Search Results

Search found 5410 results on 217 pages for 'n tier architecture'.

Page 56/217 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

  • What hardware is at physical address 0x80000000 on powerpc New World Macintosh?

    - by tinkerer
    Open Firmware device tree gives no clue what device might decode at physical address 0x80000000 to 0x8008200 on a G4 New World Macintosh. The mmu has three adjacent Virtual=Real translations for that block. They are the only address translations reported between the top or physical dram at 20000000 and the start of the PCI bridges at f0000000. (A possible clue is that frame-buffer-addr is reported as 9c008000 by Open Firmware, and that is not in the reported translation table either). I believe the architecture has been around since about 1999.

    Read the article

  • What does it mean for a computer to be an "IBM Compatible PC"?

    - by Jon
    A couple questions about this: 1) Is this term even relevant any more? 2) Does this mean anything from a developer's stand point? It is not exactly clear to me if this is a BIOS, architecture, bus or a combination. A piece of software I'm working on expects to see a "Description" of the system and currently windows machines report "AT/AT Compatible". Having been tasked to port this to Mac, I really don't know what a proper "Description" would be - this will most likely be omitted but I was wondering if anyone could provide some insight on the modern usage of this term.

    Read the article

  • If 'Architect' is a dirty word - what's the alternative; when not everyone can actually design a goo

    - by Andras Zoltan
    Now - I'm a developer first and foremost; but whenever I sit down to work on a big project with lots of interlinking components and areas, I will forward-plan my interfaces, base classes etc as best I can - putting on my Architect hat. For a few weeks I've been doing this for a huge project - designing whole swathes of interfaces etc for a business-wide platform that we're developing. The basic structure is a couple of big projects that consists of service and data interfaces, with some basic implementations of all of these. On their own, these assemblies are useless though, as they are simply intended intended as a scaffold on which to build a business-specific implementation (we have a lot of businesses). Therefore, the design of the core platform is absolutely crucial, since consumers of the system are not intended to know which implementation they are actually using. In the past it's not worked so well, but after a few proof-of-concepts and R&D projects this new platform is now growing nicely and is already proving itself. Then somebody else gets involved in the project - he's a TDD man who sees code-level architecture as an irrelevance and is definitely from the camp that 'architect' is a dirty word - I should add that our working relationship is very good despite this :) He's open about the fact that he can't architect in advance and obviously TDD really helps him because it allows him to evolve his systems over time. That I get, and totally understand; but it means that his coding style, basically, doesn't seem to be able to honour the architecture that I've been putting in place. Now don't get me wrong - he's an awesome coder; but the other day he needed to extend one of his components (an implementation of a core interface) to bring in an extra implementation-specific dependency; and in doing so he extended the core interface as well as his implementation (he uses ReSharper), thus breaking the independence of the whole interface. When I pointed out his error to him, he was dismayed. Being test-first, all that mattered to him was that he'd made his tests pass, and just said 'well, I need that dependency, so can't we put it in?'. Of course we could put it in, but I was frustrated that he couldn't see that refactoring the generic interface to incorporate an implementation-specific feature was just wrong! But it is all very Charlie Brown to him (you know the sound the adults make when they're talking to the children) - as far as he's concerned we don't need to worry about it because we can always refactor. The problem is, the culture of test-write-refactor is all very well and good - but not when you're dealing with a platform that is going to be shared out among so many projects that you could never get them all in one place to make the refactorings work. In my opinion, sometimes you actually have to think about what you're doing, and not just let nature take its course. Am I simply fulfilling the role of Architect as a dirty word here? I believe that architecture is important and should be thought about before code gets written; unless it's a particularly small project. But when you're working in a team of people who don't think that way, or even can't think that way how can you actually get this across? Is it a case of simply making the architecture off-limits to changes by other people? I don't want to start having bloody committees just to be able to grow the system; but equally I don't want to be the only one responsible for it all. Do you think the architect role is a waste of time? Is it at odds with TDD and other practises? Can this mix of different practises be made to work, or should I just be a lot less precious (and in so doing allow a generic platform become useless!)? Or do I just lay down the law? Any ideas/experiences/views gratefully received.

    Read the article

  • Video on Architecture and Code Quality using Visual Studio 2012&ndash;interview with Marcel de Vries and Terje Sandstrom by Adam Cogan

    - by terje
    Find the video HERE. Adam Cogan did a great Web TV interview with Marcel de Vries and myself on the topics of architecture and code quality.  It was real fun participating in this session.  Although we know each other from the MVP ALM community,  Marcel, Adam and I haven’t worked together before. It was very interesting to see how we agreed on so many terms, and how alike we where thinking.  The basics of ensuring you have a good architecture and how you could document it is one thing.  Also, the same agreement on the importance of having a high quality code base, and how we used the Visual Studio 2012 tools, and some others (NDepend for example)  to measure and ensure that the code quality was where it should be.  As the tools, methods and thinking popped up during the interview it was a lot of “Hey !  I do that too!”.  The tools are not only for “after the fact” work, but we use them during the coding.  That way the tools becomes an integrated part of our coding work, and helps us to find issues we may have overlooked.  The video has a bunch of call outs, pinpointing important things to remember. These are also listed on the corresponding web page. I haven’t seen that touch before, but really liked this way of doing it – it makes it much easier to spot the highlights.  Titus Maclaren and Raj Dhatt from SSW have done a terrific job producing this video.  And thanks to Lei Xu for doing the camera and recording job.  Thanks guys ! Also, if you are at TechEd Amsterdam 2012, go and listen to Adam Cogan in his session on “A modern architecture review: Using the new code review tools” Friday 29th, 10.15-11.30 and Marcel de Vries session on “Intellitrace, what is it and how can I use it to my benefit” Wednesday 27th, 5-6.15 The highlights points out some important practices.  I’ll elaborate on a few of them here: Add instructions on how to compile the solution.  You do this by adding a text file with instructions to the solution, and keep it under source control.  These instructions should contain what is needed on top of a standard install of Visual Studio.  I do a lot of code reviews, and more often that not, I am not even able to compile the program, because they have used some tool or library that needs to be installed.  The same applies to any new developer who enters into the team, so do this to increase your productivity when the team changes, or a team member switches computer. Don’t forget to document what you have to configure on the computer, the IIS being a common one. The more automatic you can do this, the better.  Use NuGet to get down libraries. When the text document gets more than say, half a page, with a bunch of different things to do, convert it into a powershell script instead.  The metrics warning levels.  These are very conservatively set by Microsoft.  You rarely see anything but green, and besides, you should have color scales for each of the metrics.  I have a blog post describing a more appropriate set of levels, based on both research work and industry “best practices”.  The essential limits are: Cyclomatic complexity and coupling:  Higher numbers are worse On method levels: Green :  From 0 to 10 Yellow:  From 10 to 20  (some say 15).   Acceptable, but have a look to see if there is something unneeded here. Red: From 20 to 40:   Action required, get these down. Bleeding Red: Above 40   This is the real red alert.  Immediate action!  (My invention, as people have asked what do I do when I have cyclomatic complexity of 150.  The only answer I could think of was: RUN! ) Maintainability index:  Lower numbers are worse, scale from 0 to 100. On method levels: Green:  60 to 100 Yellow:  40 – 60.    You will always have methods here too, accept the higher ones, take a look at those who are down to the lower limit.  Check up against the other metrics.) Red:  20 – 40:  Action required, fix these. Bleeding red:  Below 20.  Immediate action required. When doing metrics analysis, you should leave the generated code out.  You do this by adding attributes, unfortunately Microsoft has “forgotten” to add these to all their stuff, so you might have to add them to some of the code.  It most cases it can be done so that it is not overwritten by a new round of code generation.  Take a look a my blog post here for details on how to do that. Class level metrics might also be useful, at least for coupling and maintenance.  But it is much more difficult to set any fixed limits on those.  Any metric aggregations on higher level tend to be pretty useless, as the number of methods vary pretty much, and there are little science on what number of methods can be regarded as good or bad.  NDepend have a recommendation, but they say it may vary too.  And in these days of data binding, the number might be pretty high, as properties counts as methods.  However, if you take the worst case situations, classes with more than 20 methods are suspicious, and coupling and cyclomatic complexity go red above 20, so any classes with more than 20x20 = 400 for these measures should be checked over. In the video we mention the SOLID principles, coined by “Uncle Bob” (Richard Martin). One of them, the Dependency Inversion principle we discuss in the video.  It is important to note that this principle is NOT on whether you should use a Dependency Inversion Container or not, it is about how you design the interfaces and interactions between your classes.  The Dependency Inversion Container is just one technique which is based on this principle, but which main purpose is to isolate things you would like to change at runtime, for example if you implement a plug in architecture.  Overuse of a Dependency Inversion Container is however, NOT a good thing.  It should be used for a purpose and not as a general DI solution.  The general DI solution and thinking however is useful far beyond the DIC.   You should always “program to an abstraction”, and not to the concreteness.  We also talk a bit about the GRASP patterns, a term coined by Craig Larman in his book Applying UML and design patterns. GRASP patterns stand for General Responsibility Assignment Software Patterns and describe fundamental principles of object design and responsibility assignment.  What I find great with these patterns is that they is another way to focus on the responsibility of a class.  One of the things I most often found that is broken in software designs, is that the class lack responsibility, and as a result there are a lot of classes mucking around in the internals of the other classes.  We also discuss the term “Code Smells”.  This term was invented by Kent Beck and Martin Fowler when they worked with Fowler’s “Refactoring” book. A code smell is a set of “bad” coding practices, which are the drivers behind a corresponding set of refactorings.  Here is a good list of the smells, and their corresponding refactor patterns. See also this.

    Read the article

  • What initial modelling/design activities on Agile Projects do you do??

    - by dalton
    When developing an application using agile techniques, what if any initial modelling/architecture activities do you do, and how do you capture that knowledge?? I'm not after a bullet list about XP, Scrum, Crystal, DSDM..etc as I'm familiar with the methodologies. But what do you do above and beyond the guidance given by these. I find I work best by thinking the system through first, but also like the benefits of timeboxing, story cards, pairing, tdd. The closest thing I've seen so far is Scott Ambler's Initial Architecture Modelling, but was wondering what alternatives are used out there?

    Read the article

  • Flash content in eLearning: one SWF vs. many?

    - by loucadro
    I am designing a Flash-based language course, and I am not sure which architecture I have to choose. The content won't be uploaded to the Internet, it will be used only locally. Possible architectures: 1) A single SWF with all the data stored internally - it seems a rather clumsy and inefficient way (or it's not?). 2) To make a Flash-based interface, and to keep the data saved in a MySQL database. It presumably allows to organize the content better, avoiding self-repetitions. The problem is that the language teacher (who is not an IT specialist) will have to install additional software to handle MySQL. 3) To make a number of separate SWF files, and to make a simple HTML-file with the index. (and some other solutions I didn't think of) Which is the right architecture, most usable for the teacher and most elegant from the IT point of view?

    Read the article

  • What factors could cause the scalability issue on a 10-core CPU?

    - by JackWM
    I am tuning the performance of parallel Java programs. And want to check the impacts from the Architecture. I'm look into the Intel 10-core CPU, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-L8867. I found my program only scales up to 5 cores. What could be the causes? I'm considering the Architecture effects. e.g. memory contention? More specifically, Are the 10 cores symmetric to each other? How many memory controllers does it have?

    Read the article

  • When is it good to use FTP?

    - by Tom Duckering
    In my experience I see a lot of architecture diagrams which make extensive use of FTP as a medium for linking architectural components. As someone who doesn't make architectural decisions but tends to look at architecture diagrams could anyone explain what the value is of using FTP, where it's appropriate and when transferring data as files is a good idea. I get that there are often legacy systems that just need to work that way - although any historical insight would be interesting too I can see the attraction in transferring files (especially if that's what needs to be transferred) because of the simplicity and familiarity and wonder if the reasoning goes beyond this.

    Read the article

  • Where do interfaces belong in a multitier application

    - by Russell Steen
    So say you have a three tier application with the tiers UI, Services, and Repository for a simple application, let's say saving addresses. If AddressService has an interface IAddressService, where does that interface belong? I know that "in the address service" may seem like an obvious answer, but if it's in the address service it would seem to defeat the point of having the interface such that any service library could be swapped in as long as it implemented IAddressService. (specifically this is in a .net problem space, but it's probably more general so it's tagged architecture)

    Read the article

  • Installing a clean Python 2.6 on SuSE (SLES) 11 using system-wide libraries

    - by optilude
    Hi, I've spent most of the day on this, and it is driving me absolutely insane. On all other Unixes I've used, this is a walk in the park, but SLES 11 has me dumbfounded. I need to build Zope on SLES 11 64 bit: Linux <name> 2.6.27.45-0.1-default #1 SMP 2010-02-22 16:49:47 +0100 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux I first tried to just use the YaST-installed Python 2.6. I've also installed python-devel, libjpeg-devel, readline-devel, libopenssl-devel, libz2-devel, zlib-devel, and libgcrypt-devel. The global python2.6 has a lot of cruft in it, and seems to execute stuff in /etc/pythonstart when I use it, which doesn't help. However, the error I get is this: Getting distribution for 'Zope2==2.12.3'. src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:596: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:598: warning: ‘intargfunc’ is deprecated src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:598: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:599: warning: ‘intargfunc’ is deprecated src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:599: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:600: warning: ‘intintargfunc’ is deprecated src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:600: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:601: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:602: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:606: warning: ‘intargfunc’ is deprecated src/AccessControl/cAccessControl.c:606: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/4.3/../../../../x86_64-suse-linux/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/lib/libpython2.6.so when searching for -lpython2.6 /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/4.3/../../../../x86_64-suse-linux/bin/ld: cannot find -lpython2.6 collect2: ld returned 1 exit status error: Setup script exited with error: command 'gcc' failed with exit status 1 An error occured when trying to install Zope2 2.12.3. Look above this message for any errors that were output by easy_install. I don't know what "incompatible" is referring to here; my guess would be the hardware architecture, but I'm not sure what's incompatible with what in the statement above. I've had problems with system-installed Pythons before, so I tried to compile my own (hence the list of -devel packages above), downloading the Python 2.6 tarball and running: ./configure --disable-tk --prefix=${HOME}/python make make install This installs, but it seems to be unable to find any system-wide libraries. Here's a sample interpreter session: Python 2.6.5 (r265:79063, Mar 29 2010, 17:04:12) [GCC 4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291]] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/etc/pythonstart", line 7, in <module> import readline ImportError: No module named readline >>> from hashlib import md5 Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> File "/home/osc/python-2.6/lib/python2.6/hashlib.py", line 136, in <module> md5 = __get_builtin_constructor('md5') File "/home/osc/python-2.6/lib/python2.6/hashlib.py", line 63, in __get_builtin_constructor import _md5 ImportError: No module named _md5 Both readline and hashlib (via libgrypt) should be installed, and the relevant -devel packages are also installed. On Ubuntu or OS X, this works just fine. On SuSE, no luck. Any help greatly appreciated! Martin

    Read the article

  • Show Notes: Bob Hensle on IT Strategies from Oracle

    - by Bob Rhubart
    The latest ArchBeat Podcast (RSS) features a conversation with Oracle Enterprise Architecture director Bob Hensle (LinkedIn). Bob talks about IT Strategies from Oracle, an extensive library of reference architectures, best practices, and other documents now available (it’s a freebie!) to registered Oracle Technology Network members. Listen to Part 1 Bob offers some background on the IT Strategies from Oracle project and an overview of the included documents. Listen to Part 2 (Feb 16) A discussion of how SOA and other issues are reflected in the IT Strategies documents. Share your feedback on any of the documents in the IT Strategies from Oracle Library: [email protected] For a nice complement to the IT Strategies from Oracle Library, check out Oracle Experiences in Enterprise Architecture, an ongoing series of short essays from members of the Oracle Enterprise Architecture team based on their field experience. In the Pipeline ArchBeat programs in the works include an interview with Dr. Frank Munz, the author of Middleware and Cloud Computing, excerpts from another architect virtual meet-up, and a conversation with Oracle ACE Director Debra Lilley about her insight into Fusion Applications. . Stayed tuned: RSS Technorati Tags: oracle,oracle technology network,software architecture,enterprise architecture,reference architecture del.icio.us Tags: oracle,oracle technology network,software architecture,enterprise architecture,reference architecture

    Read the article

  • 10gR2 10.2.0.4 Certified with EBS 12 on Windows Itanium x64

    - by Steven Chan
    Oracle Database 10g Release 2 version 10.2.0.4 is now certified with Oracle E-Business Suite Release 12 (12.0.4 or higher, 12.1.1 or higher) on the Windows Itanium x64 (64-bit) platform. The operating system supported on this platform is Windows Server 2003. This is a 'database-tier only' certification (previously known as a 'split configuration database tier' certification) where the application tier must be on a different fully certified E-Business Suite R12 platform.This 'database-tier only' platform was previously certified with 12.0 and 10.2.0.3 - customers can now apply the 12.1.1 Maintenance Pack to upgrade their application tier to 12.1.1 while running the 10gR2 database on this platform.

    Read the article

  • Turing Model Vs Von Neuman model

    - by Santhosh
    First some background (based on my understanding).. The Von-Neumann architecture describes the stored-program computer where instructions and data are stored in memory and the machine works by changing it's internal state, i.e an instruction operated on some data and modifies the data. So inherently, there is state msintained in the system. The Turing machine architecture works by manipulating symbols on a tape. i.e A tape with infinite number of slots exists, and at any one point in time, the Turing machine is in a particular slot. Based on the symbol read at that slot, the machine change the symbol and move to a different slot. All of this is deterministic. My questions are Is there any relation between these two models (Was the Von Neuman model based on or inspired by the Turing model)? Can we say that Turing model is a superset of Von Newman model? Does functional Programming fit into Turing model. If so how? (I assume FP does not lend itself nicely to the Von Neuman model)

    Read the article

  • Relay WCF Service

    - by Matt Ruwe
    This is more of an architectural and security question than anything else. I'm trying to determine if a suggested architecture is necessary. Let me explain my configuration. We have a standard DMZ established that essentially has two firewalls. One that's external facing and the other that connects to the internal LAN. The following describes where each application tier is currently running. Outside the firewall: Silverlight Application In the DMZ: WCF Service (Business Logic & Data Access Layer) Inside the LAN: Database I'm receiving input that the architecture is not correct. Specifically, it has been suggested that because "a web server is easily hacked" that we should place a relay server inside the DMZ that communicates with another WCF service inside the LAN which will then communicate with the database. The external firewall is currently configured to only allow port 443 (https) to the WCF service. The internal firewall is configured to allow SQL connections from the WCF service in the DMZ. Ignoring the obvious performance implications, I don't see the security benefit either. I'm going to reserve my judgement of this suggestion to avoid polluting the answers with my bias. Any input is appreciated. Thanks, Matt

    Read the article

  • Show me your Linq to SQL architectures!

    - by Brad Heller
    I've been using Linq to SQL for a new implementation that I've been working on. I have about 5000 lines of code and am a little ways from a solid demo. I've been pretty satisfied with Linq to SQL so far -- the tools are excellent and pretty painless and it allows you to get a DAL up and running quickly. That said, there are some major draw backs that I just keep hitting over and over again. Namely how to handle separation of concerns between my DAL and my business layer and juggling that with different data contexts. Here is the architecture I've been using: My repositories do all my data access and they return Linq to SQL objects. Each of my Linq to SQL objects implements an IDetachable interface. A typical implementation looks like this: partial class PaymentDetail : IDetachable { #region IDetachable Members public bool IsAttached { get { return PropertyChanging != null; } } public void Detach() { if (IsAttached) { PropertyChanged = null; PropertyChanging = null; Transaction.Detach(); } } #endregion } Every time I do a DAL operation in my repository I "detach" when I'm done with the object (and it should theoretically detach from any child objects) to remove the DataContext's context. Like I said, this works pretty well, but there are some edge cases that seem to be a big pain in the ass. For instance, my Transaction object has many PaymentDetails. Even when there are no PaymentDetails in that collection it's still attached to the DataContext's context! Thus, if I try to update (I update by Attach()ing to the object and then SubmitChanges()) I get that dreaded "An attempt has been made to Attach or Add an entity that is not new, perhaps having been loaded from another DataContext. This is not supported." message. Anyway, I'm starting to doubt that this technology was a good gamble. Has anyone got a decent architecture that they're willing to share? I'd really love to use this technology but I feel like I spend 1/3 of my time just debugging is retarded quirks!

    Read the article

  • Cache consistency & spawning a thread

    - by Dave Keck
    Background I've been reading through various books and articles to learn about processor caches, cache consistency, and memory barriers in the context of concurrent execution. So far though, I have been unable to determine whether a common coding practice of mine is safe in the strictest sense. Assumptions The following pseudo-code is executed on a two-processor machine: int sharedVar = 0; myThread() { print(sharedVar); } main() { sharedVar = 1; spawnThread(myThread); sleep(-1); } main() executes on processor 1 (P1), while myThread() executes on P2. Initially, sharedVar exists in the caches of both P1 and P2 with the initial value of 0 (due to some "warm-up code" that isn't shown above.) Question Strictly speaking – preferably without assuming any particular CPU – is myThread() guaranteed to print 1? With my newfound knowledge of processor caches, it seems entirely possible that at the time of the print() statement, P2 may not have received the invalidation request for sharedVar caused by P1's assignment in main(). Therefore, it seems possible that myThread() could print 0. References These are the related articles and books I've been reading. (It wouldn't allow me to format these as links because I'm a new user - sorry.) Shared Memory Consistency Models: A Tutorial hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/WRL-95-7.pdf Memory Barriers: a Hardware View for Software Hackers rdrop.com/users/paulmck/scalability/paper/whymb.2009.04.05a.pdf Linux Kernel Memory Barriers kernel.org/doc/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach amazon.com/Computer-Architecture-Quantitative-Approach-4th/dp/0123704901/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

    Read the article

  • Help for Platform plus Plugin development by J2ee

    - by echo
    Hi, everybody. I want to develop a monitor platform which can monitor many different subjects such as database, OS, middle ware etc. The system includes two parts: 1. Report center(Show some useful chart and report) 2. Collector(Collect information from monitored subject) For the time being, I just want to monitor some parameters of oracle and Linux. And I will add more monitor subject like MS SqlServer, IBM Db2 ect. later. I need a good architecture so I can easily add new monitor module and not to disturb original framework too much. I want to develop it by the method of “Platform + plugin”. A plugin should have its own UI, setting part and something else. I plan to use struts2 + spring + hibernate to develop report center. I am not very sure how to do design this architecture for I have any “Platform + plugin” experience. I ever googled some information such as OSGI and Portlet. I am not sure which one should be my best choice. Can anyone give me some instruction about it. Your help will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Can I architect a web app so it can be deployed to either the cloud or a dedicated server / VPS ? Ho

    - by CAD bloke
    Is there are an architecture versatile enough that it may be deployed to either a cloud server or to a dedicated (or VPS) server with minimal change? Obviously there would be config changes but I'd rather leave the rest of the app consistent, keeping one maintainable codebase. The app would be ASP.NET &/or ASP.MVC. My dev environment is VS 2010. The cloud may, or may not be, Azure. Dedicated or VPS would be Win Server 2008. Probably. It is not a public-facing web site. The web app I have in mind would be a separate deployment for each client. Some clients would be small-scale, some will prefer the app to run on a local intranet rather than on the web. Other clients may prefer the cloud approach for a black-box solution. The app may run for a few hours or it may run indefinitely, it depends on the client and the project. Other than deployment scenarios the apps would be more or less identical. As you may see from the tags, I'm assuming a message-based architecture is probably the most versatile but I'm also used to being wrong about this stuff. All suggestions and pointers welcome regarding general architectures and also specific solutions.

    Read the article

  • What's the best Communication Pattern for EJB3-based applications?

    - by Hank
    I'm starting a JEE project that needs to be strongly scalable. So far, the concept was: several Message Driven Beans, responsible for different parts of the architecture each MDB has a Session Bean injected, handling the business logic a couple of Entity Beans, providing access to the persistence layer communication between the different parts of the architecture via Request/Reply concept via JMS messages: MDB receives msg containing activity request uses its session bean to execute necessary business logic returns response object in msg to original requester The idea was that by de-coupling parts of the architecture from each other via the message bus, there is no limit to the scalability. Simply start more components - as long as they are connected to the same bus, we can grow and grow. Unfortunately, we're having massive problems with the request-reply concept. Transaction Mgmt seems to be in our way plenty. It seams that session beans are not supposed to consume messages?! Reading http://blogs.sun.com/fkieviet/entry/request_reply_from_an_ejb and http://forums.sun.com/message.jspa?messageID=10338789, I get the feeling that people actually recommend against the request/reply concept for EJBs. If that is the case, how do you communicate between your EJBs? (Remember, scalability is what I'm after) Details of my current setup: MDB 1 'TestController', uses (local) SLSB 1 'TestService' for business logic TestController.onMessage() makes TestService send a message to queue XYZ and requests a reply TestService uses Bean Managed Transactions TestService establishes a connection & session to the JMS broker via a joint connection factory upon initialization (@PostConstruct) TestService commits the transaction after sending, then begins another transaction and waits 10 sec for the response Message gets to MDB 2 'LocationController', which uses (local) SLSB 2 'LocationService' for business logic LocationController.onMessage() makes LocationService send a message back to the requested JMSReplyTo queue Same BMT concept, same @PostConstruct concept all use the same connection factory to access the broker Problem: The first message gets send (by SLSB 1) and received (by MDB 2) ok. The sending of the returning message (by SLSB 2) is fine as well. However, SLSB 1 never receives anything - it just times out. I tried without the messageSelector, no change, still no receiving message. Is it not ok to consume message by a session bean? SLSB 1 - TestService.java @Resource(name = "jms/mvs.MVSControllerFactory") private javax.jms.ConnectionFactory connectionFactory; @PostConstruct public void initialize() { try { jmsConnection = connectionFactory.createConnection(); session = jmsConnection.createSession(false, Session.AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE); System.out.println("Connection to JMS Provider established"); } catch (Exception e) { } } public Serializable sendMessageWithResponse(Destination reqDest, Destination respDest, Serializable request) { Serializable response = null; try { utx.begin(); Random rand = new Random(); String correlationId = rand.nextLong() + "-" + (new Date()).getTime(); // prepare the sending message object ObjectMessage reqMsg = session.createObjectMessage(); reqMsg.setObject(request); reqMsg.setJMSReplyTo(respDest); reqMsg.setJMSCorrelationID(correlationId); // prepare the publishers and subscribers MessageProducer producer = session.createProducer(reqDest); // send the message producer.send(reqMsg); System.out.println("Request Message has been sent!"); utx.commit(); // need to start second transaction, otherwise the first msg never gets sent utx.begin(); MessageConsumer consumer = session.createConsumer(respDest, "JMSCorrelationID = '" + correlationId + "'"); jmsConnection.start(); ObjectMessage respMsg = (ObjectMessage) consumer.receive(10000L); utx.commit(); if (respMsg != null) { response = respMsg.getObject(); System.out.println("Response Message has been received!"); } else { // timeout waiting for response System.out.println("Timeout waiting for response!"); } } catch (Exception e) { } return response; } SLSB 2 - LocationService.Java (only the reply method, rest is same as above) public boolean reply(Message origMsg, Serializable o) { boolean rc = false; try { // check if we have necessary correlationID and replyTo destination if (!origMsg.getJMSCorrelationID().equals("") && (origMsg.getJMSReplyTo() != null)) { // prepare the payload utx.begin(); ObjectMessage msg = session.createObjectMessage(); msg.setObject(o); // make it a response msg.setJMSCorrelationID(origMsg.getJMSCorrelationID()); Destination dest = origMsg.getJMSReplyTo(); // send it MessageProducer producer = session.createProducer(dest); producer.send(msg); producer.close(); System.out.println("Reply Message has been sent"); utx.commit(); rc = true; } } catch (Exception e) {} return rc; } sun-resources.xml <admin-object-resource enabled="true" jndi-name="jms/mvs.LocationControllerRequest" res-type="javax.jms.Queue" res-adapter="jmsra"> <property name="Name" value="mvs.LocationControllerRequestQueue"/> </admin-object-resource> <admin-object-resource enabled="true" jndi-name="jms/mvs.LocationControllerResponse" res-type="javax.jms.Queue" res-adapter="jmsra"> <property name="Name" value="mvs.LocationControllerResponseQueue"/> </admin-object-resource> <connector-connection-pool name="jms/mvs.MVSControllerFactoryPool" connection-definition-name="javax.jms.QueueConnectionFactory" resource-adapter-name="jmsra"/> <connector-resource enabled="true" jndi-name="jms/mvs.MVSControllerFactory" pool-name="jms/mvs.MVSControllerFactoryPool" />

    Read the article

  • How to wire finite state machine into component-based architecture?

    - by Pup
    State machines seem to cause harmful dependencies in component-based architectures. How, specifically, is communication handled between a state machine and the components that carry out state-related behavior? Where I'm at: I'm new to component-based architectures. I'm making a fighting game, although I don't think that should matter. I envision my state machine being used to toggle states like "crouching", "dashing", "blocking", etc. I've found this state-management technique to be the most natural system for a component-based architecture, but it conflicts with techniques I've read about: Dynamic Game Object Component System for Mutable Behavior Characters It suggests that all components activate/deactivate themselves by continually checking a condition for activation. I think that actions like "running" or "walking" make sense as states, which is in disagreement with the accepted response here: finite state machine used in mario like platform game I've found this useful, but ambiguous: How to implement behavior in a component-based game architecture? It suggests having a separate component that contains nothing but a state machine. But, this necessitates some kind of coupling between the state machine component and nearly all the other components. I don't understand how this coupling should be handled. These are some guesses: A. Components depend on state machine: Components receive reference to state machine component's getState(), which returns an enumeration constant. Components update themselves regularly and check this as needed. B. State machine depends on components: The state machine component receives references to all the components it's monitoring. It queries their getState() methods to see where they're at. C. Some abstraction between them Use an event hub? Command pattern? D. Separate state objects that reference components State Pattern is used. Separate state objects are created, which activate/deactivate a set of components. State machine switches between state objects. I'm looking at components as implementations of aspects. They do everything that's needed internally to make that aspect happen. It seems like components should function on their own, without relying on other components. I know some dependencies are necessary, but state machines seem to want to control all of my components.

    Read the article

  • HP ouvre ses serveurs de mission critique à l'architecture x86 et annonce le projet Odyssey de convergence avec les systèmes UNIX

    HP ouvre ses serveurs à mission critique à l'architecture x86 Et annonce le Projet Odyssey de convergence avec les systèmes UNIX HP se lance dans un projet d'envergure qui vise à réunir les architectures serveur UNIX et x86 au sein d'une plateforme unique pour les systèmes critiques : son Projet Odyssey. Les serveurs haut de gamme Integrity vont pouvoir accueillir des processeurs Intel Xeon x86, compatibles Windows et Linux, qui viennent disputer le règne de l'Itanium vieillissant que HP et Intel

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >