a geofence is a virtual perimeter of interest that can be set up to fire notifications when it is entered or exited, or both. for example, a geofencing app can alert us that our kid has left a previously specified area, or send us a coupon (e.g. the "present this sms an get 20% off" offer type) when we happen to walk or drive in the proximity of a movie theater. now, with the new location apis , google's location algorithm has been rewritten to be more accurate and use significantly less battery life. there is just enough documentation plus sample code and a downloadable sample app ( geofencedetection ) to help us get started creating geofencing apps. prerequisites are: download google play services (via android's sdk manager) and set it up as a library get a google maps v2 api key, and maybe run the sample app. this short quick start guide might help download (again via sdk manager) the support library to cater to older android versions. for practical purposes, let's just start where the sample geofencing app ( geofencedetection ) stops, and introduce a few enhancements to make the app semi-decent and show a sample of possibilities with the new location api. 1. zoom and camera position first, a little taste of google maps api v2. let's choose zoom level and camera angle: import com.google.android.gms.maps.googlemap; import com.google.android.gms.maps.cameraupdatefactory; import com.google.android.gms.maps.model.cameraposition; import com.google.android.gms.maps.model.latlng; //... // inside class, for a given lat/lon cameraposition init = new cameraposition.builder() .target(new latlng(lat, lon)) .zoom( 17.5f ) .bearing( 300f) // orientation .tilt( 50f) // viewing angle .build(); // use googglemap mmap to move camera into position mmap.animatecamera( cameraupdatefactory.newcameraposition(init) ); the code above has a zoom level allowing the viewing of buildings in 3d. google maps v2 uses opengl for embedded systems ( opengl es v2) to render 2d and 3d computer graphics. 2. options menu even if we are not big fans of an options menu, it might be adequate in this case, since we would not want to clutter the map with too much "touch" functionality (we will have plenty of that shortly). we can toggle between "normal" and satellite view: /** * toggle view satellite-normal */ public static void toggleview(){ mmap.setmaptype( mmap.getmaptype() == googlemap.map_type_normal ? googlemap.map_type_satellite : googlemap.map_type_normal); } we can also provide a "flight mode", where we let the camera scroll away. not tremendously useful, but kind of cool nonetheless: import com.google.android.gms.maps.googlemap.cancelablecallback; //... private static cancelablecallback callback = new cancelablecallback() { @override public void onfinish() { scroll(); } @override public void oncancel() {} }; public static void scroll() { // we don't want to scroll too fast since // loading new areas in map takes time mmap.animatecamera( cameraupdatefactory.scrollby(10, -10), callback ); // 10 pix } 3. geocoding/reverse geocoding the sample is here to demonstrate features and makes heavy use of latitude/longitude coordinates. but we need to provide a more user-friendly way to interface with locations on the map, like a street address. we can use geocoding/reverse geocoding to transform a street address to coordinates and vice-versa using android's geocoder . 4. adding geofences ok, now on to geofences. thanks to geocoding, we can request an actual physical address from the user instead of coordinates. we will just change that address to a latitude/longitude pair internally to process user input. notice how we use transparent uis as much as possible to enhance what some might call the user experience. notice also that we provide a spinner so that the user can choose between predefined values. that saves the user some typing and it saves us from validating coordinates values each time. still, if we want to be even more user-friendly, we can give our users the possibility to pre-fill the address field by long-pressing a point on the map. we will then use reverse geocoding to translate the coordinates to a physical address for display (screen below on the right): processing long-presses is pretty straightforward: import com.google.android.gms.maps.googlemap.onmaplongclicklistener; //... public class mainactivity extends fragmentactivity implements onmaplongclicklistener { //... mmap.setonmaplongclicklistener(this); //... @override public void onmaplongclick(latlng point) { // reverse geocode point } } adding /removing geofences is pretty much covered in the sample app (by the geofencerequester and geofenceremover classes). the thing to remember is that the process of adding/removing fences is as follows : a connection to google's location services is requested by our app. once/if the connection is available, the request to add/remove a fence is done using a pendingintent . if a similar request made by our app is still underway, the operation fails. although the method we call (e.g. addgeofences() ) returns at once, we won't know if the request was successful until location services calls back into our app (e.g. onaddgeofencesresultlistener 's onaddgeofencesresult() ) with a success status code. finally, the preceding method will use a broadcast intent to notify other components of our app of success/failure. needless to say, we need to code defensively at almost every step of the way. now, once a geofence is added, we can add a marker (the default or a customized one) and choose between different shapes (circle, polygon, etc.) to delimit the geofence. for instance we can write this code to add the default marker and circle the fence within a specified radius: import com.google.android.gms.maps.model.circle; import com.google.android.gms.maps.model.circleoptions; import com.google.android.gms.maps.model.markeroptions; //... public static void addmarkerforfence(simplegeofence fence){ if(fence == null){ // display en error message and return return; } mmap.addmarker( new markeroptions() .position( new latlng(fence.getlatitude(), fence.getlongitude()) ) .title("fence " + fence.getid()) .snippet("radius: " + fence.getradius()) ).showinfowindow(); //instantiates a new circleoptions object + center/radius circleoptions circleoptions = new circleoptions() .center( new latlng(fence.getlatitude(), fence.getlongitude()) ) .radius( fence.getradius() ) .fillcolor(0x40ff0000) .strokecolor(color.transparent) .strokewidth(2); // get back the mutable circle circle circle = mmap.addcircle(circleoptions); // more operations on the circle... } here are the resulting screens, including the one we get once we "touch to edit" the info window: the sample app has all we need to fire notifications once the circled area above is entered or exited. notice how we set up the marker's info window to allow editing the geofence radius, or removing the geofence altogether. to implement a clickable custom info window, all we need is to create our own infowindowadapter and oninfowindowclicklistener . as for the notifications themselves, this is how they look like in the sample app: we can of course change a notification's appearance and functionality, and... that would be the subject of another article. hopefully, this one gave a glimpse of what is possible with the new location api. have fun with android geofences.

cdi (context and dependency injection) is a complete and lightweight injection technology designed for java ee environment. special container objects (ejb,entitymanager), primitive data type elements and java class/objects written by you can be easily managed and injected as well through cdi. every defined java class in each application that configured in cdi standard is a candidate to become an injectable cdi object. this default behavior is provided by @default annotation that was installed per each java class secretly. there is an car class which has a vehicle implementation in the above uml diagram. a random int value is produced in sayvelocity() method and there is an output to the console such as “the car is running at the speed of x” in work() method, where x is represents a number produced randomly. @default // optional public class car implements vehicle { public string work() { return "car is working in "+ sayvelocity()+" kmh."; } public int sayvelocity(){ return threadlocalrandom.current().nextint(20, 240) ; } } if the above car class is in an application activated in cdi environment, it becomes a candidate to be an object managed by cdi. so, what is implied by the activation of cdi? first of all, necessary dependencies need to be included in the classpath for the activation of cdi environment. if you are using an application server like glassfish, cdi can be used without any extra definition because of the existence of cdi libraries on the application server. but if your application is a java se application or is running in lightweight containers such as tomcat, jetty; a cdi library must be added to the project. the reference library of cdi technology is the jboss weld archetype. for this reason, if jboss weld dependencies are added to the project such as the following, first phase of the cdi activation is realized. org.jboss.weld.se weld-se 1.1.10.final to activate the cdi environment, a blank cdi configuration file named beans.xml must be in the application as a requirement of the standard. this file must be located on the /meta-inf/beans.xml path for java se applications and /web-inf/beans.xml path for java ee web applications. the existence necessity of this file may sound silly initially, but the existence of beans.xml in the directories specified above can be considered as a permission given to the container in order to activate cdi environment. activation of cdi environment is automatically started in java ee web applications when beans.xml file is encountered in the /web-inf directory. but it is not the same for a java se application, starting a cdi container is the developer’s job. this case can be seen clearly if you pay attention to the following gallery class: public class gallery { @inject // injection point private vehicle vehicle; public static void main(string[] args) { weld weld = new weld(); weldcontainer weldcontainer = weld.initialize(); gallery gallery = weldcontainer.instance().select(gallery.class).get(); string message= gallery.vehicle.work(); system.out.println("> "+message); } } weldcontainer type object reference in gallery class access to a cdi object which represents the initiated container environment and after this point, cdi objects are accessible and can be made injection procedures through weldcontainer object. after this point, it is used by adopting a cdi object that is a gallery class type through the container instance. in here, a programmatic access to the gallery object is provided. programmatic access is required for the startup of java se applications (as in spring), but you can easily access to all cdi objects in the environment also by annotation-based injection method through the obtained gallery cdi object, e.g. [ private @inject vehicle vehicle; ] an output as the following occurs when the gallery class is being run; the real content and sample code can be accessed in http://en.kodcu.com/2013/06/cdi-default-and-inject-annotations/ hope to see you again..

In the code I have quite recently came across a really bad piece of code that based on class casting in terms of performing some actions on objects. Of course the code needed to be refactored but sometimes you can't do it / or don't want to do it (and it should be understandable) if first you don't have unit tests of that functionality. In the following post I will show how to test such code, how to refactor it and in fact what I think about such code ;) Let's take a look at the project structure: As presented in the post regarding Mocktio RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS Answer for JAXB yet again we have the JAXB generated classes by the JAXB compiler in thecom.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model package. Let's ommit the discussion over the pom.xml file since it's exactly the same as in the previous post. In the com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.adapter package we have adapters over the JAXB PlayerDetails class that provides access to the Player interface. There is the CommonPlayerAdapter.java package com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.adapter; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.Player; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.PlayerDetails; /** * User: mgrzejszczak * Date: 09.06.13 * Time: 15:42 */ public class CommonPlayerAdapter implements Player { private final PlayerDetails playerDetails; public CommonPlayerAdapter(PlayerDetails playerDetails){ this.playerDetails = playerDetails; } @Override public void run() { System.out.printf("Run %s. Run!%n", playerDetails.getName()); } public PlayerDetails getPlayerDetails() { return playerDetails; } } DefencePlayerAdapter.java package com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.adapter; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.DJ; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.DefensivePlayer; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.JavaDeveloper; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.PlayerDetails; /** * User: mgrzejszczak * Date: 09.06.13 * Time: 15:42 */ public class DefencePlayerAdapter extends CommonPlayerAdapter implements DefensivePlayer, DJ, JavaDeveloper { public DefencePlayerAdapter(PlayerDetails playerDetails){ super(playerDetails); } @Override public void defend(){ System.out.printf("Defence! %s. Defence!%n", getPlayerDetails().getName()); } @Override public void playSomeMusic() { System.out.println("Oops I did it again...!"); } @Override public void doSomeSeriousCoding() { System.out.println("System.out.println(\"Hello world\");"); } } OffensivePlayerAdapter.java package com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.adapter; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.OffensivePlayer; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.PlayerDetails; /** * User: mgrzejszczak * Date: 09.06.13 * Time: 15:42 */ public class OffensivePlayerAdapter extends CommonPlayerAdapter implements OffensivePlayer { public OffensivePlayerAdapter(PlayerDetails playerDetails){ super(playerDetails); } @Override public void shoot(){ System.out.printf("%s Shooooot!.%n", getPlayerDetails().getName()); } } Ok, now let's go to the more interesting part. Let us assume that we have a very simple factory of players: PlayerFactoryImpl.java package com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.factory; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.adapter.CommonPlayerAdapter; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.adapter.DefencePlayerAdapter; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.adapter.OffensivePlayerAdapter; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.Player; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.PlayerDetails; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.PositionType; /** * User: mgrzejszczak * Date: 09.06.13 * Time: 15:53 */ public class PlayerFactoryImpl implements PlayerFactory { @Override public Player createPlayer(PositionType positionType) { PlayerDetails player = createCommonPlayer(positionType); switch (positionType){ case ATT: return new OffensivePlayerAdapter(player); case MID: return new OffensivePlayerAdapter(player); case DEF: return new DefencePlayerAdapter(player); case GK: return new DefencePlayerAdapter(player); default: return new CommonPlayerAdapter(player); } } private PlayerDetails createCommonPlayer(PositionType positionType){ PlayerDetails playerDetails = new PlayerDetails(); playerDetails.setPosition(positionType); return playerDetails; } } Ok so we have the factory that builds Players. Let's take a look at the Service that uses the factory: PlayerServiceImpl.java package com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.service; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.factory.PlayerFactory; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.*; /** * User: mgrzejszczak * Date: 08.06.13 * Time: 19:02 */ public class PlayerServiceImpl implements PlayerService { private PlayerFactory playerFactory; @Override public Player playAGameWithAPlayerOfPosition(PositionType positionType) { Player player = playerFactory.createPlayer(positionType); player.run(); performAdditionalActions(player); return player; } private void performAdditionalActions(Player player) { if(player instanceof OffensivePlayer){ OffensivePlayer offensivePlayer = (OffensivePlayer) player; performAdditionalActionsForTheOffensivePlayer(offensivePlayer); }else if(player instanceof DefensivePlayer){ DefensivePlayer defensivePlayer = (DefensivePlayer) player; performAdditionalActionsForTheDefensivePlayer(defensivePlayer); } } private void performAdditionalActionsForTheOffensivePlayer(OffensivePlayer offensivePlayer){ offensivePlayer.shoot(); } private void performAdditionalActionsForTheDefensivePlayer(DefensivePlayer defensivePlayer){ defensivePlayer.defend(); try{ DJ dj = (DJ)defensivePlayer; dj.playSomeMusic(); JavaDeveloper javaDeveloper = (JavaDeveloper)defensivePlayer; javaDeveloper.doSomeSeriousCoding(); }catch(ClassCastException exception){ System.err.println("Sorry, I can't do more than just play football..."); } } public PlayerFactory getPlayerFactory() { return playerFactory; } public void setPlayerFactory(PlayerFactory playerFactory) { this.playerFactory = playerFactory; } } Let's admit it... this code is bad. Internally when you look at it (regardless of the fact whether it used instance of operator or not) you feel that it is evil :) As you can see in the code we have some class casts going on... How on earth can we test it? In the majority of testing frameworks you can't do such class casts on mocks since they are built with the CGLIB library and there can be some ClassCastExceptions thrown. You could still not return mocks and real implementations (assuming that those will not perform any ugly stuff in the construction process) and it could actually work but still - this is bad code :P Mockito comes to the rescue (although you shouldn't overuse this feature - in fact if you need to use it please consider refactoring it) with its extraInterfaces feature: extraInterfaces MockSettings extraInterfaces(java.lang.Class... interfaces) Specifies extra interfaces the mock should implement. Might be useful for legacy code or some corner cases. For background, see issue 51 hereThis mysterious feature should be used very occasionally. The object under test should know exactly its collaborators & dependencies. If you happen to use it often than please make sure you are really producing simple, clean & readable code. Examples: Foo foo = mock(Foo.class, withSettings().extraInterfaces(Bar.class, Baz.class)); //now, the mock implements extra interfaces, so following casting is possible: Bar bar = (Bar) foo; Baz baz = (Baz) foo; Parameters:interfaces - extra interfaces the should implement. Returns:settings instance so that you can fluently specify other settings Now let's take a look at the test: PlayerServiceImplTest.java package com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.service; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.factory.PlayerFactory; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.*; import org.junit.Test; import org.junit.runner.RunWith; import org.mockito.InjectMocks; import org.mockito.Mock; import org.mockito.invocation.InvocationOnMock; import org.mockito.runners.MockitoJUnitRunner; import org.mockito.stubbing.Answer; import static org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers.is; import static org.junit.Assert.assertThat; import static org.mockito.BDDMockito.*; /** * User: mgrzejszczak * Date: 08.06.13 * Time: 19:26 */ @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class) public class PlayerServiceImplTest { @Mock PlayerFactory playerFactory; @InjectMocks PlayerServiceImpl objectUnderTest; @Mock(extraInterfaces = {DJ.class, JavaDeveloper.class}) DefensivePlayer defensivePlayerWithDjAndJavaDevSkills; @Mock DefensivePlayer defensivePlayer; @Mock OffensivePlayer offensivePlayer; @Mock Player commonPlayer; @Test public void shouldReturnOffensivePlayerThatRan() throws Exception { //given given(playerFactory.createPlayer(PositionType.ATT)).willReturn(offensivePlayer); //when Player createdPlayer = objectUnderTest.playAGameWithAPlayerOfPosition(PositionType.ATT); //then assertThat(createdPlayer == offensivePlayer, is(true)); verify(offensivePlayer).run(); } @Test public void shouldReturnDefensivePlayerButHeWontBeADjNorAJavaDev() throws Exception { //given given(playerFactory.createPlayer(PositionType.GK)).willReturn(defensivePlayer); //when Player createdPlayer = objectUnderTest.playAGameWithAPlayerOfPosition(PositionType.GK); //then assertThat(createdPlayer == defensivePlayer, is(true)); verify(defensivePlayer).run(); verify(defensivePlayer).defend(); verifyNoMoreInteractions(defensivePlayer); } @Test public void shouldReturnDefensivePlayerBeingADjAndAJavaDev() throws Exception { //given given(playerFactory.createPlayer(PositionType.GK)).willReturn(defensivePlayerWithDjAndJavaDevSkills); doAnswer(new Answer

Sorry for not having written for some time but I was busy with writing the JBoss Drools Refcard for DZone and I am in the middle of writing a book about Mockito so I don't have too much time left for blogging... Anyway quite recently on my current project I had an interesting situation regarding unit testing with Mockito and JAXB structures. We have very deeply nested JAXB structures generated from schemas that are provided for us which means that we can't change it in anyway. Let's take a look at the project structure: The project structure is pretty simple - there is a Player.xsd schema file that thanks to using the jaxb2-maven-plugin produces the generated JAXB Java classes corresponding to the schema in the target/jaxb/ folder in the appropriate package that is defined in the pom.xml. Speaking of which let's take a look at the pom.xml file. The pom.xml : 4.0.0 com.blogspot.toomuchcoding mockito-deep_stubs 0.0.1-SNAPSHOT UTF-8 1.6 1.6 spring-release http://maven.springframework.org/release maven-us-nuxeo https://maven-us.nuxeo.org/nexus/content/groups/public junit junit 4.10 org.mockito mockito-all 1.9.5 test org.apache.maven.plugins maven-compiler-plugin 2.5.1 org.codehaus.mojo jaxb2-maven-plugin 1.5 xjc xjc com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model ${project.basedir}/src/main/resources/xsd Apart from the previously defined project dependencies, as mentioned previously in the jaxb2-maven-plugin in the configuration node you can define the packageName value that defines to which package should the JAXB classes be generated basing on the schemaDirectory value where the plugin can find the proper schema files. Speaking of which let's check the Player.xsd schema file (simillar to the one that was present in the Spring JMS automatic message conversion article of mine): As you can see I'm defining some complex types that even though might have no business sense but you can find such examples in the real life :) Let's find out how the method that we would like to test looks like. Here we have the PlayerServiceImpl that implements the PlayerService interface: package com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.service; import com.blogspot.toomuchcoding.model.PlayerDetails; /** * User: mgrzejszczak * Date: 08.06.13 * Time: 19:02 */ public class PlayerServiceImpl implements PlayerService { @Override public boolean isPlayerOfGivenCountry(PlayerDetails playerDetails, String country) { String countryValue = playerDetails.getClubDetails().getCountry().getCountryCode().getCountryCode().value(); return countryValue.equalsIgnoreCase(country); } } We are getting the nested elements from the JAXB generated classes. Although it violates the Law of Demeter it is quite common to call methods of structures because JAXB generated classes are in fact structures so in fact I fully agree with Martin Fowler that it should be called the Suggestion of Demeter. Anyway let's see how you could test the method: @Test public void shouldReturnTrueIfCountryCodeIsTheSame() throws Exception { //given PlayerDetails playerDetails = new PlayerDetails(); ClubDetails clubDetails = new ClubDetails(); CountryDetails countryDetails = new CountryDetails(); CountryCodeDetails countryCodeDetails = new CountryCodeDetails(); playerDetails.setClubDetails(clubDetails); clubDetails.setCountry(countryDetails); countryDetails.setCountryCode(countryCodeDetails); countryCodeDetails.setCountryCode(CountryCodeType.ENG); //when boolean playerOfGivenCountry = objectUnderTest.isPlayerOfGivenCountry(playerDetails, COUNTRY_CODE_ENG); //then assertThat(playerOfGivenCountry, is(true)); } The function checks if, once you have the same Country Code, you get a true boolean from the method. The only problem is the amount of sets and instantiations that take place when you want to create the input message. In our projects we have twice as many nested elements so you can only imagine the number of code that we would have to produce to create the input object... So what can be done to improve this code? Mockito comes to the rescue to together with the RETURN_DEEP_STUBS default answer to the Mockito.mock(...) method: @Test public void shouldReturnTrueIfCountryCodeIsTheSameUsingMockitoReturnDeepStubs() throws Exception { //given PlayerDetails playerDetailsMock = mock(PlayerDetails.class, RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS); CountryCodeType countryCodeType = CountryCodeType.ENG; when(playerDetailsMock.getClubDetails().getCountry().getCountryCode().getCountryCode()).thenReturn(countryCodeType); //when boolean playerOfGivenCountry = objectUnderTest.isPlayerOfGivenCountry(playerDetailsMock, COUNTRY_CODE_ENG); //then assertThat(playerOfGivenCountry, is(true)); } So what happened here is that you use the Mockito.mock(...) method and provide the RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS answer that will create mocks automatically for you. Mind you that Enums can't be mocked that's why you can't write in the Mockito.when(...) functionplayerDetailsMock.getClubDetails().getCountry().getCountryCode().getCountryCode().getValue(). Summing it up you can compare the readability of both tests and see how clearer it is to work with JAXB structures by using Mockito RETURNS_DEEP_STUBS default answer. Naturally sources for this example are available at BitBucket and GitHub.

Serialization is a form of persistence: serialized data survives the process and the RAM where it was created and can be reconstituted inside different processes and machines that live in a different time or place. Sometimes serialization is a poor form of persistence in fact, one that confuses the boundary between the different schemas the data can fit in. However, what I found useful in the last years of development is to institute a strict separation: serialize Value Objects, Entities, and everything that represents the state of the application. Meanwhile, use Dependency Injection over services that are part of a larger object graph and never serialize this second kind of objects. In the discussion that follows, I make the assumption that serialization and deserialization occur on the same machine (e.g. like for web-oriented sessions.) The problem with serialization, which work transparently most of the time, is the need to serialize service objects instead of limiting the procedure to data structures. How can you store such objects? Not options Some options to solve this problems are really not options. Serialization by itself will fail because of the staleness of the references contained in these objects. For example, in PHP trying to serialize a database connections composed by a Repository or DAO object will rightly fail with an exception. Whenever an object represents a resource of the current machine, it cannot usually be serialized except in the case when the only resource involved is RAM. If the resource is disk space or other running processes such as a database daemon, the reconstitution of the object in another place and time will fail and it's best to just stop the developer immediately during storage. Quasi-options Some solutions to the problem try to avoid the staleness problem by serializing objects without their resources, and make them regrab a new version of them on deserialization. In PHP for example, this can be done with the __sleep() and __wakeup() magic methods, called automatically during serialization and deserializaton respectively. This deserialization mechanism introduces a dependency from the serialized Entity to external services: such a dependency is already in place when building the object the first time (passing the XService in the constructor) but it is aggravated when deserializing (depending on a XServiceFactory instead of just an XService). An improvement, from the dependencies point of view, is to reattach collaborators to deserialized objects like you would for other persistence-related tasks. For example, EntityRepository can inject the missing pieces of Entity every time its find() method is called. However, there is still another option, which is the most resilient from the modelling point of view and not only that of dependency management: injecting non-serializable collaborators through the stack. Objects can collaborate even without keeping field references to each other, and injecting dependencies as parameters move the dependency starting point from the server to the client object (which may or may not be desirable). What is most important is that Entities are relieved of having to manage external references in any context, not only that of persistence and in particular serialization. The metaphor for the 3rd option Misko Hevery likes to say: have you ever seen a credit card able to charge itself? If a CreditCard is an Entity in your domain, it would be very strange to keeping a wire attached to your wallet wherever you go. With the first option, you have the card spring a wire when it is taken out of the wallet, like in horror movies. This intelligent cable tries as its best to attach to the nearest Point of Sale (a bad case of bluetooth I think). With Repositories in mind, you're not dealing with automated wires anymore, but you're still attaching cables between cards and fixed devices. In reality, cards collaborate with the PoS in a fast process that does not last more than a few seconds. Actually, sometimes they don't touch it at all, as in all Internet-based purchases. Keeping services around to deal with external dependencies does not mean the API of your Domain Model has to be biased towards service objects: pos.charge(creditCard); // can equivalently be: creditCard.chargeOn(pos); This is a form of Double Dispatch since there are two objects collaborating and you can dispatch (send messages) to both, being polimorphic by substituting both objects. The sequence of calls is: client -> creditCard -> pos The client object still looks at CreditCard as a behaviorally complete object, but it is clear which dependency is necessary to run each use case (CreditCard method). You can persist a CreditCard easily and send it over the wire to caches or databases. When it comes the time to charge, it is the client that has to bring forward a service able to connect to a bank.

In this blog post, I will present a simple tutorial on uploading a large file to Amazon S3 as fast as the network supports. Amazon S3 is clustered storage service of Amazon. It is designed to make web-scale computing easier. Amazon S3 provides a simple web services interface that can be used to store and retrieve any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web. It gives any developer access to the same highly scalable, reliable, secure, fast, inexpensive infrastructure that Amazon uses to run its own global network of web sites. The service aims to maximize benefits of scale and to pass those benefits on to developers. For using Amazon services, you'll need your AWS access key identifiers, which AWS assigned you when you created your AWS account. The following are the AWS access key identifiers: Access Key ID (a 20-character, alphanumeric sequence) For example: 022QF06E7MXBSH9DHM02 Secret Access Key (a 40-character sequence) For example: kWcrlUX5JEDGM/LtmEENI/aVmYvHNif5zB+d9+ct Caution Your Secret Access Key is a secret, which only you and AWS should know. It is important to keep it confidential to protect your account. Store it securely in a safe place. Never include it in your requests to AWS, and never e-mail it to anyone. Do not share it outside your organization, even if an inquiry appears to come from AWS or Amazon.com. No one who legitimately represents Amazon will ever ask you for your Secret Access Key. The Access Key ID is associated with your AWS account. You include it in AWS service requests to identify yourself as the sender of the request. The Access Key ID is not a secret, and anyone could use your Access Key ID in requests to AWS. To provide proof that you truly are the sender of the request, you also include a digital signature calculated using your Secret Access Key. The sample code handles this for you. Your Access Key ID and Secret Access Key are displayed to you when you create your AWS account. They are not e-mailed to you. If you need to see them again, you can view them at any time from your AWS account. To get your AWS access key identifiers Go to the Amazon Web Services web site at http://aws.amazon.com. Point to Your Account and click Security Credentials. Log in to your AWS account. The Security Credentials page is displayed. Your Access Key ID is displayed in the Access Identifiers section of the page. To display your Secret Access Key, click Show in the Secret Access Key column. You can use your Amazon keys from a properties file in your application. Here is a sample for properties file containing Amazon keys: # Fill in your AWS Access Key ID and Secret Access Key # http://aws.amazon.com/security-credentials accessKey = secretKey = Here is sample AmazonUtil class for getting AWS Credentials from properties file. public class AmazonUtil { private static final Logger logger = LogUtil.getLogger(); private static final String AWS_CREDENTIALS_CONFIG_FILE_PATH = ConfigUtil.CONFIG_DIRECTORY_PATH + File.separator + "aws-credentials.properties"; private static AWSCredentials awsCredentials; static { init(); } private AmazonUtil() { } private static void init() { try { awsCredentials = new PropertiesCredentials(IOUtil.getResourceAsStream(AWS_CREDENTIALS_CONFIG_FILE_PATH)); } catch (IOException e) { logger.error("Unable to initialize AWS Credentials from " + AWS_CREDENTIALS_CONFIG_FILE_PATH); } } public static AWSCredentials getAwsCredentials() { return awsCredentials; } } Amazon S3 has Multipart Upload service which allows faster, more flexible uploads into Amazon S3. Multipart Upload allows you to upload a single object as a set of parts. After all parts of your object are uploaded, Amazon S3 then presents the data as a single object. With this feature you can create parallel uploads, pause and resume an object upload, and begin uploads before you know the total object size. For more information on Multipart Upload, review the Amazon S3 Developer Guide In this tutorial, my sample application uploads each file parts to Amazon S3 with different threads for using network throughput as possible as much. Each file part is associated with a thread and each thread uploads its associated part with Amazon S3 API. Figure 1. Amazon S3 Parallel Multi-Part File Upload Mechanism Amazon S3 API suppots MultiPart File Upload in this way: 1. Send a MultipartUploadRequest to Amazon. 2. Get a response containing a unique id for this upload operation. 3. For i in ${partCount} 3.1. Calculate size and offset of split-i in whole file. 3.2. Build a UploadPartRequest with file offset, size of current split and unique upload id. 3.3. Give this request to a thread and starts upload by running thread. 3.3.1. Send associated UploadPartRequest to Amazon. 3.3.2. Get response after successful upload and save ETag property of response. 4. Wait all threads to terminate 5. Get ETags (ETag is an identifier for successfully completed uploads) of all terminated threads. 6. Send a CompleteMultipartUploadRequest to Amazon with unique upload id and all ETags. So Amazon joins all file parts as target objects. Here is implementation: public class AmazonS3Util { private static final Logger logger = LogUtil.getLogger(); public static final long DEFAULT_FILE_PART_SIZE = 5 * 1024 * 1024; // 5MB public static long FILE_PART_SIZE = DEFAULT_FILE_PART_SIZE; private static AmazonS3 s3Client; private static TransferManager transferManager; static { init(); } private AmazonS3Util() { } private static void init() { // ... s3Client = new AmazonS3Client(AmazonUtil.getAwsCredentials()); transferManager = new TransferManager(AmazonUtil.getAwsCredentials()); } // ... public static void putObjectAsMultiPart(String bucketName, File file) { putObjectAsMultiPart(bucketName, file, FILE_PART_SIZE); } public static void putObjectAsMultiPart(String bucketName, File file, long partSize) { List partETags = new ArrayList(); List uploaders = new ArrayList(); // Step 1: Initialize. InitiateMultipartUploadRequest initRequest = new InitiateMultipartUploadRequest(bucketName, file.getName()); InitiateMultipartUploadResult initResponse = s3Client.initiateMultipartUpload(initRequest); long contentLength = file.length(); try { // Step 2: Upload parts. long filePosition = 0; for (int i = 1; filePosition < contentLength; i++) { // Last part can be less than part size. Adjust part size. partSize = Math.min(partSize, (contentLength - filePosition)); // Create request to upload a part. UploadPartRequest uploadRequest = new UploadPartRequest(). withBucketName(bucketName).withKey(file.getName()). withUploadId(initResponse.getUploadId()).withPartNumber(i). withFileOffset(filePosition). withFile(file). withPartSize(partSize); uploadRequest.setProgressListener(new UploadProgressListener(file, i, partSize)); // Upload part and add response to our list. MultiPartFileUploader uploader = new MultiPartFileUploader(uploadRequest); uploaders.add(uploader); uploader.upload(); filePosition += partSize; } for (MultiPartFileUploader uploader : uploaders) { uploader.join(); partETags.add(uploader.getPartETag()); } // Step 3: complete. CompleteMultipartUploadRequest compRequest = new CompleteMultipartUploadRequest(bucketName, file.getName(), initResponse.getUploadId(), partETags); s3Client.completeMultipartUpload(compRequest); } catch (Throwable t) { logger.error("Unable to put object as multipart to Amazon S3 for file " + file.getName(), t); s3Client.abortMultipartUpload( new AbortMultipartUploadRequest( bucketName, file.getName(), initResponse.getUploadId())); } } // ... private static class UploadProgressListener implements ProgressListener { File file; int partNo; long partLength; UploadProgressListener(File file) { this.file = file; } @SuppressWarnings("unused") UploadProgressListener(File file, int partNo) { this(file, partNo, 0); } UploadProgressListener(File file, int partNo, long partLength) { this.file = file; this.partNo = partNo; this.partLength = partLength; } @Override public void progressChanged(ProgressEvent progressEvent) { switch (progressEvent.getEventCode()) { case ProgressEvent.STARTED_EVENT_CODE: logger.info("Upload started for file " + "\"" + file.getName() + "\""); break; case ProgressEvent.COMPLETED_EVENT_CODE: logger.info("Upload completed for file " + "\"" + file.getName() + "\"" + ", " + file.length() + " bytes data has been transferred"); break; case ProgressEvent.FAILED_EVENT_CODE: logger.info("Upload failed for file " + "\"" + file.getName() + "\"" + ", " + progressEvent.getBytesTransfered() + " bytes data has been transferred"); break; case ProgressEvent.CANCELED_EVENT_CODE: logger.info("Upload cancelled for file " + "\"" + file.getName() + "\"" + ", " + progressEvent.getBytesTransfered() + " bytes data has been transferred"); break; case ProgressEvent.PART_STARTED_EVENT_CODE: logger.info("Upload started at " + partNo + ". part for file " + "\"" + file.getName() + "\""); break; case ProgressEvent.PART_COMPLETED_EVENT_CODE: logger.info("Upload completed at " + partNo + ". part for file " + "\"" + file.getName() + "\"" + ", " + (partLength > 0 ? partLength : progressEvent.getBytesTransfered()) + " bytes data has been transferred"); break; case ProgressEvent.PART_FAILED_EVENT_CODE: logger.info("Upload failed at " + partNo + ". part for file " + "\"" + file.getName() + "\"" + ", " + progressEvent.getBytesTransfered() + " bytes data has been transferred"); break; } } } private static class MultiPartFileUploader extends Thread { private UploadPartRequest uploadRequest; private PartETag partETag; MultiPartFileUploader(UploadPartRequest uploadRequest) { this.s3Client = s3Client; this.uploadRequest = uploadRequest; } @Override public void run() { partETag = s3Client.uploadPart(uploadRequest).getPartETag(); } private PartETag getPartETag() { return partETag; } private void upload() { start(); } } }

There are many good ideas and practices in Agile development, ideas and practices that definitely work: breaking projects into Small Releases to manage risk and accelerate feedback; time-boxing to limit WIP and keep everyone focused; relying only on working software as the measure of progress; simple estimating and using velocity to forecast team performance; working closely and constantly with the customer; and Continuous Integration – and Continuous Delivery – to ensure that code is always working and stable. But there are other commonly accepted ideas and best practices that aren’t important: if you don’t follow them, nothing bad will happen to you and your project will still succeed. And there are a couple that you are better off not following at all. Test-Driven Development Teams that need to move quickly need to depend on a fast, efficient testing safety net. With Test First Development or Test-Driven Development (TDD), there’s no excuse for not writing tests – after all, you have to write a failing test before you write the code. So you end up with a good set of working automated tests that ensure a high level of coverage and regression protection. TDD is not only a way of ensuring that developers test their code. It is also advocated as a design technique that leads to better quality code and a simpler, cleaner design. A study of teams at Microsoft and IBM (Realizing Quality Improvement through Test Driven Development, Microsoft Research, 2008) found that while TDD increased upfront development costs between 15-35% (TDD demands developers change the way that they think and work, which slows developers down, at least at first), it reduced defect density by 40% (IBM) or as much as 60-90% (Microsoft) over teams that did not follow disciplined unit testing. But in Making Software Chapter 12 “How Effective is Test-Driven Development” researchers led by Burak Turhan found that while TDD improves external quality (measured by one or more of test cases passed, number of defects, defect density, defects per test, effort required to fix defects, change density, % of preventative changes) and can improve the quality of the tests (fewer mistakes in the tests, tests that are easier to maintain), TDD does not consistently improve the quality of the design. TDD seems to reduce code complexity and improve reuse, however it also negatively impacts coupling and cohesion. And while method and class-level complexity is better in code developed using TDD, project/package level complexity is worse. People who like TDD like it a lot, so if you like it, do it. And even if you are not TDD-infected, there are times when working test first is natural – when you have to solve a specific problem in a specific way, or if you’re fixing a bug where the failing test case is already written up for you. But the important thing is that you write a good set of tests and keep them up to date and run them frequently – it doesn't matter if you write them before, or after, you write the code. Pair Programming According to the VersionOne State of Agile Development Survey 2012, almost 1/3 of teams follow pair programming – a surprisingly high number, given how disciplined pair programming is, and how few teams follow XP (2%) or Scrum/XP Hybrid (11%) methods where pair programming would be prescribed. There are good reasons for pairing: information sharing and improving code quality through continuous, informal code reviews as developers work together. And there are natural times to pair developers, or sometimes developers and testers, together: when you’re working through a hard design problem; or on code that you’ve never seen before and somebody who has worked on it is available to help; or when you’re over your head in troubleshooting a high-pressure problem; or testing a difficult part of the system; or when a new person joins the team and needs to learn about the code and coding practices. Some (extroverted) people enjoy pairing up, the energy it creates and the opportunities it provides to get to know others on the team. But forcing people who prefer working on their own or who don’t like each other to work closely together is definitely not a good idea. There are real social costs in pairing: you have to be careful to pair people up by skill, experience, style, personality type and work ethic. And sustained pair programming can be exhausting, especially over the long term – one study (Vanhanen and Lassenius 2007) found that people only pair between 1.5 and 4 hours a day on average, because it’s too intense to do all day long. In Pair Programming Considered Harmful? Jon Evans says that pairing can have also negative effects on creativity: Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption … What distinguished programmers at the top-performing companies wasn’t greater experience or better pay. It was how much privacy, personal workspace and freedom from interruption they enjoyed,” says a New York Times article castigating “the new groupthink”. And in “Still Questioning Extreme Programming” Pete McBreen points out some other disadvantages and weaknesses of pair programming: Exploration of ideas is not encouraged, pairing makes a developer focus on writing the code, so unless there is time in the day for solo exploration the team gets a very superficial level of understanding of the code. Developers can come to rely too much on the unit tests, assuming that if the tests pass then the code is OK. (This follows on from the lack of exploration.) Corner cases and edge cases are not investigated in detail, especially if they are hard to write tests for. Code that requires detail thinking about the design is hard to do when pairing unless one partner completely dominates the session. With the usual tradeoff between partners, it is hard to build technically complex designs unless they have been already been worked out in a solo session. Personal styles matter when pairing, and not all pairings are as productive as others. Pairs with different typing skills and proficiencies often result in the better typist doing all of the coding with the other partner being purely passive. And of course pairing in distributed teams doesn't work well if at all (depending on distance, differences in time zones, culture, working styles, language), although some people still try. While pairing does improve code quality over solo programming, you can get the same improvements in code quality, and at least some of the information sharing advantages, through code reviews, at less cost. Code reviews – especially lightweight, offline reviews – are easier to schedule, less expensive and less intrusive than pairing. And as Jason Cohen points out even if developers are pair programming, you may still need to do code reviews, because pair programming is really about joint problem solving, and doesn’t cover all of the issues that a code review would. Back to Jon Evans for the final word on pair programming: The true answer is that there is no one answer; that what works best is a dynamic combination of solitary, pair, and group work, depending on the context, using your best judgement. Paired programming definitely has its place. (Betteridge’s Law strikes again!) In some cases that place may even be “much of most days.” But insisting on 100 percent pairing is mindless dogma, and like all mindless dogma, ultimately counterproductive. Emergent Design and Metaphor Incremental development works, and trying to keep design simple makes good sense, but attempting to define an architecture on the fly is foolish and impractical. There’s a reason that almost nobody actually follows Emergent Design: it doesn't work. Relying on a high-level metaphor (the system is an "assembly line" or a "bill of materials" or a "hive of bees") shared by the team as some kind of substitute for architecture is even more ridiculous. Research from Carnegie Mellon University found that … natural language metaphors are relatively useless for either fostering communication among technical and non-technical project members or in developing architecture. Almost no one understands what a system metaphor is any ways, or how it is to be used, or how to choose a meaningful metaphor or how to change it if you got it wrong (and how you would know if you got it wrong), including one of the people who helped come up with the idea: Okay I might as well say it publicly - I still haven't got the hang of this metaphor thing. I saw it work, and work well on the C3 project, but it doesn't mean I have any idea how to do it, let alone how to explain how to do it. Martin Fowler, Is Design Dead? Agile development methods have improved development success and shown better ways to approach many different software development problems – but not architecture and design. Daily Standups When you have a new team and everyone needs to get to know each other and more time to understand what the project is about; or when the team is working under emergency conditions trying to fix something or finish something under extreme pressure, then getting everyone together in regular meetings, maybe even more than once a day, is necessary and valuable. But whether everyone stands up or sits down and what they end up talking about in a meeting should be up to you. If your team has been working well together for a while and everyone knows each other and knows what they are working on, and if developers update cards on a task board or a Kanban board or the status in an electronic system as they get things done, and if they are grown up enough to ask for help when they need it, then you don’t need to make them all stand up in a room every morning. Collective Code Ownership Letting everyone work on all of the code isn't always practical (because not everyone on the team has the requisite knowledge or experience to work on every problem) and collective code ownership can have negative effects on code quality. Share code where it makes sense to do so, but realize that not everybody can – or should – work on every part of the system. Writing All Requirements as Stories The idea that every requirement specification can be written as User Stories in 1 or 2 lines on cards, that requirements should be too short on purpose (so that the developer has to talk to someone to explain what’s really needed) and insisting that they should all be in the same template form “As a type of user I want some goal so that some reason…” is silly and unnecessary. This is the same kind of simple minded orthodoxy that led everyone to try to capture all requirements in UML Use Case format with stick men and bubbles 15 years ago. There are many different ways to effectively express requirements. Sometimes requirements need to be specified in detail (when you have to meet regulatory compliance or comply with a standard or integrate with an existing system or implement a specific algorithm or…). Sometimes it’s better to work from a test case or a detailed use case scenario or a wire frame or some other kind of model, because somebody who knows what’s going on has already worked out the details for you. So pick the format and level of detail that works best and get to work. Relying on a Product Owner Relying on one person as the Product Owner, as the single solitary voice of the customer and the “one throat to choke” when the project fails, doesn't scale, doesn't last, and puts the team and the project and eventually the business at risk. It’s a naïve, dangerous approach to designing a product and to managing a development project, and it causes more problems than it solves. Many teams have realized this and are trying to work around the Product Owner idea because they have to. To succeed, a team needs real and sustained customer engagement at multiple levels, and they should take responsibility themselves for making sure that they get what they need, rather than relying on one person to do it all.

If you’re uploading blobs by splitting blobs into blocks and you get the error – The specified blob or block content is invalid, then this post is for you. Short Version If you’re uploading blobs by splitting blobs into blocks and you get the above mentioned error, ensure that your block ids of your blocks are of same length. If the block ids of your blocks are of different length, you’ll get this error. Long Version Now for the longer version of this post . A few days back I was working with storage client library especially around uploading blobs in chunks and with one particular blob I was constantly getting the error – The specified blob or block content is invalid. I tried numerous combinations even resorting to REST API directly but to no avail. It only happened with just one blob. Furthermore if I uploaded the same blob without splitting it into blocks, all was well. I was at my wits’ end. Tried searching the Internet for this error but could not find a conclusive answer to my problem. After much trial and error, I was able to simulate the same problem on other blobs as well. Here’s how you can recreate it: Start uploading the blob by splitting it into blocks. For block id, let’s do a 7 character long string e.g. intValue.ToString(“d7”). This will ensure that my block ids would be “0000001”, “0000002”, …, ”0000010” ….. After one or two blocks are uploaded, cancel the operation. Now re-upload the blob by splitting it into blocks. However this time for block id, let’s do a 6 character long string e.g. intValue.ToString(“d6”). You’ll get the error as soon as you try to upload the 1st block. Possible Solutions Now that we know the root cause of this problem, let’s look at some of the possible solutions to solve this problem. Wait out One possible solution is to wait out. I know its lame but still a possible solution. We know that Windows Azure Blob Storage Service keeps all uncommitted blocks for a duration of 7 days and if within 7 days those uncommitted blocks are not committed, the storage service purges them. I wish storage service provided some mechanism to purge uncommitted blocks programmatically. Commit uncommitted blocks You could possibly commit the blocks which are in uncommitted state so that at least you get a blob (which would not be the blob we wanted to upload in the first place). You can then delete that blob and re-upload the blob by specifying block ids which are of same length. To fetch the list of uncommitted blocks, if you’re using REST API directly you can perform “Get Block List” operation and pass “blocklisttype=uncommitted” as one of the query string parameters. If you’re using storage client library (assuming you’re using the version 2.x of .Net storage client library), you can do something like the code below: private static List GetUncommittedBlockIds(CloudBlockBlob blob) { var sasUri = blob.GetSharedAccessSignature(new SharedAccessBlobPolicy() { SharedAccessExpiryTime = DateTime.UtcNow.AddMinutes(5), Permissions = SharedAccessBlobPermissions.Read, }); var blobUri = new Uri(string.Format("{0}{1}", blob.Uri, sasUri)); List uncommittedBlockIds = new List(); var request = BlobHttpWebRequestFactory.GetBlockList(blobUri, null, null, BlockListingFilter.Uncommitted, null, null); //request.Headers.Add("Authorization", using (var resp = (HttpWebResponse)request.GetResponse()) { using (var stream = resp.GetResponseStream()) { var getBlockListResponse = new GetBlockListResponse(stream); var blocks = getBlockListResponse.Blocks; foreach (var block in blocks.Where(b => !b.Committed)) { uncommittedBlockIds.Add(Encoding.UTF8.GetString(Convert.FromBase64String(block.Name))); } } } return uncommittedBlockIds; } A few things to keep in mind here: Microsoft.WindowsAzure.Storage.Blob namespace does not have the capability to get the list of uncommitted blocks. You would need to make use ofMicrosoft.WindowsAzure.Storage.Blob.Protocol namespace. Because we’re kind of invoking the REST API by executing an HttpWebRequest, I created a shared access signature on the blob so that I don’t have to create “Authorization” header. Fetch uncommitted blocks to see block id length You could fetch the list of uncommitted blocks just to find out the length of the block id used. You could then use that block id length for your new upload session and do the upload. Please see the code snippet above to find this information. Upload another blob with same name without splitting it into blocks You could also upload another blob with the same name without splitting it into blocks. It could very well be a zero byte blob. That way your uncommitted block list will be wiped clean. Then you could delete that dummy blob and re-upload the actual blob. A Few Words About Blocks Since we’re talking about blocks, I thought it might be useful to mention a few points about them: Blocks and block related operations are only applicable for “Block Blobs”. Duh!! You’ll get an error if you’re trying to do these operations on a “Page Blob”. For uploading large blobs, it is recommended that you split your blob into blocks. In fact if your blob size is more than 64 MB, then you have to split it into blocks. Minimum size of a block is 1 Byte and the maximum size of a block is 4 MB. It is recommended that you choose a block size based on your internet connectivity and number of parallel threads you want use to upload these blocks. A blob can be split into a maximum of 50000 blocks. It’s important to remember this limitation because you are reminded of this limit when you’re trying to upload 50001st block. The length of all the block ids must be same. So if you’re using an integer value to denote block id, you make sure that you pad that integer value with “0” so that you get same length. So you could do something likeint.ToString(“d6”). When passing the block id as a parameter, it must be Base64 encoded. While the order in which the blocks are uploaded is not important, the order is important when you commit the block list because that’s when the blob is constructed by the service. For example, let’s say you’re uploading a blob by splitting it into 5 blocks (with ids “000001”, “000002”, “000003”, “000004”, and “000005”). You could upload these blocks in any order – 000004, 000001, 000003, 000005, 000002 however when you commit the block list, ensure that the block ids are passed in proper order i.e. 000001, 000002, 000003, 000004, 000005. Summary That’s it for this post. I hope you’ve found this information useful. I spent considerable amount of time trying to fix this problem so I hope it will help some folks out. As always, if you find any issues with the post please let me know and I’ll fix it ASAP.

Learn how to run test code with Gradle using the test task that is added by the Java plugin.

this month, my fellow it pro technical evangelists and i are authoring a new series of articles on 20 key scenarios with windows azure infrastructure services . check out the list of articles here: http://mythoughtsonit.com/2013/05/20-key-scenarios-with-windows-azure-infrastructure-services/ . web-based distributed authoring and versioning, or webdav, is a set of protocols based on http that allows end-users to map a network drive over http and edit content and files stored on the web server. when webdav was first offered on microsoft server i had evaluated it and decided it did not perform well enough for me. the webdav extension to iis was completely rewritten back in the server 2008 timeframe and is worth taking a look at again. in this article i will guide you step by step through the process of setting up webdav on server 2012 in a windows azure iaas environment. this will give you a solid performing file share on the internet over port 80 and the http protocol. first you need an azure account. you can setup a free trail of azure. details can be found here: http://mythoughtsonit.com/2013/04/step-by-step-guide-to-setting-up-a-windows-azure-free-trial/ second provision a server 2012 machine. watch a video of what to do here: third open port 80 to this new server: in the azure portal select your 2012 server and choose the “endpoints” tab on the top. click “add endpoint” at the bottom of the screen enter the endpoint information for port 80 to port 80 done. next we need to install the iis webserver and webdav. installing webdav on iis 8.0 start server manager and go to “add roles and features” under server roles – add the web server (iis) role click through the wizard until you come to the role services section. then find and select “webdav publishing” and “windows authentication” click next and then install when the install is finished you are ready to move on to the next section. configuring iis 8 for webdav after the installation finishes you need to configure the box for access. start the iis manager tool. choose the “default web site” on the left side. then click on “authentication” open the windows authentication option and enable it. open the “webdav authoring rules” create a webdav rule. i choose to allow all users access to all content. a better security practice is to limit what users can use the service. it’s your data so you decide. make sure webdav is enabled and that your access rule is set: that is it… now your ready to access your webdav file share! test and insure you can hit the web server by using your browser: because you opened port 80 and installed iis 8 you should see the default web page when you browse to your servers internet dns name. example: http://yourdomainname.cloudapp.net/ how to map a drive to your webdav server: there are two ways i use to connect to the webdav server how to map a drive to your webdav server from the win 8 gui: from windows explorer, right click on “computer” and select “map a network drive” map your network drive by entering the address to your server example: http://yourdomainname.cloudapp.net/ i selected “connect using different credentials” because my workstation was not joined to the server in anyway and i needed to use an account in the servers local sam database. hit “finish” and enter your credentials. now you will have a connected drive that you can access from windows explorer or any tool via the drive mapping. how to map a drive to your webdav server from a cmd box: 1. hit windows start and type: cmd 2. enter the command: net use [drive letter] [url] example: net use e: http://yourdomainname.cloudapp.net/

A couple of weeks ago we looked at how to do a quick "health check" of an agile team. We saw that a great deal can be learned just by attending one of their daily stand-ups and by inspecting the state of their Scrum and Kanban boards. Of course these are nothing more than cursory examinations, and serious ailments can lie behind an apparently robust façade of agile practice. If you have reason to believe that a team is dysfunctional, you might have to dig deeper than the superficial evidence suggested by its apparent morphology. In my experience the next thing to examine is the team's "Definition of Done". This is the standard to which all work is put before it can be considered to be complete. Each team is collectively responsible for its own Definition of Done. It's up to them to make sure that it is adequate, and that it is applied by all members to all of the work they do. Without such professional oversight there can be no assurance that any deliverable will truly be fit for release. A spiffy stand-up and a cracker of a Kanban board might suggest rude team health, but they are no guarantee that the Definition of Done is solid, or that it isn't being undercut by someone along the way. Technical debt and rework are the main symptoms to look for. The consequences of backsliding on a Definition of Done might not become apparent until long after the events that caused it. By then, that rework or debt can be difficult to trace to the specific behaviors of those who cheated the system. You see, unfortunately a Definition of Done is a bit like personal hygiene. If there is no oversight, everyone can pretend that they are following the rules for the sake of the team, even though the presence of E. Coli on the office keyboards will tell its own tale about compliance. Everyone knows that it has to be coming from somewhere, but won't admit to their own liability or involvement, perhaps not even to themselves. Just as team vomiting will follow one member's dubious hand-washing practices, a short-changed Definition of Done will lead to rework by the team or the creation of technical debt. This is why team ownership and enforcement of what "Done" means is so important. An effective Definition of Done has to be founded on a healthy balance between due diligence and professional trust. What does this mean for agile development? You can think of a Definition of Done as the key defensive bulwark in software development epidemiology. If you balance the right level of team oversight with the right level of trust, severe outbreaks of technical debt or rework will become rare. High levels of oversight may be needed to start with, since team members might not have bought in to the idea of "done" yet. Once people become conditioned to do the right thing and see themselves as stakeholders in the team and its success, the balance can swing more towards trust. People become reluctant to renege on a team investment if they can see that it adds value for everyone including them. What's more, a Definition of Done improves the more it is respected, and becomes better respected the more it improves. In terms of agile best practice a Definition of Done will be used to determine whether or not User Story implementations are release-ready. However, each team can implement many User Stories over the course of a sprint, and making sure that all of these stories meet the Definition of Done can be challenging. Teams that are new to agile methods often have more modest ambitions. For example, their Definition of Done may only extend as far as delivery into a pre-production environment. Of course, anything less than "fully release ready" incurs the risk of technical debt and the need to pay it back later. Yet like a sloppy approach to hand-washing, it has to be admitted that something is better than nothing at all. Applying a Definition of Done consistently to even a sub-optimal standard will at least permit the delivery of each User Story to a known level of quality. It might not be great but at least it's there, and it's something that can be built upon and improved. The Lessons of Lean-Kanban Lean-Kanban methodologies have an instructive relationship with the Definition of Done. In these approaches the optimization of the value stream is of great significance. Naturally though, if a value stream is to be optimized it must first be understood. This means breaking the stream down into multiple discrete steps that can be studied for bottlenecks and any other occurrences of waste. For example, "Work in Progress" can be broken down into finer-grained stations such as "In Development", "Peer Review", "QA Test", "Knowledge Transfer", and "In Deployment". Team members will be cross-trained and will move freely across those stations in order to expedite as smooth a workflow as possible. Now here's where it gets interesting. If a Lean-Kanban operation has multiple well-defined stations, the case for having a Definition of Done can seem rather harder to make. After all, by the time a User Story gets to "Done", you already know that it has gone through the key steps you care about in the development process. What value can a Definition of Done really add in such a situation? Doesn't it just become waste itself? To find the answer, we need to look back to the manufacturing roots of Lean-Kanban. In a car plant for example, the steps of construction are exceptionally well defined and team members can move freely over several dozen stations. Some of those stations will be for the chassis, others for the interior, others for the engine block and electrics and so on. Yet despite this the Definition of Done will be an absolute corker, and much of the process of verification will be automated. Each station might even have its own Definition of Done so inspection can occur as close as possible to the point of action and potential remedy. The total number of checks that happen before each vehicle leaves the factory will be exhaustive. Why is this thought to be necessary? Because the manufacturers know perfectly well that the verification of "done" adds value. Merely having well-defined stations is no guarantee that everything will be done well. Quality is built in and validated by inspection. One thing's for sure: no-one in IT should accuse car manufacturers of having a weak understanding of what "done" means. The Definition of Done versus Acceptance Criteria However, software projects have a wild-card to deal with that car manufacturers don't have to worry about. Unlike the car doors and carburettors that roll down an assembly line, each User Story is different and has to be treated as a special case. To deal with this, each User Story has Acceptance Criteria that are agreed by the team members and the Product Owner as part of a Sprint Planning Session. Acceptance Criteria have to be quite specific to particular User Stories, because each story can be unique. The Definition of Done, on the other hand, applies to all of the User Stories being worked on by a team. The associated conditions must be invariant. For example, if all work has to be peer reviewed and subjected to QA testing prior to release, then those criteria would be enumerated in the Definition of Done rather than being repeated in each User Story's Acceptance Criteria. If the definition is enforced properly, a developer could never claim that a User Story was “Done” if it hadn't both been reviewed and passed QA testing. Writing a Definition of Done The Scrum Guide describes a Definition of Done as a "shared understanding of what it means for work to be complete". No process is suggested for writing a Definition of Done, nor in fact is there any suggestion that one should be written down at all. However, a documented definition may go some way towards providing that shared understanding. Here's how you can set about eliciting one: Review Acceptance Criteria: Gather the Acceptance Criteria for work completed so far Look for common criteria that can be abstracted out and applied across work in general Use these common criteria as the basis for a Definition of Done Assess Technical Debt Identify any rework that needs to be done Identify the reasons why it wasn't done properly the first time Identify what measures can be put in place to stop similar rework from occurring Add these measures to the Definition of Done (DoD) Continually update the DoD In each Sprint Review, identify which (if any) work was rejected or which caused rework to be done, then In each Sprint Retrospective, challenge the DoD for relevance and completeness There isn't a prescribed format for a Definition of Done, but it can be beneficial to use the same as that which is used for Acceptance Criteria, either in whole or in part. This allows a flexible definition based on story type. Alternatively they can be written as simple lists. Here are some examples: Example of a Definition of Done in Acceptance Criteria Format Given that a user story has required a code change When BDD and unit tests have been written for the story and the code change has been reviewed and the code change has been approved by a peer and all BDD and unit tests have been run and no BDD or unit tests have broken (green bar) and the code change has been committed to the repository and QA testing has passed satisfactorily and the Product Owner has approved the change Then the user story will be deployed to production and it will be considered Done. Given that a user story has required the authoring of documentation When the documentation has been reviewed and approved by a peer and the documentation has been approved by the Product Owner Then a new version of the documentation will be committed and the user story will be considered Done. Example of a Definition of Done in List Format Code changes: BDD tests written and pass Unit tests written and pass Code peer reviewed & approved Code committed to repository QA testing done Product Owner signed off Documentation: Documentation has been peer reviewed & approved Documentation approved by Product Owner Version number updated Definitions of Done for IT Infrastructure Support We've seen that having a good Definition of Done is important, although in IT we also need Acceptance Criteria that address the particulars of each User Story. When used in combination they can approach the levels of rigor that have been shown to be possible in manufacturing. Those working in software development can adopt a similar commitment to quality. Now we need to turn our attention to another function within the IT department...Infrastructure Support. Infrastructure support teams are increasingly expected to work in an agile way. As part of an enterprise transformation that does not seem unreasonable. After all, the rest of the organization is highly dependent upon them. Their scope includes such things as deploying new workstations and laptops (possibly across entire sites), installing networks, performing miscellaneous diagnostics and repairs, and maintaining and upgrading local server resources. Clearly they will also need Definitions of Done and Acceptance Criteria if they are to be stakeholders in a joined-up agile enterprise. The question is, how on earth can a meaningful Definition of Done be abstracted across wildly different physical tasks? How can a Definition of Done cover everything from a phone installation to a printer driver upgrade or a memory enhancement, or a firewall configuration to a keyboard replacement? The answer is to focus on the value chain that is represented by each user story. Work is not "released" as such, but rather it is handed over to someone who can derive benefit from it (i.e. the person occupying the user story role). This is the key to understanding "done" in an infrastructure context. If you can identify the parties who derive value, and demonstrably pass that value on to them, then your work is done. Here's an example of a Definition of Done that might be used to close out a support ticket: The receiver of the work has been identified Handover instructions have been completed and given to the receiver The receiver has been notified of the intention to close the ticket, and has not raised an objection A security assessment has been conducted and approved There are three things to point out here. The absence of any reference to a Product Owner. This is because infrastructure teams have to support multiple products, and prioritization of work is traditionally handled not through any sense of ownership of those products, but rather through help-desk triage. It's certainly possible for work to be represented by Product Owners, but it would have to be ownership of the business support function rather than ownership of the actual products being supported. The need to identify and work with the actual receivers of value is still there. The "acceptance by default" position. Receivers typically have little incentive to sign work off as being complete. On the contrary, their incentive is to defer acceptance as long as possible, for potential use as a "banker" in case a requirement for additional unforeseen work transpires. They might hope to ride this new work on an existing ticket instead of having to raise a new one. Receivers can be expected to care about their own support needs, not about the big picture of enterprise delivery. If a Product Owner can be identified - even if it is just the most likely owner of the business support function - then this situation can be improved. A Product Owner can apply leverage for appropriate and timely sign-off, such as by not accepting new work from certain parties while their approval (or justified rejection) of prior work remains outstanding. The elicitation of solid Acceptance Criteria can help the Product Owner immensely. Security implications need to be given careful consideration. The reworking of organizational infrastructure offers great potential for security to be compromised. Approval from Information Security should be obtained for all work, either directly or through authorized agents. One approach is for each team to have a designated "security champion" who provides this function. Conclusion Teams that appear to be healthy can still incur rework and technical debt. A poor understanding of what "done" means often underlies such problems, and this should be one of the first things to be looked at if problems are suspected. Having a meaningful Definition of Done encourages a team's sense of ownership of their own process, and helps instil self-discipline into its members to follow agile best practices. The application of this standard requires finding the right balance between team oversight and trust.

I recently stumbled upon an article Synchronising Multithreaded Integration Tests on Captain Debug's Blog. That post emphasizes the problem of designing integration tests involving class under test running business logic asynchronously. This contrived example was given (I stripped some comments): public class ThreadWrapper { public void doWork() { Thread thread = new Thread() { @Override public void run() { System.out.println("Start of the thread"); addDataToDB(); System.out.println("End of the thread method"); } private void addDataToDB() { // Dummy Code... try { Thread.sleep(4000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } }; thread.start(); System.out.println("Off and running..."); } } This is only an example of common pattern where business logic is delegated to some asynchronous job pool we have no control over. Roger Hughes (the author) enumerates few techniques of testing such code, including: arbitrary ("long enough") sleep() in test method to make sure background logic finishes refactoring doWork() so that it accepts CountDownLatch and agrees to notify it when job is done making the method above package private and @VisibleForTesting only "The" solution - refactoring doWork() so that it accepts arbitrary Runnable. In test we can wrap this Runnable (decorator pattern) and wait for inner Runnable to complete Last solution is not bad but it changes the responsibilities of ThreadWrapper significantly. Now it's up to the caller to decide what kind of job should be executed asynchronously while previously ThreadWrapper was encapsulating business logic completely. I am not saying it's a bad design, but it's drastically different from original method. Awaitility Can we write a test without such a massive refactoring? First solution involves handy library called Awaitility. This library is not a silver bullet, it simply evaluates given condition periodically and makes sure it's fulfilled within given time. It's the kind of code you probably wrote once or twice - wrapped in a library with well designed API. So here is our initial approach: import static com.jayway.awaitility.Awaitility.await; import static java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit.SECONDS; //... await().atMost(10, SECONDS).until(recordInserted()); //... private Callable recordInserted() { return new Callable() { @Override public Boolean call() throws Exception { return dataExists(); } }; } I think there is nothing to explain here. dataExists() is simply a boolean method that initially returns false but will eventually return true once the background task (addDataToDB()) is done. In other words we assume that background task introduces some side effect and dataExists() can detect that side effect. BTW I happened to have JDK 8 with Lambda support installed and IntelliJ IDEA gives me this nice tooltip: Suddenly I get this Java 8-compatible alternative suggested: private Callable recordInserted() { return () -> dataExists(); } But there's more: Which transforms my code to: private Callable recordInserted() { return this::dataExists; } this:: prefix means that recordInsterted is a method of current object. Just as well we can say someDao::dataExists. Simply put this syntax turns method into a function object we can pass around (this process is called eta expansion in Scala). By now recordInsterted() method is no longer that needed so I can inline it and remove it completely: await().atMost(10, SECONDS).until(this::dataExists); I am not sure what I love more - the new lambda syntax or how IntelliJ IDEA takes pre-Java 8 code and retrofits it for me automatically (well, it's still a bit experimental, just reported IDEA-106670). I can run this intention in IntelliJ project-wide, Lambda-enabling my whole code base in seconds. Sweet! But back to original problem. Awaitility helps a lot by providing decent API and some handy features. I use it extensively in combination with FluentLenium. But periodically polling for state changes feels a bit like a workaround and still introduces minimal latency. But notice that running and synchronizing on asynchronous tasks is quite common and JDK already provides necessary facilities: Future abstraction! java.util.concurrent.Future To limit the scope of refactoring I will leave the original new Thread() approach for now and use SettableFuture from Guava. It is a Future implementation that allows triggering completion or failure at any time, from any thread (see DeferredResult - asynchronous processing in Spring MVC for more advanced usage). As you can see the changes are quite small: public class ThreadWrapper { public ListenableFuture doWork() { final SettableFuture future = SettableFuture.create(); Thread thread = new Thread() { @Override public void run() { addDataToDB() //... //last instruction future.set(null); } private void addDataToDB() { // Dummy Code... // ... } }; thread.start(); return future; } } doWork() now returns ListenableFuture with lifecycle controlled inside asynchronous task. We use Void but in reality you might want to return some asynchronous result instead. future.set(null) invocation in the end is crucial. It signals that future is fulfilled and all threads waiting for that future will be notified. Once again, in practice you would use e.g. Future and then instead of null we would say future.set(someInteger). Here null is just a placeholder for Void type. How does this help us? Test code can now rely on future completion: final ListenableFuture future = wrapper.doWork(); future.get(10, SECONDS); future.get() blocks until future is done (with timeout), i.e. until we call future.set(...). BTW I use ListenableFuture from Guava but Java 8 introduces equivalent and standard CompletableFuture - I will write about it soon. So, we are getting somewhere. Future is a useful abstraction for waiting and signalling completion of background jobs. But there is also one immense advantage of Future which are not taking, ekhm, advantage from - exception handling and propagation. Future.get() will block until future is complete and return asynchronous result or throw an exception initially thrown from our job. This is really useful for asynchronous tests. Currently if Thread.run() throws an exception it may or may not be logged or visible to us and future will never be completed. With Awaitility it's slightly better - it will timeout without any meaningful reason, which have to be tracked down manually in console/logs. But with minor modification our test is much more verbose: public void run() { try { addDataToDB() //... future.set(null); } catch (Exception e) { future.setException(e); } } If some exception occurs in asynchronous job, it will pop-up and be shown as JUnit/TestNG failure reason. (Listening)ExecutorService That's it. If addDataToDB() throws an exception it will not be lost. Instead our future.get() in test will re-throw that exception for us. Our test won't simply timeout leaving us with no clue what went wrong. Great, but do we really have to create this special SettableFuture instance, can't we just use existing libraries that already give us Future with correct underlying implementation? Of course! By this requires further refactoring: import com.google.common.util.concurrent.ListeningExecutorService; import com.google.common.util.concurrent.MoreExecutors; import java.util.concurrent.Executors; import java.util.concurrent.Future; public class ThreadWrapper { private final ListeningExecutorService executorService = MoreExecutors.listeningDecorator( Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor() ); public ListenableFuture doWork() { Runnable job = new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { //... } }; return executorService.submit(job); } } This is what you've all been waiting for. Don't start new Thread all the time, use thread pool! I actually went one step further by using ListeningExecutorService - an extension to ExecutorService that returns ListenableFuture instances (see why you want that). But the solution doesn't require this, I just spread good practices. As you can see Future instance is now created and managed for us. The test is exactly the same but production code is cleaner and more robust. MoreExecutors.sameThreadExecutor() The final trick I want to show you involves dependency injection. First let's externalize the creation of a thread pool from ThreadWrapper class: private final ListeningExecutorService executorService; public ThreadWrapper() { this(Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor()); } public ThreadWrapper(ExecutorService executorService) { this.executorService = MoreExecutors.listeningDecorator(executorService); } We can now optionally supply custom ExecutorService. This is good for various other reasons, but for us it opens brand new testing opportunity: MoreExecutors.sameThreadExecutor(). This time we modify our test slightly: final ThreadWrapper wrapper = new ThreadWrapper(MoreExecutors.sameThreadExecutor()); wrapper.doWork().get(); See how we pass custom ExecutorService? It's a very special implementation that doesn't really maintain thread pool of any kind. Every time you submit() some task to that "pool" it will be executed in the same thread in a blocking manner. This means that we no longer have asynchronous test, even though the production code wasn't changed that much! wrapper.doWork() will block until "background" job finishes. The extra call to get() is still needed to make sure exceptions are propagated, but is guaranteed to never block (because the job is already done). Using the same thread to execute asynchronous task instead of a thread pool might have an unexpected results if you somehow depend on thread-based properties, e.g. transactions, security, ThreadLocal. However if you use standard ThreadPoolExecutor with CallerRunsPolicy, JDK already behaves this way if thread pool is overflowed. So it's not that unusual. Summary Testing asynchronous code is hard, but you have options. Several options. But one conclusion that strikes me is the side effect of our efforts. We refactored original code in order to make it testable. But the final production code is not only testable, but also much better structured and robust. Surprisingly it's even source-code compatible with previous version as we barely changed return type from void to Future. It seems to be a rule - testable code is often better designed and implemented. Unit test is the first client code using our library. It naturally forces us to to think more about consumers, not the implementation.

A key decision in building and managing any development team is agreeing on how ownership of the code will be divided up: who is going to work on what code; how much work can be, and should be, shared across the team; and who will be responsible for code quality. The approach that you take has immediate impact on the team’s performance and success, and a long-term impact on the shape and quality of the code. Martin Fowler describes three different models for code ownership on a team: Strong code ownership – every module is owned exclusively by someone, developers can only change the code that they own, and if they need to change somebody else’s code, they need to talk to that owner and get the owner’s agreement first – except maybe in emergencies. Weak code ownership – where modules are still assigned to owners, but developers are allowed to change code owned by other people. Owners are expected to keep an eye on any changes that other people make, and developers are expected to ask for permission first before making changes to somebody else’s code. This can be thought of as a shared custody model, where an individual is forced to share ownership of their code with others; or Code Stewardship, where the team owns all of the code, but one person is held responsible for the quality of specific code, and for helping other people make changes to it, reviewing and approving all major changes, or pairing up with other developers as necessary. Brad Appleton says the job of a code steward is not to make all of the changes to a piece of code, but to “safeguard the integrity + consistency of that code (both conceptually and structurally) and to widely disseminate knowledge and expertise about it to others”. Collective Code Ownership – the code base is owned or shared by the entire team, and everyone is free to make whatever changes they need – or want – to make, including refactoring or rewriting code that somebody else originally wrote. This is a model that came out of Extreme Programming, where the Whole Team is responsible together for the quality and integrity of the code and for understanding and keeping the design. Arguments against Strong/Individual Code Ownership Fowler and other XP advocates such as Kent Beck don’t like strong individual code ownership, because it creates artificial barriers and dependencies inside the team. Work will stall and pause if you need to wait for somebody to make or even approve a change, and one owner can often become the critical path for the entire team. This could encourage developers to come up with their own workarounds and compromises. For example, instead of changing an API properly (which would involve a change to somebody else’s code), they might shoe horn in a change, like stuffing something into an existing field. Or they might take a copy of somebody’s code and add whatever they need to it, making maintenance harder in the future. Other arguments against strong ownership are that it can lead to defensiveness and protectionism on the part of some developers (“hey, don’t touch my code!”), where they take any criticism of the code as a personal attack, creating tension on the team and discouraging reviewers from offering feedback and discouraging refactoring efforts; and local over-optimization, if developers are given too much time to spend to polish and perfect their precious code without thinking of the bigger picture. And of course there is the “hit by a truck factor” to consider – the impact that a person leaving the team will have on productivity if they’re the only one who works on a piece of code. Ward Cunningham. one of the original XPers, also believes that there is more pride of ownership when code is shared, because everyone’s work is always on display to everyone else on the team. Arguments against Collective Code Ownership But there are also arguments against Collective Code Ownership. A post by Mike Spille lists some problems that he has seen when teams try to “over-share” code: Inconsistency. No overriding architecture is discernible, just individual solutions to individual problems. Lots of duplication of effort results, often leading to inconsistent behavior Bugs. People "refactoring" code they don't really understand break something subtle in the original code. Constant rounds of "The Blame Game". People have a knee jerk reaction to bugs, saying "It worked when I wrote it, but since Joe refactored it....well, that's his problem now.". Slow delivery. Nobody has any expertise in any given domain, so people are spending more time trying to understand other people's code, less time writing new code. Matthias Friedrich, in Thoughts on Collective Code Ownership believes that Collective Code Ownership can only work if you have the right conditions in place: Team members are all on a similar skill level Programmers work carefully and trust each other The code base is in a good state Unit tests are in place to detect problematic changes (although unit tests only go so far) Remember that Collective Code Ownership came out of Extreme Programming. Successful team ownership depends on everyone sharing an understanding of the domain and the design, and maintaining a high-level of technical discipline: not only writing really good automated tests as a safety net, but everyone following consistent code conventions and standards across the code base, and working in pairs because hopefully one of you knows the code, or at least with two heads you can try to help each other understand it and make fewer mistakes. Another problem with Collective Code Ownership is that ownership is spread so thin. Justin Hewlett talks about the Tragedy of the Commons problem: people will take care of their own yard, but how many people will pick up somebody else’s litter in the park, or on a street - even if they walk in that park or down that street everyday? If the code belongs to everyone, then there is always “someone else” who can take care of it – whoever that “someone else” may be. As a developer, you’re under pressure, and you may never touch this piece of code again, so why not get whatever you need to do as quickly as possible and get on to the next thing on your list, and let "somebody else" worry about refactoring or writing that extra unit test or...? Code Ownership in the Real World I've always worked on or with teams that follow individual (strong or weak) code ownership, except for an experiment in pure XP and Collective Code Ownership on one team over 10 years ago. One (or maybe two) people own different pieces of the code and do all or most of the heavy lifting work on that code. Because it only makes sense to have the people who understand the code best do most of the work, or the most important work. It’s not just because you want the work “done right” – sometimes you don’t really have a choice over who is going to do the work. As Ralf Sudelbucher points out, Collective Code ownership assumes that all coding work is interchangeable within a team, which is not always true. Some work isn't interchangeable because of technology: different parts of a system can be written in different languages, with different architectures. You have to learn the language and the framework before you can start to understand the other problems that need to be solved. Or it might be because of the problem space. Sure, there is always coding on any project that is “just typing”: journeyman work that is well understood, like scaffolding work or writing another web form or another CRUD screen or fixing up a report or converting a file format, work that has to be done and can be taken on by anyone who has been on the team for a while and who understands where to find stuff and how things are done – or who pairs up with somebody who knows this. But other software development involves solving hard domain problems and technical problems that require a lot of time to understand properly – where it can take days, weeks, months or sometimes even years to immerse yourself in the problem space well enough to know what to do, where anyone can’t just jump in and start coding, or even be of much help in a pair programming situation. The worst disasters occur when you turn loose sorcerers' apprentices on code they don't understand. In a typical project, not everyone can know everything - except in some mature domains where there have been few business paradigm shifts in the past decade or two. Jim Coplien, Code Ownership I met someone who manages software development for a major computer animation studio. His team has a couple of expert developers who did their PHDs and post grad work in animating hair – that’s all that they do, and even if you are really smart you’ll need years of study and experience just to understand how they do what they do. Lots of scientific and technical engineering domains are also like this – maybe not so deeply specialized, but they involve non-trivial work that can’t be easily or competently done by generalists, even competent generalists. Programming medical devices or avionics or robotics or weapons control; or any business domain where you are working at the leading edge of problem solving, applying advanced statistical models to big data analysis or financial trading algorithms or risk-management models; or supercomputing and high-scale computing and parallel programming, or writing an operating system kernel or solving cryptography problems or doing a really good job of User Experience (UX) design. Not everyone understands the problems that need to be solved, not everyone cares about the problems and not everyone can do a good job of solving them. Ownership and Doing it Right If you want the work done right, or need it to be done right the first time, it should be done by someone who has worked on the code before, who knows it and who has proven that they can get the job done. Not somebody who has only a superficial familiarity with the code. Research work by Microsoft and others have shown that as more people touch the same piece of code, there is more chance of misunderstandings and mistakes – and that the people who have done the most work on a piece of code are the ones who make the fewest mistakes. Fowler comes back to this in a later post about “Shifting to Code Ownership” where he shares a story from a colleague who shifted a team from collective code ownership to weak individual code ownership because weaker or less experienced programmers were making mistakes in core parts of the code and impacting quality, velocity and the team’s morale. They changed their ownership model so anyone could work around the code base, but if they needed to change core code, they had to do this with the help of someone who knew that part of the code well. In deciding on an an ownership approach, you have to make a trade-off between flexibility and quality, team ownership and individual ownership. With individual ownership you can have siloing problems and dependencies on critical people, and you’ll have to watch out for trucks. But you can get more done, faster, better and by fewer people.

1. Goal In the previous article, we looked at how we can use the generic Blob APIs from jclouds to upload content to S3. In this article we will use the S3 specific asynchronous API from jclouds to upload content and leverage the multipart upload functionality provided by S3. 2. Preparation 2.1. Set up the custom API The first part of the upload process is creating the jclouds API – this is a custom API for Amazon S3: public AWSS3AsyncClient s3AsyncClient() { String identity = ... String credentials = ... BlobStoreContext context = ContextBuilder.newBuilder("aws-s3"). credentials(identity, credentials).buildView(BlobStoreContext.class); RestContext providerContext = context.unwrap(); return providerContext.getAsyncApi(); } 2.2. Determining the number of parts for the content Amazon S3 has a 5 MB limit for each part to be uploaded. As such, the first thing we need to do is determine the right number of parts that we can split our content into so that we don’t have parts below this 5 MB limit: public static int getMaximumNumberOfParts(byte[] byteArray) { int numberOfParts= byteArray.length / fiveMB; // 5*1024*1024 if (numberOfParts== 0) { return 1; } return numberOfParts; } 2.3. Breaking the content into parts Were going to break the byte array into a set number of parts: public static List breakByteArrayIntoParts(byte[] byteArray, int maxNumberOfParts) { List parts = Lists. newArrayListWithCapacity(maxNumberOfParts); int fullSize = byteArray.length; long dimensionOfPart = fullSize / maxNumberOfParts; for (int i = 0; i < maxNumberOfParts; i++) { int previousSplitPoint = (int) (dimensionOfPart * i); int splitPoint = (int) (dimensionOfPart * (i + 1)); if (i == (maxNumberOfParts - 1)) { splitPoint = fullSize; } byte[] partBytes = Arrays.copyOfRange(byteArray, previousSplitPoint, splitPoint); parts.add(partBytes); } return parts; } We’re going to test the logic of breaking the byte array into parts – we’re going to generate some bytes, split the byte array, recompose it back together using Guava and verify that we get back the original: @Test public void given16MByteArray_whenFileBytesAreSplitInto3_thenTheSplitIsCorrect() { byte[] byteArray = randomByteData(16); int maximumNumberOfParts = S3Util.getMaximumNumberOfParts(byteArray); List fileParts = S3Util.breakByteArrayIntoParts(byteArray, maximumNumberOfParts); assertThat(fileParts.get(0).length + fileParts.get(1).length + fileParts.get(2).length, equalTo(byteArray.length)); byte[] unmultiplexed = Bytes.concat(fileParts.get(0), fileParts.get(1), fileParts.get(2)); assertThat(byteArray, equalTo(unmultiplexed)); } To generate the data, we simply use the support from Random: byte[] randomByteData(int mb) { byte[] randomBytes = new byte[mb * 1024 * 1024]; new Random().nextBytes(randomBytes); return randomBytes; } 2.4. Creating the Payloads Now that we have determined the correct number of parts for our content and we managed to break the content into parts, we need to generate the Payload objects for the jclouds API: public static List createPayloadsOutOfParts(Iterable fileParts) { List payloads = Lists.newArrayList(); for (byte[] filePart : fileParts) { byte[] partMd5Bytes = Hashing.md5().hashBytes(filePart).asBytes(); Payload partPayload = Payloads.newByteArrayPayload(filePart); partPayload.getContentMetadata().setContentLength((long) filePart.length); partPayload.getContentMetadata().setContentMD5(partMd5Bytes); payloads.add(partPayload); } return payloads; } 3. Upload The upload process is a flexible multi-step process – this means: the upload can be started before having all the data – data can be uploaded as it’s coming in data is uploaded in chunks – if one of these operations fails, it can simply be retrieved chunks can be uploaded in parallel – this can greatly increase the upload speed, especially in the case of large files 3.1. Initiating the Upload operation The first step in the Upload operation is to initiate the process. This request to S3 must contain the standard HTTP headers – the Content-MD5 header in particular needs to be computed. Were going to use the Guava hash function support here: Hashing.md5().hashBytes(byteArray).asBytes(); This is the md5 hash of the entire byte array, not of the parts yet. To initiate the upload, and for all further interactions with S3, we’re going to use the AWSS3AsyncClient – the asynchronous API we created earlier: ObjectMetadata metadata = ObjectMetadataBuilder.create().key(key).contentMD5(md5Bytes).build(); String uploadId = s3AsyncApi.initiateMultipartUpload(container, metadata).get(); The key is the handle assigned to the object – this needs to be a unique identifier specified by the client. Also notice that, even though we’re using the async version of the API, we’re blocking for the result of this operation – this is because we will need the result of the initialize to be able to move forward. The result of the operation is an upload id returned by S3 – this will identify the upload throughout it’s lifecycle and will be present in all subsequent upload operations. 3.2. Uploading the Parts The next step is uploading the parts. Our goal here is to send these requests in parallel, as the upload parts operation represent the bulk of the upload process: List> ongoingOperations = Lists.newArrayList(); for (int partNumber = 0; partNumber < filePartsAsByteArrays.size(); partNumber++) { ListenableFuture future = s3AsyncApi.uploadPart( container, key, partNumber + 1, uploadId, payloads.get(partNumber)); ongoingOperations.add(future); } The part numbers need to be continuous but the order in which the requests are send is not relevant. After all of the upload part requests have been submitted, we need to wait for their responses so that we can collect the individual ETag value of each part: Function, String> getEtagFromOp = new Function, String>() { public String apply(ListenableFuture ongoingOperation) { try { return ongoingOperation.get(); } catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) { throw new IllegalStateException(e); } } }; List etagsOfParts = Lists.transform(ongoingOperations, getEtagFromOp); If, for whatever reason, one of the upload part operations fails, the operation can be retried until it succeeds. The logic above does not contain the retry mechanism, but building it in should be straightforward enough. 3.3. Completing the Upload operation The final step of the upload process is completing the multipart operation. The S3 API requires the responses from the previous parts upload as a Map, which we can now easily create from the list of ETags that we obtained above: Map parts = Maps.newHashMap(); for (int i = 0; i < etagsOfParts.size(); i++) { parts.put(i + 1, etagsOfParts.get(i)); } And finally, send the complete request: s3AsyncApi.completeMultipartUpload(container, key, uploadId, parts).get(); This will return final ETag of the finished object and will complete the entire upload process. 4. Conclusion In this article we built a multipart enabled, fully parallel upload operation to S3, using the custom S3 jclouds API. This operation is ready to be used as is, but it can be improved in a few ways. First, retry logic should be added around the upload operations to better deal with failures. Next, for really large files, even though the mechanism is sending all upload multipart requests in parallel, a throttling mechanism should still limit the number of parallel requests being sent. This is both to avoid bandwidth becoming a bottleneck as well as to make sure Amazon itself doesn’t flag the upload process as exceeding an allowed limit of requests per second – the Guava RateLimiter can potentially be very well suited for this. P.S. You might dig following me on Twitter.

inversion of control is one of the most common and widely used techniques for handling class dependencies in software development and could easily be the most important practice in unit testing. basically, it determines if your code is unit-testable or not. not just that, but it can also help improve significantly your overall software structure and design. but what is it all about? it is really that important? hopefully we’ll clear those out on the following lines. identifying class dependencies as we mentioned before, inversion of control is a technique used to handle class dependencies effectively; but, what exactly is a dependency ? in real life, for instance, a car needs an engine in order to function; without it, it probably won’t work at all. in programming it is the same thing; when a class needs another one in order to function properly, it has a dependency on it. this is called a class dependency or coupling . let’s look at the following code example: public class usermanager { private md5passwordhasher passwordhasher; public usermanager() { this.passwordhasher = new md5passwordhasher(); } public void resetpassword(string username, string password) { // get the user from the database user user = datacontext.users.getbyname(username); string hashedpassword = this.passwordhasher.hash(password); // set the user new password user.password = hashedpassword; // save the user back to the database. datacontext.users.update(user); datacontext.commit(); } // more methods... } public class md5passwordhasher { public string hash(string plaintextpassword) { // hash password using an encryption algorithm... } } the previous code describes two classes, usermanager and passwordhasher . we can see how usermanager class initializes a new instance of the passwordhasher class on its constructor and keeps it as a class-level variable so all methods in the class can use it (line 3). the method we are going to focus on is the resetpassword method. as you might have already noticed, the line 15 is highlighted. this line makes use of the passwordhasher instance, hence, marking a strong class dependency between usermanager and passwordhasher . don’t call us, we’ll call you when a class creates instances of its dependencies, it knows what implementation of that dependency is using and probably how it works. the class is the one controlling its own behavior. by using inversion of control, anyone using that class can specify the concrete implementation of each of the dependencies used by it; this time the class user is the one partially controlling the class behavior (or how it behaves on the parts where it uses those provided dependencies). anyways, all of this is quite confusing. let’s look at an example: public class usermanager { private ipasswordhasher passwordhasher; public usermanager(ipasswordhasher passwordhasher) { this.passwordhasher = passwordhasher; } public void resetpassword(string username, string password) { // get the user from the database user user = datacontext.users.getbyname(username); string hashedpassword = this.passwordhasher.hash(password); // set the user new password user.password = hashedpassword; // save the user back to the database. datacontext.users.update(user); datacontext.commit(); } // more methods... } public interface ipasswordhasher { string hash(string plaintextpassword); } public class md5passwordhasher : ipasswordhasher { public string hash(string plaintextpassword) { // hash password using an encryption algorithm... } } inversion of control is usually implemented by applying a design pattern called the strategy pattern (as defined in the gang of four book). this pattern consists on abstracting concrete component and algorithm implementations from the rest of the classes by exposing only an interface they can use; thus making implementations interchangeable at runtime and encapsulate how these implementations work since any class using them should not care about how they work. so, in order to achieve this, we need to sort some things out: abstract an interface from the md5passwordhasher class, ipasswordhasher ; so anyone can write custom implementations of password hashers (line 28-31). mark the md5passwordhasher class as an implementation of the ipasswordhasher interface (line 33). change the type of the password hasher used by usermanager to ipasswordhasher (line 3). add a new constructor parameter of type ipasswordhasher interface (line 5), which is the instance the usermanager class will use to hash its passwords. this way we delegate the creation of dependencies to the user of the class and allows the user to provide any implementation it wants, allowing it to control how the password is going to be hashed. this is the very essence of inversion of control: minimize class coupling. the user of the usermanager class has now control over how passwords are hashed. password hashing control has been inverted from the class to the user. here is an example on how we can specify the only dependency of the usermanager class: ipasswordhasher md5passwordhasher = new md5passwordhasher(); usermanager usermanager = new usermanager(md5passwordhasher); usermanager.resetpassword("luis.aguilar", "12345"); so, why is this useful? well, we can go crazy and create our own hasher implementation to be used by the usermanager class: // plain text password hasher: public class plaintextpasswordhasher : ipasswordhasher { public string hash(string plaintextpassword) { // let's disable password hashing by returning // the plain text password. return plaintextpassword; } } // usage: ipasswordhasher plaintextpasswordhasher = new plaintextpasswordhasher(); usermanager usermanager = new usermanager(plaintextpasswordhasher); // resulting password will be: 12345. usermanager.resetpassword("luis.aguilar", "12345"); conclusion so, this concludes our article on inversion of control. hopefully with a little more practice, you will be able to start applying this to your code. of course, the biggest benefit of this technique is related to unit testing. so, what does it has to do with unit testing? well, we’re going to see this when we get into type mocking . so, stay tuned!

There are several good ways to upload content to an S3 bucket in the Java world – in this article we’ll look at what the jclouds library provides for this purpose. To use jclouds – specifically the APIs discussed in this article, this simple Maven dependency should be added to the pom of the project: org.jclouds jclouds-allblobstore 1.5.9 1. Uploading to Amazon S3 The first step, in order to access any of these APIs, is to create a BlobStoreContext: BlobStoreContext context = ContextBuilder.newBuilder("aws-s3").credentials(identity, credentials) .buildView(BlobStoreContext.class); This represents the entry-point to a general key-value storage service, such as Amazon S3 – but not limited to it. For the more specific S3 only implementation, the context can be created similarly: BlobStoreContext context = ContextBuilder.newBuilder("aws-s3").credentials(identity, credentials) .buildView(S3BlobStoreContext.class); And even more specifically: BlobStoreContext context = ContextBuilder.newBuilder("aws-s3").credentials(identity, credentials) .buildView(AWSS3BlobStoreContext.class); When the authenticated context is no longer needed, closing it is required to release all resources – threads and connections – associated to it. 2. The four S3 APIs of jclouds The jclouds library provides four different APIs to upload content to S3 bucket, ranging from simple but inflexible to complex and powerful, all obtained via the BlobStoreContext. Let’s start with the simplest. 2.1. Upload via the Map API The easiest way jclouds can be used to interact with an S3 bucket is by representing that bucket as a Map. The API is obtained from the context: InputStreamMap bucket = context.createInputStreamMap("bucketName"); Then, to upload a simple HTML file: bucket.putString("index1.html", "hello world1"); The InputStreamMap API exposes several other types of PUT operations – files, raw bytes – both for single and bulk. A simple integration test can be used as an example: @Test public void whenFileIsUploadedToS3WithMapApi_thenNoExceptions() { BlobStoreContext context = ContextBuilder.newBuilder("aws-s3").credentials(identity, credentials) .buildView(AWSS3BlobStoreContext.class); InputStreamMap bucket = context.createInputStreamMap("bucketName"); bucket.putString("index1.html", "hello world1"); context.close(); } 2.2. Upload via BlobMap Using the simple Map API is straightforward but ultimately limited – for example, there is no way to pass in metadata about the content being uploaded. When more flexibility and customization is necessary, this simplified approach to uploading data to S3 via a Map is no longer enough. The next API we’ll look at is the Blob Map API – this is obtained from the context: BlobMap bucket = context.createBlobMap("bucketName"); The API allows the client to access more lower level details, such as Content-Length, Content-Type, Content-Encoding, eTag hash and others; to upload new content in the bucket: Blob blob = bucket.blobBuilder().name("index2.html"). payload("hello world2"). contentType("text/html").calculateMD5().build(); The API also allows setting a variety of payloads on the create request. A simple integration test for uploading a basic HTML file to S3 via the Blob Map API: @Test public void whenFileIsUploadedToS3WithBlobMap_thenNoExceptions() throws IOException { BlobStoreContext context = ContextBuilder.newBuilder("aws-s3").credentials(identity, credentials) .buildView(AWSS3BlobStoreContext.class); BlobMap bucket = context.createBlobMap("bucketName"); Blob blob = bucket.blobBuilder().name("index2.html"). payload("hello world2"). contentType("text/html").calculateMD5().build(); bucket.put(blob.getMetadata().getName(), blob); context.close(); } 2.3. Upload via BlobStore The previous APIs had no way to upload content using multipart upload – this makes them ill suited when working with large files. This limitation is addressed by the next API we’re going to look at – the synchronous BlobStore API. This is obtained from the context: BlobStore blobStore = context.getBlobStore(); To use the multipart support and upload a file to S3: Blob blob = blobStore.blobBuilder("index3.html"). payload("hello world3").contentType("text/html").build(); blobStore.putBlob("bucketName", blob, PutOptions.Builder.multipart()); The payload builder is the same one that was being used by the BlobMap API, so the same flexibility in specifying lower level metadata information about the blob is available here. The difference is the PutOptions supported by the PUT operation of the API – namely the multipart support. The previous integration test now has multipart enabled: @Test public void whenFileIsUploadedToS3WithBlobStore_thenNoExceptions() { BlobStoreContext context = ContextBuilder.newBuilder("aws-s3").credentials(identity, credentials) .buildView(AWSS3BlobStoreContext.class); BlobStore blobStore = context.getBlobStore(); Blob blob = blobStore.blobBuilder("index3.html"). payload("hello world3").contentType("text/html").build(); blobStore.putBlob("bucketName", blob, PutOptions.Builder.multipart()); context.close(); } 2.4. Upload via AsyncBlobStore While the previous BlobStore API was synchronous, there is also an asynchronous API for BlobStore – AsyncBlobStore. The API is similarly obtained from the context: AsyncBlobStore blobStore = context.getAsyncBlobStore(); The only difference between the two is that the async API is returning ListenableFuture for the PUT asynchronous operation: Blob blob = blobStore.blobBuilder("index4.html"). .payload("hello world4").build(); blobStore.putBlob("bucketName", blob).get(); The integration test displaying this operation is similar to the synchronous one: @Test public void whenFileIsUploadedToS3WithBlobStore_thenNoExceptions() { BlobStoreContext context = ContextBuilder.newBuilder("aws-s3").credentials(identity, credentials) .buildView(AWSS3BlobStoreContext.class); BlobStore blobStore = context.getBlobStore(); Blob blob = blobStore.blobBuilder("index4.html"). payload("hello world4").contentType("text/html").build(); Future putOp = blobStore.putBlob("bucketName", blob, PutOptions.Builder.multipart()); putOp.get(); context.close(); } 3. Conclusion In this article, we analysed the four APIs that the jclouds library provides to upload content to Amazon S3. These four APIs are generic and they work with other key-value storage services as well – such as Microsoft Azure Storage for example. In the next article we’ll look at the Amazon specific S3 API available in jclouds – the AWSS3Client. We’ll implement the operation of uploading a large file, dynamically calculate the optimal number of parts for any given file, and perform the upload of all parts in parallel. P.S. You might dig following me on Twitter.

it happens to me many times: i’m stepping with the debugger through my code, and ups! i made one step too far! debugging, and made one step over too far what now? restart the whole debugging session? actually, there is a way to go ‘backwards’ gdb has a ‘reverse debugging’ feature, described here . i’m using the eclipse based codewarrior debugger, and this debug engine is not using gdb. the codewarrior debugger in mcu10.3 supports an eclipse feature: i select a code line in the editor view and use move to line : move to line what it does: it changes the current pc (program counter) of the program to that line: performed move to line now i can continue debugging from that line, e.g. stepping into that function call. yes, this is not true backward debugging. but it is simple and very effective. to perform true backward stepping, the debugger would need to reverse all operations, typically with a rather heavy state machine and data recording. but for the usual case where i simply need to go back a few lines, the ‘move to line’ is perfect. of course there are a few points to consider: this only changes the program counter. any variable changes/etc are not affected or reverted. in case of highly optimized code, there might be multiple sequence points per source line. so doing this for highly optimized code might not work correctly. it works ok within a function. it is not recommended to use it e.g. to set the pc outside of a function. because the context/stack frame is not set up. i use the ‘move to line’ frequently to ‘advance’ the program execution. e.g. to bypass some long sequences i’m not interested in, or to get out of an ‘endless’ loop. the same ‘move to line’ as available while doing assembly stepping too. see this post for details. happy line moving

ActiveMQ is one of the most popular messaging frameworks. For sure the most popular open source framework. Many people think that ActiveMQ works only with Java and this is not true at all. ActiveMQ can work with almost every popular language (including JavaScript!) through numerous protocols which it supports. Today I will show you how to use ActiveMQ in .NET-based solutions. Project setup Using VS 2010's Extension Manger I installed NuGet Package Manager. After installation and VS 2010 restart, I created a project called ActiveMQNMS. I right-clicked it and selected "Manage NuGet packages...". In the search field I typed: "ActiveMQ". There was a package called Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ. I installed it. (Note: ActiveMQ has one dependency - Apache.NMS package. The NMS package provides a unified API for working with different messaging frameworks and providers.) Starting ActiveMQ I already had ActiveMQ installed on my machine. If you don't have one, download it from http://activemq.apache.org. The default instance listens on 61616 port. However, mine is listening on 62626. If you want to run my code, please remember to change the port. To start ActiveMQ I executed: activemq-5.5.0\bin\activemq Depending on configured ports, you can use ActiveMQ web console to manage your queues, topics, subscribers, connections, embedded Apache Camel, etc. I'm using 8282 port, and the console URL is: http://localhost:8282/admin. Test stub In general the .NET API is almost a copy of the Java API. So if you're familiar with JMS and/or ActiveMQ you don't need any documentation. Please note TestIntialize and TestCleanup methods. using System; using Apache.NMS; using Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; namespace ActiveMQNMS { [Serializable] public class Person { public string FirstName { get; set; } public string LastName { get; set; } } [TestClass] public class ActiveMqTest { private IConnection _connection; private ISession _session; private const String QUEUE_DESTINATION = "DotNet.ActiveMQ.Test.Queue"; [TestInitialize] public void TestInitialize() { IConnectionFactory factory = new ConnectionFactory("tcp://localhost:62626"); _connection = factory.CreateConnection(); _connection.Start(); _session = _connection.CreateSession(); } [TestCleanup] public void TestCleanup() { _session.Close(); _connection.Close(); } } } Writing Producer Here is the producer: [TestMethod] public void TestA() { IDestination dest = _session.GetQueue(QUEUE_DESTINATION); using (IMessageProducer producer = _session.CreateProducer(dest)) { var person = new Person { FirstName = "Łukasz", LastName = "Budnik" }; var objectMessage = producer.CreateObjectMessage(person); producer.Send(objectMessage); } } Run the test and refresh "Queues" list in ActiveMQ web console. You should see DotNet.ActiveMQ.Test.Queue queue with 1 enqueued and pending message. Purge the queue by hitting the purge link or you simply delete it. Writing Consumer Now we have to consume the message. Here is the code: [TestMethod] public void TestB() { Person person = null; IDestination dest = _session.GetQueue(QUEUE_DESTINATION); using (IMessageConsumer consumer = _session.CreateConsumer(dest)) { IMessage message; while ((message = consumer.Receive(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(2000))) != null) { var objectMessage = message as IObjectMessage; if (objectMessage != null) { person = objectMessage.Body as Person; if (person != null) { Assert.AreEqual("Łukasz", person.FirstName); Assert.AreEqual("Budnik", person.LastName); } } else { Assert.Fail("Object Message is null"); } } } if (person == null) { Assert.Fail("Person object is null"); } } Run tests. Refresh "Queues" tab in ActiveMQ web console. You should see 1 message enqueued and 1 message dequeued. As expected. Summary That's all. Simple, isn't it? ActiveMQ works very, very nicely with .NET. I have to find some performance comparison for ActiveMQ and MS or pure .C#/NET messaging frameworks. Or maybe you have it? Please share. cheers, Łukasz

Recently I found myself sending more and more business metrics to Datadog, a Software as a Service solution that promises to collect all your data points and build business metrics, displaying them as graphs and triggering alerts whenever they get to critically low (or high) levels. The goals The more your automated tests raises their level of abstraction, the more they become oriented to external quality (what the customer wants and does) instead of internal quality (low coupling, high cohesion of the software design). The largest end-to-end tests that we have in place at Onebip connect several different projects on an integration server and run everything from the creation of a purchase or subscription to its renewal and termination (events that would happen months after creation). However, even end-to-end tests cannot guarantee that our applications work against external resources, such as merchants, mobile carrier, and ISPs. The only way to catch integration problems is monitoring. These problems, like a mobile carrier experiencing an outage, may be due to our errors or to external conditions; but they should nevertheless be discovered as early as possible. The infrastructure Datadog is the only data-collection service that passed the stress tests of SLL, our solution architect. It ships as an UDP server that you pay basing on the number of machines you want to run it on; for example, a preproduction and a production server are a common choice to start out. The server collects data locally and periodically uploads it to Datadog in bursts, where you can access it via a web application or via APIs in case you want to call it from your build. The UDP protocol is aligned with the goals of metric collections: a silent server that decouples the sending of metrics from the rest of the business logic: UDP packets are just lost if no process is there listening to them, no errors are raised if the server crashes or is not running or installed for some reason for instance in development machines). The monitoring code, which you write, should be decoupled and asynchronous as much as possible. The part that talks over the network is already externalized in the DataDog server, but you don't want the user to wait because you have to send some strange number. So the internal part (sending via UDP) is performed in Listener objects that implement the Observer pattern. These object still have to be wrapped in all-encompassing try/catch constructs so that any errors in the monitoring part never influence the business logic. Againg, you don't want a payment to fail because of an exception in how monitoring DateTime objects are built. For PHP we built a SilentListener class to wrap all of our object: class SilentListener { private $wrapped; public function __construct($wrapped) { $this->wrapped = $wrapped; } public function __call($method, $args) { try { call_user_func_array(array($this->wrapped, $method), $args); } catch (Exception $e) { $this->log($e); } } }SLL An example In some countries, we receive payments through mobile-originated messages (MO), a fancy word for saying SMS sent by the end user. So a simple way to monitor if we are receiving payment or if the server is exploded is to upload a metric counting them every time we receive one (pseudo-JSON format to show you the data): { counter: 1 } However, we can be more precise than this: an external outage or an integration problem may happen to a lower level than the whole application. For example, MOs can be delayed in Argentina, by a single carrier, while the rest of the world is still working fine. So our data points look like this: { counter: 1, tags: { country: "IT", carrier: "Vodafone", merchant: "Tasty Cookies, Inc.", } } and in turn graphs on DataDog or calls to its API can set up filters so that we can, if necessary, view only the data related to any combination of country, carrier and merchant. The nice thing, SLL says, is that you just start send data from production and only after you have data points available you build a graph or an alert system basing on what appears to be the most important tags. For example, a big merchant may benefit from some dedicated monitoring, while minor countries such as Vietnam should be monitored as a whole since their traffic is by far lower than that of the others.

I've put together a quick tutorial that gets a ViewPager up and running (with the Support Library), in just a few steps.