This is just an example, but lets say I have an IBD of context “vehicle”. In the IBD I have part properties “vehicle.car.navSystem” with proxy ports and connectors to “vehicle.car.navSystem.gps” and “vehicle.car.navSystem.display”.
I want to change the hierarchy “vehicle.car.navSystem” to “vehicle.truck.navSystem”, where the “truck” block already exists, but I want to keep both blocks “truck” and “car”, without having to manually remake all of the connectors and instances of part properties. So I’d end up with “vehicle.car” without the part “navSystem”, and in the IBD of “vehicle” I’d have “vehicle.truck.navSystem” with connectors to “vehicle.truck.navSystem.gps” and “vehicle.truck.navSystem.display”.
I hope that makes sense. Thank you.
Related
So as a project matures it will almost certainly be necessary to modify attributes of the resource definitions to cope with additional requirements.
Let's use two trivial examples - to add a country code to a client address, or to remove a middle initial and swap in a middle name field instead.
Currently if the resource definition changes, composer won't read whatever values are extant in the repository. I didn't exhaustively try all combos, but have had to reconstitute my blockchain at least twice because of this problem.
Is there a way to mark fields either as "new" or "deprecated" to get past this that I overlooked? It will be hard to make a case to move a system that can't be changed forward to production.
In the same vein it doesn't seem to like empty or null strings much (at least for participant attributes). Having an "optional" override somewhere would save a lot of extra bounds checking in my application. Is there one of those I missed too?
So you can use the APIs or REST to expose the legacy data? You may be referring to Playground above (its not really a tool for looking at production data, its for model prototyping/sandbox/testing type stuff).
On optional question - can just add that the field is optional in the model - example here -> https://github.com/hyperledger/composer-sample-networks/blob/master/packages/pii-network/models/pii.cto#L20
I am using GATE in one of my applications and I have few queries related to Multi-tenancy. My requirements are as given below.
I have the keywords set, specific for each user and depending on
which user is signed in, I need to initialise gazetteer with the
applicable set of keywords.
At a given time there could be multiple users logging into my
application and I want to make sure that the multi-tenancy
approach will not be inefficient.
I don't want to store the keywords for each user in the .lst
file(s) but store it on a DB (mongo) and inject only at the
runtime.
I searched the web for few samples and though I found some thoughts on working with Processing Resource, I have no idea how the performance will be affected.
Your help is much appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Sajith
That's an interesting use-case for a GATE gazetteer.
One thing I believe you should definitely do is add the user ID as a feature when you're creating the document. This way you'll be able to make your MongoDB query in a processing resource later on.
When you're processing the document, you have several options:
Create a custom PR which calls MongoDB and replicates the DefaultGazetteer code but with overwritten "init" method (or inherit or wrap it, haven't looked into much detail if that's possible). Instead of the default init method you should provide your list of keywords, then set the needed fields and call execute().
If you don't have too many keywords, create a custom PR (or groovy scripting PR) which calls MongoDB and does some simple regex search like the one in this thread.
They also suggest the stringsearch library in the comments. Then just use start and end indices to create Lookup annotations on your own.
You said you don't want that but still, several million words can be handled by both the default and the Hash gazetteer. Although, you should be careful as gate documents could be very memory-intensive if you have too many annotations - in your case Lookups for all user keywords.
Hope this helps.
Right now you can only set 'Allowed', 'Inherited' and 'Prohibited' per Joomla ACL. That's fine but far from complete. Consider the simple case you want to set a string per ACL, like 'allowed upload extensions'. There seems little or no information about.
Any ideas on this ? Its seems even more complicated when you want to register 'dynamic' parameters on the fly, so all this XML based persistence model you have in Joomla will fall a part as well...
Thanks!
This would be wrong, and a nightmare to debug (imagine guiding users when they start calling because they can't do something, and you have no idea where to look).
If you want your component to have more user-configurable actions, you can define some params in the config, where you set the list of extensions allowed in a custom action level, such as "extensions.safe", then assign that. You can create as many as you want. Find more info here
Unless you're proposing that existing components take into consideration arbitrarily defined dynamic parameters, it's hard to see how it could work.
I have a puppet environment where I need to add a variable number of very similar objects to a single server. The objects vary only by attributes such as name and path, all of which can be extrapolated from a single name parameter.
This seems like the perfect use for puppet resource definitions since multiple definitions can be added to a single server and their specific attributes can be taken from the definition name declaration.
This setup works well for me and I have had no issues getting it up and running on several servers. I have a requirement now however to hand this over to an ops department with almost no scripting experience, so they aren't really comfortable managing from the file system.
They requested a dashboard, so I setup puppet dashboard for them. After I set the dashboard up however, I found out that it only supports adding classes to servers, not definitions. This seems pretty shortsighted on the part of the folks at PuppetLabs, so I can only think that I am approaching this problem the wrong way and that there must be a solution using classes whereby multiple almost identical entities can be added to a single node.
I realize I could create a class for each entity, but there are hundreds, even thousands of potential variations so that's not really practical.
I have also considered a wrapper class that declares each definition on a per node basis, but this seems like more work to manage than it's worth.
Any thoughts on alternate approaches that would be compatible with the dashboard would be appreciated.
To make ENCs such as dashboard work this way, you have to pass in node data in the form of node variables. Note that Hiera is often preferable to plain node variables.
Generally, the value you want to hand in is an array of your resource titles
$resources = [ "name1", "name2", ... ]
Then classify your node with (at least) one class that instanciates your defined type using this data, e.g.
class my_resources {
my_defined_type { $resources: }
}
I'm quite new to Prism. I'm studying QuickStarts shipped with it as well as other examples on the net. Almost all of them make modules aware of what region their view(s) get dropped into. Typically, the method Initalize of a module has a line like the the following.
RegionManager.Regions["LeftRegion"].Add(fundView);
I feel quite uncomfortable with that. There's a similar discussion but I think that it should be the responsibility of the shell component to define such mapping. However, I cannot find any example of such approach and I'm not sure whether the bootstrapper is the right place to put such mapping in.
Is this approach completely wrong?
Nothing is completely wrong. But it makes no sense to have the shell/bootstrapper (that by design doesn't know anything about the application it will host) knows what view goes into which region.
Consider an application that can be extended by simply adding modules into a given folder. When you follow the approach that the module knows where it's views want to reside (the mapping is done in Initialize()), this is no problem. I designed my first Prism application that way.
But if your mapping is done in your shell you always have to update your shell (which is part of the base application, not any module) when you want to add another module. This runs contrary to the loosely coupling paradigm. Besides that you have to create one base application for every module constellation. And there are (2^number of modules) permutations you have to cover. That results in loosing your flexibility you gained by using Prism.