Search Results

Search found 10285 results on 412 pages for 'cpu architecture'.

Page 56/412 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

  • Restrict violation of architecture - asp.net MVP

    - by Srikanth
    If we had a defined hierarchy in an application. For ex a 3 - tier architecture, how do we restrict subsequent developers from violating the norms? For ex, in case of MVP (not asp.net MVC) architecture, the presenter should always bind the model and view. This helps in writing proper unit test programs. However, we had instances where people directly imported the model in view and called the functions violating the norms and hence the test cases couldn't be written properly. Is there a way we can restrict which classes are allowed to inherit from a set of classes? I am looking at various possibilities, including adopting a different design pattern, however a new approach should be worth the code change involved.

    Read the article

  • Architecture Guidance for designing Workflow Foundation with WCF

    - by Matrix
    We are planning to use WF 3.5 with WCF 3.5 and Entity Framework 1.0 for the upcoming major project. I'm looking for guidance on the architecture side. This new application will be based on typical 3-tier architecture as depicted below: Presentation Tier: ASP.NET Web Forms 3.5 Business Tier: WF 3.5 + BLL's that expose the business logic through WCF service interfaces (using EF for Data Access) Data Tier: SQL Server 2000 Here are the questions: Though the Workflow Foundation has Workflow Services, where we can map the WCF service contracts to a workflow, is this the right way to design the applications? Is EF 1.0 business entities can be used in n-tier apps without sacrificing the tracking changes in the entities? Is there a sample reference application available to look? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Poco C++ library on OSX 10.8.2: Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64

    - by Arman
    I'm trying to use Poco C++ library to do the simple http requests in C++ on Mac OS X 10.8.2. I installed Poco, copy-pasted the http_request.cc code from this tutorial, ran it with 'g++ -o http_get http_get.cc -lPocoNet', but got: Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: "Poco::StreamCopier::copyStream(std::basic_istream<char, std::char_traits<char> >&, std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >&, unsigned long)", referenced from: _main in ccKuZb1g.o "Poco::URI::URI(char const*)", referenced from: _main in ccKuZb1g.o "Poco::URI::~URI()", referenced from: _main in ccKuZb1g.o "Poco::URI::getPathAndQuery() const", referenced from: _main in ccKuZb1g.o "Poco::URI::getPort() const", referenced from: _main in ccKuZb1g.o "Poco::Exception::displayText() const", referenced from: _main in ccKuZb1g.o "typeinfo for Poco::Exception", referenced from: GCC_except_table1 in ccKuZb1g.o ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Have been struggling with this for couple of hours. Any idea how to fix this? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • How would you rewrite/refactor this ?

    - by frostings
    Old application that is used by 50-60.000 paying customers. Company is several hundred people big. Application has a lot of business critical code (30% of all code) written in classic asp. Application has a lot more .net code. Application has a COM+ bridge for enabling asp to "talk" to .net Organization lacks some/a lot knowledge on what is causing the 10-20% server-reset per day (might be due to COM+ ?) There is no red line through the application; no architecture, no real patterns etc. The application has been like this for at least 5 years. The asp code base is increasing, slowly but certainly. I have read refactoring stories and I have knowledge on why you some of the times should not re-write a system. I would love for the old asp code to vanish as well as the COM+ component. But the pain is that no one really knows what is going on inside the asp classic code and the attitude inside all the teams are "this is just how it is". Down the line, this causes a lot of other issues like recruiting, dev effeciency, business needs that cannot be met, scale etc. With these little facts, does that justify a re-write of the asp code and the removal of the COM+ component ? How would you go about it ?

    Read the article

  • Should we enforce code style in our large codebase?

    - by eighttrackmind
    By "code style" I mean 2 things: Style, eg. // bad if(foo){ ... } // good if (foo) { ... } Conventions and idiomaticity, where two ways of writing the same thing are functionally equivalent, but one is more idiomatic. eg. // bad if (fooLib.equals(a, b)) { ... } // good if (a == b) { ... } I think it makes sense to use an auto-formatter to enforce #1 automatically. So my question is specifically about #2. I like to break things down into pros and cons, here's what I've come up with so far: Pros: Used by many large codebases (eg. Google, jQuery) Helps make it a bit easier to work on new areas of the codebase Helps make code more portable (this is not necessarily true) Code style is automatic once you get used to it Makes it easier to fast-decline pull requests Cons: Takes engineers’ and code reviewers’ time away from more important things (like developing features) Code should ideally be rewritten every 2-3 years anyway, so it’s more important to focus on getting the architecture right, and achieving high test coverage Adds strain to code reviews (eg. “don’t do it this way, I like this other way better”) Even if I’ve been using a code style for a while, I still sometime have to pause and think about how to write a line better Having an enforced, uniform code style makes it hard to experiment with potentially better styles Maintaining a style guide takes a lot of incremental effort Engineers rarely read through the style guide. More often, it's cited in code reviews And as a secondary question: we also have many smaller repositories - should the same code style be enforced there?

    Read the article

  • Mapping between 4+1 architectural view model & UML

    - by Sadeq Dousti
    I'm a bit confused about how the 4+1 architectural view model maps to UML. Wikipedia gives the following mapping: Logical view: Class diagram, Communication diagram, Sequence diagram. Development view: Component diagram, Package diagram Process view: Activity diagram Physical view: Deployment diagram Scenarios: Use-case diagram The paper Role of UML Sequence Diagram Constructs in Object Lifecycle Concept gives the following mapping: Logical view (class diagram (CD), object diagram (OD), sequence diagram (SD), collaboration diagram (COD), state chart diagram (SCD), activity diagram (AD)) Development view (package diagram, component diagram), Process view (use case diagram, CD, OD, SD, COD, SCD, AD), Physical view (deployment diagram), and Use case view (use case diagram, OD, SD, COD, SCD, AD) which combines the four mentioned above. The web page UML 4+1 View Materials presents the following mapping: Finally, the white paper Applying 4+1 View Architecture with UML 2 gives yet another mapping: Logical view class diagrams, object diagrams, state charts, and composite structures Process view sequence diagrams, communication diagrams, activity diagrams, timing diagrams, interaction overview diagrams Development view component diagrams Physical view deployment diagram Use case view use case diagram, activity diagrams I'm sure further search will reveal other mappings as well. While various people usually have different perspectives, I don't see why this is the case here. Specially, each UML diagram describes the system from a particular aspect. So, for instance, why the "sequence diagram" is considered as describing the "logical view" of the system by one author, while another author considers it as describing the "process view"? Could you please help me clarify the confusion?

    Read the article

  • A Primer on Migrating Oracle Applications to a New Platform

    - by Nick Quarmby
    In Support we field a lot of questions about the migration of Oracle Applications to different platforms.  This article describes the techniques available for migrating an Oracle Applications environment to a new platform and discusses some of the common questions that arise during migration.  This subject has been frequently discussed in previous blog articles but there still seems to be a gap regarding the type of questions we are frequently asked in Service Requests. Some of the questions we see are quite abstract. Customers simply want to get a grip on understanding how they approach a migration. Others want to know if a particular architecture is viable. Other customers ask about mixing different platforms within a single Oracle Applications environment.    Just to clarify, throughout this article, the term 'platform' refers specifically to operating systems and not to the underlying hardware. For a clear definition of 'platform' in the context of Oracle Applications Support then Terri's very timely article:Oracle E-Business Suite Platform SmörgåsbordThe migration process is very similar for both 11i and R12 so this article only mentions specific differences where relevant.

    Read the article

  • Git-based storage and publishing, infrastructure advice

    - by Joel Martinez
    I wanted to get some advice on moving a system to "the cloud" ... specifically, I'm looking to move into some of Windows Azure's managed services, as right now I'm managing a VM. Basically, the system operates on some data stored in a github git repository. I'll describe the current architecture: Current system (all hosted on a single server): GitHub - configured with a webhook pointing at ... ASP.NET MVC application - to accept the webhook from git. It pushes a message onto ... Azure service bus Queue - which is drained by ... Windows Service - pulls the message from the queue and ... Fetches the latest data from the git repository (using GitLib2Sharp) onto the local disk and finally ... Operates on the data in git to produce a static HTML website hosted/served by IIS. The system works really well, actually ... but I would like to get out of the business of managing the VM, and move to using some combination of Azure web and worker roles. But because the system relies so heavily on the git repository on the local filesystem, I'm finding it difficult to figure out how to architect in the cloud. I know you can get file system access, so in theory I could just fetch the repository if there's nothing on disk ... but the performance/responsiveness of the system sort of depends on the repository being available and only having to fetch diffs, which is relatively quick. As opposed to periodically having to fetch the entire (somewhat large) git repository if the web or worker role was recycled, or something. So I would love some advice on how you would architect such a system :) Ultimately, the only real requirement is to be able to serve HTML content that's been produced from the contents of a git repository (in a relatively responsive manner, from a publishing perspective) ... please feel free to ask any clarifying questions if there's something I omitted. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is Test Driven Development viable in game development?

    - by Will Marcouiller
    As being Scrum certified, I tend to prone for Agile methodologies while developping a system, and even use some canvas from the Scrum framework to manage my day-to-day work. Besides, I am wondering whether TDD is an option in game development, if it is viable? If I believe this GD question, TDD is not much of a use in game development. Why are MVC & TDD not employed more in game architecture? I come from industrial programming where big projects with big budgets need to work flawlessly, as it could result to catastrophic scenarios if the code wasn't throroughly tested inside and out. Plus, following Scrum rules encourages meeting the due dates of your work while every single action in Scrum is time-boxed! So, I agree when in the question linked above they say to stop trying to build a system, and start writing the game. It is quite what Scrum says, try not to build the perfect system, first: make it work by the Sprint end. Then, refactor the code while working in the second Sprint if needed! I understand that if not all departments responsible for the game development use Scrum, Scrum becomes useless. But let's consider for a moment that all the departments do use Scrum... I think that TDD would be good to write bug-free code, though you do not want to write the "perfect" system/game. So my question is the following: Is TDD viable in game development anyhow?

    Read the article

  • Tidbits of goodness - Podcasts, REST, JSON

    - by jeff.x.davies
    I've been quiet for a while, busy with a variety of projects. I did want to let you all know about a couple of things going on. First, I have been participating in architectural podcasts with Bob Rhubart. If you are interested in hearing these short (about 10 minutes each) recordings where a group of us discuss enterprise architecture and its future, check out http://blogs.oracle.com/archbeat/2010/05/podcast_show_notes_evolving_en.html Next, I have been working on the public sample code for the Oracle Service Bus 11g release. I'm now expanding my samples to include SCA, BPEL and the Oracle Adapters. This is really great experience for me because I have been learning these other tools to a deeper level and this provides insight into developing better solutions. You know the old saying, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to appraoch every problem as if it were a nail." However, I'm not the only one working on these samples. We have alot of our best and brightest working on sample code for the 11g release. Take a look at https://soasamples.samplecode.oracle.com/ to see all of the samples for SOA Suite 11g A reader wrote to me and asked me about using OSB to return information in JSON format. I don't have a sample posted for this yet, but I am working on getting one packaged up. In the mean time I can tell you that it is dead simple to do in OSB. Use the instructions I gave in an earlier blog entry on creating REST services using OSB, specify Messaging Service as the service type that takes a Text message and returns a Text message. Then have the OSB proxy service return a JSON formatted string (by replacing the contents of the $body variable with the JSON text) and you're done! This approach allows you to use OSB services from within Javascript/AJAX seamlessly. As I get more samples posted to the OTN site, I'll let you know. I have lots of interesting stuff on the way.

    Read the article

  • What are some arguments AGAINST using EntityFramework?

    - by Rachel
    The application I am currently building has been using Stored procedures and hand-crafted class models to represent database objects. Some people have suggested using Entity Framework and I am considering switching to that since I am not that far into the project. My problem is, I feel the people arguing for EF are only telling me the good side of things, not the bad side :) My main concerns are: We want Client-Side validation using DataAnnotations, and it sounds like I have to create the client-side models anyways so I am not sure that EF would save that much coding time We would like to keep the classes as small as possible when going over the network, and I have read that using EF often includes extra data that is not needed We have a complex database layer which crosses multiple databases, and I am not sure EF can handle this. We have one Common database with things like Users, StatusCodes, Types, etc and multiple instances of our main databases for different instances of the application. SELECT queries can and will query across all instances of the databases, however users can only modify objects that are in the database they are currently working on. They can switch databases without reloading the application. Object modes are very complex and there are often quite a few joins involved Arguments for EF are: Concurrency. I wouldn't have to code in checks to see if the record was updated before each save Code Generation. EF can generate partial class models and POCOs for me, however I am not positive this would really save me that much time since I think we would still need to create the client-side models for validation and some custom parsing methods. Speed of development since we wouldn't need to create the CRUD stored procedures for every database object Our current architecture consists of a WPF Service which handles database calls via parameterized Stored Procedures, POCO objects that go to/from the WCF service and the WPF client, and the WPF client itself which transforms POCOs into class Models for the purpose of Validation and DataBinding.

    Read the article

  • Decoupling software components via naming convention

    - by csteinmueller
    I'm currently evaluating alternatives to refactor a drivermanagement. In my multitier architecture I have Baseclass DAL.Device //my entity Interfaces BL.IDriver //handles the dataprocessing between application and device BL.IDriverCreator //creates an IDriver from a Device BL.IDriverFactory //handles the driver creation requests Every specialization of Device has a corresponding IDriver implementation and a corresponding IDriverCreator implementation. At the moment the mapping is fix via a type check within the business layer / DriverFactory. That means every new driver needs a) changing code within the DriverFactory and b) referencing the new IDriver implementation / assembly. On a customers point of view that means, every new driver, used or not, needs a complex revalidation of their hardware environment, because it's a critical process. My first inspiration was to use a caliburn micro like nameconvention see Caliburn.Micro: Xaml Made Easy BL.RestDriver BL.RestDriverCreator DAL.RestDevice After receiving the RestDevicewithin the IDriverFactory I can load all driver dlls via reflection and do a namesplitting/comparing (extracting the xx from xxDriverCreator and xxDevice) Another idea would be a custom attribute (which also leads to comparing strings). My question: is that a good approach above layer borders? If not, what would be a good approach?

    Read the article

  • Architectural Composition Languages

    - by C. Lawrence Wenham
    Recently stumbled upon this paper (PDF) talking about ACLs, or Architectural Composition Languages. They're a fusion of two earlier lines of research: Architectural Definition Languages (such as UML) and Object Composition Languages (such as XAML, WWF, or scripting languages). The goal of an ACL is to have a high-level description of a program's architecture which can also be compiled into a runnable program. The high-level description assists automated analysis, while the 'executability' means changes can be tested immediately. You would still author the components of the program in a conventional programming language (C, Java, Python, etc), but they would be composed into a complete program by the ACL. One of the expected benefits is that a program can be ported to a different platform by swapping in "similar but different" components. I've been hankering for something like this for a long time (see this answer I gave on a StackOverflow question a few years ago). The paper mentions that the researchers were working on a language called ACL/1 that initially targeted Java, but would be ported to support .Net as well. However, I can't find any more mention of ACL/1 anywhere. Has there been any more work done on this? Are there any other implementations of the ACL concept that are available for use or experimentation?

    Read the article

  • Microkernel architectural pattern and applicability for business applications

    - by Pangea
    We are in the business of building customizable web applications. We have the core team that provides what we call as the core platform (provides services like security, billing etc.) on top of which core products are built. These core products are industry specific solutions like telecom, utility etc. These core products are later used by other teams to build customer specific solutions in a particular industry. Until now we have a loose separation between platform and core product. The customer specific solutions are build by customizing 20-40% of the core offering and re-packaging. The core-platform and core products are released together as monolithic apps (ear). I am looking to improvise the current situation so that there is a cleaner separation on these 3. This allows us to have evolve each of these 3 separately etc. I've read through the Mircokernel architecture and kind of felt that I can take apply the principles in my context. But most of my reading about this pattern is always in the context of operating systems or application servers etc. I am wondering if there are any examples on how that pattern was used for architecting business applications. Or you could provide some insight on how to apply that pattern to my problem.

    Read the article

  • The best way to structure/design game code

    - by Edward
    My question is quite broad and related to the 2D game code design/architecture/structure. Usually the main game consists of the main loop where you update & render your world states. However, it's recommended for many purposes to separate rendering from the game-logic and so on. I am kinda confused about the whole situation. Many game engines/libs/sdks don't follow separation schema. They propagate a way where you define some scenes/stages and they contain some objects and the scene/stage controls the user input and so on. For example, in cocos2d(-x) and libgdx (stage2d) the games are usually done the way that the update logic happens at the same time/place as rendering. Also, the propagated way is to have a structure where an object knows how to draw itself - which is not a separation of updating & rendering. The same with Flash based games, they are usually done the way when an object (class) contains a swf or a texture and some data and holds some update logic itself, or updated from main Scene. And again this object already knows how to draw itself via "addChild". Also, some people recommend to use MVC pattern, which will require to completely obey the structure of those engines/libs/sdks. Maybe I am overthinking everything, but I am totally confused. I would be grateful if somebody could point me to a correct direction with the game code structures. What is your way of doing things in libgdx/cocos2d/flash?

    Read the article

  • Securing credentials passed to web service

    - by Greg Smith
    I'm attempting to design a single sign on system for use in a distributed architecture. Specifically, I must provide a way for a client website (that is, a website on a different domain/server/network) to allow users to register accounts on my central system. So, when the user takes an action on a client website, and that action is deemed to require an account, the client will produce a page (on their site/domain) where the user can register for a new account by providing an email and password. The client must then send this information to a web service, which will register the account and return some session token type value. The client will need to hash the password before sending it across the wire, and the webservice will require https, but this doesn't feel like it's safe enough and I need some advice on how I can implement this in the most secure way possible. A few other bits of relevant information: Ideally we'd prefer not to share any code with the client We've considered just redirecting the user to a secure page on the same server as the webservice, but this is likely to be rejected for non-technical reasons. We almost certainaly need to salt the password before hashing and passing it over, but that requires the client to either a) generate the salt and communicate it to us, or b) come and ask us for the salt - both feel dirty. Any help or advice is most appreciated.

    Read the article

  • UML Diagrams of Multi-Threaded Applications

    - by PersonalNexus
    For single-threaded applications I like to use class diagrams to get an overview of the architecture of that application. This type of diagram, however, hasn’t been very helpful when trying to understand heavily multi-threaded/concurrent applications, for instance because different instances of a class "live" on different threads (meaning accessing an instance is save only from the one thread it lives on). Consequently, associations between classes don’t necessarily mean that I can call methods on those objects, but instead I have to make that call on the target object's thread. Most literature I have dug up on the topic such as Designing Concurrent, Distributed, and Real-Time Applications with UML by Hassan Gomaa had some nice ideas, such as drawing thread boundaries into object diagrams, but overall seemed a bit too academic and wordy to be really useful. I don’t want to use these diagrams as a high-level view of the problem domain, but rather as a detailed description of my classes/objects, their interactions and the limitations due to thread-boundaries I mentioned above. I would therefore like to know: What types of diagrams have you found to be most helpful in understanding multi-threaded applications? Are there any extensions to classic UML that take into account the peculiarities of multi-threaded applications, e.g. through annotations illustrating that some objects might live in a certain thread while others have no thread-affinity; some fields of an object may be read from any thread, but written to only from one; some methods are synchronous and return a result while others are asynchronous that get requests queued up and return results for instance via a callback on a different thread.

    Read the article

  • Efficiency concerning thread granularity

    - by MaelmDev
    Lately, I've been thinking of ways to use multithreading to improve the speed of different parts of a game engine. What confuses me is the appropriate granularity of threads, especially when dealing with single-instruction-multiple-data (SIMD) tasks. Let's use line-of-sight detection as an example. Each AI actor must be able to detect objects of interest around them and mark them. There are three basic ways to go about this with multithreading: Don't use threading at all. Create a thread for each actor. Create a thread for each actor-object combination. Option 1 is obviously going to be the least efficient method. However, choosing between the next two options is more difficult. Only using one thread per actor is still running through every object in series instead of in parallel. However, are CPU's able to create and join threads in the granularity posed in Option 3 efficiently? It seems like that many calls to the OS could be really slow, and varying enormously between different hardware.

    Read the article

  • Processing component pools problem - Entity Subsystem

    - by mani3xis
    Architecture description I'm creating (designing) an entity system and I ran into many problems. I'm trying to keep it Data-Oriented and efficient as much as possible. My components are POD structures (array of bytes to be precise) allocated in homogeneous pools. Each pool has a ComponentDescriptor - it just contains component name, field types and field names. Entity is just a pointer to array of components (where address acts like an entity ID). EntityPrototype contains entity name and array of component names. Finally Subsystem (System or Processor) which works on component pools. Actual problem The problem is that some components dependents on others (Model, Sprite, PhysicalBody, Animation depends on Transform component) which makes a lot of problems when it comes to processing them. For example, lets define some entities using [S]prite, [P]hysicalBody and [H]ealth: Tank: Transform, Sprite, PhysicalBody BgTree: Transform, Sprite House: Transform, Sprite, Health and create 4 Tanks, 5 BgTrees and 2 Houses and my pools will look like: TTTTTTTTTTT // Transform pool SSSSSSSSSSS // Sprite pool PPPP // PhysicalBody pool HH // Health component There is no way to process them using indices. I spend 3 days working on it and I still don't have any ideas. In previous designs TransformComponent was bound to the entity - but it wasn't a good idea. Can you give me some advices how to process them? Or maybe I should change the overall design? Maybe I should create pools of entites (pools of component pools) - but I guess it will be a nightmare for CPU caches. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How should I host our scalable worker processes?

    - by Pieter Breed
    We are designing a new architecture for an enterprise business. The principles we've followed so far is not to develop what you can (possible buy and) deploy, ie, don't reinvent any wheels. In this way we've decided on CQRS, RabbitMQ, Riak and a bunch of other things. We still need to write /some/ business code though and these will be in the form of worker processes, which will consume commands from a message queue and after any side-effects, produce events onto another message queue. The idea behind this is that via the competing-consumers design we will have a scalable design right out of the box. One option is of writing a management infrastructure that will know how to: deploy code instantiate processes kill processes update configuration etc IE provide fault tolerance and scalability. Also, this is exactly what something like GAE and Heroku does for you, but in a public setting and in our organization, public is bad. My question is, is there an out-of-the-box solution that we can use to host our consumers in? Like a private cloud or private platform-as-a-service. Private Heroku or GAE. Is there some kind of software or software product with which we can do all of these things and thereby get scalability and fault tolerance over our consumers?

    Read the article

  • CQRS applicability when some commands need to block the UI

    - by regularfry
    I am working on an app which I would dearly love to transition from a fairly traditional layered architecture to CQRS, for a number of reasons, not least fo which is that having a robust event log will make adding a couple of feature requests I can see barrelling towards me trivial to accomodate. Now, I have a conceptual problem: of around 40 commands the user can initiate, there are three which the user needs to be sure have successfully completed before the UI lets them do anything else. Everything else fits into the "submit a request, query for success later" model, except for these three commands. How is this handled in CQRS-land? Do I separate the three blocking commands to effectively a third service, so I have Commands, Queries, and BlockingCommands? Do I have a two-stage event processor with an in-request blocking first stage which only gets used for the blocking commands? Does the existence of these three commands mean that the whole idea of applying CQRS is invalid? Should I just pretend they aren't blocking and poll for success in the UI? I'm sure this must come up on other projects, how is it usually handled?

    Read the article

  • Tips about how to spread Object Oriented practices

    - by Augusto
    I work for a medium company that has around 250 developers. Unfortunately, lots of them are stuck in a procedural way of thinking and some teams constantly deliver big Transactional Script applications, when in fact the application contains rich logic. They also fail to manage the design dependencies, and end up with services which depend on another large number of services (a clean example of Big Ball of Mud). My question is: Can you suggest how to spread this type of knowledge? I know that the surface of the problem is that these applications have a poor architecture and design. Another issue is that there are some developers who are against writing any kind of test. A few things I'm doing to change this (but I'm either failing or the change is too small are) Running presentations about design principles (SOLID, clean code, etc). Workshops about TDD and BDD. Coaching teams (this includes using sonar, findbugs, jdepend and other tools). IDE & Refactoring talks. A few things I'm thinking to do in the future (but I'm concern that they might not be good) Form a team of OO evangelists, who disseminate an OO way of thinking in differet teams (these people would need to change teams every few months). Running design review sessions, to criticise the design and suggest improvements (even if the improvements are not done because of time constraints, I think this might be useful) . Something I found with the teams I coach, is that as soon as I leave them, they revert back to the old practices. I know I don't spend a lot of time with them, usually just one month. So whatever I'm doing, it doesn't stick. I'm sorry this question is spattered with frustration, but the alterative to write this was to hit my head on the wall until I pass out.

    Read the article

  • Loadbalancing Questions

    - by Van Holtz
    I have been learning networking for about 4 months. Wrote a single standalone Multiplayer server and succeeded with authoritative approach. Now I want to extend it by splitting the single server into clusters to allow even more players to log in to avoid latency issues. Now I have protyped the Loadbalancing server and its running pretty good so far. This is my architecture, I have a master server which acts as a proxy, every sub servers(chat, login, game) connect to the master server as well as all the clients. when a client connects, Client Request: Send Request - MS(Master) - Decides which SS(SubServer) to forward to - Forwards Request to SS - SS - Analyze Message - Send Response to MS - Decides which Client to forward to - Forwards Response to Client Well, it looks like its going through lots of stages. it takes double the time to process the message than a single server approach. i feel like my model isnt the best or i may be wrong. is there any better model or the one they use in professional games? I still want a Master-SubServer approach. I just want to clarify that I'm going in the right direction before writing all my codes. Thanks for any answer :)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >