Search Results

Search found 4765 results on 191 pages for 'gh unit'.

Page 131/191 | < Previous Page | 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138  | Next Page >

• TDD with SQL and data manipulation functions

  - by Xophmeister

  While I'm a professional programmer, I've never been formally trained in software engineering. As I'm frequently visiting here and SO, I've noticed a trend for writing unit tests whenever possible and, as my software gets more complex and sophisticated, I see automated testing as a good idea in aiding debugging. However, most of my work involves writing complex SQL and then processing the output in some way. How would you write a test to ensure your SQL was returning the correct data, for example? Then, say if the data wasn't under your control (e.g., that of a 3rd party system), how can you efficiently test your processing routines without having to hand write reams of dummy data? The best solution I can think of is making views of the data that, together, cover most cases. I can then join those views with my SQL to see if it's returning the correct records and manually process the views to see if my functions, etc. are doing what they're supposed to. Still, it seems excessive and flakey; particularly finding data to test against...

  Read the article

• Name for Osherove's modified singleton pattern?

  - by Kazark

  I'm pretty well sold on the "singletons are evil" line of thought. Nevertheless, there are limited occurrences when you want to limit the creation of an object. Roy Osherove advises, If you're planning to use a singleton in your design, separate the logic of the singleton class and the logic that makes it a singleton (the part that initializes a static variables, for example) into two separate classes. That way, you can keep the single responsibility principle (SRP) and also have a way to override singleton logic. (The Art of Unit Testing 261-262) This pattern still perpetuates the global state. However, it does result in a testable design, so it seems to me to be a good pattern for mitigating the damage of a singleton. However, Osherove does not give a name to this pattern; but naming a pattern, according to the Gang of Four, is important: Naming a pattern immediately increases our design vocabulary. It lets us design at a higher level of abstraction. (3) Is there a standard name for this pattern? It seems different enough from a standard singleton to deserve a separate name. Decoupled Singleton, perhaps?

  Read the article

• When module calling gets ugly

  - by Pete

  Has this ever happened to you? You've got a suite of well designed, single-responsibility modules, covered by unit tests. In any higher-level function you code, you are (95% of the code) simply taking output from one module and passing it as input to the next. Then, you notice this higher-level function has turned into a 100+ line script with multiple responsibilities. Here is the problem. It is difficult (impossible) to test that script. At least, it seems so. Do you agree? In my current project, all of the bugs came from this script. Further detail: each script represents a unique solution, or algorithm, formed by using different modules in different ways. Question: how can you remedy this situation? Knee-jerk answer: break the script up into single-responsibility modules. Comment on knee-jerk answer: it already is! Best answer I can come up with so far: create higher-level connector objects which "wire" modules together in particular ways (take output from one module, feed it as input to another module). Thus if our script was: FooInput fooIn = new FooInput(1, 2); FooOutput fooOutput = fooModule(fooIn); Double runtimevalue = getsomething(fooOutput.whatever); BarInput barIn = new BarInput( runtimevalue, fooOutput.someOtherValue); BarOutput barOut = barModule(BarIn); It would become with a connector: FooBarConnectionAlgo fooBarConnector = new fooBarConnector(fooModule, barModule); FooInput fooIn = new FooInput(1, 2); BarOutput barOut = fooBarConnector(fooIn); So the advantage is, besides hiding some code and making things clearer, we can test FooBarConnectionAlgo. I'm sure this situation comes up a lot. What do you do?

  Read the article

• Balancing dependency injection with public API design

  - by kolektiv

  I've been contemplating how to balance testable design using dependency injection with providing simple fixed public API. My dilemma is: people would want to do something like var server = new Server(){ ... } and not have to worry about creating the many dependencies and graph of dependencies that a Server(,,,,,,) may have. While developing, I don't worry too much, as I use an IoC/DI framework to handle all that (I'm not using the lifecycle management aspects of any container, which would complicate things further). Now, the dependencies are unlikely to be re-implemented. Componentisation in this case is almost purely for testability (and decent design!) rather than creating seams for extension, etc. People will 99.999% of the time wish to use a default configuration. So. I could hardcode the dependencies. Don't want to do that, we lose our testing! I could provide a default constructor with hard-coded dependencies and one which takes dependencies. That's... messy, and likely to be confusing, but viable. I could make the dependency receiving constructor internal and make my unit tests a friend assembly (assuming C#), which tidies the public API but leaves a nasty hidden trap lurking for maintenance. Having two constructors which are implicitly connected rather than explicitly would be bad design in general in my book. At the moment that's about the least evil I can think of. Opinions? Wisdom?

  Read the article

• How to promote an open-source project?

  - by Shehi

  First of all, I apologize if this is the wrong section of network to post this question. If it is, please feel free to move it to more appropriate location... Question: I would like to hear your ideas regarding the ways of open source projects being started and run. I have an open-source content management system project and here some questions arise: How should I act? Shall I come up with a viable pre-alpha edition with working front- and back-ends first and then announce the project publicly? Or shall I announce it right away from the scratch? As a developer I know that one should use versioning system like Git or SVN, which I do, no problems there. And the merit of unit-testing is also something to remember, which, to be frank, I am not into at all... Project management - I am a beginner in that, at best. Coding techniques and experiences such as Agile development is something I want to explore... In short, any ideas for a developer who is new to open-source world, is most welcome.

  Read the article

• What can be the cause of new bugs appearing somewhere else when a known bug is solved?

  - by MainMa

  During a discussion, one of my colleagues told that he has some difficulties with his current project while trying to solve bugs. "When I solve one bug, something else stops working elsewhere", he said. I started to think about how this could happen, but can't figure it out. I have sometimes similar problems when I am too tired/sleepy to do the work correctly and to have an overall view of the part of the code I was working on. Here, the problem seems to be for a few days or weeks, and is not related to the focus of my colleague. I can also imagine this problem arising on a very large project, very badly managed, where teammates don't have any idea of who does what, and what effect on other's work can have a change they are doing. This is not the case here neither: it's a rather small project with only one developer. It can also be an issue with old, badly maintained and never documented codebase, where the only developers who can really imagine the consequences of a change had left the company years ago. Here, the project just started, and the developer doesn't use anyone's codebase. So what can be the cause of such issue on a fresh, small-size codebase written by a single developer who stays focused on his work? What may help? Unit tests (there are none)? Proper architecture (I'm pretty sure that the codebase has no architecture at all and was written with no preliminary thinking), requiring the whole refactoring? Pair programming? Something else?

  Read the article

• Project frozen - what should I leave to the people after me?

  - by Maistora

  So the project I've been working on is now going to be frozen indefinitely. It is possible that if and when the project unfreezes again, it won't be assigned to me or anybody from the current team. Actually, we inherited the project after it had been frozen before, but there was nothing left by the prior team to help us understand even the basic needs of the project, so we wasted a lot of time getting to know the project well. My question is what do you think we should do to help the people after us to best understand the needs of the project, what we have done, why we've done it, etc. I am open to other ideas of why should we leave some tracks to the others that will work on this project also. Some steps we already have taken: technical documentation (not full but at least there is some); source-control system history; estimations on which parts of the project need improvement and why we think so; bunch of unit tests. issue tracker with all the tickets we've done (EDIT) What do you think of what we've already prepared and what else can we do?

  Read the article

• Supporting and testing multiple versions of a software library in a Maven project

  - by Duncan Jones

  My company has several versions of its software in use by our customers at any one time. My job is to write bespoke Java software for the customers based on the version of software they happen to be running. I've created a Java library that performs many of the tasks I regularly require in a normal project. This is a Maven project that I deploy to our local Artifactory and pull down into other Maven projects when required. I can't decide the best way to support the range of software versions used by our customers. Typically, we have about three versions in use at any one time. They are normally backwards compatible with one another, but that cannot be guaranteed. I have considered the following options for managing this issue: Separate editions for each library version I make a separate release of my library for each version of my company software. Using some Maven cunningness I could automatically produce a tested version linked to each of the then-current company software versions. This is feasible, but not without its technical challenges. The advantage is that this would be fairly automatic and my unit tests have definitely executed against the correct software version. However, I would have to keep updating the versions supported and may end up maintaining a large collection of libraries. One supported version, but others tested I support the oldest software version and make a release against that. I then perform tests with the newer software versions to ensure it still works. I could try and make this testing automatic by having some non-deployed Maven projects that import the software library, the associated test JAR and override the company software version used. If those projects build, then the library is compatible. I could ensure these meta-projects are included in our CI server builds. I welcome comments on which approach is better or a suggestion for a different approach entirely. I'm leaning towards the second option.

  Read the article

• Strategy for versioning on a public repo

  - by biril

  Suppose I'm developing a (javascript) library which is hosted on a public repo (e.g. github). My aim in terms of how version numbers are assigned and incremented is to follow the guidelines of semantic versioning. Now, there's a number of files in my project which compose the actual lib and a number of files that 'support it', the latter being docs, a test suite, etc. My perspective this far has been that version numbers should only apply to the actual lib - not the project as a whole - since the lib alone is 'the unit' that defines the public API. However I'm not satisfied with this approach as, for example, a fix in the test suite constitutes an 'improvement' in my project, which will not be reflected in the version number (or the docs which contain a reference to it). On a more practical level, various tools, such as package managers, may (understandably) not play along with this strategy. For example, when trying to publish a change which is not reflected in the version number, npm publish fails with the suggestion "Bump the 'version' field set the --force flag, or npm unpublish". Am I doing it wrong?

  Read the article

• Understanding Application binary interface (ABI)

  - by Tim

  I am trying to understand the concept of Application binary interface (ABI). From The Linux Kernel Primer: An ABI is a set of conventions that allows a linker to combine separately compiled modules into one unit without recompilation, such as calling conventions, machine interface, and operating-system interface. Among other things, an ABI defines the binary interface between these units. ... The benefits of conforming to an ABI are that it allows linking object files compiled by different compilers. From Wikipedia: an application binary interface (ABI) describes the low-level interface between an application (or any type of) program and the operating system or another application. ABIs cover details such as data type, size, and alignment; the calling convention, which controls how functions' arguments are passed and return values retrieved; the system call numbers and how an application should make system calls to the operating system; and in the case of a complete operating system ABI, the binary format of object files, program libraries and so on. I was wondering whether ABI depends on both the instruction set and the OS. Are the two all that ABI depends on? What kinds of role does ABI play in different stages of compilation: preprocessing, conversion of code from C to Assembly, conversion of code from Assembly to Machine code, and linking? From the first quote above, it seems to me that ABI is needed for only linking stage, not the other stages. Is it correct? When is ABI needed to be considered? Is ABI needed to be considered during programming in C, Assembly or other languages? If yes, how are ABI and API different? Or is it only for linker or compiler? Is ABI specified for/in machine code, Assembly language, and/or of C?

  Read the article

• Extract all related class type aliasing and enum into one file or not

  - by Chen OT

  I have many models in my project, and some other classes just need the class declaration and pointer type aliasing. It does not need to know the class definition, so I don't want to include the model header file. I extract all the model's declaration into one file to let every classes reference one file. model_forward.h class Cat; typedef std::shared_ptr<Cat> CatPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Cat> CatConstPointerType; class Dog; typedef std::shared_ptr<Dog> DogPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Dog> DogConstPointerType; class Fish; typedef std::shared_ptr<Fish> FishPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Fish> FishConstPointerType; enum CatType{RED_CAT, YELLOW_CAT, GREEN_CAT, PURPLE_CAT} enum DogType{HATE_CAT_DOG, HUSKY, GOLDEN_RETRIEVER} enum FishType{SHARK, OCTOPUS, SALMON} Is it acceptable practice? Should I make every unit, which needs a class declaration, depends on one file? Does it cause high coupling? Or I should put these pointer type aliasing and enum definition inside the class back? cat.h class Cat { typedef std::shared_ptr<Cat> PointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Cat> ConstPointerType; enum Type{RED_CAT, YELLOW_CAT, GREEN_CAT, PURPLE_CAT} ... }; dog.h class Dog { typedef std::shared_ptr<Dog> PointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Dog> ConstPointerType; enum Type{HATE_CAT_DOG, HUSKY, GOLDEN_RETRIEVER} ... } fish.h class Fish { ... }; Any suggestion will be helpful.

  Read the article

• Concurrency pattern of logger in multithreaded application

  - by Dipan Mehta

  The context: We are working on a multi-threaded (Linux-C) application that follows a pipeline model. Each module has a private thread and encapsulated objects which do processing of data; and each stage has a standard form of exchanging data with next unit. The application is free from memory leak and is threadsafe using locks at the point where they exchange data. Total number of threads is about 15- and each thread can have from 1 to 4 objects. Making about 25 - 30 odd objects which all have some critical logging to do. Most discussion I have seen about different levels as in Log4J and it's other translations. The real big questions is about how the overall logging should really happen? One approach is all local logging does fprintf to stderr. The stderr is redirected to some file. This approach is very bad when logs become too big. If all object instantiate their individual loggers - (about 30-40 of them) there will be too many files. And unlike above, one won't have the idea of true order of events. Timestamping is one possibility - but it is still a mess to collate. If there is a single global logger (singleton) pattern - it indirectly blocks so many threads while one is busy putting up logs. This is unacceptable when processing of the threads are heavy. So what should be the ideal way to structure the logging objects? What are some of the best practices in actual large scale applications? I would also love to learn from some of the real designs of large scale applications to get inspirations from!

  Read the article

• How to Reap Anticipated ROI in Large-Scale Capital Projects

  - by Sylvie MacKenzie, PMP

  Only a small fraction of companies in asset-intensive industries reliably achieve expected ROI for major capital projects 90 percent of the time, according to a new industry study. In addition, 12 percent of companies see expected ROIs in less than half of their capital projects. The problem: no matter how sophisticated and far-reaching the planning processes are, many organizations struggle to manage risks or reap the expected value from major capital investments. The data is part of the larger survey of companies in oil and gas, mining and metals, chemicals, and utilities industries. The results appear in Prepare for the Unexpected: Investment Planning in Asset-Intensive Industries, a comprehensive new report sponsored by Oracle and developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Analysts say the shortcomings in large-scale, long-duration capital-investments projects often stem from immature capital-planning processes. The poor decisions that result can lead to significant financial losses and disappointing project benefits, which are particularly harmful to organizations during economic downturns. The report highlights three other important findings. Teaming the right data and people doesn’t guarantee that ROI goals will be achieved. Despite involving cross-functional teams and looking at all the pertinent data, executives are still failing to identify risks and deliver bottom-line results on capital projects. Effective processes are the missing link. Project-planning processes are weakest when it comes to risk management and predicting costs and ROI. Organizations participating in the study said they fail to achieve expected ROI because they regularly experience unexpected events that derail schedules and inflate budgets. But executives believe that using more-robust risk management and project planning strategies will help avoid delays, improve ROI, and more accurately predict the long-term cost of initiatives. Planning for unexpected events is a key to success. External factors, such as changing market conditions and evolving government policies are difficult to forecast precisely, so organizations need to build flexibility into project plans to make it easier to adapt to the changes. The report outlines a series of steps executives can take to address these shortcomings and improve their capital-planning processes. Read the full report or take the benchmarking survey and find out how your organization compares.

  Read the article

• Java Components Landing Page and Documentation Updates

  - by joni g.

  The new Java Components page provides access to the documentation for tools that are available for monitoring, managing, and testing Java applications. Documentation for the new versions of the following tools is available: JavaTest Harness 4.6. The JavaTest harness is a general purpose, fully-featured, flexible, and configurable test harness that is suited for most types of unit testing. See the JavaTest tab for documentation. SigTest 3.1. SigTest is a collection of tools that can be used to compare APIs and to measure the test coverage of an API. See the SigTest tab for documentation. The following tools are part of Oracle Java SE Advanced and Oracle Java SE Suite. Java Mission Control and Java Flight Control 5.4 are supported in JDK 8u20. Java Flight Recorder and Java Mission Control together create a complete tool chain to continuously collect low level and detailed runtime information enabling after-the-fact incident analysis. See the JMC tab for documentation. Advanced Management Console 1.0 is a new tool that is now available. AMC can be used to view information about the Java applets and Java Web Start applications running in your enterprise, and create deployment rules and rule sets to manage the execution of these applications. See the AMC tab for documentation. Usage Tracker tracks how Java Runtime Environments (JREs) are being used in your systems. See the Usage Tracker tab for documentation.

  Read the article

• Why doesn't unity show icons or panel after installing numix theme?

  - by Sid

  I'm a beginner to Ubuntu/Linux and I have a problem: Unity is not loading! When I choose Unity in the log-in screen, I get notifications and I can see the mouse, but that's it. I have Ubuntu 14.04 installed, along with Bumblebee/Primus. I had no issues whatsoever, until I decided to try the numix-theme and the numix icon pack. I added the PPA and installed it, but when I logged off and logged back on, nothing showed up. I panicked, and in tty1, I purged numix-* but that did not solve the issue. To get by day-to-day use, I installed gnome-flashback, and among those environments, only the metacity one works. (The compiz one does not.) I've tried installing the unity-tweak-tool to reset unit, installing dconf and doing: dconf reset -f /org/compiz/ but that didn't work either. One site even told me to delete /org/compiz/, but that did not resolve the issue. When I checked ccsm, the Unity plugin had a check to it. I also tried with Unity doesn't load, no Launcher, no Dash appears, but it gets stuck on "loading icons". Any help will be awesome!

  Read the article

• OpenJDK In The News: AMD and Oracle to Collaborate in the OpenJDK Community [..]

  - by $utils.escapeXML($entry.author)

  During the JavaOne™ 2012 Strategy Keynote, AMD (NYSE: AMD) announced its participation in OpenJDK™ Project “Sumatra” in collaboration with Oracle and other members of the OpenJDK community to help bring heterogeneous computing capabilities to Java™ for server and cloud environments. The OpenJDK Project “Sumatra” will explore how the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), as well as the Java language and APIs, might be enhanced to allow applications to take advantage of graphics processing unit (GPU) acceleration, either in discrete graphics cards or in high-performance graphics processor cores such as those found in AMD accelerated processing units (APUs).“Affirming our plans to contribute to the OpenJDK Project represents the next step towards bringing heterogeneous computing to millions of Java developers and can potentially lead to future developments of new hardware models, as well as server and cloud programming paradigms,” said Manju Hegde, corporate vice president, Heterogeneous Applications and Developer Solutions at AMD. “AMD has an established track record of collaboration with open-software development communities from OpenCL™ to the Heterogeneous System Architecture (HSA) Foundation, and with this initiative we will help further the development of graphics acceleration within the Java community.”“We expect our work with AMD and other OpenJDK participants in Project “Sumatra” will eventually help provide Java developers with the ability to quickly leverage GPU acceleration for better performance,” said Georges Saab, vice president, Software Development, Java Platform Group at Oracle. "We hope individuals and other organizations interested in this exciting development will follow AMD's lead by joining us in Project “Sumatra."Quotes taken from the first press release from AMD mentioning OpenJDK, titled "AMD and Oracle to Collaborate in the OpenJDK Community to Explore Heterogeneous Computing for Java ".

  Read the article

• Is there really anything to gain with complex design? [duplicate]

  - by SB2055

  This question already has an answer here: What is enterprise software, exactly? 8 answers I've been working for a consulting firm for some time, with clients of various sizes, and I've seen web applications ranging in complexity from really simple: MVC Service Layer EF DB To really complex: MVC UoW DI / IoC Repository Service UI Tests Unit Tests Integration Tests But on both ends of the spectrum, the quality requirements are about the same. In simple projects, new devs / consultants can hop on, make changes, and contribute immediately, without having to wade through 6 layers of abstraction to understand what's going on, or risking misunderstanding some complex abstraction and costing down the line. In all cases, there was never a need to actually make code swappable or reusable - and the tests were never actually maintained past the first iteration because requirements changed, it was too time-consuming, deadlines, business pressure, etc etc. So if - in the end - testing and interfaces aren't used rapid development (read: cost-savings) is a priority the project's requirements will be changing a lot while in development ...would it be wrong to recommend a super-simple architecture, even to solve a complex problem, for an enterprise client? Is it complexity that defines enterprise solutions, or is it the reliability, # concurrent users, ease-of-maintenance, or all of the above? I know this is a very vague question, and any answer wouldn't apply to all cases, but I'm interested in hearing from devs / consultants that have been in the business for a while and that have worked with these varying degrees of complexity, to hear if the cool-but-expensive abstractions are worth the overall cost, at least while the project is in development.

  Read the article

• Efficient path-finding in free space

  - by DeadMG

  I've got a game situated in space, and I'd like to issue movement orders, which requires pathfinding. Now, it's my understanding that A* and such mostly apply to trees, and not empty space which does not have pathfinding nodes. I have some obstacles, which are currently expressed as fixed AABBs- that is, there is no unbounded "terrain" obstacle. In addition, I expect most obstacles to be reasonably approximable as cubes or spheres. So I've been thinking of applying a much simpler pathfinding algorithm- that is, simply cast a ray from the current position to the target position, and then I can get a list of obstacles using spatial partitioning relatively quickly. What I'm not so sure about is how to determine the part where the ordered unit manoeuvres around the obstacles. What I've been thinking so far is that I will simply use potential fields- that is, all units will feel a strong repulsive force away from each other and a moderate force towards the desired point. This also has the advantage that to issue group orders, I can simply order a mid-level force towards another entity. But this obviously won't achieve the optimal solution. Will potential fields achieve a reasonable approximation given my parameters, or do I need another solution?

  Read the article

• How to approach scrum task burn down when tasks have multiple peoples involvement?

  - by AgileMan

  In my company, a single task can never be completed by one individual. There is going to be a separate person to QA and Code Review each task. What this means is that each individual will give their estimates, per task, as to how much time it will take to complete. The problem is, how should I approach burn down? If I aggregate the hours together, assume the following estimate: 10 hrs - Dev time 4 hrs - QA 4 hrs - Code Review. Task Estimate = 18hrs At the end of each day I ask that the task be updated with "how much time is left until it is done". However, each person generally just thinks about their part of it. Should they mark the effort remaining, and then ADD the effort estimates to that? How are you guys doing this? UPDATE To help clarify a few things, at my organization each Task within a story requires 3 people. Someone to develop the task. (do unit tests, ect...) A QA specialist to review task (they primarily do integration and regression tests) A Tech lead to do code review. I don't think there is a wrong way or a right way, but this is our way ... and that won't be changing. We work as a team to complete even the smallest level of a story whenever possible. You cannot actually test if something works until it is dev complete, and you cannot review the quality of the code either ... so the best you can do is split things up into small logical slices so that the bare minimum functionality can be tested and reviewed as early into the process as possible. My question to those that work this way would be how to burn down a "task" when they are setup this way. Unless a Task has it's own sub-tasks (which JIRA doesn't allow) ... I'm not sure the best way to accomplish tracking "what's left" on a daily basis.

  Read the article

• Problem with a* implementation in pygame

  - by piyush3dxyz

  Yesterday i decide to make RTS game in pygame(pygame is best).I figured out many components of RTS game like unit selecting,health,resources but only 1 thing i still not understand.. which is a* pathfinding in pygame... I also done little bit of research on wiki,articles and papers...but still cant figure out problem.... function A*(start,goal) closedset := the empty set // The set of nodes already evaluated. openset := {start} // The set of tentative nodes to be evaluated, initially containing the start node came_from := the empty map // The map of navigated nodes. g_score[start] := 0 // Cost from start along best known path. // Estimated total cost from start to goal through y. f_score[start] := g_score[start] + heuristic_cost_estimate(start, goal) while openset is not empty current := the node in openset having the lowest f_score[] value if current = goal return reconstruct_path(came_from, goal) remove current from openset add current to closedset for each neighbor in neighbor_nodes(current) if neighbor in closedset continue tentative_g_score := g_score[current] + dist_between(current,neighbor) if neighbor not in openset or tentative_g_score <= g_score[neighbor] came_from[neighbor] := current g_score[neighbor] := tentative_g_score f_score[neighbor] := g_score[neighbor] + heuristic_cost_estimate(neighbor, goal) if neighbor not in openset add neighbor to openset return failure here is the pseudocode for wiki a* implementation......

  Read the article

• Essbase Analytics Link (EAL) - Performance of some operation of EAL could be improved by tuning of EAL Data Synchronization Server (DSS) parameters

  - by Ahmed Awan

  Generally, performance of some operation of EAL (Essbase Analytics Link) could be improved by tuning of EAL Data Synchronization Server (DSS) parameters. a. Expected that DSS machine will be 64-bit machine with 4-8 cores and 5-8 GB of RAM dedicated to DSS. b. To change DSS configuration - open EAL Configuration Tool on DSS machine.     ->Next:     and define: "Job Units" as <Number of Cores dedicated to DSS> * 1.5 "Max Memory Size" (if this is 64-bit machine) - ~1G for each Job Unit. If DSS machine is 32-bit - max memory size is 2600 MB. "Data Store Size" - depends on number of bridges and volume of HFM applications, but in most cases 50000 MB is enough. This volume should be available in defined "Data Store Dir" driver.   Continue with configuration and finish it. After that, DSS should be restarted to take new definitions.  

  Read the article

• Is the way I'm implementing my genetic algorithm right?

  - by Mhjr

  In my graduation project, I am asked to use a genetic algorithm (any variation of it can be chosen) to generate valid timetables. What I did was make a simple program that generates unique sequences representing genes, the sequence is described below: (sorry if it's mathematically incorrect) The only variable in the sequence is the room element, so basically the program takes a tree that goes like this: [Course] -(contains)-> [Units] -(contains)-> [Offerings] -(contains)-> [Instructors] -(contains)-> [Rooms] Each course can have n units (duplicates). Each unit can have n offerings (lectures,lab session, excercises,...). Each offering has only 1 instructor. Each instructor (or the whole lecture composed from the four elements of the sequence) has multiple rooms. When a timetable is initialized, one of these sequences that differ in rooms will be taken into the timetable, so the difference in genes (sequences) of each timetable will be just the rooms random choice and the difference between chromosomes (timetables) will be time placements of these genes (sequences). My question is, before I proceed in implementing what I described, is it valid? Is the representation used here for chromosomes a permutation representation?

  Read the article

• C# class architecture for REST services

  - by user15370

  Hi. I am integrating with a set of REST services exposed by our partner. The unit of integration is at the project level meaning that for each project created on our partners side of the fence they will expose a unique set of REST services. To be more clear, assume there are two projects - project1 and project2. The REST services available to access the project data would then be: /project1/search/getstuff?etc... /project1/analysis/getstuff?etc... /project1/cluster/getstuff?etc... /project2/search/getstuff?etc... /project2/analysis/getstuff?etc... /project2/cluster/getstuff?etc... My task is to wrap these services in a C# class to be used by our app developer. I want to make it simple for the app developer and am thinking of providing something like the following class. class ProjectClient { SearchClient _searchclient; AnalysisClient _analysisclient; ClusterClient _clusterclient; string Project {get; set;} ProjectClient(string _project) { Project = _project; } } SearchClient, AnalysisClient and ClusterClient are my classes to support the respective services shown above. The problem with this approach is that ProjectClient will need to provide public methods for each of the API's exposed by SearchClient, etc... public void SearchGetStuff() { _searchclient.getStuff(); } Any suggestions how I can architect this better?

  Read the article

• Software Manager who makes developers do Project Management

  - by hdman

  I'm a software developer working in an embedded systems company. We have a Project Manager, who takes care of the overall project schedule (including electrical, quality, software and manufacturing) hence his software schedule is very brief. We also have a Software Manager, who's my boss. He makes me write and maintain the software schedule, design documents (high and low level design), SRS, change management, verification plans and reports, release management, reviews, and ofcourse the software. We only have one Test Engineer for the whole software team (10 members), and at any given time, there are a couple of projects going on. I'm spending 80% of my time making these documents. My boss comes from a Process background, and believes what we need is better documentation to improve software: (1) He considers the design to be paramount, coding is "just writing the design down", it shouldn't take too long, and "all the code should be written before the hardware is ready". (2) Doesn't understand the difference between a Central & Distributed Version control, even after we told him its easier to collaborate with a distributed model. (3) Doesn't understand code, and wants to understand every bug and its proposed solution. (4) Believes verification should be done by developer, and validation by the Tester. Thing is though, our verification only checks if implementation is correct (we don't write unit tests, its never considered in the schedule), and validation is black box testing, so the units tests are missing. I'm really confused. (1) Am I responsible for maintaining all these documents? It makes me feel like I'm doing the Software Project Management, in essence. (2) I don't really like creating documents, I want to solve problems and write code. In my experience, creating design documents only helps to an extent, its never the solution to better or faster code. (3) I feel the boss doesn't really care about making better products, but only about being a good manager in the eyes of the management. What can I do?

  Read the article

• How does this circle collision detection math work?

  - by Griffin

  I'm going through the wildbunny blog to learn about collision detection. I'm confused about how the vectors he's talking about come into play. Here's the part that confuses me: p = ||A-B|| – (r1+r2) The two spheres are penetrating by distance p. We would also like the penetration vector so that we can correct the penetration once we discover it. This is the vector that moves both circles to the point where they just touch, correcting the penetration. Importantly it is not only just a vector that does this, it is the only vector which corrects the penetration by moving the minimum amount. This is important because we only want to correct the error, not introduce more by moving too much when we correct, or too little. N = (A-B) / ||A-B|| P = N*p Here we have calculated the normalised vector N between the two centres and the penetration vector P by multiplying our unit direction by the penetration distance. I understand that p is the distance by which the circles penetrate, but I don't get what exactly N and P are. It seems to me N is just the coordinates of the 3rd point of the right trianlge formed by point A and B (A-B) then being divided by the hypotenuse of that triangle or distance between A and B (||A-B||). What's the significance of this? Also, what is the penetration vector used for? It seems to me like a movement that one of the circles would perform to get un-penetrated.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138  | Next Page >