Search Results

Search found 9518 results on 381 pages for 'explicit implementation'.

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

Page 44/381 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • Developing a TCK: Spec Lead Call for Spec Leads 20 December

    - by Heather VanCura
    The JCP Program will be hosting a Spec Lead call on 20 December on the topic of developing a Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK).  A Technology Compatibility Kit is a required output of a JSR at Final Release, along with the Specification and Reference Implementation (RI).   The TCK must test all aspects of a specification that impact how compatible an implementation of that specification would be, such as the public API and all mandatory elements of the specification. The Reference Implementation is required to pass the TCK. A vendor's implementation of a specification is only considered compatible if the implementation passes the TCK fully and completely.  The TCK is used to test implementations of the Final Specification to make sure that they are fully compatible. The call will be recorded and posted on the JCP.org multimedia page along with any related materials.   Invitation details for the online meeting:Topic: SL Call: Developing a TCK Date: Thursday, December 20, 2012 Time: 9:30 am, Pacific Standard Time (San Francisco, GMT-08:00) Meeting Number: 804 390 892 Meeting Password: 2222 ------------------------------------------------------- To join the audio conference -------------------------------------------------------     +1 (866) 682-4770 (US)     Conference code: 945-4597    Security code: 52775 ("JCPSL" on your phone handset)     For global access numbers see http://www.intercall.com/oracle/access_numbers.htm         Or +1 (408) 774-4073

    Read the article

  • Why can't Java/C# implement RAII?

    - by mike30
    Question: Why can't Java/C# implement RAII? Clarification: I am aware the garbage collector is not deterministic. So with the current language features it is not possible for an object's Dispose() method to be called automatically on scope exit. But could such a deterministic feature be added? My understanding: I feel an implementation of RAII must satisfy two requirements: 1. The lifetime of a resource must be bound to a scope. 2. Implicit. The freeing of the resource must happen without an explicit statement by the programmer. Analogous to a garbage collector freeing memory without an explicit statement. The "implicitness" only needs to occur at point of use of the class. The class library creator must of course explicitly implement a destructor or Dispose() method. Java/C# satisfy point 1. In C# a resource implementing IDisposable can be bound to a "using" scope: void test() { using(Resource r = new Resource()) { r.foo(); }//resource released on scope exit } This does not satisfy point 2. The programmer must explicitly tie the object to a special "using" scope. Programmers can (and do) forget to explicitly tie the resource to a scope, creating a leak. In fact the "using" blocks are converted to try-finally-dispose() code by the compiler. It has the same explicit nature of the try-finally-dispose() pattern. Without an implicit release, the hook to a scope is syntactic sugar. void test() { //Programmer forgot (or was not aware of the need) to explicitly //bind Resource to a scope. Resource r = new Resource(); r.foo(); }//resource leaked!!! I think it is worth creating a language feature in Java/C# allowing special objects that are hooked to the stack via a smart-pointer. The feature would allow you to flag a class as scope-bound, so that it always is created with a hook to the stack. There could be a options for different for different types of smart pointers. class Resource - ScopeBound { /* class details */ void Dispose() { //free resource } } void test() { //class Resource was flagged as ScopeBound so the tie to the stack is implicit. Resource r = new Resource(); //r is a smart-pointer r.foo(); }//resource released on scope exit. I think implicitness is "worth it". Just as the implicitness of garbage collection is "worth it". Explicit using blocks are refreshing on the eyes, but offer no semantic advantage over try-finally-dispose(). Is it impractical to implement such a feature into the Java/C# languages? Could it be introduced without breaking old code?

    Read the article

  • How to charge for software design [on hold]

    - by cja
    I have a prospect with both an idea and an existing customer of theirs who want to pay for this idea to be implemented. The customer want to pay only when the implementation is complete. My prospect has separate investors that will fund the implementation. The prospect wants to know how much I will charge for the implementation so that he knows how much to ask the investors for. Before I can estimate reliably I need to work with the prospect to develop an implementation plan. This planning work will take time that I want to charge for. The prospect doesn't have enough money to pay me until the investment. I want to make sure I am paid for the planning. How can I resolve this?

    Read the article

  • License compatibility question

    - by Ivaylo Slavov
    I have a question regarding software licenses. I plan to put a license to a framework that I have written. My intention is that the license should be open, in order to maintain a community. Also I want to control when a new version is released and which changes will be included. The license should allow the framework to be used with commercial products, therefore respecting their own license. I have done some quick research and I decided to double license my work under the Apache License 2.0 (ASL) and Eclipse Public License (EPL). My point is that the EPL will provide me the ability to control the release cycle as well as the contributions to the project and the Apache license will take care for any patents a 3rd party might want to use in a derived work. Also both are open licenses. My question is related to the GLP and LGPL licenses. If I have the above licenses to my framework, will it be possible and legal, for someone to create a derived work of my framework, that is also a derived work of, or links a library that is under the LGPL license? Thanks in advance. EDIT: To be clear I will explain how I expect things to work. The framework will define some common API for certain functionalities as well as a Wrapper class that will invoke an implementation of that API. The Wrapper will be part of the framework, but it will internally call the actual implementation. This implementation should be in a separate library, and such libraries I would like to be developed and maintained by community. Surely the community will have to access the framework but I want to limit changes to the framework by the community but I want to provide freedom for any API implementation (a derived work of the framework). The framework will enable flexible configuration mechanisms that will tell which implementation of an API will be used.

    Read the article

  • Application of LGPL license on a simple algorithm

    - by georgesl
    The "scope" of the GNU license is troubling me : I know it has been answered many times ( here, here, ... ) but shouldn't we take into consideration the complexity and originality of a code before using GPL license ? I explain : I'm working on a pet project using the DTW algorithm that I have written in C using the pseudo-code given on the wikipedia page . At one point I decided to change it for a C++ implementation ( just for hone my c++ skill ) . After doing so, I've looked for an existing implementation on the web, to compare the "cleanliness" of it, and I found this one : Vectored DTW implementation, which is part of limproved, a C++ library licensed under GPL v3 . Personnally, I don't mind the GNU license because it is a personnal project, which will never led to any kind of commercial purpose, but I wonder if this implementation can abide a company using it to open their code ( and other FOSS permissions ). Theoretically, I think it can ( I may be wrong :p ), but the algorithm in question is so simple (and old) that it should not.

    Read the article

  • How to reserve public API to internal usage in .NET?

    - by mark
    Dear ladies and sirs. Let me first present the case, which will explain my question. This is going to be a bit long, so I apologize in advance :-). I have objects and collections, which should support the Merge API (it is my custom API, the signature of which is immaterial for this question). This API must be internal, meaning only my framework should be allowed to invoke it. However, derived types should be able to override the basic implementation. The natural way to implement this pattern as I see it, is this: The Merge API is declared as part of some internal interface, let us say IMergeable. Because the interface is internal, derived types would not be able to implement it directly. Rather they must inherit it from a common base type. So, a common base type is introduced, which would implement the IMergeable interface explicitly, where the interface methods delegate to respective protected virtual methods, providing the default implementation. This way the API is only callable by my framework, but derived types may override the default implementation. The following code snippet demonstrates the concept: internal interface IMergeable { void Merge(object obj); } public class BaseFrameworkObject : IMergeable { protected virtual void Merge(object obj) { // The default implementation. } void IMergeable.Merge(object obj) { Merge(obj); } } public class SomeThirdPartyObject : BaseFrameworkObject { protected override void Merge(object obj) { // A derived type implementation. } } All is fine, provided a single common base type suffices, which is usually true for non collection types. The thing is that collections must be mergeable as well. Collections do not play nicely with the presented concept, because developers do not develop collections from the scratch. There are predefined implementations - observable, filtered, compound, read-only, remove-only, ordered, god-knows-what, ... They may be developed from scratch in-house, but once finished, they serve wide range of products and should never be tailored to some specific product. Which means, that either: they do not implement the IMergeable interface at all, because it is internal to some product the scope of the IMergeable interface is raised to public and the API becomes open and callable by all. Let us refer to these collections as standard collections. Anyway, the first option screws my framework, because now each possible standard collection type has to be paired with the respective framework version, augmenting the standard with the IMergeable interface implementation - this is so bad, I am not even considering it. The second option breaks the framework as well, because the IMergeable interface should be internal for a reason (whatever it is) and now this interface has to open to all. So what to do? My solution is this. make IMergeable public API, but add an extra parameter to the Merge method, I call it a security token. The interface implementation may check that the token references some internal object, which is never exposed to the outside. If this is the case, then the method was called from within the framework, otherwise - some outside API consumer attempted to invoke it and so the implementation can blow up with a SecurityException. Here is the modified code snippet demonstrating this concept: internal static class InternalApi { internal static readonly object Token = new object(); } public interface IMergeable { void Merge(object obj, object token); } public class BaseFrameworkObject : IMergeable { protected virtual void Merge(object obj) { // The default implementation. } public void Merge(object obj, object token) { if (!object.ReferenceEquals(token, InternalApi.Token)) { throw new SecurityException("bla bla bla"); } Merge(obj); } } public class SomeThirdPartyObject : BaseFrameworkObject { protected override void Merge(object obj) { // A derived type implementation. } } Of course, this is less explicit than having an internally scoped interface and the check is moved from the compile time to run time, yet this is the best I could come up with. Now, I have a gut feeling that there is a better way to solve the problem I have presented. I do not know, may be using some standard Code Access Security features? I have only vague understanding of it, but can LinkDemand attribute be somehow related to it? Anyway, I would like to hear other opinions. Thanks.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Haskell: Left-biased/short-circuiting function

    - by user2967411
    Two classes ago, our professor presented to us a Parser module. Here is the code: module Parser (Parser,parser,runParser,satisfy,char,string,many,many1,(+++)) where import Data.Char import Control.Monad import Control.Monad.State type Parser = StateT String [] runParser :: Parser a -> String -> [(a,String)] runParser = runStateT parser :: (String -> [(a,String)]) -> Parser a parser = StateT satisfy :: (Char -> Bool) -> Parser Char satisfy f = parser $ \s -> case s of [] -> [] a:as -> [(a,as) | f a] char :: Char -> Parser Char char = satisfy . (==) alpha,digit :: Parser Char alpha = satisfy isAlpha digit = satisfy isDigit string :: String -> Parser String string = mapM char infixr 5 +++ (+++) :: Parser a -> Parser a -> Parser a (+++) = mplus many, many1 :: Parser a -> Parser [a] many p = return [] +++ many1 p many1 p = liftM2 (:) p (many p) Today he gave us an assignment to introduce "a left-biased, or short-circuiting version of (+++)", called (<++). His hint was for us to consider the original implementation of (+++). When he first introduced +++ to us, this was the code he wrote, which I am going to call the original implementation: infixr 5 +++ (+++) :: Parser a -> Parser a -> Parser a p +++ q = Parser $ \s -> runParser p s ++ runParser q s I have been having tons of trouble since we were introduced to parsing and so it continues. I have tried/am considering two approaches. 1) Use the "original" implementation, as in p +++ q = Parser $ \s - runParser p s ++ runParser q s 2) Use the final implementation, as in (+++) = mplus Here are my questions: 1) The module will not compile if I use the original implementation. The error: Not in scope: data constructor 'Parser'. It compiles fine using (+++) = mplus. What is wrong with using the original implementation that is avoided by using the final implementation? 2) How do I check if the first Parser returns anything? Is something like (not (isNothing (Parser $ \s - runParser p s) on the right track? It seems like it should be easy but I have no idea. 3) Once I figure out how to check if the first Parser returns anything, if I am to base my code on the final implementation, would it be as easy as this?: -- if p returns something then p <++ q = mplus (Parser $ \s -> runParser p s) mzero -- else (<++) = mplus Best, Jeff

    Read the article

  • Does protobuf-net generated binary compatible with Google specs

    - by cornerback84
    Actually I want to serialize my data using Google's java implementation and then deserialize using C# implementation? I have chosen portobuf-net as it seems to be more stable (porto# is still v0.9 or I would have gone for it). Before I start working on it I wanted to be sure that I can achieve this (serializing data using java implementation and deserializing it using potobuf-net). Or is there any list of methods that are specific to portobuf-net implementation?

    Read the article

  • Does portobuf-net generated binary compatible with Google specs

    - by cornerback84
    Actually I want to serialize my data using Google's java implementation and then deserialize using C# implementation? I have chosen portobuf-net as it seems to be more stable (porto# is still v0.9 or I would have gone for it). Before I start working on it I wanted to be sure that I can achieve this (serializing data using java implementation and deserializing it using potobuf-net). Or is there any list of methods that are specific to portobuf-net implementation?

    Read the article

  • Usage of @specialized in traits

    - by paradigmatic
    I have a trait and an implementation looking like: trait Foo[A] { def bar[B >: A: Ordering]: Foo[B] } class FooImpl[A]( val a: A, val values: List[Foo[A]] ) extends Foo[A] { def bar[B >: A] = { /* concrete implementation */} } I would like to use the @specialized annotation on A and B to avoid autoboxing. Do I need to use it in both trait and implementation, only in implementation, or only in trait ?

    Read the article

  • Is portobuf-net generated binary compatible with Google specs

    - by cornerback84
    Actually I want to serialize my data using Google's java implementation and then deserialize using C# implementation? I have chosen portobuf-net as it seems to be more stable (porto# is still v0.9 or I would have gone for it). Before I start working on it I wanted to be sure that I can achieve this (serializing data using java implementation and deserializing it using potobuf-net). Or is there any list of methods that are specific to portobuf-net implementation?

    Read the article

  • byte and short data types in Java can accept the value outside the range by explicit cast. The higher data types however can not. Why?

    - by Lion
    Let's consider the following expressions in Java. byte a = 32; byte b = (byte) 250; int i = a + b; This is valid in Java even though the expression byte b = (byte) 250; is forced to assign the value 250 to b which is outside the range of the type byte. Therefore, b is assigned -6 and consequently i is assigned the value 26 through the statement int i = a + b;. The same thing is possible with short as follows. short s1=(short) 567889999; Although the specified value is outside the range of short, this statement is legal. The same thing is however wrong with higher data types such int, double, folat etc and hence, the following case is invalid and causes a compile-time error. int z=2147483648; This is illegal, since the range of int in Java is from -2,147,483,648 to 2147483647 which the above statement exceeds and issues a compile-time error. Why is such not wrong with byte and short data types in Java?

    Read the article

  • Loosely coupled .NET Cache Provider using Dependency Injection

    - by Rhames
    I have recently been reading the excellent book “Dependency Injection in .NET”, written by Mark Seemann. I do not generally buy software development related books, as I never seem to have the time to read them, but I have found the time to read Mark’s book, and it was time well spent I think. Reading the ideas around Dependency Injection made me realise that the Cache Provider code I wrote about earlier (see http://geekswithblogs.net/Rhames/archive/2011/01/10/using-the-asp.net-cache-to-cache-data-in-a-model.aspx) could be refactored to use Dependency Injection, which should produce cleaner code. The goals are to: Separate the cache provider implementation (using the ASP.NET data cache) from the consumers (loose coupling). This will also mean that the dependency on System.Web for the cache provider does not ripple down into the layers where it is being consumed (such as the domain layer). Provide a decorator pattern to allow a consumer of the cache provider to be implemented separately from the base consumer (i.e. if we have a base repository, we can decorate this with a caching version). Although I used the term repository, in reality the cache consumer could be just about anything. Use constructor injection to provide the Dependency Injection, with a suitable DI container (I use Castle Windsor). The sample code for this post is available on github, https://github.com/RobinHames/CacheProvider.git ICacheProvider In the sample code, the key interface is ICacheProvider, which is in the domain layer. 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3:   4: namespace CacheDiSample.Domain 5: { 6: public interface ICacheProvider<T> 7: { 8: T Fetch(string key, Func<T> retrieveData, DateTime? absoluteExpiry, TimeSpan? relativeExpiry); 9: IEnumerable<T> Fetch(string key, Func<IEnumerable<T>> retrieveData, DateTime? absoluteExpiry, TimeSpan? relativeExpiry); 10: } 11: }   This interface contains two methods to retrieve data from the cache, either as a single instance or as an IEnumerable. the second paramerter is of type Func<T>. This is the method used to retrieve data if nothing is found in the cache. The ASP.NET implementation of the ICacheProvider interface needs to live in a project that has a reference to system.web, typically this will be the root UI project, or it could be a separate project. The key thing is that the domain or data access layers do not need system.web references adding to them. In my sample MVC application, the CacheProvider is implemented in the UI project, in a folder called “CacheProviders”: 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3: using System.Linq; 4: using System.Web; 5: using System.Web.Caching; 6: using CacheDiSample.Domain; 7:   8: namespace CacheDiSample.CacheProvider 9: { 10: public class CacheProvider<T> : ICacheProvider<T> 11: { 12: public T Fetch(string key, Func<T> retrieveData, DateTime? absoluteExpiry, TimeSpan? relativeExpiry) 13: { 14: return FetchAndCache<T>(key, retrieveData, absoluteExpiry, relativeExpiry); 15: } 16:   17: public IEnumerable<T> Fetch(string key, Func<IEnumerable<T>> retrieveData, DateTime? absoluteExpiry, TimeSpan? relativeExpiry) 18: { 19: return FetchAndCache<IEnumerable<T>>(key, retrieveData, absoluteExpiry, relativeExpiry); 20: } 21:   22: #region Helper Methods 23:   24: private U FetchAndCache<U>(string key, Func<U> retrieveData, DateTime? absoluteExpiry, TimeSpan? relativeExpiry) 25: { 26: U value; 27: if (!TryGetValue<U>(key, out value)) 28: { 29: value = retrieveData(); 30: if (!absoluteExpiry.HasValue) 31: absoluteExpiry = Cache.NoAbsoluteExpiration; 32:   33: if (!relativeExpiry.HasValue) 34: relativeExpiry = Cache.NoSlidingExpiration; 35:   36: HttpContext.Current.Cache.Insert(key, value, null, absoluteExpiry.Value, relativeExpiry.Value); 37: } 38: return value; 39: } 40:   41: private bool TryGetValue<U>(string key, out U value) 42: { 43: object cachedValue = HttpContext.Current.Cache.Get(key); 44: if (cachedValue == null) 45: { 46: value = default(U); 47: return false; 48: } 49: else 50: { 51: try 52: { 53: value = (U)cachedValue; 54: return true; 55: } 56: catch 57: { 58: value = default(U); 59: return false; 60: } 61: } 62: } 63:   64: #endregion 65:   66: } 67: }   The FetchAndCache helper method checks if the specified cache key exists, if it does not, the Func<U> retrieveData method is called, and the results are added to the cache. Using Castle Windsor to register the cache provider In the MVC UI project (my application root), Castle Windsor is used to register the CacheProvider implementation, using a Windsor Installer: 1: using Castle.MicroKernel.Registration; 2: using Castle.MicroKernel.SubSystems.Configuration; 3: using Castle.Windsor; 4:   5: using CacheDiSample.Domain; 6: using CacheDiSample.CacheProvider; 7:   8: namespace CacheDiSample.WindsorInstallers 9: { 10: public class CacheInstaller : IWindsorInstaller 11: { 12: public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store) 13: { 14: container.Register( 15: Component.For(typeof(ICacheProvider<>)) 16: .ImplementedBy(typeof(CacheProvider<>)) 17: .LifestyleTransient()); 18: } 19: } 20: }   Note that the cache provider is registered as a open generic type. Consuming a Repository I have an existing couple of repository interfaces defined in my domain layer: IRepository.cs 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3:   4: using CacheDiSample.Domain.Model; 5:   6: namespace CacheDiSample.Domain.Repositories 7: { 8: public interface IRepository<T> 9: where T : EntityBase 10: { 11: T GetById(int id); 12: IList<T> GetAll(); 13: } 14: }   IBlogRepository.cs 1: using System; 2: using CacheDiSample.Domain.Model; 3:   4: namespace CacheDiSample.Domain.Repositories 5: { 6: public interface IBlogRepository : IRepository<Blog> 7: { 8: Blog GetByName(string name); 9: } 10: }   These two repositories are implemented in the DataAccess layer, using Entity Framework to retrieve data (this is not important though). One important point is that in the BaseRepository implementation of IRepository, the methods are virtual. This will allow the decorator to override them. The BlogRepository is registered in a RepositoriesInstaller, again in the MVC UI project. 1: using Castle.MicroKernel.Registration; 2: using Castle.MicroKernel.SubSystems.Configuration; 3: using Castle.Windsor; 4:   5: using CacheDiSample.Domain.CacheDecorators; 6: using CacheDiSample.Domain.Repositories; 7: using CacheDiSample.DataAccess; 8:   9: namespace CacheDiSample.WindsorInstallers 10: { 11: public class RepositoriesInstaller : IWindsorInstaller 12: { 13: public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store) 14: { 15: container.Register(Component.For<IBlogRepository>() 16: .ImplementedBy<BlogRepository>() 17: .LifestyleTransient() 18: .DependsOn(new 19: { 20: nameOrConnectionString = "BloggingContext" 21: })); 22: } 23: } 24: }   Now I can inject a dependency on the IBlogRepository into a consumer, such as a controller in my sample code: 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3: using System.Linq; 4: using System.Web; 5: using System.Web.Mvc; 6:   7: using CacheDiSample.Domain.Repositories; 8: using CacheDiSample.Domain.Model; 9:   10: namespace CacheDiSample.Controllers 11: { 12: public class HomeController : Controller 13: { 14: private readonly IBlogRepository blogRepository; 15:   16: public HomeController(IBlogRepository blogRepository) 17: { 18: if (blogRepository == null) 19: throw new ArgumentNullException("blogRepository"); 20:   21: this.blogRepository = blogRepository; 22: } 23:   24: public ActionResult Index() 25: { 26: ViewBag.Message = "Welcome to ASP.NET MVC!"; 27:   28: var blogs = blogRepository.GetAll(); 29:   30: return View(new Models.HomeModel { Blogs = blogs }); 31: } 32:   33: public ActionResult About() 34: { 35: return View(); 36: } 37: } 38: }   Consuming the Cache Provider via a Decorator I used a Decorator pattern to consume the cache provider, this means my repositories follow the open/closed principle, as they do not require any modifications to implement the caching. It also means that my controllers do not have any knowledge of the caching taking place, as the DI container will simply inject the decorator instead of the root implementation of the repository. The first step is to implement a BlogRepository decorator, with the caching logic in it. Note that this can reside in the domain layer, as it does not require any knowledge of the data access methods. BlogRepositoryWithCaching.cs 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3: using System.Linq; 4: using System.Text; 5:   6: using CacheDiSample.Domain.Model; 7: using CacheDiSample.Domain; 8: using CacheDiSample.Domain.Repositories; 9:   10: namespace CacheDiSample.Domain.CacheDecorators 11: { 12: public class BlogRepositoryWithCaching : IBlogRepository 13: { 14: // The generic cache provider, injected by DI 15: private ICacheProvider<Blog> cacheProvider; 16: // The decorated blog repository, injected by DI 17: private IBlogRepository parentBlogRepository; 18:   19: public BlogRepositoryWithCaching(IBlogRepository parentBlogRepository, ICacheProvider<Blog> cacheProvider) 20: { 21: if (parentBlogRepository == null) 22: throw new ArgumentNullException("parentBlogRepository"); 23:   24: this.parentBlogRepository = parentBlogRepository; 25:   26: if (cacheProvider == null) 27: throw new ArgumentNullException("cacheProvider"); 28:   29: this.cacheProvider = cacheProvider; 30: } 31:   32: public Blog GetByName(string name) 33: { 34: string key = string.Format("CacheDiSample.DataAccess.GetByName.{0}", name); 35: // hard code 5 minute expiry! 36: TimeSpan relativeCacheExpiry = new TimeSpan(0, 5, 0); 37: return cacheProvider.Fetch(key, () => 38: { 39: return parentBlogRepository.GetByName(name); 40: }, 41: null, relativeCacheExpiry); 42: } 43:   44: public Blog GetById(int id) 45: { 46: string key = string.Format("CacheDiSample.DataAccess.GetById.{0}", id); 47:   48: // hard code 5 minute expiry! 49: TimeSpan relativeCacheExpiry = new TimeSpan(0, 5, 0); 50: return cacheProvider.Fetch(key, () => 51: { 52: return parentBlogRepository.GetById(id); 53: }, 54: null, relativeCacheExpiry); 55: } 56:   57: public IList<Blog> GetAll() 58: { 59: string key = string.Format("CacheDiSample.DataAccess.GetAll"); 60:   61: // hard code 5 minute expiry! 62: TimeSpan relativeCacheExpiry = new TimeSpan(0, 5, 0); 63: return cacheProvider.Fetch(key, () => 64: { 65: return parentBlogRepository.GetAll(); 66: }, 67: null, relativeCacheExpiry) 68: .ToList(); 69: } 70: } 71: }   The key things in this caching repository are: I inject into the repository the ICacheProvider<Blog> implementation, via the constructor. This will make the cache provider functionality available to the repository. I inject the parent IBlogRepository implementation (which has the actual data access code), via the constructor. This will allow the methods implemented in the parent to be called if nothing is found in the cache. I override each of the methods implemented in the repository, including those implemented in the generic BaseRepository. Each override of these methods follows the same pattern. It makes a call to the CacheProvider.Fetch method, and passes in the parentBlogRepository implementation of the method as the retrieval method, to be used if nothing is present in the cache. Configuring the Caching Repository in the DI Container The final piece of the jigsaw is to tell Castle Windsor to use the BlogRepositoryWithCaching implementation of IBlogRepository, but to inject the actual Data Access implementation into this decorator. This is easily achieved by modifying the RepositoriesInstaller to use Windsor’s implicit decorator wiring: 1: using Castle.MicroKernel.Registration; 2: using Castle.MicroKernel.SubSystems.Configuration; 3: using Castle.Windsor; 4:   5: using CacheDiSample.Domain.CacheDecorators; 6: using CacheDiSample.Domain.Repositories; 7: using CacheDiSample.DataAccess; 8:   9: namespace CacheDiSample.WindsorInstallers 10: { 11: public class RepositoriesInstaller : IWindsorInstaller 12: { 13: public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store) 14: { 15:   16: // Use Castle Windsor implicit wiring for the block repository decorator 17: // Register the outermost decorator first 18: container.Register(Component.For<IBlogRepository>() 19: .ImplementedBy<BlogRepositoryWithCaching>() 20: .LifestyleTransient()); 21: // Next register the IBlogRepository inmplementation to inject into the outer decorator 22: container.Register(Component.For<IBlogRepository>() 23: .ImplementedBy<BlogRepository>() 24: .LifestyleTransient() 25: .DependsOn(new 26: { 27: nameOrConnectionString = "BloggingContext" 28: })); 29: } 30: } 31: }   This is all that is needed. Now if the consumer of the repository makes a call to the repositories method, it will be routed via the caching mechanism. You can test this by stepping through the code, and seeing that the DataAccess.BlogRepository code is only called if there is no data in the cache, or this has expired. The next step is to add the SQL Cache Dependency support into this pattern, this will be a future post.

    Read the article

  • initctl respawn does not reload configuration

    - by DELUXEnized
    My upstart service is running with the respawn option. I was hoping that if I deploy a new service config, the config will be loaded, when the service respawns. Neither the initctl reload-configuration command forces a reload, nor the restart command. Only an explicit stop and start reloads the configuration. The problem is, that I can not stop and start the service, at deploy time. The service itself schedules its restart by just shutting down. Is this behavior by design or am I missing something? Would it change anything, if I did the respawn with a second watchdog-service by an explicit start if my service stops? Why is there a difference between an explicit start/stop and the restart command or respawn option. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Scope quandary with namespaces, function templates, and static data

    - by Adrian McCarthy
    This scoping problem seems like the type of C++ quandary that Scott Meyers would have addressed in one of his Effective C++ books. I have a function, Analyze, that does some analysis on a range of data. The function is called from a few places with different types of iterators, so I have made it a template (and thus implemented it in a header file). The function depends on a static table of data, AnalysisTable, that I don't want to expose to the rest of the code. My first approach was to make the table a static const inside Analysis. namespace MyNamespace { template <typename InputIterator> int Analyze(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end) { static const int AnalysisTable[] = { /* data */ }; ... // implementation uses AnalysisTable return result; } } // namespace MyNamespace It appears that the compiler creates a copy of AnalysisTable for each instantiation of Analyze, which is wasteful of space (and, to a small degree, time). So I moved the table outside the function like this: namespace MyNamespace { const int AnalysisTable[] = { /* data */ }; template <typename InputIterator> int Analyze(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end) { ... // implementation uses AnalysisTable return result; } } // namespace MyNamespace There's only one copy of the table now, but it's exposed to the rest of the code. I'd rather keep this implementation detail hidden, so I introduced an unnamed namespace: namespace MyNamespace { namespace { // unnamed to hide AnalysisTable const int AnalysisTable[] = { /* data */ }; } // unnamed namespace template <typename InputIterator> int Analyze(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end) { ... // implementation uses AnalysisTable return result; } } // namespace MyNamespace But now I again have multiple copies of the table, because each compilation unit that includes this header file gets its own. If Analyze weren't a template, I could move all the implementation detail out of the header file. But it is a template, so I seem stuck. My next attempt was to put the table in the implementation file and to make an extern declaration within Analyze. // foo.h ------ namespace MyNamespace { template <typename InputIterator> int Analyze(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end) { extern const int AnalysisTable[]; ... // implementation uses AnalysisTable return result; } } // namespace MyNamespace // foo.cpp ------ #include "foo.h" namespace MyNamespace { const int AnalysisTable[] = { /* data */ }; } This looks like it should work, and--indeed--the compiler is satisfied. The linker, however, complains, "unresolved external symbol AnalysisTable." Drat! (Can someone explain what I'm missing here?) The only thing I could think of was to give the inner namespace a name, declare the table in the header, and provide the actual data in an implementation file: // foo.h ----- namespace MyNamespace { namespace PrivateStuff { extern const int AnalysisTable[]; } // unnamed namespace template <typename InputIterator> int Analyze(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end) { ... // implementation uses PrivateStuff::AnalysisTable return result; } } // namespace MyNamespace // foo.cpp ----- #include "foo.h" namespace MyNamespace { namespace PrivateStuff { const int AnalysisTable[] = { /* data */ }; } } Once again, I have exactly one instance of AnalysisTable (yay!), but other parts of the program can access it (boo!). The inner namespace makes it a little clearer that they shouldn't, but it's still possible. Is it possible to have one instance of the table and to move the table beyond the reach of everything but Analyze?

    Read the article

  • Why can't we capture the design of software more effectively?

    - by Ira Baxter
    As engineers, we all "design" artifacts (buildings, programs, circuits, molecules...). That's an activity (design-the-verb) that produces some kind of result (design-the-noun). I think we all agree that design-the-noun is a different entity than the artifact itself. A key activity in the software business (indeed, in any business where the resulting product artifact needs to be enhanced) is to understand the "design (the-noun)". Yet we seem, as a community, to be pretty much complete failures at recording it, as evidenced by the amount of effort people put into rediscovering facts about their code base. Ask somebody to show you the design of their code and see what you get. I think of a design for software as having: An explicit specification for what the software is supposed to do and how well it does it An explicit version of the code (this part is easy, everybody has it) An explanation for how each part of the code serves to achieve the specification A rationale as to why the code is the way it is (e.g., why a particualr choice rather than another) What is NOT a design is a particular perspective on the code. For example [not to pick specifically on] UML diagrams are not designs. Rather, they are properties you can derive from the code, or arguably, properties you wish you could derive from the code. But as a general rule, you can't derive the code from UML. Why is it that after 50+ years of building software, why don't we have regular ways to express this? My personal opinion is that we don't have good ways to express this. Even if we do, most of the community seems so focused on getting "code" that design-the-noun gets lost anyway. (IMHO, until design becomes the purpose of engineering, with the artifact extracted from the design, we're not going to get around this). What have you seen as means for recording designs (in the sense I have described it)? Explicit references to papers would be good. Why do you think specific and general means have not been succesful? How can we change this?

    Read the article

  • How can I improve my error checking and handling?

    - by Google
    Lately I have been struggling to understand what the right amount of checking is and what the proper methods are. I have a few questions regarding this: What is the proper way to check for errors (bad input, bad states, etc)? Is it better to explicitly check for errors, or use functions like asserts which can be optimized out of your final code? I feel like explicitly checking clutters a program with a lot of extra code which shouldn't be executed in most situations anyway-- and not to mention most errors end up with an abort/exit failure. Why clutter a function with explicit checks just to abort? I have looked for asserts versus explicit checking of errors and found little to truly explain when to do either. Most say 'use asserts to check for logic errors and use explicit checks to check for other failures.' This doesn't seem to get us very far though. Would we say this is feasible: Malloc returning null, check explictly API user inserting odd input for functions, use asserts Would this make me any better at error checking? What else can I do? I really want to improve and write better, 'professional' code.

    Read the article

  • Difference between performSelectorInBackground and NSOperation Subclass

    - by AmitSri
    I have created one testing app for running deep counter loop. I run the loop fuction in background thread using performSelectorInBackground and also NSOperation subclass separately. I am also using performSelectorOnMainThread to notify main thread within backgroundthread method and [NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] postNotificationName within NSOperation subclass to notify main thread for updating UI. Initially both the implementation giving me same result and i am able to update UI without having any problem. The only difference i found is the Thread count between two implementations. The performSelectorInBackground implementation created one thread and got terminated after loop finished and my app thread count again goes to 1. The NSOperation subclass implementation created two new threads and keep exists in the application and i can see 3 threads after loop got finished in main() function. So, my question is why two threads created by NSOperation and why it didn't get terminated just like the first background thread implementation? I am little bit confuse and unable to decide which implementation is best in-terms of performance and memory management. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Better to build or buy a compute grid platform?

    - by James B
    I am looking to do some quite processor-intensive brute force processing for string matching. I have run my prototype in a multi-threaded environment and compared the performance to an implementation using Gridgain with a couple of nodes (also multithreaded). The performance I observed was that my Gridgain implementation performed slower to my multithreaded implementation. It could be the case that there was a flaw in my gridgain implementation, but it was only a prototype, and I thought the results were indicative. So my question is this: What are the advantages of having to learn and then build an implementation for a particular grid platform (hadoop, gridgain, or EC2 if going hosted - other suggestions welcome), when one could fairly easily put together a lightweight compute grid platform with a much shallower learning curve?...i.e. what do we get for free with these cloud/grid platforms that are worth having/tricky to implement? (Please note, I don't have any need for a data grid) Cheers, -James (p.s. Happy to make this community wiki if needbe)

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >