Search Results

Search found 11 results on 1 pages for 'malax'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • GData for my own API?

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow! Im currently planning to build an API for my service. I want to use GData because it fits the application scheme and there are libraries for many programming languages available. The first question that rose: Am I allowed to do that? I mean, Google put lots of work into the GData specification and have some sort of copyright. Does anyone know anything about this issue or did that before? You could extend the case if you want to specifically mimic an API which uses GData like the YouTube API to have my API 100% compliant. This is not my case, but I was wondering about that too. :-) Thank you for any input, Malax Edit: Note that i want to use it for my own service. So, I am implementing an API using the GData protocol, not using one of the Google APIs.

    Read the article

  • How to expose a constructor variable(sic!) as read-only?

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow! I have this rather simple question about Scala. Given that i have to following class definition: class Foo(var bar: Int) The code which is able to construct an instance of Foo must be able to pass the initial value for bar. But if I define bar as var the User is also able to change its value at runtime which is not what I want. The User should only be able to read bar. bar itself is modified internally so a val is not an option. I think I might be getting an answer very soon as this question is so simple. :-) Cheers, Malax

    Read the article

  • Thread-safety in Cocos2d-iPhone?

    - by Malax
    After tinkering a bit with cocos2d, I discovered that there is no classic game loop and everything is more-or-less event driven. I guess I can wrap my head around that, no problem. But I cannot find anything about thread safety. Say, I schedule something to occur every two seconds, which Thread will run the code? Given that I cannot find anything about that, I guess there is just one Cocos2d Thread and everything will be fine. Nevertheless, this implicit assumption does not give me a good feeling. Knowing is better than guessing. ;-) Can anyone shed some light onto that topic?

    Read the article

  • Is there a maximum of open files per process in Linux?

    - by Malax
    My question is pretty simple and is actually stated in the title. One of my applications throws errors regarding "too many open files" at me, even tho the limit for the user the application runs with is higher than the default of 1024 (lsof -u $USER reports 3000 open fds). Because I cannot imagine why this happens, I guess there might be a maximum per process. Any idea is very appreciated! Edit: Some values that might help... root@Debian-60-squeeze-64-minimal ~ # ulimit -n 100000 root@Debian-60-squeeze-64-minimal ~ # tail -n 4 /etc/security/limits.conf myapp soft nofile 100000 myapp hard nofile 1000000 root soft nofile 100000 root hard nofile 1000000 root@Debian-60-squeeze-64-minimal ~ # lsof -n -u myapp | wc -l 2708

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: Jetty 7

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow! My application requires several interface implementations which require a Jetty server to do their job. This is, however, not necessarily the case in every implementations of those interfaces so the Jetty server is only a dependency. Since it would be a huge amount of pain to wrap the entire jetty server with all its logging, connector and Handler configurations, I want to inject the server to those implementations with Spring. I decided that injecting the Server class is not a good idea because an implementation could stop the server even if its required at another location. Currently I inject empty HandlerList classes to those implementations and they register their handlers to avoid those problems. The Problem: Those handlers might interfere with other handlers for example: implementation one might register a handler for /foo and implementation two too... problem. Has anyone used Jetty in such an environment? And how could this problem be solved? My XML to clarify my problem: <bean id="jetty" class="org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server" destroy-method="stop"> <property name="connectors"> <list> <bean class="org.eclipse.jetty.server.bio.SocketConnector"> <property name="host" value="10.8.0.46" /> <property name="port" value="9999" /> </bean> </list> </property> <property name="handler"> <bean class="org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerCollection"> <property name="handlers"> <list> <ref bean="jetty.handlerList" /> <bean class="org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.RequestLogHandler"> <property name="requestLog"> <bean class="org.eclipse.jetty.server.NCSARequestLog"> <constructor-arg value="${jetty.logfile}" /> <property name="extended" value="false"/> </bean> </property> </bean> </list> </property> </bean> </property> <property name="sendServerVersion" value="false" /> </bean> <bean id="jetty.handlerList" class="org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerList" /> If I require an empty HandlerList I use something like this where com.example.myapp.util.ioc.CreateHandlerListFactory is a org.springframework.beans.factory.FactoryBean which creates a new HandlerList within the given HandlerList. <constructor-arg> <bean class="com.example.myapp.util.ioc.CreateHandlerListFactory"> <constructor-arg ref="jetty.handlerList"/> </bean> </constructor-arg>

    Read the article

  • Building big, immutable objects without constructors having long parameter lists

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow! I have some big (more than 3 fields) Objects which can and should be immutable. Every time I run into that case i tend to create constructor abominations with long parameter lists. It doesn't feel right, is hard to use and readability suffers. It is even worse if the fields are some sort of collection type like lists. A simple addSibling(S s) would ease the object creation so much but renders the object mutable. What do you guys use in such cases? I'm on Scala and Java, but i think the problem is language agnostic as long as the language is object oriented. Solutions I can think of: "Constructor abominations with long parameter lists" The Builder Pattern Thanks for your input!

    Read the article

  • Building big, immutable objects without using constructors having long parameter lists

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow! I have some big (more than 3 fields) Objects which can and should be immutable. Every time I run into that case i tend to create constructor abominations with long parameter lists. It doesn't feel right, is hard to use and readability suffers. It is even worse if the fields are some sort of collection type like lists. A simple addSibling(S s) would ease the object creation so much but renders the object mutable. What do you guys use in such cases? I'm on Scala and Java, but i think the problem is language agnostic as long as the language is object oriented. Solutions I can think of: "Constructor abominations with long parameter lists" The Builder Pattern Thanks for your input!

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: How to maintain multiple configurations?

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow, Lets assume we've build a system with a DI framework which is working quite fine. This system currently uses JMS to "talk" with other systems not maintained by us. The majority of our customers like the JMS approach and uses it according to our specification. The component which does all the messaging is injected with Spring into the rest of the application. Now we got the case that one customer cannot implement the JMS solution and want to use another messaging technology. Thats not a problem because we can simply implement a messaging service using this technology and inject it in the rest of the application. But how are we supposed to handle the deployment and maintenance of the configuration? Since the application uses Spring i could imagine to check in all the configurations i have for this application and the system administrator could start the application and passing the name of the DI XML file to specify which configuration should be loaded. But... it just don't feel right. Are there any solutions for such cases available? What are the best-practices you use? I could even imagine more complex scenarios which do not contain only one service substitution... Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • Immutability of big objects

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow! I have some big (more than 3 fields) Objects which can and should be immutable. Every time I run into that case i tend to create constructor abominations with long parameter lists. It doesn't feel right, is hard to use and readability suffers. It is even worse if the fields are some sort of collection type like lists. A simple addSibling(S s) would ease the object creation so much but renders the object mutable. What do you guys use in such cases? I'm on Scala and Java, but i think the problem is language agnostic as long as the language is object oriented. Solutions I can think of: "Constructor abominations with long parameter lists" The Builder Pattern Thanks for your input!

    Read the article

1