HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garyh@slc.com (Gary Hade)
Subject: "smart" diff tools
>from: garyh@servio.slc.com (Gary Hade)
Organization: Servio Corp, Beaverton Oregon, US
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:30:24 GMT

If this is a frequently asked question please forgive me for not
keeping up with everything posted to this group.

I am interested in opinions and recommendations concerning commercial
or public domain "smart" diff tools that would make it easier
to evaluate ASCII test output and reduce test maintenance.  Please
include names, addresses, and phone numbers if you have them.
Some of the features I would be interested in are:
   - Comparison that disregards portions of the test output that match
     specified patterns (prefer something similar to UNIX regular
     expression syntax).  It should be possible to define patterns that
     span multiple lines and are easier to maintain than complex awk
     scripts.  Should be able to define patterns that cause only a
     portion of a line to be disregarded.
   - Comparison that disregards portions of the output marked in a file
     containing test output that is known to be correct ("standard"
     comparison file).
   - Tools that will take the output from two or more test runs (known to
     be correct but different) and generate a pattern list and/or a marked
     "standard" comparison file.
   - Display differences in a parallel (side-by-side) format.
   - Ignore white space differences.
   - Source code available.
   - For UNIX systems.

I am aware of `exdiff' by Software Research, Inc.  Opinions on this
system would be appreciated?

Gary Hade
garyh@SLC.com

Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Software Generation & Maintenance
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:17:54 GMT

IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil) writes:

>Since there seems to be so much time devoted to proper coding methods,
>etc. and there seems to be so much feeling in the industry that it is
>easier to patch and propogate poor code because it is running, how
>about some means to determine when it is more beneficial because of
>newer techniques, languages, tools, methodologies to rewrite the silly thing?

I recall reading about a USAAF development project (I _think_ it was
USAAF, and I _think_ it was early 80s) in which the standard for 
rewriting as opposed to fixing a module was:

     "If you can't identify the bug in 10 minutes, rewrite the module."

Now, (a) this is hazy recollection, and (b) it applied to specific modules
rather than to a whole system.  More generally, we all have to justify to
someone how we spend our time, and if it looks like less time will be 
spent over a reasonable system lifetime by re-writing rather than continuing
to patch, then the re-write is justified.  This is just life-cycle costing
applied to applications development.  What I'd be interested to know
is what people now think a reasonable system lifetime is, given that in
the wonderful open systems world we expect our applications to be 
hardware-independent [:-)/2].

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy



Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: richardp@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Logica P/L)
Subject: Data Distribution Platform
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:58:47 GMT

  We are currently engaged in the design and development 
  of a real-time system which will handle, amongst other 
  things, the dissemination of equipment alarm information 
  to various users and user processes.  Due to the limited 
  period of validity of various alarms, and the need to 
  asynchronously inform an arbitrary set of processes of the 
  existence of new alarm information, it appears that a 
  system based on the 'publisher / subscriber' paradigm 
  would be appropriate.
  
  The system must meet the following requirements:
  
  * handle a relatively large volume of alarms (order of 
    300 per minute maximum, at approximately 50 to 100 
    bytes per alarm)
  
  * handle a relatively large number of subscriber 
    processes (order of 20 to 30), with a few of those not 
    on the local area network (but accessible on an inter-
    net using IP)
  
  * allow individual alarms to be put into multiple 
    subscription categories (e.g. one process may want all 
    alarms of a given type, while another wants all types 
    of alarm relating to a particular entity)
  
  * allow for multiple processes to publish 'the same' 
    information (e.g. the same alarm type for the same 
    entity), with one publication reliably over-riding the 
    other publication (i.e. as if the two publications had 
    been done in order from the one process), even if the 
    two separate publications take different routes through 
    the publish/subscribe system.
  
  * provide support for high availability, in the form at 
    least of the ability to re-start the subscription service 
    (ideally, transparently to subscribers), if any machine 
    or process associated with the service fails
    To date we have looked at RTWorks, which appears not 
    to meet all of the above requirements, and are aware of 
    subscription services within larger systems (e.g. the 
    Teknekron system development platform) which are 
    somewhat a case of over-kill.
  
  We would really appreciate being pointed towards any 
  other packages which might be appropriate.  Any 
  information regarding the capabilities and performance of 
  such a package would of course be appreciated, but 
  primarily we want the name of the package and the name 
  of the supplier or distributor.
  
  Thank you for any information or assistance.

  Richard Pittman

===============================================================================
Richard Pittman          /\                 Level 6, 157 Walker Street
Logica Pty. Limited     /  \      /\        North Sydney 2060, Australia
_______________________/    \    /  \  /\______________________________________
Voice: +61 2 957 1700        \  /    \/     Email: richardp@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU
Fax:   +61 2 922 7466         \/
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: ucaa2385@ruscvx.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Peter Hermann)
Subject: Re: IPSE, what does it stand for?
Organization: User ruscvx Comp.Center (RUS) University of Stuttgart, Germany
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:39:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.104633.6083@nntp.hut.fi> ttv@vipunen.hut.fi (Timo Vuorenmaa) writes:
>the subject line says it all. If anyone is familiar with
>the abbreviation, please e-mail me the answer. It should 
>be some kind of environment (software ? ? environment ?).

IPSE= Integrated Development Environment
APSE= Ada Programming Support Environment

have a side-look into the newsgroup comp.lang.ada

there you will find occasionally more about the subject.

regards, ph


Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: gjp@sei.cmu.edu (George Pandelios)
Subject: 2nd Call For Papers:  SEI Conference on Software Risk
Keywords: Software Technical Risk
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:13:30 GMT




			       CALL FOR PARTICIPATION		

				2nd SEI Conference on
			            Software Risk

			Considerations for Managers & Practitioners


The Second SEI Conference on Issues in Software Risk will be held in
Pittsburgh in March 2-4 of 1993.  The conference brings together software
managers, practitioners, and educators to discuss software technical risk.  
The conference will include plenary sessions, formal invited and contributed
presentations, panel discussions, and informal birds-of-a-feather
meetings.  Vendor exhibits will also be offered.

What is Software Technical Risk?
==============================================

This conference concerns itself with technical risks that threaten successful
software product development.  It is not concerned with the most prevalent
symptoms, cost and schedule overruns, but attempts to deal with underlying
causes and mitigation strategies.  Similarly, the conference does not focus
on safety risks when using systems containing software.  

Participant Information
=======================

Individuals or teams interested in making a 45 minute presentation (including
questions and discussions) must submit a 2000 or 3000 word abstract and a 
brief biography to the general chair, George Pandelios.  Preference will be
given to submissions that demonstrate results of the application of risk
management in software development projects.


Submission Deadlines
====================

Extended abstracts are due no later than October 31, 1992.  Accepted
presenters will be notified by November 13, 1992.


Send abstracts to:

George Pandelios
Software Risk Program
Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Phone:  (412) 268-7186
Fax:  (412) 268-5758
Internet:  gjp@sei.cmu.edu
From: carlson@swe.ncsl.nist.gov (Neva Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: IDEF0/SADT
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:05:56 GMT
Organization: NIST/CSL/SWE

I understand that there has been some recent discussion about 
SADT and IDEF0.  Those postings are now gone so I can't respond
to any specific questions, but I would be happy to answer any that
might remain.  The National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) is in the process of standardizing IDEF0 (function 
modeling) and IDEF1X (information modeling).  A draft FIPS
(Federal Information Processing Standard) has been developed and 
will be available for public review following the announcement in
the Federal Register, which should occur in about a month.///
The IDEF Users Group is also actively involved in the standards
process.  In addition to contributing to the FIPS, they are
forming working groups for a series of IEEE standards, two of
which concern IDEF0.  Information on IDEF and the UG can be
obtained from:  IDEF Users Group, 1900 Founders Drive, Kettering,
OH 45420, telephone 513/259-4702.

Neva M. Carlson                       carlson@swe.ncsl.nist.gov
Computer Systems Laboratory           301/975-3296
NIST
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: einkauf@mitre.org (Michael Einkauf)
Subject: Re: Config Mgmt seminars/courses
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:42:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.200302.7621@oclc.org> c1c@fssun09.dev.oclc.org 
(Christopher Clinton) writes:
>    
> I'm looking for information on courses in Configuration Management
> that are non vendor/product specific.   As a result of taking such
> a course I would expect to be able to evaluate tools that are used
> for version control in development environments.  The course should
> also cover implementation techniques for such tools.   Comments
> from people on the effectiveness of courses that they have attended
> would be real helpful to me .  Thanks
> 
(I haven't been able to get private e-mail to Mr. Clinton at the posted address, so please excuse the broadcast.)

Thomas G. Bogart, MTS at Bell Labs, gave a one-day workshop in June 
entitled "Intorduction to Configuration Management & Change Control" at 
the 9th International Conference and Exposition on Software Maintenance & 
Reengineering in Washington, DC.  This was a conference managed by the 
U.S. Professional Development Institute (USPDI) and developed by Richard 
Ball & Associates Inc.  You might try contacting USPDI at 1734 Elton Road, 
Suite 221, Silver Spring, MD 20903-1724.  I think you can reach them at 
(301)445-4400 or FAX (301)445-5722.  Richard Ball & Associates Inc. is at 
7 Bishop Avenue #902, North York, Ontario M2M 4J4, Canada.  Their phone is 
(416)225-7444 and FAX (416)225-3647.

This same USPDI group also offers a 4-day course on Software Configuration 
Management at various locations around the country at different times (8 
different cities on 9 different dates this past year).  Only the sixth of 
six seminar topics, however, covers SCM tools and their use.

I'm afraid I can't vouch for the quality of these seminars.  I haven't 
been to either of them.  I have been to a software testing workshop with 
Richard Ball on "Matching Test Techniques to Defect Types" and this was an 
excellent presentation on a different topic from the one you're interested 
in.

If I were you I would contact both USPDI and Richard Ball & Associates 
Inc. to see what they are offering in the near future and stress that you 
are especially interested in equipping yourself, as a result of attendance, to 
make intelligent discriminations between SCM tools as well as being 
interested in learning the techniques needed to use them effectively and 
(*very* important with SCM) how to institutionalize their use in the sense 
of making sure that they become part of the warp and woof of the software 
development life cycle rather than something developers try to circumvent because it's perceived as burdensome.

Good Luck!!


---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Einkauf               |  The MITRE Corporation    
Member of the Technical Staff |  Mail Stop B090               
Corporate Information Systems |  202 Burlington Rd.                    
    Development               |  Bedford, MA  01730-1420
---------------------------------------------------------
From: mark@hti.hac.com (Mark Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Testing Complex Systems
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:23:15 GMT
     <1992Aug31.222254.19432@cactus.org>
Organization: Hughes Training, Inc.
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1

I'll provide some background in the techniques used here to get a system
out the
door with a concrete example of working around a serious design flaw.
[long]
  a.  Functional requirements testing.  Enuf said.
  b.  Tracking system (& software) MTBF to indicate non-deterministic
problems;
      then using the system architecture and post-mortems of failures,
determine
      the root cause of the problems.
  c.  Modelling the system tasking & data flow to provide early warning
of problems
      in the distributed system.
  d.  Host based testing using multitasking to simulate distributed
operations.  We
      run the "application level" operational code on the host machine on
top of a
      multitasking test bed.
  e.  Rerun host based testing scenarios on the target hardware to
resolve problems
      with compilers, bugs in target specific code, etc.
  f.  Deliver systems with diagnostic routines included to aid on-site
analysis.

A system I once worked on would stop working "sometimes".  It was
basically a star
configuration with a central computer & remote computers connected with
RS-232
lines.  A graphics processor was attached to one of the remote computers
by another
RS-232 line as well.  We had isolated the problem to dropping characters
in the
interrupt handler for the line to the graphics processor.  We identified
a design flaw
caused by excessive latency of a problem interrupt handler (PIH).  It was
determined to
be "too hard" to redesign this part of the system.  We did add a
capability to stress
this part of the system to get the MTBF's indicated below.  Normal
operations had
much better MTBF's that listed below.
  Fix 1 was to lower the interrupt level after entry on the PIH.  MTBF
grew from
    5 minutes to 15 minutes.  New problem was seen when graphics line IH
was
    interrupted by the PIH.
  Fix 2 was to recognize when graphics line IH was pre-empted, resume it,
and then
    complete the PIH handling at a low interrupt level.  MTBF grew to 30
mins.
    New problem was seen when the clock interrupted the graphics line IH
& THAT was
    interrupted by the PIH.
  Fix 3 was to recognize that situation as well.  MTBF grew to over a day
which
    was OK for this application (typical runtime was less than 1 hour).
Needless to say, this took several months to resolve in the field,
something that
should have been removed in the design over a year previously.  Testing
won't fix
a broken system, a robust design that can be verified is much more
significant.  As
a result of this problem, the systems we build here are much more robust
since
we review the basic system architecture & design much more closely. 
Timing of
the system is a very key component of that review.

--Mark Johnson <mark@bart.dnet.hac.com>
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Software Generation & Maintenance
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:54:38 GMT
Organization: IUPUI

In article <1992Sep2.084256.1@jaguar.uofs.edu>
littlec1@jaguar.uofs.edu (Chris Little) writes:
 
Since there seems to be so much time devoted to proper coding methods,
etc. and there seems to be so much feeling in the industry that it is
easier to patch and propogate poor code because it is running, how
about some means to determine when it is more beneficial because of
newer techniques, languages, tools, methodologies to rewrite the silly thing?
From: brown@ftms.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: comp.text.frame
Subject: Re: frame and olvwm
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:15:03 GMT
Reply-To: brown@ftms.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Other Hangout

In article <1992Aug31.223047.13550@tellab5.tellabs.com> lab@tellabs.com (Lester Bautista) writes:
<In article <1992Aug31.015431.9101@cc.uow.edu.au> jeremy@snrc.uow.edu.au writes:
<>In article 2035@dutiws.tudelft.nl, graaff@dutiws.tudelft.nl (Hans de Graaff) writes:
<>>In article <l9qp6jINNs7u@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> dalbec@clavin.Eng.Sun.COM (Gabe Dalbec) writes:
<>>Anyway, Frame 3.0X works nicely, and also understands the virtual
<>>desktop and other X-programs, so I guess I'll stick to that.
<>
<>Hear, hear! I hope Frame comes up with a decent Xview version sometime.
<
<I vote for that! I *HATE* FrameMaker OpenLook 3.1a. Several people at my
<site were in agreement with me. We all ended up switching back to
<FrameMaker 3.1x.

Other than olvwm and Frame not working together very well, what are your
dislikes of the Frame Xview interface?
-- 
harvard\
  ucbvax!uwvax!astroatc!ftms!brown  or  uu2.psi.com!ftms!brown
rutgers/
INTERNET: brown@wi.extrel.com  or  ftms!brown%astroatc.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.text.frame
From: connolly@convex.com (Dan Connolly)
Subject: Re: Frame to NROFF filter for MAN page Creation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:18:56 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Keywords: filter NROFF MAN
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Aug28.014550.13096@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com> lms@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com (Max Stern 310-524-6152) writes:
>In article <3460@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> rotherme@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Pete Rothermel) writes:
>>Does anybody know an easy way to go create MAN pages in
>>Frame? I have several MAN pages I need to create and I
>>don't want to dig out my dusty notes on NROFF/TROFF. If
>>somebody knows a way to use FRAME to create the documents
>>it would save me alot of grief.
>>
>>Thanks in advance
>>Pete R
>
I hacked together such a beast. It's not in stable form right now,
but it converted MIF to troff for man pages. It preserved bold,
italics (underlining in nroff), and basic paragraph shapes.

You could even use the suffixes and MifWrite files in the .fminit2.0
directory to get Frame to save files in man format whenever you
SaveAs... MIF with a certain extension.

I suppose I'll get a bunch of requests for the script. I'll try to
put it together and post something in a week or so.

Dan
From: cortesi@informix.com (David Cortesi)
Newsgroups: comp.text.frame
Subject: Re: BibFrame and OLframe
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:12:07 GMT
Reply-To: cortesi@informix.com
Distribution: comp
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <TPE.92Aug28013513@panix.IDA.LiU.SE> tpe@IDA.LiU.SE (Tommy Persson)  
writes:
> 
> To use BibFrame and OLframe the keyboard macro file "bibframe.kbm3"
> can be used.  Unfortunately it is the case that the macros ESC-bk and
> ESC-bm do not work together with OLframe and it seems to be impossible
> to make them work as before. 

Unfortunately it is a bad idea in general to rely on consistency
in keyboard shortcuts.  This is an example: the sequences !bk and
!bm do not exist in NeXT FrameMaker at all (according to the "kbmap" file).

(Of course a further problem is that keystroke macros are not
supported AT ALL on the Mac and Windows versions of Frame...)

>    <\!bk1 : \!sv\x489 \x9 \ \x489 \x9 []\x489 cite- >
>    <\!bk2 : \x489 \x9 \x9 \x9 \x9 \ \xd \xd >
> 
> ESC-bk1 is used to pop up the variable creation window

Another problem: altho NeXT Frame supports keystroke macros, the
macros are not effective in any window except the document window.
So macros that operate on the variable window (or any other dialog)
are not portable to the NeXT.  [Frame blames this restriction on
NextStep interface guidelines, BTW]  It is my observation that
macros that change the keyboard focus are usually unreliable even
on Sun software...sometimes they work and sometimes they don't and
I could never figure out why.
From: jansteen@cwi.nl (Jan van der Steen)
Newsgroups: comp.text.frame
Subject: Re: System 7 Mac PS Font --> Screen Font
Keywords: UNIX, Mac PS Font
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:09:09 GMT

I wrote:

>I ordered an Adobe Type Library (Macintosh disks) and now want to
>use the screen fonts within FrameMaker. I transmitted the Macintosh
>screen font file to our UNIX box (Sun Sparc station running
>FrameMaker 3.0X) giving:

>    -rw-r--r--  1 jansteen   163328 Aug 27 15:16 futura

>However, the "fmScreen2mfonts" filter doesn't seem to like the
>(Macintosh system 7) screen fonts. It says:

>	"Bad font file."

This problem has been solved thanks to:

	Robert Pincus <robert@atmos.washington.edu>

The problem was that the above file contains the finder information,
the resource fork and the data fork. The filter fmScreen2mfonts only
knows how to handle the data fork.

There are two solutions to my problem:

1. Transfer the file with a communication program which knows about
   Macintosh file formats and only transfers the data fork, or
   transfers all but in seperate files.
   An example is the "macget" program.

2. Use the fmScreen2mfonts which comes with FrameMaker 3.1
   Frame has recognised the problem and added some flags to the
   filter to be able to deal with composed files:

    Usage: fmScreen2mfonts [-t | -g | -m] FontFileToConvert
	      -t     TOPS .rsrc/file
	      -g     GatorBox %file
	      -m     MacBinary file
	      <none> Raw Resource fork (MacGet, Kermit) file.RSRC

    (The -g and -m options are undocumented)

I used the later solution (with the "-m" flag) by running the filter
on one of our workstations which has FrameMaker 3.1 installed.

I would also like to thank:

	EG Keizer <keie@cs.vu.nl>

for the ideas and support which he offered to me.


Jan van der Steen

-- 
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
     Jan van der Steen                 jansteen@cwi.nl
     Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI)
     Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From: konstan@cs.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan)
Newsgroups: comp.text.frame
Subject: Problems with function keys "becoming unbound"
Date: 26 Aug 1992 23:22:00 GMT
Organization: Picasso Research Group, UCB Computer Science Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: elmer-fudd.cs.berkeley.edu

I've been having problems, at random times, where frame would "lose" the
definitions of some of the function keys (most commonly copy and/or paste). 
Has anyone else experienced this or found a solution?

Would it pay to redefine these keys (L6,L8 on Sparc) in the kbmacros
file, or would this slow normal operation?

I spoke with Frame support, and they suggested runing xmodmap before
starting, but didn't seem real confident about what could be doing
this.

Joe Konstan
konstan@cs.berkeley.edu