Where can I see dart benchmarks (sources)?
I know about benchmark_harness, but i'd like to see more tests (NavierStokes, Splay etc).
I've seen that them mention in some issues, commits, blogposts, but I could not find them anywhere.
Thanks
Most of the benchmark sources haven't been released yet. We would need to clean them up first, and currently there are more important things to do. However we do plan to release more benchmarks over time.
You can have a look at Dart Performance.
Related
I'm trying to benchmark a real-time planning algorithm but can't seem to find how to do it, is this supported in Optaplanner?
I've successfully run a benchmark using an offline version of my problem. I've implemented SolutionFileIO that reads my problem instances and converts them to a solution. I've read the docs and saw the video related to benchmarking but couldn't find what I'm looking for.
Alternatively, I can run the real-time algorithms using my own framework, but that would require me to manually define all Optaplanner heuristics that I want to run (which is quite cumbersome when using a matrix setup). Is there a way to instantiate the solvers (in Java) based on the benchmark xml definition? This would allow me to run my own real-time benchmark while still using the Optaplanner benchmark definition.
A benchmark config that also fires ProblemFactChange events (= real-time planning), is not yet supported, vote for this jira. How would you like the benchmark config to look like?
To HACK reusing the solvers from a benchmark configuration, cast PlannerBenchmark to PlannerBenchmarkRunner and use getPlannerBenchmarkResult().getSolverBenchmarkResultList(), but that will give up on a bunch of orchestration (including the report). Instead, if you can succeed in overriding SubSingleBenchmarkResult, you wouldn't loose that orchestration (but your hacks would be even deeper).
Whatever you end up doing, do share how you'd the benchmark config to look like, as this will give us inspiration when we implement it for a future OptaPlanner version.
As I know there are some applications that decompile DLLs to get source codes from application files.
Not only I don't want others to have the sources but also I don't want others to use them, I mean the DLL files. so how should i lock the DLLs and how safe they are ?
Before I get into anything else, I will state that it is impossible to protect your application entirely.
That being said, you can still make things more difficult. There are many obfuscators out there that will help you make it more difficult for someone to decompile your application and understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_obfuscators_for_.NET
.NET obfuscation tools/strategy
That's truly the best you can hope for.
Personally, I really wouldn't bother going too deep, if at all. You'll find that you are either spending too much money or time (or both) trying to protect your application from no-gooders. These are the same people who, no matter what barriers you throw up at them, will continue to try and given the nature of managed languages, they will most likely succeed. In fact, most obfuscators can be deobfuscated with simple tools... In the meantime, you've let other important features and bug fixes slip by because you spent more time and effort on security measures.
Obfuscation is one way to protect your code. Again, the solution is relative as per your needs. If you have a super secretive program, then you would want to explore more expensive and in-dept strategies.
However, if you are developing a business application or such thing which would not be worth a lot of any hacker's time to reverse engineer, minimal to normal obfuscation strategies are good enough. As the main answer suggests, look at those links.
Recently, I came upon ConfuseEx, a free open-source obfuscator that does the job for WPF apps and more. It seems to be very powerful, effective and customizable.
ConfuseEx on Github
For DLLs there is almost nothing we can do , confusing the files is the best way , but public member will remain in the way they were before , but if you pack them in your exe file , and confuse them , no one can use them easily .
I used ConfuserEX and it was very easy to use and effective .
I'm looking into visualizing a large amount of C code, preferably having its state machine reverse engineered and graphed out for me diagrammatically.
I've looked into Graphviz and Dot, and it appears that I could probably stitch something together from the API to do the job. But honestly I kind of expected that it would have been a common enough task that someone may have already come up with a tool to do the task.
Does anyone have experience with this? Any solutions you can recommend or tools that exist that I've overlooked?
Thank you.
You can try the Enterprise Architect but that's really not a good idea and in any case you'll need to do a lot of manual changes to the result. It's more or less like relying on an automatic translator to speak for you in the language you don't know. It's especially problematic for procedural type of code, like you probably have if it's in C.
We've pretty much licked the whole distributed thing for version control at this point. I'm not saying everything's perfect, but, from hereon out, it's mostly just a matter of continuing what has already been started.
Distributed bug tracking, though, is in its infancy stage, IMHO. It's rather inconvenient, not being able to work with an issue tracker on the road, especially since I have a tendency to forget what my changes over the past two hours were for. Yes, I know, I could just keep a log on the road and update a traditional tracker as soon as I get on the net again, but still... Keeping my options open and all that. :P
Currently, I only know of Bugs Everywhere and Ditz-- those, and the one that comes with Fossil. Of these, I think Fossil is the farthest along, which is not suprising, considering how tightly it's integrated with the version control side of the equation. I've had to jump through quite a few hoops to get my co-devs to even look at something other than SVN, but, if Fossil really is all that, I wouldn't mind doing it again.
Before I do, however, I want to ask older and wiser heads than mine: Do you have experience with these three? What do you think of them? Do you know of others? Please link to them, and let me know how they fared.
Fossil works as an 'easy to setup' Distributed Bug tracker , and has a nice autosync facility that lets developers share their bugs without intervention.
to get started,
Download the fossil binary of your choice
fossil new bugs.fossil
fossil ui bugs.fossil (runs the server)
your developers do the same
Download the fossil binary of your choice
fossil clone
fossil ui bugs.fossil
set up a cron job to 'fossil sync ...' so the bugs propagate to all users as the fossil self-hosting repositories demonstrate
There is not much more to it than that.
Edit - take a look at Customizing The Ticket System too.
Because I wanted (well, needed, really) a solution that could probably (maybe, hopefully) work right now, we went with the following setup:
Bazaar-NG as the VCS
Bugs Everywhere as the bug tracker
Zim as wiki
It may not be the perfect setup, nor even a particularly acceptable one to some, but it meets the criteria of working right now. I still would like to learn more from others; maybe I'm missing a not-so obvious trait of other solutions that would cause me to become fanatic enough that I'd bug my co-devs to switch.
Anyway, if anyone uses this, or a similar, set of tools, please let me know how it's worked out so far for you, what your circumstances are, etc. Right now, this solution of ours is all of three days old, so I really don't have much data to share as of yet.
Eric Sink has some sensible thoughts on the subject here - he's clearly given it more thought than me but he does make one key point which is that you have a different paradigm when dealing with features and bugs to when dealing with development, particularly with respect to bugs.
Additional information for people like me who're interested in the subject, but can't pull up enough relevant info through Google (either they're not there, or my Google-fu is severely lacking):
Just branched Bugs Everywhere again. bzr log --limit 1 shows the last commit to be from early October 09. The development is slow, but it's there. I haven't yet dived in to see just what exactly be offers. Documentation is severely lacking. There isn't even a quick-start guide on the site.
Ditz, using a clone of its mainline git repo just utterly fails for me. Google indicates the 1.9 releases of Ruby breaks it. Supposedly, there are git clones that fix it, but I'd really rather not mess with git.
Fossil has at least one relevant question here on SO: What do people think of the fossil DVCS? (it even has an answer from the author!). Much respect for D. Richard Hipp (author of SQLite and Fossil, as well other insanely cool things I can only use and read about on Wikipedia), but I'd like feedback from other mortals, as well.
Still not enough for me, though. There has to be at least a couple of people who've used either be or ditz for a non-trivial project-- at least, enough to be able to give an informed opinion.
I don't care about the technical side-- either the project documents it on its Web site, or I could just look at the source. What I'm looking for is real-world experience: What were the hurdles to its adoption? What is a particular project lacking? What would you add, that you really need, given maybe two years of paid time to work on it? Stuff like that.
I am about to make some changes to an existing Apache C module to fix some possible security flaws and general bad practices. However the functionality of the code must remain unchanged (except in cases where its fixing a bug). Standard regression testing stuff seems to be in order. I would like to know if anyone knows of a good way to run some regression unit tests againt the code. I'm thinking something along the lines of using C-Unit but with all the tie ins to the Apache APR and status structures I was wondering if there is a good way to test this. Are there any pre-built frameworks that can be used with C-unit for example?
Thanks
Peter
I've been thinking of answering this for a while, but figured someone else might come up with a better answer, because mine is rather unsatisfactory: no, I'm not aware of any such unit testing framework.
I think your best bet is to try and refactor your C module such that it's dependencies on the httpd code base are contained in a very thin glue layer. I wouldn't worry too much about dependencies on APR, that can easily be linked into your unit test code. It's things like using the request record that you should try to abstract out a little bit.
I'll go as far and suggest that such a refactoring is a good idea if the code is suspected to contain security flaws and bad practices. It's just usually a pretty big job.
What you might also consider is running integration tests rather than unit tests (ideally both), i.e. come up with a set of requests and expected responses from the server, and run a program to compare the actual to expected responses.
So, not the response you've been looking for, and you probably thought of something along this line yourself. But at least I can tell you from experience that if the module can't be replaced with something new for business reasons, then refactoring it for testability will likely pay off in the longer term.
Spent some time looking around the interwebs for you as its a question i was curious myself. came across a wiki article stating that
http://cutest.sourceforge.net/
was used for the apache portable c runtime testing. might be worth checking that out.