I was wondering if there is any advantage to having several edges definition in one single graph Vs having several graphs each one with a single edge definition.
Thanks for you help,
There are different reasons for using multiple edge definitions instead of only one:
To show differences in content: You may want to have different edge collections for bought and watched. This is also possible by using a label however and comes down to personal preference.
Edge definitions allow you to restrict the collections on the in and on the out side of the edges. So you can for example say that your bought transitions always start in a document for the people collection and go to the product collection. You would otherwise need to do that inside of your application.
Related
Is there a way in JGraphT that I can assign multiple weights to a single edge? For example, suppose I have a graph representing travel-time between cities. I want to assign edge-weights for "time by plane", "time by car", "time by bus", etc., and then find least-cost route by some specified mode of travel.
One approach I can think of is to have distinct graph for each travel mode and then add every city vertex to every graph but that seems like a messy and memory intensive solution.
My next thought was that I might be able to extend the class implementing the graph ( probably DirectedWeightedPseudograph) and customize the getEdgeWeight() method to take an additional argument specifying which weight value to use. That, however, would require extending all the algorithm classes as well (e.g., DijkstraShortestPath) which I am trying to avoid.
To get around that problem I considered the following:
Extend my Graph class by adding a method setWeightMode(enum mode)
customize the getEdgeWeight() method to use the currently assigned mode to determine which weight value to return to the caller.
On the plus side it would be 100% transparent to any existing analysis classes. On the negative side, it would not be thread-safe.
At this point I'm out of ideas. Can anyone suggest an approach that is scalable for large graphs, supports multi-threading, and minimizes the need to re-implement code already provided by JGraphT?
There exists a much easier solution: you want to use the AsWeightedGraph class. This is a wrapper class that allows you to create different weighted views of an underlying graph. From the class description:
Provides a weighted view of a graph. The class stores edge weights internally. All getEdgeWeight calls are handled by this view; all other graph operations are propagated to the graph backing this view.
This class can be used to make an unweighted graph weighted, to override the weights of a weighted graph, or to provide different weighted views of the same underlying graph. For instance, the edges of a graph representing a road network might have two weights associated with them: a travel time and a travel distance. Instead of creating two weighted graphs of the same network, one would simply create two weighted views of the same underlying graph.
I'd like to model ordered nested lists of uniform items (like what you would see in a standard tree widget) using the Google Drive realtime API. These trees could get quite large, ideally working well with many thousands of items.
One approach would be:
Item:
title: CollaborativeString
attributes: CollaborativeMap
children: CollaborativeList // recursivly hold other items
But I'm unsure if this is feesible when dealing with a large number of items.
An alternative might be to store all items tree order in a single CollaborativeList and add an additional "level" attribute. Then reconstruct the tree structure based on that level on the client. That would change from having to maintain thousands of CollaborativeLists to just a single big one. Probably lots of other alternatives that I don't know about.
Thanks for pointers on the best way to model this in the Google Drive Realtime API.
So long as the total size of the document is within the size limits, there shouldn't be a significant performance difference between the approaches from a framework perspective. (One caveat, using ObjectChangedListeners with a highly connected graph may slow things down. Prefer registering listeners on the specific objects instead.)
Modeling it as a real tree makes sense, since that will be the easiest to work with, and you can use the new move operation to atomically rearrange items in the lists.
Im planning to use Leaflet Draw as part of a special wiki with an embedded map. Users should be able to draw geo-objects that are related to one or more pages in the wiki. As the wiki-pages the objects are saved in a database and can be modified by every user.
Problems:
How can i limit the number of editable objects to only one at a time?
How to keep the database consistent if two users are editing the same object at the same time?
How can i generte multi-objects/combine several objects (e.g. polygons) to a super-object (multi-polygon)?
Does anybody know some similiar approches to my idea?
Thanks.
You will have a single FeatureGroup for leaflet.draw's objects that can be edited. Simply figure out which objects will be edited and which won't be and add them to seperate FeatureGroups.
This can be handled in a few ways, maybe have a look around at general database consistency for this.
I'm not sure what you mean, maybe have a look at Well Known Text it might help you with storage here.
Me and my colleague are developing an ms access based application. We are designing and coding different pages/forms in order to divide work. We plan to merge our work later. How can we do that without any problems like spoiling the design and macros? We are using Ms access 2007 for front end and sqlserver 2005 as the datasource.
I found an idea somewhere on bytes.com. I can import forms, reports, queries,data and tables that I want.I'm going to try this. However, it's just an idea.So, need to study this approach by trial and error techniques.
The most important requirement is to complete the overall design before you start coding. For example:
All the forms must have the same style. Help and error information must be provided in the same way on each form. If a user can divide the forms into two sets, you have failed.
The database design must be finished with a complete, written description of each table, its relationships and its attributes.
The purpose and parameters for each major macro must be defined. If macro A1 exists only to service macro A then A1 is not a major macro and only A's author need know of its details until coding is complete.
Agreed a documentation style and detail level. If the application needs enhancement in six or twelve months' time, you should be able to work on the others macros and forms as easily as on your own.
If one of you thinks a change to the design is required after coding has started, this change must be documented, agreed with the other and the change specification added to the master specification.
Many years ago I lectured on (Electronic Data interchange (EDI). With EDI, the specification is divided into two with one set of organisations providing applications for message senders and another set providing applications for message receivers. I often used an example in my lectures to help my audience understand the importance of a complete, unambiguous specification.
I want two shapes, an E and a reverse-E, which I can fit together to create a 10 cm square. I do not care what they are made of providing they fit together perfectly.
If I give this task to a single organisation, this specification will be enough. One organisation might use cardboard, another metal, but I do not care. But suppose I ask one organisation to create the E and another the reverse-E. How detailed does my specification have to be if I am to get my 10 cm square? I would suggest: material, thickness and dimensions of the E. My audience would compete to suggest more and more obscure characteristics that had to match: density, colour, pattern, texture, etc, etc.
I was not always convinced my audience listened to the rest of my lecture because they were searching for a characteristic that would cap all the others. No matter, I had got across my major point which was why EDI specifications were no mind-blowingly detailed.
Your situation will not be so difficult since you and your colleague are probably in the same room and can talk whenever you want. But I hope this example helps you understand how easy is it for the interface between your two parts to be less than seamless if you do not agree the complete design at the beginning. It's the little assumptions - I though you knew I was doing it that way - that will kill your application.
New section
OK, probably most of my earlier advice was inappropriate in your situation.
So you are trying to modify code you did not write in a language you do not know. Good luck; you will need it.
I think scope is going to be your biggest problem. Most modern languages have namespaces allowing you to give a variable or a routine as much or as little scope as you require. VBA only has three levels.
A variable declared within a function or subroutine is automatically private to that function or subroutine.
A variable declared as Private within a module is invisible to functions and subroutines in other modules but is visible to any function or subroutine within the module.
A variable declared as Public within a module is visible to any function or subroutine within the project.
Anything declared within a form is private to that form. If a form wishes to pass a value to an outside function or subroutine, it can do so by writing to a public variable or by passing it in a parameter to a public function or subroutine.
Avoiding Naming Conflicts within VBA Help gives useful advice.
Form and module names will have to be unique across the merged project. You will not be able to avoid have constants, variables, functions and sub-routines which are visible to the other's functions and sub-routines. Avoiding Naming Conflicts offers one approach. An approach I have used successfully is to divide the application into sub-applications and, if necessary, sub-sub-applications and to assign a prefix to each. If every public constant, variable, function and sub-routine name has the appropriate prefix you can simulate namespace type control.
I'm working on a personal project using WPF with Entity Framework and Self Tracking Entities. I have a WCF web service which exposes some methods for the CRUD operations. Today I decided to do some tests and to see what actually travels over this service and even though I expected something like this, I got really disappointed. The problem is that for a simple update (or delete) operation for just one object - lets say Category I send to the server the whole object graph, including all of its parent categories, their items, child categories and their items, etc. I my case it was a 170 KB xml file on a really small database (2 main categories and about 20 total and about 60 items). I can't imagine what will happen if I have a really big database.
I tried to google for some articles concerning traffic optimization with STE, but with no success, so I decided to ask here if somebody has done something similar, knows some good practices, etc.
One of the possible ways I came out with is to get the data I need per object with more service calls:
return context.Categories.ToList();//only the categories
...
return context.Items.ToList();//only the items
Instead of:
return context.Categories.Include("Items").ToList();
This way the categories and the items will be separated and when making changes or deleting some objects the data sent over the wire will be less.
Has any of you faced a similar problem and how did you solve it or did you solve it?
We've encountered similiar challenges. First of all, as you already mentioned, is to keep the entities as small as possible (as dictated by the desired client functionality). And second, when sending entities back over the wire to be persisted: strip all navigation properties (nested objects) when they haven't changed. This sounds very simple but is not at all trivial. What we do is to recursively dig into the entities present in trackable collections of say the "topmost" entity (and their trackable collections, and theirs, and...) and remove them when their ChangeTracking state is "Unchanged". But be carefull with this, because in some cases you still need these entities because they have been removed or added to trackable collections of their parent entity (so then you shouldn't remove them).
This, what we call "StripEntity", is also mentioned (not with any code sample or whatsoever) in Julie Lerman's - Programming Entity Framework.
And although it might not be as efficient as a more purist kind of approach, the use of STE's saves a lot of code for queries against the database. We are not in need for optimal performance in a high traffic situation, so STE's suit our needs and takes away a lot of code to communicate with the database. You have to decide for your situation what the "best" solution is. Good luck!
You can find an Entity Framework project item at http://selftrackingentity.codeplex.com/. With version 0.9.8, I added a method called GetObjectGraphChanges() that returns an optimized entity object graph with only objects that have changes.
Also, there are two helper methods: EstimateObjectGraphSize() and EstimateObjectGraphChangeSize(). The first method returns the estimate size of the whole entity object along with its object graph; and the later returns the estimate size of the optimized entity object graph with only object that have changes. With these two helper methods, you can decide whether it makes sense to call GetObjectGraphChanges() or not.