Algorithmic Sets

(Unterschied zwischen Versionen)
Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche
(Definition Algorithmic Set)
Zeile 45: Zeile 45:
 
* So instead of testing the predicate for every notification we only need to test every predicate instance once.
 
* So instead of testing the predicate for every notification we only need to test every predicate instance once.
 
* The amount of different predicate instances is relatively low, so we should be capable of delivering the notifications to a client reasonable fast.
 
* The amount of different predicate instances is relatively low, so we should be capable of delivering the notifications to a client reasonable fast.
 +
 +
== Named Notifications Recipient Groups ==
 +
* The software consultants (SWC) should be able to define named recipient groups.
 +
* The SWCs should be able to test such a recipient group.
 +
 +
 +
== Decision explanation ==
 +
* I

Version vom 8. November 2014, 11:14 Uhr

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Definition Algorithmic Set

  • We want to define an algorithmic set via a Predicate deciding if an element is part of the set or not.
  • In java we could use the functional interface Predicate<T>
public interface Predicate<T>{
       // If test returns true, we consider the element be part of the algorithmic set.
       boolean test(T element);
}

  • Such a simple definition allows a polymorphic approach for defining set predicates.
  • So if a new predicate is needed only a new implementation of Predicate<T> needs to be implemented.
  • These Predicate<T> implementations can introduce configurable properties, for a more flexible solution.
  • An algorithmic set is defined by its predicate instance.

Performance considerations

  • This approach is only reasonable if all tested elements are in memory, querying them from a database would be at least suboptimal.

Logical Groups

  • For predicate aggregation we could simply implement PredicateCollections.
  • PredicateCollectionOr<T>
  • PredicateCollectionAnd<T>

Algorithmic sets and Notifications

  • We want to define the receivers of a notification with an algorithmic set.
  • This means every Notification has an algorithmic set of receivers attached to it.
  • How this algorithmic set of receivers is attached is not part of this article.
  • For identifying a receiver, we introduce a ConnectedClientTupel of the form:
public class ConnectedClientTupel{
    public Computer getComputer(); // Including the Platz.
    public User getUser(); // Including the role.
    ... // Will grow in the future.
}
  • Practically the above tupel, will be part of the session, but it seems reasonable not to use the session directly for a cleaner interface.
  • So the Predicate for Notification receivers would have the form:
public interface NotificationReceiverPredicate extends Predicate<ConnectedClientTupel>
{
}
  • Every connected client queries its notifications via a REST interface.
  • All notifications should be grouped by their NotificationReceiverPredicate instances.
  • So instead of testing the predicate for every notification we only need to test every predicate instance once.
  • The amount of different predicate instances is relatively low, so we should be capable of delivering the notifications to a client reasonable fast.

Named Notifications Recipient Groups

  • The software consultants (SWC) should be able to define named recipient groups.
  • The SWCs should be able to test such a recipient group.


Decision explanation

  • I
Meine Werkzeuge
Namensräume
Varianten
Aktionen
Navigation
Werkzeuge
Translate