Search Results

Search found 3387 results on 136 pages for 'n layer'.

Page 81/136 | < Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >

• Server-side Architecture for Online Game

  - by Draiken

  basically I have a game client that has communicate with a server for almost every action it takes, the game is in Java (using LWJGL) and right now I will start making the server. The base of the game is normally one client communicating with the server alone, but I will require later on for several clients to work together for some functionalities. I've already read how authentication server should be sepparated and I intend on doing it. The problem is I am completely inexperienced in this kind of server-side programming, all I've ever programmed were JSF web applications. I imagine I'll do socket connections for pretty much every game communication since HTML is very slow, but I still don't really know where to start on my server. I would appreciate reading material or guidelines on where to start, what architecture should the game server have and maybe some suggestions on frameworks that could help me getting the client-server communication. I've looked into JNAG but I have no experience with this kind of thing, so I can't really tell if it is a solid and good messaging layer. Any help is appreciated... Thanks ! EDIT: Just a little more information about the game. It is intended to be a very complex game with several functionalities, making some functionalities a "program" inside the program. It is not an usual game, like FPS or RPG but I intend on having a lot of users using these many different "programs" inside the game. If I wasn't clear enough, I'd really appreciate people that have already developed games with java client/server architecture, how they communicated, any frameworks, apis, messaging systems, etc. It is not a question of lack of knowledge of language, more a question for advice, so I don't end up creating something that works, but in the later stages will have to be rewriten for any kind of limiting reason. PS: sorry if my english is not perfect...

  Read the article

• What is the value of workflow tools?

  - by user16549

  I'm new to Workflow developement, and I don't think I'm really getting the "big picture". Or perhaps to put it differently, these tools don't currently "click" in my head. So it seems that companies like to create business drawings to describe processes, and at some point someone decided that they could use a state machine like program to actually control processes from a line and boxes like diagram. Ten years later, these tools are huge, extremely complicated (my company is currently playing around with WebSphere, and I've attended some of the training, its a monster, even the so called "minimalist" versions of these workflow tools like Activiti are huge and complicated although not nearly as complicated as the beast that is WebSphere afaict). What is the great benefit in doing it this way? I can kind of understand the simple lines and boxes diagrams being useful, but these things, as far as I can tell, are visual programming languages at this point, complete with conditionals and loops. Programmers here appear to be doing a significant amount of work in the lines and boxes layer, which to me just looks like a really crappy, really basic visual programming language. If you're going to go that far, why not just use some sort of scripting language? Have people thrown the baby out with the bathwater on this? Has the lines and boxes thing been taken to an absurd level, or am I just not understanding the value in all this? I'd really like to see arguments in defense of this by people that have worked with this technology and understand why its useful. I don't see the value in it, but I recognize that I'm new to this as well and may not quite get it yet.

  Read the article

• Dealing with Fine-Grained Cache Entries in Coherence

  - by jpurdy

  On occasion we have seen significant memory overhead when using very small cache entries. Consider the case where there is a small key (say a synthetic key stored in a long) and a small value (perhaps a number or short string). With most backing maps, each cache entry will require an instance of Map.Entry, and in the case of a LocalCache backing map (used for expiry and eviction), there is additional metadata stored (such as last access time). Given the size of this data (usually a few dozen bytes) and the granularity of Java memory allocation (often a minimum of 32 bytes per object, depending on the specific JVM implementation), it is easily possible to end up with the case where the cache entry appears to be a couple dozen bytes but ends up occupying several hundred bytes of actual heap, resulting in anywhere from a 5x to 10x increase in stated memory requirements. In most cases, this increase applies to only a few small NamedCaches, and is inconsequential -- but in some cases it might apply to one or more very large NamedCaches, in which case it may dominate memory sizing calculations. Ultimately, the requirement is to avoid the per-entry overhead, which can be done either at the application level by grouping multiple logical entries into single cache entries, or at the backing map level, again by combining multiple entries into a smaller number of larger heap objects. At the application level, it may be possible to combine objects based on parent-child or sibling relationships (basically the same requirements that would apply to using partition affinity). If there is no natural relationship, it may still be possible to combine objects, effectively using a Coherence NamedCache as a "map of maps". This forces the application to first find a collection of objects (by performing a partial hash) and then to look within that collection for the desired object. This is most naturally implemented as a collection of entry processors to avoid pulling unnecessary data back to the client (and also to encapsulate that logic within a service layer). At the backing map level, the NIO storage option keeps keys on heap, and so has limited benefit for this situation. The Elastic Data features of Coherence naturally combine entries into larger heap objects, with the caveat that only data -- and not indexes -- can be stored in Elastic Data.

  Read the article

• Cloud Computing - just get started already!

  - by BuckWoody

  OK - you've been hearing about "cloud" (I really dislike that term, but whatever) for over two years. You've equated it with just throwing some VM's in some vendor's datacenter - which is certainly part of it, but not the whole story. There's a whole world of - wait for it - *coding* out there that you should be working on. If you're a developer, this is just a set of servers with operating systems and the runtime layer (like.NET, Java, PHP, etc.) that you can deploy code to and have it run. It can expand in a horizontal way, allowing massive - and I really, honestly mean massive, not just marketing talk kind of scale. We see this every day. If you're not a developer, well, now's the time to learn. Explore a little. Try it. We'll help you. There's a free conference you can attend in November, and you can sign up for it now. It's all on-line, and the tools you need to code are free. Put down Facebook and Twitter for a minute - go sign up. Learn. Do. :) See you there. http://www.windowsazureconf.net/

  Read the article

• Nifty default controls prevent the rest of my game from rendering

  - by zergylord

  I've been trying to add a basic HUD to my 2D LWJGL game using nifty gui, and while I've been successful in rendering panels and static text on top of the game, using the built-in nifty controls (e.g. an editable text field) causes the rest of my game to not render. The strange part is that I don't even have to render the gui control, merely declaring it appears to cause this problem. I'm truly lost here, so even the vaguest glimmer of hope would be appreciated :-) Some code showing the basic layout of the problem: display setup: // load default styles nifty.loadStyleFile("nifty-default-styles.xml"); // load standard controls nifty.loadControlFile("nifty-default-controls.xml"); screen = new ScreenBuilder("start") {{ layer(new LayerBuilder("baseLayer") {{ childLayoutHorizontal(); //next line causes the problem control(new TextFieldBuilder("input","asdf") {{ width("200px"); }}); }}); }}.build(nifty); nifty.gotoScreen("start"); rendering glMatrixMode(GL_PROJECTION); glLoadIdentity(); GLU.gluOrtho2D(0f,WINDOW_DIMENSIONS[0],WINDOW_DIMENSIONS[1],0f); //I can remove the 2 nifty lines, and the game still won't render nifty.render(true); nifty.update(); glMatrixMode(GL_PROJECTION); glLoadIdentity(); GLU.gluOrtho2D(0f,(float)VIEWPORT_DIMENSIONS[0],0f,(float)VIEWPORT_DIMENSIONS[1]); glTranslatef(translation[0],translation[1],0); for (Bubble bubble:bubbles){ bubble.draw(); } for (Wall wall:walls){ wall.draw(); } for(Missile missile:missiles){ missile.draw(); } for(Mob mob:mobs){ mob.draw(); } agent.draw();

  Read the article

• Performance impact of Zones.

  - by nospam(at)example.com (Joerg Moellenkamp)

  I was really astonished when i saw this question. Because this question was a old acquaintance from years ago, that i didn't heard for a long time. However there was it again. The question: "What's the overhead of Zones?". Sun was and Oracle is not saying "zero". We saying saying minimal. However during all the performance analysis gigs on customer systems i made since the introduction of Zones i failed to measure any overhead caused by zones. What i saw however, was additional load intoduced by processes that wouldn't be there when you would use only one zone Like additional monitoring daemons, like additional daemons having a controlling or supervising job for the application that resulted in slighly longer runtimes of processes, because such additional daemons wanted some cycles on the CPU as well. So i ask when someone wants to tell me that he measured a slight slowdown, if he or she has really measured the impact of the virtualization layer or of a side effect described above. It seems to be a little bit hard to believe, that a virtualisation technology has no overhead, however keep in mind that there is no hypervisor and just one kernel running that looks and behaves like many operating system instances to apps and users. While this imposes some limits to the technology (because there is just one kernel running you can't have zones with different kernels versions running ... obvious even to the cursory observer), but that is key to it's lightweightness and thus to the low overhead. Continue reading "Performance impact of Zones."

  Read the article

• SOA: Simplifying Cloud, Mobile, and On-premise Integration–Webcast October 24th 2013

  - by JuergenKress

  Proliferation of mobile devices, data explosion, and cloud enablement has caused a dramatic shift in IT. Organizations need to rethink their application infrastructures to accommodate increased processing speeds, heightened security and availability concerns for their applications, all while meeting lowered total cost of ownership. Traditional infrastructures may not be sufficient to accommodate the diversity and complexity of integrations in this new era. Many of today’s IT organizations rely on a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) backbone to keep their businesses running. SOA adoption and acceptance across industries have led to platform maturity at the application layer level. However, we are at the start of an era where there is a new modus operandi for organizations to thrive and deliver continuously on competitive differentiation. This change is a result of market globalization, explosion in the number of mobile devices, unparalleled growth in voluminous data and innovation that crosses organizational boundaries. Social, mobile, cloud are terms that are revolutionizing the way organizations operate. Oracle SOA Suite is a hot-pluggable software suite to build, deploy and manage Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA).Oracle SOA transforms complex application integration into agile and reusable service-based connectivity by mediating, routing, and managing interactions between services and applications in the enterprise and in the cloud. Oracle SOA Suite's hot-pluggable architecture helps businesses lower upfront costs by allowing maximum re-use of existing IT investments and assets. Join us on this webcast to find out how you can optimize the use of Oracle SOA Suite, simplifying integration, and what does the next generation of SOA has to offer to you. Agenda: What's new in Oracle SOA Simplifying integration Application Integration and SOA Cloud integration with SOA Mobile Integration leveraging Oracle SOA Suite Oracle Delivers on Next Generation SOA Customer Examples Summary and Q&A Webcast Thursday October 24th, 2013 10am CET (8am UTC / 11am EEST)Details at the Registration Page SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Wiki Mix Forum Technorati Tags: cloud integration,mobile integration,training,webcast middeware,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress

  Read the article

• Testing a codebase with sequential cohesion

  - by iveqy

  I've this really simple program written in C with ncurses that's basically a front-end to sqlite3. I would like to implement TDD to continue the development and have found a nice C unit framework for this. However I'm totally stuck on how to implement it. Take this case for example: A user types a letter 'l' that is captured by ncurses getch(), and then an sqlite3 query is run that for every row calls a callback function. This callback function prints stuff to the screen via ncurses. So the obvious way to fully test this is to simulate a keyboard and a terminal and make sure that the output is the expected. However this sounds too complicated. I was thinking about adding an abstraction layer between the database and the UI so that the callback function will populate a list of entries and that list will later be printed. In that case I would be able to check if that list contains the expected values. However, why would I struggle with a data structure and lists in my program when sqlite3 already does this? For example, if the user wants to see the list sorted in some other way, it would be expensive to throw away the list and repopulate it. I would need to sort the list, but why should I implement sorting when sqlite3 already has that? Using my orginal design I could just do an other query sorted differently. Previously I've only done TDD with command line applications, and there it's really easy to just compare the output with what I'm expected. An other way would be to add CLI interface to the program and wrap a test program around the CLI to test everything. (The way git.git does with it's test-framework). So the question is, how to add testing to a tightly integrated database/UI.

  Read the article

• .NET app - Should we use SQL Server and duplicate some reference data from an external Oracle DB? Or use Oracle and have a DB link?

  - by Daventry

  We're looking to migrate some existing Excel/Access processes into a new system which will provide the users with a Silverlight frontend to run and view the reports instead of using MS Access. The initial idea was to have SQL Server 2008 as RDBMS. The problem is that we've got some static data such as country codes, counterparties, etc which live in an existing Oracle DB. Since we do not want to duplicate that data (if possible), we were thinking of having a DB link between SQL Server and Oracle, but our firm does not allow that. So the options are either duplicate the data or use Oracle as RDBMS - surprise, the firm does allow DB links between Oracle databases. The initial idea was also to use WCF RIA Services, Entity Framework, etc which we're not sure they play well with Oracle, that's why it was decided to go with SQL Server in the first place. Would you advise to go for Oracle so that we can just link the static data? Or use SQL Server 2008 and replicate it because it's "safer" to stay within the Microsoft land? To use or not to use Entity Framework and WCF RIA Services at all? Regards. UPDATE: Thanks everyone for your answers. Nothing is set in stone yet. We'll try to import the data instead of linking, as if the other DB goes down, our system can still carry on. We're likely to use SQL Server just because most developers are more experienced with it. Even if we used RIA Services, we can swap out the Data Access Layer and use other frameworks such those mentioned below.

  Read the article

• How do functional languages handle a mocking situation when using Interface based design?

  - by Programmin Tool

  Typically in C# I use dependency injection to help with mocking; public void UserService { public UserService(IUserQuery userQuery, IUserCommunicator userCommunicator, IUserValidator userValidator) { UserQuery = userQuery; UserValidator = userValidator; UserCommunicator = userCommunicator; } ... public UserResponseModel UpdateAUserName(int userId, string userName) { var result = UserValidator.ValidateUserName(userName) if(result.Success) { var user = UserQuery.GetUserById(userId); if(user == null) { throw new ArgumentException(); user.UserName = userName; UserCommunicator.UpdateUser(user); } } ... } ... } public class WhenGettingAUser { public void AndTheUserDoesNotExistThrowAnException() { var userQuery = Substitute.For<IUserQuery>(); userQuery.GetUserById(Arg.Any<int>).Returns(null); var userService = new UserService(userQuery); AssertionExtensions.ShouldThrow<ArgumentException>(() => userService.GetUserById(-121)); } } Now in something like F#: if I don't go down the hybrid path, how would I test workflow situations like above that normally would touch the persistence layer without using Interfaces/Mocks? I realize that every step above would be tested on its own and would be kept as atomic as possible. Problem is that at some point they all have to be called in line, and I'll want to make sure everything is called correctly.

  Read the article

• Two components offering the same functionality, required by different dependencies

  - by kander

  I'm building an application in PHP, using Zend Framework 1 and Doctrine2 as the ORM layer. All is going well. Now, I happened to notice that both ZF1 and Doctrine2 come with, and rely on, their own caching implementation. I've evaluated both, and while each has its own pro's and cons, neither of them stand out as superior to the other for my simple needs. Both libraries also seem to be written against their respective interfaces, not their implementations. Reasons why I feel this is an issue is that during the bootstrapping of my application, I have to configure two caching drivers - each with its own syntax. A mismatch is easily created this way, and it feels inefficient to set up two connections to the caching backend because of this. I'm trying to determine what the best way forward is, and would welcome any insights you may be able to offer. What I've thought up so far are four options: Do nothing, accept that two classes offering caching functionality are present. Create a Facade class to stick Zend's interface onto Doctrine's caching implementation. Option 2, the other way around - create a Facade to map Doctrine's interface on a Zend Framework backend. Use multiple-interface-inheritance to create one interface to rule them all, and pray that there aren't any overlaps (ie: if both have a "save" method, they'll need to accept params in the same order due to PHP's lack of proper polymorphism). What option is best, or is there a "None of the above" variant that I'm not aware of?

  Read the article

• How to define implementation details?

  - by woni

  In our project, an assembly combines logic for the IoC-Container, the project internals and the communication layer. The current version evolved to have only internal classes in addin assemblies. My main problem with this approach is, that the entry point is only available over the IoC-Container. It is not possible to use anything else than reflection to initialize the assembly. Everything behind the IoC-Interface is defined as implementation detail and therefore not intended for usages outside. It is well known that you should not test implementation detail (such as private and internal methods), because they should be tested through the public interface. It is also well known, that your tests should not use the IoC-Container to setup the SUTs, because that would result in too much dependencies. So we are using the InternalsVisibleTo-Attribute to make internals visible to our test assemblies and test the so called implementation details. I recognized that one problem could be the mixup between different concerns in that assembly, changing this would make this discussion useless, because classes have to be defined public. Ignoring my concerns with this, isn't the need to test a class enough reason to make it public, the usages of InternalsVisibleTo seems unintended, and a little bit "hacky". The approach to test only against the publicly available IoC-Container is too costly and would result in integration style tests. The pros of using internals are, that the usages are well known and do not have to be implemented like a public method would have to be (documentation, completeness, versioning,...). Is there a solution, to not test against internals, but keep their advantages over public classes, or do we have to redefine what an implementation detail is.

  Read the article

• XML Rules Engine and Validation Tutorial with NIEM

  - by drrwebber

  Our new XML Validation Framework tutorial video is now available. See how to easily integrate code-free adaptive XML validation services into your web services using the Java CAMV validation engine. CAMV allows you to build fault tolerant content checking with XPath that optionally use SQL data lookups. This can provide warnings as well as error conditions to tailor your validation layer to exactly meet your business application needs. Also available is developing test suites using Apache ANT scripting of validations.  This allows a community to share sets of conformance checking test and tools . On the technical XML side the video introduces XPath validation rules and illustrates and the concepts of XML content and structure validation. CAM validation templates allow contextual parameter driven dynamic validation services to be implemented compared to using a static and brittle XSD schema approach.The SQL table lookup and code list validation are discussed and examples presented.Features are highlighted along with a demonstration of the interactive generation of actual live XML data from a SQL data store and then validation processing complete with errors and warnings detection.The presentation provides a primer for developing web service XML validation and integration into a SOA approach along with examples and resources. Also alignment with the NIEM IEPD process for interoperable information exchanges is discussed along with NIEM rules services.The CAMV engine is a high performance scalable Java component for rapidly implementing code-free validation services and methods. CAMV is a next generation WYSIWYG approach that builds from older Schematron coding based interpretative runtime tools and provides a simpler declarative metaphor for rules definition. See: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheCAMeditor

  Read the article

• Binding in the view or the controller?

  - by da_b0uncer

  I've seen 2 different approaches with MVC on the web. One, like in ExtJS, is to bind the callbacks to the view via the controller. Finding every element on the view and adding the functionallity. The other, like in angular.js and in the lift-framework server-side, too, is to bind in the views and just write the functionallity in the controller. Which is better and cleaner? The ExtJS approach has dumb views and all the logic in the controller. Which seems clean to me. I had problems with global IDs for GUI-elements or relative navigation to GUI-elements in this approach. When I changed the view, the controller couldn't find the buttons anymore or I had multiple instances of one button with the same ID on a single application, because of the global ID. But I solved this with IDs that are only global in a view and can be on the application multiple times. So I could mess with the (dumb) views layout and design and the functionallity wouldn't break. The angular.js approach with the bindings in the view don't has the problem with global IDs. Also, the person who changes something in the view layout has to know the IDs anyway, so the controller can put the data at the right spot. So if I write <a ng-click="doThis()" /> for angular.js and implement doThis() or <a lid="buttonwhichdoesthis" /> for extjs and find the element with the local id and add doThis() as handler on the controller side, seems to be not so different. The only thing is, the second one has one more layer of indirection, which seems cleaner. The first one seems somehow to cost less effort.

  Read the article

• Call DB Stored Procedure using @NamedStoredProcedureQuery Injection

  - by anwilson

  Oracle Database Stored Procedure can be called from EJB business layer to perform complex DB specific operations. This approach will avoid overhead from frequent network hits which could impact end-user result. DB Stored Procedure can be invoked from EJB Session Bean business logic using org.eclipse.persistence.queries.StoredProcedureCall API. Using this approach requires more coding to handle the Session and Arguments of the Stored Procedure, thereby increasing effort on maintenance. EJB 3.0 introduces @NamedStoredProcedureQuery Injection to call Database Stored Procedure as NamedQueries. This blog will take you through the steps to call Oracle Database Stored Procedure using @NamedStoredProcedureQuery.EMP_SAL_INCREMENT procedure available in HR schema will be used in this sample.Create Entity from EMPLOYEES table.Add @NamedStoredProcedureQuery above @NamedQueries to Employees.java with definition as given below - @NamedStoredProcedureQuery(name="Employees.increaseEmpSal", procedureName = "EMP_SAL_INCREMENT", resultClass=void.class, resultSetMapping = "", returnsResultSet = false, parameters = { @StoredProcedureParameter(name = "EMP_ID", queryParameter = "EMPID"), @StoredProcedureParameter(name = "SAL_INCR", queryParameter = "SALINCR")} ) Observe how Stored Procedure's arguments are handled easily in  @NamedStoredProcedureQuery using @StoredProcedureParameter.Expose Entity Bean by creating a Session Facade.Business method need to be added to Session Bean to access the Stored Procedure exposed as NamedQuery. public void salaryRaise(Long empId, Long salIncrease) throws Exception { try{ Query query = em.createNamedQuery("Employees.increaseEmpSal"); query.setParameter("EMPID", empId); query.setParameter("SALINCR", salIncrease); query.executeUpdate(); } catch(Exception ex){ throw ex; } } Expose business method through Session Bean Remote Interface. void salaryRaise(Long empId, Long salIncrease) throws Exception; Session Bean Client is required to invoke the method exposed through remote interface.Call exposed method in Session Bean Client main method. final Context context = getInitialContext(); SessionEJB sessionEJB = (SessionEJB)context.lookup("Your-JNDI-lookup"); sessionEJB.salaryRaise(new Long(200), new Long(1000)); Deploy Session BeanRun Session Bean Client.Salary of Employee with Id 200 will be increased by 1000.

  Read the article

• New whitepaper: Evolution from the Traditional Data Center to Exalogic: An Operational Perspective

  - by Javier Puerta

  IT organizations are struggling with the need to balance the day-to-day concerns of data center management against the business level requirements to deliver long-term value. This balancing act has proven difficult and inefficient: systems and application management tools are resource intensive and traditional infrastructure management architectures have developed over time on a project by project basis. These traditional management systems consist of multiple tools that require administrators to waste time performing too many steps to handle routine administrative tasks. Operational efficiency and agility in your enterprise are directly linked to the capabilities provided by the management layer across the entire stack, from the application, middleware, operating system, compute, network and storage. Only when this end to end capability is provided will we experience the full benefit of a scalable, efficient, responsive and secure datacenter. Managing Exalogic is substantially less complex and error prone than managing traditional systems built from individually sourced, multi-vendor components because Exalogic is designed to be administered and maintained as a single, integrated system (Figure 1). It is at the forefront of the industry-wide shift away from costly and inferior one-off platforms toward private clouds and Engineered Systems. Read the full whitepaper "Evolution from the Traditional Data Center to Exalogic: An Operational Perspective". Full document is available for download at the Exadata Partner Community Collaborative Workspace (for community members only - if you get an error message, please register for the Community first).

  Read the article

• New Whitepaper: Evolution from the Traditional Data Center to Exalogic: An Operational Perspective

  - by Javier Puerta

  IT organizations are struggling with the need to balance the day-to-day concerns of data center management against the business level requirements to deliver long-term value. This balancing act has proven difficult and inefficient: systems and application management tools are resource intensive and traditional infrastructure management architectures have developed over time on a project by project basis. These traditional management systems consist of multiple tools that require administrators to waste time performing too many steps to handle routine administrative tasks. Operational efficiency and agility in your enterprise are directly linked to the capabilities provided by the management layer across the entire stack, from the application, middleware, operating system, compute, network and storage. Only when this end to end capability is provided will we experience the full benefit of a scalable, efficient, responsive and secure datacenter. Managing Exalogic is substantially less complex and error prone than managing traditional systems built from individually sourced, multi-vendor components because Exalogic is designed to be administered and maintained as a single, integrated system (Figure 1). It is at the forefront of the industry-wide shift away from costly and inferior one-off platforms toward private clouds and Engineered Systems. Read the full whitepaper "Evolution from the Traditional Data Center to Exalogic: An Operational Perspective". Full document is available for download at the Exadata Partner Community Collaborative Workspace (for community members only - if you get an error message, please register for the Community first).

  Read the article

• Gesture Based NetBeans Tip Infrastructure

  - by Geertjan

  All/most/many gestures you make in NetBeans IDE are recorded in an XML file in your user directory, "var/log/uigestures", which is what makes the Key Promoter I outlined yesterday possible. The idea behind it is for analysis to be made possible, when you periodically pass the gestures data back to the NetBeans team. See http://statistics.netbeans.org for details. Since the gestures in the 'uigestures' file are identifiable by distinct loggers and other parameters, there's no end to the interesting things that one is able to do with it. While the NetBeans team can see which gestures are done most frequently, e.g., which kinds of projects are created most often, thus helping in prioritizing new features and bugs, etc, you as the user can, depending on who and how the initiative is taken, directly benefit from your collected data, too. Tim Boudreau, in a recent article, mentioned the usefulness of hippie completion. So, imagine that whenever you use code completion, a tip were to appear reminding you about hippie completion. And then you'd be able to choose whether you'd like to see the tip again or not, etc, i.e., customize the frequency of tips and the types of tips you'd like to be shown. And then, it could be taken a step further. The tip plugin could be set up in such a way that anyone would be able to register new tips per gesture. For example, maybe you have something very interesting to share about code completion in NetBeans. So, you'd create your own plugin in which there'd be an HTML file containing the text you'd like to have displayed whenever you (or your team members, or your students, maybe?) use code completion. Then you'd register that HTML file in plugin's layer file, in a subfolder dedicated to the specific gesture that you're interested in commenting on. The same is true, not just for NetBeans IDE, but for anyone creating their applications on top of the NetBeans Platform, of course.

  Read the article

• What is the steps to make a frame work for a company? [on hold]

  - by bbb

  we want to make a frame work for our company. Our company mission is developing web applications and CMS and websites. Till now we had a lot of problems with the various types of codding. we didnt have a frame work and every programmer codes as he wants and it was too hard for the others to edit them. Now we want to make a frame work for the company. We want to make an archive of dll files that are written by our self our other and make the programmers to use just from them and we want to make a frame work for the type of codding. WE NEED A STRUCTURE FOR THE COMPANY. I dont know how to do this and what is the first and second and third step to do this. I need some guidance about it. For example I say that the frame work should contains the followings: The base should be SOLID The method should be Code-First The standards should be Naming Convention The type should be 3 layer programming The method should be MVC We should use from our dll archive The UI should be with HTML and CSS And using from Bootstrap Am I right or not or is it complete or...???

  Read the article

• How could there still not be a mysqldb module for Python 3? [closed]

  - by itsadok

  This SO question is now more than two years old. MySQL is an incredibly popular database engine, Python is an incredibly popular programming language, and Python 3 has been officially released two years ago, and was available even before that. What's more, the whole mysqldb module is just a layer translating Python's db-api to MySQL's API. It's not that big of a library. I must be missing something here. How come almost* nobody in the entire open source community has spent the (I'm guessing) two weeks it takes to port this lib? Is Python 3 that unpopular? Is the combination of python and mysql not as common as I assume? Or maybe it's just a lot harder to port mysqldb than I assume? Anyone know the inside story on this? * Now I see that this guy has done it, which takes some of the wind out of my question, but it still seems to little and too late to make sense. EDIT: OK, I'm aware that the stock answers for these kind of questions cover this one as well. Patches welcome, scratch your itch, we don't work for you and we don't have the time, etc. I actually took a shot at porting this about a year ago, but it was my first time doing anything with Python C extensions, and I failed. My point in writing this was not a plea for somebody to write it, but genuine curiosity: it seems that some much more complicated libraries have been ported to python 3 already, and in the poll for which libraries should be ported, mysqldb is not even nominated! That suggests that maybe (2) is the right answer. UPDATE: I found that there are several new libraries that provide mysql support under Python 3, I just wasn't googling hard enough. That explains everything.

  Read the article

• Purpose oriented user accounts on a single desktop?

  - by dd_dent

  Starting point: I currently do development for Dynamics Ax, Android and an occasional dabble with Wordpress and Python. Soon, I'll start a project involving setting up WP on Google Apps Engine. Everything is, and should continue to, run from the same PC (running Linux Mint). Issue: I'm afraid of botching/bogging down my setup due to tinkering/installing multiple runtimes/IDE's/SDK's/Services, so I was thinking of using multiple users, each purposed to handle the task at hand (web, Android etc) and making each user as inert as possible to one another. What I need to know is the following: Is this a good/feasible practice? The second closest thing to this using remote desktops connections, either to computers or to VM's, which I'd rather avoid. What about switching users? Can it be made seamless? Anything else I should know? Update and clarification regarding VM's and whatnot: The reason I wish to avoid resorting to VM's is that I dislike the performance impact and sluggishness associated with it. I also suspect it might add a layer of complexity I wish to avoid. This answer by Wyatt is interesting but I think it's only partly suited for requirements (web development for example). Also, in reference to the point made about system wide installs, there is a level compromise I should accept as experessed by this for example. This option suggested by 9000 is also enticing (more than VM's actually) and by no means do I intend to "Juggle" JVMs and whatnot, partly due to the reason mentioned before. Regarding complexity, I agree and would consider what was said, only from my experience I tend to pollute my work environment with SDKs and runtimes I tried and discarded, which would occasionally leave leftovers which cause issues throught the session. What I really want is a set of well defined, non virtualized sessions from which I can choose at my leisure and be mostly (to a reasonable extent) safe from affecting each session from the other. And what I'm really asking is if and how can this be done using user accounts.

  Read the article

• MVVM and service pattern

  - by alfa-alfa

  I'm building a WPF application using the MVVM pattern. Right now, my viewmodels calls the service layer to retrieve models (how is not relevant to the viewmodel) and convert them to viewmodels. I'm using constructor injection to pass the service required to the viewmodel. It's easily testable and works well for viewmodels with few dependencies, but as soon as I try to create viewModels for complex models, I have a constructor with a LOT of services injected in it (one to retrieve each dependencies and a list of all available values to bind to an itemsSource for example). I'm wondering how to handle multiple services like that and still have a viewmodel that I can unit test easily. I'm thinking of a few solutions: Creating a services singleton (IServices) containing all the available services as interfaces. Example: Services.Current.XXXService.Retrieve(), Services.Current.YYYService.Retrieve(). That way, I don't have a huge constructor with a ton of services parameters in them. Creating a facade for the services used by the viewModel and passing this object in the ctor of my viewmodel. But then, I'll have to create a facade for each of my complexe viewmodels, and it might be a bit much... What do you think is the "right" way to implement this kind of architecture ?

  Read the article

• Repository query conditions, dependencies and DRY

  - by vFragosop

  To keep it simple, let's suppose an application which has Accounts and Users. Each account may have any number of users. There's also 3 consumers of UserRepository: An admin interface which may list all users Public front-end which may list all users An account authenticated API which should only list it's own users Assuming UserRepository is something like this: class UsersRepository extends DatabaseAbstraction { private function query() { return $this->database()->select('users.*'); } public function getAll() { return $this->query()->exec(); } // IMPORTANT: // Tons of other methods for searching, filtering, // joining of other tables, ordering and such... } Keeping in mind the comment above, and the necessity to abstract user querying conditions, How should I handle querying of users filtering by account_id? I can picture three possible roads: 1. Should I create an AccountUsersRepository? class AccountUsersRepository extends UserRepository { public function __construct(Account $account) { $this->account = $account; } private function query() { return parent::query() ->where('account_id', '=', $this->account->id); } } This has the advantage of reducing the duplication of UsersRepository methods, but doesn't quite fit into anything I've read about DDD so far (I'm rookie by the way) 2. Should I put it as a method on AccountsRepository? class AccountsRepository extends DatabaseAbstraction { public function getAccountUsers(Account $account) { return $this->database() ->select('users.*') ->where('account_id', '=', $account->id) ->exec(); } } This requires the duplication of all UserRepository methods and may need another UserQuery layer, that implements those querying logic on chainable way. 3. Should I query UserRepository from within my account entity? class Account extends Entity { public function getUsers() { return UserRepository::findByAccountId($this->id); } } This feels more like an aggregate root for me, but introduces dependency of UserRepository on Account entity, which may violate a few principles. 4. Or am I missing the point completely? Maybe there's an even better solution? Footnotes: Besides permissions being a Service concern, in my understanding, they shouldn't implement SQL query but leave that to repositories since those may not even be SQL driven.

  Read the article

• In developing a soap client proxy, which return structure is easier to use and more sensible?

  - by cori

  I'm writing (in PHP) a client/proxy for a SOAP web service. The return types are consistently wrapped in response objects that contain the return values. In many cases this make a lot of sense - for instance when multiple values are being returned: GetDetailsResponse Object ( Results Object ( [TotalResults] => 10 [NextPage] => 2 ) [Details] => Array ( [0] => Detail Object ( [Id] => 1 ) ) ) But some of the methods return a single scalar value or a single object or array wrapped in a response object: GetThingummyIdResponse Object ( [ThingummyId] => 42 ) In some cases these objects might be pretty deep, so getting at properties within requires drilling down several layers: $response->Details->Detail[0]->Contents->Item[5]->Id And if I unwrap them before passing them back I can strip out a layer from consumers' code. I know I'm probably being a little bit of an Architecture Astronaut here, but the latter style really bug me, so I've been working through my code to have my proxy methods just return the scalar value to the client code where there's no absolute need for a wrapper object. My question is, am I actually making things more difficult for the consumers of my code? Would I be better off just leaving the return values wrapped in response objects so that everything is consistent, or is removing unneccessary layers of indirection/abstraction worthwhile?

  Read the article

• Domain model integration using JSON capable DTOs

  - by g-makulik

  I'm a bit confused about architectural choices for the java/web-applications world. The background is I have a system with certain hardware components (that introduce system immanent active behavior) and a configuration database for system meta and HW-components configuration data (these are even usually self contained, since the HW-components persist configuration data anyway). For realization of the configuration/status data exchange protocol with the HW-components we have chosen the Google Protobuf format, which works well for the directly wired communication with these components. Now we want to develop an abstract model (domain model) for those HW-components and I have the feeling that a plain Java class model would fit best for this (c++ implementation seems to have too much implementation/integration overhead with viable language-bridge interfaces). Google Protobuf message definitions could still serve well to describe DTO objects used to interact with a domain model API. But integrating Google Protobuf messages client side for e.g. data binding in the current view doesn't seem to be a good choice. I'm thinking about some extra serialization features, e.g. for JSON based data exchange with the views/controllers. Most lightweight solutions seem to involve a python based presentation layer using JSON based data transfer (I'm at least not sure to be fully informed about this). Is there some lightweight (applicable for a limited ARM Linux platform) framework available, supporting such architecture to realize a web-application?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >