Search Results

Search found 17160 results on 687 pages for 'built in types'.

Page 1/687 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • value types in the vm

    - by john.rose
    value types in the vm p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 14.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times} p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 15.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times} p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Courier} p.p6 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Courier; min-height: 17.0px} p.p7 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times; min-height: 18.0px} p.p8 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: -36.0px; font: 14.0px Times; min-height: 18.0px} p.p9 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times; min-height: 18.0px} p.p10 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times; color: #000000} li.li1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times} li.li7 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Times; min-height: 18.0px} span.s1 {font: 14.0px Courier} span.s2 {color: #000000} span.s3 {font: 14.0px Courier; color: #000000} ol.ol1 {list-style-type: decimal} Or, enduring values for a changing world. Introduction A value type is a data type which, generally speaking, is designed for being passed by value in and out of methods, and stored by value in data structures. The only value types which the Java language directly supports are the eight primitive types. Java indirectly and approximately supports value types, if they are implemented in terms of classes. For example, both Integer and String may be viewed as value types, especially if their usage is restricted to avoid operations appropriate to Object. In this note, we propose a definition of value types in terms of a design pattern for Java classes, accompanied by a set of usage restrictions. We also sketch the relation of such value types to tuple types (which are a JVM-level notion), and point out JVM optimizations that can apply to value types. This note is a thought experiment to extend the JVM’s performance model in support of value types. The demonstration has two phases.  Initially the extension can simply use design patterns, within the current bytecode architecture, and in today’s Java language. But if the performance model is to be realized in practice, it will probably require new JVM bytecode features, changes to the Java language, or both.  We will look at a few possibilities for these new features. An Axiom of Value In the context of the JVM, a value type is a data type equipped with construction, assignment, and equality operations, and a set of typed components, such that, whenever two variables of the value type produce equal corresponding values for their components, the values of the two variables cannot be distinguished by any JVM operation. Here are some corollaries: A value type is immutable, since otherwise a copy could be constructed and the original could be modified in one of its components, allowing the copies to be distinguished. Changing the component of a value type requires construction of a new value. The equals and hashCode operations are strictly component-wise. If a value type is represented by a JVM reference, that reference cannot be successfully synchronized on, and cannot be usefully compared for reference equality. A value type can be viewed in terms of what it doesn’t do. We can say that a value type omits all value-unsafe operations, which could violate the constraints on value types.  These operations, which are ordinarily allowed for Java object types, are pointer equality comparison (the acmp instruction), synchronization (the monitor instructions), all the wait and notify methods of class Object, and non-trivial finalize methods. The clone method is also value-unsafe, although for value types it could be treated as the identity function. Finally, and most importantly, any side effect on an object (however visible) also counts as an value-unsafe operation. A value type may have methods, but such methods must not change the components of the value. It is reasonable and useful to define methods like toString, equals, and hashCode on value types, and also methods which are specifically valuable to users of the value type. Representations of Value Value types have two natural representations in the JVM, unboxed and boxed. An unboxed value consists of the components, as simple variables. For example, the complex number x=(1+2i), in rectangular coordinate form, may be represented in unboxed form by the following pair of variables: /*Complex x = Complex.valueOf(1.0, 2.0):*/ double x_re = 1.0, x_im = 2.0; These variables might be locals, parameters, or fields. Their association as components of a single value is not defined to the JVM. Here is a sample computation which computes the norm of the difference between two complex numbers: double distance(/*Complex x:*/ double x_re, double x_im,         /*Complex y:*/ double y_re, double y_im) {     /*Complex z = x.minus(y):*/     double z_re = x_re - y_re, z_im = x_im - y_im;     /*return z.abs():*/     return Math.sqrt(z_re*z_re + z_im*z_im); } A boxed representation groups component values under a single object reference. The reference is to a ‘wrapper class’ that carries the component values in its fields. (A primitive type can naturally be equated with a trivial value type with just one component of that type. In that view, the wrapper class Integer can serve as a boxed representation of value type int.) The unboxed representation of complex numbers is practical for many uses, but it fails to cover several major use cases: return values, array elements, and generic APIs. The two components of a complex number cannot be directly returned from a Java function, since Java does not support multiple return values. The same story applies to array elements: Java has no ’array of structs’ feature. (Double-length arrays are a possible workaround for complex numbers, but not for value types with heterogeneous components.) By generic APIs I mean both those which use generic types, like Arrays.asList and those which have special case support for primitive types, like String.valueOf and PrintStream.println. Those APIs do not support unboxed values, and offer some problems to boxed values. Any ’real’ JVM type should have a story for returns, arrays, and API interoperability. The basic problem here is that value types fall between primitive types and object types. Value types are clearly more complex than primitive types, and object types are slightly too complicated. Objects are a little bit dangerous to use as value carriers, since object references can be compared for pointer equality, and can be synchronized on. Also, as many Java programmers have observed, there is often a performance cost to using wrapper objects, even on modern JVMs. Even so, wrapper classes are a good starting point for talking about value types. If there were a set of structural rules and restrictions which would prevent value-unsafe operations on value types, wrapper classes would provide a good notation for defining value types. This note attempts to define such rules and restrictions. Let’s Start Coding Now it is time to look at some real code. Here is a definition, written in Java, of a complex number value type. @ValueSafe public final class Complex implements java.io.Serializable {     // immutable component structure:     public final double re, im;     private Complex(double re, double im) {         this.re = re; this.im = im;     }     // interoperability methods:     public String toString() { return "Complex("+re+","+im+")"; }     public List<Double> asList() { return Arrays.asList(re, im); }     public boolean equals(Complex c) {         return re == c.re && im == c.im;     }     public boolean equals(@ValueSafe Object x) {         return x instanceof Complex && equals((Complex) x);     }     public int hashCode() {         return 31*Double.valueOf(re).hashCode()                 + Double.valueOf(im).hashCode();     }     // factory methods:     public static Complex valueOf(double re, double im) {         return new Complex(re, im);     }     public Complex changeRe(double re2) { return valueOf(re2, im); }     public Complex changeIm(double im2) { return valueOf(re, im2); }     public static Complex cast(@ValueSafe Object x) {         return x == null ? ZERO : (Complex) x;     }     // utility methods and constants:     public Complex plus(Complex c)  { return new Complex(re+c.re, im+c.im); }     public Complex minus(Complex c) { return new Complex(re-c.re, im-c.im); }     public double abs() { return Math.sqrt(re*re + im*im); }     public static final Complex PI = valueOf(Math.PI, 0.0);     public static final Complex ZERO = valueOf(0.0, 0.0); } This is not a minimal definition, because it includes some utility methods and other optional parts.  The essential elements are as follows: The class is marked as a value type with an annotation. The class is final, because it does not make sense to create subclasses of value types. The fields of the class are all non-private and final.  (I.e., the type is immutable and structurally transparent.) From the supertype Object, all public non-final methods are overridden. The constructor is private. Beyond these bare essentials, we can observe the following features in this example, which are likely to be typical of all value types: One or more factory methods are responsible for value creation, including a component-wise valueOf method. There are utility methods for complex arithmetic and instance creation, such as plus and changeIm. There are static utility constants, such as PI. The type is serializable, using the default mechanisms. There are methods for converting to and from dynamically typed references, such as asList and cast. The Rules In order to use value types properly, the programmer must avoid value-unsafe operations.  A helpful Java compiler should issue errors (or at least warnings) for code which provably applies value-unsafe operations, and should issue warnings for code which might be correct but does not provably avoid value-unsafe operations.  No such compilers exist today, but to simplify our account here, we will pretend that they do exist. A value-safe type is any class, interface, or type parameter marked with the @ValueSafe annotation, or any subtype of a value-safe type.  If a value-safe class is marked final, it is in fact a value type.  All other value-safe classes must be abstract.  The non-static fields of a value class must be non-public and final, and all its constructors must be private. Under the above rules, a standard interface could be helpful to define value types like Complex.  Here is an example: @ValueSafe public interface ValueType extends java.io.Serializable {     // All methods listed here must get redefined.     // Definitions must be value-safe, which means     // they may depend on component values only.     List<? extends Object> asList();     int hashCode();     boolean equals(@ValueSafe Object c);     String toString(); } //@ValueSafe inherited from supertype: public final class Complex implements ValueType { … The main advantage of such a conventional interface is that (unlike an annotation) it is reified in the runtime type system.  It could appear as an element type or parameter bound, for facilities which are designed to work on value types only.  More broadly, it might assist the JVM to perform dynamic enforcement of the rules for value types. Besides types, the annotation @ValueSafe can mark fields, parameters, local variables, and methods.  (This is redundant when the type is also value-safe, but may be useful when the type is Object or another supertype of a value type.)  Working forward from these annotations, an expression E is defined as value-safe if it satisfies one or more of the following: The type of E is a value-safe type. E names a field, parameter, or local variable whose declaration is marked @ValueSafe. E is a call to a method whose declaration is marked @ValueSafe. E is an assignment to a value-safe variable, field reference, or array reference. E is a cast to a value-safe type from a value-safe expression. E is a conditional expression E0 ? E1 : E2, and both E1 and E2 are value-safe. Assignments to value-safe expressions and initializations of value-safe names must take their values from value-safe expressions. A value-safe expression may not be the subject of a value-unsafe operation.  In particular, it cannot be synchronized on, nor can it be compared with the “==” operator, not even with a null or with another value-safe type. In a program where all of these rules are followed, no value-type value will be subject to a value-unsafe operation.  Thus, the prime axiom of value types will be satisfied, that no two value type will be distinguishable as long as their component values are equal. More Code To illustrate these rules, here are some usage examples for Complex: Complex pi = Complex.valueOf(Math.PI, 0); Complex zero = pi.changeRe(0);  //zero = pi; zero.re = 0; ValueType vtype = pi; @SuppressWarnings("value-unsafe")   Object obj = pi; @ValueSafe Object obj2 = pi; obj2 = new Object();  // ok List<Complex> clist = new ArrayList<Complex>(); clist.add(pi);  // (ok assuming List.add param is @ValueSafe) List<ValueType> vlist = new ArrayList<ValueType>(); vlist.add(pi);  // (ok) List<Object> olist = new ArrayList<Object>(); olist.add(pi);  // warning: "value-unsafe" boolean z = pi.equals(zero); boolean z1 = (pi == zero);  // error: reference comparison on value type boolean z2 = (pi == null);  // error: reference comparison on value type boolean z3 = (pi == obj2);  // error: reference comparison on value type synchronized (pi) { }  // error: synch of value, unpredictable result synchronized (obj2) { }  // unpredictable result Complex qq = pi; qq = null;  // possible NPE; warning: “null-unsafe" qq = (Complex) obj;  // warning: “null-unsafe" qq = Complex.cast(obj);  // OK @SuppressWarnings("null-unsafe")   Complex empty = null;  // possible NPE qq = empty;  // possible NPE (null pollution) The Payoffs It follows from this that either the JVM or the java compiler can replace boxed value-type values with unboxed ones, without affecting normal computations.  Fields and variables of value types can be split into their unboxed components.  Non-static methods on value types can be transformed into static methods which take the components as value parameters. Some common questions arise around this point in any discussion of value types. Why burden the programmer with all these extra rules?  Why not detect programs automagically and perform unboxing transparently?  The answer is that it is easy to break the rules accidently unless they are agreed to by the programmer and enforced.  Automatic unboxing optimizations are tantalizing but (so far) unreachable ideal.  In the current state of the art, it is possible exhibit benchmarks in which automatic unboxing provides the desired effects, but it is not possible to provide a JVM with a performance model that assures the programmer when unboxing will occur.  This is why I’m writing this note, to enlist help from, and provide assurances to, the programmer.  Basically, I’m shooting for a good set of user-supplied “pragmas” to frame the desired optimization. Again, the important thing is that the unboxing must be done reliably, or else programmers will have no reason to work with the extra complexity of the value-safety rules.  There must be a reasonably stable performance model, wherein using a value type has approximately the same performance characteristics as writing the unboxed components as separate Java variables. There are some rough corners to the present scheme.  Since Java fields and array elements are initialized to null, value-type computations which incorporate uninitialized variables can produce null pointer exceptions.  One workaround for this is to require such variables to be null-tested, and the result replaced with a suitable all-zero value of the value type.  That is what the “cast” method does above. Generically typed APIs like List<T> will continue to manipulate boxed values always, at least until we figure out how to do reification of generic type instances.  Use of such APIs will elicit warnings until their type parameters (and/or relevant members) are annotated or typed as value-safe.  Retrofitting List<T> is likely to expose flaws in the present scheme, which we will need to engineer around.  Here are a couple of first approaches: public interface java.util.List<@ValueSafe T> extends Collection<T> { … public interface java.util.List<T extends Object|ValueType> extends Collection<T> { … (The second approach would require disjunctive types, in which value-safety is “contagious” from the constituent types.) With more transformations, the return value types of methods can also be unboxed.  This may require significant bytecode-level transformations, and would work best in the presence of a bytecode representation for multiple value groups, which I have proposed elsewhere under the title “Tuples in the VM”. But for starters, the JVM can apply this transformation under the covers, to internally compiled methods.  This would give a way to express multiple return values and structured return values, which is a significant pain-point for Java programmers, especially those who work with low-level structure types favored by modern vector and graphics processors.  The lack of multiple return values has a strong distorting effect on many Java APIs. Even if the JVM fails to unbox a value, there is still potential benefit to the value type.  Clustered computing systems something have copy operations (serialization or something similar) which apply implicitly to command operands.  When copying JVM objects, it is extremely helpful to know when an object’s identity is important or not.  If an object reference is a copied operand, the system may have to create a proxy handle which points back to the original object, so that side effects are visible.  Proxies must be managed carefully, and this can be expensive.  On the other hand, value types are exactly those types which a JVM can “copy and forget” with no downside. Array types are crucial to bulk data interfaces.  (As data sizes and rates increase, bulk data becomes more important than scalar data, so arrays are definitely accompanying us into the future of computing.)  Value types are very helpful for adding structure to bulk data, so a successful value type mechanism will make it easier for us to express richer forms of bulk data. Unboxing arrays (i.e., arrays containing unboxed values) will provide better cache and memory density, and more direct data movement within clustered or heterogeneous computing systems.  They require the deepest transformations, relative to today’s JVM.  There is an impedance mismatch between value-type arrays and Java’s covariant array typing, so compromises will need to be struck with existing Java semantics.  It is probably worth the effort, since arrays of unboxed value types are inherently more memory-efficient than standard Java arrays, which rely on dependent pointer chains. It may be sufficient to extend the “value-safe” concept to array declarations, and allow low-level transformations to change value-safe array declarations from the standard boxed form into an unboxed tuple-based form.  Such value-safe arrays would not be convertible to Object[] arrays.  Certain connection points, such as Arrays.copyOf and System.arraycopy might need additional input/output combinations, to allow smooth conversion between arrays with boxed and unboxed elements. Alternatively, the correct solution may have to wait until we have enough reification of generic types, and enough operator overloading, to enable an overhaul of Java arrays. Implicit Method Definitions The example of class Complex above may be unattractively complex.  I believe most or all of the elements of the example class are required by the logic of value types. If this is true, a programmer who writes a value type will have to write lots of error-prone boilerplate code.  On the other hand, I think nearly all of the code (except for the domain-specific parts like plus and minus) can be implicitly generated. Java has a rule for implicitly defining a class’s constructor, if no it defines no constructors explicitly.  Likewise, there are rules for providing default access modifiers for interface members.  Because of the highly regular structure of value types, it might be reasonable to perform similar implicit transformations on value types.  Here’s an example of a “highly implicit” definition of a complex number type: public class Complex implements ValueType {  // implicitly final     public double re, im;  // implicitly public final     //implicit methods are defined elementwise from te fields:     //  toString, asList, equals(2), hashCode, valueOf, cast     //optionally, explicit methods (plus, abs, etc.) would go here } In other words, with the right defaults, a simple value type definition can be a one-liner.  The observant reader will have noticed the similarities (and suitable differences) between the explicit methods above and the corresponding methods for List<T>. Another way to abbreviate such a class would be to make an annotation the primary trigger of the functionality, and to add the interface(s) implicitly: public @ValueType class Complex { … // implicitly final, implements ValueType (But to me it seems better to communicate the “magic” via an interface, even if it is rooted in an annotation.) Implicitly Defined Value Types So far we have been working with nominal value types, which is to say that the sequence of typed components is associated with a name and additional methods that convey the intention of the programmer.  A simple ordered pair of floating point numbers can be variously interpreted as (to name a few possibilities) a rectangular or polar complex number or Cartesian point.  The name and the methods convey the intended meaning. But what if we need a truly simple ordered pair of floating point numbers, without any further conceptual baggage?  Perhaps we are writing a method (like “divideAndRemainder”) which naturally returns a pair of numbers instead of a single number.  Wrapping the pair of numbers in a nominal type (like “QuotientAndRemainder”) makes as little sense as wrapping a single return value in a nominal type (like “Quotient”).  What we need here are structural value types commonly known as tuples. For the present discussion, let us assign a conventional, JVM-friendly name to tuples, roughly as follows: public class java.lang.tuple.$DD extends java.lang.tuple.Tuple {      double $1, $2; } Here the component names are fixed and all the required methods are defined implicitly.  The supertype is an abstract class which has suitable shared declarations.  The name itself mentions a JVM-style method parameter descriptor, which may be “cracked” to determine the number and types of the component fields. The odd thing about such a tuple type (and structural types in general) is it must be instantiated lazily, in response to linkage requests from one or more classes that need it.  The JVM and/or its class loaders must be prepared to spin a tuple type on demand, given a simple name reference, $xyz, where the xyz is cracked into a series of component types.  (Specifics of naming and name mangling need some tasteful engineering.) Tuples also seem to demand, even more than nominal types, some support from the language.  (This is probably because notations for non-nominal types work best as combinations of punctuation and type names, rather than named constructors like Function3 or Tuple2.)  At a minimum, languages with tuples usually (I think) have some sort of simple bracket notation for creating tuples, and a corresponding pattern-matching syntax (or “destructuring bind”) for taking tuples apart, at least when they are parameter lists.  Designing such a syntax is no simple thing, because it ought to play well with nominal value types, and also with pre-existing Java features, such as method parameter lists, implicit conversions, generic types, and reflection.  That is a task for another day. Other Use Cases Besides complex numbers and simple tuples there are many use cases for value types.  Many tuple-like types have natural value-type representations. These include rational numbers, point locations and pixel colors, and various kinds of dates and addresses. Other types have a variable-length ‘tail’ of internal values. The most common example of this is String, which is (mathematically) a sequence of UTF-16 character values. Similarly, bit vectors, multiple-precision numbers, and polynomials are composed of sequences of values. Such types include, in their representation, a reference to a variable-sized data structure (often an array) which (somehow) represents the sequence of values. The value type may also include ’header’ information. Variable-sized values often have a length distribution which favors short lengths. In that case, the design of the value type can make the first few values in the sequence be direct ’header’ fields of the value type. In the common case where the header is enough to represent the whole value, the tail can be a shared null value, or even just a null reference. Note that the tail need not be an immutable object, as long as the header type encapsulates it well enough. This is the case with String, where the tail is a mutable (but never mutated) character array. Field types and their order must be a globally visible part of the API.  The structure of the value type must be transparent enough to have a globally consistent unboxed representation, so that all callers and callees agree about the type and order of components  that appear as parameters, return types, and array elements.  This is a trade-off between efficiency and encapsulation, which is forced on us when we remove an indirection enjoyed by boxed representations.  A JVM-only transformation would not care about such visibility, but a bytecode transformation would need to take care that (say) the components of complex numbers would not get swapped after a redefinition of Complex and a partial recompile.  Perhaps constant pool references to value types need to declare the field order as assumed by each API user. This brings up the delicate status of private fields in a value type.  It must always be possible to load, store, and copy value types as coordinated groups, and the JVM performs those movements by moving individual scalar values between locals and stack.  If a component field is not public, what is to prevent hostile code from plucking it out of the tuple using a rogue aload or astore instruction?  Nothing but the verifier, so we may need to give it more smarts, so that it treats value types as inseparable groups of stack slots or locals (something like long or double). My initial thought was to make the fields always public, which would make the security problem moot.  But public is not always the right answer; consider the case of String, where the underlying mutable character array must be encapsulated to prevent security holes.  I believe we can win back both sides of the tradeoff, by training the verifier never to split up the components in an unboxed value.  Just as the verifier encapsulates the two halves of a 64-bit primitive, it can encapsulate the the header and body of an unboxed String, so that no code other than that of class String itself can take apart the values. Similar to String, we could build an efficient multi-precision decimal type along these lines: public final class DecimalValue extends ValueType {     protected final long header;     protected private final BigInteger digits;     public DecimalValue valueOf(int value, int scale) {         assert(scale >= 0);         return new DecimalValue(((long)value << 32) + scale, null);     }     public DecimalValue valueOf(long value, int scale) {         if (value == (int) value)             return valueOf((int)value, scale);         return new DecimalValue(-scale, new BigInteger(value));     } } Values of this type would be passed between methods as two machine words. Small values (those with a significand which fits into 32 bits) would be represented without any heap data at all, unless the DecimalValue itself were boxed. (Note the tension between encapsulation and unboxing in this case.  It would be better if the header and digits fields were private, but depending on where the unboxing information must “leak”, it is probably safer to make a public revelation of the internal structure.) Note that, although an array of Complex can be faked with a double-length array of double, there is no easy way to fake an array of unboxed DecimalValues.  (Either an array of boxed values or a transposed pair of homogeneous arrays would be reasonable fallbacks, in a current JVM.)  Getting the full benefit of unboxing and arrays will require some new JVM magic. Although the JVM emphasizes portability, system dependent code will benefit from using machine-level types larger than 64 bits.  For example, the back end of a linear algebra package might benefit from value types like Float4 which map to stock vector types.  This is probably only worthwhile if the unboxing arrays can be packed with such values. More Daydreams A more finely-divided design for dynamic enforcement of value safety could feature separate marker interfaces for each invariant.  An empty marker interface Unsynchronizable could cause suitable exceptions for monitor instructions on objects in marked classes.  More radically, a Interchangeable marker interface could cause JVM primitives that are sensitive to object identity to raise exceptions; the strangest result would be that the acmp instruction would have to be specified as raising an exception. @ValueSafe public interface ValueType extends java.io.Serializable,         Unsynchronizable, Interchangeable { … public class Complex implements ValueType {     // inherits Serializable, Unsynchronizable, Interchangeable, @ValueSafe     … It seems possible that Integer and the other wrapper types could be retro-fitted as value-safe types.  This is a major change, since wrapper objects would be unsynchronizable and their references interchangeable.  It is likely that code which violates value-safety for wrapper types exists but is uncommon.  It is less plausible to retro-fit String, since the prominent operation String.intern is often used with value-unsafe code. We should also reconsider the distinction between boxed and unboxed values in code.  The design presented above obscures that distinction.  As another thought experiment, we could imagine making a first class distinction in the type system between boxed and unboxed representations.  Since only primitive types are named with a lower-case initial letter, we could define that the capitalized version of a value type name always refers to the boxed representation, while the initial lower-case variant always refers to boxed.  For example: complex pi = complex.valueOf(Math.PI, 0); Complex boxPi = pi;  // convert to boxed myList.add(boxPi); complex z = myList.get(0);  // unbox Such a convention could perhaps absorb the current difference between int and Integer, double and Double. It might also allow the programmer to express a helpful distinction among array types. As said above, array types are crucial to bulk data interfaces, but are limited in the JVM.  Extending arrays beyond the present limitations is worth thinking about; for example, the Maxine JVM implementation has a hybrid object/array type.  Something like this which can also accommodate value type components seems worthwhile.  On the other hand, does it make sense for value types to contain short arrays?  And why should random-access arrays be the end of our design process, when bulk data is often sequentially accessed, and it might make sense to have heterogeneous streams of data as the natural “jumbo” data structure.  These considerations must wait for another day and another note. More Work It seems to me that a good sequence for introducing such value types would be as follows: Add the value-safety restrictions to an experimental version of javac. Code some sample applications with value types, including Complex and DecimalValue. Create an experimental JVM which internally unboxes value types but does not require new bytecodes to do so.  Ensure the feasibility of the performance model for the sample applications. Add tuple-like bytecodes (with or without generic type reification) to a major revision of the JVM, and teach the Java compiler to switch in the new bytecodes without code changes. A staggered roll-out like this would decouple language changes from bytecode changes, which is always a convenient thing. A similar investigation should be applied (concurrently) to array typesIn this case, it seems to me that the starting point is in the JVM: Add an experimental unboxing array data structure to a production JVM, perhaps along the lines of Maxine hybrids.  No bytecode or language support is required at first; everything can be done with encapsulated unsafe operations and/or method handles. Create an experimental JVM which internally unboxes value types but does not require new bytecodes to do so.  Ensure the feasibility of the performance model for the sample applications. Add tuple-like bytecodes (with or without generic type reification) to a major revision of the JVM, and teach the Java compiler to switch in the new bytecodes without code changes. That’s enough musing me for now.  Back to work!

    Read the article

  • Python — Time complexity of built-in functions versus manually-built functions in finite fields

    - by stackuser
    Generally, I'm wondering about the advantages versus disadvantages of using the built-in arithmetic functions versus rolling your own in Python. Specifically, I'm taking in GF(2) finite field polynomials in string format, converting to base 2 values, performing arithmetic, then output back into polynomials as string format. So a small example of this is in multiplication: Rolling my own: def multiply(a,b): bitsa = reversed("{0:b}".format(a)) g = [(b<<i)*int(bit) for i,bit in enumerate(bitsa)] return reduce(lambda x,y: x+y,g) Versus the built-in: def multiply(a,b): # a,b are GF(2) polynomials in binary form .... return a*b #returns product of 2 polynomials in gf2 Currently, operations like multiplicative inverse (with for example 20 bit exponents) take a long time to run in my program as it's using all of Python's built-in mathematical operations like // floor division and % modulus, etc. as opposed to making my own division, remainder, etc. I'm wondering how much of a gain in efficiency and performance I can get by building these manually (as shown above). I realize the gains are dependent on how well the manual versions are built, that's not the question. I'd like to find out 'basically' how much advantage there is over the built-in's. So for instance, if multiplication (as in the example above) is well-suited for base 10 (decimal) arithmetic but has to jump through more hoops to change bases to binary and then even more hoops in operating (so it's lower efficiency), that's what I'm wondering. Like, I'm wondering if it's possible to bring the time down significantly by building them myself in ways that maybe some professionals here have already come across.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Wait Stats – Wait Types – Wait Queues – Day 0 of 28

    - by pinaldave
    This blog post will have running account of the all the blog post I will be doing in this month related to SQL Server Wait Types and Wait Queues. SQL SERVER – Introduction to Wait Stats and Wait Types – Wait Type – Day 1 of 28 SQL SERVER – Signal Wait Time Introduction with Simple Example – Wait Type – Day 2 of 28 SQL SERVER – DMV – sys.dm_os_wait_stats Explanation – Wait Type – Day 3 of 28 SQL SERVER – DMV – sys.dm_os_waiting_tasks and sys.dm_exec_requests – Wait Type – Day 4 of 28 SQL SERVER – Capturing Wait Types and Wait Stats Information at Interval – Wait Type – Day 5 of 28 SQL SERVER – CXPACKET – Parallelism – Usual Solution – Wait Type – Day 6 of 28 SQL SERVER – CXPACKET – Parallelism – Advanced Solution – Wait Type – Day 7 of 28 SQL SERVER – SOS_SCHEDULER_YIELD – Wait Type – Day 8 of 28 SQL SERVER – PAGEIOLATCH_DT, PAGEIOLATCH_EX, PAGEIOLATCH_KP, PAGEIOLATCH_SH, PAGEIOLATCH_UP – Wait Type – Day 9 of 28 SQL SERVER – IO_COMPLETION – Wait Type – Day 10 of 28 SQL SERVER – ASYNC_IO_COMPLETION – Wait Type – Day 11 of 28 SQL SERVER – PAGELATCH_DT, PAGELATCH_EX, PAGELATCH_KP, PAGELATCH_SH, PAGELATCH_UP – Wait Type – Day 12 of 28 SQL SERVER – FT_IFTS_SCHEDULER_IDLE_WAIT – Full Text – Wait Type – Day 13 of 28 SQL SERVER – BACKUPIO, BACKUPBUFFER – Wait Type – Day 14 of 28 SQL SERVER – LCK_M_XXX – Wait Type – Day 15 of 28 Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Optimization, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL Wait Stats, SQL Wait Types, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Wait Stats – Wait Types – Wait Queues – Day 0 of 28

    - by pinaldave
    This blog post will have running account of the all the blog post I will be doing in this month related to SQL Server Wait Types and Wait Queues. SQL SERVER – Introduction to Wait Stats and Wait Types – Wait Type – Day 1 of 28 SQL SERVER – Single Wait Time Introduction with Simple Example – Wait Type – Day 2 of 28 Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL Wait Stats, SQL Wait Types, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Guest Post – Jacob Sebastian – Filestream – Wait Types – Wait Queues – Day 22 of 28

    - by pinaldave
    Jacob Sebastian is a SQL Server MVP, Author, Speaker and Trainer. Jacob is one of the top rated expert community. Jacob wrote the book The Art of XSD – SQL Server XML Schema Collections and wrote the XML Chapter in SQL Server 2008 Bible. See his Blog | Profile. He is currently researching on the subject of Filestream and have submitted this interesting article on the very subject. What is FILESTREAM? FILESTREAM is a new feature introduced in SQL Server 2008 which provides an efficient storage and management option for BLOB data. Many applications that deal with BLOB data today stores them in the file system and stores the path to the file in the relational tables. Storing BLOB data in the file system is more efficient that storing them in the database. However, this brings up a few disadvantages as well. When the BLOB data is stored in the file system, it is hard to ensure transactional consistency between the file system data and relational data. Some applications store the BLOB data within the database to overcome the limitations mentioned earlier. This approach ensures transactional consistency between the relational data and BLOB data, but is very bad in terms of performance. FILESTREAM combines the benefits of both approaches mentioned above without the disadvantages we examined. FILESTREAM stores the BLOB data in the file system (thus takes advantage of the IO Streaming capabilities of NTFS) and ensures transactional consistency between the BLOB data in the file system and the relational data in the database. For more information on the FILESTREAM feature, visit: http://beyondrelational.com/filestream/default.aspx FILESTREAM Wait Types Since this series is on the different SQL Server wait types, let us take a look at the various wait types that are related to the FILESTREAM feature. FS_FC_RWLOCK This wait type is generated by FILESTREAM Garbage Collector. This occurs when Garbage collection is disabled prior to a backup/restore operation or when a garbage collection cycle is being executed. FS_GARBAGE_COLLECTOR_SHUTDOWN This wait type occurs when during the cleanup process of a garbage collection cycle. It indicates that that garbage collector is waiting for the cleanup tasks to be completed. FS_HEADER_RWLOCK This wait type indicates that the process is waiting for obtaining access to the FILESTREAM header file for read or write operation. The FILESTREAM header is a disk file located in the FILESTREAM data container and is named “filestream.hdr”. FS_LOGTRUNC_RWLOCK This wait type indicates that the process is trying to perform a FILESTREAM log truncation related operation. It can be either a log truncate operation or to disable log truncation prior to a backup or restore operation. FSA_FORCE_OWN_XACT This wait type occurs when a FILESTREAM file I/O operation needs to bind to the associated transaction, but the transaction is currently owned by another session. FSAGENT This wait type occurs when a FILESTREAM file I/O operation is waiting for a FILESTREAM agent resource that is being used by another file I/O operation. FSTR_CONFIG_MUTEX This wait type occurs when there is a wait for another FILESTREAM feature reconfiguration to be completed. FSTR_CONFIG_RWLOCK This wait type occurs when there is a wait to serialize access to the FILESTREAM configuration parameters. Waits and Performance System waits has got a direct relationship with the overall performance. In most cases, when waits increase the performance degrades. SQL Server documentation does not say much about how we can reduce these waits. However, following the FILESTREAM best practices will help you to improve the overall performance and reduce the wait types to a good extend. Read all the post in the Wait Types and Queue series. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, PostADay, Readers Contribution, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL Wait Stats, SQL Wait Types, T SQL, Technology Tagged: Filestream

    Read the article

  • SQLAuthority News – Online Webcast How to Identify Resource Bottlenecks – Wait Types and Queues

    - by pinaldave
    As all of you know I have been working a recently on the subject SQL Server Wait Statistics, the reason is since I have published book on this subject SQL Wait Stats Joes 2 Pros: SQL Performance Tuning Techniques Using Wait Statistics, Types & Queues [Amazon] | [Flipkart] | [Kindle], lots of question and answers I am encountering. When I was writing the book, I kept version 1 of the book in front of me. I wanted to write something which one can use right away. I wanted to create an primer for everybody who have not explored wait stats method of performance tuning. Well, the books have been very well received and in fact we ran out of huge stock 2 times in India so far and once in USA during SQLPASS. I have received so many questions on this subject that I feel I can write one more book of the same size. I have been asked if I can create videos which can go along with this book. Personally I am working with SQL Server 2012 CTP3 and there are so many new wait types, I feel the subject of wait stats is going to be very very crucial in next version of SQL Server. If you have not started learning about this subject, I suggest you at least start exploring this right now. Learn how to begin on this subject atleast as when the next version comes in, you know how to read DMVs. I will be presenting on the same subject of performance tuning by wait stats in webcast embarcadero SQL Server Community Webinar. Here are few topics which we will be covering during the webinar. Beginning with SQL Wait Stats Understanding various aspect of SQL Wait Stats Understanding Query Life Cycle Identifying three TOP wait Stats Resolution of the common 3 wait types and queues Details of the webcast: How to Identify Resource Bottlenecks – Wait Types and Queues Date and Time: Wednesday, November 2, 11:00 AM PDT Registration Link I thank embarcadero for organizing opportunity for me to share my experience on subject of wait stats and connecting me with community to further take this subject to next level. One more interesting thing, I will ask one question at the end of the webinar and I will be giving away 5 copy of my SQL Wait Stats print book to first five correct answers. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: About Me, Pinal Dave, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL Wait Stats, SQL Wait Types, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Introduction to Wait Stats and Wait Types – Wait Type – Day 1 of 28

    - by pinaldave
    I have been working a lot on Wait Stats and Wait Types recently. Last Year, I requested blog readers to send me their respective server’s wait stats. I appreciate their kind response as I have received  Wait stats from my readers. I took each of the results and carefully analyzed them. I provided necessary feedback to the person who sent me his wait stats and wait types. Based on the feedbacks I got, many of the readers have tuned their server. After a while I got further feedbacks on my recommendations and again, I collected wait stats. I recorded the wait stats and my recommendations and did further research. At some point at time, there were more than 10 different round trips of the recommendations and suggestions. Finally, after six month of working my hands on performance tuning, I have collected some real world wisdom because of this. Now I plan to share my findings with all of you over here. Before anything else, please note that all of these are based on my personal observations and opinions. They may or may not match the theory available at other places. Some of the suggestions may not match your situation. Remember, every server is different and consequently, there is more than one solution to a particular problem. However, this series is written with kept wait stats in mind. While I was working on various performance tuning consultations, I did many more things than just tuning wait stats. Today we will discuss how to capture the wait stats. I use the script diagnostic script created by my friend and SQL Server Expert Glenn Berry to collect wait stats. Here is the script to collect the wait stats: -- Isolate top waits for server instance since last restart or statistics clear WITH Waits AS (SELECT wait_type, wait_time_ms / 1000. AS wait_time_s, 100. * wait_time_ms / SUM(wait_time_ms) OVER() AS pct, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY wait_time_ms DESC) AS rn FROM sys.dm_os_wait_stats WHERE wait_type NOT IN ('CLR_SEMAPHORE','LAZYWRITER_SLEEP','RESOURCE_QUEUE','SLEEP_TASK' ,'SLEEP_SYSTEMTASK','SQLTRACE_BUFFER_FLUSH','WAITFOR', 'LOGMGR_QUEUE','CHECKPOINT_QUEUE' ,'REQUEST_FOR_DEADLOCK_SEARCH','XE_TIMER_EVENT','BROKER_TO_FLUSH','BROKER_TASK_STOP','CLR_MANUAL_EVENT' ,'CLR_AUTO_EVENT','DISPATCHER_QUEUE_SEMAPHORE', 'FT_IFTS_SCHEDULER_IDLE_WAIT' ,'XE_DISPATCHER_WAIT', 'XE_DISPATCHER_JOIN', 'SQLTRACE_INCREMENTAL_FLUSH_SLEEP')) SELECT W1.wait_type, CAST(W1.wait_time_s AS DECIMAL(12, 2)) AS wait_time_s, CAST(W1.pct AS DECIMAL(12, 2)) AS pct, CAST(SUM(W2.pct) AS DECIMAL(12, 2)) AS running_pct FROM Waits AS W1 INNER JOIN Waits AS W2 ON W2.rn <= W1.rn GROUP BY W1.rn, W1.wait_type, W1.wait_time_s, W1.pct HAVING SUM(W2.pct) - W1.pct < 99 OPTION (RECOMPILE); -- percentage threshold GO This script uses Dynamic Management View sys.dm_os_wait_stats to collect the wait stats. It omits the system-related wait stats which are not useful to diagnose performance-related bottleneck. Additionally, not OPTION (RECOMPILE) at the end of the DMV will ensure that every time the query runs, it retrieves new data and not the cached data. This dynamic management view collects all the information since the time when the SQL Server services have been restarted. You can also manually clear the wait stats using the following command: DBCC SQLPERF('sys.dm_os_wait_stats', CLEAR); Once the wait stats are collected, we can start analysis them and try to see what is causing any particular wait stats to achieve higher percentages than the others. Many waits stats are related to one another. When the CPU pressure is high, all the CPU-related wait stats show up on top. But when that is fixed, all the wait stats related to the CPU start showing reasonable percentages. It is difficult to have a sure solution, but there are good indications and good suggestions on how to solve this. I will keep this blog post updated as I will post more details about wait stats and how I reduce them. The reference to Book On Line is over here. Of course, I have selected February to run this Wait Stats series. I am already cheating by having the smallest month to run this series. :) Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: DMV, Pinal Dave, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Optimization, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL Wait Stats, SQL Wait Types, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • Types issue in F#

    - by Andry
    Hello! In my ongoing adventure deep diving into f# I am understanding a lot of this powerful language but there are things that I still do not understand so clearly. One of the most important issues I need to master is types. Well the book I am reading is very straight forward and introduces entities and main functionalities with a direct approach. The first thing I could get start with is types. It introduces the main types as list, option, tuples, and so on... It is clearly underlined that all these types are IMMUTABLE for many reasons regarding functional programming and data consistance in functional programing. Well, no problems until now... But now I am getting started with Concrete Types... Well... I have problems in managing with types like list, option, tuples, types created through new operator and concrete types created using type keyword (for abbreviations, concrete types...). So my question is: how can I efficently catalogue/distinguish all types of data in f#???? I can create a perfect separation among types in C#, VB.NET... FOr example in VB.NET there are value and reference types while in C# there are only references and also int, double are treated as objects (they are objects while in VB.NET a value type is not a object and there is a split in types for this reason). Well in F# I cannot create such differences among types in the language. Can you help me? I hope I was clear.

    Read the article

  • computing hash values, integral types versus struct/class

    - by aaa
    hello I would like to know if there is a difference in speed between computing hash value (for example std::map key) of primitive integral type, such as int64_t and pod type, for example struct { int16_t v[4]; };. I know this is going to implementation specific, so my question ultimately pertains to gnu standard library. Thanks

    Read the article

  • List of Commonly Used Value Types in XNA Games

    - by Michael B. McLaughlin
    Most XNA programmers are concerned about generating garbage. More specifically about allocating GC-managed memory (GC stands for “garbage collector” and is both the name of the class that provides access to the garbage collector and an acronym for the garbage collector (as a concept) itself). Two of the major target platforms for XNA (Windows Phone 7 and Xbox 360) use variants of the .NET Compact Framework. On both variants, the GC runs under various circumstances (Windows Phone 7 and Xbox 360). Of concern to XNA programmers is the fact that it runs automatically after a fixed amount of GC-managed memory has been allocated (currently 1MB on both systems). Many beginning XNA programmers are unaware of what constitutes GC-managed memory, though. So here’s a quick overview. In .NET, there are two different “types” of types: value types and reference types. Only reference types are managed by the garbage collector. Value types are not managed by the garbage collector and are instead managed in other ways that are implementation dependent. For purposes of XNA programming, the important point is that they are not managed by the GC and thus do not, by themselves, increment that internal 1 MB allocation counter. (n.b. Structs are value types. If you have a struct that has a reference type as a member, then that reference type, when instantiated, will still be allocated in the GC-managed memory and will thus count against the 1 MB allocation counter. Putting it in a struct doesn’t change the fact that it gets allocated on the GC heap, but the struct itself is created outside of the GC’s purview). Both value types and reference types use the keyword ‘new’ to allocate a new instance of them. Sometimes this keyword is hidden by a method which creates new instances for you, e.g. XmlReader.Create. But the important thing to determine is whether or not you are dealing with a value types or a reference type. If it’s a value type, you can use the ‘new’ keyword to allocate new instances of that type without incrementing the GC allocation counter (except as above where it’s a struct with a reference type in it that is allocated by the constructor, but there are no .NET Framework or XNA Framework value types that do this so it would have to be a struct you created or that was in some third-party library you were using for that to even become an issue). The following is a list of most all of value types you are likely to use in a generic XNA game: AudioCategory (used with XACT; not available on WP7) AvatarExpression (Xbox 360 only, but exposed on Windows to ease Xbox development) bool BoundingBox BoundingSphere byte char Color DateTime decimal double any enum (System.Enum itself is a class, but all enums are value types such that there are no GC allocations for enums) float GamePadButtons GamePadCapabilities GamePadDPad GamePadState GamePadThumbSticks GamePadTriggers GestureSample int IntPtr (rarely but occasionally used in XNA) KeyboardState long Matrix MouseState nullable structs (anytime you see, e.g. int? something, that ‘?’ denotes a nullable struct, also called a nullable type) Plane Point Quaternion Ray Rectangle RenderTargetBinding sbyte (though I’ve never seen it used since most people would just use a short) short TimeSpan TouchCollection TouchLocation TouchPanelCapabilities uint ulong ushort Vector2 Vector3 Vector4 VertexBufferBinding VertexElement VertexPositionColor VertexPositionColorTexture VertexPositionNormalTexture VertexPositionTexture Viewport So there you have it. That’s not quite a complete list, mind you. For example: There are various structs in the .NET framework you might make use of. I left out everything from the Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Graphics.PackedVector namespace, since everything in there ventures into the realm of advanced XNA programming anyway (n.b. every single instantiable thing in that namespace is a struct and thus a value type; there are also two interfaces but interfaces cannot be instantiated at all and thus don’t figure in to this discussion). There are so many enums you’re likely to use (PlayerIndex, SpriteSortMode, SpriteEffects, SurfaceFormat, etc.) that including them would’ve flooded the list and reduced its utility. So I went with “any enum” and trust that you can figure out what the enums are (and it’s rare to use ‘new’ with an enum anyway). That list also doesn’t include any of the pre-defined static instances of some of the classes (e.g. BlendState.AlphaBlend, BlendState.Opaque, etc.) which are already allocated such that using them doesn’t cause any new allocations and therefore doesn’t increase that 1 MB counter. That list also has a few misleading things. VertexElement, VertexPositionColor, and all the other vertex types are structs. But you’re only likely to ever use them as an array (for use with VertexBuffer or DynamicVertexBuffer), and all arrays are reference types (even arrays of value types such as VertexPositionColor[ ] or int[ ]). * So that’s it for now. The note below may be a bit confusing (it deals with how the GC works and how arrays are managed in .NET). If so, you can probably safely ignore it for now but feel free to ask any questions regardless. * Arrays of value types (where the value type doesn’t contain any reference type members) are much faster for the GC to examine than arrays of reference types, so there is a definite benefit to using arrays of value types where it makes sense. But creating arrays of value types does cause the GC’s allocation counter to increase. Indeed, allocating a large array of a value type is one of the quickest ways to increment the allocation counter since a .NET array is a sequential block of memory. An array of reference types is just a sequential block of references (typically 4 bytes each) while an array of value types is a sequential block of instances of that type. So for an array of Vector3s it would be 12 bytes each since each float is 4 bytes and there are 3 in a Vector3; for an array of VertexPositionNormalTexture structs it would typically be 32 bytes each since it has two Vector3s and a Vector2. (Note that there are a few additional bytes taken up in the creation of an array, typically 12 but sometimes 16 or possibly even more, which depend on the implementation details of the array type on the particular platform the code is running on).

    Read the article

  • Writing cross-platforms Types, Interfaces and Classes/Methods in C++

    - by user827992
    I'm looking for the best solution to write cross-platform software, aka code that I write and that I have to interface with different libraries and platforms each time. What I consider the easiest part, correct me if I'm wrong, is the definition of new types, all I have to do is to write an hpp file with a list of typedefs, I can keep the same names for each new type across the different platforms so my codebase can be shared without any problem. typedefs also helps me to redefine a better scope for my types in my code. I will probably end up having something like this: include |-windows | |-types.hpp |-linux | |-types.hpp |-mac |-types.hpp For the interfaces I'm thinking about the same solution used for the types, a series of hpp files, probably I will write all the interfaces only once since they rely on the types and all "cross-platform portability" is ensured by the work done on the types. include | |-interfaces.hpp | |-windows | |-types.hpp |-linux | |-types.hpp |-mac | |-types.hpp For classes and methods I do not have a real answer, I would like to avoid 2 things: the explicit use of pointers the use of templates I want to avoid the use of the pointers because they can make the code less readable for someone and I want to avoid templates just because if I write them, I can't separate the interface from the definition. What is the best option to hide the use of the pointers? I would also like some words about macros and how to implement some OS-specifics calls and definitions.

    Read the article

  • MooseX::Types declaration issue, tight test case :)

    - by TJ Thompson
    So after an embarrassing amount of time debugging, I've finally stripped this issue ([http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4621589/perl-moose-typedecorator-error-how-do-i-debug][1]) down to a simple test case. I would humbly request some help understanding why it's failing :) Here is the error message I'm getting: plxc16479 $h2/tmp/tmp18.pl This method [new] requires a single argument. at /nfs/pdx/disks/nehalem.pde.077/perl/5.12.2/lib64/site_perl/MooseX/Types/TypeDecorator.pm line 91 MooseX::Types::TypeDecorator::new('MooseX::Types::TypeDecorator=HASH(0x655b90)') called at /nfs/pdx/disks/nehalem.pde.077/projects/lib/Program-Plist-Pl/lib/Program/Plist/Pl.pm line 10 Program::Plist::Pl::BUILD('Program::Plist::Pl=HASH(0x63d478)', 'HASH(0x63d220)') called at generated method (unknown origin) line 29 Program::Plist::Pl::new('Program::Plist::Pl') called at /nfs/pdx/disks/nehalem.pde.077/tmp/tmp18.pl line 10 Wrapper test script: use strict; use warnings; BEGIN {push(@INC, split(':', $ENV{PERL_TEST_LIBS}))}; use Program::Plist::Pl; my $obj = Program::Plist::Pl->new(); Program::Plist::Pl file: package Program::Plist::Pl; use Moose; use namespace::autoclean; use Program::Types qw(Pattern); # <-- Removing this fixes error use Program::Plist::Pl::Pattern; sub BUILD { my $pattern_obj = Program::Plist::Pl::Pattern->new(); } __PACKAGE__->meta->make_immutable; 1; Program::Types file: package Program::Types; use MooseX::Types -declare => [qw(Pattern)]; class_type Pattern, {class => 'Program::Plist::Pl::Pattern'}; 1; And the Program::Plist::Pl::Pattern file: package Program::Plist::Pl::Pattern; use Moose; use namespace::autoclean; __PACKAGE__->meta->make_immutable; 1; Notes: While I don't need the Pattern type from Program::Types in the above code, I do in other code that is stripped out. The PERL_TEST_LIBS env var I'm pulling INC paths from only contains paths to the project modules. There are no other modules loaded from these paths. It appears the MooseX::Types definition for Pattern is causing problems, but I'm not sure why. Documentation shows the syntax I am using, but it's possible I'm misusing class_type as there isn't much said about it. Intent is to be able to use Pattern for type checking via MooseX::Params::Validate to verify the argument is a 'Program::Plist::Pl::Program' object. I've found that removing the intervening class Program::Plist::Pl from the equation by directly calling Pattern-new from the tmp18.pl wrapper results in no error, even when the Program::Types Pattern type is imported.

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: The Joy of Anonymous Types

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain. The index of all my past little wonders posts can be found here. In the .NET 3 Framework, Microsoft introduced the concept of anonymous types, which provide a way to create a quick, compiler-generated types at the point of instantiation.  These may seem trivial, but are very handy for concisely creating lightweight, strongly-typed objects containing only read-only properties that can be used within a given scope. Creating an Anonymous Type In short, an anonymous type is a reference type that derives directly from object and is defined by its set of properties base on their names, number, types, and order given at initialization.  In addition to just holding these properties, it is also given appropriate overridden implementations for Equals() and GetHashCode() that take into account all of the properties to correctly perform property comparisons and hashing.  Also overridden is an implementation of ToString() which makes it easy to display the contents of an anonymous type instance in a fairly concise manner. To construct an anonymous type instance, you use basically the same initialization syntax as with a regular type.  So, for example, if we wanted to create an anonymous type to represent a particular point, we could do this: 1: var point = new { X = 13, Y = 7 }; Note the similarity between anonymous type initialization and regular initialization.  The main difference is that the compiler generates the type name and the properties (as readonly) based on the names and order provided, and inferring their types from the expressions they are assigned to. It is key to remember that all of those factors (number, names, types, order of properties) determine the anonymous type.  This is important, because while these two instances share the same anonymous type: 1: // same names, types, and order 2: var point1 = new { X = 13, Y = 7 }; 3: var point2 = new { X = 5, Y = 0 }; These similar ones do not: 1: var point3 = new { Y = 3, X = 5 }; // different order 2: var point4 = new { X = 3, Y = 5.0 }; // different type for Y 3: var point5 = new {MyX = 3, MyY = 5 }; // different names 4: var point6 = new { X = 1, Y = 2, Z = 3 }; // different count Limitations on Property Initialization Expressions The expression for a property in an anonymous type initialization cannot be null (though it can evaluate to null) or an anonymous function.  For example, the following are illegal: 1: // Null can't be used directly. Null reference of what type? 2: var cantUseNull = new { Value = null }; 3:  4: // Anonymous methods cannot be used. 5: var cantUseAnonymousFxn = new { Value = () => Console.WriteLine(“Can’t.”) }; Note that the restriction on null is just that you can’t use it directly as the expression, because otherwise how would it be able to determine the type?  You can, however, use it indirectly assigning a null expression such as a typed variable with the value null, or by casting null to a specific type: 1: string str = null; 2: var fineIndirectly = new { Value = str }; 3: var fineCast = new { Value = (string)null }; All of the examples above name the properties explicitly, but you can also implicitly name properties if they are being set from a property, field, or variable.  In these cases, when a field, property, or variable is used alone, and you don’t specify a property name assigned to it, the new property will have the same name.  For example: 1: int variable = 42; 2:  3: // creates two properties named varriable and Now 4: var implicitProperties = new { variable, DateTime.Now }; Is the same type as: 1: var explicitProperties = new { variable = variable, Now = DateTime.Now }; But this only works if you are using an existing field, variable, or property directly as the expression.  If you use a more complex expression then the name cannot be inferred: 1: // can't infer the name variable from variable * 2, must name explicitly 2: var wontWork = new { variable * 2, DateTime.Now }; In the example above, since we typed variable * 2, it is no longer just a variable and thus we would have to assign the property a name explicitly. ToString() on Anonymous Types One of the more trivial overrides that an anonymous type provides you is a ToString() method that prints the value of the anonymous type instance in much the same format as it was initialized (except actual values instead of expressions as appropriate of course). For example, if you had: 1: var point = new { X = 13, Y = 42 }; And then print it out: 1: Console.WriteLine(point.ToString()); You will get: 1: { X = 13, Y = 42 } While this isn’t necessarily the most stunning feature of anonymous types, it can be handy for debugging or logging values in a fairly easy to read format. Comparing Anonymous Type Instances Because anonymous types automatically create appropriate overrides of Equals() and GetHashCode() based on the underlying properties, we can reliably compare two instances or get hash codes.  For example, if we had the following 3 points: 1: var point1 = new { X = 1, Y = 2 }; 2: var point2 = new { X = 1, Y = 2 }; 3: var point3 = new { Y = 2, X = 1 }; If we compare point1 and point2 we’ll see that Equals() returns true because they overridden version of Equals() sees that the types are the same (same number, names, types, and order of properties) and that the values are the same.   In addition, because all equal objects should have the same hash code, we’ll see that the hash codes evaluate to the same as well: 1: // true, same type, same values 2: Console.WriteLine(point1.Equals(point2)); 3:  4: // true, equal anonymous type instances always have same hash code 5: Console.WriteLine(point1.GetHashCode() == point2.GetHashCode()); However, if we compare point2 and point3 we get false.  Even though the names, types, and values of the properties are the same, the order is not, thus they are two different types and cannot be compared (and thus return false).  And, since they are not equal objects (even though they have the same value) there is a good chance their hash codes are different as well (though not guaranteed): 1: // false, different types 2: Console.WriteLine(point2.Equals(point3)); 3:  4: // quite possibly false (was false on my machine) 5: Console.WriteLine(point2.GetHashCode() == point3.GetHashCode()); Using Anonymous Types Now that we’ve created instances of anonymous types, let’s actually use them.  The property names (whether implicit or explicit) are used to access the individual properties of the anonymous type.  The main thing, once again, to keep in mind is that the properties are readonly, so you cannot assign the properties a new value (note: this does not mean that instances referred to by a property are immutable – for more information check out C#/.NET Fundamentals: Returning Data Immutably in a Mutable World). Thus, if we have the following anonymous type instance: 1: var point = new { X = 13, Y = 42 }; We can get the properties as you’d expect: 1: Console.WriteLine(“The point is: ({0},{1})”, point.X, point.Y); But we cannot alter the property values: 1: // compiler error, properties are readonly 2: point.X = 99; Further, since the anonymous type name is only known by the compiler, there is no easy way to pass anonymous type instances outside of a given scope.  The only real choices are to pass them as object or dynamic.  But really that is not the intention of using anonymous types.  If you find yourself needing to pass an anonymous type outside of a given scope, you should really consider making a POCO (Plain Old CLR Type – i.e. a class that contains just properties to hold data with little/no business logic) instead. Given that, why use them at all?  Couldn’t you always just create a POCO to represent every anonymous type you needed?  Sure you could, but then you might litter your solution with many small POCO classes that have very localized uses. It turns out this is the key to when to use anonymous types to your advantage: when you just need a lightweight type in a local context to store intermediate results, consider an anonymous type – but when that result is more long-lived and used outside of the current scope, consider a POCO instead. So what do we mean by intermediate results in a local context?  Well, a classic example would be filtering down results from a LINQ expression.  For example, let’s say we had a List<Transaction>, where Transaction is defined something like: 1: public class Transaction 2: { 3: public string UserId { get; set; } 4: public DateTime At { get; set; } 5: public decimal Amount { get; set; } 6: // … 7: } And let’s say we had this data in our List<Transaction>: 1: var transactions = new List<Transaction> 2: { 3: new Transaction { UserId = "Jim", At = DateTime.Now, Amount = 2200.00m }, 4: new Transaction { UserId = "Jim", At = DateTime.Now, Amount = -1100.00m }, 5: new Transaction { UserId = "Jim", At = DateTime.Now.AddDays(-1), Amount = 900.00m }, 6: new Transaction { UserId = "John", At = DateTime.Now.AddDays(-2), Amount = 300.00m }, 7: new Transaction { UserId = "John", At = DateTime.Now, Amount = -10.00m }, 8: new Transaction { UserId = "Jane", At = DateTime.Now, Amount = 200.00m }, 9: new Transaction { UserId = "Jane", At = DateTime.Now, Amount = -50.00m }, 10: new Transaction { UserId = "Jaime", At = DateTime.Now.AddDays(-3), Amount = -100.00m }, 11: new Transaction { UserId = "Jaime", At = DateTime.Now.AddDays(-3), Amount = 300.00m }, 12: }; So let’s say we wanted to get the transactions for each day for each user.  That is, for each day we’d want to see the transactions each user performed.  We could do this very simply with a nice LINQ expression, without the need of creating any POCOs: 1: // group the transactions based on an anonymous type with properties UserId and Date: 2: byUserAndDay = transactions 3: .GroupBy(tx => new { tx.UserId, tx.At.Date }) 4: .OrderBy(grp => grp.Key.Date) 5: .ThenBy(grp => grp.Key.UserId); Now, those of you who have attempted to use custom classes as a grouping type before (such as GroupBy(), Distinct(), etc.) may have discovered the hard way that LINQ gets a lot of its speed by utilizing not on Equals(), but also GetHashCode() on the type you are grouping by.  Thus, when you use custom types for these purposes, you generally end up having to write custom Equals() and GetHashCode() implementations or you won’t get the results you were expecting (the default implementations of Equals() and GetHashCode() are reference equality and reference identity based respectively). As we said before, it turns out that anonymous types already do these critical overrides for you.  This makes them even more convenient to use!  Instead of creating a small POCO to handle this grouping, and then having to implement a custom Equals() and GetHashCode() every time, we can just take advantage of the fact that anonymous types automatically override these methods with appropriate implementations that take into account the values of all of the properties. Now, we can look at our results: 1: foreach (var group in byUserAndDay) 2: { 3: // the group’s Key is an instance of our anonymous type 4: Console.WriteLine("{0} on {1:MM/dd/yyyy} did:", group.Key.UserId, group.Key.Date); 5:  6: // each grouping contains a sequence of the items. 7: foreach (var tx in group) 8: { 9: Console.WriteLine("\t{0}", tx.Amount); 10: } 11: } And see: 1: Jaime on 06/18/2012 did: 2: -100.00 3: 300.00 4:  5: John on 06/19/2012 did: 6: 300.00 7:  8: Jim on 06/20/2012 did: 9: 900.00 10:  11: Jane on 06/21/2012 did: 12: 200.00 13: -50.00 14:  15: Jim on 06/21/2012 did: 16: 2200.00 17: -1100.00 18:  19: John on 06/21/2012 did: 20: -10.00 Again, sure we could have just built a POCO to do this, given it an appropriate Equals() and GetHashCode() method, but that would have bloated our code with so many extra lines and been more difficult to maintain if the properties change.  Summary Anonymous types are one of those Little Wonders of the .NET language that are perfect at exactly that time when you need a temporary type to hold a set of properties together for an intermediate result.  While they are not very useful beyond the scope in which they are defined, they are excellent in LINQ expressions as a way to create and us intermediary values for further expressions and analysis. Anonymous types are defined by the compiler based on the number, type, names, and order of properties created, and they automatically implement appropriate Equals() and GetHashCode() overrides (as well as ToString()) which makes them ideal for LINQ expressions where you need to create a set of properties to group, evaluate, etc. Technorati Tags: C#,CSharp,.NET,Little Wonders,Anonymous Types,LINQ

    Read the article

  • Getting Types in Win32 Dll

    - by Usman
    Hello, I want to know the types and details in a plain Win32DLL just like we can get in case of COM.In COM every thing embed inside idl and results in TLB, here we get every thing , MSFT exposes APIS by which we can extract types. In case of Win32 I strongly needed types defined in it and all details of that type(e.g what are members in it and their types as well). Parsing PE file and looking up export table only gives the exported functions. I want all custom types(Win32 interfaces,classes and members details with types) defined in it. How? Regards Usman

    Read the article

  • NDepend query methods/types in framework assembly being used by other assemblies/types

    - by icelava
    I am trying to determine which types or methods in a base framework assembly are being used by other assemblies in the application system. I cannot seem to find a straight-cut query to do that. What i have to do is first determine which assemblies are directly using the framework assembly, then manually list them in a second query SELECT TYPES FROM ASSEMBLIES "IBM.Data.DB2" WHERE IsDirectlyUsedBy "ASSEMBLY:FirstDirectUsedByAssebmly" OR IsDirectlyUsedBy "ASSEMBLY:SecondDirectUsedByAssebmly" OR IsDirectlyUsedBy "ASSEMBLY:ThirdDirectUsedByAssebmly" OR IsDirectlyUsedBy "ASSEMBLY:FourthDirectUsedByAssebmly" Is there a better/faster way to query for this? Additionally, the query results are focused on the matched types only. The Dependency graph or matrix exported only shows details of those. I do not know how to render a graph that shows those types or methods plus show the dependent types/methods from other assemblies that are consuming them?

    Read the article

  • Overriding Built-in Classes (Python)

    - by Yipeng
    How can I view and override the full definition for built in classes? I have seen the library docs but am looking for something more. For e.g. is it possible to override the Array Class such that the base index starts from 1 instead of 0, or to override .sort() of list to a sorting algorithm of my own liking?

    Read the article

  • Simplified iphone In-app store implementation for built-in product features

    - by Joey
    This question is for those familiar with implementing the iphone in-app store functionality. The app I'm building has only built-in features that are unlocked when features are purchased. Further, any modifications or additions to store items will require an app update. Also, it is only in English so has no localized languages for the items. If we take those assumptions, is it feasible to skip the step of retrieving the product info with SKProductsRequest and simply use hardcoded data within the app? While I may want to extend my app to greater complexity in the future, I'd like to know if this step to keep it simple would introduce some serious issues. One issue might be, for instance, if we have to expect a few of the items to occasionally be unavailable due to issues on Apple's side and simply trying to purchase it and letting it fail would not be a permissible or workable option in that case (especially if it is uncommon). Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Associating File Types with AutoVue Desktop Deployment

    - by [email protected]
    Windows users take for granted that when they double click on a document or design, that it will open up in its application automatically. One of the questions I'm commonly asked is "How can I get the same behavior with AutoVue Desktop Deployment?". It's pretty easy, but there are a few tricks to doing it. Step 1: Download new jvue_direct.bat and icon The first thing you'll need to do is download a slightly modified version of jvue_direct.bat. You can find it here (Document 1075784.1) on Oracle's Support Portal. You also want to download the AV.ico file. This is the icon that will be used for all file types associated with AutoVue. Place both of these files in your <AutoVueInstallDirectory>\bin directory. Step 2: Associate File Types With AutoVue There are two ways to do this. You can do this through the Windows user interface, or you can set up a batch file to do this. Associating File Types Through Windows The way most people associate file types to an application is using the Windows user interface. You've probably tried to open a file type that Windows doesn't recognize and seen this window pop up: Although you can use this dialog to associate that file type with AutoVue, I don't recommend it. I much prefer using a batch file to associate file types with AutoVue. Associating File Types Using A Batch File There are a few good reasons to associate file types using a batch file instead of using the pop-up dialog method: If you have several file types to associate with AutoVue, it's much easier to use a batch file to do them all at once. Doing it through the Windows user interface requires having files of each type available. Using a batch file doesn't require having the files you're associating. Associating file types through the dialog may work well for one person, but what if you're an administrator doing an enterprise wide deployment of AutoVue Desktop Deployment for several hundred users? You don't want to do this manually for each user. You can have one simple batch file that's run on each user's PC to set up all the file types. You can easily associate an icon with the file types you're opening with AutoVue. To use the batch file method follow these steps: Create a file called filetype.bat using a text editor and copy and paste the following into it: @assoc .dwg=AVFile @assoc .jpg=AVFile @assoc .doc=AVFile @ftype AVFile="%~dp0jvue_direct.bat" "%%1" @reg add HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AVFile\DefaultIcon /v "" /f /d "%~dp0AV.ico" Change the lines starting with @assoc. Each of these lines associates a file extension with AutoVue. You can have as many @assoc lines as you want. Save this file in your <AutoVueInstallDirectory>\bin directory. Double click this file, or run it from a command prompt. Restart Windows to get the icons to show up. How Does This Work? The first three lines are creating a file type called AVFile. We are associating the extensions .dwg, .jpg, and .doc with this file type. You will want to change these lines when creating your own batch file. For example, to associate Microstation designs, which have extension .dgn, you should delete the @assoc lines above and add the line: @assoc .dgn=AVfile The line beginning with @ftype tells Windows that all AVFile type files should be opened using AutoVue Desktop Deployment. The final line associates the AutoVue icon with these file types. You may need to restart Windows to see the new icons. Warning: One Size Doesn't Fit All When deciding which file types should be associated with AutoVue, remember that there are different types of users using it. Your engineers may be pretty surprised to find that after installing AutoVue, double clicking their .dwg file opens up AutoVue instead of AutoCAD. If you have more than one type of AutoVue user, make sure you've considered what file types each user group will and will not want to be associated with AutoVue. If necessary, create a separate file association batch file for each user type. So that's it. In two simple steps you can double click your favorite designs and have them open automatically in AutoVue Desktop Deployment. I'd love to hear how are you using AutoVue Desktop Deployment. What other deployment tips would you be interested in learning about?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Capturing Wait Types and Wait Stats Information at Interval – Wait Type – Day 5 of 28

    - by pinaldave
    Earlier, I have tried to cover some important points about wait stats in detail. Here are some points that we had covered earlier. DMV related to wait stats reset when we reset SQL Server services DMV related to wait stats reset when we manually reset the wait types However, at times, there is a need of making this data persistent so that we can take a look at them later on. Sometimes, performance tuning experts do some modifications to the server and try to measure the wait stats at that point of time and after some duration. I use the following method to measure the wait stats over the time. -- Create Table CREATE TABLE [MyWaitStatTable]( [wait_type] [nvarchar](60) NOT NULL, [waiting_tasks_count] [bigint] NOT NULL, [wait_time_ms] [bigint] NOT NULL, [max_wait_time_ms] [bigint] NOT NULL, [signal_wait_time_ms] [bigint] NOT NULL, [CurrentDateTime] DATETIME NOT NULL, [Flag] INT ) GO -- Populate Table at Time 1 INSERT INTO MyWaitStatTable ([wait_type],[waiting_tasks_count],[wait_time_ms],[max_wait_time_ms],[signal_wait_time_ms], [CurrentDateTime],[Flag]) SELECT [wait_type],[waiting_tasks_count],[wait_time_ms],[max_wait_time_ms],[signal_wait_time_ms], GETDATE(), 1 FROM sys.dm_os_wait_stats GO ----- Desired Delay (for one hour) WAITFOR DELAY '01:00:00' -- Populate Table at Time 2 INSERT INTO MyWaitStatTable ([wait_type],[waiting_tasks_count],[wait_time_ms],[max_wait_time_ms],[signal_wait_time_ms], [CurrentDateTime],[Flag]) SELECT [wait_type],[waiting_tasks_count],[wait_time_ms],[max_wait_time_ms],[signal_wait_time_ms], GETDATE(), 2 FROM sys.dm_os_wait_stats GO -- Check the difference between Time 1 and Time 2 SELECT T1.wait_type, T1.wait_time_ms Original_WaitTime, T2.wait_time_ms LaterWaitTime, (T2.wait_time_ms - T1.wait_time_ms) DiffenceWaitTime FROM MyWaitStatTable T1 INNER JOIN MyWaitStatTable T2 ON T1.wait_type = T2.wait_type WHERE T2.wait_time_ms > T1.wait_time_ms AND T1.Flag = 1 AND T2.Flag = 2 ORDER BY DiffenceWaitTime DESC GO -- Clean up DROP TABLE MyWaitStatTable GO If you notice the script, I have used an additional column called flag. I use it to find out when I have captured the wait stats and then use it in my SELECT query to SELECT wait stats related to that time group. Many times, I select more than 5 or 6 different set of wait stats and I find this method very convenient to find the difference between wait stats. In a future blog post, we will talk about specific wait stats. Read all the post in the Wait Types and Queue series. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL DMV, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL Wait Stats, SQL Wait Types, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • Python built-in id() not consistent:

    - by Dannellyz
    Hoping someone can explain the following discrepancy: >>> s1 = "Cyber security" >>> s2 = "Cyber security" >>> id(s1) == id(s1) True >>> id(s1) == id(s2) False >>> s1 = "cyber" >>> s2 = "cyber" >>> id(s1) == id(s2) True >>> s2 = "cyber " >>> s2 = "cyber " >>> id(s1) == id(s2) False Why does the space make the id() False, yet different variables with no spaces are True?

    Read the article

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