Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for 'casperone'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Design considerations on JSON schema for scalars with a consistent attachment property

    - by casperOne
    I'm trying to create a JSON schema for the results of doing statistical analysis based on disparate pieces of data. The current schema I have looks something like this: { // Basic key information. video : "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uwfjpfK0jo", start : "00:00:00", end : null, // For results of analysis, to be populated: // *** This is where it gets interesting *** analysis : { game : { value: "Super Street Fighter 4: Arcade Edition Ver. 2012", confidence: 0.9725 } teams : [ { player : { value : "Desk", confidence: 0.95, } characters : [ { value : "Hakan", confidence: 0.80 } ] } ] } } The issue is the tuples that are used to store a value and the confidence related to that value (i.e. { value : "some value", confidence : 0.85 }), populated after the results of the analysis. This leads to a creep of this tuple for every value. Take a fully-fleshed out value from the characters array: { name : { value : "Hakan", confidence: 0.80 } ultra : { value: 1, confidence: 0.90 } } As the structures that represent the values become more and more detailed (and more analysis is done on them to try and determine the confidence behind that analysis), the nesting of the tuples adds great deal of noise to the overall structure, considering that the final result (when verified) will be: { name : "Hakan", ultra : 1 } (And recall that this is just a nested value) In .NET (in which I'll be using to work with this data), I'd have a little helper like this: public class UnknownValue<T> { T Value { get; set; } double? Confidence { get; set; } } Which I'd then use like so: public class Character { public UnknownValue<Character> Name { get; set; } } While the same as the JSON representation in code, it doesn't have the same creep because I don't have to redefine the tuple every time and property accessors hide the appearance of creep. Of course, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison, the above is code while the JSON is data. Is there a more formalized/cleaner/best practice way of containing the creep of these tuples in JSON, or is the approach above an accepted approach for the type of data I'm trying to store (and I'm just perceiving it the wrong way)? Note, this is being represented in JSON because this will ultimately go in a document database (something like RavenDB or elasticsearch). I'm not concerned about being able to serialize into the object above, because I can always use data transfer objects to facilitate getting data into/out of my underlying data store.

    Read the article

  • Is SEO affected negatively by having densely encoded identifiers of content in URLs?

    - by casperOne
    This isn't about where to put the id of a piece of unique content in URLs, but more about densely packing the URL (or, does it just not matter). Take for example, a hypothetical post in a blog: http://tempuri.org/123456789/seo-friendly-title The ID that uniquely identifies this is 123456789. This corresponds to a look-up and is the direct key in the underlying data store. However, I could encode that in say, hexadecimal, like so: http://tempuri.org/75bcd15/seo-friendly-title And that would be shorter. One could take it even further and have more compact encodings; since URLs are case sensitive, one could imagine an encoding that uses numbers, lowercase and uppercase letters, for a base of 62 (26 upper case + 26 lower case + 10 digits): 0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz For a resulting URL of: http://tempuri.org/8M0kX/seo-friendly-title The question is, does densely packing the ID of the content (the requirement is that an ID is mandatory for look-ups) have a negative impact on SEO (and dare I ask, might it have any positive impact), or is it just not worth the time? Note that this is not for a URL shortening service, so saving space in the URL for browser limitation purposes is not an issue.

    Read the article

  • How to secure an Internet-facing Elastic Search implementation in a shared hosting environment?

    - by casperOne
    (Originally asked on StackOverflow, and recommended that I move it here) I've been going over the documentation for Elastic Search and I'm a big fan and I'd like to use it to handle the search for my ASP.NET MVC app. That introduces a few interesting twists, however. If the ASP.NET MVC application was on a dedicated machine, it would be simple to spool up an instance of Elastic Search and use the TCP Transport to connect locally. However, I'm not on a dedicated machine for the ASP.NET MVC application, nor does it look like I'll move to one anytime soon. That leaves hosting Elastic Search on another machine (in the *NIX world) and I would probably go with shared hosting there. One of the biggest things lacking from Elastic Search, however, is the fact that it doesn't support HTTPS and basic authentication out of the box. If it did, then this question wouldn't exist; I'd simply host it somewhere and make sure to have an incredibly secure password and HTTPS enabled (possibly with a self-signed certificate). But that's not the case. That given, what is a good way to expose Elastic Search over the Internet in a secure way? Note, I'm looking for something that hopefully, will not require writing code to provide shims for the methods that I want (in other words, writing forwarders).

    Read the article

  • Checking instance of non-class constrained type parameter for null in generic method

    - by casperOne
    I currently have a generic method where I want to do some validation on the parameters before working on them. Specifically, if the instance of the type parameter T is a reference type, I want to check to see if it's null and throw an ArgumentNullException if it's null. Something along the lines of: // This can be a method on a generic class, it does not matter. public void DoSomething<T>(T instance) { if (instance == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("instance"); Note, I do not wish to constrain my type parameter using the class constraint. I thought I could use Marc Gravell's answer on "How do I compare a generic type to its default value?", and use the EqualityComparer<T> class like so: static void DoSomething<T>(T instance) { if (EqualityComparer<T>.Default.Equals(instance, null)) throw new ArgumentNullException("instance"); But it gives a very ambiguous error on the call to Equals: Member 'object.Equals(object, object)' cannot be accessed with an instance reference; qualify it with a type name instead How can I check an instance of T against null when T is not constrained on being a value or reference type?

    Read the article

  • Serialization for memcached

    - by Ram
    I have this huge domain object(say parent) which contains other domain objects. It takes a lot of time to "create" this parent object by querying a DB (OK we are optimizing the DB). So we decided to cache it using memcached (with northscale to be specific) So I have gone through my code and marked all the classes (I think) as [Serializable], but when I add it to the cache, I see a Serialization Exception getting thrown in my VS.net output window. var cache = new NorthScaleClient("MyBucket"); cache.Store(StoreMode.Set, key, value); This is the exception: A first chance exception of type 'System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationException' occurred in mscorlib.dll SO my guess is, I have not marked all classes as [Serializable]. I am not using any third party libraries and can mark any class as [Serializable], but how do I find out which class is failing when the cache is trying to serialize the object ? Edit1: casperOne comments make me think. I was able to cache these domain object with Microsoft Cache Application Block without marking them [Serializable], but not with NorthScale memcached. It makes me think that there might be something to do with their implementation, but just out of curiosity, am still interested in finding where it fails when trying to add the object to memcached

    Read the article

1