Search Results

Search found 10556 results on 423 pages for 'practical approach'.

Page 29/423 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • Django custom managers - how do I return only objects created by the logged-in user?

    - by Tom Tom
    I want to overwrite the custom objects model manager to only return objects a specific user created. Admin users should still return all objects using the objects model manager. Now I have found an approach that could work. They propose to create your own middleware looking like this: #### myproject/middleware/threadlocals.py try: from threading import local except ImportError: # Python 2.3 compatibility from django.utils._threading_local import local _thread_locals = local() def get_current_user(): return getattr(_thread_locals, 'user', None) class ThreadLocals(object): """Middleware that gets various objects from the request object and saves them in thread local storage.""" def process_request(self, request): _thread_locals.user = getattr(request, 'user', None) #### end And in the Custom manager you could call the get_current_user() method to return only objects a specific user created. class UserContactManager(models.Manager): def get_query_set(self): return super(UserContactManager, self).get_query_set().filter(creator=get_current_user()) Is this a good approach to this use-case? Will this work? Or is this like "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" ? ;-) Just using: Contact.objects.filter(created_by= user) in each view doesn`t look very neat to me. EDIT Do not use this middleware approach !!! use the approach stated by Jack M. below After a while of testing this approach behaved pretty strange and with this approach you mix up a global-state with a current request. Use the approach presented below. It is really easy and no need to hack around with the middleware. create a custom manager in your model with a function that expects the current user or any other user as an input. #in your models.py class HourRecordManager(models.Manager): def for_user(self, user): return self.get_query_set().filter(created_by=user) class HourRecord(models.Model): #Managers objects = HourRecordManager() #in vour view you can call the manager like this and get returned only the objects from the currently logged-in user. hr_set = HourRecord.objects.for_user(request.user)

    Read the article

  • What are the disadvantages of domain email forwarding?

    - by naivedeveloper
    I have a domain, example.com. My domain registrar gives me two options concerning email. Set up forwarding email addresses (e.g., [email protected] forwarded to [email protected]. Set up Google Apps for email management Thus far, I have gone with option 1. I have a generic GMail email, [email protected], and I subsequently set up various email addresses on my registrar to forward to this gmail address: [email protected] -> [email protected] [email protected] -> [email protected] [email protected] -> [email protected] Through the GMail account, I have the option to alias these addresses when sending email. For example, from [email protected], I can "send email as" [email protected]. That way from the vantage point of the receiver of the email, the email came from [email protected] as opposed to [email protected]. My question is: Are there any disadvantages of this approach? Are these emails more susceptible to being picked up by spam filters vs using the Google Apps approach? Is there any hidden indication that the email is being aliased? When viewing the email headers, it shows the email was sent from [email protected] and not [email protected] or "forwarded from [email protected]" or anything like that. Am I naive in assuming that my cheap approach to email is masked by aliasing my outgoing emails? I have chosen approach number 1 simply because of the ease of setup. With that said, are there any advantages of going with approach 2 (the Google Apps approach)? Thanks for suggestions and advice.

    Read the article

  • protection points in survivable mutlicast network

    - by wantobegeek
    I am working on a project on survivable multicasting.I want to propose a hybrid scheme(protection and restoration) for that purpose.Can anyone help me with an approach to decide protection points in a multicast tree??(The protection points will be those points upto which there will be an alternate path from the multicast source(protection) and from protection point to the multicast destination the path will be dynamically restored.).Pls suggest an approach to find the protection points.I found an approach name caterpillar tree which assigns the nodes on the spine of caterpillar tree as protection points.Is there any other such approach..?

    Read the article

  • How can I make myself better at programming working at a shi* job ?

    - by Scrooge
    I recently graduated with an Engineering degree in Computer Science, but my employer (a mid-sized software company) is not using my logical and programming skills. I want to move to a better opportunity but how do I do that since my experience here is not going to count as much? How do I get a better programming job? The worst part is that I am still reading from books (and not writing code myself) even after I have started working. They are paying me a standard entry level Indian IT job rate but I really dont care. It's not worth it. Please advise as to how I can do something worthwhile. (I have studied C++; Core Java; Ruby On Rails ..made a couple of academic projects but no relevant practical real world experience). Just to make things easier .. let me list a few basic queries How I get better at programming without a good project at my company? Please suggest projects where I can learn to write practical code (platform doesn't matter) Best place to take part in open source development? Is it possible that I earn slightly more while I learn? (apart from my sh** job I mean) What kind of practical projects are best suited for me? (ie for an entry level programmer)

    Read the article

  • Why is math taught "backwards"? [closed]

    - by Yorirou
    A friend of mine showed me a pretty practical Java example. It was a riddle. I got excited and quickly solved the problem. After it, he showed me the mathematical explanation of my solution (he proved why is it good), and it was completely clear for me. This seems like natural approach for me: solve problems, and generalize. This is very familiar to me, I do it all the time when I am programming: I write a function. When I have to write a similar function, I generalize the problem, grab the generic parts, and refactor them to a function, and solve the original problems as a specialization of the general function. At the university (or at least where I study), things work backwards. The professors shows just the highest possible level of the solutions ("cryptic" mathematical formulas). My problem is that this is too abstract for me. There is no connection of my previous knowledge (== reality in my sense), so even if I can understand it, I can't really learn it properly. Others are learning these formulas word-by-word, and get good grades, since they can write exactly the same to the test, but this is not an option for me. I am a curious person, I can learn interesting things, but I can't learn just text. My brain is for storing toughts, not strings. There are proofs for the theories, but they are also really hard to understand because of this, and in most of the cases they are omitted. What is the reason for this? I don't understand why is it a good idea to show the really high level of abstraction and then leave the practical connections (or some important ideas / practical motivations) out?

    Read the article

  • Why do we (really) program to interfaces?

    - by Kyle Burns
    One of the earliest lessons I was taught in Enterprise development was "always program against an interface".  This was back in the VB6 days and I quickly learned that no code would be allowed to move to the QA server unless my business objects and data access objects each are defined as an interface and have a matching implementation class.  Why?  "It's more reusable" was one answer.  "It doesn't tie you to a specific implementation" a slightly more knowing answer.  And let's not forget the discussion ending "it's a standard".  The problem with these responses was that senior people didn't really understand the reason we were doing the things we were doing and because of that, we were entirely unable to realize the intent behind the practice - we simply used interfaces and had a bunch of extra code to maintain to show for it. It wasn't until a few years later that I finally heard the term "Inversion of Control".  Simply put, "Inversion of Control" takes the creation of objects that used to be within the control (and therefore a responsibility of) of your component and moves it to some outside force.  For example, consider the following code which follows the old "always program against an interface" rule in the manner of many corporate development shops: 1: ICatalog catalog = new Catalog(); 2: Category[] categories = catalog.GetCategories(); In this example, I met the requirement of the rule by declaring the variable as ICatalog, but I didn't hit "it doesn't tie you to a specific implementation" because I explicitly created an instance of the concrete Catalog object.  If I want to test the functionality of the code I just wrote I have to have an environment in which Catalog can be created along with any of the resources upon which it depends (e.g. configuration files, database connections, etc) in order to test my functionality.  That's a lot of setup work and one of the things that I think ultimately discourages real buy-in of unit testing in many development shops. So how do I test my code without needing Catalog to work?  A very primitive approach I've seen is to change the line the instantiates catalog to read: 1: ICatalog catalog = new FakeCatalog();   once the test is run and passes, the code is switched back to the real thing.  This obviously poses a huge risk for introducing test code into production and in my opinion is worse than just keeping the dependency and its associated setup work.  Another popular approach is to make use of Factory methods which use an object whose "job" is to know how to obtain a valid instance of the object.  Using this approach, the code may look something like this: 1: ICatalog catalog = CatalogFactory.GetCatalog();   The code inside the factory is responsible for deciding "what kind" of catalog is needed.  This is a far better approach than the previous one, but it does make projects grow considerably because now in addition to the interface, the real implementation, and the fake implementation(s) for testing you have added a minimum of one factory (or at least a factory method) for each of your interfaces.  Once again, developers say "that's too complicated and has me writing a bunch of useless code" and quietly slip back into just creating a new Catalog and chalking any test failures up to "it will probably work on the server". This is where software intended specifically to facilitate Inversion of Control comes into play.  There are many libraries that take on the Inversion of Control responsibilities in .Net and most of them have many pros and cons.  From this point forward I'll discuss concepts from the standpoint of the Unity framework produced by Microsoft's Patterns and Practices team.  I'm primarily focusing on this library because it questions about it inspired this posting. At Unity's core and that of most any IoC framework is a catalog or registry of components.  This registry can be configured either through code or using the application's configuration file and in the most simple terms says "interface X maps to concrete implementation Y".  It can get much more complicated, but I want to keep things at the "what does it do" level instead of "how does it do it".  The object that exposes most of the Unity functionality is the UnityContainer.  This object exposes methods to configure the catalog as well as the Resolve<T> method which is used to obtain an instance of the type represented by T.  When using the Resolve<T> method, Unity does not necessarily have to just "new up" the requested object, but also can track dependencies of that object and ensure that the entire dependency chain is satisfied. There are three basic ways that I have seen Unity used within projects.  Those are through classes directly using the Unity container, classes requiring injection of dependencies, and classes making use of the Service Locator pattern. The first usage of Unity is when classes are aware of the Unity container and directly call its Resolve method whenever they need the services advertised by an interface.  The up side of this approach is that IoC is utilized, but the down side is that every class has to be aware that Unity is being used and tied directly to that implementation. Many developers don't like the idea of as close a tie to specific IoC implementation as is represented by using Unity within all of your classes and for the most part I agree that this isn't a good idea.  As an alternative, classes can be designed for Dependency Injection.  Dependency Injection is where a force outside the class itself manipulates the object to provide implementations of the interfaces that the class needs to interact with the outside world.  This is typically done either through constructor injection where the object has a constructor that accepts an instance of each interface it requires or through property setters accepting the service providers.  When using dependency, I lean toward the use of constructor injection because I view the constructor as being a much better way to "discover" what is required for the instance to be ready for use.  During resolution, Unity looks for an injection constructor and will attempt to resolve instances of each interface required by the constructor, throwing an exception of unable to meet the advertised needs of the class.  The up side of this approach is that the needs of the class are very clearly advertised and the class is unaware of which IoC container (if any) is being used.  The down side of this approach is that you're required to maintain the objects passed to the constructor as instance variables throughout the life of your object and that objects which coordinate with many external services require a lot of additional constructor arguments (this gets ugly and may indicate a need for refactoring). The final way that I've seen and used Unity is to make use of the ServiceLocator pattern, of which the Patterns and Practices team has also provided a Unity-compatible implementation.  When using the ServiceLocator, your class calls ServiceLocator.Retrieve in places where it would have called Resolve on the Unity container.  Like using Unity directly, it does tie you directly to the ServiceLocator implementation and makes your code aware that dependency injection is taking place, but it does have the up side of giving you the freedom to swap out the underlying IoC container if necessary.  I'm not hugely concerned with hiding IoC entirely from the class (I view this as a "nice to have"), so the single biggest problem that I see with the ServiceLocator approach is that it provides no way to proactively advertise needs in the way that constructor injection does, allowing more opportunity for difficult to track runtime errors. This blog entry has not been intended in any way to be a definitive work on IoC, but rather as something to spur thought about why we program to interfaces and some ways to reach the intended value of the practice instead of having it just complicate your code.  I hope that it helps somebody begin or continue a journey away from being a "Cargo Cult Programmer".

    Read the article

  • Comments on Comments

    - by Joe Mayo
    I almost tweeted a reply to Capar Kleijne's question about comments on Twitter, but realized that my opinion exceeded 140 characters. The following is based upon my experience with extremes and approaches that I find useful in code comments. There are a couple extremes that I've seen and reasons why people go the distance in each approach. The most common extreme is no comments in the code at all.  A few bad reasons why this happens is because a developer is in a hurry, sloppy, or is interested in job preservation. The unfortunate result is that the code is difficult to understand and hard to maintain. The drawbacks to no comments in code are a primary reason why teachers drill the need for commenting code into our heads.  This viewpoint assumes the lack of comments are bad because the code is bad, but there is another reason for not commenting that is gaining more popularity. I've heard/and read that code should be self documenting. Following this thought pattern, if code is well written with meaningful names, there should not be a reason for comments.  An addendum to this argument is that comments are often neglected and get out-of-date, but the code is what is kept up-to-date. Presumably, if code contained very good naming, it would be easy to maintain.  This is a noble perspective and I like the practice of meaningful naming of identifiers. However, I think it's also an extreme approach that doesn't cover important cases.  i.e. If an identifier is named badly (subjective differences in opinion) or not changed appropriately during maintenance, then the badly named identifier is no more useful than a stale comment. These were the two no-comment extremes, so let's look at the too many comments extreme. On a regular basis, I'll see cases where the code is over-commented; not nearly as often as the no-comment scenarios, but still prevalent.  These are examples of where every single line in the code is commented.  These comments make the code harder to read because they get in the way of the algorithm.  In most cases, the comments parrot what each line of code does.  If a developer understands the language, then most statements are immediately intuitive.  i.e. what use is it to say that I'm assigning foo to bar when it's clear what the code is doing. I think that over-commenting code is a waste of time that slows down initial development and maintenance.  Understandably, the developer's intentions are admirable because they've had it beaten into their heads that they must comment. However, I think it's an extreme and prefer a more moderate approach. I don't think the extremes do justice to code because each can make maintenance harder.  No comments on bad code is obviously a problem, but the other two extremes are subtle and require qualification to address properly. The problem I see with the code-as-documentation approach is that it doesn't lift the developer out of the algorithm to identify dependencies, intentions, and hacks. Any developer can read code and follow an algorithm, but they still need to know where it fits into the big picture of the application. Because of indirections with language features like interfaces, delegates, and virtual members, code can become complex.  Occasionally, it's useful to point out a nuance or reason why a piece of code is there. i.e. If you've building an app that communicates via HTTP, you'll have certain headers to include for the endpoint, and it could be useful to point out why the code for setting those header values is there and how they affect the application. An argument against this could be that you should extract that code into a separate method with a meaningful name to describe the scenario.  My problem with such an approach would be that your code base becomes even more difficult to navigate and work with because you have all of this extra code just to make the code more meaningful. My opinion is that a simple and well-stated comment stating the reasons and intention for the code is more natural and convenient to the initial developer and maintainer.  I just don't agree with the approach of going out of the way to avoid making a comment.  I'm also concerned that some developers would take this approach as an excuse to not comment their bad code. Another area where I like comments is on documentation comments.  Java has it and so does C# and VB.  It's convenient because we can build automated tools that extract these comments.  These extracted comments are often much better than no documentation at all.  The "go read the code" answer always doesn't fulfill the need for a quick summary of an API. To summarize, I think that the extremes of no comments and too many comments are less than desirable approaches. I prefer documentation comments to explain each class and member (API level) and code comments as necessary to supplement well-written code. Joe

    Read the article

  • Multi-part template issue with Jinja2

    - by Alan Harris-Reid
    Hi, When creating templates I typically have 3 separate parts (header, body, footer) which I combine to pass a singe string to the web-server (CherryPy in this case). My first approach is as follows... from jinja2 import Environment, FileSystemLoader env = Environment(loader=FileSystemLoader('')) tmpl = env.get_template('Body.html') page_body = tmpl.render() tmpl = env.get_template('Header.html') page_header = tmpl.render() tmpl = env.get_template('Footer.html') page_footer = tmpl.render() page_code = page_header + page_body + page_footer but this contains repetitious code, so my next approach is... def render_template(html_file): from jinja2 import Environment, FileSystemLoader env = Environment(loader=FileSystemLoader('')) tmpl = env.get_template(html_file) return tmpl.render() page_header = render_template('Header.html') page_body = render_template('Body.html') page_footer = render_template('Footer.html) However, this means that each part is created in its own environment - can that be a problem? Are there any other downsides to this approach? I have chosen the 3-part approach over the child-template approach because I think it may be more flexible (and easier to follow), but I might be wrong. Anyone like to convince me that using header, body and footer blocks might be better? Any advice would be appreciated. Alan

    Read the article

  • Multiple classes in body tag, multi-dimensional css structure or blueprint for insanity?

    - by mwiik
    This question is about an approach to css structuring, and so is more discussion oriented. I'm working with some outsourced css where the body tags have multiple classes assigned, up to half a dozen. (To make things a little worse, none of the css selectors include an html tag which is making it confusing to analyze the css.) These body classes are then used to modify classed or id'd widgets within. It seems like this approach is like adding an additional dimension to the css, perhaps in some attempt to create a structured css approach. Documentation might have helped, had we been provided any. This differs from my approach where widgets are styled primarily via id'd divs, perhaps extracting the more generic elements into a class, i.e. div#MyWidget.widgets. Any ideas on whether such an approach is maintainable, especially considering I am dealing with websites with thousands of pages including tons of legacy stuff, all done by different people with different skill levels? Thanks...

    Read the article

  • Is using a DataSet's column Expression works in background same as manual calculation?

    - by Harikrishna
    I have one datatable which is not bindided and records are coming from the file by parsing it in the datatable dynamically every time. Now there is three columns in the datatable Marks1,Marks2 and FinalMarks. And their types is decimal. Now for making addition of columns Marks1 and Marks2 's records and store it into FinalMarks column,For that what I do is : datatableResult.Columns["FinalMarks"].Expression="Marks1+Marks2"; It's works properly. It can be done in other way also is foreach (DataRow r in datatableResult.Rows) { r["FinalMarks"]=Convert.ToDecimal(r["Marks1"])+Convert.ToDecimal(r["Marks2"]); } Is first approach same as second approach in background means is both approach same or what? EDIT: I want to know that first approach works in background as second approach.

    Read the article

  • Unleash the Power of Cryptography on SPARC T4

    - by B.Koch
    by Rob Ludeman Oracle’s SPARC T4 systems are architected to deliver enhanced value for customer via the inclusion of many integrated features.  One of the best examples of this approach is demonstrated in the on-chip cryptographic support that delivers wire speed encryption capabilities without any impact to application performance.  The Evolution of SPARC Encryption SPARC T-Series systems have a long history of providing this capability, dating back to the release of the first T2000 systems that featured support for on-chip RSA encryption directly in the UltraSPARC T1 processor.  Successive generations have built on this approach by support for additional encryption ciphers that are tightly coupled with the Oracle Solaris 10 and Solaris 11 encryption framework.  While earlier versions of this technology were implemented using co-processors, the SPARC T4 was redesigned with new crypto instructions to eliminate some of the performance overhead associated with the former approach, resulting in much higher performance for encrypted workloads. The Superiority of the SPARC T4 Approach to Crypto As companies continue to engage in more and more e-commerce, the need to provide greater degrees of security for these transactions is more critical than ever before.  Traditional methods of securing data in transit by applications have a number of drawbacks that are addressed by the SPARC T4 cryptographic approach. 1. Performance degradation – cryptography is highly compute intensive and therefore, there is a significant cost when using other architectures without embedded crypto functionality.  This performance penalty impacts the entire system, slowing down performance of web servers (SSL), for example, and potentially bogging down the speed of other business applications.  The SPARC T4 processor enables customers to deliver high levels of security to internal and external customers while not incurring an impact to overall SLAs in their IT environment. 2. Added cost – one of the methods to avoid performance degradation is the addition of add-in cryptographic accelerator cards or external offload engines in other systems.  While these solutions provide a brute force mechanism to avoid the problem of slower system performance, it usually comes at an added cost.  Customers looking to encrypt datacenter traffic without the overhead and expenditure of extra hardware can rely on SPARC T4 systems to deliver the performance necessary without the need to purchase other hardware or add-on cards. 3. Higher complexity – the addition of cryptographic cards or leveraging load balancers to perform encryption tasks results in added complexity from a management standpoint.  With SPARC T4, encryption keys and the framework built into Solaris 10 and 11 means that administrators generally don’t need to spend extra cycles determining how to perform cryptographic functions.  In fact, many of the instructions are built-in and require no user intervention to be utilized.  For example, For OpenSSL on Solaris 11, SPARC T4 crypto is available directly with a new built-in OpenSSL 1.0 engine, called the "t4 engine."  For a deeper technical dive into the new instructions included in SPARC T4, consult Dan Anderson’s blog. Conclusion In summary, SPARC T4 systems offer customers much more value for applications than just increased performance. The integration of key virtualization technologies, embedded encryption, and a true Enterprise Operating System, Oracle Solaris, provides direct business benefits that supersedes the commodity approach to data center computing.   SPARC T4 removes the roadblocks to secure computing by offering integrated crypto accelerators that can save IT organizations in operating cost while delivering higher levels of performance and meeting objectives around compliance. For more on the SPARC T4 family of products, go to here.

    Read the article

  • Monitoring Windows Azure Service Bus Endpoint with BizTalk 360?

    - by Michael Stephenson
    I'm currently working with a customer who is undergoing an initiative to expose some of their line of business applications to external partners and SAAS applications and as part of this we have been looking at using the Windows Azure Service Bus. For the first part of the project we were focused on some synchronous request response scenarios where an external application would use the Service Bus relay functionality to get data from some internal applications. When we were looking at the operational monitoring side of the solution it was obvious that although most of the normal server monitoring capabilities would be required for the on premise components we would have to look at new approaches to validate that the operation of the service from outside of the organization was working as expected. A number of months ago one of my colleagues Elton Stoneman wrote about an approach I have introduced with a number of clients in the past where we implement a diagnostics service in each service component we build. This service would allow us to make a call which would flex some of the working parts of the system to prove it was working within any SLA. This approach is discussed on the following article: http://geekswithblogs.net/EltonStoneman/archive/2011/12/12/the-value-of-a-diagnostics-service.aspx In our solution we wanted to take the same approach but we had to consider that the service clients were external to the service. We also had to consider that by going through Windows Azure Service Bus it's not that easy to make most of your standard monitoring solutions just give you an easy way to do this. In a previous article I have described how you can use BizTalk 360 to monitor things using a custom extension to the Web Endpoint Manager and I felt that we could use this approach to provide an excellent way to monitor our service bus endpoint. The previous article is available on the following link: http://geekswithblogs.net/michaelstephenson/archive/2012/09/12/150696.aspx   The Monitoring Solution BizTalk 360 currently has an easy way to hook up the endpoint manager to a url which it will then call and if a successful response is returned it then considers the endpoint to be in a healthy state. We would take advantage of this by creating an ASP.net web page which would be called by BizTalk 360 and behind this page we would implement the functionality to call the diagnostics service on our Service Bus endpoint. The ASP.net page could include logic to work out how to handle the response from the diagnostics service. For example if the overall result of the diagnostics service was successful but the call to the diagnostics service was longer than a certain amount of time then we could return an error and indicate the service is taking too long. The following diagram illustrates the monitoring pattern.   The diagnostics service which is hosted in the line of business application allows us to ping a simple message through the Azure Service Bus relay to the WCF services in the LOB application and we they get a response back indicating that the service is working fine. To implement this I used the exact same approach I described in my previous post to create a custom web page which calls the diagnostics service and then it would return an HTTP response code which would depend on the error condition returned or a 200 if it was successful. One of the limitations of this approach is that the competing consumer pattern for listening to messages from service bus means that you cannot guarantee which server would process your diagnostics check message but with BizTalk 360 you could simply add multiple endpoint checks so that it could access the individual on-premise web servers directly to ensure that each server is working fine and then check that messages can also be processed through the cloud. Conclusion It took me about 15 minutes to get a proof of concept of this up and running which was able to monitor our web services which had been exposed via Windows Azure Service Bus. I was then able to inherit all of the monitoring benefits of BizTalk 360 to provide an enterprise class monitoring solution for our cloud enabled API.

    Read the article

  • Come up with a real-world problem in which only the best solution will do (a problem from Introduction to algorithms) [closed]

    - by Mike
    EDITED (I realized that the question certainly needs a context) The problem 1.1-5 in the book of Thomas Cormen et al Introduction to algorithms is: "Come up with a real-world problem in which only the best solution will do. Then come up with one in which a solution that is “approximately” the best is good enough." I'm interested in its first statement. And (from my understanding) it is asked to name a real-world problem where only the exact solution will work as opposed to a real-world problem where good-enough solution will be ok. So what is the difference between the exact and good enough solution. Consider some physics problem for example the simulation of the fulid flow in the permeable medium. To make this simulation happen some simplyfing assumptions have to be made when deriving a mathematical model. Otherwise the model becomes at least complex and unsolvable. Virtually any particle in the universe has its influence on the fluid flow. But not all particles are equal. Those that form the permeable medium are much more influental than the ones located light years away. Then when the mathematical model needs to be solved an exact solution can rarely be found unless the mathematical model is simple enough (wich probably means the model isn't close to reality). We take an approximate numerical method and after hours of coding and days of verification come up with the program or algorithm which is a solution. And if the model and an algorithm give results close to a real problem by some degree that is good enough soultion. Its worth noting the difference between exact solution algorithm and exact computation result. When considering real-world problems and real-world computation machines I believe all physical problems solutions where any calculations are taken can not be exact because universal physical constants are represented approximately in the computer. Any numbers are represented with the limited precision, at least limited by amount of memory available to computing machine. I can imagine plenty of problems where good-enough, good to some degree solution will work, like train scheduling, automated trading, satellite orbit calculation, health care expert systems. In that cases exact solutions can't be derived due to constraints on computation time, limitations in computer memory or due to the nature of problems. I googled this question and like what this guy suggests: there're kinds of mathematical problems that need exact solutions (little note here: because the question is taken from the book "Introduction to algorithms" the term "solution" means an algorithm or a program, which in this case gives exact answer on each input). But that's probably more of theoretical interest. So I would like to narrow down the question to: What are the real-world practical problems where only the best (exact) solution algorithm or program will do (but not the good-enough solution)? There are problems like breaking of cryptographic ciphers where only exact solution matters in practice and again in practice the process of deciphering without knowing a secret should take reasonable amount of time. Returning to the original question this is the problem where good-enough (fast-enough) solution will do there's no practical need in instant crack though it's desired. So the quality of "best" can be understood in any sense: exact, fastest, requiring least memory, having minimal possible network traffic etc. And still I want this question to be theoretical if possible. In a sense that there may be example of computer X that has limited resource R of amount Y where the best solution to problem P is the one that takes not more than available Y for inputs of size N*Y. But that's the problem of finding solution for P on computer X which is... well, good enough. My final thought that we live in a world where it is required from programming solutions to practical purposes to be good enough. In rare cases really very very good but still not the best ones. Isn't it? :) If it's not can you provide an example? Or can you name any such unsolved problem of practical interest?

    Read the article

  • Which LINQ expression is faster

    - by Vlad Bezden
    Hi All In following code public class Person { public string Name { get; set; } public uint Age { get; set; } public Person(string name, uint age) { Name = name; Age = age; } } void Main() { var data = new List<Person>{ new Person("Bill Gates", 55), new Person("Steve Ballmer", 54), new Person("Steve Jobs", 55), new Person("Scott Gu", 35)}; // 1st approach data.Where (x => x.Age > 40).ToList().ForEach(x => x.Age++); // 2nd approach data.ForEach(x => { if (x.Age > 40) x.Age++; }); data.ForEach(x => Console.WriteLine(x)); } in my understanding 2nd approach should be faster since it iterates through each item once and first approach is running 2 times: Where clause ForEach on subset of items from where clause. However internally it might be that compiler translates 1st approach to the 2nd approach anyway and they will have the same performance. Any suggestions or ideas? I could do profiling like suggested, but I want to understand what is going on compiler level if those to lines of code are the same to the compiler, or compiler will treat it literally. Thanks in advance for your help.

    Read the article

  • how useful is Turing completeness? are neural nets turing complete?

    - by Albert
    While reading some papers about the Turing completeness of recurrent neural nets (for example: Turing computability with neural nets, Hava T. Siegelmann and Eduardo D. Sontag, 1991), I got the feeling that the proof which was given there was not really that practical. For example the referenced paper needs a neural network which neuron activity must be of infinity exactness (to reliable represent any rational number). Other proofs need a neural network of infinite size. Clearly, that is not really that practical. But I started to wonder now if it does make sense at all to ask for Turing completeness. By the strict definition, no computer system nowadays is Turing complete because none of them will be able to simulate the infinite tape. Interestingly, programming language specification leaves it most often open if they are turing complete or not. It all boils down to the question if they will always be able to allocate more memory and if the function call stack size is infinite. Most specification don't really specify this. Of course all available implementations are limited here, so all practical implementations of programming languages are not Turing complete. So, what you can say is that all computer systems are just equally powerful as finite state machines and not more. And that brings me to the question: How useful is the term Turing complete at all? And back to neural nets: For any practical implementation of a neural net (including our own brain), they will not be able to represent an infinite number of states, i.e. by the strict definition of Turing completeness, they are not Turing complete. So does the question if neural nets are Turing complete make sense at all? The question if they are as powerful as finite state machines was answered already much earlier (1954 by Minsky, the answer of course: yes) and also seems easier to answer. I.e., at least in theory, that was already the proof that they are as powerful as any computer.

    Read the article

  • Handles Comparison: empty classes vs. undefined classes vs. void*

    - by Nawaz
    Microsoft's GDI+ defines many empty classes to be treated as handles internally. For example, (source GdiPlusGpStubs.h) //Approach 1 class GpGraphics {}; class GpBrush {}; class GpTexture : public GpBrush {}; class GpSolidFill : public GpBrush {}; class GpLineGradient : public GpBrush {}; class GpPathGradient : public GpBrush {}; class GpHatch : public GpBrush {}; class GpPen {}; class GpCustomLineCap {}; There are other two ways to define handles. They're, //Approach 2 class BOOK; //no need to define it! typedef BOOK *PBOOK; typedef PBOOK HBOOK; //handle to be used internally //Approach 3 typedef void* PVOID; typedef PVOID HBOOK; //handle to be used internally I just want to know the advantages and disadvantages of each of these approaches. One advantage with Microsoft's approach is that, they can define type-safe hierarchy of handles using empty classes, which (I think) is not possible with the other two approaches. What else? EDIT: One advantage with the second approach (i.e using incomplete classes) is that we can prevent clients from dereferencing the handles (that means, this approach appears to support encapsulation strongly, I suppose). The code would not even compile if one attempts to dereference handles. What else?

    Read the article

  • HTML columns or rows for form layout?

    - by Valera
    I'm building a bunch of forms that have labels and corresponding fields (input element or more complex elements). Labels go on the left, fields go on the right. Labels in a given form should all be a specific width so that the fields all line up vertically. There are two ways (maybe more?) of achieving this: Rows: Float each label and each field left. Put each label and field in a field-row div/container. Set label width to some specific number. With this approach labels on different forms will have different widths, because they'll depend on the width of the text in the longest label. Columns: Put all labels in one div/container that's floated left, put all fields in another floated left container with padding-left set. This way the labels and even the label container don't need to have their widths set, because the column layout and the padding-left will uniformly take care of vertically lining up all the fields. So approach #2 seems to be easier to implement (because the widths don't need to be set all the time), but I think it's also less object oriented, because a label and a field that goes with that label are not grouped together, as they are in approach #1. Also, if building forms dynamically, approach #2 doesn't work as well with functions like addRow(label, field), since it would have to know about the label and the field containers, instead of just creating/adding one field-row element. Which approach do you think is better? Is there another, better approach than these two?

    Read the article

  • Integrating JavaScript Unit Tests with Visual Studio

    - by Stephen Walther
    Modern ASP.NET web applications take full advantage of client-side JavaScript to provide better interactivity and responsiveness. If you are building an ASP.NET application in the right way, you quickly end up with lots and lots of JavaScript code. When writing server code, you should be writing unit tests. One big advantage of unit tests is that they provide you with a safety net that enable you to safely modify your existing code – for example, fix bugs, add new features, and make performance enhancements -- without breaking your existing code. Every time you modify your code, you can execute your unit tests to verify that you have not broken anything. For the same reason that you should write unit tests for your server code, you should write unit tests for your client code. JavaScript is just as susceptible to bugs as C#. There is no shortage of unit testing frameworks for JavaScript. Each of the major JavaScript libraries has its own unit testing framework. For example, jQuery has QUnit, Prototype has UnitTestJS, YUI has YUI Test, and Dojo has Dojo Objective Harness (DOH). The challenge is integrating a JavaScript unit testing framework with Visual Studio. Visual Studio and Visual Studio ALM provide fantastic support for server-side unit tests. You can easily view the results of running your unit tests in the Visual Studio Test Results window. You can set up a check-in policy which requires that all unit tests pass before your source code can be committed to the source code repository. In addition, you can set up Team Build to execute your unit tests automatically. Unfortunately, Visual Studio does not provide “out-of-the-box” support for JavaScript unit tests. MS Test, the unit testing framework included in Visual Studio, does not support JavaScript unit tests. As soon as you leave the server world, you are left on your own. The goal of this blog entry is to describe one approach to integrating JavaScript unit tests with MS Test so that you can execute your JavaScript unit tests side-by-side with your C# unit tests. The goal is to enable you to execute JavaScript unit tests in exactly the same way as server-side unit tests. You can download the source code described by this project by scrolling to the end of this blog entry. Rejected Approach: Browser Launchers One popular approach to executing JavaScript unit tests is to use a browser as a test-driver. When you use a browser as a test-driver, you open up a browser window to execute and view the results of executing your JavaScript unit tests. For example, QUnit – the unit testing framework for jQuery – takes this approach. The following HTML page illustrates how you can use QUnit to create a unit test for a function named addNumbers(). <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Using QUnit</title> <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://github.com/jquery/qunit/raw/master/qunit/qunit.css" type="text/css" /> </head> <body> <h1 id="qunit-header">QUnit example</h1> <h2 id="qunit-banner"></h2> <div id="qunit-testrunner-toolbar"></div> <h2 id="qunit-userAgent"></h2> <ol id="qunit-tests"></ol> <div id="qunit-fixture">test markup, will be hidden</div> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://github.com/jquery/qunit/raw/master/qunit/qunit.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> // The function to test function addNumbers(a, b) { return a+b; } // The unit test test("Test of addNumbers", function () { equals(4, addNumbers(1,3), "1+3 should be 4"); }); </script> </body> </html> This test verifies that calling addNumbers(1,3) returns the expected value 4. When you open this page in a browser, you can see that this test does, in fact, pass. The idea is that you can quickly refresh this QUnit HTML JavaScript test driver page in your browser whenever you modify your JavaScript code. In other words, you can keep a browser window open and keep refreshing it over and over while you are developing your application. That way, you can know very quickly whenever you have broken your JavaScript code. While easy to setup, there are several big disadvantages to this approach to executing JavaScript unit tests: You must view your JavaScript unit test results in a different location than your server unit test results. The JavaScript unit test results appear in the browser and the server unit test results appear in the Visual Studio Test Results window. Because all of your unit test results don’t appear in a single location, you are more likely to introduce bugs into your code without noticing it. Because your unit tests are not integrated with Visual Studio – in particular, MS Test -- you cannot easily include your JavaScript unit tests when setting up check-in policies or when performing automated builds with Team Build. A more sophisticated approach to using a browser as a test-driver is to automate the web browser. Instead of launching the browser and loading the test code yourself, you use a framework to automate this process. There are several different testing frameworks that support this approach: · Selenium – Selenium is a very powerful framework for automating browser tests. You can create your tests by recording a Firefox session or by writing the test driver code in server code such as C#. You can learn more about Selenium at http://seleniumhq.org/. LTAF – The ASP.NET team uses the Lightweight Test Automation Framework to test JavaScript code in the ASP.NET framework. You can learn more about LTAF by visiting the project home at CodePlex: http://aspnet.codeplex.com/releases/view/35501 jsTestDriver – This framework uses Java to automate the browser. jsTestDriver creates a server which can be used to automate multiple browsers simultaneously. This project is located at http://code.google.com/p/js-test-driver/ TestSwam – This framework, created by John Resig, uses PHP to automate the browser. Like jsTestDriver, the framework creates a test server. You can open multiple browsers that are automated by the test server. Learn more about TestSwarm by visiting the following address: https://github.com/jeresig/testswarm/wiki Yeti – This is the framework introduced by Yahoo for automating browser tests. Yeti uses server-side JavaScript and depends on Node.js. Learn more about Yeti at http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2010/08/25/introducing-yeti-the-yui-easy-testing-interface/ All of these frameworks are great for integration tests – however, they are not the best frameworks to use for unit tests. In one way or another, all of these frameworks depend on executing tests within the context of a “living and breathing” browser. If you create an ASP.NET Unit Test then Visual Studio will launch a web server before executing the unit test. Why is launching a web server so bad? It is not the worst thing in the world. However, it does introduce dependencies that prevent your code from being tested in isolation. One of the defining features of a unit test -- versus an integration test – is that a unit test tests code in isolation. Another problem with launching a web server when performing unit tests is that launching a web server can be slow. If you cannot execute your unit tests quickly, you are less likely to execute your unit tests each and every time you make a code change. You are much more likely to fall into the pit of failure. Launching a browser when performing a JavaScript unit test has all of the same disadvantages as launching a web server when performing an ASP.NET unit test. Instead of testing a unit of JavaScript code in isolation, you are testing JavaScript code within the context of a particular browser. Using the frameworks listed above for integration tests makes perfect sense. However, I want to consider a different approach for creating unit tests for JavaScript code. Using Server-Side JavaScript for JavaScript Unit Tests A completely different approach to executing JavaScript unit tests is to perform the tests outside of any browser. If you really want to test JavaScript then you should test JavaScript and leave the browser out of the testing process. There are several ways that you can execute JavaScript on the server outside the context of any browser: Rhino – Rhino is an implementation of JavaScript written in Java. The Rhino project is maintained by the Mozilla project. Learn more about Rhino at http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/ V8 – V8 is the open-source Google JavaScript engine written in C++. This is the JavaScript engine used by the Chrome web browser. You can download V8 and embed it in your project by visiting http://code.google.com/p/v8/ JScript – JScript is the JavaScript Script Engine used by Internet Explorer (up to but not including Internet Explorer 9), Windows Script Host, and Active Server Pages. Internet Explorer is still the most popular web browser. Therefore, I decided to focus on using the JScript Script Engine to execute JavaScript unit tests. Using the Microsoft Script Control There are two basic ways that you can pass JavaScript to the JScript Script Engine and execute the code: use the Microsoft Windows Script Interfaces or use the Microsoft Script Control. The difficult and proper way to execute JavaScript using the JScript Script Engine is to use the Microsoft Windows Script Interfaces. You can learn more about the Script Interfaces by visiting http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/t9d4xf28(VS.85).aspx The main disadvantage of using the Script Interfaces is that they are difficult to use from .NET. There is a great series of articles on using the Script Interfaces from C# located at http://www.drdobbs.com/184406028. I picked the easier alternative and used the Microsoft Script Control. The Microsoft Script Control is an ActiveX control that provides a higher level abstraction over the Window Script Interfaces. You can download the Microsoft Script Control from here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=d7e31492-2595-49e6-8c02-1426fec693ac After you download the Microsoft Script Control, you need to add a reference to it to your project. Select the Visual Studio menu option Project, Add Reference to open the Add Reference dialog. Select the COM tab and add the Microsoft Script Control 1.0. Using the Script Control is easy. You call the Script Control AddCode() method to add JavaScript code to the Script Engine. Next, you call the Script Control Run() method to run a particular JavaScript function. The reference documentation for the Microsoft Script Control is located at the MSDN website: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa227633%28v=vs.60%29.aspx Creating the JavaScript Code to Test To keep things simple, let’s imagine that you want to test the following JavaScript function named addNumbers() which simply adds two numbers together: MvcApplication1\Scripts\Math.js function addNumbers(a, b) { return 5; } Notice that the addNumbers() method always returns the value 5. Right-now, it will not pass a good unit test. Create this file and save it in your project with the name Math.js in your MVC project’s Scripts folder (Save the file in your actual MVC application and not your MVC test application). Creating the JavaScript Test Helper Class To make it easier to use the Microsoft Script Control in unit tests, we can create a helper class. This class contains two methods: LoadFile() – Loads a JavaScript file. Use this method to load the JavaScript file being tested or the JavaScript file containing the unit tests. ExecuteTest() – Executes the JavaScript code. Use this method to execute a JavaScript unit test. Here’s the code for the JavaScriptTestHelper class: JavaScriptTestHelper.cs   using System; using System.IO; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using MSScriptControl; namespace MvcApplication1.Tests { public class JavaScriptTestHelper : IDisposable { private ScriptControl _sc; private TestContext _context; /// <summary> /// You need to use this helper with Unit Tests and not /// Basic Unit Tests because you need a Test Context /// </summary> /// <param name="testContext">Unit Test Test Context</param> public JavaScriptTestHelper(TestContext testContext) { if (testContext == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("TestContext"); } _context = testContext; _sc = new ScriptControl(); _sc.Language = "JScript"; _sc.AllowUI = false; } /// <summary> /// Load the contents of a JavaScript file into the /// Script Engine. /// </summary> /// <param name="path">Path to JavaScript file</param> public void LoadFile(string path) { var fileContents = File.ReadAllText(path); _sc.AddCode(fileContents); } /// <summary> /// Pass the path of the test that you want to execute. /// </summary> /// <param name="testMethodName">JavaScript function name</param> public void ExecuteTest(string testMethodName) { dynamic result = null; try { result = _sc.Run(testMethodName, new object[] { }); } catch { var error = ((IScriptControl)_sc).Error; if (error != null) { var description = error.Description; var line = error.Line; var column = error.Column; var text = error.Text; var source = error.Source; if (_context != null) { var details = String.Format("{0} \r\nLine: {1} Column: {2}", source, line, column); _context.WriteLine(details); } } throw new AssertFailedException(error.Description); } } public void Dispose() { _sc = null; } } }     Notice that the JavaScriptTestHelper class requires a Test Context to be instantiated. For this reason, you can use the JavaScriptTestHelper only with a Visual Studio Unit Test and not a Basic Unit Test (These are two different types of Visual Studio project items). Add the JavaScriptTestHelper file to your MVC test application (for example, MvcApplication1.Tests). Creating the JavaScript Unit Test Next, we need to create the JavaScript unit test function that we will use to test the addNumbers() function. Create a folder in your MVC test project named JavaScriptTests and add the following JavaScript file to this folder: MvcApplication1.Tests\JavaScriptTests\MathTest.js /// <reference path="JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js"/> function testAddNumbers() { // Act var result = addNumbers(1, 3); // Assert assert.areEqual(4, result, "addNumbers did not return right value!"); }   The testAddNumbers() function takes advantage of another JavaScript library named JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js. This library contains all of the code necessary to make assertions. Add the following JavaScriptnitTestFramework.js to the same folder as the MathTest.js file: MvcApplication1.Tests\JavaScriptTests\JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js var assert = { areEqual: function (expected, actual, message) { if (expected !== actual) { throw new Error("Expected value " + expected + " is not equal to " + actual + ". " + message); } } }; There is only one type of assertion supported by this file: the areEqual() assertion. Most likely, you would want to add additional types of assertions to this file to make it easier to write your JavaScript unit tests. Deploying the JavaScript Test Files This step is non-intuitive. When you use Visual Studio to run unit tests, Visual Studio creates a new folder and executes a copy of the files in your project. After you run your unit tests, your Visual Studio Solution will contain a new folder named TestResults that includes a subfolder for each test run. You need to configure Visual Studio to deploy your JavaScript files to the test run folder or Visual Studio won’t be able to find your JavaScript files when you execute your unit tests. You will get an error that looks something like this when you attempt to execute your unit tests: You can configure Visual Studio to deploy your JavaScript files by adding a Test Settings file to your Visual Studio Solution. It is important to understand that you need to add this file to your Visual Studio Solution and not a particular Visual Studio project. Right-click your Solution in the Solution Explorer window and select the menu option Add, New Item. Select the Test Settings item and click the Add button. After you create a Test Settings file for your solution, you can indicate that you want a particular folder to be deployed whenever you perform a test run. Select the menu option Test, Edit Test Settings to edit your test configuration file. Select the Deployment tab and select your MVC test project’s JavaScriptTest folder to deploy. Click the Apply button and the Close button to save the changes and close the dialog. Creating the Visual Studio Unit Test The very last step is to create the Visual Studio unit test (the MS Test unit test). Add a new unit test to your MVC test project by selecting the menu option Add New Item and selecting the Unit Test project item (Do not select the Basic Unit Test project item): The difference between a Basic Unit Test and a Unit Test is that a Unit Test includes a Test Context. We need this Test Context to use the JavaScriptTestHelper class that we created earlier. Enter the following test method for the new unit test: [TestMethod] public void TestAddNumbers() { var jsHelper = new JavaScriptTestHelper(this.TestContext); // Load JavaScript files jsHelper.LoadFile("JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js"); jsHelper.LoadFile(@"..\..\..\MvcApplication1\Scripts\Math.js"); jsHelper.LoadFile("MathTest.js"); // Execute JavaScript Test jsHelper.ExecuteTest("testAddNumbers"); } This code uses the JavaScriptTestHelper to load three files: JavaScripUnitTestFramework.js – Contains the assert functions. Math.js – Contains the addNumbers() function from your MVC application which is being tested. MathTest.js – Contains the JavaScript unit test function. Next, the test method calls the JavaScriptTestHelper ExecuteTest() method to execute the testAddNumbers() JavaScript function. Running the Visual Studio JavaScript Unit Test After you complete all of the steps described above, you can execute the JavaScript unit test just like any other unit test. You can use the keyboard combination CTRL-R, CTRL-A to run all of the tests in the current Visual Studio Solution. Alternatively, you can use the buttons in the Visual Studio toolbar to run the tests: (Unfortunately, the Run All Impacted Tests button won’t work correctly because Visual Studio won’t detect that your JavaScript code has changed. Therefore, you should use either the Run Tests in Current Context or Run All Tests in Solution options instead.) The results of running the JavaScript tests appear side-by-side with the results of running the server tests in the Test Results window. For example, if you Run All Tests in Solution then you will get the following results: Notice that the TestAddNumbers() JavaScript test has failed. That is good because our addNumbers() function is hard-coded to always return the value 5. If you double-click the failing JavaScript test, you can view additional details such as the JavaScript error message and the line number of the JavaScript code that failed: Summary The goal of this blog entry was to explain an approach to creating JavaScript unit tests that can be easily integrated with Visual Studio and Visual Studio ALM. I described how you can use the Microsoft Script Control to execute JavaScript on the server. By taking advantage of the Microsoft Script Control, we were able to execute our JavaScript unit tests side-by-side with all of our other unit tests and view the results in the standard Visual Studio Test Results window. You can download the code discussed in this blog entry from here: http://StephenWalther.com/downloads/Blog/JavaScriptUnitTesting/JavaScriptUnitTests.zip Before running this code, you need to first install the Microsoft Script Control which you can download from here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=d7e31492-2595-49e6-8c02-1426fec693ac

    Read the article

  • Predicting Likelihood of Click with Multiple Presentations

    - by Michel Adar
    When using predictive models to predict the likelihood of an ad or a banner to be clicked on it is common to ignore the fact that the same content may have been presented in the past to the same visitor. While the error may be small if the visitors do not often see repeated content, it may be very significant for sites where visitors come repeatedly. This is a well recognized problem that usually gets handled with presentation thresholds – do not present the same content more than 6 times. Observations and measurements of visitor behavior provide evidence that something better is needed. Observations For a specific visitor, during a single session, for a banner in a not too prominent space, the second presentation of the same content is more likely to be clicked on than the first presentation. The difference can be 30% to 100% higher likelihood for the second presentation when compared to the first. That is, for example, if the first presentation has an average click rate of 1%, the second presentation may have an average CTR of between 1.3% and 2%. After the second presentation the CTR stays more or less the same for a few more presentations. The number of presentations in this plateau seems to vary by the location of the content in the page and by the visual attraction of the content. After these few presentations the CTR starts decaying with a curve that is very well approximated by an exponential decay. For example, the 13th presentation may have 90% the likelihood of the 12th, and the 14th has 90% the likelihood of the 13th. The decay constant seems also to depend on the visibility of the content. Modeling Options Now that we know the empirical data, we can propose modeling techniques that will correctly predict the likelihood of a click. Use presentation number as an input to the predictive model Probably the most straight forward approach is to add the presentation number as an input to the predictive model. While this is certainly a simple solution, it carries with it several problems, among them: If the model learns on each case, repeated non-clicks for the same content will reinforce the belief of the model on the non-clicker disproportionately. That is, the weight of a person that does not click for 200 presentations of an offer may be the same as 100 other people that on average click on the second presentation. The effect of the presentation number is not a customer characteristic or a piece of contextual data about the interaction with the customer, but it is contextual data about the content presented. Models tend to underestimate the effect of the presentation number. For these reasons it is not advisable to use this approach when the average number of presentations of the same content to the same person is above 3, or when there are cases of having the presentation number be very large, in the tens or hundreds. Use presentation number as a partitioning attribute to the predictive model In this approach we essentially build a separate predictive model for each presentation number. This approach overcomes all of the problems in the previous approach, nevertheless, it can be applied only when the volume of data is large enough to have these very specific sub-models converge.

    Read the article

  • Addressing threats introduced by the BYOD trend

    - by kyap
    With the growth of the mobile technology segment, enterprises are facing a new type of threats introduced by the BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) trend, where employees use their own devices (laptops, tablets or smartphones) not necessarily secured to access corporate network and information.In the past - actually even right now, enterprises used to provide laptops to their employees for their daily work, with specific operating systems including anti-virus and desktop management tools, in order to make sure that the pools of laptop allocated are spyware or trojan-horse free to access the internal network and sensitive information. But the BYOD reality is breaking this paradigm and open new security breaches for enterprises as most of the username/password based systems, especially the internal web applications, can be accessed by less or none protected device.To address this reality we can adopt 3 approaches:1. Coué's approach: Close your eyes and assume that your employees are mature enough to know what he/she should or should not do.2. Consensus approach: Provide a list of restricted and 'certified' devices to the internal network. 3. Military approach: Access internal systems with certified laptop ONLYIf you choose option 1: Thanks for visiting my blog and I hope you find the others entries more useful :)If you choose option 2: The proliferation of new hardware and software updates every quarter makes this approach very costly and difficult to maintain.If you choose option 3: You need to find a way to allow the access into your sensitive application from the corporate authorized machines only, managed by the IT administrators... but how? The challenge with option 3 is to find out how end-users can restrict access to certain sensitive applications only from authorized machines, or from another angle end-users can not access the sensitive applications if they are not using the authorized machine... So what if we find a way to store the applications credential secretly from the end-users, and then automatically submit them when the end-users access the application? With this model, end-users do not know the username/password to access the applications so even if the end-users use their own devices they will not able to login. Also, there's no need to reconfigure existing applications to adapt to the new authenticate scheme given that we are still leverage the same username/password authenticate model at the application level. To adopt this model, you can leverage Oracle Enterprise Single Sign On. In short, Oracle ESSO is a desktop based solution, capable to store credentials of Web and Native based applications. At the application startup and if it is configured as an esso-enabled application - check out my previous post on how to make Skype essso-enabled, Oracle ESSO takes over automatically the sign-in sequence with the store credential on behalf of the end-users. Combined with Oracle ESSO Provisioning Gateway, the credentials can be 'pushed' in advance from an actual provisioning server, like Oracle Identity Manager or Tivoli Identity Manager, so the end-users can login into sensitive application without even knowing the actual username and password, so they can not login with other machines rather than those secured by Oracle ESSO.Below is a graphical illustration of this approach:With this model, not only you can protect the access to sensitive applications only from authorized machine, you can also implement much stronger Password Policies in terms of Password Complexity as well as Password Reset Frequency but end-users will not need to remember the passwords anymore.If you are interested, do not hesitate to check out the Oracle Enterprise Single Sign-on products from OTN !

    Read the article

  • [N]Hibernate: view-like fetching properties of associated class

    - by chiccodoro
    (Felt quite helpless in formulating an appropriate title...) In my C# app I display a list of "A" objects, along with some properties of their associated "B" objects and properties of B's associated "C" objects: A.Name B.Name B.SomeValue C.Name Foo Bar 123 HelloWorld Bar Hello 432 World ... To clarify: A has an FK to B, B has an FK to C. (Such as, e.g. BankAccount - Person - Company). I have tried two approaches to load these properties from the database (using NHibernate): A fast approach and a clean approach. My eventual question is how to do a fast & clean approach. Fast approach: Define a view in the database which joins A, B, C and provides all these fields. In the A class, define properties "BName", "BSomeValue", "CName" Define a hibernate mapping between A and the View, whereas the needed B and C properties are mapped with update="false" insert="false" and do actually stem from B and C tables, but Hibernate is not aware of that since it uses the view. This way, the listing only loads one object per "A" record, which is quite fast. If the code tries to access the actual associated property, "A.B", I issue another HQL query to get B, set the property and update the faked BName and BSomeValue properties as well. Clean approach: There is no view. Class A is mapped to table A, B to B, C to C. When loading the list of A, I do a double left-join-fetch to get B and C as well: from A a left join fetch a.B left join fetch a.B.C B.Name, B.SomeValue and C.Name are accessed through the eagerly loaded associations. The disadvantage of this approach is that it gets slower and takes more memory, since it needs to created and map 3 objects per "A" record: An A, B, and C object each. Fast and clean approach: I feel somehow uncomfortable using a database view that hides a join and treat that in NHibernate as if it was a table. So I would like to do something like: Have no views in the database. Declare properties "BName", "BSomeValue", "CName" in class "A". Define the mapping for A such that NHibernate fetches A and these properties together using a join SQL query as a database view would do. The mapping should still allow for defining lazy many-to-one associations for getting A.B.C My questions: Is this possible? Is it [un]artful? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • How do I 'globally' catch exceptions thrown in object instances.

    - by SleepyBobos
    I am currently writing a winforms application (C#). I am making use of the Enterprise Library Exception Handling Block, following a fairly standard approach from what I can see. IE : In the Main method of Program.cs I have wired up event handler to Application.ThreadException event etc. This approach works well and handles the applications exceptional circumstances. In one of my business objects I throw various exceptions in the Set accessor of one of the objects properties set { if (value > MaximumTrim) throw new CustomExceptions.InvalidTrimValue("The value of the minimum trim..."); if (!availableSubMasterWidthSatisfiesAllPatterns(value)) throw new CustomExceptions.InvalidTrimValue("Another message..."); _minimumTrim = value; } My logic for this approach (without turning this into a 'when to throw exceptions' discussion) is simply that the business objects are responsible for checking business rule constraints and throwing an exception that can bubble up and be caught as required. It should be noted that in the UI of my application I do explictly check the values that the public property is being set to (and take action there displaying friendly dialog etc) but with throwing the exception I am also covering the situation where my business object may not be used by a UI eg : the Property is being set by another business object for example. Anyway I think you all get the idea. My issue is that these exceptions are not being caught by the handler wired up to Application.ThreadException and I don't understand why. From other reading I have done the Application.ThreadException event and it handler "... catches any exception that occurs on the main GUI thread". Are the exceptions being raised in my business object not in this thread? I have not created any new threads. I can get the approach to work if I update the code as follows, explicity calling the event handler that is wired to Application.ThreadException. This is the approach outlined in Enterprise Library samples. However this approach requires me to wrap any exceptions thrown in a try catch, something I was trying to avoid by using a 'global' handler to start with. try { if (value > MaximumTrim) throw new CustomExceptions.InvalidTrimValue("The value of the minimum..."); if (!availableSubMasterWidthSatisfiesAllPatterns(value)) throw new CustomExceptions.InvalidTrimValue("Another message"); _minimumTrim = value; } catch (Exception ex) { Program.ThreadExceptionHandler.ProcessUnhandledException(ex); } I have also investigated using wiring a handler up to AppDomain.UnhandledException event but this does not catch the exceptions either. I would be good if someone could explain to me why my exceptions are not being caught by my global exception handler in the first code sample. Is there another approach I am missing or am I stuck with wrapping code in try catch, shown above, as required?

    Read the article

  • VS 2012 Code Review &ndash; Before Check In OR After Check In?

    - by Tarun Arora
    “Is Code Review Important and Effective?” There is a consensus across the industry that code review is an effective and practical way to collar code inconsistency and possible defects early in the software development life cycle. Among others some of the advantages of code reviews are, Bugs are found faster Forces developers to write readable code (code that can be read without explanation or introduction!) Optimization methods/tricks/productive programs spread faster Programmers as specialists "evolve" faster It's fun “Code review is systematic examination (often known as peer review) of computer source code. It is intended to find and fix mistakes overlooked in the initial development phase, improving both the overall quality of software and the developers' skills. Reviews are done in various forms such as pair programming, informal walkthroughs, and formal inspections.” Wikipedia No where does the definition mention whether its better to review code before the code has been committed to version control or after the commit has been performed. No matter which side you favour, Visual Studio 2012 allows you to request for a code review both before check in and also request for a review after check in. Let’s weigh the pros and cons of the approaches independently. Code Review Before Check In or Code Review After Check In? Approach 1 – Code Review before Check in Developer completes the code and feels the code quality is appropriate for check in to TFS. The developer raises a code review request to have a second pair of eyes validate if the code abides to the recommended best practices, will not result in any defects due to common coding mistakes and whether any optimizations can be made to improve the code quality.                                             Image 1 – code review before check in Pros Everything that gets committed to source control is reviewed. Minimizes the chances of smelly code making its way into the code base. Decreases the cost of fixing bugs, remember, the earlier you find them, the lesser the pain in fixing them. Cons Development Code Freeze – Since the changes aren’t in the source control yet. Further development can only be done off-line. The changes have not been through a CI build, hard to say whether the code abides to all build quality standards. Inconsistent! Cumbersome to track the actual code review process.  Not every change to the code base is worth reviewing, a lot of effort is invested for very little gain. Approach 2 – Code Review after Check in Developer checks in, random code reviews are performed on the checked in code.                                                      Image 2 – Code review after check in Pros The code has already passed the CI build and run through any code analysis plug ins you may have running on the build server. Instruct the developer to ensure ZERO fx cop, style cop and static code analysis before check in. Code is cleaner and smell free even before the code review. No Offline development, developers can continue to develop against the source control. Cons Bad code can easily make its way into the code base. Since the review take place much later in the cycle, the cost of fixing issues can prove to be much higher. Approach 3 – Hybrid Approach The community advocates a more hybrid approach, a blend of tooling and human accountability quotient.                                                               Image 3 – Hybrid Approach 1. Code review high impact check ins. It is not possible to review everything, by setting up code review check in policies you can end up slowing your team. More over, the code that you are reviewing before check in hasn't even been through a green CI build either. 2. Tooling. Let the tooling work for you. By running static analysis, fx cop, style cop and other plug ins on the build agent, you can identify the real issues that in my opinion can't possibly be identified using human reviews. Configure the tooling to report back top 10 issues every day. Mandate the manual code review of individuals who keep making it to this list of shame more often. 3. During Merge. I would prefer eliminating some of the other code issues during merge from Main branch to the release branch. In a scrum project this is still easier because cheery picking the merges is a possibility and the size of code being reviewed is still limited. Let the tooling work for you, if some one breaks the CI build often, put them on a gated check in build course until you see improvement. If some one appears on the top 10 list of shame generated via the build then ensure that all their code is reviewed till you see improvement. At the end of the day, the goal is to ensure that the code being delivered is top quality. By enforcing a code review before any check in, you force the developer to work offline or stay put till the review is complete. What do the experts say? So I asked a few expects what they thought of “Code Review quality gate before Checking in code?" Terje Sandstrom | Microsoft ALM MVP You mean a review quality gate BEFORE checking in code????? That would mean a lot of code staying either local or in shelvesets, and not even been through a CI build, and a green CI build being the main criteria for going further, f.e. to the review state. I would not like code laying around with no checkin’s. Having a requirement that code is checked in small pieces, 4-8 hours work max, and AT LEAST daily checkins, a manual code review comes second down the lane. I would expect review quality gates to happen before merging back to main, or before merging to release.  But that would all be on checked-in code.  Branching is absolutely one way to ease the pain.   Another way we are using is automatic quality builds, running metrics, coverage, static code analysis.  Unfortunately it takes some time, would be great to be on CI’s – but…., so it’s done scheduled every night. Based on this we get, among other stuff,  top 10 lists of suspicious code, which is then subjected to reviews.  If a person seems to be very popular on these top 10 lists, we subject every check in from that person to a review for a period. That normally helps.   None of the clients I have can afford to have every checkin reviewed, so we need to find ways around it. I don’t disagree with the nicety of having all the code reviewed, but I find it hard to find those resources in today’s enterprises. David V. Corbin | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I tend to agree with both sides. I hate having code that is not checked in, but at the same time hate having “bad” code in the repository. I have found that branching is one approach to solving this dilemma. Code is checked into the private/feature branch before the review, but is not merged over to the “official” branch until after the review. I advocate both, depending on circumstance (especially team dynamics)   - The “pre-checkin” is usually for elements that may impact the project as a whole. Think of it as another “gate” along with passing unit tests. - The “post-checkin” may very well not be at the changeset level, but correlates to a review at the “user story” level.   Again, this depends on team dynamics in play…. Robert MacLean | Microsoft ALM MVP I do not think there is no right answer for the industry as a whole. In short the question is why do you do reviews? Your question implies risk mitigation, so in low risk areas you can get away with it after check in while in high risk you need to do it before check in. An example is those new to a team or juniors need it much earlier (maybe that is before checkin, maybe that is soon after) than seniors who have shipped twenty sprints on the team. Abhimanyu Singhal | Visual Studio ALM Ranger Depends on per scenario basis. We recommend post check-in reviews when: 1. We don't want to block other checks and processes on manual code reviews. Manual reviews take time, and some pieces may not require manual reviews at all. 2. We need to trace all changes and track history. 3. We have a code promotion strategy/process in place. For risk mitigation, post checkin code can be promoted to Accepted branches. Or can be rejected. Pre Checkin Reviews are used when 1. There is a high risk factor associated 2. Reviewers are generally (most of times) have immediate availability. 3. Team does not have strict tracking needs. Simply speaking, no single process fits all scenarios. You need to select what works best for your team/project. Thomas Schissler | Visual Studio ALM Ranger This is an interesting discussion, I’m right now discussing details about executing code reviews with my teams. I see and understand the aspects you brought in, but there is another side as well, I’d like to point out. 1.) If you do reviews per check in this is not very practical as a hard rule because this will disturb the flow of the team very often or it will lead to reduce the checkin frequency of the devs which I would not accept. 2.) If you do later reviews, for example if you review PBIs, it is not easy to find out which code you should review. Either you review all changesets associate with the PBI, but then you might review code which has been changed with a later checkin and the dev maybe has already fixed the issue. Or you review the diff of the latest changeset of the PBI with the first but then you might also review changes of other PBIs. Jakob Leander | Sr. Director, Avanade In my experience, manual code review: 1. Does not get done and at the very least does not get redone after changes (regardless of intentions at start of project) 2. When a project actually do it, they often do not do it right away = errors pile up 3. Requires a lot of time discussing/defining the standard and for the team to learn it However code review is very important since e.g. even small memory leaks in a high volume web solution have big consequences In the last years I have advocated following approach for code review - Architects up front do “at least one best practice example” of each type of component and tell the team. Copy from this one. This should include error handling, logging, security etc. - Dev lead on project continuously browse code to validate that the best practices are used. Especially that patterns etc. are not broken. You can do this formally after each sprint/iteration if you want. Once this is validated it is unlikely to “go bad” even during later code changes Agree with customer to rely on static code analysis from Visual Studio as the one and only coding standard. This has HUUGE benefits - You can easily tweak to reach the level you desire together with customer - It is easy to measure for both developers/management - It is 100% consistent across code base - It gets validated all the time so you never end up getting hammered by a customer review in the end - It is easy to tell the developer that you do not want code back unless it has zero errors = minimize communication You need to track this at least during nightly builds and make sure team sees total # issues. Do not allow #issues it to grow uncontrolled. On the project I run I require code analysis to have run on code before checkin (checkin rule). This means -  You have to have clean compile (or CA wont run) so this is extra benefit = very few broken builds - You can change a few of the rules to compile as errors instead of warnings. I often do this for “missing dispose” issues which you REALLY do not want in your app Tip: Place your custom CA rules files as part of solution. That  way it works when you do branching etc. (path to CA file is relative in VS) Some may argue that CA is not as good as manual inspection. But since manual inspection in reality suffers from the 3 issues in start it is IMO a MUCH better (and much cheaper) approach from helicopter perspective Tirthankar Dutta | Director, Avanade I think code review should be run both before and after check ins. There are some code metrics that are meant to be run on the entire codebase … Also, especially on multi-site projects, one should strive to architect in a way that lets men manage the framework while boys write the repetitive code… scales very well with the need to review less by containment and imposing architectural restrictions to emphasise the design. Bruno Capuano | Microsoft ALM MVP For code reviews (means peer reviews) in distributed team I use http://www.vsanywhere.com/default.aspx  David Jobling | Global Sr. Director, Avanade Peer review is the only way to scale and its a great practice for all in the team to learn to perform and accept. In my experience you soon learn who's code to watch more than others and tune the attention. Mikkel Toudal Kristiansen | Manager, Avanade If you have several branches in your code base, you will need to merge often. This requires manual merging, when a file has been changed in both branches. It offers a good opportunity to actually review to changed code. So my advice is: Merging between branches should be done as often as possible, it should be done by a senior developer, and he/she should perform a full code review of the code being merged. As for detecting architectural smells and code smells creeping into the code base, one really good third party tools exist: Ndepend (http://www.ndepend.com/, for static code analysis of the current state of the code base). You could also consider adding StyleCop to the solution. Jesse Houwing | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I gave a presentation on this subject on the TechDays conference in NL last year. See my presentation and slides here (talk in Dutch, but English presentation): http://blog.jessehouwing.nl/2012/03/did-you-miss-my-techdaysnl-talk-on-code.html  I’d like to add a few more points: - Before/After checking is mostly a trust issue. If you have a team that does diligent peer reviews and regularly talk/sit together or peer review, there’s no need to enforce a before-checkin policy. The peer peer-programming and regular feedback during development can take care of most of the review requirements as long as the team isn’t under stress. - Under stress, enforce pre-checkin reviews, it might sound strange, if you’re already under time or budgetary constraints, but it is under such conditions most real issues start to be created or pile up. - Use tools to catch most common errors, Code Analysis/FxCop was already mentioned. HP Fortify, Resharper, Coderush etc can help you there. There are also a lot of 3rd party rules you can add to Code Analysis. I’ve written a few myself (http://fccopcontrib.codeplex.com) and various teams from Microsoft have added their own rules (MSOCAF for SharePoint, WSSF for WCF). For common errors that keep cropping up, see if you can define a rule. It’s much easier. But more importantly make sure you have a good help page explaining *WHY* it's wrong. If you have small feature or developer branches/shelvesets, you might want to review pre-merge. It’s still better to do peer reviews and peer programming, but the most important thing is that bad quality code doesn’t make it into the important branch. So my philosophy: - Use tooling as much as possible. - Make sure the team understands the tooling and the importance of the things it flags. It’s too easy to just click suppress all to ignore the warnings. - Under stress, tighten process, it’s under stress that the problems of late reviews will really surface - Most importantly if you do reviews do them as early as possible, but never later than needed. In other words, pre-checkin/post checking doesn’t really matter, as long as the review is done before the code is released. It’ll just be much more expensive to fix any review outcomes the later you find them. --- I would love to hear what you think!

    Read the article

  • multiple webapps in tomcat -- what is the optimal architecture?

    - by rvdb
    I am maintaining a growing base of mainly Cocoon-2.1-based web applications [http://cocoon.apache.org/2.1/], deployed in a Tomcat servlet container [http://tomcat.apache.org/], and proxied with an Apache http server [http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/]. I am conceptually struggling with the best way to deploy multiple web applications in Tomcat. Since I'm not a Java programmer and we don't have any sysadmin staff I have to figure out myself what is the most sensible way to do this. My setup has evolved through 2 scenarios and I'm considering a third for maximal separation of the distinct webapps. [1] 1 Tomcat instance, 1 Cocoon instance, multiple webapps -tomcat |_ webapps |_ webapp1 |_ webapp2 |_ webapp[n] |_ WEB-INF (with Cocoon libs) This was my first approach: just drop all web applications inside a single Cocoon webapps folder inside a single Tomcat container. This seemed to run fine, I did not encounter any memory issues. However, this poses a maintainability drawback, as some Cocoon components are subject to updates, which often affect the webapp coding. Hence, updating Cocoon becomes unwieldy: since all webapps share the same pool of Cocoon components, updating one of them would require the code in all web applications to be updated simultaneously. In order to isolate the web applications, I moved to the second scenario. [2] 1 Tomcat instance, each webapp in its dedicated Cocoon environment -tomcat |_ webapps |_ webapp1 | |_ WEB-INF (with Cocoon libs) |_ webapp1 | |_ WEB-INF (with Cocoon libs) |_ webapp[n] |_ WEB-INF (with Cocoon libs) This approach separates all webapps into their own Cocoon environment, run inside a single Tomcat container. In theory, this works fine: all webapps can be updated independently. However, this soon results in PermGenSpace errors. It seemed that I could manage the problem by increasing memory allocation for Tomcat, but I realise this isn't a structural solution, and that overloading a single Tomcat in this way is prone to future memory errors. This set me thinking about the third scenario. [3] multiple Tomcat instances, each with a single webapp in its dedicated Cocoon environment -tomcat |_ webapps |_ webapp1 |_ WEB-INF (with Cocoon libs) -tomcat |_ webapps |_ webapp2 |_ WEB-INF (with Cocoon libs) -tomcat |_ webapps |_ webapp[n] |_ WEB-INF (with Cocoon libs) I haven't tried this approach, but am thinking of the $CATALINA_BASE variable. A single Tomcat distribution can be multiply instanciated with different $CATALINA_BASE environments, each pointing to a Cocoon instance with its own webapp. I wonder whether such an approach could avoid the structural memory-related problems of approach [2], or will the same issues apply? On the other hand, this approach would complicate management of the Apache http frontend, as it will require the AJP connectors of the different Tomcat instances to be listening at different ports. Hence, Apache's worker configuration has to be updated and reloaded whenever a new webapp (in its own Tomcat instance) is added. And there seems no way to reload worker.properties without restarting the entire Apache http server. Is there perhaps another / more dynamic way of 'modularizing' multiple Tomcat-served webapps, or can one of these scenarios be refined? Any thoughts, suggestions, advice much appreciated. Ron

    Read the article

  • How to cleanup tmp folder safely on Linux

    - by Syncopated
    I use RAM for my tmpfs /tmp, 2GB, to be exact. Normally, this is enough but sometimes, processes create files in there and fail to cleanup after themselves. This can happen if they crash. I need to delete these orphaned tmp files or else future process will run out of space on /tmp. How can I safely garbage collect /tmp? Some people do it by checking last modification timestamp, but this approach is unsafe because there can be long-running processes that still need those files. A safer approach is to combine the last modification timestamp condition with the condition that no process has a file handle for the file. Is there a program/script/etc that embodies this approach or some other approach that is also safe? Incidentally, does Linux/Unix allow a mode of file opening with creation wherein the created file is deleted when the creating process terminates, even if it's from a crash?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >