
Notable Java code improvements in JBuilder 2005 include beefed-up support for refactoring, with a handful of wizards to automate changes to names and classes throughout projects. You can also annotate changes for distributed projects, so that other team members can see what's been changed and update their local code automatically. This feature alone can make all the difference for projects built across different time zones. A new refactoring wizard that changes your code to the new JDK 1.5 standard is another welcome addition.
This release focuses on improving existing code as much as it does on creating new code. Besides running code audits for style, JBuilder 2005 integrates Fortify Software's security-analysis tool. (An initial set of auditing rules comes free with JBuilder 2005. Updated rules cost $499 per year.) We audited a variety of legacy applicationsincluding an online store and travel applicationand the Fortify wizards made dozens of suggestions for improving our code. It even spotted a potentially troublesome "SQL injection" hack vulnerability in a Web-search form. Besides the standardand still powerfulintegrated debugger, a standout improvement in this release is the ability to profile server-side code with the bundled OptimizeIt Server Trace tool. This addition means that for the first time, JBuilder Enterprise developers can check server-side code to spot performance bottlenecks. Microsoft Visual Studio.NET has had this feature for some time.
JBuilder 2005 also supports the emerging JavaServer Faces 1.1 (JSF) standard, a new way to create multitiered architecture. JSF splits off the presentation logic (JSPs) and the underlying business logic, so developers can build more scalable, more maintainable applications.
JSF is the designated successor to Struts, which was first with a widely embraced solution. It encourages a new style of building Web applications using XML tags instead of Java code. The JSF support in JBuilder 2005 is not as visual an experience as Sun's new Java Creator Tool, but it let us design with about a dozen controls automating the cutting and pasting of (often elaborate) custom XML tags that build JSF user interfaces. Other wizards build behind-the-scenes components that perform event handling in JSF. We used these new features to convert a handful of vanilla JSPs into JSF-compliant pages.
Borland also presents a powerful Enterprise JavaBeans design tool for getting control of behind-the-scenes database and business components. An improved Web-services browser lets you generate stub code quickly for interoperating with other servers. Of course, you can create your own Web services too, using additional wizards.
Overall, for any team moving code to new JSF or JDK 1.5 standards, JBuilder 2005 will likely be a must-have upgrade. For anyone else, this all-purpose Java IDE has a good deal to offer geographically distributed software development teams.
More development environment software reviews:The importance of using professional tools during hair transplant surgery have long understood among hair restoration physicians. In modern hair restoration phyisicians look for the best service for their patients by using professional, efficient surgical tools and correct calculation of the amount of work that was done. When choosing the best professional tools the procedure is in high quality, more faster for the doctor and more comftarable for the patient. Many doctors choose the Cole Instruments products and report great success. Therefore, we chose to include a testimonial page that list doctors and companies that use our products. Don't forget to come back and check our Testimonial Page for new testimonials!
We are using the wonderful RS-Monials component by rswebsols.com on the testimonial page.
Many including me have requested to have the option to use sef url with it.From my experience, most people who identify as conservative out here are mostly fiscal conservatives.  A handful of them do harbor ignorance on various subjects, but on the whole are fairly centrist and socially liberal. 

They are afraid.  They are easilly molded.  They don't understand what it's like to live the way those 40 years or younger are forced to, and pretend that's not the case. 

The places you listed are more snooty rich status quo (hillary)  than working everyman liberals (bernie)CMAT physician Dr. Carl Jarvis, and paramedic Martin Metz assess and treat patients in an evacuation centre near Ishnomaki.
Saturday, March 26, 2011 – Ishinomaki, Miyagi, Japan- The CMAT Medical Team has had a busy last few days. The team has been splitting into smaller groups of 4 to 5 individuals, and surveying the city of Ishinomaki and outlying coastal villages within a 30km radius.
Yesterday, a 5-member strike team collaborated with the Japanese military in the coastal town of Onagawa, approximately 15km east of Ishinomaki. The team was asked to assist with the search and recovery of victims in this small community which was flattened by the tsunami. Working their way through broken homes, rubble and bamboo forests, the team reported that in this area the waves were well over 100 feet high and deposited debris into the branches of tall trees. Of the estimated 15,000 people who lived in this community before the tsunami, only about 300 survived the disaster, and are now being housed in an evacuation centre on higher ground.
One of my (many) pet peeves about social networking is the way that relationships are modelled. I actually went into this on my first presentation I’ve done, down at BarCampBrighton3: The Evolution of the Social Web. We humans are complex entities; in many ways our relationships are so elastic and contextual that we can’t realistically model these in a simple social network.
In my eyes, social networking began when the communication between user’s profiles became the primary function of a site; obviously user profiles had existed for a long while before social networking became a used term. Because of this evolution, most sites still use what I call the ‘flat-friends’ model, i.e. every connection is of the same type and depth.
My guess is that it wasn’t until MySpace became so huge and it began attracting the music/artist crowd that this became particularly noticeable. On MySpace (and many others), your connections could be offline-friends, those you only know online, bands, companies, charities, etc with no sense of differentiation other than artist profiles have an embedded music player.
Facebook caught on because it circumvented the issues with the explosion in popularity of MySpace and the like by looking more at your actual identity. You sign up as yourself, with no alias or screen name and are encouraged to find people you know. For the most part, this has been my experience. Later on, Facebook Pages were added to bring in some of the content MySpace had in terms of bands and brands but many of these already had an independent or sponsored Facebook Group, which I think clouded the issue and on the whole my guess is that Facebook Pages are perhaps less popular than MySpace profiles for non-personal content.
So back to ‘friends’… My feeling has always been in my pop-social-psychology frame of mind is that this model isn’t sustainable. Firstly separating the people from the other kinds of content and recognising the specific needs of a sector (such as the music industry) rather than generic profiles and secondly to look at our relationships with other people.
Facebook has great granular privacy settings and it also has lists but I’d say that for less technical users these aren’t used to their fullest and you still see loads of open profiles with no restrictions. Part of this is education and the fact that repercussions of exposing your media output through your teenage years might not have materialised for many yet. An issue aside from privacy is how you present yourself to different audiences.
What I’ve found is that however subtly, we most/all have a different was of acting and reacting as part of a different group of people, from extremes like friends you go out for a beer with to contacts or acquaintances through work. Perhaps this is less true of more techie people, that often use their blog and everything else a cohesive online identity but I believe that even then we have our lives split into personas.
Each persona could have connections (rather than the term ‘friends’) shared, like a colleague at work you also go out for a beer with but this enables us to use a single profile/social network to present these faces to the world and arrange our relationships across them. Plaxo have started this off by allowing a work/friends/family set of data to your profile, which isn’t a bad start but I’d like to see this idea through the social web.
I’m kind of scratching the surface of some thoughts here so I’ll try and follow this up with more concise observations!
I think I see what you’re getting at. The actual nature of a relationship between two people on the web isn’t easy to describe with a simple link. XFN only goes so far and facebook does have a fairly encompassing set of options for defining your relationship to someone, however as you say there are no means to (easily) present a different persona to different groups of people. It’d get insane choosing which groups could see a certain status message etc…
@Rob
Cheers for the comment. I think the disparity between how social networks evolve and the flexibility or differences between our online and offline network models will become clearer as is the idea of a central source of identity. Loads of things to mull over ;)I see longevity as the common argument against D Rose but I really don't know why it's so important personally. I see it as one way of being great but not