student.cs.hioa.nostudent.cs.hioa.no/.../data/2010/11/prosjektrapport-attach… · Web viewCloud...

Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison

Attachments

Bachelor thesis, Accenture and Oslo University College

May 2010

Report part 3

-Page intentionally blank-

ii Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison

Report part 3

1 Technical reference.........................................................................................................................103

2 Product requirements.....................................................................................................................108

2.1 Preface.....................................................................................................................................108

2.2 Introduction.............................................................................................................................108

2.3 Group dynamic........................................................................................................................108

2.4 Employer..................................................................................................................................108

2.5 Assignment description...........................................................................................................108

2.6 Why this assignment?..............................................................................................................109

2.7 Goals of this thesis...................................................................................................................109

2.8 The Reports..............................................................................................................................110

2.9 The Application........................................................................................................................111

3 Pre-project report............................................................................................................................114

3.1 Summary..................................................................................................................................114

3.2 Commissioning party...............................................................................................................114

3.3 Assignment description...........................................................................................................114

3.4 Goals of this thesis...................................................................................................................114

3.5 Requirements and restrictions.................................................................................................115

3.6 Methodology...........................................................................................................................115

3.7 Solutions..................................................................................................................................115

3.8 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................116

4 Status reports..................................................................................................................................117

4.1 Status report, week 1...............................................................................................................117





4.6 Status report week 6................................................................................................................122



4.9 Status report, week 10.............................................................................................................125


Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison iii

Report part 3

4.11 Status report - week 12...........................................................................................................127







5 Log...................................................................................................................................................135

6 Project plan.....................................................................................................................................146

iv Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison

Report part 3


Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison v

Report part 3


vi Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison

Report part 3

1 Technical reference

Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison 103

Report part 3

1.1.1 API Application Program Interface, an interface implemented by a software program which enables it to interact with other software.

1.1.2 ASP.NETMicrosoft’s own web application framework. Helps building dynamic web sites, web applications and web services.

1.1.3 AWSAmazon Web Services

1.1.4 Batch jobExecution of a series of jobs on a computer without manual intervention.

1.1.5 C, C++ and C#Three programming languages with many similarities. C++ and C# is object oriented and the last one was developed by Microsoft.

1.1.6 CCCloud Computing

1.1.7 cURLA command-line tool used for transferring data using various protocols.

1.1.8 DALData Access Layer, which exposes an API in front of the database.

1.1.9 EclipseAn open source multi-language software development environment with an extensible plug-in system.

1.1.10 FrameworkSpecial software libraries wrapped in a well-defined application program interface. Helps developers not wasting time on low-level programming.

1.1.11 GAEGoogle App Engine

104 Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison

Report part 3

1.1.12 GQLGoogle Query Language, used when querying the Google database.

1.1.13 GUIGraphical User Interface

1.1.14 HTTPHypertext Transfer Protocol

1.1.15 IaaSInfrastructure As A Service, cloud computing service model.

1.1.16 IISInternet Information Services, web-server developed by Microsoft.

1.1.17 JavaHigh-level object oriented programming language, developed by Sun.

1.1.18 JDOJava Data Object, also called POJO (Plain old java object)

1.1.19 JettyCommonly used web-server for java applications. Is currently an Apache project.

1.1.20 JNIJava Native Interface, a framework supported in JVM.

1.1.21 JPAJava Persistence API, a framework that allows developers to manage relational data in applications using Java.

1.1.22 JREJava Runtime Environment, an environment that enables execution of java applications through JVM.

1.1.23 JSF 2.0Java Server Faces version 2.0, a web-application framework which specializes in easing development of


Report part 3

java user interfaces for web applications.


Report part 3

1.1.24 JSPJava Server Pages, a Java technology that helps software developers serve dynamically generated web pages based on HTML, XML, or other document types.

1.1.25 JVMJava Virtual Machine parses java applications into java byte-code and executes them in a safe environment.

1.1.26 MySQLMySQL is a free relational database system.

1.1.27 PaaSPlatform As A Service, cloud computing service model.

1.1.28 PerlA high-level programming language.

1.1.29 PHPHypertext Preprocessor, high-level scripting language designed for web-development.

1.1.30 phpMyAdminA MySQL database management tool with a web-based graphical user interface.

1.1.31 Plug-inA small snippet of software that extends the capabilities of a larger program.

1.1.32 ProxyA proxy server is a network service that allows clients to make indirect network connections to other network services.

1.1.33 PythonA high-level programming language, much like Perl.

1.1.34

1.1.35 REST


Report part 3

Short for Representational State Transfer and is a style of software architecture, such as the World Wide Web. This term is better described in Report part 2, generally about the application.


Report part 3

1.1.36 SaaSService As A Service, cloud computing service model.

1.1.37 Schema-less and non-relational databaseNew generation of database systems that is often used in cloud environments. They are more scalable and easier to distribute over servers. These databases are often not bound to a schema, like ordinary relational databases.

1.1.38 SDKSoftware Development Kit

1.1.39 SQLStructured Query Language, used to query relational databases in general.

1.1.40 SVNShort for subversion, which is used for revisioning control of multiple text- and code files.

1.1.41 TomcatCommonly used web-server for java applications. Is currently an Apache project.

1.1.42 T-SQLTransact-SQL or Transact Structured Query Language. Is Microsoft’s extension of SQL and is commonly used to query Microsoft SQL databases.

1.1.43 URIUniform Resource Identifier

1.1.44 URLUniform Resource Locator, is an URI and is often called link or hyperlink.

1.1.45 Visual StudioA software development environment, created by and for Microsoft products and programming languages.

1.1.46 VMVirtual Machine, a software implementation of a computer, which executes programs like a physical machine.


Report part 3

1.1.47 WASWindows Azure Platform

1.1.48 WhitelistA list of approved entities. In this case approved java classes.


Report part 3

2 Product requirements

2.1 PrefaceThe motivation for this document is to create a unity between Accenture as the commissioning party, and the student group on points vital to direct our focus onto areas Accenture care about. Furthermore the product requirements have defined project boundaries and requirements for quality assurance and project outcome.

The initial project specifications given by Accenture have been the basis for this project. Some of the requirements were rigid and others were more up to the project group to decide. This document can be adjusted as time goes by, based on new findings, requirements or technical difficulties.

This document is also intended to give the reader insight into our thesis, both on a superficial level and in greater detail.

2.2 IntroductionThis introduction contains some background information about the project, along with some more details regarding the assignment. First we start off with who we are, a short note about our employer before going more deep into the assignment and its goals.

2.3 Group dynamicThe group consisted of Harald B. Kleppe, Hans R. Løvland and Karl Gustav Røksund.All group members knew each other from earlier projects and assignments at HiO, and knew what to expect from one another.Because of good communication, a great group dynamic and same level of ambition, we decided to form this group.

2.4 EmployerThe employer on this bachelor thesis is Accenture Norway. Accenture is a consulting and outsourcing company with more than 170,000 employees globally.

Our technical advisor, Ole Hansen is a Senior System Analyst at Accenture, and is leading the ”emerging” capability. In this capacity, he has a great interest in measurable and hands-on experiences with the different vendors of cloud computing. Ole also has experience from both a developer and application architect perspective at various large projects. Thus he is well equipped to act as the project advisor in as well as the commissioning party.


Report part 3

2.5 Assignment descriptionThe assignment itself was defined pretty much from top to bottom when received from employer and is basically it is an analysis assignment with a smaller programming part.What we are going to do is to develop a Proof of Concept (PoC) application, which will be deployed on different cloud computing environments. We will along the way produce reports on how we have experienced development of the PoC application, migrating it and testing it. These reports will be our final product delivered to our employer.

2.6 Why this assignment?We agreed that we wanted something "more" than an assignment to develop a random website, and went on to look for an assignment which was a few steps away from ordinary.

Our reasons to choose this assignment over any other were partially because Cloud Computing is a very "hot" and trendy in the IT world, and the fact that it is also a less explored felt tempting. We also appreciated that this assignment not only required brute programming skills but also analytical skills and abilities to see both opportunities and limits in different aspects of the field. Both the opportunity and the possibility to make new discoveries urged us to want this thesis.

2.7 Goals of this thesisThe goal of this thesis is to compare different cloud computing vendors. Cloud Computing is an area of focus for Accenture, and want practical experience with the utilization of these platforms on a real application. Our final product to Accenture will be reports containing information about different possibilities of the platforms, development factors, how they perform, scale and how their pricing schemes compare. The application we develop is in other words just a tool we will use to compare these platforms and not itself the goal of the thesis.

To differentiate the stages in the thesis, the assignment will be split into three parts. Where each part goes in depth of different aspects and end in a report.

The result of this thesis will be used as an in-depth resource internally at Accenture to take more educated decisions while choosing cloud computing providers.


Report part 3

2.8 The ReportsAs earlier mentioned, our final product delivered to our employer Accenture will be three stand-alone reports regarding three different aspects of utilizing cloud computing. Every report will be finished before starting on the next part of the project and a new report. This way we can focus more specific on each part. Time wise part two and three will each have double the amount of time spent on part one.

2.8.1 Part 1 - Vendor analysis and comparisonAs a requirement from Accenture, the first part in our assignment is to write a report on analysis and comparison regarding cloud computing in general. This includes an introduction to what cloud computing is, pros and cons, today's situation, but our main focus will be the research around these three cloud vendors, and a general comparison of them. Because we have not used and tested the different vendors yet, this report will analyze and compare based on information on a more superficial level than part B and C. Typically the vendors documentation, pricing schemes and third party articles.

2.8.2 Part 2 - Hands on developmentReport part B will be all about "Hands on Cloud Computing"In this part we actually develop a proof of concept application on one of the cloud vendors, and then migrate this application onto the two other vendors. This report will not have documentation on the PoC application itself but more on how to get started developing, deployment, user friendliness, pitfalls we discover and general development experiences using the different clouds. For Accenture this report will be almost like a user guide to developing an application on cloud computing.

2.8.3 Part 3 - Performance comparison"Cloud performance" is the keyword best describing this report. A series of tests will be run on each cloud vendor using our PoC application developed in "part B", and the results will give us a fair chance to compare the cloud vendors.The report will contain performance numbers for different scenarios when using the PoC application in the three clouds. Costs for the different scenarios will also be considered along with how elastic the clouds are and suggestions of how to optimize the costs.


Report part 3

2.9 The ApplicationTo help us analyze and compare the different cloud vendors, as mentioned earlier, a proof of concept application must be developed. It is Accenture’s desire that the application will be developed using Java programming language and include the functional requirements listed below.

2.9.1 Functional requirementsThe initial requirements from the assignment:

1. The web page should use CSS and contain a minimum of one picture.2. The GUI should contain:

Se a list of all arrangements. Complete a booking of a ticket for a given arrangement (both specified and unspecified tickets). Create/edit/delete a user profile. The possibility to make a reservation with an existing user profile, or to make one when you

make the order. An administration page where you can add arrangements, so that you don't need to manipulate

the database directly.

The final requirements we and Accenture have agreed upon regarding the PoC is this:

Nr. Business Topic Requirement Priority H/M/L

Validation Conditions

1.1 User Account User registration is available H a new user can be stored in the database

1.2 User Account User can log in H system can check if user is valid

2.1 Navigation A user can list all available events H events will be fetched from database and presented to user

2.2 Navigation A user can list top 10 events M top 10 events will be fetched from db and presented to user

2.3 Navigation A user can sort events by category L events will be fetched and sorted by selected category

2.4 Navigation A user can view all event info given certain event

H all event info is presented when event is selected

2.5 Navigation A user should only be presented with a given number of arrangements at a given page

L the system will fetch and present 10 events at one page

3.1 Ordering Reserving tickets H A user (logged in or


Report part 3

not) can reserve tickets, to confirm them later

3.1.1 Ordering An unregistered/not logged in user can reserve tickets

H A user can reserve tickets to an event before logging in. The unconfirmed ticket shall be made available for the customer to confirm when he/her is registered and logged in

3.1.2 Ordering A registered/logged in user can reserve tickets

H A user can reserve tickets to an event. They will be available for the given customer to confirm within a given time

3.2 Ordering A registered/logged in user can confirm and order already reserved tickets

H A user can confirm a reservation when he/she is registered, logged in and the tickets are paid for

3.3 Ordering A registered/logged in user will get a order confirmation page

H When a sale is full filled, the user will be presented with a confirmation

4.1 Technical Architecture

Communication between the layers shall be RESTfull

H A stateless system. Layers shall be loosely coupled.

5.1 Administration An admin can add an event H add a new event and save it in the database

5.2 Administration An admin can edit an event H edit details on a event in the database

5.3 Administration An admin can delete an event H delete an event from the database

5.4 Administration An admin can list the time from opening till all tickets sold

M see the time it took to sell out all tickets for an event

For instance has edit and delete user requirements been dropped, because they have no impact on the tests we are going to run anyway.


Report part 3

2.9.2 Other requirementsTo fulfill the requirement of the application being restful, we need to split the application in half. First part being the graphical user interface (the webpage), loosely coupled with the back-end logic layer.

As a requirement not listed from Accenture but from ourselves, is that the application must be useable via the command-line tool cURL. This is because we want to have the ability to reach/manipulate the logic layer of the application, without having to go through the front-end GUI layer.

2.9.3 TestingThe actual testing of the application can be viewed as the final destination, where we utilize the application to compare the platforms in a way that is as close as possible to a real world use case.

The default test scenario is displayed in the flowchart to the right.

The plan is to run the test on different levels of intensity, to see how the cloud scales and handles different load. We will also do a cost calculation on the different levels, and maybe suggest how this can be optimized.


Report part 3

3 Pre-project report

3.1 Summary This project is our bachelor thesis at Oslo University College, spring of 2010. The assignment given to us by our employer is to utilize and test three different Cloud Computing vendors. The assignment will include how it is to develop for the different vendors, how easily you can migrate an application from one vendor to the next and finally testing how well the vendors cope under massive stress testing. The background for this thesis is the building hype around cloud computing services. We will take a look at what some of these service providers actually deliver.

3.2 Commissioning party Accenture is the commissioning party of this thesis, and the final report and conclusion will be made available for Accenture-employees internationally. The basis of the thesis is to compare a few chosen service providers in this market and get an overview of how their services can be utilized.

Accenture is a consulting and outsourcing company with 177,000 employees globally (2009 - wikipedia).

3.3 Assignment descriptionThe assignment itself is basically an analysis assignment with a smaller programming part.What we are going to do is to develop a Proof of Concept (PoC) application, which will be deployed on different cloud computing environments. We will along the way produce reports on how we have experienced development of the PoC application, migrating it and testing it. These reports will be our final product delivered to our employer.

3.4 Goals of this thesisThe goal of this thesis is to compare different cloud computing vendors. Cloud Computing is an area of focus for Accenture, and want practical experience with the utilization of these platforms on a real application. Our final product to Accenture will be reports containing information about different possibilities of the platforms, development factors, how they perform, scale and how their pricing schemes compare. The application we develop are in other words just a tool we will use to compare these platforms, and not itself the goal of the thesis.

To differentiate the stages in the thesis, it will be spilt into three parts. Where each goes in depth of different aspects and end in a report.

The result of this thesis will be used as a in-depth resource internally at Accenture to take more educated decisions while choosing cloud computing providers.


Report part 3

3.5 Requirements and restrictions We are relatively free to make our own decisions within the nature of this thesis. The most significant restriction was that Google App Engine and Amazon Web Services were decided while we chose the third and last provider to be Microsoft's Windows Azure platform.

Our choice of programming language was narrowed down to a few by Google App Engine, which primarily supports Python and Java. Java is also supported by Azure. Also Ole (our technical advisor) preferred us using Java because that's a programming language he had a lot of experience with.

3.6 MethodologyOur development method is going to be Unified Process (UP). This because we are going to have part deliveries on our weekly status meetings, and this methodology gives us the opportunity to change the program as we go along and get input from our employer.

3.7 SolutionsNow, some rather big decisions was made during our planning period, although some of them was already made from the start, like the two preselected CC providers Google App Engine and Amazon Web Services.

Since the third CC provider was not pre-selected, we had to make a decision. We picked the Windows Azure platform as our third. Why? Because we want to check if Microsoft can compete with future technology, and the Windows Azure platform did have support for Java, which brings us to another important decision we've made.

We have chosen to develop our application using Java, since it is the only programming language supported by all three CC vendors.

Having to develop our application using different programming languages on the three CC providers would cause us to rewrite the whole application for migration to the next CC provider, and that is a lot of extra work and would not give us the same possibility to compare the benchmark results in the final tests.

Java is also free of charge and works great with open-source developing tools. Java is used daily in development and will give good experience in later developing projects.

Eclipse is the most likely candidate to be our developing tool. This is because we have a lot of good experiences with this program and it is also what our technical advisor suggested we use.


Report part 3

3.8 Conclusion Since we have much freedom in this project and can choose much of the programming principles and technologies we want to use, we try not to lock ourselves in to a corner by already now saying definitively what technologies and programming principles we want to use. We have a lot of research to do before deciding what we can use concerning the different cloud computing platforms and services.


Report part 3

4 Status reports

4.1 Status report, week 1 This week was mostly about planning. We've made a project plan covering both big and small milestones throughout the project. We also decided to choose Windows Azure as the third cloud computing service provider.

We choose Azure because of Microsoft's general position in the market - they are huge, but struggling to keep up. In addition, their platform was release to the general public January 1st 2010, so the platform is fairly new and "unexplored".

Others things we've done this week is taking a closer look at the RESTful architecture, JavaServer Pages and what the three cloud service providers have to offer. All three of us completed Google's AppEngine introduction tutorial.

We also decided to develop the application for Google App engine, and when it's working we'll start and transform the application over to AWS and Azure simultaneously. The reason behind this decision is partly to have one platform initially, and to test how it is to move an application from App Engine to another provider. (Google say App Engine is designed to make this operation feasible.)

4.1.1 Plans for the next week The main task next week will be to start on the comparison of the three services we have chosen. We'll look at all aspects of all three and look for pitfalls we could run into during both development and testing.

We'll also take a closer look at architectures and design patterns. And maybe a peek at Jmeter to get a little insight on what we should expect of the testing.


Report part 3

4.2 Status report, week 2 This week our main goal was to start working on Part 1 of our project, which is all about Cloud Computing analyses and comparison. A lot of information was gathered around the three different CC providers this week, and our pre-project report is starting to take shape.

We had a meeting with our project advisor, Eva, on Monday this week. And there we agreed on having a weekly meeting with her every Monday from here on out. Based on that have we decided to work at school on Mondays.

Other things that we’ve done this week are fully finishing our project site with hour-registration, to-do list function, project-files upload and daily log function.

4.2.1 Plans for the next week Primary goal next week is finishing our pre-project report which is due the 29th of January 2010. If we finish early we'll use the rest of the week to work on the report for part one of our project: "Analyses and Comparison".

4.2.2 Missing from Status report, week 1What we missed in our first report was that we have decided to try and program the test-website in a RESTful way. We did this because our Accenture technical advisor suggested it as a neat way to get the website to scale more easily. We also decided to use Eclipse as our programming platform. And this was because most of the CC suppliers supported Eclipse plugins to make the programming easier.


Report part 3

4.3 Status report, week 3This week we did reach our primary goal which was finishing our pre-project report. We also got working on the report about "Analysis and Comparison". Still have a lot left to do on this report which will be the only thing we focus on next week.

On the meeting with our project advisor, Eva, on Monday we mainly discussed the pre-project report. We also discussed the possibility to have a server on the school to run our tests from. Other things we discussed was references to text we copy from different sites/books and when to arranging a meeting between Eva and Accenture.

4.3.1 Plans for the next week Primary and only goal next week is finishing part one of our project, the report on "Analysis and Comparison" which will be sent to our technical advisor Ole on Friday the 5th of February. If we should finish early, we will start preparing for part two, developing.


Report part 3

4.4 Status report, week 4We did reach this week’s only goal, Part one- the "Analysis and Comparison" report is finished and handed in to our technical advisor Ole. We did get to borrow a server from school, which will be used for testing. The machine is now configured and ready.

Eva didn't have time to have meet us this week for our weekly meeting, so issues or questions will be taken care of in next week’s meeting on Monday.

4.4.1 Plans for the next weekNext week we start preparing for part two "Developing". This means a lot of planning and studying different programming architectures + methods. We also have to hold a short presentation of our finished pre-project report at school.


Report part 3

4.5 Status report, week 5This week presenting the pre-project report on our school and researching different frameworks for our application has been the main focus. The reason for framework research is to develop the application more trouble free.

On other notes we are having trouble uploading and testing our application to the Google App Engine server because of the PROXY here at Accenture Oslo office.

4.5.1 Plans for the next week Next week is scheduled for programming start, but first we have to be done planning the app. So we hope by the end of next week, the application is under development.


Report part 3

4.6 Status report week 6We worked with the Part one report and a requirement specification on Monday this week. Tuesday went to further learning about JSP, RESTlet etc. We also had a session where we went through planning of the graphical interface of the site (different pages etc). We have also set up a SVN server at our machine at school and are getting ready to start writing code.

There are still a few questions to be answered regarding the report for part one.

We are way more confident to start developing today then we were last week or even on Monday.

4.6.1 Plans for next weekKarl Gustav and Harald are quite busy with exams at school next week and Hans are out of Oslo. We will see what we can get done but our main focus will be elsewhere.

We will start development of the PoC application with 100% focus on Monday 1st March.


Report part 3

4.7 Status report, week 7This week we have come to a few conclusions. We are going to use Java Server Faces framework to build the GUI part of the application.

We have also decided to put the data access layer and the logic layer in the same application instead of having them in two separate layers. The background for this decision is to minimize overhead and cut one link to reduce latency. We also expect the total codebase to be smaller with this solution.

The parts of the data access & logic layer that is unique for each platform will be isolated into separate packages to ease the migration to other vendors.

We are also running behind schedule on development for app engine, and are afraid we won't be done before the end of next week. The background for this is the time we have spent testing frameworks that we have ended up not using. Either due to compatibility problems with AppEngine or that the framework was overkill for our use.

4.7.1 Plans for the next weekWe will do our best to work in the time we have lost to meet next week’s deadline. We believe we have overcome many of the uncertainties and challenges of the implementation for App Engine. So we are confident about the future.


Report part 3

4.8 Status report, week 8This week we have used all the time available to try and catch up with the project plan. The GUI layer of our application is up and running and so is the BLL/DAL layer, but they're missing some logic to handle ordering of tickets and so forth. The BLL/DAL layer is giving out JSON strings but we have problems parsing the data back to JSON objects.

The fact that we have been using all of our time to program has come at the cost of other work. Like "product requirements" and other documents.

4.8.1 Plans for the next weekThe plans for next week will be the same as this week. Take back the time lost on trying and rejecting java frameworks.


Report part 3

4.9 Status report, week 10The plan for this week was to get the application running on AWS and Azure. AWS are almost done, the application is working properly in Tomcat and the database class to handle users are up and running with a MySQL database.

We looked at the possibilities of dropping JDO as datastore base on App Engine in favor of JPA (because we wanted to use hibernate on AWS). But doing this will not make the transition between these platforms any easier, since we still will have to rewrite the Store-classes when moving to AWS. We are also keen on get this application running on AWS, to at least have something to compare.

Hans have spent quite some time on working with Azure, without any luck. There are actually very few examples or articles to be found about Java in Azure. And those we have been able to dig up are not very helpful. The closest are a video of a Microsoft-guy giving a keynote on PDC last autumn, where he presents a walkthrough on a "Hello world"-application. Hans have followed this walkthrough step by step without any luck. He also promises to publish this code on his blog, but the code is not to be found anywhere.

4.9.1 Next weekHans and Karl Gustav will be gone in the Easter holyday. Harald are planning to work further with AWS at least Monday and Tuesday.


Report part 3

4.10 Status report, week 11There have not been the biggest efforts put down this week due to the Easter vacation. Hans have put some work into the database classes of the AWS application while Harald have done some work on different aspects of the AWS deployment and the report for part 2.

4.10.1 Plan for next weekComplete the application for AWS and Start to look at testing methods.


Report part 3

4.11 Status report - week 12This week we've encountered several new problems, which is obviously not a good thing since we already are behind schedule. The first problem we've found is that our front-end GUI (JSF) doesn't keep track of sessions. Second problem; we're having some difficulties running the front-end app on AWS and back-end for AWS is still not completely done. Our third focus is Azure. We have got in touch with some people from Avanade/Accenture (in Seattle) and hopefully we will get it working as soon as possible.

Other than a lot of discoveries this week, we've also started working on Report part 2 - Development for the cloud.

4.11.1 Plans for next weekThis week’s problems will be next week’s goals, plus we have to start working out some test methods for the application.


Report part 3

4.12 Status report - week 13This week has been used to finish up development. And the logic-application is ready on all three platforms. We are still working on database hosting on Azure, but AWS and GAE are ready.

The issues we experienced with session handling in the GUI layer are solved as well, and we are getting closer to a running GUI layer in Jetty on EC2.

We have also started to get familiar with JMeter and will spend some more time on it this week.

The draft for Report Part 2 is taking shape and will be handed in this Friday.

4.12.1 Next weekNext week will hopefully be used for testing exclusively.


Report part 3

4.13 Status report, week 14All though we said this week was all about testing exclusively, planning and making the test-scenarios took a bit more time than expected. This week we have successfully tried our testing tool JMeter in master/slave mode on several Rackspace Cloud Servers. This means we are ready to get the results for part 3 of the project.

Due to planning/billing, we've made a price-matrix for our project advisor (Ole) which did help us create reasonable/affordable test-scenarios.

4.13.1 Next weekFirst off next week we're having yet another presentation for our student advisor Eva. The presentation will be a short wrap-up of how far we've come, and hopefully include some test-results. Testing will be first priority the rest of next week and we hope to have results for all test-scenarios by the end of next week. And if we've got some time to spare, report part 3 will be the main focus.


Report part 3

4.14 Status report - week 15We have experienced quite a bit of trouble with scaling on Google App Engine this week. The problems are related to datastore activities, and we have done both research and code modifications to work out the issue. We are not where we want yet, but we are closer to the target.

Specifically the issues are that we run out of quota on API call to the datastore, without any warnings showing up in the dashboard! This results in blocking of queries, and therefore no tickets sold (or just a low number of tickets in a long time).

In other words, these problems are related to our knowledge/skills on how the GAE datastore works under pressure. (Things that have worked smoothly before are not working under stress)

Amazon on the other hand is performing well over our expectations without any problems so far.

This means that we have no tests to base fear performance comparisons on at the moment.

4.14.1 Next weekFinish up testing and continue documenting.


Report part 3

4.15 Status report, week 16 What we’ve done this week is exactly what was planned for last week; finishing up testing and continue documenting! We’ve successfully ran almost 15 official tests on different levels this week and we finally begin having some real data we can conclude with in report part 3. As for documentation, report part 1 is grammar/spelling checked and is very close to final and report part 2 is grammar/spelling checked and almost finished. We have also started working on report part 3.

4.15.1 Next week

Finishing up report part 3 along with further tests. We also have to start working on the main bachelor report, which we should have done this week.


Report part 3

4.16 Status report, week 17 This week we have analyzed the data from the previous tests. We have also begun writing on the final documents for the school and for Accenture. This is the final progress report and Report part 3.

4.16.1 Next WeekSince we are rapidly closing in on the due date for this project, all efforts are going in to completing the reports in time for delivery.


Report part 3

4.17 Status report, week 18Reports have been in focus this week. Both the reports we have to deliver at school and report part 3. All of them are starting to take shape, but there is still some work left. We are also eager to get feedback on the work we have put into report part 3.

We have arranged a graphics designer to create a logo for our project. (A friend of Hans who is studying graphical design in Australia)

4.17.1 Plans for next week We will continue to work with the completion of the reports, they should be done by Friday next week. (Deadline is Monday 31th at 12:00, but we have to get them printed before that)


Report part 3

Status report - week 19

This week we have finished the school report and all the different parts that go into it. We are hoping to finish early to get the report printed at Accenture's own printing department.

4.17.2 Plans for next week Next week we are going to prepare our oral presentation to our appointed examiner and for Accenture.


Report part 3

5 Log(Written in our native language, Norwegian)

Distribution of working hours

Date: 25.05.2010 (Tuesday)Hans (4.5 timer): hjemme: rapport rapport rapportHans (8.5 timer): rapportskrivning!Harald (7 timer): rapport arbeidKarl Gustav(8 timer): HIO: rapport skriving

Date: 24.05.2010 (Monday)Hans (5 timer): hovedprosjekt jobbing!Harald (5 timer): rapportKarl Gustav (5 timer): HIO: Rapportskriving

Date: 21.05.2010 (Friday)Hans(6 timer): hovedprosjektrapport, teknisk ordbok, ferdigstilt rap.del 1, kravspek og ordbokHarald(6 timer): rapport del 3

Date: 19.05.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(9.5 timer): rapportskrivningHarald(10.5 timer): rapport del 3, møte med oleKarl Gustav(9.5 timer): Fornebu: Rapportskriving. Statusmøte med Ole.

Date: 18.05.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(10 timer): hovedprosjektrapport, statusmøte med evaHarald(10 timer): rapport del 3, møte med evaKarl Gustav(8.5 timer): HIO: Hovedprosjekt rapprot. Status møte med Eva

Date: 17.05.2010 (Monday)Harald(3 timer): rapport del 3 og jobbing med resultatene fra testene

Date: 16.05.2010 (Sunday)Harald(4 timer): rapportskriving og tallknusing


Report part 3

Date: 13.05.2010 (Thursday)Hans(1.75 timer): prosessrapport

Date: 12.05.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(7.5 timer): prosessrapport,statusmøte med oleKarl Gustav(4.5 timer): Hovedprosjektrapport. Måtte gå før statusmøte med Ole, ppga krise på jobben.

Date: 11.05.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(9 timer): skrive rapporterHarald(9 timer): Rapport er gøyKarl Gustav(9 timer): HIO: Skriving på rappoter.

Date: 10.05.2010 (Monday)Hans(9 timer): report part 3, evamøte, hovedprosjektrapportHarald(10 timer): rapport 3 arbeid (analysering av tester og jobbing med grafer og stuff)Karl Gustav(9 timer): HIO: skrev rapport og hadde møte med Eva om rapportskriving.

Date: 09.05.2010 (Sunday)Harald(2 timer): litt justeringer på perl-scriptet

Date: 08.05.2010 (Saturday)Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: Skriving.

Date: 07.05.2010 (Friday)Harald(1 timer): perl-scriptet som analyserer jtl-filene

Date: 06.05.2010 (Thursday)Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: Skriving.

Date: 05.05.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(1 timer): satt opp og kjørt ny gae test,lasta opp res.Hans(5 timer): rettskrivning rapport 1 og 2, azure rapport 2, statusrapportHarald(5.5 timer): perl script som tolker jtl filerKarl Gustav(2.5 timer): Fornebu: Jobbet med prosjektet etter kurs. Testing, sriving og møte med Ole.

Date: 04.05.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(8 timer): testing, rapport 1 og 2 rettskrivningHarald(8.5 timer): stort sett rapport nummer 2Karl Gustav(4 timer): Syk hjemme: testing.

Date: 03.05.2010 (Monday)Hans(9.5 timer): test/testresultater, rapport 2Harald(10.5 timer): testing og rapport-greier. En del på rapport del 2, og en del jobbing med organisering


Report part 3

av data / grafer til part 3Karl Gustav(4 timer): Syk hjemme: testing.

Date: 28.04.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(8 timer): møte med ole, jmeter testing/feilsøkingHarald(8.5 timer): rapport, testing, gae optimalisering, møte med oleKarl Gustav(8 timer): Fornebu: møte med ole, jmeter testing/feilsøking

Date: 27.04.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(8 timer): jmeter testingHarald(3 timer): hjemme: sharded counters, andre måter å fikse GAE påHarald(8 timer): rapport, testing, gae ytelsesproblemer. amazon <3Karl Gustav(9 timer): HIO: Testing og feilsøking i dal laget. På slutten av dagen prøvde jeg meg å lære meg hvordan jeg laget en shared counter til GAE.

Date: 26.04.2010 (Monday)Hans(10 timer): jmeter testing, fremføring, kjørt testerHarald(8 timer): testing og tweeking. Fremføring for eva&coKarl Gustav(8.5 timer): HIO: Presentasjon av prosjektet for Eva. Feilretting og testing m.Jmeter.

Date: 23.04.2010 (Friday)Karl Gustav(4 timer): Hjemme: Fikk jetty til å kjøre på en Amazon maskin.

Date: 21.04.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(11.25 timer): hva har jeg ikke gjort? statusrapport,rackspace slaver,jmeter,prismatrise,endring startupscripts++Karl Gustav(11.5 timer): Fornebu: Testing med Jmeter. Status møte med Ole. Fiksing av feil i DAL laget. Få GUI laget opp å kjøre på AWS.

Date: 20.04.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(7 timer): rackspace install script, testplannleggingKarl Gustav(6.5 timer): HIO: Jmeter og litt rapport skriving

Date: 19.04.2010 (Monday)Hans(8 timer): report part 2 redigering til førsteutkast levert,leste litt om jmeter og testscenarioer Harald(10 timer): jmeter, begge testene ser ut til å funke nå (på lokalmaskin). Fiksa sessions problemene ved å lage testen vha jmeter sin proxyKarl Gustav(8 timer): HIO: Jmeter og litt JSF fiksing

Date: 16.04.2010 (Friday)Harald(4 timer): jmeter styr


Report part 3

Date: 15.04.2010 (Thursday)Hans(6 timer): report part 2 about Azure!Harald(2 timer): jmeter. ser ut til at vi sliter litt med jsf sine sessions. distribusjon av testing i jmeter funker kun i samme subnet. =problem for oss

Date: 14.04.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(10.5 timer): azure sql legges på glattisen, report part 2 fokus!Harald(11 timer): fant ut at jeg hadde fikset feilen med bekretelse. Og at den funket lokalt, men ikke skyen tirsdag ettermiddag hadde fikset seg. mye Jmeter og bittelitt rapportKarl Gustav(2 timer): Hjemme: Skrev mer i statusrapporten.Karl Gustav(9 timer): Fornebu: Fikset \\\"ferdig\\\" JSF. Skrev litt i rapport del 2. Statusmøte med Ole.

Date: 13.04.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(8 timer): azure, report part 2, jmeterHarald(8 timer): aws og gae. oppdaget en feil med bekreftelse av ordre som spiste noe tid. Karl Gustav(3 timer): Hjemme: Satt og fikk endelig JSF opp å kjøre. Virker som alt utenom bruker registrering fungerer.Karl Gustav(8 timer): HIO: Gikk tilbake til en tidligere versjon av JSF for å se om det hjelpte. Det ser det ut til å ha gjort.

Date: 12.04.2010 (Monday)Hans(10 timer): Azure, Jmeter Harald(11 timer): DAL på GAE og AWS er blitt veldig ferdig. Også en del tid til Azure (snakk med Arvin osv)Karl Gustav(9.5 timer): HIO: Sessjons JSF

Date: 11.04.2010 (Sunday)Karl Gustav(4 timer): Hjemme: Fant ut av det med sessions i JSF

Date: 10.04.2010 (Saturday)Karl Gustav(1.5 timer): Hjemme: Fant ut av det med sessions i JSF

Date: 09.04.2010 (Friday)Hans(4 timer): jmeter/azureHarald(4 timer): AWS og selenium/jmeter. Selenium ser ikke ut til å være det vi er på jakt etter..Karl Gustav(3 timer): HIO: Sessions JSF

Date: 07.04.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(10.5 timer): aws backend classer, statusrapport + azure studeringHarald(10.5 timer): AWS databaseklasser, frem og tilbake med azure-gutta i Seattle, møte med Ole, Karl Gustav(10.5 timer): Fornebu: Satt og fikset AWS opp på jetty. Fikk inn sessions i JSF for etterpå å få vite at sessions bibiloteket ikke fungere på GAE...


Report part 3

Date: 06.04.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(2 timer): mail svar, azure, SYKHarald(9.5 timer): aws-dal, rapport part 2, en del rundt azure og frem og til bake med gutta fra seattle osvKarl Gustav(8.5 timer): HIO: Skrev på del 2 av rapporten til Accenture.

Date: 05.04.2010 (Monday)Karl Gustav(3 timer): Videre med feilsøking og oppdatering til GAE SDK 3.2.1-->3.2.2

Date: 04.04.2010 (Sunday)Karl Gustav(4 timer): Hjemme: Jobbet videre med siden. Funnet en feil med at det virker som om jeg har samme sessjonnen når jeg logger på med to forskjellige Browsere. Brukte noe tid på å feilsøke dette.

Date: 03.04.2010 (Saturday)Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: Satte meg inn i hva jeg hadde gjort sist og hvor jeg skulle begynne igjen. Fikk gjort litt med "nytt arrangement".

Date: 31.03.2010 (Wednesday)Harald(7.5 timer): aws greier, litt rapport 2, møte med ole

Date: 30.03.2010 (Tuesday)Harald(2 timer): arbeid ifm deploying til aws

Date: 29.03.2010 (Monday)Harald(3 timer): prøvde å gjøre noen triks i ludo for å samkjøre svn for aws og gae. det funka for aws, men desverre ikke så bra for gae

Date: 24.03.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(10 timer): aws mysql -lag, statusmøte med oleHarald(8 timer): full fart med aws og litt utvikling på gaeKarl Gustav(10 timer): HIO: Jobbet med JSF, site biten av siden + statusmøte med Ole.

Date: 23.03.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(11.5 timer): windows azure (feilet), derfor aws db lagHarald(10 timer): litt aws og brukt alt for mye tid på gae db-laget. (justeringer etter rot fra min egen side) og mer pissKarl Gustav(11.5 timer): HIO: Jobbet med JSF, site biten av siden.

Date: 22.03.2010 (Monday)Hans(9.5 timer): windows azure deployment!Harald(11.5 timer): en del utforsking på AWS. Fått i gang instanser, fått Restlet-applikasjonen til å kjøre på tomcat og en del tid til GAEKarl Gustav(11.5 timer): HIO: Jobbet med JSF, site biten av siden.


Report part 3

Date: 19.03.2010 (Friday)Hans(7 timer): ferdigstilt førsteutkast kravspesifikasjonHarald(7 timer): KRAVSPECKarl Gustav(6 timer): Kravspek

Date: 17.03.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(11 timer): fagdag,statusmøte og kravspekHarald(11 timer): fagdag og møte med Ole. Litt kravspek på sluttenKarl Gustav(9 timer): Fornebu: JSF2.0 workshop +Møte med Ole.

Date: 16.03.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(8 timer): kravspek, gui-backendHarald(8 timer): db-laget, begynner å nærme segKarl Gustav(8 timer): Kravspek + JSF programering

Date: 15.03.2010 (Monday)Hans(11.5 timer): restlet gui-db lagHarald(12 timer): restlet/db-lag. fått på plass en del funksjonalitetKarl Gustav(12 timer): JSF, og jobbet litt på den nye kravspesifikasjonen.

Date: 14.03.2010 (Sunday)Harald(2 timer): hjemme: jobbing med restlet/databaselaget

Date: 13.03.2010 (Saturday)Harald(1 timer): litt jobbing hjemmefra. videre på resletKarl Gustav(2 timer): JSF adminArrangements.xhtml

Date: 12.03.2010 (Friday)Karl Gustav(4 timer): JSF GUIUserLogic GUIAdminLogic

Date: 11.03.2010 (Thursday)Hans(1.5 timer): hjemme: lagd 2 gui-backend metoderKarl Gustav(3 timer): JSF

Date: 10.03.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(8 timer): reslet client/json metoderHarald(8 timer): videre på DB-laget

Date: 09.03.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(8.5 timer): reslet client/jsonHarald(8 timer): db-lag


Report part 3

Date: 08.03.2010 (Monday)Hans(8 timer): restlet client/jsonHarald(9.5 timer): DB/logikklag. Ting begynner å skje her nå. Men det gjennstår forsatt en del arbeidKarl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: Fikk en redirect til å endre på adressen i adressefeltet.Karl Gustav(2 timer): Hjemme: Har nå fått til *conditional redirect*.(+ at login fungerer)Karl Gustav(5 timer): HIO: satt og jobbet med å få brukerinnlogging til å fungere i JSF.

Date: 07.03.2010 (Sunday)Harald(2 timer): hjemme: videre med samme som lørdagenKarl Gustav(5 timer): Hjemme: Fikk linking innad i siden til å fungere. Nå kan du gå ifra forsiden til et spesifikkt arrangement med link.

Date: 06.03.2010 (Saturday)Hans(3.5 timer): logikklag/planleggingHarald(5 timer): Database/loggikklag. Ingen syk fremgang, bare mye mikkKarl Gustav(4 timer): HIO: jobbet med JSF og organisering/planlegging av klasser

Date: 04.03.2010 (Thursday)Hans(1 timer): Hjemme: lest mer om JSON/restletKarl Gustav(5 timer): HIO: Jobbet med å endre navn på pakkene og å planlegge sturkturen på selve GUI laget(klasser og metoder)

Date: 03.03.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(9.5 timer): presentasjon,lunsj,json/restlet,pakke-klasse-metode oversiktHarald(9.5 timer): foredrag osv. Jobbing med db-lagetKarl Gustav(8 timer): Fornebu: Presenterete prosjektet vår for styringsgruppen. Jobbet videre med å planlegge GUI biten og å lære meg JSF.

Date: 02.03.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(0.5 timer): Hjemme: presentasjon speaker-notesHans(6 timer): jsf dummysite, presentasjon for styringsgruppenHarald(8 timer): restlet og databaselag. forbredelser til presentasjon for styreingsgruppenKarl Gustav(0.5 timer): Hjemme: Jobbet med Presentasjonen for styringsgruppen.Karl Gustav(7.5 timer): HIO: Jobbet med presantasjonen for styringsgruppen og jobbet mer med JSF.

Date: 01.03.2010 (Monday)Hans(8.5 timer): kravspek, java server facesHarald(0.75 timer): hjemme: layout til nettstedetHarald(8.5 timer): restlet og kravspec på skolenKarl Gustav(9.5 timer): jobbet med å få til JSF og få til code behind filer


Report part 3

Date: 28.02.2010 (Sunday)Karl Gustav(5 timer): Fikk et JSF prosjekt til å kjøre på GAE. Begynner å få tiles til å kjøre på det prosjektet i måren.

Date: 23.02.2010 (Tuesday)Karl Gustav(3 timer): Undersøkelser rundt rammeverk. JFS osv.

Date: 19.02.2010 (Friday)Karl Gustav(3 timer): jobbing med å få til apache tiles

Date: 17.02.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(8 timer): websider gui, json, møte med oleHarald(7 timer): RESTlet, møte med OleKarl Gustav(8 timer): startet på å lage noen klasser og websider til gui delen

Date: 16.02.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(7 timer): planla websia,jsp og eclipse fiksHarald(8 timer): Planlegge utforming av GUI, RESTlet på DB lagetKarl Gustav(8 timer): Planla utformingen av GUI delen av websiden og holdt på med å få SVN til å fungere.

Date: 15.02.2010 (Monday)Hans(8 timer): report 1 finpussing + undervisningsmøte med evaHarald(8 timer): Report 1 og møte med EvaKarl Gustav(8 timer): Fellesmøte med Eva der vi fikk hvite hva som var forventet av kravspesifikasjonen. Videre så jobbet vi med å lære oss jsp

Date: 10.02.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(8 timer): rammeverk + møte med oleHarald(5.5 timer): RESTlet og møte med OleKarl Gustav(8 timer): Rammeverk og status møte med ole

Date: 09.02.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(7 timer): forskning på rammeverket wicket, og litt testingHarald(7 timer): forskning på rammeverker. RESTletKarl Gustav(2 timer): Hjemme: testing av rammeverket WicketKarl Gustav(6.5 timer): Acceture: Undersøkelser rundt og testing av rammeverket Wicket

Date: 08.02.2010 (Monday)Hans(7 timer): forprosjektrapport forbredelser + fremføringHarald(7 timer): stort sett forbredelser til fremføring av forprosjektrapportenKarl Gustav(7.5 timer): HIO: Forbredelse til framføring av forprosjekts rapport


Report part 3

Date: 05.02.2010 (Friday)Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: rapportskriving

Date: 04.02.2010 (Thursday)Karl Gustav(1.5 timer): Hjemme: rapport skriving

Date: 03.02.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(1 timer): Hjemme: rapport del 1 + litt rettskrivningHans(8 timer): rapport del 1 + møte med oleHarald(1 timer): hjemme: retting osv i rapportHarald(8.5 timer): fornebu: rapportskriving og møte med ole. Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: rapportskrivingKarl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Møte med ole og rapportskriving

Date: 02.02.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(4 timer): planlegging, div rapport del 1, ukas statusrappotHarald(8.5 timer): rapport del 1Karl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Rapportskriving Del 1

Date: 01.02.2010 (Monday)Hans(4 timer): rapport del 1 jobb + azure endringerHarald(2 timer): hjemme: lest om rest i bokamiHarald(4 timer): skolen: organisering/oppsett av maskin på skolen. noe på rapporten til del 1Karl Gustav(0 timer): Borte: Var borte denne dagen etter avtale.

Date: 27.01.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(8 timer): skrevet ferdig (?) om windows azure platform, til del 1 av prosjektet.Harald(8 timer): om aws til 1. del av rapporten, forprosjektrapport, møte med OleKarl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Møte med ole. Skrevet forprosjekt rapport.

Date: 26.01.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(8 timer): jobbet med forprosjektrapporte og gjort litt research rundt windows azure platformen generelt. + statusrapportHarald(8.5 timer): forprosjektrapport, amazon-sjekking, testing mot appengineKarl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Jobbet med forprosjektrapport.

Date: 25.01.2010 (Monday)Hans(7.5 timer): Skrevet i forprosjektrapporen, skrevet innledning til del 1 om Azure, studert litt rundt azure. Jobbet hjemmefraHarald(7.5 timer): forprosjektrapport, møte med eva, prosjekthjemmesidenKarl Gustav(5 timer): HIO: Skrevet på forprosjekt rapporten. Lest littegranne om appengine i pausene. Kl 13:00 hadde vi møte med Eva. Gikk kl 14:00, etter avtale.Karl Gustav(0.5 timer): Hjemme: Skrev mer på sumary i forprosjekt rapporten


Report part 3

Date: 20.01.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(1 timer): statusmøte med oleHarald(8 timer): statusrapport, forprosjektrapport, møte med ole, litt lasttesting mot app engineKarl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Statusrapport, forprosjektrapport, møte med ole, litt lasttesting mot app engine

Date: 19.01.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(8 timer): endel research rundt azure, møte om forprosjekt og ukas statusrapportHarald(8 timer): litt prosjekthjemmeside, en del researchKarl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Research og møte om research/forprosjekts rapport.

Date: 18.01.2010 (Monday)Hans(6 timer): statusrapport, møte med eva og datatrøbbel!Harald(6 timer): skrevet statusrapport for forrige uke, "møte" med eva, litt smålesing her og derKarl Gustav(6 timer): HIO: Føstedelen av dagen gikk til videre undersøkelser og på slutten av dagen hadde vi eit møte med den interne veilederen vår, Eva.

Date: 13.01.2010 (Wednesday)Hans(8 timer): fiksa tomcat lokalt! lekt litt med jsp og lest endel om windows azure!Harald(9 timer): prosjektplan og amazon-forskningKarl Gustav(2 timer): Hjemme: Lagde TODO listen til websiden.Karl Gustav(8.5 timer): Accenture: Snakket om hvordan testingen av Google Apps hadde gått. Mer undersløkelse. På slutten av dagen hadde vi et statusmøte med Ole

Date: 12.01.2010 (Tuesday)Hans(8 timer): prøvde å løse tomcat problemer. appengine study og dens introduksjonsguide fullført (fikk ikke lastet opp pga proxy)Harald(2.5 timer): prosjektplan-styr hjemmefra med fatter på øretHarald(8 timer): appengine, prosjektplanlegging og litt jmeterKarl Gustav(3 timer): Hjemme: Testet google app engine med å fullføre en av torturialene deres for java.Karl Gustav(8.5 timer): Accenture: Planla mer prosjektplan og leste videre om de forskjellige leverandørene.

Date: 11.01.2010 (Monday)Hans(7.5 timer): stort sett planlegging, litt lesing om restHarald(7.5 timer): stort sett planlegging. Litt java-utforskingKarl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Første vanlige dag på Accenture. Fant mer ut hva rest er og fordelte hvilke leverandører vi skulle konsentrere oss om.

Date: 10.01.2010 (Sunday)Harald(5 timer): laget websiden


Report part 3

Date: 07.01.2010 (Thursday)Hans(7.5 timer): inngangspass, pc-er, møte med ole, startet å planlegge prosjektetHarald(7.5 timer): første dag hos accenture på fornebuKarl Gustav(7.5 timer): Accenture: Først fikk vi inngangspass og pc-er så. Så hadde vi eit møte med Ole. Etter det så jobbet vi litt med å starte prosjektet og lastet ned noen programer vi trengte.

Date: 02.11.2009 (Monday)Hans(1 timer): Møte med accentureHarald(1 timer): møte hos accentureKarl Gustav(1 timer): Accenture: Første møte med Accenture.


Report part 3

6


Report part 3

Project plan


Report part 3



student.cs.hioa.nostudent.cs.hioa.no/.../data/2010/11/prosjektrapport-attach… · Web viewCloud...

Documents

Transcript of student.cs.hioa.nostudent.cs.hioa.no/.../data/2010/11/prosjektrapport-attach… · Web viewCloud...