Search Results

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

Page 3/378 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Software Architecture: Quality Attributes

    Quality is what all software engineers should strive for when building a new system or adding new functionality. Dictonary.com ambiguously defines quality as a grade of excellence. Unfortunately, quality must be defined within the context of a situation in that each engineer must extract quality attributes from a project’s requirements. Because quality is defined by project requirements the meaning of quality is constantly changing base on the project. Software architecture factors that indicate the relevance and effectiveness The relevance and effectiveness of architecture can vary based on the context in which it was conceived and the quality attributes that are required to meet. Typically when evaluating architecture for a specific system regarding relevance and effectiveness the following questions should be asked.   Architectural relevance and effectiveness questions: Does the architectural concept meet the needs of the system for which it was designed? Out of the competing architectures for a system, which one is the most suitable? If we look at the first question regarding meeting the needs of a system for which it was designed. A system that answers yes to this question must meet all of its quality goals. This means that it consistently meets or exceeds performance goals for the system. In addition, the system meets all the other required system attributers based on the systems requirements. The suitability of a system is based on several factors. In order for a project to be suitable the necessary resources must be available to complete the task. Standard Project Resources: Money Trained Staff Time Life cycle factors that affect the system and design The development life cycle used on a project can drastically affect how a system’s architecture is created as well as influence its design. In the case of using the software development life cycle (SDLC) each phase must be completed before the next can begin.  This waterfall approach does not allow for changes in a system’s architecture after that phase is completed. This can lead to major system issues when the architecture for the system is not as optimal because of missed quality attributes. This can occur when a project has poor requirements and makes misguided architectural decisions to name a few examples. Once the architectural phase is complete the concepts established in this phase must move on to the design phase that is bound to use the concepts and guidelines defined in the previous phase regardless of any missing quality attributes needed for the project. If any issues arise during this phase regarding the selected architectural concepts they cannot be corrected during the current project. This directly has an effect on the design of a system because the proper qualities required for the project where not used when the architectural concepts were approved. When this is identified nothing can be done to fix the architectural issues and system design must use the existing architectural concepts regardless of its missing quality properties because the architectural concepts for the project cannot be altered. The decisions made in the design phase then preceded to fall down to the implementation phase where the actual system is coded based on the approved architectural concepts established in the architecture phase regardless of its architectural quality. Conversely projects using more of an iterative or agile methodology to implement a system has more flexibility to correct architectural decisions based on missing quality attributes. This is due to each phase of the SDLC is executed more than once so any issues identified in architecture of a system can be corrected in the next architectural phase. Subsequently the corresponding changes will then be adjusted in the following design phase so that when the project is completed the optimal architectural and design decision are applied to the solution. Architecture factors that indicate functional suitability Systems that have function shortcomings do not have the proper functionality based on the project’s driving quality attributes. What this means in English is that the system does not live up to what is required of it by the stakeholders as identified by the missing quality attributes and requirements. One way to prevent functional shortcomings is to test the project’s architecture, design, and implementation against the project’s driving quality attributes to ensure that none of the attributes were missed in any of the phases. Another way to ensure a system has functional suitability is to certify that all its requirements are fully articulated so that there is no chance for misconceptions or misinterpretations by all stakeholders. This will help prevent any issues regarding interpreting the system requirements during the initial architectural concept phase, design phase and implementation phase. Consider the applicability of other architectural models When considering an architectural model for a project is also important to consider other alternative architectural models to ensure that the model that is selected will meet the systems required functionality and high quality attributes. Recently I can remember talking about a project that I was working on and a coworker suggested a different architectural approach that I had never considered. This new model will allow for the same functionally that is offered by the existing model but will allow for a higher quality project because it fulfills more quality attributes. It is always important to seek alternatives prior to committing to an architectural model. Factors used to identify high-risk components A high risk component can be defined as a component that fulfills 2 or more quality attributes for a system. An example of this can be seen in a web application that utilizes a remote database. One high-risk component in this system is the TCIP component because it allows for HTTP connections to handle by a web server and as well as allows for the server to also connect to a remote database server so that it can import data into the system. This component allows for the assurance of data quality attribute and the accessibility quality attribute because the system is available on the network. If for some reason the TCIP component was to fail the web application would fail on two quality attributes accessibility and data assurance in that the web site is not accessible and data cannot be update as needed. Summary As stated previously, quality is what all software engineers should strive for when building a new system or adding new functionality. The quality of a system can be directly determined by how closely it is implemented when compared to its desired quality attributes. One way to insure a higher quality system is to enforce that all project requirements are fully articulated so that no assumptions or misunderstandings can be made by any of the stakeholders. By doing this a system has a better chance of becoming a high quality system based on its quality attributes

    Read the article

  • Game Components, Game Managers and Object Properties

    - by George Duckett
    I'm trying to get my head around component based entity design. My first step was to create various components that could be added to an object. For every component type i had a manager, which would call every component's update function, passing in things like keyboard state etc. as required. The next thing i did was remove the object, and just have each component with an Id. So an object is defined by components having the same Ids. Now, i'm thinking that i don't need a manager for all my components, for example i have a SizeComponent, which just has a Size property). As a result the SizeComponent doesn't have an update method, and the manager's update method does nothing. My first thought was to have an ObjectProperty class which components could query, instead of having them as properties of components. So an object would have a number of ObjectProperty and ObjectComponent. Components would have update logic that queries the object for properties. The manager would manage calling the component's update method. This seems like over-engineering to me, but i don't think i can get rid of the components, because i need a way for the managers to know what objects need what component logic to run (otherwise i'd just remove the component completely and push its update logic into the manager). Is this (having ObjectProperty, ObjectComponent and ComponentManager classes) over-engineering? What would be a good alternative?

    Read the article

  • Component-based Rendering

    - by Kikaimaru
    I have component Renderer, that Draws Texture2D (or sprite) According to component-based architecture i should have only method OnUpdate, and there should be my rendering code, something like spriteBatch.Draw(Texture, Vector2.Zero, Color.White) But first I need to do spriteBatch.Begin();. Where should i call it? And how can I make sure it's called before any Renderer components OnUpdate method? (i need to do more stuff then just Begin() i also need to set right rendertarget for camera etc.)

    Read the article

  • Any good C++ Component/Entity frameworks?

    - by Pat
    (Skip to the bold if you want to get straight to my question :) ) I've been dabbling in the different technologies available out there to use. I tried Unity and component based design, managing to get a little guy up and running around a map with basic pathfinding. I really loved how easy it was to program using components, but I wanted a bit more control and something more 2D friendly, so I went with LibGDX. I looked around and found 2 good frameworks for Java, which are Artemis and Apollo. I didn't like Artemis much, so I went with Apollo, which I loved. I managed to integrate it with Box2D and get a little guy running around bouncing balls. Great! But since I want to try out most of the options, there is still C++/SFML that I haven't tried yet. Coming from a Java/C# background, I've always wanted to get my hands dirty with C++. But then, after some looking around, I noticed there aren't any Component-Based frameworks for me to use. There's a somewhat done porting of Artemis, but, aside from not being completely finished, I didn't quite like Artemis even in Java. I found Apollo's approach much more.. logical. So, my question is, are there any good Component/Entity frameworks for C++ that I can use that are similar to Artemis, or preferably, Apollo?

    Read the article

  • Architecture guidelines for a "single page web-app"

    - by Matt Roberts
    I'm going to start a side project to build a "single page" web application. The application needs to be real-time, sending updates to the clients as changes happen. Are there any good resources for best-practice approaches wrt the architecture for these kinds of applications. The best resource I've found so far is the trello architecture article here: http://blog.fogcreek.com/the-trello-tech-stack/ To me, this architecture, although very sexy, is probably over-engineered for my specific needs - although I do have similar requirements. I'm wondering if I need to bother with a sub/pub at the server side, could I not just push updates from the server when something happens (e.g. when the client sends an update to the server, write the update to the db, and then send an update to the clients). Tech-wise, I'm probably looking to build this out in Node.JS or maybe Ruby, although the architecture guidelines should to some extent apply to any underlying server technologies.

    Read the article

  • Good Software Architecture book or material?

    - by Inder Kumar Rathore
    I am a programmer and there is always a word going around about the architecture of the application/software. I want to gain some knowledge about how to develop good architecture. I know it is something that comes with the experience but I need some start so that I can practice it and get some good experience. So Please refer a good book for architecture. I know "Head first design patterns" is there, should I go for it or is there some good books also. Thanks

    Read the article

  • When to use Aspect Oriented Architecture (AOA/AOD)

    When is it appropriate to use aspect oriented architecture? I think the only honest answer to this question is that it depends on the context for which the question is being asked. There really are no hard and fast rules regarding the selection of an architectural model(s) for a project because each model provides good and bad benefits. Every system is built with a unique requirements and constraints. This context will dictate when to use one type of architecture over another or in conjunction with others. To me aspect oriented architecture models should be a sub-phase in the architectural modeling and design process especially when creating enterprise level models. Personally, I like to use this approach to create a base architectural model that is defined by non-functional requirements and system quality attributes.   This general model can then be used as a starting point for additional models because it is targets all of the business key quality attributes required by the system.Aspect oriented architecture is a method for modeling non-functional requirements and quality attributes of a system known as aspects. These models do not deal directly with specific functionality. They do categorize functionality of the system. This approach allows a system to be created with a strong emphasis on separating system concerns into individual components. These cross cutting components enables a systems to create with compartmentalization in regards to non-functional requirements or quality attributes.  This allows for the reduction in code because an each component maintains an aspect of a system that can be called by other aspects. This approach also allows for a much cleaner and smaller code base during the implementation and support of a system. Additionally, enabling developers to develop systems based on aspect-oriented design projects will be completed faster and will be more reliable because existing components can be shared across a system; thus, the time needed to create and test the functionality is reduced.   Example of an effective use of Aspect Oriented ArchitectureIn my experiences, aspect oriented architecture can be very effective with large or more complex systems. Typically, these types of systems have a large number of concerns so the act of defining them is very beneficial for reducing the system’s complexity because components can be developed to address each concern while exposing functionality to the other system components. The benefits to using the aspect oriented approach as the starting point for a system is that it promotes communication between IT and the business due to the fact that the aspect oriented models are quality attributes focused so not much technical understanding is needed to understand the model.An example of this can be in developing a new intranet website. Common Intranet Concerns: Error Handling Security Logging Notifications Database connectivity Example of a not as effective use of Aspect Oriented ArchitectureAgain in my experiences, aspect oriented architecture is not as effective with small or less complex systems in comparison.  There is no need to model concerns for a system that has a limited amount of them because the added overhead would not be justified for the actual benefits of creating the aspect oriented architecture model.  Furthermore, these types of projects typically have a reduced time schedule and a limited budget.  The creation of the Aspect oriented models would increase the overhead of a project and thus increase the time needed to implement the system. An example of this is seen by creating a small application to poll a network share for new files and then FTP them to a new location.  The two primary concerns for this project is to monitor a network drive and FTP files to a new location.  There is no need to create an aspect model for this system because there will never be a need to share functionality amongst either of these concerns.  To add to my point, this system is so small that it could be created with just a few classes so the added layer of componentizing the concerns would be complete overkill for this situation. References:Brichau, Johan; D'Hondt, Theo. (2006) Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD) - An Introduction. Retreived from: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~jbrichau/courses/introductionToAOSD.pdf

    Read the article

  • Architecture/pattern resources for small applications and tools

    - by s73v3r
    I was wondering if anyone had any resources or advice related to using architecture patterns like MVVM/MVC/MVP/etc on small applications and tools, as opposed to large, enterprisy ones. EDIT: Most of the information I see on application architecture is directed at large, enterprise applications. I'm just writing small programs and tools. As far as using these architecture patterns, is it generally worthwhile to go through the overhead of using an MVC/MVVM framework? Or would I be better off keeping it simple?

    Read the article

  • Simple Architecture Verification

    - by Jean Carlos Suárez Marranzini
    I just made an architecture for an application with the function of scoring, saving and loading tennis games. The architecture has 2 kinds of elements: components & layers. Components: Standalone elements that can be consumed by other components or by layers. They might also consume functionality from the model/bottom layer. Layers: Software components whose functionality rests on previous layers (except for the model layer). -Layers: -Models: Data and it's behavior. -Controllers: A layer that allows interaction between the views and the models. -Views: The presentation layer for interacting with the user. -Components: -Persistence: Makes sure the game data can be stored away for later retrieval. -Time Machine: Records changes in the game through time so it's possible to navigate the game back and forth. -Settings: Contains the settings that determine how some of the game logic will apply. -Game Engine: Contains all the game logic, which it applies to the game data to determine the path the game should take. This is an image of the architecture (I don't have enough rep to post images): http://i49.tinypic.com/35lt5a9.png The requierements which this architecture should satisfy are the following: Save & load games. Move through game history and see how the scoreboard changes as the game evolves. Tie-breaks must be properly managed. Games must be classified by hit-type. Every point can be modified. Match name and player names must be stored. Game logic must be configurable by the user. I would really appreciate any kind of advice or comments on this architecture. To see if it is well built and makes sense as a whole. I took the idea from this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller

    Read the article

  • ORM and component-based architecture

    - by EagleBeek
    I have joined an ongoing project, where the team calls their architecture "component-based". The lowest level is one big database. The data access (via ORM) and business layers are combined into various components, which are separated according to business logic. E.g., there's a component for handling bank accounts, one for generating invoices, etc. The higher levels of service contracts and presentation are irrelevant for the question, so I'll omit them here. From my point of view the separation of the data access layer into various components seems counterproductive, because it denies us the relational mapping capabilities of the ORM. E.g., when I want to query all invoices for one customer I have to identify the customer with the "customers" component and then make another call to the "invoices" component to get the invoices for this customer. My impression is that it would be better to leave the data access in one component and separate it from business logic, which may well be cut into various components. Does anybody have some advice? Have I overlooked something?

    Read the article

  • Entity Type specific updates in entity component system

    - by Nathan
    I am currently familiarizing myself with the entity component paradigm. For an example, take a collision system, that detects if entities collide and if they do let them explode. So the collision system has to test collision based on the position component and then set the state of those entities to exploding. But what if the "effect" (setting the state to exploding) is different for different entities? For example, a ship fades out while for an asteroid a particle system must be created. Since entities and components are only data, this must happen in some system. The collision system could do it, but then it must switch over the entity type, which in my opinion is a cumbersome and difficult to extend solution. So how do I trigger "entity type dependend" updates on an entity?

    Read the article

  • Entity Component System, weapon

    - by Heorhiy
    I'm new to game programming and currently trying to understand Entity Component System design by implementing simple 2d game. By ECS I mean design, described here for example In my game I have different kind of weapons: automatic, gun, grenade, etc... Each type of weapon has it's own affect area (gun shots along the straight line and grenade explodes and covers some spherical area) , damage impact, visual effect and bullet amount, delay between shots. So I don't completely understand how to implement weapons. Should weapon be an Entity or it should be a component? And how the player should pick up a weapon, switch between different types of weapons and etc.

    Read the article

  • Getting Started with Component Architecture: DI?

    - by ashes999
    I just moved away from MVC towards something more component-architecture-like. I have no concept of messages yet (it's rough prototype code), objects just get internal properties and values of other classes for now. That issue aside, it seems like this is turning into an aspect-oriented-programming challenge. I've noticed that all entities with, for example, a position component will have similar properties (get/set X/Y/Z, rotation, velocity). Is it a common practice, and/or good idea, to push these behind an interface and use dependency injection to inject a generic class (eg. PositionComponent) which already has all the boiler-plate code? (I'm sure the answer will affect the model I use for message/passing)

    Read the article

  • Many sources of movement in an entity system

    - by Sticky
    I'm fairly new to the idea of entity systems, having read a bunch of stuff (most usefully, this great blog and this answer). Though I'm having a little trouble understanding how something as simple as being able to manipualate the position of an object by an undefined number of sources. That is, I have my entity, which has a position component. I then have some event in the game which tells this entity to move a given distance, in a given time. These events can happen at any time, and will have different values for position and time. The result is that they'd be compounded together. In a traditional OO solution, I'd have some sort of MoveBy class, that contains the distance/time, and an array of those inside my game object class. Each frame, I'd iterate through all the MoveBy, and apply it to the position. If a MoveBy has reached its finish time, remove it from the array. With the entity system, I'm a little confused as how I should replicate this sort of behavior. If there were just one of these at a time, instead of being able to compound them together, it'd be fairly straightforward (I believe) and look something like this: PositionComponent containing x, y MoveByComponent containing x, y, time Entity which has both a PositionComponent and a MoveByComponent MoveBySystem that looks for an entity with both these components, and adds the value of MoveByComponent to the PositionComponent. When the time is reached, it removes the component from that entity. I'm a bit confused as to how I'd do the same thing with many move by's. My initial thoughts are that I would have: PositionComponent, MoveByComponent the same as above MoveByCollectionComponent which contains an array of MoveByComponents MoveByCollectionSystem that looks for an entity with a PositionComponent and a MoveByCollectionComponent, iterating through the MoveByComponents inside it, applying/removing as necessary. I guess this is a more general problem, of having many of the same component, and wanting a corresponding system to act on each one. My entities contain their components inside a hash of component type - component, so strictly have only 1 component of a particular type per entity. Is this the right way to be looking at this? Should an entity only ever have one component of a given type at all times?

    Read the article

  • 3-tier architecture v. 3-server architecture

    - by kawai
    I'm building a traditional .NET MVC site, so I've got a natural 3-tier software architecture setup (presentation in the form of Views, business layer in the controller, and data layer in the models and data access layer). When I've deployed such sites, it usually goes either on one server (where the web site and db live), or two servers (a web server and a separate db server). How does one go about a 3-server architecture (WEB, APP, and DB)? Would the web server just have the presentation (e.g. the physical View/aspx pages), the app server would hold the config file and bin folder, and the db server would remain as is? My question is essentially, can you simply move the /bin and all app logic onto a separate server from the presentation views? If so, how do you configure the servers to know where to look? If there's a good primer somewhere or someone can give me the lowdown, I'd be forever indebted.

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to Component Based Architecture?

    - by Ben Lakey
    Usually when I develop a game I will use an architecture like what you see below. What other architectures are popular for simple game development? I'm concerned about having a narrow view of what exists out there for architectures beyond this. Is this an example of component-based architecture? Or is this something else? What would that look like? What alternatives exist? public abstract class ComponentBase { protected final Collection<ComponentBase> subComponents = new LinkedList<ComponentBase>(); private boolean enableInput; private boolean isVisible; protected ComponentBase(boolean enableInput, boolean isVisible) { this.enableInput = enableInput; this.isVisible = isVisible; } public void render(Graphics2D graphics) { for(ComponentBase gameComponent : this.subComponents) { if(gameComponent.isVisible()) { gameComponent.render(graphics); } } } public void input(InputData input) { for(ComponentBase gameComponent : this.subComponents) { if(gameComponent.inputIsEnabled()) { gameComponent.input(input); } } } ... getters/setters ... public void update(long elapsedTimeMillis) { for(ComponentBase gameComponent : this.subComponents) { gameComponent.update(elapsedTimeMillis); } } }

    Read the article

  • SSIS Lookup with Lookup Component Vs Script Component.

    - by Nev_Rahd
    Hello, I need to load Dimensions from EDW Tables (which does maintain historical records) and is of type Key-Value-Parameter. My scenario is ok if got a record in EDW as below Key1 Key2 Code Value EffectiveDate EndDate CurrentFlag 100 555 01 AAA 2010-01-01 11.00.00 9999-12-31 Y 100 555 02 BBB 2010-01-01 11.00.00 9999-12-31 Y This need to be loaded into DM by pivoting it as key1 and key2 combinations makes Natural key for DM SK NK 01 02 EffectiveDate EndDate CurrentFlag 1 100-555 AAA BBB 2010-01-01 11.00.00 9999-12-31 Y My ssis package does this all good pivoting... looking up the incoming NK in DIM.. if new will insert .. else with further lookup with effective date and determine if the incoming for same natural key got any new (change) in attribute.. if so updates the current record byy setting its end date and insert the new one with new attribute value and pulling the recent records values for other attributes. My problem is if the same natural key comes twice with same attribute in single extract my first lookup which on natural key .. will let both records pass and try to insert.. where its fails. If i get distinct records on NK the second is not picked and need to run package again. So my question how can i configure lookup or alernative way to handle this scenario when same NK comes twice in single extract, would be able to insert first record if not exists in Dim table and for second one should be able to updated with the changes with reference to one inserted above. Not sure this makes sense what am trying to explain. Will attached the screenshot once back to work desk (on monday). Thanks

    Read the article

  • "cloud architecture" concepts in a system architecture diagrams

    - by markus
    If you design a distributed application for easy scale-out, or you just want to make use of any of the new “cloud computing” offerings by Amazon, Google or Microsoft, there are some typical concepts or components you usually end up using: distributed blob storage (aka S3) asynchronous, durable message queues (aka SQS) non-Relational-/non-transactional databases (like SimpleDB, Google BigTable, Azure SQL Services) distributed background worker pool load-balanced, edge-service processes handling user requests (often virtualized) distributed caches (like memcached) CDN (content delivery network like Akamai) Now when it comes to design and sketch an architecture that makes use of such patterns, are there any commonly used symbols I could use? Or even a download with some cool Visio stencils? :) It doesn’t have to be a formal system like UML but I think it would be great if there were symbols that everyone knows and understands, like we have commonly used shapes for databases or a documents, for example. I think it would be important to not mix it up with traditional concepts like a normal file system (local or network server/SAN), or a relational database. Simply speaking, I want to be able to draw some conclusions about an application’s scalability or data consistency issues by just looking at the system architecture overview diagram. Update: Thank you very much for your answers. I like the idea of putting a small "cloud symbol" on the traditional symbols. However I leave this thread open just in case someone will find specific symbols (maybe in a book or so) - or uploaded some pimped up Visio stencils ;)

    Read the article

  • Relationship between TDD and Software Architecture/Design

    - by Christopher Francisco
    I'm new to TDD and have been reading the theory since applying it is more complicated than it sounds when you're learning by yourself. As far as I know, the objective is to write test cases for each requirement and run the test so it fails (to prevent a false positive). Afterward, you should write the minimum amount of code that can pass the test and move to the next one. That being said, is it true that you get a fast development, but what about the code itself? this theory makes me think you are not considering things like abstraction, delegation of responsibilities, design patterns, architecture and others since you're just writing "the minimum amount of code that can pass the test". I know I'm probably wrong because if this were true, we'd have a lot of crappy developers with poor software architecture and documentation so I'm asking for a guide here, what's the relationship between TDD and Software Architecture/Design?

    Read the article

  • Model Driven Architecture Approach in programming / modelling

    - by yak
    I know the basics of the model driven architecture: it is all about model the system which I want to create and create the core code afterwards. I used CORBA a while ago. First thing that I needed to do was to create an abstract interface (some kind of model of the system I want to build) and generate core code later. But I have a different question: is model driven architecture a broad approach or not? I mean, let's say, that I have the language (modelling language) in which I want to model EXISTING system (opposite to the system I want to CREATE), and then analyze the model of the created system and different facts about that modeled abstraction. In this case, can the process I described above be considered the model driven architecture approach? I mean, I have the model, but this is the model of the existing system, not the system to be created.

    Read the article

  • Carpool logical architecture

    - by enrmarc
    I'm designing a carpool system (drivers can publish their routes and passengers can subscribe to them) with WebServices(axis2) and Android clients (ksoap2). I have been having problems with the logical architecture of the system and I wondered if this architecture is fine. And another question: for that architecture (if it is ok), how would be the packages structure? I suppose something like that: (In android) package org.carpool.presentation *All the activities here (and maybe mvc pattern) (In the server) package org.carpool.services *Public interfaces (for example: register(User user), publishRoute(Route route) ) package org.carpool.domain *Pojos (for example: User.java, Route.java, etc) package org.carpool.persistence *Dao Interface and implementation (jdbc or hibernate)

    Read the article

  • Help me classify this type of software architecture

    - by Alex Burtsev
    I read some books about software architecture as we are using it in our project but I can't classify the architecture properly. It's some kind of Enterprise Architecture, but what exactly... SOA, ESB (Enterprise Service Bus), Message Bus, Event Driven SOA, there are so many terms in Enterprise software.... The system is based on custom XML messages exchanges between services. (it's not SOAP, nor any other XML based standard, just plain XML). These messages represent notifications (state changes) that are applied to the Domain model, (it's not like CRUD when you serialize the whole domain object, and pass it to service for persistence). The system is centralized, and system participants use different programming languages and frameworks (c++, c#, java). Also, messages are not processed at the moment they are received as they are stored first and the treatment begins on demand. It's called SOA+EDA -:)

    Read the article

  • Automated architecture validation

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    I am aware of the fact that TFS 2010 ultimate edition can create and validate architecture diagrams. For example, I can create a new modeling project add Layer Diagram Add Layer called View Add BL Layer Add DL layer. Then I can validate this architecture as part of the build process when someone tries to check code into TFS. In other words, if the View references the DL then the compilation process will fail and the checkin will not be allowed. For those without an MSDN ultimate license, can FxCop or some 3rd party utility be used to validate architecture in an automated fashion? I prefer a TFS install-able plugin, but a local VS plugin will do.

    Read the article

  • BizTalk 2009 - Pipeline Component Wizard

    - by Stuart Brierley
    Recently I decided to try out the BizTalk Server Pipeline Component Wizard when creating a new pipeline component for BizTalk 2009. There are different versions of the wizard available, so be sure to download the appropriate version for the BizTalk environment that you are working with. Following the download and expansion of the zip file, you should be left with a Visual Studio solution.  Open this solution and build the project. Following this installation is straight foward - locate and run the built setup.exe file in the PipelineComponentWizard Setup project and click through the small number of installation screens. Once you have completed installation you will be ready to use the wizard in Visual Studio to create your BizTalk Pipeline Component. Start by creating a new project, selecting BizTalk Projects then BizTalk Server Pipeline Component.  You will then be presented with the splash screen. The next step is General Setup, where you will detail the classname, namespace, pipeline and component types, and the implementation language for your Pipeline Component. The options for pipeline type are Receive, Send or Any. Depending on the pipeline type chosen there are different options presented for the component type, matching those available within the BizTalk Pipelines themselves: Receive - Decoder, Disassembling Parser, Validate, Party Resolver, Any. Send -  Encoder, Assembling Serializer, Any. Any - Any. The options for implementation language are C# or VB.Net Next you must set up the UI settings - these are the settings that affect the appearance of the pipeline component within Visual Studio. You must detail the component name, version, description and icon.  Next is the definition of the variables that the pipeline component will use.  The values for these variables will be defined in Visual Studio when creating a pipeline. The options for each variable you require are: Designer Property - The name of the variable. Data Type - String, Boolean, Integer, Long, Short, Schema List, Schema With None Clicking finish now will complete the wizard stage of the creation of your pipeline component. Once the wizard has completed you will be left with a BizTalk Server Pipeline Component project containing a skeleton code file for you to complete.   Within this code file you will mainly be interested in the execute method, which is left mostly empty ready for you to implement your custom pipeline code:          #region IComponent members         /// <summary>         /// Implements IComponent.Execute method.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="pc">Pipeline context</param>         /// <param name="inmsg">Input message</param>         /// <returns>Original input message</returns>         /// <remarks>         /// IComponent.Execute method is used to initiate         /// the processing of the message in this pipeline component.         /// </remarks>         public Microsoft.BizTalk.Message.Interop.IBaseMessage Execute(Microsoft.BizTalk.Component.Interop.IPipelineContext pc, Microsoft.BizTalk.Message.Interop.IBaseMessage inmsg)         {             //             // TODO: implement component logic             //             // this way, it's a passthrough pipeline component             return inmsg;         }         #endregion Once you have implemented your custom code, build and compile your Custom Pipeline Component then add the compiled .dll to C:\Program Files\Microsoft BizTalk Server 2009\Pipeline Components . When creating a new pipeline, in Visual Studio reset the toolbox and the custom pipeline component should appear ready for you to use in your Biztalk Pipeline. Drop the pipeline component into the relevant pipeline stage and configure the component properties (the variables defined in the wizard). You can now deploy and use the pipeline as you would any other custom pipeline.

    Read the article

  • Dynamic Components

    - by Alex
    I am attempting to design a component-based architecture that allows Components to be dynamically enabled and disabled, much like the system employed by Unity3D. For example, all Components are implicitly enabled by default; however, if one desires to halt execution of code for a particular Component, one can disable it. Naively, I want to have a boolean flag in Component (which is an abstract class), and somehow serialize all method calls into strings, so that some sort of ComponentManager can check if a given Component is enabled/disabled before processing a method call on it. However, this is a pretty bad solution. I feel like I should employ some variation of the state paradigm, but I have yet to make progress. Any help would be greatly appreciated,

    Read the article

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