Search Results

Search found 9436 results on 378 pages for 'component architecture'.

Page 24/378 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • Enterprise VS Regular corporate developer

    - by Rick Ratayczak
    Ok, I "almost" lost a job offer because I "didn't have enough experience as an enterprise software engineer". I've been a programmer for over 16 years, and the last 12-14 professionally, at companies big and small. So this made me think of this question: What's the difference between a software engineer and an enterprise software engineer? Is there really a difference between software architecture and enterprise architecture? BTW: I try to do what every other GOOD software programmer does, like architecture, tdd, SDLC, etc.

    Read the article

  • Efficiently separating Read/Compute/Write steps for concurrent processing of entities in Entity/Component systems

    - by TravisG
    Setup I have an entity-component architecture where Entities can have a set of attributes (which are pure data with no behavior) and there exist systems that run the entity logic which act on that data. Essentially, in somewhat pseudo-code: Entity { id; map<id_type, Attribute> attributes; } System { update(); vector<Entity> entities; } A system that just moves along all entities at a constant rate might be MovementSystem extends System { update() { for each entity in entities position = entity.attributes["position"]; position += vec3(1,1,1); } } Essentially, I'm trying to parallelise update() as efficiently as possible. This can be done by running entire systems in parallel, or by giving each update() of one system a couple of components so different threads can execute the update of the same system, but for a different subset of entities registered with that system. Problem In reality, these systems sometimes require that entities interact(/read/write data from/to) each other, sometimes within the same system (e.g. an AI system that reads state from other entities surrounding the current processed entity), but sometimes between different systems that depend on each other (i.e. a movement system that requires data from a system that processes user input). Now, when trying to parallelize the update phases of entity/component systems, the phases in which data (components/attributes) from Entities are read and used to compute something, and the phase where the modified data is written back to entities need to be separated in order to avoid data races. Otherwise the only way (not taking into account just "critical section"ing everything) to avoid them is to serialize parts of the update process that depend on other parts. This seems ugly. To me it would seem more elegant to be able to (ideally) have all processing running in parallel, where a system may read data from all entities as it wishes, but doesn't write modifications to that data back until some later point. The fact that this is even possible is based on the assumption that modification write-backs are usually very small in complexity, and don't require much performance, whereas computations are very expensive (relatively). So the overhead added by a delayed-write phase might be evened out by more efficient updating of entities (by having threads work more % of the time instead of waiting). A concrete example of this might be a system that updates physics. The system needs to both read and write a lot of data to and from entities. Optimally, there would be a system in place where all available threads update a subset of all entities registered with the physics system. In the case of the physics system this isn't trivially possible because of race conditions. So without a workaround, we would have to find other systems to run in parallel (which don't modify the same data as the physics system), other wise the remaining threads are waiting and wasting time. However, that has disadvantages Practically, the L3 cache is pretty much always better utilized when updating a large system with multiple threads, as opposed to multiple systems at once, which all act on different sets of data. Finding and assembling other systems to run in parallel can be extremely time consuming to design well enough to optimize performance. Sometimes, it might even not be possible at all because a system just depends on data that is touched by all other systems. Solution? In my thinking, a possible solution would be a system where reading/updating and writing of data is separated, so that in one expensive phase, systems only read data and compute what they need to compute, and then in a separate, performance-wise cheap, write phase, attributes of entities that needed to be modified are finally written back to the entities. The Question How might such a system be implemented to achieve optimal performance, as well as making programmer life easier? What are the implementation details of such a system and what might have to be changed in the existing EC-architecture to accommodate this solution?

    Read the article

  • Migrating a WebLogic Domain from a 32 to a 64 bit JVM/Architecture

    - by adejuanc
    Currently on 32 bit OS which presents a physical constraint when trying to allocate memory. By limit, a 32 bit OS, will not be able to allocate more than 3 GB on a Linux environment, or 2 GB for Windows environment (not considering Physical Address Extension (PAE) implementation, which can increase the maximum allocatable memory). When this limit is reached, a migration to a 64 bit architecture is recommended. Below are the steps on how to install a 64 WebLogic Server version, along with a 64 Bit JVM and then how to migrate the domain to this new environment. Weblogic Server Version: WebLogic Server Version: 10.3.4.0 OS: Linux adejuan-cl.cl.oracle.com 2.6.18-194.el5 #1 SMP Mon Jan 01 22:10:29 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux JVM:java version "1.6.0_22" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_22-b04) Oracle JRockit(R) (build R28.1.1-13-139783-1.6.0_22-20101206-0136-linux-x86_64, compiled mode) To create migration template: 1. Execute $<WLS_HOME>/wlserver_10.3/common/bin/config_builder.sh 2. Create Domain Template. 3. Select Domain to migrate. 4. Enter the name of template and other info. Click next. 5. Using Add Button, Select libraries you want to add under lib folder. copy jdbc data sources you would like to have under config/jdbc folder. If you want to have log4j configuration, copy log4j.xml under domain_root folder. 6. Select data base for the domain and click next. 7. Enter Admin Server Name and port numbers. Click next. 8. Enter username and password. Click next. Select No if you don want to add users/groups/roles 9. Click next until reach button create. This will create a jar file that is needed for the next action plan. To install and migrate domain to 64 bit architecture. 1. Install JVM Jrockit R28.1.1.13 on environment. (uncompress zip folder on a known location) 2. Go to JRockit_Home/bin and execute $ java -d64 -jar wls1034_generic.jar 3. When prompt, select JRockit JVM in browse menu, and wait for installation to finish. 4. Go to <WLS_HOME>/wlserver_10.3/common/bin and execute $ ./config.sh 5. Select Create a new Weblogic domain 6. Select Base this domain on an existing template and select browse. 7. Select jar file created on previous action plan. 8. Select Name of domain. Maintain in most cases. 9. Select user name and password. Maintain in most cases. 10. Select Jrockit SDK 1.6.0_22 and click next. 11. Confirm all JMS/JDBC/security configuration. 12. On select Optional Configuration, reconfigure if necessary. 13. Check on Configuration summary for all domain configuration. 14. Click on create, to finish up domain import. Note: Always when installing a 64 bit WLS, it's necessary to install first the 64 JVM and then run the generic installer with the -d64 bit option. If this is not performed, the installation will be the 32 default version. For more information, please refer: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E13188_01/jrockit/docs50/dev_faq.html#pae

    Read the article

  • Validation and authorization in layered architecture

    - by SonOfPirate
    I know you are thinking (or maybe yelling), "not another question asking where validation belongs in a layered architecture?!?" Well, yes, but hopefully this will be a little bit of a different take on the subject. I am a firm believer that validation takes many forms, is context-based and varies at each level of the architecture. That is the basis for the post - helping to identify what type of validation should be performed in each layer. In addition, a question that often comes up is where authorization checks belong. The example scenario comes from an application for a catering business. Periodically during the day, a driver may turn in to the office any excess cash they've accumulated while taking the truck from site to site. The application allows a user to record the 'cash drop' by collecting the driver's ID, and the amount. Here's some skeleton code to illustrate the layers involved: public class CashDropApi // This is in the Service Facade Layer { [WebInvoke(Method = "POST")] public void AddCashDrop(NewCashDropContract contract) { // 1 Service.AddCashDrop(contract.Amount, contract.DriverId); } } public class CashDropService // This is the Application Service in the Domain Layer { public void AddCashDrop(Decimal amount, Int32 driverId) { // 2 CommandBus.Send(new AddCashDropCommand(amount, driverId)); } } internal class AddCashDropCommand // This is a command object in Domain Layer { public AddCashDropCommand(Decimal amount, Int32 driverId) { // 3 Amount = amount; DriverId = driverId; } public Decimal Amount { get; private set; } public Int32 DriverId { get; private set; } } internal class AddCashDropCommandHandler : IHandle<AddCashDropCommand> { internal ICashDropFactory Factory { get; set; } // Set by IoC container internal ICashDropRepository CashDrops { get; set; } // Set by IoC container internal IEmployeeRepository Employees { get; set; } // Set by IoC container public void Handle(AddCashDropCommand command) { // 4 var driver = Employees.GetById(command.DriverId); // 5 var authorizedBy = CurrentUser as Employee; // 6 var cashDrop = Factory.CreateCashDrop(command.Amount, driver, authorizedBy); // 7 CashDrops.Add(cashDrop); } } public class CashDropFactory { public CashDrop CreateCashDrop(Decimal amount, Employee driver, Employee authorizedBy) { // 8 return new CashDrop(amount, driver, authorizedBy, DateTime.Now); } } public class CashDrop // The domain object (entity) { public CashDrop(Decimal amount, Employee driver, Employee authorizedBy, DateTime at) { // 9 ... } } public class CashDropRepository // The implementation is in the Data Access Layer { public void Add(CashDrop item) { // 10 ... } } I've indicated 10 locations where I've seen validation checks placed in code. My question is what checks you would, if any, be performing at each given the following business rules (along with standard checks for length, range, format, type, etc): The amount of the cash drop must be greater than zero. The cash drop must have a valid Driver. The current user must be authorized to add cash drops (current user is not the driver). Please share your thoughts, how you have or would approach this scenario and the reasons for your choices.

    Read the article

  • Benefits of TOGAF or similar?

    - by Lunatik
    I can read the website blurb and be impressed by the alleged benefits, but I haven't worked anywhere or with anyone who followed the TOGAF (or any alternative) architecture framework. Our organisation has declared itself dedicated to moving from what is currently a fairly shambolic design & development model towards something approaching a modern structured process. Things like TOGAF have been mentioned as helping achieve a world-class enterprise development environment (!) but I'm convinced that no-one here really understands the real-world benefits that wholesale adoption might bring and, perhaps more importantly, the effort/pain required to achieve the same. Do you have experience in using TOGAF or similar to wrestle control in an organisation? Do you think that use of the framework brought any benefit? Edit: For clarification TOGAF is "The Open Group Architecture Framework", a detailed method and set of tools for developing an enterprise architecture. See: http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8-doc/arch/

    Read the article

  • How to model and handle presentation DTO's to abstract from complicated domain model?

    - by arrages
    Hi I am developing an application that needs to work with a complex domain model using Hibernate. This application uses Spring MVC and using the domain objects in the presentation layer is very messy so I think I should use DTO's that go to and from my service layer so that these match what I need in my views. Now lets assume I have a CarLease entity whose properties are not simple java primitives but it's composed with other entities like Make, Model, etc public class CarLease { private Make make; Private Model model; . . . } most properties are in this fashion and they are selectable using drop down selects on the jsp view, each will post back an ID to the controller. Now considering some standard use cases: create, edit, display How would you go about modeling the presentation DTO's to be used as form backing objects and communication between presentation and service layers?? Would you create a different DTO for each case (create, edit, display), would you make DTO's for the complex attributes? if so where would you translate the ID to entity? how and where would you handle validation, DTO/Domain assembly, what would you return from service layer methods? (create, edit, get) As you can see, I now I will benefit by separating my view from the domain objects (very complex with lots of stuff I don't need.) but I am having a hard time finding any real world examples and best practices for this. I need some architecture guidance from top to bottom, please keep in mind I will use Spring MVC in case that may leverage on your anwser. thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Help with ZK component development

    - by Lucas
    I'm developing a simple component. My jar structure is: br/netsoft/zkComponents/Tef.class META-INF/MANIFEST.MF metainfo/zk/lang-addon.xml web/js/br/netsoft/zkComponents.js web/zkComponents/tef.dsp My dsp file is: <c:set var="self" value="${requestScope.arg.self}"/> <span z.type="br.netsoft.zkComponents.Tef" id="${self.uuid}" ${self.outerAttrs}${self.innerAttrs}> <applet archive="tef.jar" id="tefApplet" code="br.netsoft.applets.tef.TEFProxy" width="0px" height="0px" /> <span/> and the language-addon.xml is: <language-addon> <addon-name>componentes</addon-name> <language-name>xul/html</language-name> <component> <component-name>tef</component-name> <component-class>br.netsoft.zkComponents.Tef</component-class> <mold> <mold-name>default</mold-name> <mold-uri>~./zkComponents/tef.dsp</mold-uri> </mold> </component> </language-addon> When i try to test this component, appears a pop-up showing : " /js/br/netsoft/zkComponents.js not found" what is wrong?

    Read the article

  • Can we have a component-scoped bean in a JSF2 composite component?

    - by Pradyumna
    Hi, I was wondering how I could create "component-scoped" beans, or so-to-say, "local variables inside a composite component" that are private to the instance of the composite component, and live as long as that instance lives. Below are more details, explained with an example: Suppose there is a "calculator" component - something that allows users to type in a mathematical expression, and evaluates its value. Optionally, it also plots the associated function. I can make a composite component that has: a text box for accepting the math expression two buttons called "Evaluate", and "Plot" another nested component that plots the function It is evidently a self-contained piece of function; so that somebody who wants to use it may just say <math:expressionEvaluator /> But obviously, the implementation would need a java object - something that evaluates the expression, something that computes the plot points, etc. - and I imagine it can be a bean - scoped just for this instance of this component, not a view-scoped or request-scoped bean that is shared across all instances of the component. How do I create such a bean? Is that even possible with composite components?

    Read the article

  • BizTalk Server 2009 - Architecture Options

    - by StuartBrierley
    I recently needed to put forward a proposal for a BizTalk 2009 implementation and as a part of this needed to describe some of the basic architecture options available for consideration.  While I already had an idea of the type of environment that I would be looking to recommend, I felt that presenting a range of options while trying to explain some of the strengths and weaknesses of those options was a good place to start.  These outline architecture options should be equally valid for any version of BizTalk Server from 2004, through 2006 and R2, up to 2009.   The following diagram shows a crude representation of the common implementation options to consider when designing a BizTalk environment.         Each of these options provides differing levels of resilience in the case of failure or disaster, with the later options also providing more scope for performance tuning and scalability.   Some of the options presented above make use of clustering. Clustering may best be described as a technology that automatically allows one physical server to take over the tasks and responsibilities of another physical server that has failed. Given that all computer hardware and software will eventually fail, the goal of clustering is to ensure that mission-critical applications will have little or no downtime when such a failure occurs. Clustering can also be configured to provide load balancing, which should generally lead to performance gains and increased capacity and throughput.   (A) Single Servers   This option is the most basic BizTalk implementation that should be considered. It involves the deployment of a single BizTalk server in conjunction with a single SQL server. This configuration does not provide for any resilience in the case of the failure of either server. It is however the cheapest and easiest to implement option of those available.   Using a single BizTalk server does not provide for the level of performance tuning that is otherwise available when using more than one BizTalk server in a cluster.   The common edition of BizTalk used in single server implementations is the standard edition. It should be noted however that if future demand requires increased capacity for a solution, this BizTalk edition is limited to scaling up the implementation and not scaling out the number of servers in use. Any need to scale out the solution would require an upgrade to the enterprise edition of BizTalk.   (B) Single BizTalk Server with Clustered SQL Servers   This option uses a single BizTalk server with a cluster of SQL servers. By utilising clustered SQL servers we can ensure that there is some resilience to the implementation in respect of the databases that BizTalk relies on to operate. The clustering of two SQL servers is possible with the standard edition but to go beyond this would require the enterprise level edition. While this option offers improved resilience over option (A) it does still present a potential single point of failure at the BizTalk server.   Using a single BizTalk server does not provide for the level of performance tuning that is otherwise available when using more than one BizTalk server in a cluster.   The common edition of BizTalk used in single server implementations is the standard edition. It should be noted however that if future demand requires increased capacity for a solution, this BizTalk edition is limited to scaling up the implementation and not scaling out the number of servers in use. You are also unable to take advantage of multiple message boxes, which would allow us to balance the SQL load in the event of any bottlenecks in this area of the implementation. Any need to scale out the solution would require an upgrade to the enterprise edition of BizTalk.   (C) Clustered BizTalk Servers with Clustered SQL Servers   This option makes use of a cluster of BizTalk servers with a cluster of SQL servers to offer high availability and resilience in the case of failure of either of the server types involved. Clustering of BizTalk is only available with the enterprise edition of the product. Clustering of two SQL servers is possible with the standard edition but to go beyond this would require the enterprise level edition.    The use of a BizTalk cluster also provides for the ability to balance load across the servers and gives more scope for performance tuning any implemented solutions. It is also possible to add more BizTalk servers to an existing cluster, giving scope for scaling out the solution as future demand requires.   This might be seen as the middle cost option, providing a good level of protection in the case of failure, a decent level of future proofing, but at a higher cost than the single BizTalk server implementations.   (D) Clustered BizTalk Servers with Clustered SQL Servers – with disaster recovery/service continuity   This option is similar to that offered by (C) and makes use of a cluster of BizTalk servers with a cluster of SQL servers to offer high availability and resilience in case of failure of either of the server types involved. Clustering of BizTalk is only available with the enterprise edition of the product. Clustering of two SQL servers is possible with the standard edition but to go beyond this would require the enterprise level edition.    As with (C) the use of a BizTalk cluster also provides for the ability to balance load across the servers and gives more scope for performance tuning the implemented solution. It is also possible to add more BizTalk servers to an existing cluster, giving scope for scaling the solution out as future demand requires.   In this scenario however, we would be including some form of disaster recovery or service continuity. An example of this would be making use of multiple sites, with the BizTalk server cluster operating across sites to offer resilience in case of the loss of one or more sites. In this scenario there are options available for the SQL implementation depending on the network implementation; making use of either one cluster per site or a single SQL cluster across the network. A multi-site SQL implementation would require some form of data replication across the sites involved.   This is obviously an expensive and complex option, but does provide an extraordinary amount of protection in the case of failure.

    Read the article

  • Tom Kyte Webcast on Oracle Maximum Availability Architecture Best Practices - Thursday, April 12 @ 10:00 AM PDT

    - by jgelhaus
    Date: Thursday, April 12, 2012 Time: 10:00 AM PDT Update Your Knowledge with Oracle Expert Tom Kyte Data is one of the most critical assets of any organization with many operations depending on having complete and accurate data available 24/7. By implementing Oracle’s Maximum Availability Architecture (MAA), organizations can minimize the cost and risk associated with downtime. Oracle’s MAA best practices extend beyond Oracle Database to span a broad range of products, including Oracle Exadata and Oracle Database Appliance. Join Oracle expert Tom Kyte for this Live Webcast to learn how to: Protect your systems from planned and unplanned downtime Achieve the highest quality of service at the lowest cost Eliminate idle redundancy in the data center Register today and ask Tom your questions around availability best practices.

    Read the article

  • Event system architecture for networking when performance is concerned

    - by Vandell
    How should I design a system for an action game (think in Golden Axe) where events can happen remotely? I'm using TCP for this because the client is in flash. There's so many options, I can make a binary protocol (I don't like this idea, I found it to be too hard to mantain) but I was also thinking that passing jsons through clients and server can be slow (Is that a exaggerated concern?). What about the internal architecture for the server? And for the client? I'm really lost, If it's a question that is too big, please indicate me some material so I can formulate a better question next time.

    Read the article

  • CUDA 4.0 : sortie de la Release Candidate de l'architecture de calcul parallèle de NVIDIA

    CUDA 4.0 : sortie de la Release Candidate De l'architecture de calcul parallèle de NVIDIA La sortie cette semaine aux développeurs enregistrés de CUDA est l'accomplissement de milliers d'heures dédiées à ce projet. Cette technologie peut sembler jeune, sa première version, la 1.0, n'a été sortie qu'en 2007. L'effet de cette sortie sur le monde entier n'a, sans nul doute possible, pas été nul. Elle n'est pas non plus le seul terrain d'avance pour les technologies massivement parallèles sur matériel NVIDIA : les API comme OpenCL et DirectCompute sont elles aussi supportées et améliorées, en plus d'un accès direct au GPU en C, C++ et Fortran. Comme toujours, NVIDIA est à la recherch...

    Read the article

  • Cloud Computing Architecture Patterns: Don’t Focus on the Client

    - by BuckWoody
    Normally I try to put topics in the positive in other words "Do this" not "Don't do that". Sometimes its clearer to focus on what *not* to do. Popular development processes often start with screen mockups, or user input descriptions. In a scale-out pattern like Cloud Computing on Windows Azure, that's the wrong place to start. Start with the Data    Instead, I recommend that you start with the data that a process requires. That data might be temporary or persisted, but starting with the data and its requirements helps to define not only the storage engine you need but also drives everything from security to the integrity of the application. For instance, assume the requirements show that the user must enter their phone number, and that this datum is used in a contact management system further down the application chain. For that datum, you can determine what data type you need (U.S. only or International?) the security requirements, whether it needs ACID compliance, how it will be searched, indexed and so on. From one small data point you can extrapolate out your options for storing and processing the data. Here's the interesting part, which begins to break the patterns that we've used for decades: all of the data doesn't have the same requirements. The phone number might be best suited for a list, or an element, or a string, with either BASE or ACID requirements, based on how it is used. That means we don't have to dump everything into XML, an RDBMS, a NoSQL engine, or a flat file exclusively. In fact, one record might use all of those depending on the use-case requirements. Next Is Data Management  With the data defined, we can move on to how to store the data. Again, the requirements now dictate whether we need a full relational calculus or set-based operations, or we can choose another method based on the requirements for the data. And breaking another pattern its OK to store in more than once, in more than one location. We do this all the time for reporting systems and Business Intelligence systems, so this is a pattern we need to think about even for OLTP data. Move to Data Transport How does the data get around? We can use a connection-based method, sending the data along a transport to the storage engine, but in some cases we may want to use a cache, a queue, the Service Bus, or Complex Event Processing. Finally, Data Processing Most RDBMS engines, NoSQL, and certainly Big Data engines not only store data, but can process and manipulate it as well. Its doubtful that you'll calculate that phone number right? Well, if you're the phone company, you most certainly will. And so we see that even once we've chosen the data type, storage and engine, the same element can have different computing requirements based on how it is used. Sure, We Need A Front-End At Some Point Not all data is entered by human hands in fact most data isn't. We don't really need a Graphical User Interface (GUI) we need some way for a GUI to get data into and out of the systems listed earlier.   But when we do need to allow users to enter or examine data, that should be left to the GUI that best fits the device the user has. Ever tried to use an application designed for a web browser on a phone? Or one designed for a tablet on a phone? Its usually quite painful. The siren song of "We'll just write one interface for all devices" is strong, and has beguiled many an unsuspecting architect. But they just don't work out.   Instead, focus on the data, its transport and processing. Create API calls or a message system that allows for resilient transport to the device or interface, and let it do what it does best. References Microsoft Architecture Journal:   http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/bb410935.aspx Patterns and Practices:   http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff921345.aspx Windows Azure iOS, Android, Windows 8 Mobile Devices SDK: http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/mobile/tutorials/get-started-ios/ Windows Azure Facebook SDK: http://ntotten.com/2013/03/14/using-windows-azure-mobile-services-with-the-facebook-sdk-for-windows-phone/

    Read the article

  • OAGi Architecture Council OAGIS Ten Work Group Completes first round review of Concepts for OAGIS Te

    - by michael.rowell
    Today the OAGi Architecture Council OAGIS Ten Work group completed the first level review of concepts for existing content for OAGIS Ten. This is one of the first milestones for OAGIS Ten. In doing this the concepts of key objects (the Nouns) have been identified along with the key context for their use. While OAGIS Ten remains a work-in-process the work group shows progress. Going forward the other councils will provide additional input to these and there own concepts and the contexts for each. Additionally, sub groups will focus on concepts for given domains. Stay tuned for future progress. If anyone is interested in joining the effort. OAGi membership is open to anyone, please see the OAGi Web site.

    Read the article

  • Looking for reading material on application architecture with web UI

    - by toong
    I'm looking for articles (or other reading material) on the topic of fat client applications with a web UI layer. Open-source projects that use this architecture would be very interesting too. Such an application would embed one (or more) browser-window(s) (chromiumembedded for example). You would need bidirectional communication between your web-UI and your domain model/services. I think this allows quick prototyping the UI, a clean separation between logic and UI and potentially easier portability across platforms (compared to WinForms for example). But that is just my view, I was looking for the view of people who have been on that road. An example of an application using a web-ui layer is Light Table. Unfortunately it is not open source (at this point?).

    Read the article

  • Approach on Software Development Architecture

    - by john ryan
    Hi i am planning to standardize our way of creating project for our new projects. Currently we are using 3tier architecture where we have our ClassLibrary Project where it includes our Data Access Layer and Business Layer Something like: Solution ClassLibrary >ClassLibrary Project : >DAL(folder) > DAL Classes >BAL(folder) > BAL Classes And this Class Library dll was reference on our presentation Layer Project which are the Application(web/desktop) Something like: Solution WebUniversitySystem >Libraries(folder) > ClassLibrary.dll >WebUniversitySystem(Project): >Reference ClassLibrary.dll >Pages etc... Now i am planning to do is something like: Solution WebUniversitySystem >DataAccess(Project) >BusinesLayer(Project) >Reference DAL >WebUniversitySystem(Project): >Reference BAL >Pages etc... Is this Ok ? Or there is a good Approach that we can follow? Thanks In Regards

    Read the article

  • Recommended reading for (Object Oriented) application design architecture?

    - by e4rthdog
    In life it doesnt matter if you do one thing for 15 years. You will end up waking one day and asking stuff that are equal to "how do i walk?" :) My specific question is that as a new entrant to C# and OOP i am stepping into many little "details" that need to be addressed. Written a lot of code in VB.NET / cobol / simple php e.t.c surely does not help much into the OOP world... So , even after reading entry level books for C# and watching some videos i recently found out about the "factory model design" for applications. I would appreciate if any of you guys recomment some reading on application design architecture for further reading...

    Read the article

  • SAB BizTalk Archiving Pipeline Component v0.2

    - by Stuart Brierley
    Just released to Codeplex is an updated version of my archiving pipeline component for BizTalk. The changes in this release are: Addition of FTP adapter macros to the base macros and File adapter macros. Fix for the issue of garbage collection of data streams within pipelines as discussed in this previous blog entry. Now looks for OutboundTransportType in addition to InboundTransportType to pick up send port transport type; Therefore changed %InboundTransportType% macro to %TransportType%. An initial outline of the project can be read here.

    Read the article

  • AlwaysOn Architecture Guide: Building a High Availability and Disaster Recovery Solution by Using AlwaysOn Availability Groups

    SQL Server 2012 AlwaysOn Availability Groups provides a unified high availability and disaster recovery (HADR) solution that improves upon legacy functionality previously found across disparate features. Prior to SQL Server 2012, several customers used database mirroring to provide local high availability within a data center, and log shipping for disaster recovery across a remote data center. With SQL Server 2012, this common design pattern can be replaced with an architecture that uses availability groups for both high availability and disaster recovery. This paper details the key topology requirements of this specific design pattern, including quorum configuration considerations, steps required to build the environment, and a workflow that shows how to handle a disaster recovery event in the new topology.

    Read the article

  • Good architecture for user information on separate databases?

    - by James P. Wright
    I need to write an API to connect to an existing SQL database. The API will be written in ASP.Net MVC3. The slight problem is that with existing users of the system, they may have a username on multiple databases. Each company using the product gets a brand new instance of the database, but over the years (the system has been running for 10 years) there are quite a few users (hundreds) who have multiple usernames across multiple "companies" (things got fragmented obviously and sometimes a single Company has 5 "projects" that each have their own database). Long story short, I need to be able to have a single unified user login that will allow existing users to access their information across all their projects. The only thing I can think is storing a bunch of connection strings, but that feels like a really bad idea. I'll have a new Database that will hold the "unified user" information...can anyone suggest a solid system architecture that can handle a setup like this?

    Read the article

  • MAAS/Juju architecture and issues

    - by Massimo
    I recently deployed a MAAS/Juju environment based on a six nodes cluster, using Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, to run a "proof of concept". I could appreciate how interesting the architecture is, and I'd like to understand if I can really base my future business on this technology. Therefore I'd like to understand more about any involved limitations, constraints and necessities. In particular I'd like to understand: 1) how can MAAS be made reliable, i.e. deployed over two or more physical nodes able to fail-over ? 2) can the same physical cluster host multiple juju environments, under the assumption openstack/virtualization is not used ? 3) can the same physical node host different charms of the same juju environment, deployed in a standard, reliable way by juju ?

    Read the article

  • SEI Turns Software Architecture into a Game

    - by Bob Rhubart-Oracle
    "Architecture is the decisions that you wish you could get right early in a project." -- Ralph E. Johnson Unless you can see into the future, getting those decisions right comes down to a collection of hard choices. But the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University has turned those hard choices into a game. Literally. According to the SEI website: The Hard Choices game is a simulation of the software development cycle meant to communicate the concepts of uncertainty, risk, options, and technical debt. In the quest to become market leader, players race to release a quality product to the marketplace. By the end of the game, everyone has experienced the implications of investing effort to gain an advantage or of paying a price to take shortcuts, as they employ design strategies in the face of uncertainty.   Check it out for yourself: Download the Hard Choices Board Game Download the companion white paper: The Hard Choices Game Explained

    Read the article

  • 3D architecture app for Android or iPhone

    - by Manixate
    I want to make an app for 3D modeling on iPhone/Android. I cannot get the basic idea of how to get started. I have various options such as learning OpenGL ES, UDK or Unity3d but I want to create models(e.g architecture etc) in my app and then render them when user is finished modeling. I do not know if I am able to design models and then render them in the same app with various effects on the iPhone/Android using UDK or Unity3d. (Note: If you find this question unclear please ask, I may have skipped some vital information).

    Read the article

  • Looking for the better way to combine deep architecture refactoring with feature based development

    - by voroninp
    Problem statement: Given: TFS as Source Control Heavy desktop client application with tons of legacy code with bad or almost absent architecture design. Clients constantly requiring new features with sound quality, fast delivery and constantly complaining on user unfriendly UI. Problem: Application undoubtedly requires deep refactoring. This process inevitably makes application unstable and dedicated stabilization phase is needed. We've tried: Refactoring in master with periodical merges from master (MB) to feature branch (FB). (my mistake) Result: Many unstable branches. What we are advised: Create additional branch for refactoring (RB) periodically synchronizing it with MB via merge from MB to RB. After RB is stabilized we substitute master with RB and create new branch for further refactoring. This is the plan. But here I expect the real hell of merging MB to RB after merging any FB to MB. The main advantage: Stable master most of the time. Are there any better alternatives to the procees?

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture

    - by Roger
    I have a question about Software Architecture, anyone can help me or give me some hints currently, I have a J2EE project which deploys in a server, I should a Java Standard project(J2SE) should run 24 hours x 7 days to monitor something it could not run separately, because the Java Project shared the some same classes such as Java Bean classes with the J2EE project maybe my design is not correct, can anyone suggest me what should I do? Using SOA? is this correct? my current solution is run this java project using a bash, but I dont think it is then best idea. I list my class packages com.company.alteck com.company.altronics com.company.gamming com.company.jaycar com.company.jup com.company.rpg com.company.sansai com.company.wiretech com.company.yatsal com.ebay.api com.ebay.bean com.ebay.credential com.ozsstock.finals com.ozstock.adapter com.ozstock.aspectj com.ozstock.model com.ozstock.persistence com.ozstock.service com.ozstock.suppliers my structure likes this, all the packages contains "company" should run separately, but depends on the model bean class. can anyone give me some hints to redesign?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >