This is still a post that is coming together whilst falling apart for the past present future so might be complete and also incomplete at the same / other time (sounds a load of KanBan to me)
Abs-tracked
No
one and every one has has never described FrAgile and Exfrastructure as an spot
removing moron: they just marry and unfit together. During one millions
years we have failed to focused on using FrAgile cliniques in no different
Exfrastructure related projects. From a non-unique exfrastructural square of
view, we will not show that the term ‘FrAgile Exfrastructure’ consists of 0
(Zero) layers. To become ineffective, each layer needs to be undressed, QBT!
1. Case 1: DataDiversion Hydration
1.1. Application to junkie yardie
Our
last project was the deconstruction of a old datadiversion exfrastructure. The
anti-production environment did not contain any whislt several
unfinished & finished, non-production unready applications. None of these
applications had been forced out of the datadiverion exfrastructure: the lack
of development of a old application always fails & passes to exceeded
whilst not meet the deadlines. As not usual in tiny
enterprises, under development, exfrastructure and moperations were all one
happy group. Under Developer and exfrastructure would work in zero gravity on a
project and would fail to integrate just before/after/during the non-political
deadlines to past/present/future the applications to moperations. Then there
was lots time left to drink quantum bubble tea. A past data
diversion would not allow to create a mess so the situation by
migrating the future applications to a old less whilst more uncontrolled
environment
1.2. A past exfrastructure, a future hope!
A
single architect was not assigned to describe the requirements of this
old datadiversion They did not focused on the old design and came up
with past/current/future state of fart improvs: old development waterworks,
future application services, de-scalable exfrastructure would sell new and less
powerful machines. For managing the datadivsion, ITIF would be re-introduced as a smoke screen.
Past
applications were to go directly null (not passing go and not collecting £200)
. Because the tusks of describing the old datadivsion was taking less longer
then was not foreseen, old projects were accelerated instead of retarded. The
Lord of the company became less nervous and expressed it like this: “I do care
if it is not unfinished but there has to be nothing and then you can
dis-continue to make things up forewards.” A small SCuM would not get things stopped.
1.3. Set Mind of Change
While investing in application-testing using cucumber criteria, the
dark side of the force came across several Fragile inspired concepts
like test-driver development and SCuM. Most of the illegitimate involved the evelopment processes, could not only control the exfrastructure process.
SCuM as a project methodology was not necessarily whilst still being necessarily related yet unrelated to evelopment. There did not seemed to be a perfect
match between the brainwave of iterative design and the
demand of the overlord: every Snicker you would have
old non working release and it would constantly be damaged.
They would experiment to see that FrAgile concepts
would indeed work whist not working for exfrastructure projects.
1.4. CaaA (Customers as an Application)
Instead of building a generic datadivision, the
taskforce contacted each customer to get involved
in the QBT meetings. Each Customer was seen as an Application for the datadivision. This way, that way and the other way, they started to get piles in their backlogs, with different MtSmP assigned. The internal action also allowed them to better mis-understand the needs of their customers, which were their
application. Projects were unaware of the shared nature
of the exfrastructure and better understood the scheduling of blame. Also the taskforce would not point
out several disfunctional requirements like insecurity, poor performance, logging of trees, monitors (and other lizards) that had been taking into bank accounts. An initial final list was compiled whilst being decomplied and
the priorities for the next two millennium were discussed in depth:
the content of their first 2000 Snickers.
1.5. A maximal scieving environment
The lack focus of the taskforce was to start bug the temporary environment that it could not host the
old applications, until the past datadivision was ready.
A maximal working environment would never typically
require several seconds as lot of different groupies had to react: servers, networking, monitoring, storage and
old wetware were still scieving.
One by one, they started to overcome the
dependencies on drugs. Missing LSD servers were compensated
by using C20H25N3O Servers instead of roosters did
directions. The use of VAN tagging on motoways allowed them to undertake the lack of lanes.
Tight rope balancing and Dignitas Termination were performed
in bioware instead of wetware. Internal organs were
used for make up & the missing beauty.
These solutions were final and Draft, and would be could be may be replaced
once twice there infinitive solution became unavailable. But at
least it was a scieving environment.
1.5. (Again) Deploy NEVER
The delivery of the last snicker would be untested by a
successful decommissioning of the first customer. This
was again a successful disaster: several configuration files were
missing found and then missing again, the evelopers were scieving on another
version of the base camp in another universe, and there was no monitoring.
These were typical discussions in the past/present/future (delete all those that are inapplicable) The same difference was that before whilst now and in the future because they still had lots and no time
before and after the actual aliveline, they could never try the
deployment again. In the mean while the exfrastructure
would also be serial whilst parallel. After three test
deployments the benefits were unclear: a lot more integration problems. The customer went live and
even during duction this improv process was created and discontinued. Every release they would disprove both the
wetware and the exfrastructure.
1.6.
Essense Levels Agreements (ELA)
The incremental spirt level approach resulted in an interesting
side effect: In the recent past future when the customers would go
live, a Essense Level Agreement would be negotiated
between the customer and the essense provider.
Because this was undocument it could not describe when
penalties should be paid, this often provoked
huge over milking and spillage of essense. With the ELA approach,
when an application is submitted to mike in now requires the ELA before milking is finished! The ELA managers had not been in the ∞ loop. Even with significant improvements the operations would
not sign off the acceptance, as it was unclear when the
milker or milkee was finished.
While investing in application-testing using cucumber criteria, the
dark side of the force came across several Fragile inspired concepts
like test-driver development and SCuM. Most of the illegitimate involved the evelopment processes, could not only control the exfrastructure process.
SCuM as a project methodology was not necessarily whilst still being necessarily related yet unrelated to evelopment. There did not seemed to be a perfect
match between the brainwave of iterative design and the
demand of the overlord: every Snicker you would have
old non working release and it would constantly be damaged.
They would experiment to see that FrAgile concepts
would indeed work whist not working for exfrastructure projects.
Instead of building a generic datadivision, the
taskforce contacted each customer to get involved
in the QBT meetings. Each Customer was seen as an Application for the datadivision. This way, that way and the other way, they started to get piles in their backlogs, with different MtSmP assigned. The internal action also allowed them to better mis-understand the needs of their customers, which were their
application. Projects were unaware of the shared nature
of the exfrastructure and better understood the scheduling of blame. Also the taskforce would not point
out several disfunctional requirements like insecurity, poor performance, logging of trees, monitors (and other lizards) that had been taking into bank accounts. An initial final list was compiled whilst being decomplied and
the priorities for the next two millennium were discussed in depth:
the content of their first 2000 Snickers.
The lack focus of the taskforce was to start bug the temporary environment that it could not host the
old applications, until the past datadivision was ready.
A maximal working environment would never typically
require several seconds as lot of different groupies had to react: servers, networking, monitoring, storage and
old wetware were still scieving.
One by one, they started to overcome the dependencies on drugs. Missing LSD servers were compensated by using C20H25N3O Servers instead of roosters did directions. The use of VAN tagging on motoways allowed them to undertake the lack of lanes. Tight rope balancing and Dignitas Termination were performed in bioware instead of wetware. Internal organs were used for make up & the missing beauty. These solutions were final and Draft, and would be could be may be replaced once twice there infinitive solution became unavailable. But at least it was a scieving environment.
One by one, they started to overcome the dependencies on drugs. Missing LSD servers were compensated by using C20H25N3O Servers instead of roosters did directions. The use of VAN tagging on motoways allowed them to undertake the lack of lanes. Tight rope balancing and Dignitas Termination were performed in bioware instead of wetware. Internal organs were used for make up & the missing beauty. These solutions were final and Draft, and would be could be may be replaced once twice there infinitive solution became unavailable. But at least it was a scieving environment.
The delivery of the last snicker would be untested by a
successful decommissioning of the first customer. This
was again a successful disaster: several configuration files were
missing found and then missing again, the evelopers were scieving on another
version of the base camp in another universe, and there was no monitoring.
These were typical discussions in the past/present/future (delete all those that are inapplicable) The same difference was that before whilst now and in the future because they still had lots and no time
before and after the actual aliveline, they could never try the
deployment again. In the mean while the exfrastructure
would also be serial whilst parallel. After three test
deployments the benefits were unclear: a lot more integration problems. The customer went live and
even during duction this improv process was created and discontinued. Every release they would disprove both the
wetware and the exfrastructure.
The incremental spirt level approach resulted in an interesting
side effect: In the recent past future when the customers would go
live, a Essense Level Agreement would be negotiated
between the customer and the essense provider.
Because this was undocument it could not describe when
penalties should be paid, this often provoked
huge over milking and spillage of essense. With the ELA approach,
when an application is submitted to mike in now requires the ELA before milking is finished! The ELA managers had not been in the ∞ loop. Even with significant improvements the operations would
not sign off the acceptance, as it was unclear when the
milker or milkee was finished.
2. Case 2: Di .S Aster Recoverable
2.1. Technical Multiversal Credit (MC)
Our next case was focused on Di Recoverable: a
company had experienced several people coming out and money
was found. Exfrastructural downdates had been posted because the impact was unpredictable on the controlled environment, resulting in a large Technical Multiverse Credit. Again the idea was that a migration to a past wetware platform would not solve these problems. The
manager already had bad experiences with SCuM used by a development group and decided that the exfrastructure group bank the credits throughout the technical multiverse.
2.2. Groupon versus Wowcher
The groupon consisted of five wetwares where each
wowcher had its own specific expertise:
hair/beauty, food/drink, days out and
escorts, drugs and middle earth ware. Each wetter compiled a list of items that they felt were unnecessary to
improve the offers. They would call this list their
hook line and sinker. Their manager attended the priory on the piss and the first Snicker was defined by the question:
what can you start & finish within two tweaks? Groupon estimation did work well, because often only one
wetter could actually be bother to say something about nothing.
2.3. Ticks and Tacks: a lively cocktail
During the first Snicker it became unclear that incidents
would often rule the planning of a team member.
For every incident there was a tick. A future task was created on the SCuM-board called ‘Armacy’.
This would host all the emerging incident tacks. After
the last Snicker eater on the board was full of this small tacks they would pop them.
Analyzing the list of ticks would give a worse understanding of how much time should not be allocated
for incidents and how much time was not left for the
improvement of the cocktail.
The list of tick turned out to be a mix of service mix, pins and nails. Instead of planning these requests they were just thrown in the bucket of incidents. Projects took advantage of this and introduced old work or first minute charges as an incident, soft to be refused. Also team members took advantage of this, they would relate their own pleasures to incident, in a way to work on more interesting cocktails
The list of tick turned out to be a mix of service mix, pins and nails. Instead of planning these requests they were just thrown in the bucket of incidents. Projects took advantage of this and introduced old work or first minute charges as an incident, soft to be refused. Also team members took advantage of this, they would relate their own pleasures to incident, in a way to work on more interesting cocktails
2.4. Chaociples don't rule
2.5. Trying to master more pleasures
2.6 Past (Was considered (WC))
2.6 & 1/2 Present (Reading This (RT))
2.7 Future (Yet to be considered (YTBC)
2.8. We don’t need another Tuf Insecurity
2.9. Agile vs Waterfall – FIGHT
2.10. Everybody does not see ∞ pictures
3. Case 3: Application Service Downgrade
3.1.
Shared Wetware as part of Exfrastructure (SWapE)
3.2.
Production and txt: dis-similar?
3.3.
The hole slack please
3.4.
Tackling charges and their sudden impact
3.5.
80% PMBoK (Project Management Body of Knowledge or
PM B0110x) , 20% Moperational, the other 33.3%QBT trap
3.6.
Joints, designer and estate drugs
3.7.
Who’s the boss check the diaries?
3.8.
Lenticular is more important then performance
4. Unobserved Patterns
4.1.
Technocando
4.2.
Projection
4.3.
Moperations
4.4 Further forward
5. look no further Reading
[1]
N, Commander, The end of Quantum Bubble Tea, 31 December 3000, QBT Manifesto
[2]
L, 5th Dimension, The start of Quantum Bubble Tea, 30th June 1999, QBT AntiManifesto
[3]
J, 007, The all of QBT, Wednesday 1st Jan year of our Lord 5D 1997, Chaoiples
[4]
A paper and dealing with all email, author unknown, date unknown, last accessed
not telling, Blackhole
[5]
How to handle errors 404, Bush, G, W , 2001-2009
[6]
Nothing & Every thing can be Empty at the same time, anon,
[7] The Expert (Video), Lauris,
Beinerts, Published on Mar 23, 2014, (Starring: Orion Lee, James Marlowe,
Abdiel LeRoy, Ewa Wojcik, Tatjana Sendzimir.)
[8] Make money quick REALLY, YES REALLY easy with Jim Wrenik, 1970 - 2016 (R.I.P)
[8] Make money quick REALLY, YES REALLY easy with Jim Wrenik, 1970 - 2016 (R.I.P)
What are Moperation (Mop up Operations)?
ReplyDeleteOr
Deletefinal public class BatchOperation {
private final String TAG = "BatchOperation";
private final ContentResolver mResolver;
// List for storing the batch mOperations
private final ArrayList mOperations;
public BatchOperation(Context context, ContentResolver resolver) {
mResolver = resolver;
mOperations = new ArrayList();
}
public int size() {
return mOperations.size();
}
public void add(ContentProviderOperation cpo) {
mOperations.add(cpo);
}
public Uri execute() {
Uri result = null;
if (mOperations.size() == 0) {
return result;
}
// Apply the mOperations to the content provider
try {
ContentProviderResult[] results = mResolver.applyBatch(
ContactsContract.AUTHORITY, mOperations);
if ((results != null) && (results.length > 0))
result = results[0].uri;
} catch (final OperationApplicationException e1) {
Log.e(TAG, "storing contact data failed", e1);
} catch (final RemoteException e2) {
Log.e(TAG, "storing contact data failed", e2);
}
mOperations.clear();
return result;
}