Search Results

Search found 9 results on 1 pages for 'kylotan'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Are separate business objects needed when persistent data can be stored in a usable format?

  - by Kylotan

  I have a system where data is stored in a persistent store and read by a server application. Some of this data is only ever seen by the server, but some of it is passed through unaltered to clients. So, there is a big temptation to persist data - whether whole rows/documents or individual fields/sub-documents - in the exact form that the client can use (eg. JSON), as this removes various layers of boilerplate, whether in the form of procedural SQL, an ORM, or any proxy structure which exists just to hold the values before having to re-encode them into a client-suitable form. This form can usually be used on the server too, though business logic may have to live outside of the object, On the other hand, this approach ends up leaking implementation details everywhere. 9 times out of 10 I'm happy just to read a JSON structure out of the DB and send it to the client, but 1 in every 10 times I have to know the details of that implicit structure (and be able to refactor access to it if the stored data ever changes). And this makes me think that maybe I should be pulling this data into separate business objects, so that business logic doesn't have to change when the data schema does. (Though you could argue this just moves the problem rather than solves it.) There is a complicating factor in that our data schema is constantly changing rapidly, to the point where we dropped our previous ORM/RDBMS system in favour of MongoDB and an implicit schema which was much easier to work with. So far I've not decided whether the rapid schema changes make me wish for separate business objects (so that server-side calculations need less refactoring, since all changes are restricted to the persistence layer) or for no separate business objects (because every change to the schema requires the business objects to change to stay in sync, even if the new sub-object or field is never used on the server except to pass verbatim to a client). So my question is whether it is sensible to store objects in the form they are usually going to be used, or if it's better to copy them into intermediate business objects to insulate both sides from each other (even when that isn't strictly necessary)? And I'd like to hear from anybody else who has had experience of a similar situation, perhaps choosing to persist XML or JSON instead of having an explicit schema which has to be assembled into a client format each time.

  Read the article

• How to diagnose disk errors when disk appears to be ok?

  - by Kylotan

  I have a six-month-old 1TB Seagate drive formatted into 2 NTFS partitions, and the disk appeared to be failing with Windows dropping down from UDMA to PIO mode, reporting Delayed Write Errors, and hanging Explorer when browsing directories. My initial suspicion was that the disk was dying. However, on further examination it appears that Ubuntu, which doesn't write to the volume frequently like Windows does, was able to read the disk properly and retrieve all the data intact, saving me from having to use an older backup. Finally, running the Seatools DOS diagnostic reported that the disk has no problems, ie. SMART errors and no bad sectors, apparently. This, in combination with the relative youth of the disk, suggests that something else is broken. The cable? The PSU? The integrated disk controller? But what would be a good way to diagnose the problem without risking damaging the data? I intend to extract the disk and try it in an external eSATA enclosure and see if the write errors cease, but in the event of the disk appearing to be fine, I would like to be able to confirm what part of the hardware is actually broken here in order to know just what needs replacing. Are there any good ways to go about this?

  Read the article

• How to diagnose disk errors when disk appears to be ok?

  - by Kylotan

  I have a six-month-old 1TB Seagate drive formatted into 2 NTFS partitions, and the disk appeared to be failing with Windows dropping down from UDMA to PIO mode, reporting Delayed Write Errors, and hanging Explorer when browsing directories. My initial suspicion was that the disk was dying. However, on further examination it appears that Ubuntu, which doesn't write to the volume frequently like Windows does, was able to read the disk properly and retrieve all the data intact, saving me from having to use an older backup. Finally, running the Seatools DOS diagnostic reported that the disk has no problems, ie. SMART errors and no bad sectors, apparently. This, in combination with the relative youth of the disk, suggests that something else is broken. The cable? The PSU? The integrated disk controller? But what would be a good way to diagnose the problem without risking damaging the data? I intend to extract the disk and try it in an external eSATA enclosure and see if the write errors cease, but in the event of the disk appearing to be fine, I would like to be able to confirm what part of the hardware is actually broken here in order to know just what needs replacing. Are there any good ways to go about this?

  Read the article

• Recommendation for Wiki that supports WYSIWYG?

  - by Kylotan

  Currently we use a MediaWiki installation for writing documentation, but several of us find the markup format horribly arbitrary and awkward, with a mixture of Wiki tags and XML in the text, and the lack of any quick formatting buttons for things like ordered or unordered lists, different heading levels, quick embedding of images, tables, code samples, etc. Sites like LiveJournal provide most or all of this while still generating backwards-compatible markup so it's not like there's a technological impediment here. There are other niceties that we'd like to see, such as being able to pick a category from a list (ala Wordpress) or maybe being able to apply syntax highlighting to code samples, etc. Do Wikis exist that provide a decent range of these features to make life easier on the editor? Something with the features and presentation of WordPress but the page organisation of a Wiki would be perfect. (WikiMatrix returns several candidates, but among them is MediaWiki, which quite clearly is not a WYSIWYG interface except in the most tenuous fashion. I'd rather not dig through each one if it's plain that WikiMatrix is not being entirely stringent about its criteria.)

  Read the article

• How to implement generic callbacks in C++

  - by Kylotan

  Forgive my ignorance in asking this basic question but I've become so used to using Python where this sort of thing is trivial that I've completely forgotten how I would attempt this in C++. I want to be able to pass a callback to a function that performs a slow process in the background, and have it called later when the process is complete. This callback could be a free function, a static function, or a member function. I'd also like to be able to inject some arbitrary arguments in there for context. (ie. Implementing a very poor man's coroutine, in a way.) On top of that, this function will always take a std::string, which is the output of the process. I don't mind if the position of this argument in the final callback parameter list is fixed. I get the feeling that the answer will involve boost::bind and boost::function but I can't work out the precise invocations that would be necessary in order to create arbitrary callables (while currying them to just take a single string), store them in the background process, and invoke the callable correctly with the string parameter.

  Read the article

• Simplest way to mix sequences of types with iostreams?

  - by Kylotan

  I have a function void write<typename T>(const T&) which is implemented in terms of writing the T object to an ostream, and a matching function T read<typename T>() that reads a T from an istream. I am basically using iostreams as a plain text serialisation format, which obviously works fine for most built-in types, although I'm not sure how to effectively handle std::strings just yet. I'd like to be able to write out a sequence of objects too, eg void write<typename T>(const std::vector<T>&) or an iterator based equivalent (although in practice, it would always be used with a vector). However, while writing an overload that iterates over the elements and writes them out is easy enough to do, this doesn't add enough information to allow the matching read operation to know how each element is delimited, which is essentially the same problem that I have with a single std::string. Is there a single approach that can work for all basic types and std::string? Or perhaps I can get away with 2 overloads, one for numerical types, and one for strings? (Either using different delimiters or the string using a delimiter escaping mechanism, perhaps.)

  Read the article

• Ways to make (relatively) safe assumptions about the type of concrete subclasses?

  - by Kylotan

  I have an interface (defined as a abstract base class) that looks like this: class AbstractInterface { public: bool IsRelatedTo(const AbstractInterface& other) const = 0; } And I have an implementation of this (constructors etc omitted): class ConcreteThing { public: bool IsRelatedTo(const AbstractInterface& other) const { return m_ImplObject.has_relationship_to(other.m_ImplObject); } private: ImplementationObject m_ImplObject; } The AbstractInterface forms an interface in Project A, and the ConcreteThing lives in Project B as an implementation of that interface. This is so that code in Project A can access data from Project B without having a direct dependency on it - Project B just has to implement the correct interface. Obviously the line in the body of the IsRelatedTo function cannot compile - that instance of ConcreteThing has an m_ImplObject member, but it can't assume that all AbstractInterfaces do, including the other argument. In my system, I can actually assume that all implementations of AbstractInterface are instances of ConcreteThing (or subclasses thereof), but I'd prefer not to be casting the object to the concrete type in order to get at the private member, or encoding that assumption in a way that will crash without a diagnostic later if this assumption ceases to hold true. I cannot modify ImplementationObject, but I can modify AbstractInterface and ConcreteThing. I also cannot use the standard RTTI mechanism for checking a type prior to casting, or use dynamic_cast for a similar purpose. I have a feeling that I might be able to overload IsRelatedTo with a ConcreteThing argument, but I'm not sure how to call it via the base IsRelatedTo(AbstractInterface) method. It wouldn't get called automatically as it's not a strict reimplementation of that method. Is there a pattern for doing what I want here, allowing me to implement the IsRelatedTo function via ImplementationObject::has_relationship_to(ImplementationObject), without risky casts? (Also, I couldn't think of a good question title - please change it if you have a better one.)

  Read the article

• Calculating probability that a string has been randomized? - Python

  - by RadiantHex

  Hi folks, this is correlated to a question I asked earlier (question) I have a list of manually created strings such as: lucy87 gordan_king fancy_unicorn77 joplucky_kanga90 base_belong_to_narwhals and a list of randomized strings: johnkdf pancake90kgjd fancy_jagookfk manhattanljg What gives away that the last set of strings are randomized is that sequences such as 'kjg', 'jgf', 'lkd', ... . Any clever way I could separate strings that contain these apparently randomized strings from the crowd? I guess that this plays a lot on the fact that certain characters are more likely to be placed next to others (e.g. 'co', 'ka', 'ja', ...). Any ideas on this one? Kylotan mentioned Reverend, but I am not sure if it can be used fr such purpose. Help would be much appreciated!

  Read the article

• Memory efficient int-int dict in Python

  - by Bolo

  Hi, I need a memory efficient int-int dict in Python that would support the following operations in O(log n) time: d[k] = v # replace if present v = d[k] # None or a negative number if not present I need to hold ~250M pairs, so it really has to be tight. Do you happen to know a suitable implementation (Python 2.7)? EDIT Removed impossible requirement and other nonsense. Thanks, Craig and Kylotan! To rephrase. Here's a trivial int-int dictionary with 1M pairs: >>> import random, sys >>> from guppy import hpy >>> h = hpy() >>> h.setrelheap() >>> d = {} >>> for _ in xrange(1000000): ... d[random.randint(0, sys.maxint)] = random.randint(0, sys.maxint) ... >>> h.heap() Partition of a set of 1999530 objects. Total size = 49161112 bytes. Index Count % Size % Cumulative % Kind (class / dict of class) 0 1 0 25165960 51 25165960 51 dict (no owner) 1 1999521 100 23994252 49 49160212 100 int On average, a pair of integers uses 49 bytes. Here's an array of 2M integers: >>> import array, random, sys >>> from guppy import hpy >>> h = hpy() >>> h.setrelheap() >>> a = array.array('i') >>> for _ in xrange(2000000): ... a.append(random.randint(0, sys.maxint)) ... >>> h.heap() Partition of a set of 14 objects. Total size = 8001108 bytes. Index Count % Size % Cumulative % Kind (class / dict of class) 0 1 7 8000028 100 8000028 100 array.array On average, a pair of integers uses 8 bytes. I accept that 8 bytes/pair in a dictionary is rather hard to achieve in general. Rephrased question: is there a memory-efficient implementation of int-int dictionary that uses considerably less than 49 bytes/pair?

  Read the article

1