Search Results

Search found 500 results on 20 pages for 'do notation'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 2/20 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Flow-Design Cheat Sheet &ndash; Part I, Notation

    - by Ralf Westphal
    You want to avoid the pitfalls of object oriented design? Then this is the right place to start. Use Flow-Oriented Analysis (FOA) and –Design (FOD or just FD for Flow-Design) to understand a problem domain and design a software solution. Flow-Orientation as described here is related to Flow-Based Programming, Event-Based Programming, Business Process Modelling, and even Event-Driven Architectures. But even though “thinking in flows” is not new, I found it helpful to deviate from those precursors for several reasons. Some aim at too big systems for the average programmer, some are concerned with only asynchronous processing, some are even not very much concerned with programming at all. What I was looking for was a design method to help in software projects of any size, be they large or tiny, involing synchronous or asynchronous processing, being local or distributed, running on the web or on the desktop or on a smartphone. That´s why I took ideas from all of the above sources and some additional and came up with Event-Based Components which later got repositioned and renamed to Flow-Design. In the meantime this has generated some discussion (in the German developer community) and several teams have started to work with Flow-Design. Also I´ve conducted quite some trainings using Flow-Orientation for design. The results are very promising. Developers find it much easier to design software using Flow-Orientation than OOAD-based object orientation. Since Flow-Orientation is moving fast and is not covered completely by a single source like a book, demand has increased for at least an overview of the current state of its notation. This page is trying to answer this demand by briefly introducing/describing every notational element as well as their translation into C# source code. Take this as a cheat sheet to put next to your whiteboard when designing software. However, please do not expect any explanation as to the reasons behind Flow-Design elements. Details on why Flow-Design at all and why in this specific way you´ll find in the literature covering the topic. Here´s a resource page on Flow-Design/Event-Based Components, if you´re able to read German. Notation Connected Functional Units The basic element of any FOD are functional units (FU): Think of FUs as some kind of software code block processing data. For the moment forget about classes, methods, “components”, assemblies or whatever. See a FU as an abstract piece of code. Software then consists of just collaborating FUs. I´m using circles/ellipses to draw FUs. But if you like, use rectangles. Whatever suites your whiteboard needs best.   The purpose of FUs is to process input and produce output. FUs are transformational. However, FUs are not called and do not call other FUs. There is no dependency between FUs. Data just flows into a FU (input) and out of it (output). From where and where to is of no concern to a FU.   This way FUs can be concatenated in arbitrary ways:   Each FU can accept input from many sources and produce output for many sinks:   Flows Connected FUs form a flow with a start and an end. Data is entering a flow at a source, and it´s leaving it through a sink. Think of sources and sinks as special FUs which conntect wires to the environment of a network of FUs.   Wiring Details Data is flowing into/out of FUs through wires. This is to allude to electrical engineering which since long has been working with composable parts. Wires are attached to FUs usings pins. They are the entry/exit points for the data flowing along the wires. Input-/output pins currently need not be drawn explicitly. This is to keep designing on a whiteboard simple and quick.   Data flowing is of some type, so wires have a type attached to them. And pins have names. If there is only one input pin and output pin on a FU, though, you don´t need to mention them. The default is Process for a single input pin, and Result for a single output pin. But you´re free to give even single pins different names.   There is a shortcut in use to address a certain pin on a destination FU:   The type of the wire is put in parantheses for two reasons. 1. This way a “no-type” wire can be easily denoted, 2. this is a natural way to describe tuples of data.   To describe how much data is flowing, a star can be put next to the wire type:   Nesting – Boards and Parts If more than 5 to 10 FUs need to be put in a flow a FD starts to become hard to understand. To keep diagrams clutter free they can be nested. You can turn any FU into a flow: This leads to Flow-Designs with different levels of abstraction. A in the above illustration is a high level functional unit, A.1 and A.2 are lower level functional units. One of the purposes of Flow-Design is to be able to describe systems on different levels of abstraction and thus make it easier to understand them. Humans use abstraction/decomposition to get a grip on complexity. Flow-Design strives to support this and make levels of abstraction first class citizens for programming. You can read the above illustration like this: Functional units A.1 and A.2 detail what A is supposed to do. The whole of A´s responsibility is decomposed into smaller responsibilities A.1 and A.2. FU A thus does not do anything itself anymore! All A is responsible for is actually accomplished by the collaboration between A.1 and A.2. Since A now is not doing anything anymore except containing A.1 and A.2 functional units are devided into two categories: boards and parts. Boards are just containing other functional units; their sole responsibility is to wire them up. A is a board. Boards thus depend on the functional units nested within them. This dependency is not of a functional nature, though. Boards are not dependent on services provided by nested functional units. They are just concerned with their interface to be able to plug them together. Parts are the workhorses of flows. They contain the real domain logic. They actually transform input into output. However, they do not depend on other functional units. Please note the usage of source and sink in boards. They correspond to input-pins and output-pins of the board.   Implicit Dependencies Nesting functional units leads to a dependency tree. Boards depend on nested functional units, they are the inner nodes of the tree. Parts are independent, they are the leafs: Even though dependencies are the bane of software development, Flow-Design does not usually draw these dependencies. They are implicitly created by visually nesting functional units. And they are harmless. Boards are so simple in their functionality, they are little affected by changes in functional units they are depending on. But functional units are implicitly dependent on more than nested functional units. They are also dependent on the data types of the wires attached to them: This is also natural and thus does not need to be made explicit. And it pertains mainly to parts being dependent. Since boards don´t do anything with regard to a problem domain, they don´t care much about data types. Their infrastructural purpose just needs types of input/output-pins to match.   Explicit Dependencies You could say, Flow-Orientation is about tackling complexity at its root cause: that´s dependencies. “Natural” dependencies are depicted naturally, i.e. implicitly. And whereever possible dependencies are not even created. Functional units don´t know their collaborators within a flow. This is core to Flow-Orientation. That makes for high composability of functional units. A part is as independent of other functional units as a motor is from the rest of the car. And a board is as dependend on nested functional units as a motor is on a spark plug or a crank shaft. With Flow-Design software development moves closer to how hardware is constructed. Implicit dependencies are not enough, though. Sometimes explicit dependencies make designs easier – as counterintuitive this might sound. So FD notation needs a ways to denote explicit dependencies: Data flows along wires. But data does not flow along dependency relations. Instead dependency relations represent service calls. Functional unit C is depending on/calling services on functional unit S. If you want to be more specific, name the services next to the dependency relation: Although you should try to stay clear of explicit dependencies, they are fundamentally ok. See them as a way to add another dimension to a flow. Usually the functionality of the independent FU (“Customer repository” above) is orthogonal to the domain of the flow it is referenced by. If you like emphasize this by using different shapes for dependent and independent FUs like above. Such dependencies can be used to link in resources like databases or shared in-memory state. FUs can not only produce output but also can have side effects. A common pattern for using such explizit dependencies is to hook a GUI into a flow as the source and/or the sink of data: Which can be shortened to: Treat FUs others depend on as boards (with a special non-FD API the dependent part is connected to), but do not embed them in a flow in the diagram they are depended upon.   Attributes of Functional Units Creation and usage of functional units can be modified with attributes. So far the following have shown to be helpful: Singleton: FUs are by default multitons. FUs in the same of different flows with the same name refer to the same functionality, but to different instances. Think of functional units as objects that get instanciated anew whereever they appear in a design. Sometimes though it´s helpful to reuse the same instance of a functional unit; this is always due to valuable state it holds. Signify this by annotating the FU with a “(S)”. Multiton: FUs on which others depend are singletons by default. This is, because they usually are introduced where shared state comes into play. If you want to change them to be a singletons mark them with a “(M)”. Configurable: Some parts need to be configured before the can do they work in a flow. Annotate them with a “(C)” to have them initialized before any data items to be processed by them arrive. Do not assume any order in which FUs are configured. How such configuration is happening is an implementation detail. Entry point: In each design there needs to be a single part where “it all starts”. That´s the entry point for all processing. It´s like Program.Main() in C# programs. Mark the entry point part with an “(E)”. Quite often this will be the GUI part. How the entry point is started is an implementation detail. Just consider it the first FU to start do its job.   Patterns / Standard Parts If more than a single wire is attached to an output-pin that´s called a split (or fork). The same data is flowing on all of the wires. Remember: Flow-Designs are synchronous by default. So a split does not mean data is processed in parallel afterwards. Processing still happens synchronously and thus one branch after another. Do not assume any specific order of the processing on the different branches after the split.   It is common to do a split and let only parts of the original data flow on through the branches. This effectively means a map is needed after a split. This map can be implicit or explicit.   Although FUs can have multiple input-pins it is preferrable in most cases to combine input data from different branches using an explicit join: The default output of a join is a tuple of its input values. The default behavior of a join is to output a value whenever a new input is received. However, to produce its first output a join needs an input for all its input-pins. Other join behaviors can be: reset all inputs after an output only produce output if data arrives on certain input-pins

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between JSON and Object Literal Notation?

    - by burak ozdogan
    Hi, Can someone tell me what is the main difference between a Javascript object defined by using "Object Literal Notation" and JSON object? According to a Javascript book it says this is an object defined by using Object Notation: var newObject = { prop1 : true, showMessage : function (msg) {alert(msg)} }; Why it is not a JSON object in this case? Just because it is not defined by using quotation marks? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Understanding dot notation

    - by Starkers
    Here's my interpretation of dot notation: a = [2,6] b = [1,4] c = [0,8] a . b . c = (2*6)+(1*4)+(0*8) = 12 + 4 + 0 = 16 What is the significance of 16? Apparently it's a scalar. Am I right in thinking that a scalar is the number we times a unit vector by to get a vector that has a scaled up magnitude but the same direction as the unit vector? So again, what is the relevance of 16? When is it used? It's not the magnitude of all the vectors added up. The magnitude of all of them is calculated as follows: sqrt( ax * ax + ay * ay ) + sqrt( bx * bx + by * by ) + sqrt( cx * cx + cy * cy) sqrt( 2 * 2 + 6 * 6 ) + sqrt( 1 * 1 + 4 * 4 ) + sqrt( 0 * 0 + 8 * 8) sqrt( 4 + 36 ) + sqrt( 1 + 16 ) + sqrt( 0 + 64) sqrt( 40 ) + sqrt( 17 ) + sqrt( 64) 6.3 + 4.1 + 8 10.4 + 8 18.4 So I don't really get this diagram: Attempting with sensible numbers: a = [1,0] b = [4,3] a . b = (1*0) + (4*3) = 0 + 12 = 12 So what exactly is a . b describing here? The magnitude of that vector? Because that isn't right: the 'a.b' vector = [4,0] sqrt( x*x + y*y ) sqrt( 4*4 + 0*0 ) sqrt( 16 + 0 ) 4 So what is 12 describing?

    Read the article

  • Style: Dot notation vs. message notation in Objective-C 2.0

    - by groundhog
    In Objective-C 2.0 we got the "dot" notation for properties. I've seen various back and forths about the merits of dot notation vs. message notation. To keep the responses untainted I'm not going to respond either way in the question. What is your thought about dot notation vs. message notation for property accessing? Please try to keep it focused on Objective-C - my one bias I'll put forth is that Objective-C is Objective-C, so your preference that it be like Java or JavaScript aren't valid. Valid commentary is to do with technical issues (operation ordering, cast precedence, performance, etc), clarity (structure vs. object nature, both pro and con!), succinctness, etc. Note, I'm of the school of rigorous quality and readability in code having worked on huge projects where code convention and quality is paramount (the write once read a thousand times paradigm).

    Read the article

  • Why do programmers write n=O(n^2)?

    - by Jaakko Seppälä
    I studied algorithms in a book Cormen & al. "Introduction to algorithms". In the fourth printing, on the page 43 defines O(g(n))={f(n):there exists positive constants c and n_0 s.t. 0<=f(n)<=cg(n) for all n=n_0} I reported this as a bug in the book www-site because this leads to notation like n=O(n^2) and suggested alternative given in http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=296&t=31517&start=20 . It looks like my bug report has not been accepted. Why the programmers won't renew the notation?

    Read the article

  • How does one pluralize <see cref="Notation">'s?

    - by Jordan
    What is the most appropriate way of writing this comment: /// <summary> /// Order - Identifies the ordinal location of this category /// relative to other listed categories. /// </summary> if I'm wanting to wrap "category" in <see> tags? I've considered: /// <summary> /// Order - Identifies the ordinal location of this <see cref="Category"/> /// relative to other listed <see cref="Category"/>'s. /// </summary> Do you see my dilemma? Edit: I should add that I am using Visual Studio's XML Comments. So I am somewhat restricted as to the schema. I believe cref has to point to a valid type reference.

    Read the article

  • Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN) by Torsten Winterberg

    - by JuergenKress
    The beta version of the current working draft of the new OMG paper can be found here. This figure 72 shows an example, how a case (here: writing a document) can be modeled using CMMN elements: Table 43 explains, where the different types of decorators can be used: The meaning if the elements and the decorations are explained in the CMMN beta document. Read the full article here. SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Wiki Mix Forum Technorati Tags: ACM,BPM,Torsten Winterberg,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • is there an index to be accessed in the CI foreach with {}-Notation?

    - by helle
    Hello Guys, i'm new with Codeigniter,and whish to know if i can access any kind of iterator for the foreach with {}-Notation in my views. The thing is, i'm having a list which should be devided after each x items. example (what i would like to do: <ul> {list} <li>{items}</li> <? if ($iterator % 15 == 0) echo "</ul><ul>"; ?> {/list} </ul> thanks in advice ;-)

    Read the article

  • Where to put the star in C and C++ pointer notation

    - by Martin Kristiansen
    For some time the following has been annoing me, where should I put the star in my pointer notation. int *var; // 1 and int* var; // 2 obviously do the same thing, and both notations are correct, but I find that most literature and code I look at use the 1th notation. wouldn't it be more 'correct' to use the 2th notation, separating the type and the variable name by a whitespace, rather than mixing the type and variable tokens?

    Read the article

  • ColdFusion structs Direct Assignment vs object literal notation.

    - by Tom Hubbard
    The newer versions of ColdFusion (I believe CF 8 and 9) allow you to create structs with object literal notation similar to JSON. My question is, are there specific benefits (execution efficiency maybe) to using object literal notation over individual assignments for data that is essentially static? For example: With individual assignments you would do something like this: var user = {}; user.Fname = "MyFirstnam"; user.Lname = "MyLastName"; user.titles = []; ArrayAppend(user.titles,'Mr'); ArrayAppend(user.titles,'Dr.'); Whereas with object literals you would do something like. var user = {Fname = "MyFirstnam", Lname = "MyLastName", titles = ['Mr','Dr']}; Now this limited example is admittedly simple, but if titles was an array of structures (Say an array of addresses), the literal notation becomes awkward to work with.

    Read the article

  • Scientific notation in Excel

    - by Vojtech R.
    Hi, I need make Number Format like scientific notation, but without E nor e. Just classic like this: (In latex its 2.3\times10^3) Maybe excel doesn't support this format. (I have on mind Number Format - for hundreds numbers - not in math formula)

    Read the article

  • Ellipsis notation in C#?

    - by Joshua
    Where can I get info about implementing my own methods that have the ellipsis notation, e.g. static void my_printf(char* format, ...) { } Also is that called ellipsis notation or is there a fancier name?

    Read the article

  • Lollipop notation in Rational Software Architect

    - by mfrank
    Hi, I am using IBM Rational® Software Architect™ for WebSphere® Software Version: 7.5.2. In a component diagram I would really like to use the lollipop notation and not the stereotyped interface notation for a provided interface part. Any tips if this is possible in RSA? BR /M

    Read the article

  • How to calculate CIDR notation from entries in a routing table

    - by febreezey
    I have some entries in a routing table that were created using longest prefix matching, and I have to use those entries to determine the a.b.c.d/x notation (CIDR). This is an example entry: 11001000 00010111 00010. That was calculated from the range 11001000 00010111 00010000 00000000 through 11001000 00010111 00010111 11111111. I know the range is from IP addresses 200.23.16.0 to 200.23.23.255, but getting the /x for the subnet # doesn't make sense to me. Anyone know how to properly go about calculating it?

    Read the article

  • Slash Notation IP - What is what?

    - by Nirmal
    We just signed up with a new ISP and we got a static IP from them. Our previous ISP just gave one IP and we were able to configure our web server using that. Now, we have got this new IP with a slash notation. This type is new to me. When I used the CIDR calculator, it gave me the following results: 202.184.7.52/30 IP: 202.184.7.52 Netmask: 255.255.255.252 Number of hosts: 2 Network address: 202.184.7.52 Broadcast address: 202.184.7.55 Can someone please help me by explaining what these are? I could not understand what the number of hosts means. Is that telling that I can use two different IP for DNS (A) records? Also, which one should I setup in my router? The network address or broadcast address? Thank you very much for any answer you may provide.

    Read the article

  • Javascript Square bracket notation for global variables

    - by Yousuf Haider
    I ran into an interesting issue the other day and was wondering if someone could shed light on why this is happening. Here is what I am doing (for the purposes of this example I have dumbed down the example somewhat): I am creating a globally scoped variable using the square bracket notation and assigning it a value. Later I declare a var with the same name as the one I just created above. Note I am not assigning a value. Since this is a redeclaration of the same variable the old value should not be overriden as described here: http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_variables.asp //create global variable with square bracket notation window['y'] = 'old'; //redeclaration of the same variable var y; if (!y) y = 'new'; alert(y); //shows New instead of Old The problem is that the old value actually does get overriden and in the above eg. the alert shows 'new' instead of 'old'. Why ? I guess another way to state my question is how is the above code different in terms of semantics from the code below: //create global variable var y = 'old'; //redeclaration of the same variable var y; if (!y) y = 'new'; alert(y); //shows New instead of Old

    Read the article

  • Query notation for the sitecore 'source' field in template builder

    - by M.R.
    I am trying to set the the source field of a template using the query notation (or xpath - whichever works), but none of them seems to be working. My content tree is a multisite content tree: France --Page 1 ----Page1A -------Page1AA --Page 2 --Page 3 --METADATA ----Regions US --Page 1 ----Page1A -------Page1AA --Page 2 --Page 3 --METADATA ----Regions Each site has its own METADATA folder, and I want it so that when adding a page inside each of the main country nodes, I want the values to reflect whatever is in the METADATA of that site. I have two different fields for now - a droplink and a treelistex field. So I thought I can just get the parent item that is a country site, and get the metadata folder for that. When I put the following query in both the fields, I get different results: query:./ancestor::*[@@templatename='CountryHome']/METADATA/Regions/* For the droplink field, I get only the first Region (one item) For the treelistex field, I get the entire content tree I then tried to modify the query a little bit and took the 'query' notation out ./ancestor::*[@@templatename='CountryHome']/METADATA/Regions/* If I go to the developer center/xpath builder, and set the context node to any item underneath the main country site, it returns me exactly what I need, but when I put this in the source, I get the entire content tree in both the cases. Help!

    Read the article

  • What is the benefit of not using Hungarian notation?

    - by user29981
    One of the things I struggle with is not using Hungarian notation. I don't want to have to go to the variable definition just to see what type it is. When a project gets extensive, it's nice to be able to look at a variable prefixed by 'bool' and know that it's looking for true/false instead of a 0/1 value. I also do a lot of work in SQL Server. I prefix my stored procedures with 'sp' and my tables with 'tbl', not to mention all of my variables in the database respectively. I see everywhere that nobody really wants to use Hungarian notation, to the point where they avoid it. My question is, what is the benefit of not using Hungarian notation, and why does the majority of developers avoid it like the plague?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >