What is the proper way of connecting to mulitple servers/acceptors using quickfix?
Create a thread for each session under the fix application
Create a seperate application for each session, create multiple initiators, start each initiator in a seperate thread
And another related issue -
How does MultiThreadedInitiator class fits in...?
Quickfix already allows multiple sessions. They just have to be defined in your configuration file. From then on you can track messages using SessionID.
I think MultiThreadedInitiator ensures each session is created in a different thread.
Related
Using Geode 1.2 and 9.1 Pivotal native client the following code:
IRegion<string, IPdxInstance> r = cache.GetRegion<string, IPdxInstance>("myRegion");
return r[key];
then triggers an AfterCreate event for myRegion. Why does that happen when no data is created, only read?
Same here, never used Native Client. I agreed with what #Urizen suspected - you are calling r[key] from an instance of Geode that doesn't have the entry, so it pulls the data from other instance, which "create" the entry locally.
You have a few options here:
Performing an interest registration for the instance you are initiating the call using registerAllKeys() (doc here). There is a catch here: (might not be applicable for native client), in Java API, you have an option to register interest with an InterestResultPolicy. If you use KEYS_VALUES, you will load all data to local from remote on startup WITHOUT triggering afterCreate callback. If you choose KEYS only or NONE, you will likely have similar problem.
You can check for boolean flag remoteOrigin in EntryEvent. If it is false, it is purely local. In a non-WAN setup, this should be enough to distinguish your local operation from remotely initiated operation (be it a cache syncing or a genuine creation initiated by other cache). Vaguely remembering WAN works a bit different here.
I've never used the Native Client but, at a first glance, it should be expected for the afterCreate event to be invoked on the client side as the entry is actually being created on the local cache. What I mean is that the entry might exists on the server but, internally, the client needs to retrieve it from the server, and then create it locally (thus invoking the afterCreate for the locally installed CacheListener). Makes sense?.
I'm looking for an easy way to integrate Vue.js with AutobahnJS.
I've already checked this repo for guidance/template, but my main problem is that Autobahn has two layers of "wait":
First you create a Connection/Session instance
You wait for it to connect (maybe even retry N times)
Only after this can you access the session methods (subscribe/call/etc..)
With my limited JS knowledge (i'm a backend dev), i have two ideas:
Create a global variable which will be assigned to the autobahn session after connection. This will surely cause cases where the var is not yet set, so I'd have to check it's existence every time I want to subscribe from a vue instance.
Place the Vue init code into the Session connected callback, but then that would delay the whole application, which is obviously bad too.
I'm looking for a simple and efficient solution, not necessarily a full-fledged plugin (which I haven't found anywhere).
Any help/advice is appreciated!
I've been looking for a plugin like this: https://github.com/lajosbencz/vue-wamp
Plugin calls are deferred until autobahn Session is ready, unsubscribe and unregister are automatically called component-wise.
I've spend days trying to find a solution the problem i'm going to try to describe, i've googled alot and even looked at the .NET 4 reference source for SendReply and InternalSendReply activity. But until now i'm stuck.
To make the life of our end customers simpler i want to replace the Receive and SendReply activities with custom activites and use bookmarks instead.
I'm implementing a central webservice which can route to a correct workflow instance, that workflow modifies the bookmark value and finaly it creates a new bookmark while returning the modified bookmark value. It's rather complex already with a WorkflowServiceHostFactory which adds Behaviours and Attach a DataContractResolver to the endpoint.
The endpoint is derived from WorkflowHostingEndpoint which resolves a bookmark created in a custom activity (instead of a receive). And i want another activity instead of a sendreply. Those 2 should correlate and the custom sendreply does send a response on the open channel through the endpoint while creating a new bookmark.
The problem is that i didn't find a way yet to access the endpoint responseContext from within my custom send activity. On the other side, at the workflowcreating endpoint side, it seems that i'm not able to be notified whenever the workflow becomes Idle and as well i don't seem to be able to access the WorkflowExtensions from the host. i'm missing something?
A possible solution i've in mind might be not using a WorkflowServiceHost, but then i loose alot of AppFabric functionaly.
The workflowapplication in platform update 1 has some extension methods called RunEpisode with an overload Func called idleEventCallback. There it's possible to hook into the OnIdle and get a workflowextension to get the object to send back as response.
To answer my own question, i ended up in a workaround using the servicebroker functionality of sql server. The SqlDependency class where the workflow listens for the event to be fired whenever the workflow reach the activity that creates a new bookmark in another state.
I was wondering if there is a way to share an NSManagedObject between two or more NSManagedObjectContext objects running in the same thread.
I have the following problem: I have one main context shared through all my code in the application and several different contexts that are created for each remote fetch request that I issue. (I created a custom class that fetches remotely and inserts all the objects found in the server in his own NSManagedObjectContext). Those fetch requests may run simultaneously since they use NSURLConnection objects that may end at different times. If the same remote object gets fetched by different connections, I will end up with duplicates at the moment of saving and merging the context with the main one. (That is, objects that have the same remote ID but a different objectID).
One possible solution would be to save (and so persist) every object as soon as it is created but I can't do that because it may have some relationships that may still have not been filled and won't validate during the save operation.
I'm really looking forward to a method that allows you to share the same non-persistent instance of an object between context. If anybody has encountered this issue and came up with a solution, I would be pleased to know!
Context cannot communicate between each other save through their stores. However, you can insert a managed object with a nil managed object context and it will be independent (albeit without relationships) of any context. You could pass that independent managed object around however you wished and insert it into a context when you needed to persist it. This is dangerous but possible.
However, if you're not running each connection on a separate thread then you don't gain anything by having multiple context. Each connection object will activate its delegate in sequence on the main thread. In this case, your easiest solution would be to use the same delegate for all the connections and let the delegate handle the insertions into a single context. To prevent duplication, just do a fetch on the remoteID and see if you get back an extant object before inserting a new object for that remoteID.
I don't think what you want to do is possible. I mean if you want to share changes between different contexts, you got to use notifications and merge it whenever did save or did change occur. But in your case, I'd say just use 1 context and save in the end. Or a less elegant way: save all the remote ids temporary in your app and check before inserting new ones. In this case, you can continue use multiple contexts and save after each didfinishloading.
I'm working on a small application using C++/wxWidgets, where several parts of the GUI need to be updated based on e.g. received UDP datagrams. More specifically, a secondary thread tries to keep a list of available "clients" in the network (which may come and go away) and e.g. corresponding comboboxes in the UI need to be updated to reflect the changes.
The documentation mentions that for this kind of thing EVT_UPDATE_UI would be a good choice. As far as I can understand from the sparse documentation, this event is sent automatically by the system and provides some support for assisted UI change.
However, I'd feel more comfortable using a more direct approach, i.e. where e.g. a window object could register/subscribe to receive notifications (either events or callbacks) upon particular events and another part of the code is sending out these notifications when required. I could do this in C++ using my own code, however I guess if wxWidgets already supports something like that, I should make use of it. However I haven't found anything in that regards.
So, the question is: does wxWidgets support this kind of notification system (or similar alternatives) or would I be best served coding my own?
AFAIK there is nothing directly usable in wxWidgets, but doing it on your own seems easy.
What I would do:
Create a wxEvtHandler-descendent class to hold the list of available "clients" in the network. Let this class have a wxCriticalSection, and use a wxCriticalSectionLocker for that in all methods that add or delete "clients".
Create a worker thread class by inheriting wxThread to handle your UDP datagrams, using blocking calls. The thread should directly call methods of the client list object whenever a client has to be added or removed. In these methods update the list of clients, and ::wxPostEvent() an event to itself (this will execute the whole notification calls in the main GUI thread).
Handle the event in the client list class, and notify all listeners that the list of clients has changed. The observer pattern seems to me a good fit. You could either call a method of all registered listeners directly, or send a wxCommandEvent to them.
Have you tried calling Update() on the widget(s) that change? Once you update the contents of the combo box, call Update(), and the contents should update.