Algorithmic Sets
(Unterschied zwischen Versionen)
				
																
				
				
								
				Mkurz  (Diskussion | Beiträge)  (→Algorithmic sets and Notifications)  | 
		Mkurz  (Diskussion | Beiträge)   (→Algorithmic sets and Notifications)  | 
		||
| Zeile 42: | Zeile 42: | ||
</pre>  | </pre>  | ||
* Every connected client queries its notifications via a REST interface.  | * Every connected client queries its notifications via a REST interface.  | ||
| − | * All notifications should be grouped by their NotificationReceiverPredicate   | + | * 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.  | * 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.  | ||
Version vom 8. November 2014, 10:24 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.
 - Definition: 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.