [varchar] (4) NOT NULL ,
	[X_DefectTitle] [varchar] (50) NULL ,
	[DS_DefectDesc] [varchar] (5000) NOT NULL ,
	[ID_Resource] [int] NOT NULL ,
	[N_ReworkEffortHours] [int] NULL ,
	[X_DefectCause] [varchar] (100) NOT NULL ,
	[DS_Resolution] [varchar] (5000) NULL ,
	[F_Closed] [int] NOT NULL ,
	[D_Created] [datetime] NOT NULL ,
	[D_Modified] [datetime] NOT NULL ,
	[F_Approved] [int] NULL ,
	[D_Approved] [datetime] NULL
)
GO


Regards,
Venkata Suresh Babu.V
ANZ Information Technology
Bangalore 
Tel:No:91+080+2283004
extn:1023 
This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is
confidential and is for the use only of the intended recipient. The
Communication may contain copyright material of Australia and New
Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522 ("ANZ"), of any of its
related entities or of third parties. If you are not the intended
recipient of the Communication, please notify the sender immediately by
return e-mail, delete the Communication, and do not read, copy, print,
retransmit, store or act in reliance on the Communication. Any views
expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only,
unless expressly stated to be those of ANZ. ANZ does not guarantee the
integrity of the Communication, or that it is free from errors, viruses
or interference.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2002 2:12
To: 'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'; 'Mark Baker'; michael.mahan@nokia.com
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3c.org
Subject: RE: Yet another attempt to fix D-AC004



We believe that various programming models should be supported.  I'm
surprised - though given history I shouldn't be - that the notion that WSDL
is a bad thing came up as a result of discussion on loose coupling.
Certainly seems to be lots of things in web services that are bad things...
Our software manages to do what we think of as loose coupling and uses WSDL,
so we don't think they are coupled - so to speak ;-)  I hope we don't have
to (yet again) have the debate about coupling, and how it relates to
interfaces/type-checking/programming languages/version control/component
architectures/run-time availability/asynchrony/latency.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:47 PM
> To: 'Mark Baker'; michael.mahan@nokia.com
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3c.org
> Subject: RE: Yet another attempt to fix D-AC004
>
>
>
> I'm not sure why you think that early binding is such a bad
> thing.  In many
> instances late binding is a bad thing for various practical
> reasons.  I
> myself tend to avoid late binding if I possibly can.  This is
> not just me --
> it is an accepted architectural principle in our company's development
> community, and I believe that there are other companies with
> similar views.
>
> Actually, I don't think that a discussion of whether early or
> late binding
> is a "good" or "bad" thing is likely to be very productive.
> I think that
> both are necessary and both must be supported.  I would be very, very
> resistant to a suggestion that early binding should somehow
> be forbidden or
> made impossible.  If you feel that supporting late binding is
> critical I
> won't argue with you -- as long as you leave my early binding alone.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 2:27 PM
> To: michael.mahan@nokia.com
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3c.org
> Subject: Re: Yet another attempt to fix D-AC004
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 02:57:02PM -0400,
> michael.mahan@nokia.com wrote:
> > >What does "loosely coupled" refer to here?  In my experience, the
> > >most common use is wrt coupling between interface and
> implementation,
> > >but it has other meanings.  We should be clear what we mean.
> >
> > Well, my intention was that the components are decoupled relative to
> > each other (a change in one component doesn't force a
> change in another
> > component) and also in the common use you describe above.
> If we can agree
> > on that then I can try rewording this to make it clear.
>
> Ah ok, that makes sense.  But I believe the term "late binding" (or
> similar) is typically what is used to refer to two separate software
> components and their ability to be integrated together at runtime.
>
> We haven't talked about this much as a group, but I
> personally believe that
> "late binding" is critical.  Of course, like so much else in Web
> architecture, the generic, a priori interface gives you this.
>  The IDL or
> WSDL approach provides a much earlier form of binding (not a
> good thing).
>
> > >An interface is definitely an important part of a component, but I
> > >wouldn't say that it defines the component.
> >
> > I agree - that's why I threw in the bracketed 'minimally'
> term. I was
> > also thinking that descriptors like role and
> responsibilities should
> > be included, but I was first trying to translate the
> existing text in
> > D-AC004.3.
>
> I don't really see what "minimally" adds, but I agree that describing
> components by roles and responsibilities is a good thing.
>
> > >What did you mean by "form" here?
> >
> > This was from the original text. I left it in to hopefully solicit
> > the author's intent and not throw out an expressed concept
> > indiscriminately.
>
> Sorry, I wasn't looking at the original when I responded.
>
> > The original text defines component relationships as
> > 1. messages
> > 2. protocols by means of which these messages are transmitted
> >
> > I was trying to express this. Do you disagree with the level of
> > abstraction
> > here (component relationship) or the verbiage?
>
> The verbiage, I guess.  I disagree that a protocol, even an
> application
> protocol, defines or describes much of the relationship
> between components,
> except where that relationship relates to the interface (which an
> application protocol does define).
>
> As an example, HTTP clients and proxies both speak HTTP, but the
> relationship between them is mostly independant of that(*);
> it's that a
> client can use a proxy to add some value to its connection with origin
> servers and gateways (such as getting it over a firewall, or
> performing
> language conversion, etc..).
>
> (*) HTTP proxy authentication would be the one part of the
> interface that
> does relate to the relationship between a client and a proxy.
>
> > >Well, we've talked about using SMTP and HTTP for Web services, for
> > >example, and those don't use XML.  So I'd like to remove
> this one.
> > >I'd suggest toning it down, but as it's a requirement, it
> wouldn't do
> > >much good to do that, so might as well remove it.
> >
> > In the vein of toning it down, maybe replace 'use' with 'support'.
>
> Good idea.  That both tones it down, and makes it measurable.
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 00:25:33 UTC