Search Results

Search found 6682 results on 268 pages for 'edge cases'.

Page 132/268 | < Previous Page | 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139  | Next Page >

  • How do I position a 2D camera in OpenGL?

    - by Elfayer
    I can't understand how the camera is working. It's a 2D game, so I'm displaying a game map from (0, 0, 0) to (mapSizeX, 0, mapSizeY). I'm initializing the camera as follow : Camera::Camera(void) : position_(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f), rotation_(0.0f, 0.0f, -1.0f) {} void Camera::initialize(void) { glMatrixMode(GL_PROJECTION); glLoadIdentity(); glTranslatef(position_.x, position_.y, position_.z); gluPerspective(70.0f, 800.0f/600.0f, 1.0f, 10000.0f); gluLookAt(0.0f, 6000.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, -1.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW); glLoadIdentity(); glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST); glDepthFunc(GL_LEQUAL); } So the camera is looking down. I currently see the up right border of the map in the center of my window and the map expand to the down left border of my window. I would like to center the map. The logical thing to do should be to move the camera to eyeX = mapSizeX / 2 and the same for z. My map has 10 x 10 cases with CASE = 400, so I should have : gluLookAt((10 / 2) * CASE /* = 2000 */, 6000.0f, (10 / 2) * CASE /* = 2000 */, 0.0f, 0.0f, -1.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); But that doesn't move the camera, but seems to rotate it. Am I doing something wrong? EDIT : I tried that: gluLookAt(2000.0f, 6000.0f, 0.0f, 2000.0f, 0.0f, -1.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); Which correctly moves the map in the middle of the window in width. But I can't move if correctly in height. It always returns the axis Z. When I go up, It goes down and the same for right and left. I don't see the map anymore when I do : gluLookAt(2000.0f, 6000.0f, 2000.0f, 2000.0f, 0.0f, 2000.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f);

    Read the article

  • Ubiquitous Language and Custom types

    - by EdvRusj
    Note that my question is referring to those attributes that even on their own already represent a concept ( ie on their own provide a cohesive meaning ). Thus such attribute needs no additional functional support and as such is self-contained. I'm also well-aware that even with self-contained attributes the custom types may prove beneficial ( for example, they give the ability to add new behavior later, when business requirements change ). Thus, my question focuses only on whether custom types for self-contained attributes really enrich Ubiquitous Language UL a) I've read that in most cases, even simple, self-contained attributes should have custom, more descriptive types rather than basic value types ( double, string ... ), because among other things, descriptive types add to the UL, while the use of basic types instead weakens the language. I understand the importance of UL, but how does having a basic type for a self-contained attribute weaken the language, since with self-contained attributes the name of the attribute already adequately describes the concept and thus contributes to the UL vocabulary? For example, the term person_age already adequately explains the concept of quantifying the number of years a person has: class Person { string person_age; } so what could we possibly gain by also introducing the term ThingAge to the UL: class person { ThingAge person_age; } thanks

    Read the article

  • Caching by in-memory dictionaries. Are we doing it all wrong?

    - by user73983
    This approach is pretty much the accepted way to do anything in our company. A simple example : when a piece of data for a customer is requested from a service, we fetch all the data for that customer(relevant part to the service) and save it in a in-memory dictionary then serve it from there on following requests(we run singleton services). Any update goes to DB, then updates the in memory dictionary. It seems all simple and harmless but as we implement more complicated business rules the cache gets out of sync and we have to deal with hard to find bugs. Sometimes we defer writing to database, keeping new data in cache till then. There are cases when we store millions of rows in memory because the table has many relations to other tables and we need to show aggregate data quickly. All this cache handling is a big part of our codebase and I sense this is not the right way to do it. All of this juggling adds too much noise to the code and it makes it hard to understand the actual business logic. However I don't think we can serve data in a reasonable amount of time if we have to hit the database every time. I am unhappy about the current situation but I don't have a better alternative. My only solution would be to use NHibernate 2nd level cache but I have nearly no experience with it. I know many campanies use Redis or MemCached heavily to gain performance but I have no idea how I would integrate them into our system. I also don't know if they can perform better than in-memory data structures and queries. Are there any alternative approaches that I should look into?

    Read the article

  • Is it good idea to require to commit only working code?

    - by Astronavigator
    Sometimes I hear people saying something like "All committed code must be working". In some articles people even write descriptions how to create svn or git hooks that compile and test code before commit. In my company we usually create one branch for a feature, and one programmer usually works in this branch. I often (1 per 100, I think and as I think with good reason) do non-compilable commits. It seems to me that requirement of "always compilable/stable" commits conflicts with the idea of frequent commits. A programmer would rather make one commit in a week than test the whole project's stability/compilability ten times a day. For only compilable code I use tags and some selected branches (trunk etc). I see these reasons to commit not fully working or not compilable code: If I develop a new feature, it is hard to make it work writing a few lines of code. If I am editing a feature, it is again sometimes hard to keep code working every time. If I am changing some function's prototype or interface, I would also make hundreds of changes, not mechanical changes, but intellectual. Sometimes one of them could cause me to carry out hundreds of commits (but if I want all commits to be stable I should commit 1 time instead of 100). In all these cases to make stable commits I would make commits containing many-many-many changes and it will be very-very-very hard to find out "What happened in this commit?". Another aspect of this problem is that compiling code gives no guarantee of proper working. So is it good idea to require every commit to be stable/compilable? Does it depends on branching model or CVS? In your company, is it forbidden to make non compilable commits? Is it (and why) a bad idea to use only selected branches (including trunk) and tags for stable versions?

    Read the article

  • Visually and audibly unambiguous subset of the Latin alphabet?

    - by elliot42
    Imagine you give someone a card with the code "5SBDO0" on it. In some fonts, the letter "S" is difficult to visually distinguish from the number five, (as with number zero and letter "O"). Reading the code out loud, it might be difficult to distinguish "B" from "D", necessitating saying "B as in boy," "D as in dog," or using a "phonetic alphabet" instead. What's the biggest subset of letters and numbers that will, in most cases, both look unambiguous visually and sound unambiguous when read aloud? Background: We want to generate a short string that can encode as many values as possible while still being easy to communicate. Imagine you have a 6-character string, "123456". In base 10 this can encode 10^6 values. In hex "1B23DF" you can encode 16^6 values in the same number of characters, but this can sound ambiguous when read aloud. ("B" vs. "D") Likewise for any string of N characters, you get (size of alphabet)^N values. The string is limited to a length of about six characters, due to wanting to fit easily within the capacity of human working memory capacity. Thus to find the max number of values we can encode, we need to find that largest unambiguous set of letters/numbers. There's no reason we can't consider the letters G-Z, and some common punctuation, but I don't want to have to go manually pairwise compare "does G sound like A?", "does G sound like B?", "does G sound like C" myself. As we know this would be O(n^2) linguistic work to do =)...

    Read the article

  • How should I describe the process of learning someone else's code? (In an invoicing situation.)

    - by MattyG
    I have a contract to upgrade some in-house software for a large company. The company has requested multiple feature additions and a few bug fixes. This is my first freelance style job. First, I needed to become familiar with how the application worked - I learnt it as if I was a user. Next, I had to learn how the software worked. I started with broad concepts, and then narrowed down into necessary detail before working on each bug fix and feature. At least at the start of the project, it took me a lot longer to learn the existing code than it did to write the additional features. How can I describe the process of learning the existing code on the invoice? (This part of the company usually does things in-house, so doesn't have much experience dealing with software contractors like me, and I fear they may not understand the overhead of learning someone else's code). I don't want to just tack the learning time onto the actual feature upgrade, because in some cases this would make a 'simple task' look like it took me way too long. I want break the invoice into relevant steps, and communicate that I'm charging for the large overhead of learning someone else's code before being able to add my own to it. Is there a standard way of describing this sort of activity when billing for a job?

    Read the article

  • Impact on SEO of adding categories/tags in front of the HTML title [closed]

    - by Mad Scientist
    Possible Duplicate: Does the order of keywords matter in a page title? All StackExchange sites add the most-used tag of a question in front of the HTML title for SEO purposes. On Stackoverflow for example this is usually the programming language, so you end up with a title like python - How do I do X? This has obviously an enourmous benefit on SEO as the programming language is an extremely important keyword that is very often omitted from the title. Now, my question is for the cases where the tag isn't an important keyword missing from the title, but just a category. So on Biology.SE for example one would have questions like biochemistry - How does protein X interact with Y? or on Skeptics medical science - Do vaccines cause autism? Those tags are usually not part of the search terms, they serve to categorize the content but users don't use those tags in their searches. How harmful is adding tags that are not used in searches in terms of SEO? Is there any hard data on the impact this practise might have on SEO? The negative aspects I can imagine, but have no data to show that it is actually a problem are: I heard that search engines dislike keyword stuffing and this might trigger some defense mechanisms against that It's a practise associated with less reputable sites, a keyword in front that doesn't fit the actual title well might look suspicious to some users. It wastes precious space in the title shown in search results.

    Read the article

  • How do you keep SOA DRY?

    - by TaylorOtwell
    In our organization, we've shifted to a more "service oriented architecture". To give an example, let's assume we need to retrieve a "Quote" object. This quote has a shipper, a consignee, phone numbers, contacts, email addresses, and other location information. In other words, a Quote object is made up of many other objects. So, it seems like it would make sense to make a "Quote Retrieval Service". In our situation, we've accomplished this by creating a .NET solution and writing the service. The service API looks something like this (in pseudo-code): Function GetQuote(String ID) Returns Quote So, so far so good. Now, when this service is consumed, to keep things "de-coupled", we are creating essentially a duplicate of the Quote object and mapping from the QuoteService version of the Quote into the consumer's version of the Quote. In many cases, these classes will have the exact same properties. So, if the Quote service is consumed by 5 other applications, we would have 6 definitions of what a "Quote" is. One for each consumer, and one for the service. This feels wrong. I thought code was supposed to be DRY, but it seems like our method of SOA is forcing us to create tons of duplicated class definitions. What are we doing wrong, or is the code duplication just a "necessary evil" of SOA?

    Read the article

  • How to implment the database for event conditions and item bonuses for a browser based game

    - by Saifis
    I am currently creating a browser based game, and was wondering what was the standard approach in making diverse conditions and status bonuses database wise. Currently considering two cases. Event Conditions Needs min 1000 gold Needs min Lv 10 Needs certain item. Needs fulfillment of another event Status Bonus Reduces damage by 20% +100 attack points Deflects certain type of attack I wish to be able to continually change these parameters during the process of production and operation, so having them hard-coded isn't the best way. All I could come up with are the following two methods. Method 1 Create a table that contains each conditions with needed attributes Have a model named conditions with all the attributes it would need to set them conditions condition_type (level, money_min, money_max item, event_aquired) condition_amount prerequisite_condition_id prerequisite_item_id Method 2 write it in a DSL form that could be interpreted later in the code Perhaps something like yaml, have a text area in the setting form and have the code interpret it. condition_foo: condition_type :level min_level: 10 condition_type :item item_id: 2 At current Method 2 looks to be more practical and flexible for future changes, trade off being that all the flex must be done on the code side. Not to sure how this is supposed to be done, is it supposed to be hard coded? separate config file? Any help would be appreciated. Added For additional info, it will be implemented with Ruby on Rails

    Read the article

  • Overloading methods that do logically different things, does this break any major principles?

    - by siva.k
    This is something that's been bugging me for a bit now. In some cases you see code that is a series of overloads, but when you look at the actual implementation you realize they do logically different things. However writing them as overloads allows the caller to ignore this and get the same end result. But would it be more sound to name the methods more explicitly then to write them as overloads? public void LoadWords(string filePath) { var lines = File.ReadAllLines(filePath).ToList(); LoadWords(lines); } public void LoadWords(IEnumerable<string> words) { // loads words into a List<string> based on some filters } Would these methods better serve future developers to be named as LoadWordsFromFile() and LoadWordsFromEnumerable()? It seems unnecessary to me, but if that is better what programming principle would apply here? On the flip side it'd make it so you didn't need to read the signatures to see exactly how you can load the words, which as Uncle Bob says would be a double take. But in general is this type of overloading to be avoided then?

    Read the article

  • Count function on tree structure (non-binary)

    - by Spevy
    I am implementing a tree Data structure in c# based (largely on Dan Vanderboom's Generic implementation). I am now considering approach on handling a Count property which Dan does not implement. The obvious and easy way would be to use a recursive call which Traverses the tree happily adding up nodes (or iteratively traversing the tree with a Queue and counting nodes if you prefer). It just seems expensive. (I also may want to lazy load some of my nodes down the road). I could maintain a count at the root node. All children would traverse up to and/or hold a reference to the root, and update a internally settable count property on changes. This would push the iteration problem to when ever I want to break off a branch or clear all children below a given node. Generally less expensive, and puts the heavy lifting what I think will be less frequently called functions. Seems a little brute force, and that usually means exception cases I haven't thought of yet, or bugs if you prefer. Does anyone have an example of an implementation which keeps a count for an Unbalanced and/or non-binary tree structure rather than counting on the fly? Don't worry about the lazy load, or language. I am sure I can adjust the example to fit my specific needs. EDIT: I am curious about an example, rather than instructions or discussion. I know this is not technically difficult...

    Read the article

  • "Oracle Coherence 3.5" Book - My Humble Review

    - by [email protected]
      After reviewing the book in more detail I say again that it is a great guide for sure. Lots of important concepts that sometimes can be somewhat confusing are deeply reviewed, including all types of caching schemes and backing maps, and the cache topologies with their corresponding performances and very useful "When to use it?" sections. Some functionalities that are very desirable or used a lot are reviewed with examples and best practices of implementation, including: Data affinity Querying Pagination Indexes Aggregations Event processing, listening and triggering Data persistence Security Regarding the networking and architecture topics, Coherence*Extend is exhaustively reviewed, including C++ and .NET clients, with very good tips and examples, even including source codes. Personally, I am also glad to see that the address providers (<address-provider> tag), new feature in Coherence 3.5 which is a way to programmatically provide well-known addresses in order to connect to the cluster, is mentioned on the book, because it provides new functionalities to satisfy some special configuration requirements for example: Provide a way to switch extend nodes in cases of failure Implement custom load balancing algorithms and/or dynamic discovery of TCP/IP connection acceptors Dynamically assign TCP address and port settings when binding to a server socket Another very interesting and useful section is the "Coherent Bank Sample Application", which is a great tutorial, useful to understand how Coherence interacts with third party products establishing a clear integration with them, including the use of non-Oracle products like MS Visual Studio.  

    Read the article

  • Sucking Less Every Year ?

    - by AdityaGameProgrammer
    Sucking Less Every Year A trail of thought that had been on my mind for a while Quoting directly from the post I've often thought that sucking less every year is how humble programmers improve. You should be unhappy with code you wrote a year ago. If you aren't, that means either A) you haven't learned anything in a year, B) your code can't be improved, or C) you never revisit old code. All of these are the kiss of death for software developers. How often does this happen or not happen to you? How long before you see an actual improvement in your coding ? month, year? Do you ever revisit Your old code? How often does your old code plague you? or how often do you have to deal with your technical debt. It is definitely very painful to fix old bugs n dirty code that we may have done to quickly meet a deadline and those quick fixes ,some cases we may have to rewrite most of the application/code. No arguments about that. Some of the developers i had come across argued that they were already at the evolved stage where their coding doesn't need improvement or cant get improved anymore. Does this happen? If so how many years into coding on a particular language does one expect this to happen?

    Read the article

  • Strategies for managing use of types in Python

    - by dave
    I'm a long time programmer in C# but have been coding in Python for the past year. One of the big hurdles for me was the lack of type definitions for variables and parameters. Whereas I totally get the idea of duck typing, I do find it frustrating that I can't tell the type of a variable just by looking at it. This is an issue when you look at someone else's code where they've used ambiguous names for method parameters (see edit below). In a few cases, I've added asserts to ensure parameters comply with an expected type but this goes against the whole duck typing thing. On some methods, I'll document the expected type of parameters (eg: list of user objects), but even this seems to go against the idea of just using an object and let the runtime deal with exceptions. What strategies do you use to avoid typing problems in Python? Edit: Example of the parameter naming issues: If our code base we have a task object (ORM object) and a task_obj object (higher level object that embeds a task). Needless to say, many methods accept a parameter named 'task'. The method might expect a task or a task_obj or some other construct such as a dictionary of task properties - it is not clear. It is them up to be to look at how that parameter is used in order to work out what the method expects.

    Read the article

  • You may be tempted by IaaS, but you should PaaS on that or your database cloud journey will be a short one

    - by B R Clouse
    Before we examine Consolidation, the next step in the journey to cloud, let's take a short detour to address a critical choice you will face at the outset of your journey: whether to deploy your databases in virtual machines or not. A common misconception we've encountered is the belief that moving to cloud computing can be accomplished by simply hosting one's current operating environment as-is within virtual machines, and then stacking those VMs together in a consolidated environment.  This solution is often described as "Infrastructure as a Service" (IaaS) because the building block for deployments is a VM, which behaves like a full complement of infrastructure.  This approach is easy to understand and may feel like a good first step, but it won't take your databases very far in the journey to cloud computing.  In fact, if you follow the IaaS fork in the road, your journey will end quickly, without realizing the full benefits of cloud computing.  The better option to is to rationalize the deployment stack so that VMs are needed only for exceptional cases.  By settling on a standard operating system and patch level, you create an infrastructure that potentially all of your databases can share.  Now, the building block will be database instances or possibly schemas within databases.  These components are the platforms on which you will deploy workloads, hence this is known as "Platform as a Service" (PaaS). PaaS opens the door to higher degrees of consolidation than IaaS, because with PaaS you will not need to accommodate the footprint (operating system, hypervisor, processes, ...) that each VM brings with it.  You will also reduce your maintenance overheard if you move forward without the VMs and their O/Ses to patch and monitor.  So while IaaS simply shuffles complex and varied environments into VMs,  PaaS actually reduces complexity by rationalizing to the small possible set of components.  Now we're ready to look at the consolidation options that PaaS provides -- in our next blog posting.

    Read the article

  • Facebook Payments & Credits vs. Real-World & Charities

    - by Adam Tannon
    I am having a difficult time understanding Facebook's internal "e-commerce microcosm" and what it allows Facebook App developers to do (and what it restricts them from doing). Two use cases: I'm an e-com retailer selling clothes and coffee mugs (real-world goods) on my website; I want to write a Facebook App that allows Facebook users to buy my real-world goods from inside of Facebook using real money ($ USD) I'm highschool student trying to raise money for my senior class trip and want to build a Facebook App that allows Facebook users to donate to our class using real money ($ USD) Are these two scenarios possible? If not, why (what Facebook policies prohibit me from doing so)? If so, what APIs do I use: Payments or Credits? And how (specifically) would it work? Do Facebook Users have to first buy "credits" (which are mapped to $ USD values under the hood) and pay/donate with credits, or can they whip out their credit card and pay/donate right through my Facebook App? I think that last question really summarizes my confusion: can Facebook users enter their credit card info directly into Facebook Apps, or do you have to go through Payments/Credits APIs as a "middleman"?

    Read the article

  • The year ahead, 2011.

    - by andrewstopford
    When I look back at last years look at 2010 my blogging rate has not changed much (I suspect this is largely down to using Twitter a lot) but my interests this year have developed a lot further. My view on 2010 would be that Microsoft would commit more to OSS, while I wanted to see more hires from that audience and more projects on Outercurve foundation instead there has been support for JQuery and Gems (aka NuGet). I would love to see more from Microsoft on the OSS front in 2011, Outercurve could become like the Apache foundation with enough support. Staying on the Microsoft front I predict that 2011 will bring the following. C# 5.0 will go RTM (still no MOP though) The next release of VS will go alpha or early beta MS MVC 4.0 (I think by Mix time) and maybe this release will get a command line. I also suspect that Microsoft will want to target the tablet market with WP7 in 2011 (Mix 2011 maybe...). I also predict the following Java will fork with Apache\Google. Oracle will then take them to court and the whole thing will boil right through 2011 (Java have had enough court cases, come on guys). Java and the JVM will sadly not move forward at all in 2011. Android will cause Apple a serious headache, both the smartphone and tablet market will see figures cut from Apple share. By the end of 2011 the current 70% apple market share will be 40-50%. As the features, performance and price of Android devices gets ever better Apple will be left out in the open. Lastly after 7 years I intend to move this blog away from weblogs. In 2011 I will be exploring Java, Ruby\Rails and Android and such subjects don't make sense to talk about it here. See you in 2011.

    Read the article

  • Compressing/compacting messages over websocket on Node.js

    - by icelava
    We have a websocket implementation (Node.js/Sock.js) that exchanges data as JSON strings. As our use cases grow, so have the size of the data transmitted across the wire. The websocket protocol does not natively offer any compression feature, so in order to reduce the size of our messages we'd have to manually do something about the serialisation. There appear to be a variety of LZW implementations in Javascript, some which confuses me on their compatibility for in-browser use only versus transmission across the wire due to my lack of understanding on low-level encodings. More importantly, all of them seem to take a noticeable performance drag when Javascript is the engine doing the compression/decompression work, which is not desirable for mobile devices. Looking instead other forms of compact serialisation, MessagePack does not appear to have any active support in Javascript itself; BSON does not have any Javascript implementation; and an alternative BISON project that I tested does not deserialise everything back to their original values (large numbers), and it does not look like any further development will happen either. What are some other options others have explored for Node.js?

    Read the article

  • Attributes of an Ethical Programmer?

    - by ahmed
    Software that we write has ramifications in the real world. If not, it wouldn't be very useful. Thus, it has the potential to sweep across the world faster than a deadly manmade virus or to affect society every bit as much as genetic manipulation. Maybe we can't see how right now, but in the future our code will have ever-greater potential for harm or good. Of course, there's the issue of hacking. That's clearly a crime. Or is it that clear? Isn't hacking acceptable for our government in the event of national security? What about for other governments? Cases of life-and-death emergency? Tracking down deadbeat parents? Screening the genetic profile of job candidates? Where is the line drawn? Who decides? Do programmers have responsibility for how their code is used? What if a programmer writes code to pry into confidential information or copy-protected material? Does he bear responsibility along with the person who used the program? What about a programmer who knowingly or unknowingly writes code to "fix the books?" Should he be liable?

    Read the article

  • NHibernate Pitfalls: Cascades

    - by Ricardo Peres
    This is part of a series of posts about NHibernate Pitfalls. See the entire collection here. For entities that have associations – one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one or many-to-many –, NHibernate needs to know what to do with their related entities, in three particular moments: when saving, updating or deleting. In particular, there are two possible behaviors: either ignore these related entities or cascade changes to them. NHibernate allows setting the cascade behavior for each association, and the default behavior is not to cascade (ignore). The possible cascade options are: None Ignore, this is the default Save-Update If the entity is being saved or updated, also save any related entities that are either not saved or have been modified and associate these related entities to the root entity. Generally safe Delete If the entity is being deleted, also delete the related entities. This is only useful for parent-child relations Delete-Orphan Identical to Delete, with the addition that if once related entity is removed from the association – orphaned –, also delete it. Also only for parent-child All Combination of Save-Update and Delete, usually that’s what we want (for parent-child relations, of course) All-Delete-Orphan Same as All plus delete any related entities who lose their relationship In summary, Save-Update is generally what you want in most cases. As for the Delete variations, they should only be used if the related entities depend on the root entity (parent-child), so that deleting the root entity and not their related entities would result in a constraint violation on the database.

    Read the article

  • Impact of Server Failure on Coherence Request Processing

    - by jpurdy
    Requests against a given cache server may be temporarily blocked for several seconds following the failure of other cluster members. This may cause issues for applications that can not tolerate multi-second response times even during failover processing (ignoring for the moment that in practice there are a variety of issues that make such absolute guarantees challenging even when there are no server failures). In general, Coherence is designed around the principle that failures in one member should not affect the rest of the cluster if at all possible. However, it's obvious that if that failed member was managing a piece of state that another member depends on, the second member will need to wait until a new member assumes responsibility for managing that state. This transfer of responsibility is (as of Coherence 3.7) performed by the primary service thread for each cache service. The finest possible granularity for transferring responsibility is a single partition. So the question becomes how to minimize the time spent processing each partition. Here are some optimizations that may reduce this period: Reduce the size of each partition (by increasing the partition count) Increase the number of JVMs across the cluster (increasing the total number of primary service threads) Increase the number of CPUs across the cluster (making sure that each JVM has a CPU core when needed) Re-evaluate the set of configured indexes (as these will need to be rebuilt when a partition moves) Make sure that the backing map is as fast as possible (in most cases this means running on-heap) Make sure that the cluster is running on hardware with fast CPU cores (since the partition processing is single-threaded) As always, proper testing is required to make sure that configuration changes have the desired effect (and also to quantify that effect).

    Read the article

  • Thoughts on type aliases/synonyms?

    - by Rei Miyasaka
    I'm going to try my best to frame this question in a way that doesn't result in a language war or list, because I think there could be a good, technical answer to this question. Different languages support type aliases to varying degrees. C# allows type aliases to be declared at the beginning of each code file, and they're valid only throughout that file. Languages like ML/Haskell use type aliases probably as much as they use type definitions. C/C++ are sort of a Wild West, with typedef and #define often being used seemingly interchangeably to alias types. The upsides of type aliasing don't invoke too much dispute: It makes it convenient to define composite types that are described naturally by the language, e.g. type Coordinate = float * float or type String = [Char]. Long names can be shortened: using DSBA = System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepBoundaryAttribute. In languages like ML or Haskell, where function parameters often don't have names, type aliases provide a semblance of self-documentation. The downside is a bit more iffy: aliases can proliferate, making it difficult to read and understand code or to learn a platform. The Win32 API is a good example, with its DWORD = int and its HINSTANCE = HANDLE = void* and its LPHANDLE = HANDLE FAR* and such. In all of these cases it hardly makes any sense to distinguish between a HANDLE and a void pointer or a DWORD and an integer etc.. Setting aside the philosophical debate of whether a king should give complete freedom to their subjects and let them be responsible for themselves or whether they should have all of their questionable actions intervened, could there be a happy medium that would allow the benefits of type aliasing while mitigating the risk of its abuse? As an example, the issue of long names can be solved by good autocomplete features. Visual Studio 2010 for instance will alllow you to type DSBA in order to refer Intellisense to System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepBoundaryAttribute. Could there be other features that would provide the other benefits of type aliasing more safely?

    Read the article

  • Assignments in mock return values

    - by zerkms
    (I will show examples using php and phpunit but this may be applied to any programming language) The case: let's say we have a method A::foo that delegates some work to class M and returns the value as-is. Which of these solutions would you choose: $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue('baz')); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals('baz', $obj->foo()); or $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue($result = 'baz')); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals($result, $obj->foo()); or $result = 'baz'; $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue($result)); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals($result, $obj->foo()); Personally I always follow the 2nd solution, but just 10 minutes ago I had a conversation with couple of developers who said that it is "too tricky" and chose 3rd or 1st. So what would you usually do? And do you have any conventions to follow in such cases?

    Read the article

  • Is there a common programming term for the problems of adding features to an already-featureful program?

    - by Jeremy Friesner
    I'm looking for a commonly used programming term to describe a software-engineering phenomenon, which (for lack of a better way to describe it) I'll illustrate first with a couple of examples-by-analogy: Scenario 1: We want to build/extend a subway system on the outskirts of a small town in Wyoming. There are the usual subway-problems to solve, of course (hiring the right construction company, choosing the best route, buying the subway cars), but other than that it's pretty straightforward to implement the system because there aren't a huge number of constraints to satisfy. Scenario 2: Same as above, except now we need to build/extend the subway system in downtown Los Angeles. Here we face all of the problems we did in case (1), but also additional problems -- most of the applicable space is already in use, and has a vocal constituency which will protest loudly if we inconvenience them by repurposing, redesigning, or otherwise modifying the infrastructure that they rely on. Because of this, extensions to the system happen either very slowly and expensively, or they don't happen at all. I sometimes see a similar pattern with software development -- adding a new feature to a small/simple program is straightforward, but as the program grows, adding further new features becomes more and more difficult, if only because it is difficult to integrate the new feature without adversely affecting any of the large number of existing use-cases or user-constituencies. (even with a robust, adaptable program design, you run into the problem of the user interface becoming so elaborate that the program becomes difficult to learn or use) Is there a term for this phenomenon?

    Read the article

  • Clouds Aroud the World

    - by user12608550
    At the NIST Cloud Computing Workshop this week; representatives from Canada, China, and Japan presented on their cloud computing efforts. Some interesting points made: Canada: Building "Service Canada" cloud for all citizen services, but raised the issue of data location...cloud data must be within Canada border, so they will not focus on public clouds where they don't know or can't control data location. Japan: In response to the massive destruction of the Great East Japan Earthquake, Japan is building nation-wide cloud services to support disaster relief, data recovery, and support for rebuilding new communities. US Ambassador Philip Verveer discussed the need for international cooperation and standards development to enable interoperability of cloud services, keeping in mind cultural and political differences. Additionally, an industry panel reported on cloud standards development, including some actual interoperability testing at http://www.cloudplugfest.org. Much of the first two days of the workshop covered progress and action plans around the 10 High-Priority Requirements to Further USG Agency Cloud Computing Adoption. Thursday's sessions will cover the work of the various NIST Cloud Computing Working Groups on Reference Architecture and Taxonomy Standards Acceleration to Jumpstart the Adoption of Cloud Computing (SAJACC) Cloud Security Standards Roadmap Business Use Cases (see Working Groups of NIST Cloud Computing )

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139  | Next Page >