About 14 months ago I spotted a problem with the PDB Logging Clause. I opened an SR and several months later I got a patch, which unfortunately didn’t fix the issue, just altered the symptom somewhat. I wrote about that patch here.
Yesterday I got a new patch, which actually does fix the problem, so now the PDB Logging Clause works as documented!
I’ve updated the PDB Logging Clause article to reflect the change.
I realise it’s a small issue, with an easy workaround, but 14 months seems a bit excessive.
Tim…PDB Logging Clause… Again… was first posted on October 8, 2015 at 10:29 am.
©2012 "The ORACLE-BASE Blog". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement.
Oracle Utilities Customer Care and Billing 220.127.116.11.0 is now available. This release includes the newest version of Oracle Utilities Application Framework (V18.104.22.168.0).
This version of the Oracle Utilities Application Framework has the following features:
- New Login Screen - A simpler login screen has been introduced with a new screen in line with Oracle's Cloud offerings.
- Session Timeout - In past releases when a session expired due to inactivity it would throw the user back to the login screen. This release now includes a popup message informing the user that the session is timed out prior to sending the user back to the login screen.
- Required Fields indicator - In line with the new interface implementation introduced in 22.214.171.124.0, required fields can be indicated with a required fields indicator: *. This only applies to newer UI hint based screens. For backward compatibility this feature can be disabled.
- Menu Behavior - Menu behavior has been tweaked to allow greater flexibility and a wide range of device support. Menu's can be locked into position to cater for user behavior.
- Toolbar History enhancements - In Oracle Utilities Application Framework 126.96.36.199.0, identifiers were recorded when using individual functions to enhance navigation. To complement this, these identifiers will be displayed in the History on the toolbar.
- Component Installation - In the past installation, required additional effort to install individual components such as channels or tiers in an installation event. This enhancement greatly simplifies this by assigning installation roles to individual installations. Upon selecting appropriate roles, only those parts of the installation are exposed and configured for that installation. It is also possible to change roles after installation for maximum flexibility. This enhancement allows disparte installations to be linked into a virtual environment and managed for patching and management from Oracle Enterprise Manager easily
- New Help Engine - This releases sees the product use the Oracle Help Engine for Web which provides greater usability, flexibility and standardization for our help. This enhancement is only available to Oracle WebLogic customers. Customers on IBM WebSphere will continue to use the legacy help engine. This also means that Framework Help is now included in Product Help.
- Enhanced OIM Integration - The Business object used for Oracle Identity Management (OIM) has been enhanced following feedback from the Oracle Cloud implementations and customers using OIM. The interface now defaults more attributes and uses the user templating functionality to reduce the amount of business rules within OIM.
- User Security Changes - To support greater levels of security, the user object now has additional security levels to control different aspects of security ralated to its maintenance. For example, it is now possible to allow specific users to administrate user group membership.
- Map XML Enhancements - A simpler approach to mapping fields has been implemented to speed up mapping XML data types including a new wizard to aid schema designers.
- XQuery engine upgraded - The latest Oracle XQuery engine has been adopted to provide new functions and reduce memory footprint needed for scripting.
- Batch Parameter Security - It is now possible to encrypt data used on individual sensitive batch parameters.
- System Heath Check - A new system wide health check API has been introduced that can be extended to verify components within the architecture to provide status information. The initial release will cover architecture and specific level of service checks. A simple user interface and web service have been included for this facility. This will be incorporated into a future Application Management Pack for Oracle Utilities release.
- Additional Sort keys on Manual To Dos - Manual To Do entries now populate the standard sort keys even if custom sort keys are populated.
- Extendable Lookup Enhancements - We have added a few new features for Extendable lookups to make them easier to use. This includes characteristic support, a new CLOB field, overriding support, action support and extended validation support.
- Support Manual Transition of Sych Requests - It is now possible to manually transition a Sync Request.
- Currency Symbol Support - Number elements may define a currency reference to automatically render the currency symbol.
- Extended Currency Support - The base classes within the framework have been extended to support a wider range of world currencies.
- Page Based Web Services - Inbound Web Services has been extended to now support legacy page based services. This will reuse the definitions in the page services to expose them as Inbound Web Services without the need for further configuration. This will aid in moving from XAI to IWS for legacy customers.
- Message Driven Bean in IWS - The MDB has now been moved to the IWS implementation to implement an Integration Server architecture. Existing MDB implementations will be supported in the short term but will need to move to this new IWS implementation long term.
More articles will be published over the next few weeks outlining more information about most of these enhancements. Refer to the product documentation and release notes for more details of each of these enhancements.
1. The rise of SAP (and later Siebel Systems) was greatly helped by Anderson Consulting, even before it was split off from the accounting firm and renamed as Accenture. My main contact in that group was Rob Kelley, but it’s possible that Brian Sommer was even more central to the industry-watching part of the operation. Brian is still around, and he just leveled a blast at the ERP* industry, which I encourage you to read. I agree with most of it.
*Enterprise Resource Planning
Brian’s argument, as I interpret it, boils down mainly to two points:
- Big ERP companies selling big ERP systems are pathetically slow at adding new functionality. He’s right. My favorite example is the multi-decade slog to integrate useful analytics into operational apps.
- The world of “Big Data” is fundamentally antithetical to the design of current-generation ERP systems. I think he’s right in that as well.
I’d add that SaaS (Software As A Service)/on-premises tensions aren’t helping incumbent vendors either.
But no article addresses all the subjects it ideally should, and I’d like to call out two omissions. First, what Brian said is in many cases applicable just to large and/or internet-first companies. Plenty of smaller, more traditional businesses could get by just fine with no more functionality than is in “Big ERP” today, if we stipulate that it should be:
- Delivered via SaaS.
- Much easier to adopt and use.
Second, even within the huge enterprise/huge app vendor world, it’s not entirely clear how integrated ERP supposedly is or isn’t with CRM (Customer Relationship Management). And a lot of what Brian talks about fits pretty cleanly into the CRM bucket.
2. In any case, there are many application areas that — again assuming that we’re in the large enterprise or large internet company world — fit well neither with classical ERP nor with its CRM sibling. For starters, investigative analytics doesn’t fit well into packaged application suites, for a myriad of reasons, the most basic of which are:
- The whole point of investigative analytics is to discover things that are new. Therefore, business processes are inherently unpredictable.
- So are data inputs.
If somebody does claim to be selling an app in investigative analytics, it is usually really an analytic application subsystem or else something very disconnected from other apps. Indeed, in almost all cases it’s both.
3. When it comes to customer-facing websites, I stand by my arguments three years ago in the post just linked above, which boil down to:
- What I just said above about investigative analytics, plus the observation that …
- … websites have a strong creative aspect that fits badly with soup-to-nuts packaged applications.
Also, complex websites are likely to rely on dynamic schemas, and packaged apps have trouble adapting to those.
4. This is actually an example of a more general point — packaged or SaaS apps generally assume rather fixed schemas. (The weasel word “rather” is included to allow for customization-through-configuration, but I think the overall point holds.) Indeed, database design is commonly the essence of packaged app technology.
5. However, those schemas do not have to be relational. It would be inaccurate to say that packaged apps always assume tabular data, because of examples such as:
- SAP has built on top of quasi-objects for a long time, although the underpinnings are technically relational.
- There are some cases of building entirely on an object-oriented or hierarchical data model, especially in health care.
- Business has some inherent hierarchies that get reflected in data structures, e.g. in bills of materials or organization charts.
But even non-tabular data structures are, in the minds of app developers, usually assumed to have fixed schemas.
I will describe our journey as a new Delphix customer with its ups and downs. I tried to have the spirit of a user group talk where you get a real person’s experience that you might not get from a more sales oriented vendor presentation.
Kyle Hailey, a Oaktable member and Delphix employee, will host my talk. I have been very impressed by Kyle’s technical knowledge and he will be with me to answer questions about Delphix that I could not answer. I think it will be a good combination of my real world user experience and his depth of technical background in Delphix and Oracle performance tuning.
If you are going to OpenWorld and if you want to know more about Delphix come check it out. Also, feel free to email me or post comments here if you have any questions about what the talk will cover.
By Phil HillMore Posts (367)
On Monday Robert Talbert, associate professor at Grand Valley State University and author of the Casting Out Nines blog, wrote a provocative and important post titled “Active learning as an ethical issue”. Robert noted:
The recent Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study stands out among these recent studies. It is a meta-study of 225 prior studies on active learning, and the results are bracing: students in these studies who were in classes focused on lecture and direct instruction in the classroom were 55% more likely to fail their courses than their counterparts in active learning focused classes, and scored almost half a standard deviation lower than their active learning counterparts on exams.
This sentence from the PNAS study stopped me in my tracks when I first read it:
“If the experiments analyzed here had been conducted as randomized controlled trials of medical interventions, they may have been stopped for benefit—meaning that enrolling patients in the control condition might be discontinued because the treatment being tested was clearly more beneficial.”
Robert’s central point is that active learning should be thought of as an ethical issue, where it could be considered unethical to withhold treatment. He then asks why faculty might withhold active learning and listed four reasons: self-preservation, laziness, a weird and irrational superiority complex, and legitimate external forces (such as overly controlling school structure).
The argument is an interesting and compelling one based on the study, and it is worth reading the whole article and his follow-up post. I wish we treated teaching and learning more often as an ethical issue,but I would add one additional reason that the active learning treatment is not more prevalent. This one comes from our discussions with faculty and support staff as part of our e-Literate TV series on personalized learning, and Michael and I summarized the point in the introduction episode. In a nutshell, changing to active learning (described as personalized learning in the series, but this terms overlaps with active learning in the context of this discussion) designs often or usually comes along with a fundamental change in role of the faculty and TAs involved. This changing role is profound and not easy, especially if faculty try to make changes on their own without peer or staff support.
Michael Feldstein: And going along with that was a willingness for faculty and for students to really ask some hard questions about the roles that they needed to take in the classroom, right? This is no longer, “I go up as a faculty member, and I lecture. I tell you what you know. And you, as a student, dutifully write it down and regurgitate it on the test.”
Faculty have to be comfortable letting go of a certain amount of control. We heard that over and over again. And students need to be comfortable and confident taking a certain amount of control over their education.
Faculty have to be comfortable letting go of a certain amount of control.
Phil Hill: Just taking a step back, I can’t emphasize enough what we’re talking about, the fact that this personalized learning, where it’s done in an appropriate manner, absolutely doesn’t replace the faculty. So, we just need to move past a lot of that part of the discussion.
But that change in role is significant. So, when you say, “You’ve got to give up some control,” we’re not just talking a slight adjustment in your teaching; you’re talking about something deeply held, internal beliefs. And part of the implication there is not just that it’s significantly different, but it also means it takes a lot of work and a lot of time to make that transition in a role.
It’s not just that it’s significantly different . . . , it also means it takes a lot of work and a lot of time.
And then, to pick up on your other point, students are coming in, and they need to be much more part of an active learning experience. Well, they’ve gone through, likely, the K–12 system, where they’ve almost been taught to be passive learners, or that’s sort of their expectations.
But now they’re coming in, and they’re being asked to do a lot of active work—to really stay up to speed, not put off work and cram right before the exams, but come in prepared to the classes. And a lot of times, they’re teaching themselves. So, those two change in roles are very significant, and they take time for people to deal with.
Michael also noted this challenge of knowing how to change in his recent post on lectures.
Following the IHE piece on Essex County College’s struggles to get good outcomes from their personalized learning program in developmental math, and following my blog post on the topic, Phil and I had an interesting exchange about the topic in email with ECC’s Vice President for Planning, Research, and Assessment Doug Walercz. With his permission, I’d like to share some of his observations with you. One of the big takeaways from the conversation, for me, is that our cultural notion of the pedagogical work that happens in a good lecture is pretty impoverished relative to the reality. We don’t have a clear understanding of all the things that a good lecture accomplishes, and therefore we often lose valuable elements of student support when we try to replace it. This has pretty serious implications for MOOCs, flipped classrooms, personalized learning, and a wide array of pedagogical approaches that replace a traditional in-person lecture with something else.
Michael then shared Doug’s email describing his viewpoints on expert blindness and the nature of combining non-cognitive aspects of teaching with content delivery. Michael concludes:
We don’t fully understand what we are doing well now. Therefore, when we attempt to deconstruct it and then reconstruct it in a different environment, we don’t really know what we will miss or how we will need to retrain our instructors so that we won’t miss it. That’s why it is so important to undertake these sorts of experiments thoughtfully, self-critically, and iteratively.
The point is that changing to any new pedagogy – active learning, adaptive, personalized, etc – changes the role of faculty and the methods of providing support to students in significant ways. I would add this difficulty with understanding and implementing change to Robert’s list of reasons why the active learning treatment has been withheld. Using Robert’s argument that this this an ethical issue, this reason should not be one to prevent such a change, but it is a reason why many faculty have not yet changed or a reason that additional support for faculty might be needed in order to allow more extensive adoption of active learning.
Some faculty will be able to make these changes to active learning on their own – think of them as autodidacts in learning about learning – but if you want deeper changes, then we need to acknowledge that many, if not most, faculty will need support to do so.
In Robert’s follow-up post, he makes an important point about assessment and effectiveness:
But also do this: Gather formative assessment data on a regular basis and see what students are actually learning.Don’t try to base the effectiveness of your teaching on how much passion and verve you appear to bring to lectures; don’t base it on summative assessments where the data come too late for students to act on them; don’t base it on how many students talk in your discussions or how bright and bushy tailed they appear to be. Base it on data that you collect about student learning.
Then do this: Analyze your assessment data when you get it, and objectively decide whether your teaching is helping students learn. And if it isn’t, consider how you might change, and then make the change.
The post Response to Robert Talbert: Pedagogical change is difficult, many need support appeared first on e-Literate.
We’re a shade under a month away from the biggest event in the calendar for those that work in the Oracle marketplace – the Oracle OpenWorld Conference.
It runs every year in San Francisco and draws a massive 60,000 attendees from 145 countries (plus 2.1 million online attendees). That’s huge.
There are more than 2,500 sessions from ~3,600 speakers, approximately half of which are customers/partners and half are Oracle themselves. As well as the sessions there are the demo grounds and the exhibition hall, all great places for networking with people that you’ve either not met before or have only ever come across online. You get quality face-time with top developers and execs, who are normally hidden behind many levels of Oracle Support. These are the people who have designed and written the products and services that we’ll be using over the coming years, so meeting up with them is priceless.
If you register before the event, it’s $2,450 (about £1,600).
I’m lucky to have the chance to go again this year, and I know already that it’s going to have huge value for both me and Cedar. Both my colleague, Graham, and I were lucky enough to be selected to speak (his session is on Fluid, mine is on Selective Adoption – the two hottest topics in PeopleSoft right now).
Graham also produced this lively promo video:
This (above) is what we look like, it’d be great to say hello to you if you’re around. Likewise, if you’re coming to either of our sessions let us know and we’ll be sure to say hi.
As a nice bonus, we get to see Elton John and Beck at the Appreciation Event!
I’m really looking forward to seeing and hearing about the very latest from the PeopleSoft and Fusion/Taleo worlds. Look out for a Cedar event when we return where we can share everything with you.
The OpenWorld edition of Oracle WebCenter and Oracle Business Process Management (BPM) newsletter is now out. Take a look to get more information on the exclusive Customer Reception we are hosting in San Francisco on Monday, October 25th; the must-attend sessions for you to hear from Oracle executives, subject matter experts, customers and partners to know the latest strategy, vision and roadmaps for both our on-premises and cloud solutions; the latest news features, product collateral, industry insights, and learn more about upcoming events and activities.
If you are in the area and have not registered for Oracle OpenWorld, you can still attend our Customer Reception so do RSVP today. And don't forget to add your favorite Oracle WebCenter, Oracle BPM and Oracle Cloud Content and Collaboration solutions to your My Schedule that is now live on Oracle OpenWorld website.
Not attending Oracle OpenWorld this year? No worries, this newsletter still has plenty of information for you to know the very latest happening in Oracle WebCenter, BPM and Cloud Collaboration world. Happy reading!
I wrote a presentation on designing and building practical audit trails back in 2012 and presented it once and then never again. By chance I did not post the pdf's of these slides at that time. I did though some....[Read More]
Posted by Pete On 01/10/15 At 05:16 PM
Oracle Application Express is a great rapid application development tool where you can write your applications functionality in PL/SQL and create the interface easily in the APEX UI using all of the tools available to create forms and reports and....[Read More]
Posted by Pete On 21/07/15 At 04:27 PM
How does Oracle Security and Electronic mix together? - Well I started my working life in 1979 as an apprentice electrician in a factory here in York, England where I live. The factory designed and built trains for the national....[Read More]
Posted by Pete On 09/07/15 At 11:24 AM
In the last few years I have not done as many conference speaking dates as I used to. This is simply because when offered they usually clashed with pre-booked work. I spoke for the UKOUG in Dublin last year and....[Read More]
Posted by Pete On 06/07/15 At 09:40 AM
Make a Sad Face..:-( I seemed to have missed my blogs tenth which happened on the 20th September 2014. My last post last year and until very recently was on July 23rd 2014; so actually its been a big gap....[Read More]
Posted by Pete On 03/07/15 At 11:28 AM
I wrote a paper about Oracle Database Vault in 12c for SANS last year and this was published in January 2015 by SANS on their website. I also prepared and did a webinar about this paper with SANS. The Paper....[Read More]
Posted by Pete On 30/06/15 At 05:38 PM
I have just updated all of our Oracle Security training offerings on our company website. I have revamped all class pages and added two page pdf flyers for each of our four training classes. In have also updated the list....[Read More]
Posted by Pete On 25/06/15 At 04:36 PM
My favourite language is hard to pin point; is it C or is it PL/SQL? My first language was C and I love the elegance and expression of C. Our product PFCLScan has its main functionallity written in C. The....[Read More]
Posted by Pete On 23/07/14 At 08:44 PM
We share our skills to maximize your revenue!
- Partner Webcast - Oracle Mobile Cloud Service: Gates to Enterprise Mobility for Your Business (Oracle Partner Hub: ISV Migration Center Team)
via Oracle Partner Hub: ISV Migration Center Team https://blogs.oracle.com/imc/
By Phil HillMore Posts (367)
The overuse of Clayton Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory has rightly been criticized in education circles for years. I say rightly in that judging a non-commodity public good with the same theory as disk drives is a silly notion without some extensive analysis to back up that extrapolation. As Audrey Watters wrote in 2013:
Rather, my assigning “myth” to “disruptive innovation” is meant to highlight the ways in which this narrative has been widely accepted as unassailably true. No doubt (as a Harvard professor) Christensen has faced very little skepticism or criticism about his theory about the transformation of industries— why, it’s as if The Innovator’s Dilemma were some sort of sacred text.
Helping to enhance its mythic status, the storytelling around “disruptive innovation” has taken on another, broader and looser dimension as well, as the term is now frequently invoked in many quarters to mean things quite different from Christensen’s original arguments in The Innovator’s Dilemma.
Referring back to Audrey’s posts, Jim Groom and Brian Lamb made efforts to “reclaim innovation” in 2014:
To understand much of the disconnect between higher education and innovation, we should take a look at innovation’s unruly cousin: disruption. Certainly, when surveying the rapid pace of change in digital and networked technologies and assessing the wreckage of organizations and industries that have, in one way or another, been swept aside, disruption as a descriptive term is not without merit. But unless we are prepared to rebuild from the wreckage and create something that represents a meaningful advance, it’s difficult to see the value in disruption for its own sake.
Audrey Watters has noted the essentially apocalyptic flavor of what she describes as “the myth and the millennialism of disruptive innovation” – mythic in the sense that it prophesies “the destruction of the old and the ascension of the new” and constitutes a narrative that “has been widely accepted as unassailably true.” When applied to education, disruptive innovation promises nothing less than “the end of school as we know it.”
Martin Weller this week explored the assumptions behind disruptive innovation to see what that would mean in practice in education, based on a “disruption in education” event, assuming people meant what they said when using this terminology:
I didn’t watch any of the event, maybe there were some very interesting presentations. But by labelling it Disruptors, the intention is made clear. Disruption, as set out by Christensen, is in fact very rare. I think it only actually applies about 1% of the time that term is claimed. But Christensen wouldn’t get rich by talking about a rare occurrence so has pushed the idea that it happens everywhere. The replacement of analogue photography by digital is the classic example. That really was disruption and swept away a whole industry. When it does happen, the thing about disruption is that it is absolutely brutal. A whole industry is replaced by a new one. This is not making improvements (that is the sustaining technology), it is completely destroying a sector and replacing it with a new one. It is an extinction event.
These are all valid and important critiques, and the underlying theme of disruptive innovation being too easily accepted is an important one. Last year Jill Lepore wrote the most widely-known critique in the New Yorker (with the subtitle “What the gospel of innovation gets wrong”):
Disruptive innovation as a theory of change is meant to serve both as a chronicle of the past (this has happened) and as a model for the future (it will keep happening). The strength of a prediction made from a model depends on the quality of the historical evidence and on the reliability of the methods used to gather and interpret it. Historical analysis proceeds from certain conditions regarding proof. None of these conditions have been met.
“The Innovator’s Dilemma” consists of a set of handpicked case studies, beginning with the disk-drive industry, which was the subject of Christensen’s doctoral thesis, in 1992.
Now there is even more evidence that the theory of disruptive innovation has some serious cracks in the foundation. In September’s MIT Sloan Management Review (you know, the other side of Cambridge) Dartmouth Professor Andrew King and UBC graduate student Baljir Baatartogtokh published the results of a study they led on the original claims in Christensen’s books. Titled “How Useful Is The Theory of Disruptive Innovation?”, the short answer is not very, even for the case studies claimed in the books.
The method of the study was to look at the 77 case studies used in the Innovator’s Dilemma and the Innovator’s Solution that underpin disruption, and then interview experts in the field to see if the case studies met the conditions of the theory itself. Of the 79 “experts”:
Fifty-eight percent of the surveyed respondents were academics; 18% were nonacademic authors of book-length historical analyses; 10% were financial analysts of the industries involved; and 14% were participants in the industries.
The four key elements of the theory are:
- Incumbents are improving along a trajectory of innovation
- The pace of sustaining innovation overshoots customer needs
- Incumbents have the capability to respond but fail to exploit it
- Incumbents flounder as a result of the disruption
One interesting note is that the interviewers had to avoid using the term “disruptive innovation” until the end of their interviews to avoid tainting the discussion. The terminology is so overused that it even distorts the discussion of the theory itself.
Even Christensen’s underlying assumption that “objective function of management should be to maximize shareholder value” came into question when applied to education:
This clarified objective is problematic for the 9% of cases we examined that represent nonprofit organizations or publicly regulated utilities. For example, an author and expert on higher education noted that the “access mission of community colleges often runs counter to what presidents or other leaders might do to cut costs or improve completion outcomes.” This expert adds: “That makes it not such a great example for the theory [because] as a mission driven institution, they are responsible to the public and a higher calling.”
The article then describes the results of how each of the 77 case studies fit within the four key elements of the theory, and the end result was that only 9% of the provided case studies fit all four. It seems that the case studies were cherry picked to highlight one element at a time, but the cohesive theory of disruptive innovation might not be backed up even by its own data.
The whole article is worth reading. You can access it for free either by joining the MIT Sloan Management Review for a free 14-day period or by forking over $6.50.
In the meantime, the conclusion of the article should be a lesson anytime someone in education uses “disruption” as a justification or description of what they do.
In summary, stories about disruptive innovation can provide warnings of what may happen, but they are no substitute for critical thinking. High-level theories can give managers encouragement, but they are no replacement for careful analysis and difficult choices.
If there is any one field where this conclusions applies more than others, it is in education with mission driven institutions, non-commodity outcomes, and poorly-understood basics on how to even define learning.