Search Results

Search found 4960 results on 199 pages for 'onion architecture'.

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 22/199 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >

  • Duplication of Architecture State means physically extra?

    - by Doopy Doo
    Hyper-Threading Technology makes a single physical processor appear as two logical processors; the physical execution resources are shared and the architecture state is duplicated for the two logical processors. So, this means that there are two sets of basic registers such as Next Instruction Pointer, processor registers like AX, BX, CX etc physically embedded in the micro-processor chip, OR they(arch. state) are made to look two sets by some low level duplication by software/OS.

    Read the article

  • Frank Buytendijk on Prahalad, Business Best Practices

    - by Bob Rhubart
      In his video on the questionable value of some business best practices, Frank Buytendijk mentions a recent HBR article by business guru C.K. Prahalad. I just learned that Prahalad passed away this past weekend at the age of 68. (Information Week obit) A couple of years ago I had the good fortune to attend Mr. Prahalad’s keynote address at a Gartner event.  He had an audience of software architects absolutely mesmerized as he discussed technology’s role in the changing nature of business competition.  The often dysfunctional relationship between IT and business has and will probably always be hot-button issue. But during Prahalad’s keynote,  there was a palpable sense that the largely technical audience was having some kind of breakthrough, that they had achieved a new level of understanding about the importance of the relationship between the two camps. Fortunately, Prahalad leaves behind a significant body of work that will remain a valuable resource as business and the technology that supports it continues to evolve. Technorati Tags: business best practices,enterprise architecture,prahalad,oracle del.icio.us Tags: business best practices,enterprise architecture,prahalad,oracle

    Read the article

  • Why does TDD work?

    - by CesarGon
    Test-driven development (TDD) is big these days. I often see it recommended as a solution for a wide range of problems here in Programmers SE and other venues. I wonder why it works. From an engineering point of view, it puzzles me for two reasons: The "write test + refactor till pass" approach looks incredibly anti-engineering. If civil engineers used that approach for bridge construction, or car designers for their cars, for example, they would be reshaping their bridges or cars at very high cost, and the result would be a patched-up mess with no well thought-out architecture. The "refactor till pass" guideline is often taken as a mandate to forget architectural design and do whatever is necessary to comply with the test; in other words, the test, rather than the user, sets the requirement. In this situation, how can we guarantee good "ilities" in the outcomes, i.e. a final result that is not only correct but also extensible, robust, easy to use, reliable, safe, secure, etc.? This is what architecture usually does. Testing cannot guarantee that a system works; it can only show that it doesn't. In other words, testing may show you that a system contains defects if it fails a test, but a system that passes all tests is not safer than a system that fails them. Test coverage, test quality and other factors are crucial here. The false safe feelings that an "all green" outcomes produces to many people has been reported in civil and aerospace industries as extremely dangerous, because it may be interepreted as "the system is fine", when it really means "the system is as good as our testing strategy". Often, the testing strategy is not checked. Or, who tests the tests? I would like to see answers containing reasons why TDD in software engineering is a good practice, and why the issues that I have explained above are not relevant (or not relevant enough) in the case of software. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Architectural and Design Challenges with SOA

    With all of the hype about service oriented architecture (SOA) primarily through the use of web services, not much has been said about potential issues of using SOA in the design of an application. I am personally a fan of SOA, but it is not the solution for every application. Proper evaluation should be done on all requirements and use cases prior to deciding to go down the SOA road. It is important to consider how your application/service will handle the following perils as it executes. Example Challenges of SOA Network Connectivity Issues Handling Connectivity Issues Longer Processing/Transaction Times How many of us have had issues visiting our favorite web sites from time to time? The same issue will occur when using service based architecture especially if it is implemented using web services. Forcing applications to access services via a network connection introduces a lot of new failure points to the application. Potential failure points include: DNS issues, network hardware issues, remote server issues, and the lack of physical network connections. When network connectivity issues do occur, how are the service clients are implemented is very important. Should the client wait and poll the service until it is accessible again? If so what is the maximum wait time or number of attempts it should retry. Due to the fact of services being distributed across a network automatically increase the responsiveness of client applications due to the fact that processing time must now also include time to send and receive messages from called services. This could add nanoseconds to minutes per each request based on network load and server usage of the service provider. If speed highly desirable quality attribute then I would consider creating components that are hosted where the client application is located. References: Rader, Dave. (2002). Overcoming Web Services Challenges with Smart Design: http://soa.sys-con.com/node/39458

    Read the article

  • How do you properly organize a commercial game?

    - by Reactorcore
    For the past months I've been studying programming and I've finally learned how to code, but one thing that is confusing me is how to properly organize the design of a game project - code wise. The game I'm building is a pretty standard commercial game. It has the basic components of a normal game: A world, characters and items interacting with each other and all of this is run by game manager. Basically you play as a hero in a world and do stuff. Fight, explore and interact. Think of your standard adventure game that starts off with an intro, goes to the menu system, then gets into the game and back to the menu. Pretty much like 99% of any commercial game or otherwise serious game projects. Thats what I'm aiming at. The problem is: How do you properly code a commercial game architecture? How do you organize it? How do you make it not become unmaintainable spaghetti code? What specific things to keep in mind when building this, codewise? How you can help me: a) Please tell how do you code your own game projects. What is your thought-process when designing the architecture? b) Recommend books, blogs, tutorials, videos or anything else on how to organize a commercial video game. c) Give hints and tips on do's/don'ts when building a game, codewise. Please help!

    Read the article

  • SOA Starting Point: Methods for Service Identification and Definition

    As more and more companies start to incorporate a Service Oriented Architectural design approach into their existing enterprise systems, it creates the need for a standardized integration technology. One common technology used by companies is an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). An ESB, as defined by Progress Software, connects and mediates all communications and interactions between services. In essence an ESB is a form of middleware that allows services to communicate with one another regardless of framework, environment, or location. With the emergence of ESB, a new emphasis is now being placed on approaches that can be used to determine what Web services should be built. In addition, what order should these services be built? In May 2011, SOA Magazine published an article that identified 10 common methods for identifying and defining services. SOA’s Ten Common Methods for Service Identification and Definition: Business Process Decomposition Business Functions Business Entity Objects Ownership and Responsibility Goal-Driven Component-Based Existing Supply (Bottom-Up) Front-Office Application Usage Analysis Infrastructure Non-Functional Requirements  Each of these methods provides various pros and cons in regards to their use within the design process. I personally feel that during a design process, multiple methodologies should be used in order to accurately define a design for a system or enterprise system. Personally, I like to create a custom cocktail derived from combining these methodologies in order to ensure that my design fits with the project’s and business’s needs while still following development standards and guidelines. Of these ten methods, I am particularly fond of Business Process Decomposition, Business Functions, Goal-Driven, Component-Based, and routinely use them in my designs.  Works Cited Hubbers, J.-W., Ligthart, A., & Terlouw , L. (2007, 12 10). Ten Ways to Identify Services. Retrieved from SOA Magazine: http://www.soamag.com/I13/1207-1.php Progress.com. (2011, 10 30). ESB ARCHITECTURE AND LIFECYCLE DEFINITION. Retrieved from Progress.com: http://web.progress.com/en/esb-architecture-lifecycle-definition.html

    Read the article

  • nodejs daemon wrong architecture

    - by Greg Pagendam-Turner
    I'm trying to run 'dali' a highcharts exporter from nodejs on my Mac under OSX Mountain Lion I'm getting the following error: module.js:485 process.dlopen(filename, module.exports); ^ Error: dlopen(/Users/greg/node_modules/daemon/lib/daemon.v0.8.8.node, 1): no suitable image found. Did find: /Users/greg/node_modules/daemon/lib/daemon.v0.8.8.node: mach-o, but wrong architecture at Object.Module._extensions..node (module.js:485:11) at Module.load (module.js:356:32) at Function.Module._load (module.js:312:12) at Module.require (module.js:362:17) at require (module.js:378:17) at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/greg/node_modules/daemon/lib/daemon.js:12:11) at Module._compile (module.js:449:26) at Object.Module._extensions..js (module.js:467:10) at Module.load (module.js:356:32) at Function.Module._load (module.js:312:12) The key part is: "wrong architecture" If I run: lipo -info /Users/greg/node_modules/daemon/lib/daemon.v0.8.8.node It returns: Non-fat file: /Users/greg/node_modules/daemon/lib/daemon.v0.8.8.node is architecture: i386 I'm guessing a x64 version is requried. How do I get and install the 64 bit version of this lib?

    Read the article

  • gcc architecture question

    - by Andy
    Hi, I'm compiling my program with architecture set to -mtune=i386 However, I'm also linking statically against several libs (libpng, zlib, jpeglib, vorbisfile, libogg). I've built these libs on my own using configure and make, so I guess these libs were built with architecture being set to my system's architecture which would be i686. But I don't want that! I want my program to run on i386, too, so I need to make sure that all these libs that I'm statically linking against are built for i386, too. So my question: Is there a convenient way to build libpng/zlib/jpeglib/vorbisfile/libogg etc. for i386 or do I have to modify all of their makefiles manually and make sure that -mtune is set to i386? Thanks for help! Andy

    Read the article

  • Flex Framework vs. Micro-Architecture

    - by droboZ
    I'm in the process of choosing a framework for my flex development, and one of the questions that was asked about a framework was "is this a framework or a micro-architecture"? Can someone clarify what's the difference? What exactly is a framework, and when can we start calling what we have a framework? I work with FlexBuilder3 (now called FlashBuilder4) and have a lot of standard things that I do for almost all projects, and components that I created for easy re-use. Some are very very small, but the benefit of a 1-liner has been immense for me instead of repeating the code over and over. So in the framework/micro-architecture scheme, can I say that these are my internal in-house framework or are they part of a micro-architecture? Trying to understand this topic better.

    Read the article

  • Framework vs. Micro-Architecture, which is mine

    - by droboZ
    I'm in the process of choosing a framework for my flex development, and one of the questions that was asked about a framework was "is this a framework or a micro-architecture"? Can someone clarify what's the difference? What exactly is a framework, and when can we start calling what we have a framework? I work with FlexBuilder3 (now called FlashBuilder4) and have a lot of standard things that I do for almost all projects, and components that I created for easy re-use. Some are very very small, but the benefit of a 1-liner has been immense for me instead of repeating the code over and over. So in the framework/micro-architecture scheme, can I say that these are my internal in-house framework or are they part of a micro-architecture? Trying to understand this topic better.

    Read the article

  • Pirates, Treasure Chests and Architectural Mapping

    Pirate 1: Why do pirates create treasure maps? Pirate 2: I do not know.Pirate 1: So they can find their gold. Yes, that was a bad joke, but it does illustrate a point. Pirates are known for drawing treasure maps to their most prized possession. These documents detail the decisions pirates made in order to hide and find their chests of gold. The map allows them to trace the steps they took originally to hide their treasure so that they may return. As software engineers, programmers, and architects we need to treat software implementations much like our treasure chest. Why is software like a treasure chest? It cost money, time,  and resources to develop (Usually) It can make or save money, time, and resources (Hopefully) If we operate under the assumption that software is like a treasure chest then wouldn’t make sense to document the steps, rationale, concerns, and decisions about how it was designed? Pirates are notorious for documenting where they hide their treasure.  Shouldn’t we as creators of software do the same? By documenting our design decisions and rationale behind them will help others be able to understand and maintain implemented systems. This can only be done if the design decisions are correctly mapped to its corresponding implementation. This allows for architectural decisions to be traced from the conceptual model, architectural design and finally to the implementation. Mapping gives software professional a method to trace the reason why specific areas of code were developed verses other options. Just like the pirates we need to able to trace our steps from the start of a project to its implementation,  so that we will understand why specific choices were chosen. The traceability of a software implementation that actually maps back to its originating design decisions is invaluable for ensuring that architectural drifting and erosion does not take place. The drifting and erosion is prevented by allowing others to understand the rational of why an implementation was created in a specific manor or methodology The process of mapping distinct design concerns/decisions to the location of its implemented is called traceability. In this context traceability is defined as method for connecting distinctive software artifacts. This process allows architectural design models and decisions to be directly connected with its physical implementation. The process of mapping architectural design concerns to a software implementation can be very complex. However, most design decision can be placed in  a few generalized categories. Commonly Mapped Design Decisions Design Rationale Components and Connectors Interfaces Behaviors/Properties Design rational is one of the hardest categories to map directly to an implementation. Typically this rational is mapped or document in code via comments. These comments consist of general design decisions and reasoning because they do not directly refer to a specific part of an application. They typically focus more on the higher level concerns. Components and connectors can directly be mapped to architectural concerns. Typically concerns subdivide an application in to distinct functional areas. These functional areas then can map directly back to their originating concerns.Interfaces can be mapped back to design concerns in one of two ways. Interfaces that pertain to specific function definitions can be directly mapped back to its originating concern(s). However, more complicated interfaces require additional analysis to ensure that the proper mappings are created. Depending on the complexity some Behaviors\Properties can be translated directly into a generic implementation structure that is ready for business logic. In addition, some behaviors can be translated directly in to an actual implementation depending on the complexity and architectural tools used. Mapping design concerns to an implementation is a lot of work to maintain, but is doable. In order to ensure that concerns are mapped correctly and that an implementation correctly reflects its design concerns then one of two standard approaches are usually used. All Changes Come From ArchitectureBy forcing all application changes to come through the architectural model prior to implementation then the existing mappings will be used to locate where in the implementation changes need to occur. Allow Changes From Implementation Or Architecture By allowing changes to come from the implementation and/or the architecture then the other area must be kept in sync. This methodology is more complex compared to the previous approach.  One reason to justify the added complexity for an application is due to the fact that this approach tends to detect and prevent architectural drift and erosion. Additionally, this approach is usually maintained via software because of the complexity. Reference:Taylor, R. N., Medvidovic, N., & Dashofy, E. M. (2009). Software architecture: Foundations, theory, and practice Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons  

    Read the article

  • How does a java web project architecture look like without EJB3 ?

    - by Hendrik
    A friend and I are building a fairly complex website based on java. (PHP would have been more obvious but we chose for java because the educational aspect of this project is important to us) We have already decided to use JSF (with richfaces) for the front end and JPA for the backend and so far we have decided not to use EJB3 for the business layer. The reason we've decided not to use EJB3 is because - and please correct me if I am wrong - if we use EJB3 we can only run it on a full blown java application server like jboss and if we don't use EJB3 we can still run it on a lightweight server like tomcat. We want to keep speed and cost of our future web server in mind. So far i've worked on two JEE projects and both used the full stack with web business logic factories/persistence service entities with every layer a seperate module. Now here is my question, if you dont use EJB3 in the business logic layer. What does the layer look like? Please tell what is common practice when developing java web projects without ejb3? Do you think business logic layer can be thrown out altogether and have business logic in the backing beans? If you keep the layer, do you have all business methods static? Or do you initialize each business class as needed in the backing beans in every session as needed?

    Read the article

  • What is common architecture of notification system on the web-forum, PMB and etc.?

    - by glaz666
    What I need is - list of new stuff from last visit - when user has already checked out some new entity since his last visit (ex. post on forum), mark this entity as read in the list - count different types of entities - private messages, posts, comments and etc. There are lot of websites using this technique for private messaging, listing new stuff and etc (ex. phpBB, this one and etc). Are there any common pattern, description of the system core which will events, making lists?

    Read the article

  • Looking for design/architecture suggestions for a simple HTML game.

    - by z-boss
    Imagine that HTML page is a game surface (see picture). User can have n number of boards (blue divs) on his page. Each board can be moved, re-sized, relabeled, created new and removed. Inside each board there are m number of figures (purple divs). Each of these user can move inside the board or to another board, re-size, change color and label, delete, add new. The goal of the game is not important, but let's say it is to rearrange figures in a certain way so that they disappear. But the goal of the programmer is to save the whole game surface in the database for every user of the site, and to load it later when he returns. So, how do I go about data exchange between client and the database? I'll give my idea in one of the answers.

    Read the article

  • View controller/NIB architecture for non-navigation application with transitions?

    - by Ben
    I'm tinkering with an app that doesn't use the UINavigation root view control system, so I don't have natural ownership for each app "view". I essentially have two basic views, a document list view, and a document edit view. I'm playing with UIView animation for getting from a selected document to the edit view. I also have a toolbar that exists in both "views". Because I don't have UINavigation running the show for me, I have a tendency to just throw more and more stuff into one NIB and one view controller that owns the whole container. But now I'm trying to figure out how to segue from the document list view to the edit view if the edit view lives inside a different NIB, preserving the toolbar too. Anyone have thoughts or experience on app structures like this? I find the docs lacking on best practices around code/UI structure for anything except trivial one-screen apps or full-on navigation apps. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Architecture of a secure application that encrypts data in the database.

    - by Przemyslaw Rózycki
    I need to design an application that protects some data in a database against root attack. It means, that even if the aggressor takes control over the machine where data is stored or machine with the application server, he can't read some business critical data from the database. This is a customer's requirement. I'm going to encrypt data with some assymetric algorithm and I need some good ideas, where to store private keys, so that data is secure as well as the application usability was quite comfortable? We can assume, for simplicity, that only one key pair is used.

    Read the article

  • What is a good architecture for a Lift-JPA application?

    - by egervari
    I was wondering what is the best practice for a JPA model in Lift? I noticed that in the jpa demo application, there is just a Model object that is like a super object that does everything. I don't think this can be the most scalable approach, no? Is it is wise to still do the DAO pattern in Lift? For example, there's some code that looks a tad bloated and could be simplified across all model objects: Model.remove(Model.getReference(classOf[Author], someId)) Could be: AuthorDao.remove(someId) I'd appreciate any tips for setting up something that will work with the way Lift wants to work and is also easy to organize and maintain. Preferably from someone who has actually used JPA on a medium to large Lift site rather than just postulating what Spring does (we know how to do that) ;) The first phase of development will be around 30-40 tables, and will eventually get to over 100... we need a scalable, neat approach.

    Read the article

  • DB Architecture : Linking to intersection or to main tables?

    - by Jean-Nicolas
    Hi, I'm creating fantasy football system on my website but i'm very confuse about how I should link some of my table. Tables The main table is Pool which have all the info about the ruling of the fantasy draft. A standard table User, which contains the usual stuff. Intersection table called pools_users which contains id,pool_id,user_id because a user could be in more than one pool, and a pool contains more than 1 user. The problem Table Selections = that's the table that is causing problem. That's the selection that the user choose for his pool. This is related to the Player table but thats not relevant for this problem. Should I link this table to the table Pools_users or should I link it with both main table Pool and User. This table contains id,pool_id,user_id,player_id,... What is the best way link my tables? When I want to retrieve my data, I normally want the information to be divided BY users. "This user have those selections, this one those selections, etc).

    Read the article

  • What do you call a generalized (non-GUI-related) "Model-View-Controller" architecture?

    - by dcuccia
    I am currently refactoring code that coordinates multiple hardware components for data acquisition, and feeling a bit like I'm recreating the wheel. In particular, an MVC-like pattern seems to be emerging. Except, this has nothing to do with a GUI and I'm worried that I'm forcing this particular pattern where another might be more appropriate. Here's my scenario: Individual hardware "component" classes obey interface contracts for each hardware type. Previously, component instances were orchestrated by a single monolithic InstrumentController class, which relied heavily on configuration + branching logic for executing a specific acquisition sequence. After an iteration, I have a separate controller for each component, with these controllers all managed by a small InstrumentControllerBase (or its derivatives). The composite system will receive "input" either programmatically or via inter-hardware component triggering - in either case these interactions are routed to, and handled by, the appropriate controller. So, I have something that feels MVC-esque, but I don't know if that's because I'm forcing the point. With little direct MVC experience in application development, it's hard to know if I'm just trying to make my scenario fit MVC, where another pattern might be a good alternative or complimentary. My problem is, search results and wiki documentation of these family of patterns seems to immediately drop me into GUI-specific discussions. I understand "M means Model data and the V means View" - but do you call the superset pattern? Component-Commander-Controller? Whence can I exhume examples exemplary?

    Read the article

  • Booking logic and architecture, database sync: Hotels, tennis courts reservation system ...

    - by coulix
    Hello Stackers, Imagine that you want to design a tennis booking system. You have 5 tennis clubs as partenrs with no online api allowing you to check on their side if a court is booked or not: You have to build this part as well. Every time a booking is done on their side you want it to be know by our system. Probably using a POST request form tennis partner to our server. Every time a booking is done on our website, we want to push the booking to their system. The difficulty is that their system need to be online and accessible from outside. Ip may change, we have to use a dns updater. In case their system is not available we still accept the booking and fallback to an async email with 'i confirm booking/reject booking' link sent to the club. I find the whole process quite complex and was wondering about the way online hotel booking system and hotel were working. Do they all have their data open and online ? The good thing is that the data will grow large and fits nicely to some no SQL ;) like couch db

    Read the article

  • What's wrong with the architecture of a game object drawing and updating itself?

    - by Ricket
    What are the reasons for and against a game object drawing and updating itself? For example, if you have a game where the player has a position on screen, why not have an all-encompassing class: public class Player { private int x, y, xVelocity, yVelocity; private Sprite s; //... public Player() { // load the sprite here, somehow? } public void draw(CustomGraphicsClass g) { g.draw(s, x, y); } public void update(long timeElapsed) { x += (xVelocity * timeElapsed); y += (yVelocity * timeElapsed); } } What is wrong with this design? What are the downfalls or concerns? How would you better write something like this, or better architect this type of thing in a game? Also, somewhat connected, how would you implement loading that Sprite image? And furthermore, how would you then implement collision between two Players? (I should probably separate these extra two questions into new questions, huh?)

    Read the article

  • Ideas for scaling out database architecture

    - by andrew
    We're looking to scale out our existing database architecture and need some advice on which way to go. We currently have 2 web servers behind a load balancer that both read & write to a single master database which replicates to a slave. Ideally, I'd like each of the webservers to point to their own master DB and have the data between the 2 synchronised but from what I've read, using any kind of master-master or ring-replication is discouraged. I'm looking for a general "what do other people do" kind of answer - database vendor isn't a concern at the moment but we'd like to stay with MySQL or convert to MSSQL. Any ideas would be gratefully received. Many thanks, Andrew

    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 | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >