Search Results

Search found 1274 results on 51 pages for 'pros'.

Page 10/51 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • When does implementing MVVM not make sense

    - by Kelly Sommers
    I am a big fan of various patterns and enjoy learning new ones all the time however I think with all the evangelism around popular patterns and anti-patterns sometimes this causes blind adoption. I think most things have individual pros and cons and it's important to educate what the cons are and when it doesn't make sense to make a particular choice. The pros are constantly advocated. "It depends" I think applies most times but the industry does a poor job at communicating what it depends ON. Also many patterns surfaced from inheriting values from previous patterns or have derivatives, which each one brings another set of pros and cons to the table. The sooner we are more aware of the trade off's of decisions we make in software architecture the sooner we make better decisions. This is my first challenge to the community. Even if you are a big fan of said pattern, I challenge you to discover the cons and when you shouldn't use it. Define when MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel) may not make sense in a particular piece of software and based on what reasons. MVVM has a set of pros and cons. Let's try to define them. GO! :)

    Read the article

  • Should Developers Perform All Tasks or Should They Specialize?

    - by Bob Horn
    Disclaimer: The intent of this question isn't to discern what is better for the individual developer, but for the system as a whole. I've worked in environments where small teams managed certain areas. For example, there would be a small team for every one of these functions: UI Framework code Business/application logic Database I've also worked on teams where the developers were responsible for all of these areas and more (QA, analsyt, etc...). My current environment promotes agile development (specifically scrum) and everyone has their hands in every area mentioned above. While there are pros and cons to each approach, I'd be curious to know if there are more pros and cons than I list below, and also what the generally feeling is about which approach is better. Devs Do It All Pros 1. Developers may be more well-rounded 2. Developers know more of the system Cons 1. Everyone has their hands in all areas, increasing the probability of creating less-than-optimal results in that area 2. It can take longer to do something with which you are unfamiliar (jack of all trades, master of none) Devs Specialize Pros 1. Developers can create policies and procedures for their area of expertise and more easily enforce them 2. Developers have more of a chance to become deeply knowledgeable about their specific area and make it the best it can be 3. Other developers don't cross boundaries and degrade another area Cons 1. As one colleague put it: "Why would you want to pigeon-hole yourself like that?" (Meaning some developers won't get a chance to work in certain areas.) It's easy to say how wonderful agile is, and that we should do it all, but I'm somewhat of a fan of having areas of expertise. Without that expertise, I've seen code degrade, database schemas become difficult to manage, hack UI code, etc... Let's face it, some people make careers out of doing just UI work, or just database work. It's not that easy to just fill in and do as good of a job as an expert in that area.

    Read the article

  • Architecture driven by users, or by actions/content?

    - by hugerth
    I have a question about designing MVC app architecture. Let's say our application has three main categories of views (items of type 1, items of type 2...). And we have three (or more in future) types of users - Admins, let's say Moderators and typical Users. And in the future there might be more of them. Admins have full access to app, Moderators can visit only 2/3 type of items, and Users can visit only basic type of items. Should I divide my controllers/views/whatever like this: Items "A", Items "B", Items "C", then make them 100% finished and at the end add access privileges? Pros: DRY option Cons Conditional expressions in views Or another options: Items "A" / Admin, Items "A" / Moderator / Items "B" Admin ...? Pros: Divided parts of application for specific user (is that pros?) Cons: A lot of repeated code I don't have great experience in planning such things so it would nice if you can give me some tips or links to learn something about it.

    Read the article

  • What is a good platform for building a game framework targetting both web and native languages?

    - by fuzzyTew
    I would like to develop (or find, if one is already in development) a framework with support for accelerated graphics and sound built on a system flexible enough to compile to the following: native ppc/x86/x86_64/arm binaries or a language which compiles to them javascript actionscript bytecode or a language which compiles to it (actionscript 3, haxe) optionally java I imagine, for example, creating an API where I can open windows and make OpenGL-like calls and the framework maps this in a relatively efficient manner to either WebGL with a canvas object, 3d graphics in Flash, OpenGL ES 2 with EGL, or desktop OpenGL in an X11, Windows, or Cocoa window. I have so far looked into these avenues: Building the game library in haXe Pros: Targets exist for php, javascript, actionscript bytecode, c++ High level, object oriented language Cons: No support for finally{} blocks or destructors, making resource cleanup difficult C++ target does not allow room for producing highly optimized libraries -- the foreign function interface requires all primitive types be boxed in a wrapper object, as if writing bindings for a scripting language; these feel unideal for real-time graphics and audio, especially exporting low-level functions. Doesn't seem quite yet mature Using the C preprocessor to create a translator, writing programs entirely with macros Pros: CPP is widespread and simple to use Cons: This is an arduous task and probably the wrong tool for the job CPP implementations differ widely in support for features (e.g. xcode cpp has no variadic macros despite claiming C99 compliance) There is little-to-no room for optimization in this route Using llvm's support for multiple backends to target c/c++ to web languages Pros: Can code in c/c++ LLVM is a very mature highly optimizing compiler performing e.g. global inlining Targets exist for actionscript (alchemy) and javascript (emscripten) Cons: Actionscript target is closed source, unmaintained, and buggy. Javascript targets do not use features of HTML5 for appropriate optimization (e.g. linear memory with typed arrays) and are immature An LLVM target must convert from low-level bytecode, so high-level constructs are lost and bloated unreadable code is created from translating individual instructions, which may be more difficult for an unprepared JIT to optimize. "jump" instructions cause problems for languages with no "goto" statements. Using libclang to write a translator from C/C++ to web languages Pros: A beautiful parsing library providing easy access to the code structure Can code in C/C++ Has sponsored developer effort from Apple Cons: Incomplete; current feature set targets IDEs. Basic operators are unexposed and must be manually parsed from the returned AST element to be identified. Translating code prior to compilation may forgo optimizations assumed in c/c++ such as inlining. Creating new code generators for clang to translate into web languages Pros: Can code in C/C++ as libclang Cons: There is no API; code structure is unstable A much larger job than using libclang; the innards of clang are complex Building the game library in Common Lisp Pros: Flexible, ancient, well-developed language Extensive introspection should ease writing translators Translators exist for at least javascript Cons: Unfamiliar language No standardized library functions, widely varying implementations Which of these avenues should I pursue? Do you know of any others, or any systems that might be useful? Does a general project like this exist somewhere already? Thank you for any input.

    Read the article

  • .Net 4.0 Memory-Mapped Files verses RDMS Storage

    - by Harry
    I'm interested in people's thoughts comparing storing data in a traditional SQL based Database or utilising a Memory-Mapped File such as the one in the new .Net 4.0 runtime. The data in question would be arrays of simple structures. Obvious pros and cons: SQL Database Pros Adhoc query support SQL Management Tools Schema changes (adding more columns and setting default values) Memory-Mapped Pros Lighter overhead? (this is an assumption on my part) Shareable between process threads Any others? Is it worth it for performance gains?

    Read the article

  • In ASP.NET MVC (3.0/Razor), do you prefer multiple views, or conditionals within views? Why?

    - by Chad
    For my new web app, I'm debating on using multiple views, or conditionals within views. An example scenario would be showing different info to users who are authenticated vs non-authenticated. This could be handled a couple ways. In the controller, check IsAuthenticated and return a view based on that In the view, check IsAuthenticated and show blocks of info based on that Pros of multiple views: Smaller, less complicated view - next to no logic in the view Pros of single views: less view files to maintain The obvious cons are the opposites of the pros: more files to maintain or more complicated view files. Which do you prefer? Why? Any pros/cons I haven't outlined here? Update: Assume each view uses a layout page and partial views to abstract the obviously repetitive code.

    Read the article

  • Microsoft BI Conference 2011 in Lisbon

    - by AlbertoFerrari
    Anyone interested in BI from Portugal or Spain should not miss the Microsoft BI Conference 2011 in Lisbon : one full day ( March, 25, 2011 ) with three tracks on Business Intelligence: Decision Makers BI pros Intro to BI. I am going to present two sessions on PowerPivot: one is a nice deep dive into DAX for BI pros, the other is about self service BI for decision makers. Titles and the complete agenda will be published in the next days, but I suggest to save the date. The full event is free and it...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Azure Task Scheduling Options

    - by charlie.mott
    Currently, the Azure PaaS does not offer a distributed\resilient task scheduling service.  If you do want to host a task scheduling product\solution off-premise (and ideally use Azure), what are your options? PaaS Option 1: Worker Roles Use a worker role to schedule and execute actions at specific time periods.  There are a few frameworks available to assist with this: http://azuretoolkit.codeplex.com https://github.com/Lokad/lokad-cloud/wiki/TaskScheduler http://blog.smarx.com/posts/building-a-task-scheduler-in-windows-azure - This addresses a slightly different set of requirements. It’s a more dynamic approach for queuing up tasks, but not repeatable tasks (e.g. daily). I found the Azure Toolkit option the most simple to implement.  Step 1 : Create a domain entity implementing IJob for each job to schedule.  In this sample, I asynchronously call a WCF service method. 1: namespace Acme.WorkerRole.Jobs 2: { 3: using AzureToolkit; 4: using ScheduledTasksService; 5: 6: public class UploadEmployeesJob : IJob 7: { 8: public void Run() 9: { 10: // Call Tasks Service 11: var client = new ScheduledTasksServiceClient("BasicHttpBinding_IScheduledTasksService"); 12: client.UploadEmployees(); 13: client.Close(); 14: } 15: } 16: } Step 2 : In the worker role run method, add the jobs to the toolkit engine. 1: namespace Acme.WorkerRole 2: { 3: using AzureToolkit.Engine; 4: using Jobs; 5:   6: public class WorkerRole : WorkerRoleEntryPoint 7: { 8: public override void Run() 9: { 10: var engine = new CloudEngine(); 11:   12: // Add Scheduled Jobs (using CronJob syntax - see http://www.adminschoice.com/crontab-quick-reference). 13:   14: // 1. Upload Employee job - 8.00 PM every weekday (Mon-Fri) 15: engine.WithJobScheduler().ScheduleJob<UploadEmployeesJob>(c => { c.CronSchedule = "0 20 * * 1-5"; }); 16: // 2. Purge Data job - 10 AM every Saturday 17: engine.WithJobScheduler().ScheduleJob<PurgeDataJob>(c => { c.CronSchedule = "0 10 * * 6"; }); 18: // 3. Process Exceptions job - Every 5 minutes 19: engine.WithJobScheduler().ScheduleJob<ProcessExceptionsJob>(c => { c.CronSchedule = "*/5 * * * *"; }); 20:   21: engine.Run(); 22: base.Run(); 23: } 24: } 25: } Pros Cons Azure Toolkit option is simple to implement. For the AzureToolkit option, you are limited to a single worker role.  Otherwise, the jobs will be executed multiple times, once for each worker role instance.   Paying for a continuously running worker role, even if it just processes a single job once a week.  If you only have a few scheduled tasks to run calling asynchronous services hosted in different web roles, an extra small worker role likely to be sufficient.  However, for an extra small worker role this still costs $14.40/month (03/09/2012). Option 2: Use Scheduled Task on Azure Web Role calling a console app Setup a Windows Scheduled Task on the Azure Web Role. This calls a console application that calls the WCF service methods that run the task actions. This design is described here: http://www.ronaldwidha.net/2011/02/23/cron-job-on-azure-using-scheduled-task-on-a-web-role-to-replace-azure-worker-role-for-background-job/ http://www.voiceoftech.com/swhitley/index.php/2011/07/windows-azure-task-scheduler/ http://devlicio.us/blogs/vinull/archive/2011/10/23/moving-to-azure-worker-roles-for-nothing-and-tasks-for-free.aspx Pros Cons Fairly easy to implement. Supportability - I RDC’ed onto the Azure server and stopped the scheduled task. I then rebooted the machine and the task was re-started. I also tried deleting the task and rebooting, the same thing occurred. The only way to permanently guarantee that a task is disabled is to do a fresh deployment. I think this is a major supportability concern.   Saleability - multiple instances would trigger multiple tasks. You can only have one instance for the scheduled task web role. The guidance implements setup of the scheduled task as part of a web role instance. But if you have more than one instance in a web role, the task will be triggered multiple times for each scheduled action (once per machine). Workaround: If we wanted to use scheduled tasks for another client with a saleable WCF service, then we could include the console & tasks scripts in a separate web role (e.g. a empty WCF service with no real purpose to it). SaaS Option 3: Azure Marketplace I thought that someone might be offering this type of service via the Azure marketplace. At the point of writing this blog post, I did not find anyone doing so. https://datamarket.azure.com/ Pros Cons   Nobody currently offers this on the Azure Marketplace. Option 4: Online Job Scheduling Service Provider There are plenty of online providers that offer this type of service on a pay-as-you-go approach.  Some of these are free for small usage.   Many of these providers are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcron Pros Cons No bespoke development for scheduler. Reliance on third party. IaaS Option 5: Setup Scheduling Software on Azure IaaS VM’s One of job scheduling software offerings could be installed and configured on Azure VM’s.  A list of software options is listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_job_scheduler_software Pros Cons Enterprise distributed\resilient task scheduling service VM Setup and maintenance   Software Licence Costs Option 6: VM Gallery A the time of writing this blog post, I did not spot a VM in the gallery that included pre-installation of any of the above software options. Pros Cons   No current VM template. Summary For my current project that had a small handful of tasks to schedule with a limited project budget I chose option 1 (a worker role using the Azure Toolkit to schedule tasks).  If I was building an enterprise scale solution for the future, options 4 and 5 are currently worthy of consideration. Hopefully, Microsoft will include tasks scheduling in the future as part of their PaaS offerings.

    Read the article

  • Need to find a find a fast/multi-user database program

    - by user65961
    Our company is currently utilizing Excel and have been encountering a series of issues for starters we have multiple users sharing this application. We utilize it write our schedules for our employees and generate staffing levels. May someone give me please or inform me what are the pros and cons of this program and offer suggestions for another database that allows multiple users to share and also give the pros and cons need something that will hold massive data and allow sharing, protecting capabilities.

    Read the article

  • PowerShell the SQL Server Way

    Although Windows PowerShell has been available to IT professionals going on seven years, there are still many IT pros who are just now deciding to see what the fuss is all about. Depending on your job, you might find PowerShell an invaluable tool. Microsoft's plan is that PowerShell will be the management tool for all of its servers and platforms. For most IT pros, it's not a matter of if you'll be using PowerShell, only a matter of when.

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Functional Partitioning

    This article contains common different methods of functional partitioning and common considerations for database setup and capacity. Company DBAs, database developers, engineers and architects should consider the pros and cons of any method of sharding or partitioning since compromises will have to be made given the pros and cons of a system setup.

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Functional Partitioning

    This article contains common different methods of functional partitioning and common considerations for database setup and capacity. Company DBAs, database developers, engineers and architects should consider the pros and cons of any method of sharding or partitioning since compromises will have to be made given the pros and cons of a system setup.

    Read the article

  • Cloud to On-Premise Connectivity Patterns

    - by Rajesh Raheja
    Do you have a requirement to convert an Opportunity in Salesforce.com to an Order/Quote in Oracle E-Business Suite? Or maybe you want the creation of an Oracle RightNow Incident to trigger an on-premise Oracle E-Business Suite Service Request creation for RMA and Field Scheduling? If so, read on. In a previous blog post, I discussed integrating TO cloud applications, however the use cases above are the reverse i.e. receiving data FROM cloud applications (SaaS) TO on-premise applications/databases that sit behind a firewall. Oracle SOA Suite is assumed to be on-premise with with Oracle Service Bus as the mediation and virtualization layer. The main considerations for the patterns are are security i.e. shielding enterprise resources; and scalability i.e. minimizing firewall latency. Let me use an analogy to help visualize the patterns: the on-premise system is your home - with your most valuable possessions - and the SaaS app is your favorite on-line store which regularly ships (inbound calls) various types of parcels/items (message types/service operations). You need the items at home (on-premise) but want to safe guard against misguided elements of society (internet threats) who may masquerade as postal workers and vandalize property (denial of service?). Let's look at the patterns. Pattern: Pull from Cloud The on-premise system polls from the SaaS apps and picks up the message instead of having it delivered. This may be done using Oracle RightNow Object Query Language or SOAP APIs. This is particularly suited for certain integration approaches wherein messages are trickling in, can be centralized and batched e.g. retrieving event notifications on an hourly schedule from the Oracle Messaging Service. To compare this pattern with the home analogy, you are avoiding any deliveries to your home and instead go to the post office/UPS/Fedex store to pick up your parcel. Every time. Pros: On-premise assets not exposed to the Internet, firewall issues avoided by only initiating outbound connections Cons: Polling mechanisms may affect performance, may not satisfy near real-time requirements Pattern: Open Firewall Ports The on-premise system exposes the web services that needs to be invoked by the cloud application. This requires opening up firewall ports, routing calls to the appropriate internal services behind the firewall. Fusion Applications uses this pattern, and auto-provisions the services on the various virtual hosts to secure the topology. This works well for service integration, but may not suffice for large volume data integration. Using the home analogy, you have now decided to receive parcels instead of going to the post office every time. A door mail slot cut out allows the postman can drop small parcels, but there is still concern about cutting new holes for larger packages. Pros: optimal pattern for near real-time needs, simpler administration once the service is provisioned Cons: Needs firewall ports to be opened up for new services, may not suffice for batch integration requiring direct database access Pattern: Virtual Private Networking The on-premise network is "extended" to the cloud (or an intermediary on-demand / managed service offering) using Virtual Private Networking (VPN) so that messages are delivered to the on-premise system in a trusted channel. Using the home analogy, you entrust a set of keys with a neighbor or property manager who receives the packages, and then drops it inside your home. Pros: Individual firewall ports don't need to be opened, more suited for high scalability needs, can support large volume data integration, easier management of one connection vs a multitude of open ports Cons: VPN setup, specific hardware support, requires cloud provider to support virtual private computing Pattern: Reverse Proxy / API Gateway The on-premise system uses a reverse proxy "API gateway" software on the DMZ to receive messages. The reverse proxy can be implemented using various mechanisms e.g. Oracle API Gateway provides firewall and proxy services along with comprehensive security, auditing, throttling benefits. If a firewall already exists, then Oracle Service Bus or Oracle HTTP Server virtual hosts can provide reverse proxy implementations on the DMZ. Custom built implementations are also possible if specific functionality (such as message store-n-forward) is needed. In the home analogy, this pattern sits in between cutting mail slots and handing over keys. Instead, you install (and maintain) a mailbox in your home premises outside your door. The post office delivers the parcels in your mailbox, from where you can securely retrieve it. Pros: Very secure, very flexible Cons: Introduces a new software component, needs DMZ deployment and management Pattern: On-Premise Agent (Tunneling) A light weight "agent" software sits behind the firewall and initiates the communication with the cloud, thereby avoiding firewall issues. It then maintains a bi-directional connection either with pull or push based approaches using (or abusing, depending on your viewpoint) the HTTP protocol. Programming protocols such as Comet, WebSockets, HTTP CONNECT, HTTP SSH Tunneling etc. are possible implementation options. In the home analogy, a resident receives the parcel from the postal worker by opening the door, however you still take precautions with chain locks and package inspections. Pros: Light weight software, IT doesn't need to setup anything Cons: May bypass critical firewall checks e.g. virus scans, separate software download, proliferation of non-IT managed software Conclusion The patterns above are some of the most commonly encountered ones for cloud to on-premise integration. Selecting the right pattern for your project involves looking at your scalability needs, security restrictions, sync vs asynchronous implementation, near real-time vs batch expectations, cloud provider capabilities, budget, and more. In some cases, the basic "Pull from Cloud" may be acceptable, whereas in others, an extensive VPN topology may be well justified. For more details on the Oracle cloud integration strategy, download this white paper.

    Read the article

  • Cloud to On-Premise Connectivity Patterns

    - by Rajesh Raheja
    Do you have a requirement to convert an Opportunity in Salesforce.com to an Order/Quote in Oracle E-Business Suite? Or maybe you want the creation of an Oracle RightNow Incident to trigger an on-premise Oracle E-Business Suite Service Request creation for RMA and Field Scheduling? If so, read on. In a previous blog post, I discussed integrating TO cloud applications, however the use cases above are the reverse i.e. receiving data FROM cloud applications (SaaS) TO on-premise applications/databases that sit behind a firewall. Oracle SOA Suite is assumed to be on-premise with with Oracle Service Bus as the mediation and virtualization layer. The main considerations for the patterns are are security i.e. shielding enterprise resources; and scalability i.e. minimizing firewall latency. Let me use an analogy to help visualize the patterns: the on-premise system is your home - with your most valuable possessions - and the SaaS app is your favorite on-line store which regularly ships (inbound calls) various types of parcels/items (message types/service operations). You need the items at home (on-premise) but want to safe guard against misguided elements of society (internet threats) who may masquerade as postal workers and vandalize property (denial of service?). Let's look at the patterns. Pattern: Pull from Cloud The on-premise system polls from the SaaS apps and picks up the message instead of having it delivered. This may be done using Oracle RightNow Object Query Language or SOAP APIs. This is particularly suited for certain integration approaches wherein messages are trickling in, can be centralized and batched e.g. retrieving event notifications on an hourly schedule from the Oracle Messaging Service. To compare this pattern with the home analogy, you are avoiding any deliveries to your home and instead go to the post office/UPS/Fedex store to pick up your parcel. Every time. Pros: On-premise assets not exposed to the Internet, firewall issues avoided by only initiating outbound connections Cons: Polling mechanisms may affect performance, may not satisfy near real-time requirements Pattern: Open Firewall Ports The on-premise system exposes the web services that needs to be invoked by the cloud application. This requires opening up firewall ports, routing calls to the appropriate internal services behind the firewall. Fusion Applications uses this pattern, and auto-provisions the services on the various virtual hosts to secure the topology. This works well for service integration, but may not suffice for large volume data integration. Using the home analogy, you have now decided to receive parcels instead of going to the post office every time. A door mail slot cut out allows the postman can drop small parcels, but there is still concern about cutting new holes for larger packages. Pros: optimal pattern for near real-time needs, simpler administration once the service is provisioned Cons: Needs firewall ports to be opened up for new services, may not suffice for batch integration requiring direct database access Pattern: Virtual Private Networking The on-premise network is "extended" to the cloud (or an intermediary on-demand / managed service offering) using Virtual Private Networking (VPN) so that messages are delivered to the on-premise system in a trusted channel. Using the home analogy, you entrust a set of keys with a neighbor or property manager who receives the packages, and then drops it inside your home. Pros: Individual firewall ports don't need to be opened, more suited for high scalability needs, can support large volume data integration, easier management of one connection vs a multitude of open ports Cons: VPN setup, specific hardware support, requires cloud provider to support virtual private computing Pattern: Reverse Proxy / API Gateway The on-premise system uses a reverse proxy "API gateway" software on the DMZ to receive messages. The reverse proxy can be implemented using various mechanisms e.g. Oracle API Gateway provides firewall and proxy services along with comprehensive security, auditing, throttling benefits. If a firewall already exists, then Oracle Service Bus or Oracle HTTP Server virtual hosts can provide reverse proxy implementations on the DMZ. Custom built implementations are also possible if specific functionality (such as message store-n-forward) is needed. In the home analogy, this pattern sits in between cutting mail slots and handing over keys. Instead, you install (and maintain) a mailbox in your home premises outside your door. The post office delivers the parcels in your mailbox, from where you can securely retrieve it. Pros: Very secure, very flexible Cons: Introduces a new software component, needs DMZ deployment and management Pattern: On-Premise Agent (Tunneling) A light weight "agent" software sits behind the firewall and initiates the communication with the cloud, thereby avoiding firewall issues. It then maintains a bi-directional connection either with pull or push based approaches using (or abusing, depending on your viewpoint) the HTTP protocol. Programming protocols such as Comet, WebSockets, HTTP CONNECT, HTTP SSH Tunneling etc. are possible implementation options. In the home analogy, a resident receives the parcel from the postal worker by opening the door, however you still take precautions with chain locks and package inspections. Pros: Light weight software, IT doesn't need to setup anything Cons: May bypass critical firewall checks e.g. virus scans, separate software download, proliferation of non-IT managed software Conclusion The patterns above are some of the most commonly encountered ones for cloud to on-premise integration. Selecting the right pattern for your project involves looking at your scalability needs, security restrictions, sync vs asynchronous implementation, near real-time vs batch expectations, cloud provider capabilities, budget, and more. In some cases, the basic "Pull from Cloud" may be acceptable, whereas in others, an extensive VPN topology may be well justified. For more details on the Oracle cloud integration strategy, download this white paper.

    Read the article

  • Quartz 2D or OpenGL ES? Pros and cons in the long term, possibility of migration to other platforms.

    - by fspirit
    Hi all! I'm having a hard time deciding whether to go with Quartz2D or OpenGL for an iPad game. It will be 2D mostly, but effect-intense (simultaneous lighting effects for 10-30 objects, 10-20 simultaneous animations on the screen). So far, assuming i'm equally dumb in both technologies and have to learn them from the ground, i came to this list. (I've read several topics here, on SO, with names like "Quartz or OpenGL", but i'm still left with some questions) Quartz: Better time-to-market, because of ready to use absractions like UIView, UIImageView, CoreAnimation abstractions Open GL ES Closer to hardware, thus, performance is better. App, implemented with OpenGL ES can be easier migrated to Android, MeeGo, Windows Phone, etc. My questions are: How time will it take to rewrite Quartz 2d app to use OpenGL? Lets say it took me 2 man-month to write Quartz app, how much time will i need to rewrite it? (Please, just some subjective opinions, i'll try to summarize them somehow) Regarding the ease of migration to other platforms, when using OpenGL, is it really so? Or efforts when migrating Quartz app from iPhoneOS to Android will be not so much bigger, compared to OpenGL app migration? (Ease of migration is quite important criterion) Regarding OpenGL, should i go with OpenGL 1.1 or 2.0, concerning migration? (Android supports 2.0 through NDK, but dont know whether NDK's use will increase or decrease migration efforts)

    Read the article

  • Load-balancer options

    - by toolkit
    I am looking at a number of possible options for load-balancing. So far, I am constrained to the following options: DNS server load-balancer, balancing to a cluster of tomcat servers, with terracotta for session replication. Pros - don't have to buy new kit. Cons - DNS lb can keep directing to a broken server. Hardware load-balancer, direct to cluster of tomcat servers. Pros - could have second box for failover lb. Cons - expense. Apache server load-balancer. Pros - apache's lb polls for broken servers. Cons - apache server is single point of failure, plus need to buy another server. Are there any other options I should consider? Thanks. Update: Thanks for all the answers so far +1's all round. Not accepting an answer yet, to keep more ideas coming.

    Read the article

  • Drawbacks of installing linux on usb stick?

    - by Znarkus
    I am setting up a router/nas/http/whatever server based on an ION mini-ITX board. I've installed Ubuntu Server on an old 160 GB drive, but it generates a lot more heat and vibrates more than my other new drive (storage). It just doesn't fit the concept, and worse: it takes up a SATA port. As SSD's are crazy expensive I'm thinking of buying an extra 4 GB USB stick, and raid0 it. From my point of view, these are the pros/cons: Pros Low power consumption No vibrations No heat Smaller Get to buy new, larger USB stick (:D) Cons Shorter life time Slower Raid 0 More work maintaing/installing? I think the pros overweighs the cons. Shorter life time and raid 0 is countered by regular backups of the configs/settings. Slower is partially countered by raid 0, and I don't know about the last one. What do You think? Experience? Another solution?

    Read the article

  • SQLAuthority News – #SQLPASS 2012 Book Signing Photos

    - by pinaldave
    I am at SQLPASS 2012 and the event is going great. Here are few of the random photos and random news. We had participated in three different book signing event today. SQL Queries 2012 Joes 2 Pros Book 1 Launch and Book Signing SQL 2012 Functions Book Launch at Embarcadero SQL Backup and Recovery Book Launch at Idera Rick Morelan and I authored the first two books 1) SQL 2012 Functions and 2) SQL Queries 2012 Joes 2 Pros Volume 1. Our dear friend Tim Randney authored SQL Backup and Recovery Book. In the book signing event of Tim Radney I went ahead of the time and stood in the line. I was fortunate to receive the very first copy of the autographed book from Tim Radney. We have one more book signing event of the book SQL Backup and Recovery by Tim Randey on Friday 9, 2012 between 12 to 1 PM at Joes 2 Pros booth #117. This is your last chance to shake hands with us and meet us in person. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com)   Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL PASS, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQLAuthority Author Visit, SQLAuthority News, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • Video for an ads-driven web-site

    - by AntonAL
    I have a website, wich i will fill with a bunch of useful videos. I've implemented an ads rotation engine for articles and will do so for videos. The next milestone is to decide, how video will be integrated. They are two ways: To host videos myself. Pros: complete freedom. Cons: need tens of gigabytes of storage; support for multiple formats to be crossbrowser and crossdevice. Use Youtube. Pros: Very simple to use; nothing to do. What are pros and cons for each way ? Some questions for YouTube: Will i be able to control playback of YouTube-embedded video to make post-rolls ? What is ranking impact on my web-site, when most of pages will refer to YouTube ? Will, say, iPad play video, embedded via YouTube's iframe ? Does relying entirely on YouTube have a long-term perspective for a web-site, that should bring money ?

    Read the article

  • Threading models when talking to hardware devices

    - by Fuzz
    When writing an interface to hardware over a communication bus, communications timing can sometimes be critical to the operation of a device. As such, it is common for developers to spin up new threads to handle communications. It can also be a terrible idea to have a whole bunch of threads in your system, an in the case that you have multiple hardware devices you may have many many threads that are out of control of the main application. Certainly it can be common to have two threads per device, one for reading and one for writing. I am trying to determine the pros and cons of the two different models I can think of, and would love the help of the Programmers community. Each device instance gets handles it's own threads (or shares a thread for a communication device). A thread may exist for writing, and one for reading. Requested writes to a device from the API are buffered and worked on by the writer thread. The read thread exists in the case of blocking communications, and uses call backs to pass read data to the application. Timing of communications can be handled by the communications thread. Devices aren't given their own threads. Instead read and write requests are queued/buffered. The application then calls a "DoWork" function on the interface and allows all read and writes to take place and fire their callbacks. Timing is handled by the application, and the driver can request to be called at a given specific frequency. Pros for Item 1 include finer grain control of timing at the communication level at the expense of having control of whats going on at the higher level application level (which for a real time system, can be terrible). Pros for Item 2 include better control over the timing of the entire system for the application, at the expense of allowing each driver to handle it's own business. If anyone has experience with these scenarios, I'd love to hear some ideas on the approaches used.

    Read the article

  • NFS users getting a laggy GUI expierence

    - by elzilrac
    I am setting up a system (ubuntu 12.04) that uses ldap, pam, and autofs to load users and their home folders from a remote server. One of the options for login is sitting down at the machine and starting a GUI session. Programs such as chormium (browser) that preform many read/write operations in the ~/.cache and ~/.config files are slowing down the GUI experience as well as putting strain of the NFS server that is causing other users to have problems. Ubuntu had the handy-dandy XDG_CONFIG_HOME and XDG_CACHE_HOME variables that can be set to change the default location of .cache and .config from the home folder to somewhere else. There are several places to set them, but most of them are not optimal. /etc/environment pros: will work across all shells cons: cannot use variables like $USER so that you can't make users have different new locations for .cache and .config. Every users' new location would be the same directory. /etc/bash.bashrc pros: $USER works, so you can place them in different folders cons: only gets run for bash compatible shells ~/.pam_environment pros: works regardless of shell cons: cannot use system variables (like $USER), has it's own syntax, and has to be created for every user

    Read the article

  • Ask the Readers: Backing Your Files Up – Local Storage versus the Cloud

    - by Asian Angel
    Backing up important files is something that all of us should do on a regular basis, but may not have given as much thought to as we should. This week we would like to know if you use local storage, cloud storage, or a combination of both to back your files up. Photo by camknows. For some people local storage media may be the most convenient and/or affordable way to back up their files. Having those files stored on media under your control can also provide a sense of security and peace of mind. But storing your files locally may also have drawbacks if something happens to your storage media. So how do you know whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages or not? Here are some possible pros and cons that may affect your decision to use local storage to back up your files: Local Storage Pros You are in control of your data Your files are portable and can go with you when needed if using external or flash drives Files are accessible without an internet connection You can easily add more storage capacity as needed (additional drives, etc.) Cons You need to arrange room for your storage media (if you have multiple externals drives, etc.) Possible hardware failure No access to your files if you forget to bring your storage media with you or it is too bulky to bring along Theft and/or loss of home with all contents due to circumstances like fire If you are someone who is always on the go and needs to travel as lightly as possible, cloud storage may be the perfect way for you to back up and access your files. Perhaps your laptop has a hard-drive failure or gets stolen…unhappy events to be sure, but you will still have a copy of your files available. Perhaps a company wants to make sure their records, files, and other information are backed up off site in case of a major hardware or system failure…expensive and/or frustrating to fix if it happens, but once again there is a nice backup ready to go once things are fixed. As with local storage, here are some possible pros and cons that may influence your choice of cloud storage to back up your files: Cloud Storage Pros No need to carry around flash or bulky external drives All of your files are accessible wherever there is an internet connection No need to deal with local storage media (or its’ upkeep) Your files are still safe if your home is broken into or other unfortunate circumstances occur Cons Your files and data are not 100% under your control Possible hardware failure or loss of files on the part of your cloud storage provider (this could include a disgruntled employee wreaking havoc) No access to your files if you do not have an internet connection The cloud storage provider may eventually shutdown due to financial hardship or other unforeseen circumstances The possibility of your files and data being stolen by hackers due to a security breach on the part of your cloud storage provider You may also prefer to try and cover all of the possibilities by using both local and cloud storage to back up your files. If something happens to one, you always have the other to fall back on. Need access to those files at or away from home? As long as you have access to either your storage media or an internet connection, you are good to go. Maybe you are getting ready to choose a backup solution but are not sure which one would work better for you. Here is your chance to ask your fellow HTG readers which one they would recommend. Got a great backup solution already in place? Then be sure to share it with your fellow readers! How-To Geek Polls require Javascript. Please Click Here to View the Poll. Latest Features How-To Geek ETC The 20 Best How-To Geek Explainer Topics for 2010 How to Disable Caps Lock Key in Windows 7 or Vista How to Use the Avira Rescue CD to Clean Your Infected PC The Complete List of iPad Tips, Tricks, and Tutorials Is Your Desktop Printer More Expensive Than Printing Services? 20 OS X Keyboard Shortcuts You Might Not Know Winter Sunset by a Mountain Stream Wallpaper Add Sleek Style to Your Desktop with the Aston Martin Theme for Windows 7 Awesome WebGL Demo – Flight of the Navigator from Mozilla Sunrise on the Alien Desert Planet Wallpaper Add Falling Snow to Webpages with the Snowfall Extension for Opera [Browser Fun] Automatically Keep Up With the Latest Releases from Mozilla Labs in Firefox 4.0

    Read the article

  • Multitenancy in SQL Azure

    - by cibrax
    If you are building a SaaS application in Windows Azure that relies on SQL Azure, it’s probably that you will need to support multiple tenants at database level. This is short overview of the different approaches you can use for support that scenario, A different database per tenant A new database is created and assigned when a tenant is provisioned. Pros Complete isolation between tenants. All the data for a tenant lives in a database only he can access. Cons It’s not cost effective. SQL Azure databases are not cheap, and the minimum size for a database is 1GB.  You might be paying for storage that you don’t really use. A different connection pool is required per database. Updates must be replicated across all the databases You need multiple backup strategies across all the databases Multiple schemas in a database shared by all the tenants A single database is shared among all the tenants, but every tenant is assigned to a different schema and database user. Pros You only pay for a single database. Data is isolated at database level. If the credentials for one tenant is compromised, the rest of the data for the other tenants is not. Cons You need to replicate all the database objects in every schema, so the number of objects can increase indefinitely. Updates must be replicated across all the schemas. The connection pool for the database must maintain a different connection per tenant (or set of credentials) A different user is required per tenant, which is stored at server level. You have to backup that user independently. Centralizing the database access with store procedures in a database shared by all the tenants A single database is shared among all the tenants, but nobody can read the data directly from the tables. All the data operations are performed through store procedures that centralize the access to the tenant data. The store procedures contain some logic to map the database user to an specific tenant. Pros You only pay for a single database. You only have a set of objects to maintain and backup. Cons There is no real isolation. All the data for the different tenants is shared in the same tables. You can not use traditional ORM like EF code first for consuming the data. A different user is required per tenant, which is stored at server level. You have to backup that user independently. SQL Federations A single database is shared among all the tenants, but a different federation is used per tenant. A federation in few words, it’s a mechanism for horizontal scaling in SQL Azure, which basically uses the idea of logical partitions to distribute data based on certain criteria. Pros You only have a single database with multiple federations. You can use filtering in the connections to pick the right federation, so any ORM could be used to consume the data. Cons There is no real isolation at that database level. The isolation is enforced programmatically with federations.

    Read the article

  • What Apache/PHP configurations do you know and how good are they?

    - by FractalizeR
    Hello. I wanted to ask you about PHP/Apache configuration methods you know, their pros and cons. I will start myself: ---------------- PHP as Apache module---------------- Pros: good speed since you don't need to start exe every time especially in mpm-worker mode. You can also use various PHP accelerators in this mode like APC or eAccelerator. Cons: if you are running apache in mpm-worker mode, you may face stability issues because every glitch in any php script will lead to unstability to the whole thread pool of that apache process. Also in this mode all scripts are executed on behalf of apache user. This is bad for security. mpm-worker configuration requires PHP compiled in thread-safe mode. At least CentOS and RedHat default repositories doesn't have thread-safe PHP version so on these OSes you need to compile at least PHP yourself (there is a way to activate worker mpm on Apache). The use of thread-safe PHP binaries is considered experimental and unstable. Plus, many PHP extensions does not support thread-safe mode or were not well-tested in thread-safe mode. ---------------- PHP as CGI ---------------- This seems to be the slowest default configuration which seems to be a "con" itself ;) ---------------- PHP as CGI via mod_suphp ---------------- Pros: suphp allows you to execute php scipts on behalf of the script file owner. This way you can securely separate different sites on the same machine. Also, suphp allows to use different php.ini files per virtual host. Cons: PHP in CGI mode means less performance. In this mode you can't use php accelerators like APC because each time new process is spawned to handle script rendering the cache of previous process useless. BTW, do you know the way to apply some accelerator in this config? I heard something about using shm for php bytecode cache. Also, you cannot configure PHP via .htaccess files in this mode. You will need to install PECL htscanner for this if you need to set various per-script options via .htaccess (php_value / php_flag directives) ---------------- PHP as CGI via suexec ---------------- This configuration looks the same as with suphp, but I heard, that it's slower and less safe. Almost same pros and cons apply. ---------------- PHP as FastCGI ---------------- Pros: FastCGI standard allows single php process to handle several scripts before php process is killed. This way you gain performance since no need to spin up new php process for each script. You can also use PHP accelerators in this configuration (see cons section for comment). Also, FCGI almost like suphp also allows php processes to be executed on behalf of some user. mod_fcgid seems to have the most complete fcgi support and flexibility for apache. Cons: The use of php accelerator in fastcgi mode will lead to high memory consumption because each PHP process will have his own bytecode cache (unless there is some accelerator that can use shared memory for bytecode cache. Is there such?). FastCGI is also a little bit complex to configure. You need to create various configuration files and make some configuration modifications. It seems, that fastcgi is the most stable, secure, fast and flexible PHP configuration, however, a bit difficult to be configured. But, may be, I missed something? Comments are welcome!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >