Assuming one writes a well-factored application, I believe Decorator makes a much better caching mechanism that what the article presents.
A Data Access Object should have 1) an interface (defining add, remove, retrieve, etc.) and 2) a standard implementation of the interface that reads/writes to the database on every method invocation.
A Decorator can implement the data access interface, delegating all method invocations to a wrapped instance of the standard implementation. Decorate the behavior of the standard impl. by providing a cache, checking the cache before retrieving a model and updating the cache before saving a model.
Because the standard impl. and the decorator share the same interface, you can have a factory create instances for you. Your code doesn't know or care which instance it is using. Mix and match Decorators to your heart's delight. A logging Decorator (track what data is being access, etc.) can be thrown into the mix, and again your calling code wouldn't be the wiser.
This pattern is easily unit tested and load tested. It doesn't require a running web container to test or run. It Just Works(tm).
My TV will one day be hooked into the internet and be able to download movies on demand, I'm sure, but until then, I'd rather use NetFlix to show my movies on my television set. Watching movies on my computer monitor isn't as good.
So what does this point to for Google? There might certainly be a market for Indie film distribution via Google. This would dramatically reduce distribution costs and open a whole new market for indie films.
My company is currently going through CMM Level 2. I can't tell you how much evangelizing I've done regarding standard processes.
The cost of building custom applications needs to drop dramatically. Standardizing how they are built is one step towards this goal. Further research into this can also reduce the cost.
Very competitive bids can be made by a service organization when their cost to produce the service is low, whether that service is network maintenance, custom application design, or what have you.
At least that works on the small scale of our consulting company with a few million in revenue. I should imagine such a thing would scale to a larger company and make them even more competitive.
Prior art research open to the community would dramatically reduce the number of ridiculous patents granted.
And what about going back to the good ol' days when you had to provide a basic working implementation of your potentially patented thingie, instead of just having an idea of what may work in the future?
How then would small businesses compete? If I, sitting in my parents' basement like a good slashdotter, came up with a truly good idea, how on earth can I compete in the marketplace if the barrier to entry (the patent fee) is absurdly high?
Why on earth would people actually donate their hard-earned cash to save a show when its the producers of the show who will reap all the benefit?
Assuming Trekkies actually manage to pull together and find all the money it will take to produce an entire season of Enterprise... The producers have to spend no money doing what they do: producing. Yet they own the show, get paid per episode by the television broadcasters broadcasting the show (networks buy shows to put on the air)... and they will get paid residual income forever as the show goes into syndication.
Someone, in one of these past threads, posted the idea of floating bonds to finance the show, giving those donating real ownership of the show. If the show takes off and makes a lot of money, the bonds would be worth more, thereby repaying those investing.
But the idea of donating strictly because a trekkie likes the show is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. And don't expect to get your money back from TrekUnited when they fail to raise an entire season's worth of cash.
Every day I see people clicking the same things over and over, performing the same work on their computer over and over, typing the same code over and over (in various forms, but the same patterns).
I introduced a new way of thinking in my company. Let's automate more. We don't need grunt programmer's writing easily templatable code. We need smarter senior programmers writing templates.
We don't need to have senior management people writing emails every day reminding us to fill in our timesheets on time. We need one script to send out the alert. And we don't need manually maintained spreadsheet tracking hours and contract rates. It's error-prone, time consuming, and can be better performed by a database.
Anything I see people doing repetitively, I look to automate. After all, isn't a computer nothing but an automaton doing the same thing over and over again?
I've found Python to be perfect for automating a lot of my more mundane tasks. I keep looking for that higher level of abstraction.
The problem is the GUI (*cough cough* Windows *cough cough*) where people can't seem to get around clicking. They can't seem to understand that anything they click on can be written in a script instead.
Hey, but that's just me. If I were a business owner, I'd look to get significantly more from my employees by hiring a really smart guy to automate more work.
If someone automates himself out of a job, you bet your ass I'd find him 10 more jobs to automate himself out of. That guy is worth his weight in gold.
"Planned obsolescense" is something we deal with every time we buy a car or a vacuum cleaner. I'm not certain the Average Joe realizes this.
Parts break down and need to be replaced but, d'oh!, that line has been discontinued. Please upgrade your [[insert item here]]. That means buy a new(ew) car or new vacuum.
I've got an old eMachine P3 500Mhz happily running Linux and I believe this box is still capable of doing real work. Sadly, the mindset we all seem to share is that that old box is too, well, old and too slow. So corporate environments buy newer and bigger machines. Why? So our little automation tasks can running a little faster?
I don't know much of the specifics about Google's server farm, but from what little I understand, many of their machines would be considered old and obsolete. Meanwhile, they have those machines performing real work.
My old eMachine might be old, but damn if it can't crank out thousands of our little automation tasks per day. But people still want to have the latest and greatest. Maybe it's marketing that won us over, but if I were a business leader looking to keep costs down, I'd get as much value from these old machines as I could. But that's just me.
Your post was certainly informative in that others might have learned about a new tool and are looking at Sql Anywhere, but to be fair, the purpose of that tool is different than Cloudscape's.
Embedding a database in an application can be very useful, such as in a desktop GUI where you cannot rely on network communication or maybe don't want to bother with a client/server environment.
I'd certainly consider Java/Cloudscape for a desktop db-backed application over anything built in Access.
As always, fit the tool to the job, not the job to the tool.
every time someone sends an email from a java application.
Granted, it's not the easiest API in the world and I greatly simplified all that complexity into:
Email email = new Email();
email.setRecipients(String[] recipients);
email.setSender(String sender);
email.setSubject(String subject)
email.setBody(String body)
and finally...
boolean success = email.send();
But the code implementing this is quite a bit more, required a long time debugging the mail relay issue (required authentication!), and other -- shall we say -- opportunities to learn something new.
With so many distros offering so many different features and without a standard package installer... with every vendor maintaining their own kernel tree just to "out feature" another distro... how can you possibly say that linux will unify the unix market when the linux market itself isn't very well unified?
Microsoft has the unparalleled advantage of a single vision driving their platform and software. Right now, the babbling bazaar that is Linux has too many voices and too many chefs to spoil the soup.
While the great many voices working on Linux insure diversity and provide a wide range of choice, I, for one, think we can benefit from just a little less chocie and a little more standardization.
It must be difficult to continue to wring money out of a market the way M$ does. On one hand, there's a free OS competing on both merit and price. On the other hand, there are tons of people who don't want to pay for the ever-increasing cost of Windows.
The thing that sucks about being a monopoly is that they have no where to go but down.
seeing the old typesets, how they laid the papers out, the ancient advertisements.
These, to me, were always half the fun whenever I perused old microfiche in the library.
There is a bar in NYC called McSorley's, which has been in continuous existance since 1846 or so. They have framed newspaper articles on the wall from over a hundred years ago, 130 year old pictures, political campaign buttons from McKinley's run. Talk about a neat experience.
Actually seeing the old print would mean more to me. I rather hope that they serve images of the old papers, not just the computer-read text. But hey, that's just me.
I think we're like-minded in our desire to see Linux triumph over M$, as evidenced by our desire for a unified installer mechanism. Still, though, I think the community overall needs to tighten further and create broad standards and general consensus. Without that, I fear an organized M$ will continually kick the crap out of a disorganized Linux community.
I really don't want a whole lot of unification on Linux.
Then it won't ever take off like we all want it too. If it takes a guru to work all the various distros your using for different purposes, well, you can expect to have M$ keep on eating linux's lunch. IMHO, an organization that is focused, centered on a single vision, and effective in executing its strategy will always crush the loosely organized, no vision or direction, disparate grassroots organizations.
The Bazaar might be a better form of development, but the Cathedral is significantly better at sales, marketing, communication, and stategy.
Competition is good, too, but when distros are competing against another distro, how is the community effectively competing against M$??? Competition means choice and freedom which (generally) benefits the consumer. Political infighting in the linux community (competing distros, competing desktops, competing anything that is incompatible with another distro) reduces the community's effectiveness in competing against M$.
I also disagree with everything being harder under Linux. Setting up my home DSL connection was a snap
When i set up this Fedora Core 1 box at work, it wouldn't connect to the interweb, despite the fact that I set it to use DHCP. There was something wrong with a DNS lookup that was found and fixed by the single linux guru we have in our office. He walked me through editing a config file in vi.
I'm sorry, but that is not what I call "easy." It was certainly not a snap. Everything else was installed quite easily, though. I even installed a JDK and Eclipse, but that's only because the Fedora desktop (Gnome, right?) gives me the ability to right-click a RPM and install it.
a grassroots unification will have to happen in order to solidify the Linux standards.
Microsoft has the unparralleled advantage of maintain strict control on its own platform. It can push an agenda much more easily than a disparate group of distros.
I am posting this from a RH box right now and feel good having a linux box under my desk at work (on a KVM switch to a windows box), but I don't use this box for much. Everything is more difficult than in windows, unfortunately. I'm a coder but a linux newbie. If it's difficult for me, you can bet your ass it'll be difficult for the non-techie.
And that's why Microsoft is king of the hill right now. They make it for the mass market and make it easy for all.
A *STANDARD* type of Linux distro, app installer, etc. would be a great stride forward for Linux.
Means they didn't have the money to put towards it. That website would not be the profit center that the lawsuit will be. All resources must go to the lawsuit, while there are still resources to be found.
Slashdot Mirror
A Data Access Object should have 1) an interface (defining add, remove, retrieve, etc.) and 2) a standard implementation of the interface that reads/writes to the database on every method invocation.
A Decorator can implement the data access interface, delegating all method invocations to a wrapped instance of the standard implementation. Decorate the behavior of the standard impl. by providing a cache, checking the cache before retrieving a model and updating the cache before saving a model.
Because the standard impl. and the decorator share the same interface, you can have a factory create instances for you. Your code doesn't know or care which instance it is using. Mix and match Decorators to your heart's delight. A logging Decorator (track what data is being access, etc.) can be thrown into the mix, and again your calling code wouldn't be the wiser.
This pattern is easily unit tested and load tested. It doesn't require a running web container to test or run. It Just Works(tm).
So what does this point to for Google? There might certainly be a market for Indie film distribution via Google. This would dramatically reduce distribution costs and open a whole new market for indie films.
The cost of building custom applications needs to drop dramatically. Standardizing how they are built is one step towards this goal. Further research into this can also reduce the cost.
Very competitive bids can be made by a service organization when their cost to produce the service is low, whether that service is network maintenance, custom application design, or what have you.
At least that works on the small scale of our consulting company with a few million in revenue. I should imagine such a thing would scale to a larger company and make them even more competitive.
And what about going back to the good ol' days when you had to provide a basic working implementation of your potentially patented thingie, instead of just having an idea of what may work in the future?
Windows Windows?
I'm sure Bill would love for you to buy 2 licenses every time you needed just one.
Risk is a great game. very fun, but the LotR version is just too fun (too geeky?)! Risk LotR Edition on Amazon
How then would small businesses compete? If I, sitting in my parents' basement like a good slashdotter, came up with a truly good idea, how on earth can I compete in the marketplace if the barrier to entry (the patent fee) is absurdly high?
Assuming Trekkies actually manage to pull together and find all the money it will take to produce an entire season of Enterprise... The producers have to spend no money doing what they do: producing. Yet they own the show, get paid per episode by the television broadcasters broadcasting the show (networks buy shows to put on the air)... and they will get paid residual income forever as the show goes into syndication.
Someone, in one of these past threads, posted the idea of floating bonds to finance the show, giving those donating real ownership of the show. If the show takes off and makes a lot of money, the bonds would be worth more, thereby repaying those investing.
But the idea of donating strictly because a trekkie likes the show is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. And don't expect to get your money back from TrekUnited when they fail to raise an entire season's worth of cash.
*hangs up*
I introduced a new way of thinking in my company. Let's automate more. We don't need grunt programmer's writing easily templatable code. We need smarter senior programmers writing templates.
We don't need to have senior management people writing emails every day reminding us to fill in our timesheets on time. We need one script to send out the alert. And we don't need manually maintained spreadsheet tracking hours and contract rates. It's error-prone, time consuming, and can be better performed by a database.
Anything I see people doing repetitively, I look to automate. After all, isn't a computer nothing but an automaton doing the same thing over and over again?
I've found Python to be perfect for automating a lot of my more mundane tasks. I keep looking for that higher level of abstraction.
The problem is the GUI (*cough cough* Windows *cough cough*) where people can't seem to get around clicking. They can't seem to understand that anything they click on can be written in a script instead.
Hey, but that's just me. If I were a business owner, I'd look to get significantly more from my employees by hiring a really smart guy to automate more work.
If someone automates himself out of a job, you bet your ass I'd find him 10 more jobs to automate himself out of. That guy is worth his weight in gold.
Slashdot error or typical SUN PR?
Parts break down and need to be replaced but, d'oh!, that line has been discontinued. Please upgrade your [[insert item here]]. That means buy a new(ew) car or new vacuum.
I've got an old eMachine P3 500Mhz happily running Linux and I believe this box is still capable of doing real work. Sadly, the mindset we all seem to share is that that old box is too, well, old and too slow. So corporate environments buy newer and bigger machines. Why? So our little automation tasks can running a little faster?
I don't know much of the specifics about Google's server farm, but from what little I understand, many of their machines would be considered old and obsolete. Meanwhile, they have those machines performing real work.
My old eMachine might be old, but damn if it can't crank out thousands of our little automation tasks per day. But people still want to have the latest and greatest. Maybe it's marketing that won us over, but if I were a business leader looking to keep costs down, I'd get as much value from these old machines as I could. But that's just me.
Embedding a database in an application can be very useful, such as in a desktop GUI where you cannot rely on network communication or maybe don't want to bother with a client/server environment.
I'd certainly consider Java/Cloudscape for a desktop db-backed application over anything built in Access.
As always, fit the tool to the job, not the job to the tool.
You are a true jackass.
Granted, it's not the easiest API in the world and I greatly simplified all that complexity into:
Email email = new Email();
email.setRecipients(String[] recipients);
email.setSender(String sender);
email.setSubject(String subject)
email.setBody(String body)
and finally...
boolean success = email.send();
But the code implementing this is quite a bit more, required a long time debugging the mail relay issue (required authentication!), and other -- shall we say -- opportunities to learn something new.
Microsoft has the unparalleled advantage of a single vision driving their platform and software. Right now, the babbling bazaar that is Linux has too many voices and too many chefs to spoil the soup.
While the great many voices working on Linux insure diversity and provide a wide range of choice, I, for one, think we can benefit from just a little less chocie and a little more standardization.
It must be difficult to continue to wring money out of a market the way M$ does. On one hand, there's a free OS competing on both merit and price. On the other hand, there are tons of people who don't want to pay for the ever-increasing cost of Windows.
The thing that sucks about being a monopoly is that they have no where to go but down.
And you know PHP is on its way out when you have experts in the field writing MVC frameworks in Java like Bonjovi.
It depends on what your definition of "is" is...
I, for one, welcome our new artificial fin wearing, dolphin jumping overlords.
These, to me, were always half the fun whenever I perused old microfiche in the library.
There is a bar in NYC called McSorley's, which has been in continuous existance since 1846 or so. They have framed newspaper articles on the wall from over a hundred years ago, 130 year old pictures, political campaign buttons from McKinley's run. Talk about a neat experience.
Actually seeing the old print would mean more to me. I rather hope that they serve images of the old papers, not just the computer-read text. But hey, that's just me.
oh, wait, LSB....
I think we're like-minded in our desire to see Linux triumph over M$, as evidenced by our desire for a unified installer mechanism. Still, though, I think the community overall needs to tighten further and create broad standards and general consensus. Without that, I fear an organized M$ will continually kick the crap out of a disorganized Linux community.
I really don't want a whole lot of unification on Linux.
Then it won't ever take off like we all want it too. If it takes a guru to work all the various distros your using for different purposes, well, you can expect to have M$ keep on eating linux's lunch. IMHO, an organization that is focused, centered on a single vision, and effective in executing its strategy will always crush the loosely organized, no vision or direction, disparate grassroots organizations.
The Bazaar might be a better form of development, but the Cathedral is significantly better at sales, marketing, communication, and stategy.
Competition is good, too, but when distros are competing against another distro, how is the community effectively competing against M$??? Competition means choice and freedom which (generally) benefits the consumer. Political infighting in the linux community (competing distros, competing desktops, competing anything that is incompatible with another distro) reduces the community's effectiveness in competing against M$.
I also disagree with everything being harder under Linux. Setting up my home DSL connection was a snap
When i set up this Fedora Core 1 box at work, it wouldn't connect to the interweb, despite the fact that I set it to use DHCP. There was something wrong with a DNS lookup that was found and fixed by the single linux guru we have in our office. He walked me through editing a config file in vi.
I'm sorry, but that is not what I call "easy." It was certainly not a snap. Everything else was installed quite easily, though. I even installed a JDK and Eclipse, but that's only because the Fedora desktop (Gnome, right?) gives me the ability to right-click a RPM and install it.
a grassroots unification will have to happen in order to solidify the Linux standards.
Microsoft has the unparralleled advantage of maintain strict control on its own platform. It can push an agenda much more easily than a disparate group of distros.
I am posting this from a RH box right now and feel good having a linux box under my desk at work (on a KVM switch to a windows box), but I don't use this box for much. Everything is more difficult than in windows, unfortunately. I'm a coder but a linux newbie. If it's difficult for me, you can bet your ass it'll be difficult for the non-techie.
And that's why Microsoft is king of the hill right now. They make it for the mass market and make it easy for all.
A *STANDARD* type of Linux distro, app installer, etc. would be a great stride forward for Linux.
Means they didn't have the money to put towards it. That website would not be the profit center that the lawsuit will be. All resources must go to the lawsuit, while there are still resources to be found.