Search Results

Search found 3574 results on 143 pages for 'difficult'.

Page 7/143 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • State Changes in a Component Based Architecture [closed]

    - by Maxem
    I'm currently working on a game and using the naive component based architecture thingie (Entities are a bag of components, entity.Update() calls Update on each updateable component), while the addition of new features is really simple, it makes a few things really difficult: a) multithreading / currency b) networking c) unit testing. Multithreading / Concurrency is difficult because I basically have to do poor mans concurrency (running the entity updates in separate threads while locking only stuff that crashes (like lists) and ignoring the staleness of read state (some states are already updated, others aren't)) Networking: There are no explicit state changes that I could efficiently push over the net. Unit testing: All updates may or may not conflict, so automated testing is at least awkward. I was thinking about these issues a bit and would like your input on these changes / idea: Switch from the naive cba to a cba with sub systems that work on lists of components Make all state changes explicit Combine 1 and 2 :p Example world update: statePostProcessing.Wait() // ensure that post processing has finished Apply(postProcessedState) state = new StateBag() Concurrently( () => LifeCycleSubSystem.Update(state), // populates the state bag () => MovementSubSystem.Update(state), // populates the state bag .... }) statePostProcessing = Future(() => PostProcess(state)) statePostProcessing.Start() // Tick is finished, the post processing happens in the background So basically the changes are (consistently) based on the data for the last tick; the post processing can a) generate network packages and b) fix conflicts / remove useless changes (example: entity has been destroyed - ignore movement etc.). EDIT: To clarify the granularity of the state changes: If I save these post processed state bags and apply them to an empty world, I see exactly what has happened in the game these state bags originated from - "Free" replay capability. EDIT2: I guess I should have used the term Event instead of State Change and point out that I kind of want to use the Event Sourcing pattern

    Read the article

  • Can this Query be corrected or different table structure needed? (database dumps provided)

    - by sandeepan
    This is a bit lengthy but I have provided sufficient details and kept things very clear. Please see if you can help. (I will surely accept answer if it solves my problem) I am sure a person experienced with this can surely help or suggest me to decide the tables structure. About the system:- There are tutors who create classes A tags based search approach is being followed Tag relations are created/edited when new tutors registers/edits profile data and when tutors create classes (this makes tutors and classes searcheable).For simplicity, let us consider only tutor name and class name are the fields which are matched against search keywords. In this example, I am considering - tutor "Sandeepan Nath" has created a class called "first class" tutor "Bob Cratchit" has created a class called "new class" Desired search results- AND logic to be appied on the search keywords and match against class and tutor data(class name + tutor name), in other words, All those classes be shown such that all the search terms are present in the class name or its tutor name. Example to be clear - Searching "first class" returns class with id_wc = 1. Working Searching "Sandeepan class" should also return class with id_wc = 1. Not working in System 2. Problem with profile editing and searching To tell in one sentence, I am facing a conflict between the ease of profile edition (edition of tag relations when tutor profiles are edited) and the ease of search logic. In the beginning, we had one table structure and search was easy but tag edition logic was very clumsy and unmaintainable(Check System 1 in the section below) . So we created separate tag relations tables to make profile edition simpler but search has become difficult. Please dump the tables so that you can run the search query I have given below and see the results. System 1 (previous system - search easy - profile edition difficult):- Only one table called All_Tag_Relations table had the all the tag relations. The tags table below is common to both systems 1 and 2. CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `all_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 1, 1, NULL), (2, 2, 1, NULL), (3, 1, 1, 1), (4, 2, 1, 1), (5, 3, 1, 1), (6, 4, 1, 1), (7, 6, 2, NULL), (8, 7, 2, NULL), (9, 6, 2, 2), (10, 7, 2, 2), (11, 5, 2, 2), (12, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); Please note that for every class, the tag rels of its tutor have to be duplicated. Example, for class with id_wc=1, the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 3 and 4 are actually extras if you compare with the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 1 and 2. System 2 (present system - profile edition easy, search difficult) Two separate tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations have the corresponding tag relations data (Please dump into a separate database)- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tutors_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `tutors_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`) VALUES (1, 1, 1), (2, 2, 1), (3, 6, 2), (4, 7, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `webclasses_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `webclasses_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `webclasses_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 3, 1, 1), (2, 4, 1, 1), (3, 5, 2, 2), (4, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,NULL from Tutors_Tag_Relations; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,id_wc from Webclasses_Tag_Relations; Here you can see how easily tutor first name can be edited only in one place. But search has become really difficult, so on being advised to use a Temporary table, I am creating one at every search request, then dumping all the necessary data and then searching from it, I am creating this All_Tag_Relations table at search run time. Here I am just dumping all the data from the two tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations. But, I am still not able to get classes if I search with tutor name This is the query which searches "first class". Running them on both the systems shows correct results (returns the class with id_wc = 1). SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =3)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =3 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 But, searching for "Sandeepan class" works only with the 1st system Here is the query which searches "Sandeepan class" SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =1)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =1 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 Can anybody alter this query and somehow do a proper join or something to get correct results. That solves my problem in a nice way. As you can figure out, the reason why it does not work in system 2 is that in system 1, for every class, one additional tag relation linking class and tutor name is present. e.g. for class first class, (records with id_tag_rel 3 and 4) which returns the class on searching with tutor name. So, you see the trade-off between the search and profile edition difficulty with the two systems. How do I overcome both. I have to reach a conclusion soon. So far my reasoning is it is definitely not good from a code maintainability point of view to follow the single tag rel table structure of system one, because in a real system while editing a field like "tutor qualifications", there can be as many records in tag rels table as there are words in qualification of a tutor (one word in a field = one tag relation). Now suppose a tutor has 100 classes. When he edits his qualification, all the tag rel rows corresponding to him are deleted and then as many copies are to be created (as per the new qualification data) as there are classes. This becomes particularly difficult if later more searcheable fields are added. The code cannot be robust. Is the best solution to follow system 2 (edition has to be in one table - no extra work for each and every class) and somehow re-create the all_tag_relations table like system 1 (from the tables tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations), creating the extra tutor tag rels for each and every class by a tutor (which is currently missing in system 2's temporary all_tag_relations table). That would be a time consuming logic script. I doubt that table can be recreated without resorting to PHP sript (mysql alone cannot do that). But the problem is that running all this at search time will make search definitely slow. So, how do such systems work? How are such situations handled? I thought about we can run a cron which initiates that PHP script, say every 1 minute and replaces the existing all_tag_relations table as per new tag rels from tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations (replaces means creates a new table, deletes the original and renames the new one as all_tag_relations, otherwise search won't work during that period- or is there any better way to that?). Anyway, the result would be that any changes by tutors will reflect in search in the next 1 minute and not immediately. An alternateve would be to initate that PHP script every time a tutor edits his profile. But here again, since many users may edit their profiles concurrently, will the creation of so many tables be a burden and can mysql make the server slow? Any help would be appreciated and working solution will be accepted as answer. Thanks, Sandeepan

    Read the article

  • Can this Query can be corrected or different table structure needed? (question is clear, detailed, d

    - by sandeepan
    This is a bit lengthy but I have provided sufficient details and kept things very clear. Please see if you can help. (I will surely accept answer if it solves my problem) I am sure a person experienced with this can surely help or suggest me to decide the tables structure. About the system:- There are tutors who create classes A tags based search approach is being followed Tag relations are created/edited when new tutors registers/edits profile data and when tutors create classes (this makes tutors and classes searcheable).For simplicity, let us consider only tutor name and class name are the fields which are matched against search keywords. In this example, I am considering - tutor "Sandeepan Nath" has created a class called "first class" tutor "Bob Cratchit" has created a class called "new class" Desired search results- AND logic to be appied on the search keywords and match against class and tutor data(class name + tutor name), in other words, All those classes be shown such that all the search terms are present in the class name or its tutor name. Example to be clear - Searching "first class" returns class with id_wc = 1. Working Searching "Sandeepan class" should also return class with id_wc = 1. Not working in System 2. Problem with profile editing and searching To tell in one sentence, I am facing a conflict between the ease of profile edition (edition of tag relations when tutor profiles are edited) and the ease of search logic. In the beginning, we had one table structure and search was easy but tag edition logic was very clumsy and unmaintainable(Check System 1 in the section below) . So we created separate tag relations tables to make profile edition simpler but search has become difficult. Please dump the tables so that you can run the search query I have given below and see the results. System 1 (previous system - search easy - profile edition difficult):- Only one table called All_Tag_Relations table had the all the tag relations. The tags table below is common to both systems 1 and 2. CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `all_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 1, 1, NULL), (2, 2, 1, NULL), (3, 1, 1, 1), (4, 2, 1, 1), (5, 3, 1, 1), (6, 4, 1, 1), (7, 6, 2, NULL), (8, 7, 2, NULL), (9, 6, 2, 2), (10, 7, 2, 2), (11, 5, 2, 2), (12, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); Please note that for every class, the tag rels of its tutor have to be duplicated. Example, for class with id_wc=1, the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 3 and 4 are actually extras if you compare with the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 1 and 2. System 2 (present system - profile edition easy, search difficult) Two separate tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations have the corresponding tag relations data (Please dump into a separate database)- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tutors_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `tutors_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`) VALUES (1, 1, 1), (2, 2, 1), (3, 6, 2), (4, 7, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `webclasses_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `webclasses_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `webclasses_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 3, 1, 1), (2, 4, 1, 1), (3, 5, 2, 2), (4, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,NULL from Tutors_Tag_Relations; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,id_wc from Webclasses_Tag_Relations; Here you can see how easily tutor first name can be edited only in one place. But search has become really difficult, so on being advised to use a Temporary table, I am creating one at every search request, then dumping all the necessary data and then searching from it, I am creating this All_Tag_Relations table at search run time. Here I am just dumping all the data from the two tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations. But, I am still not able to get classes if I search with tutor name This is the query which searches "first class". Running them on both the systems shows correct results (returns the class with id_wc = 1). SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =3)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =3 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 But, searching for "Sandeepan class" works only with the 1st system Here is the query which searches "Sandeepan class" SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =1)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =1 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 Can anybody alter this query and somehow do a proper join or something to get correct results. That solves my problem in a nice way. As you can figure out, the reason why it does not work in system 2 is that in system 1, for every class, one additional tag relation linking class and tutor name is present. e.g. for class first class, (records with id_tag_rel 3 and 4) which returns the class on searching with tutor name. So, you see the trade-off between the search and profile edition difficulty with the two systems. How do I overcome both. I have to reach a conclusion soon. So far my reasoning is it is definitely not good from a code maintainability point of view to follow the single tag rel table structure of system one, because in a real system while editing a field like "tutor qualifications", there can be as many records in tag rels table as there are words in qualification of a tutor (one word in a field = one tag relation). Now suppose a tutor has 100 classes. When he edits his qualification, all the tag rel rows corresponding to him are deleted and then as many copies are to be created (as per the new qualification data) as there are classes. This becomes particularly difficult if later more searcheable fields are added. The code cannot be robust. Is the best solution to follow system 2 (edition has to be in one table - no extra work for each and every class) and somehow re-create the all_tag_relations table like system 1 (from the tables tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations), creating the extra tutor tag rels for each and every class by a tutor (which is currently missing in system 2's temporary all_tag_relations table). That would be a time consuming logic script. I doubt that table can be recreated without resorting to PHP sript (mysql alone cannot do that). But the problem is that running all this at search time will make search definitely slow. So, how do such systems work? How are such situations handled? I thought about we can run a cron which initiates that PHP script, say every 1 minute and replaces the existing all_tag_relations table as per new tag rels from tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations (replaces means creates a new table, deletes the original and renames the new one as all_tag_relations, otherwise search won't work during that period- or is there any better way to that?). Anyway, the result would be that any changes by tutors will reflect in search in the next 1 minute and not immediately. An alternateve would be to initate that PHP script every time a tutor edits his profile. But here again, since many users may edit their profiles concurrently, will the creation of so many tables be a burden and can mysql make the server slow? Any help would be appreciated and working solution will be accepted as answer. Thanks, Sandeepan

    Read the article

  • Unique Business Value vs. Unique IT

    - by barry.perkins
    When the age of computing started, technology was new, exciting, full of potential and had a long way to grow. Vendor architectures were proprietary, and limited in function at first, growing in capability and complexity over time. There were few if any "standards", let alone "open standards" and the concepts of "open systems", and "open architectures" were far in the future. Companies employed intelligent, talented and creative people to implement the best possible solutions for their company. At first, those solutions were "unique" to each company. As time progressed, standards emerged, companies shared knowledge, business capability supplied by technology grew, and companies continued to expand their use of technology. Taking advantage of change required companies to struggle through periodic "revolutionary" change cycles, struggling through costly changes that were fraught with risk, resulted in solutions with an increasingly shorter half-life, and frequently required altering existing business processes and retraining employees and partner businesses. The pace of technological invention and implementation grew at an ever increasing rate, making the "revolutionary" approach based upon "proprietary" or "closed" architectures or technologies no longer viable. Concurrent with the advancement of technology, the rate of change in business increased, leading us to the incredibly fast paced, highly charged, and competitive global economy that we have today, where the most successful companies are companies that are good at implementing, leveraging and exploiting change. Fast forward to today, a world where dramatic changes in business and technology happen continually, a world where "evolutionary" change is crucial. Companies can no longer afford to build "unique IT", nor can they afford regular intervals of "revolutionary" change, with the associated costs and risks. Human ingenuity was once again up to the task, turning technology into a platform supporting business through evolutionary change, by employing "open": open standards; open systems; open architectures; and open solutions. Employing "open", enables companies to implement systems based upon technology, capability and standards that will evolve over time, providing a solid platform upon which a company can drive business needs, requirements, functions, and processes down into the technology, rather than exposing technology to the business, allowing companies to focus on providing "unique business value" rather than "unique IT". The big question! Does moving from "older" technology that no longer meets the needs of today's business, to new "open" technology require yet another "revolutionary change"? A "revolutionary" change with a short half-life, camouflaging reality with great marketing? The answer is "perhaps". With the endless options available to choose from, it is entirely possible to implement a solution that may work well today, but in 5 years time will become yet another albatross for the company to bear. Some solutions may look good today, solving a budget challenge by reducing cost, or solving a specific tactical challenge, but result in highly complex environments, that may be difficult to manage and maintain and limit the future potential of your business. Put differently, some solutions might push today's challenge into the future, resulting in a more complex and expensive solution. There is no such thing as a "1 size fits all" IT solution for business. If all companies implemented business solutions based upon technology that required, or forced the same business processes across all businesses in an industry, it would be extremely difficult to show competitive advantage through "unique business value". It would be equally difficult to "evolve" to meet or exceed business needs and keep up with today's rapid pace of change. How does one ensure that they do not jump from one trap directly into another? Or to put it positively, there are solutions available today that can address these challenges and issues. How does one ensure that the buying decision of today will serve the business well for years into the future? Intelligent & Informed decisions - "buying right" In a previous blog entry, we discussed the value of linking tactical to strategic The key is driving the focus to what is best for your business, handling today's tactical issues while also aligning with a roadmap/strategy that is tightly aligned with your strategic business objectives. When considering the plethora of possible options that provide various approaches to solving today's complex business problems, it is extremely important to ensure that vendors supplying those options, focus on what is best for your business, supplying sufficient information, providing adequate answers to questions, addressing challenges, issues, concerns and objections honestly and openly, and focus on supplying solutions that are tailored for, and deliver the most business value possible for your business. Here are a few questions to consider relative to the proposed options that should help ensure that today's solution doesn't become tomorrow's problem. Do the proposed solutions: Solve the problem(s) you are trying to address? Provide a solid foundation upon which to grow/enhance your business? Provide tactical gains that align with and enable your strategic business goals/objectives? Provide an infrastructure that can be leveraged with subsequent projects? Solve problems for the business overall, the lines of business, or just IT? Simplify your current environment Provide the basis for business: Efficiency Agility Clarity governance, risk, compliance real time business visibility and trend analysis Does your IT staff have the knowledge/experience to successfully manage the proposed systems once they are deployed in production? Done well, you will be presented with options tailored to your business, that enable you to drive the "unique business value" necessary to help your business stand out from others, creating a distinct competitive advantage, delivering what your customers need, when they need it, so you can attract new customers, new business, and grow top line revenue, all at a cost that provides a strong Return on Investment/Return on Assets. The net result is growth with managed cost providing significantly improved profit margin and shareholder value.

    Read the article

  • Stumbling Through: Making a case for the K2 Case Management Framework

    I have recently attended a three-day training session on K2s Case Management Framework (CMF), a free framework built on top of K2s blackpearl workflow product, and I have come away with several different impressions for some of the different aspects of the framework.  Before we get into the details, what is the Case Management Framework?  It is essentially a suite of tools that, when used together, solve many common workflow scenarios.  The tool has been developed over time by K2 consultants that have realized they tend to solve the same problems over and over for various clients, so they attempted to package all of those common solutions into one framework.  Most of these common problems involve workflow process that arent necessarily direct and would tend to be difficult to model.  Such solutions could be achieved in blackpearl alone, but the workflows would be complex and difficult to follow and maintain over time.  CMF attempts to simplify such scenarios not so much by black-boxing the workflow processes, but by providing different points of entry to the processes allowing them to be simpler, moving the complexity to a middle layer.  It is not a solution in and of itself, development is still required to tie the pieces together. CMF is under continuous development, both a plus and a minus in that bugs are fixed quickly and features added regularly, but it may be difficult to know which versions are the most stable.  CMF is not an officially supported K2 product, which means you will not get technical support but you will get access to the source code. The example given of a business process that would fit well into CMF is that of a file cabinet, where each folder in said file cabinet is a case that contains all of the data associated with one complaint/customer/incident/etc. and various users can access that case at any time and take one of a set of pre-determined actions on it.  When I was given that example, my first thought was that any workflow I have ever developed in the past could be made to fit this model there must be more than just this model to help decide if CMF is the right solution.  As the training went on, we learned that one of the key features of CMF is SharePoint integration as each case gets a SharePoint site created for it, and there are a number of excellent web parts that can be used to design a portal for users to get at all the information on their cases.  While CMF does not require SharePoint, without it you will be missing out on a huge portion of functionality that CMF offers.  My opinion is that without SharePoint integration, you may as well write your workflows and other components the old fashioned way. When I heard that each case gets its own SharePoint site created for it, warning bells immediately went off in my head as I felt that depending on the data load, a CMF enabled solution could quickly overwhelm SharePoint with thousands of sites so we have yet another deciding factor for CMF:  Just how many cases will your solution be creating?  While it is not necessary to use the site-per-case model, it is one of the more useful parts of the framework.  Without it, you are losing a big chunk of what CMF has to offer. When it comes to developing on top of the Case Management Framework, it becomes a matter of configuring what makes up a case, what can be done to a case, where each action on a case should take the user, and then typing up actions to case statuses.  This last step is one that I immediately warmed up to, as just about every workflow Ive designed in the past needed some sort of mapping table to set the status of a work item based on the action being taken definitely one of those common solutions that it is good to see rolled up into a re-useable entity (and it gets a nice configuration UI to boot!).  This concept is a little different than traditional workflow design, in that you dont have to think of an end-to-end process around passing a case along a path, rather, you must envision the case as central object with workflow threads branching off of it and doing their own thing with the case data.  Certainly there can be certain workflow threads that get rather complex, but the idea is that they RELATE to the case, they dont BECOME the case (though it is still possible with action->status mappings to prevent certain actions in certain cases, so it isnt always a wide-open free for all of actions on a case). I realize that this description of the Case Management Framework merely scratches the surface on what the product actually can do, and I dont think Ive conclusively defined for what sort of business scenario you can make a case for Case Management Framework.  What I do hope to have accomplished with this post is to raise awareness of CMF there is a (free!) product out there that could potentially simplify a tangled workflow process and give (for free!) a very useful set of SharePoint web parts and a nice set of (free!) reports.  The best way to see if it will truly fit your needs is to give it a try did I mention it is FREE?  Er, ok, so it is free, but only obtainable at this time for K2 partnersDid you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • When is my View too smart?

    - by Kyle Burns
    In this posting, I will discuss the motivation behind keeping View code as thin as possible when using patterns such as MVC, MVVM, and MVP.  Once the motivation is identified, I will examine some ways to determine whether a View contains logic that belongs in another part of the application.  While the concepts that I will discuss are applicable to most any pattern which favors a thin View, any concrete examples that I present will center on ASP.NET MVC. Design patterns that include a Model, a View, and other components such as a Controller, ViewModel, or Presenter are not new to application development.  These patterns have, in fact, been around since the early days of building applications with graphical interfaces.  The reason that these patterns emerged is simple – the code running closest to the user tends to be littered with logic and library calls that center around implementation details of showing and manipulating user interface widgets and when this type of code is interspersed with application domain logic it becomes difficult to understand and much more difficult to adequately test.  By removing domain logic from the View, we ensure that the View has a single responsibility of drawing the screen which, in turn, makes our application easier to understand and maintain. I was recently asked to take a look at an ASP.NET MVC View because the developer reviewing it thought that it possibly had too much going on in the view.  I looked at the .CSHTML file and the first thing that occurred to me was that it began with 40 lines of code declaring member variables and performing the necessary calculations to populate these variables, which were later either output directly to the page or used to control some conditional rendering action (such as adding a class name to an HTML element or not rendering another element at all).  This exhibited both of what I consider the primary heuristics (or code smells) indicating that the View is too smart: Member variables – in general, variables in View code are an indication that the Model to which the View is being bound is not sufficient for the needs of the View and that the View has had to augment that Model.  Notable exceptions to this guideline include variables used to hold information specifically related to rendering (such as a dynamically determined CSS class name or the depth within a recursive structure for indentation purposes) and variables which are used to facilitate looping through collections while binding. Arithmetic – as with member variables, the presence of arithmetic operators within View code are an indication that the Model servicing the View is insufficient for its needs.  For example, if the Model represents a line item in a sales order, it might seem perfectly natural to “normalize” the Model by storing the quantity and unit price in the Model and multiply these within the View to show the line total.  While this does seem natural, it introduces a business rule to the View code and makes it impossible to test that the rounding of the result meets the requirement of the business without executing the View.  Within View code, arithmetic should only be used for activities such as incrementing loop counters and calculating element widths. In addition to the two characteristics of a “Smart View” that I’ve discussed already, this View also exhibited another heuristic that commonly indicates to me the need to refactor a View and make it a bit less smart.  That characteristic is the existence of Boolean logic that either does not work directly with properties of the Model or works with too many properties of the Model.  Consider the following code and consider how logic that does not work directly with properties of the Model is just another form of the “member variable” heuristic covered earlier: @if(DateTime.Now.Hour < 12) {     <div>Good Morning!</div> } else {     <div>Greetings</div> } This code performs business logic to determine whether it is morning.  A possible refactoring would be to add an IsMorning property to the Model, but in this particular case there is enough similarity between the branches that the entire branching structure could be collapsed by adding a Greeting property to the Model and using it similarly to the following: <div>@Model.Greeting</div> Now let’s look at some complex logic around multiple Model properties: @if (ModelPageNumber + Model.NumbersToDisplay == Model.PageCount         || (Model.PageCount != Model.CurrentPage             && !Model.DisplayValues.Contains(Model.PageCount))) {     <div>There's more to see!</div> } In this scenario, not only is the View code difficult to read (you shouldn’t have to play “human compiler” to determine the purpose of the code), but it also complex enough to be at risk for logical errors that cannot be detected without executing the View.  Conditional logic that requires more than a single logical operator should be looked at more closely to determine whether the condition should be evaluated elsewhere and exposed as a single property of the Model.  Moving the logic above outside of the View and exposing a new Model property would simplify the View code to: @if(Model.HasMoreToSee) {     <div>There’s more to see!</div> } In this posting I have briefly discussed some of the more prominent heuristics that indicate a need to push code from the View into other pieces of the application.  You should now be able to recognize these symptoms when building or maintaining Views (or the Models that support them) in your applications.

    Read the article

  • Implementing a Custom Coherence PartitionAssignmentStrategy

    - by jpurdy
    A recent A-Team engagement required the development of a custom PartitionAssignmentStrategy (PAS). By way of background, a PAS is an implementation of a Java interface that controls how a Coherence partitioned cache service assigns partitions (primary and backup copies) across the available set of storage-enabled members. While seemingly straightforward, this is actually a very difficult problem to solve. Traditionally, Coherence used a distributed algorithm spread across the cache servers (and as of Coherence 3.7, this is still the default implementation). With the introduction of the PAS interface, the model of operation was changed so that the logic would run solely in the cache service senior member. Obviously, this makes the development of a custom PAS vastly less complex, and in practice does not introduce a significant single point of failure/bottleneck. Note that Coherence ships with a default PAS implementation but it is not used by default. Further, custom PAS implementations are uncommon (this engagement was the first custom implementation that we know of). The particular implementation mentioned above also faced challenges related to managing multiple backup copies but that won't be discussed here. There were a few challenges that arose during design and implementation: Naive algorithms had an unreasonable upper bound of computational cost. There was significant complexity associated with configurations where the member count varied significantly between physical machines. Most of the complexity of a PAS is related to rebalancing, not initial assignment (which is usually fairly simple). A custom PAS may need to solve several problems simultaneously, such as: Ensuring that each member has a similar number of primary and backup partitions (e.g. each member has the same number of primary and backup partitions) Ensuring that each member carries similar responsibility (e.g. the most heavily loaded member has no more than one partition more than the least loaded). Ensuring that each partition is on the same member as a corresponding local resource (e.g. for applications that use partitioning across message queues, to ensure that each partition is collocated with its corresponding message queue). Ensuring that a given member holds no more than a given number of partitions (e.g. no member has more than 10 partitions) Ensuring that backups are placed far enough away from the primaries (e.g. on a different physical machine or a different blade enclosure) Achieving the above goals while ensuring that partition movement is minimized. These objectives can be even more complicated when the topology of the cluster is irregular. For example, if multiple cluster members may exist on each physical machine, then clearly the possibility exists that at certain points (e.g. following a member failure), the number of members on each machine may vary, in certain cases significantly so. Consider the case where there are three physical machines, with 3, 3 and 9 members each (respectively). This introduces complexity since the backups for the 9 members on the the largest machine must be spread across the other 6 members (to ensure placement on different physical machines), preventing an even distribution. For any given problem like this, there are usually reasonable compromises available, but the key point is that objectives may conflict under extreme (but not at all unlikely) circumstances. The most obvious general purpose partition assignment algorithm (possibly the only general purpose one) is to define a scoring function for a given mapping of partitions to members, and then apply that function to each possible permutation, selecting the most optimal permutation. This would result in N! (factorial) evaluations of the scoring function. This is clearly impractical for all but the smallest values of N (e.g. a partition count in the single digits). It's difficult to prove that more efficient general purpose algorithms don't exist, but the key take away from this is that algorithms will tend to either have exorbitant worst case performance or may fail to find optimal solutions (or both) -- it is very important to be able to show that worst case performance is acceptable. This quickly leads to the conclusion that the problem must be further constrained, perhaps by limiting functionality or by using domain-specific optimizations. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to design these more focused algorithms. In the specific case mentioned, we constrained the solution space to very small clusters (in terms of machine count) with small partition counts and supported exactly two backup copies, and accepted the fact that partition movement could potentially be significant (preferring to solve that issue through brute force). We then used the out-of-the-box PAS implementation as a fallback, delegating to it for configurations that were not supported by our algorithm. Our experience was that the PAS interface is quite usable, but there are intrinsic challenges to designing PAS implementations that should be very carefully evaluated before committing to that approach.

    Read the article

  • How do I aggregate results from an Adjacency list using PHP's SPL

    - by Stephen J. Fuhry
    I've tried using nested sets, and they become very difficult to maintain when dealing with multiple trees and lots of other complications.. I'd like to give PHP's SPL library a stab at this (btw, we are PHP 5.3, MySQL 5.1). Given two datasets: The Groups: +-------+--------+---------------------+---------------+ | id | parent | Category Name | child_key | +-------+--------+---------------------+---------------+ | 11133 | 7707 | Really Cool Products| 47054 | | 7709 | 7708 | 24" Monitors | 57910 | | 7713 | 7710 | Hot Tubs | 35585 | | 7716 | 7710 | Hot Dogs | 00395 | | 11133 | 7707 | Really Cool Products| 66647 | | 7715 | 7710 | Suction Cups | 08396 | +-------+--------+---------------------+---------------+ The Items +------------+------------+-----------+----------+---------+ | child_key | totalprice | totalcost | totalqty | onorder | (jan, feb, mar..) +------------+------------+-----------+----------+---------+ | 24171 | 10.50 | 20.10 | 200 | 100 | | 35685 | 10.50 | 20.10 | 200 | 100 | | 76505 | 10.50 | 20.10 | 200 | 100 | | 04365 | 10.50 | 20.10 | 200 | 100 | | 01975 | 10.50 | 20.10 | 200 | 100 | | 12150 | 10.50 | 20.10 | 200 | 100 | | 40060 | 10.50 | 20.10 | 200 | 100 | | 08396 | 10.50 | 20.10 | 200 | 100 | +------------+------------+-----------+----------+---------+ The figures are actually much more complicated than this (I am actually aggregating a variable amount of months or years over the past 15yrs, so there may need to be 20 columns of aggregated results). I have been trying to figure out RecursiveIterator and IteratorAggregate, but I am having a difficult time finding real world examples that are generic enough to really wrap my head around these classes. Can someone give me a head start?

    Read the article

  • Why use Python interactive mode?

    - by mvid
    When I first started reading about Python, all of the tutorials have you use Python's Interactive Mode. It is difficult to save, write long programs, or edit your existing lines (for me at least). It seems like a far more difficult way of writing Python code than opening up a code.py file and running the interpreter on that file. python code.py I am coming from a Java background, so I have ingrained expectations of writing and compiling files for programs. I also know that a feature would not be so prominent in Python documentation if it were not somehow useful. So what am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Starting point for learning CAD/CAE file formats?

    - by Escader
    We are developing some stress and strain analysis software at university. Now it's time to move from rectangles and boxes and spheres to some real models. But I still have little idea where to start. In our software we are going to build mesh and then make calculations, but how do I import solid bodies from CAD/CAE software? 1) How CAD/CAE models are organised? How solid bodies are represented? What are the possibilities of DWG, DXF, IGES, STEP formats? There is e.g. a complete DXF reference, but it's too difficult for me to understand without knowing basic concepts. 2) Are there C++ libraries to import solid bodies from CAD/CAE file formats? Won't it be too difficult to build a complete model to be able to import comprehensive file?

    Read the article

  • wowza vs Flash Media Server (FMS / FMIS) - ease of integration with ASP.Net

    - by alchemical
    We're creating a web site offering one to many video chat and trying to decide on which of these streaming servers to go with. Looking at around 256kbps live streams, hoping to achieve at least 1000 simultaneous streams on one 8-core server. Wowza is cheaper (1k vs 5k for FMS), and appears to be used successfully by many sites (StreamLive, Justin.TV, etc.). However, some people have expressed that it may be more difficult to work with. I.e. fine-tuning it, less documentation, integration with ASP.Net code, etc. Wondering if anyone with real-world experience with either of these servers can advise regarding how easy or difficult to use and integrate they are for a site like this. Also wondering if there is any performance difference (lag, etc.).

    Read the article

  • How is Magento when it comes to adding custom functionality?

    - by ohsnapy
    hi, How is working with Magento when it comes to adding custom functionality? From an outsiders view the framework looks very complicated and it's hard to gage what is and is not possible. What are your experiences? Is it a difficult framework to get it to do what you want? Are there things that simply cannot be customized in Magento? How difficult is it to manage customizations when upgrading to latest versions,etc.. Any feedback/personal experiences would be great. Examples of highly customized Magento sites would be great too. Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • Simple object creation with DIY-DI?

    - by Runcible
    I recently ran across this great article by Chad Perry entitled "DIY-DI" or "Do-It-Yourself Dependency Injection". I'm in a position where I'm not yet ready to use a IoC framework, but I want to head in that direction. It seems like DIY-DI is a good first step. However, after reading the article, I'm still a little confused about object creation. Here's a simple example: Using manual constructor dependency injection (not DIY-DI), this is how one must construct a Hotel object: PowerGrid powerGrid; // only one in the entire application WaterSupply waterSupply; // only one in the entire application Staff staff; Rooms rooms; Hotel hotel(staff, rooms, powerGrid, waterSupply); Creating all of these dependency objects makes it difficult to construct the Hotel object in isolation, which means that writing unit tests for Hotel will be difficult. Does using DIY-DI make it easier? What advantage does DIY-DI provide over manual constructor dependency injection?

    Read the article

  • Sending data remotely from iPhone native apps to Rails apps

    - by jpartogi
    Dear all, I have decided to develop a native iPhone apps as a compliment to our webapps. Now I am wondering what are my options to send data remotely from the iPhone apps - since the database is online - to our online database. What I can think of on top of my head - since I come from web dev background - is JSON. My webapps is built using Rails, so I figure it would not be difficult to accept JSON request from the iPhone apps. But the next question is, is it difficult to send JSON data remotely from the iPhone apps? If JSON is not recommendable, what are my other options? Thank you so much for the assistance. Really appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • add new column in birt report based on generated grand total column in crosstab

    - by Sanga
    Hi there, Thanks for reading my question. Please I need your help here. I am trying to add a column that is based on a cross-tab's grand total. The cross-tab was added by clicking on the totals option for the column. Now I want to use this total for another calculation in my cross-tab but its so difficult adding a column after the grand total column. Secondly its difficult getting a reference to the results in the grand total column. Please what do you advice? Thanks Ime

    Read the article

  • PHP Code to Generate Simple Flowchart

    - by revbackup
    I am making a flowchart out the subjects in the curriculum of our school. a flowchart is generated through its preRequisite.... for example FIRST YEAR FIRST SEMESTER SUBJECTS ---- PREREQUISITE MATH 1 ---- NONE MATH 2 ---- NONE ENGL 1 ---- NONE SOCIO 1 ----- NONE POLSCI 1 ----- NONE FIRSTE YEAR SECOND SEMESTER SUBJECTS ---- PREREQUISITE MATH 3 ----- MATH 1 MATH 4 ----- MATH 2, MATH 1 ENGL 2 ----- ENGL 1 POLSCI 2 ----- POLSCI 1 So, I must print it this way, just using simple PHP but difficult Logic.: MATH1 -----> MATH3 -----> MATH4 MATH 2 ----->MATH 4 ENGL1 -----> ENGL 2 SOCIO 1 POLSCI 1 -----> POLSCI 2 Can anyone give me a good algorithm for this, because this is really difficult. I am planning to echo the results in an HTML table, and it makes it more complicated. Do you have suggestions how to solve this problem properly and display the results also properly???? Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • How to define a multipage environment not interrupted by tables and figures?

    - by Egon Willighagen
    I have defined a new LaTeX environment for excursions in a book chapter I am writing. The environment is multipage and often includes inline images. Moreover, I am using the shaded environment to give the environment a background colour to make it stand out a bit. However, the environment, as shown below, is split up by floating tables and images, which makes the flow of the environment visually more difficult to follow. For example, it is now difficult to see if that floating image or table is part (the missing background colour does not help). So, I like to extend my environment to disallow it to be interrupted by floating elements, but do not know how to get that done. \newcounter{bioclipse} \def\thebioclipse{\thechapter-\arabic{bioclipse}} \newenvironment{bioclipse}[2][]{\begin{small}\begin{shaded}\refstepcounter{bioclipse} \par\medskip\noindent% \textbf{Bioclipse Excursion~\thebioclipse #1: #2 \vspace{0.1cm} \hrule \vspace{0.1cm}} \rmfamily}{\medskip \end{shaded}\end{small}} Any solution to disallow interruption is fine, even if the background colour is done differently.

    Read the article

  • Using Markov models to convert all caps to mixed case and related problems

    - by hippietrail
    I've been thinking about using Markov techniques to restore missing information to natural language text. Restore mixed case to text in all caps Restore accents / diacritics to languages which should have them but have been converted to plain ASCII Convert rough phonetic transcriptions back into native alphabets That seems to be in order of least difficult to most difficult. Basically the problem is resolving ambiguities based on context. I can use Wiktionary as a dictionary and Wikipedia as a corpus using n-grams and Markov chains to resolve the ambiguities. Am I on the right track? Are there already some services, libraries, or tools for this sort of thing? Examples GEORGE LOST HIS SIM CARD IN THE BUSH - George lost his SIM card in the bush tantot il rit a gorge deployee - tantôt il rit à gorge déployée

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to parse RSS/Atom feeds for an iPhone application?

    - by jpm
    So I understand that there are a few options available as far as parsing straight XML goes: NSXMLParser, TouchXML from TouchCode, etc. That's all fine, and seems to work fine for me. The real problem here is that there are dozens of small variations in RSS feeds (and Atom feeds too), so supporting all possible permutations of feeds available out on the Internet gets very difficult to manage. I searched around for a library that would handle all of these low-level details for me, but came out without anything. Since one could link to an external C/C++ library in Objective-C, I was wondering if there is a library out there that would be best suited for this task? Someone must have already created something like this, it's just difficult to find the "right" option from the thousands of results in Google. Anyway, what's the best way to parse RSS/Atom feeds in an iPhone application?

    Read the article

  • Is there a "vim runtime log"?

    - by Somebody still uses you MS-DOS
    Sometimes I try a customization/command in my vimrc. Everything seens to be correct, but it just doesn't work. It's difficult to know what's happening when vim starts, and know which command failed or not, so it's really difficult to debug what can be causing a problem in my vimrc. It's a trial-error approach, which is time consuming and really a PITA. For example, I'm having problems with snipmate plugin in some files and just don't have a clue on how to discover the problem. Is there a "runtime log" when vim starts, telling which commands it executed, which ones failed and such? This would help me a lot.

    Read the article

  • PHP / Zend Framework: Which object would handle a complex table join?

    - by Thomas
    I think one of the more difficult concepts to understand in the Zend Framework is how the Table Data Gateway pattern is supposed to handle multi-table joins. Most of the suggestions I've seen claim that you simply handle the joins using a $db-select()... Zend DB Select with multiple table joins Joining Tables With Zend Framework PHP Joining tables wthin a model in Zend Php Zend Framework Db Select Join table help Zend DB Select with multiple table joins My question is: Which object is best suited to handle this kind of multi-table select statement? I feel like putting it in the model would break the 1-1 Table Data Gateway pattern between the class and the db table. Yet putting it in the controller seems wrong because why would a controller handle a SQL statement? Anyway, I feel like ZF makes handling datasets from multiple tables more difficult than it needs to be. Any help you can provide is great... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What Use are Threads Outside of Parallel Problems on MultiCore Systesm?

    - by Robert S. Barnes
    Threads make the design, implementation and debugging of a program significantly more difficult. Yet many people seem to think that every task in a program that can be threaded should be threaded, even on a single core system. I can understand threading something like an MPEG2 decoder that's going to run on a multicore cpu ( which I've done ), but what can justify the significant development costs threading entails when you're talking about a single core system or even a multicore system if your task doesn't gain significant performance from a parallel implementation? Or more succinctly, what kinds of non-performance related problems justify threading? Edit Well I just ran across one instance that's not CPU limited but threads make a big difference: TCP, HTTP and the Multi-Threading Sweet Spot Multiple threads are pretty useful when trying to max out your bandwidth to another peer over a high latency network connection. Non-blocking I/O would use significantly less local CPU resources, but would be much more difficult to design and implement.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >