After reading the documentation on the website, I was very impressed with how easy it is to implement and use. However, I also noticed that it hasn't been officially released yet and it is still in beta.
I will soon start a new iOS project and I was wondering if realm is "stable" enough for production use. As many of you know, CoreData is a pain in the ___.
Thanks,
According to the folks at realm, the framework has been used in production, however, developers should expect the API to evolve as this is still in a beta stage.
Related
Not sure if this is the right place to ask this kind of questions because it is also a bit personal favor but what are your experiences with Xamarin UITest and/or Appium. Until now I only had experience with Appium but for our new project we maybe want to use Xamarin UITest.
Wrong answer, with Xamari UI Test framewor you can automate Progressive Mobile Apps, Hybrid apps a Native Apps, on Android and IOS
Some samples here:
[https://www.zuehlke.com/blog/en/mobile-ui-testing/][1]
We have a React Native app that we are currently testing with Xamarin UI Test, and I've spent quite a while comparing these test frameworks. It looks like our team is going to switch to Appium now. Here is what I like about Appium:
Much better documentation, more resources online
More features (which allows you to automate more stuff)
Runs slightly faster on Android (30% faster maybe), not seeing almost any difference with iOS
Bigger, more active community, less chance of framework becoming deprecated
Based on our experience it's more reliable. With Xamarin we kept getting "device port 27753 in use" or smth like that which we couldn't resolve.
More "device farm" options to run tests on. This is very important for us. With Xamarin the only options I've found are BitBar (flakey, adds about 5 minutes overhead to test runs) and Xamarin Test Cloud (expensive). With Appium there are more options (SauceLabs seems to be working great, we are only starting to use it though)
Allows you to choose from a lot of programming languages (our team is most comfortable with TypeScript)
Client-server architecture which allows test code to run on-premises (might not be a benefit to many teams, but it is to us), so the test code is able to access our internal APIs thanks to this
Firstly, SO is usually not the right place for such questions as such questions usually get closed as off-topic and primarily opinion based. Luckily, xamarin.uitest is a very unpopular tag, hence, your question survived :)
For what Xamarin.UITest does, its actually not bad. The biggest issue to consider is that Xamarin.UITest requires your app to be written using Xamarin.Forms and for me, personally, this is the biggest drawback.
Other issues, that I've encountered:
Scrolling is terribly slow
Limited API (Only basic UI properties can be evaluated, see here)
Minimal differences betqeen Android and iOS which can become really annoying, depending on your use case
Other than that, Xamarin.UITest is a pretty solid UI-testframework and if your app is written using Xamarin.Forms, I would recommend you to use Xamarin.UITest.
I've been looking at options for persistence when using RxSwift and Realm was looking attractive due to it's relative simplicity and the availability of some extensions in the community repo.
Unfortunately although I can get Realm and RxSwift working nicely in Xcode 8b6, things of seriously wrong as soon as you try to connect them together as RxRealm does not currently compile (there seems to be more going wrong with it than the Grand Renaming as far as I can tell).
Is there a workaround that is reliable? I can't believe for a moment that there isn't, I just can't find a resource at present. I was thinking of converting the Result object into an Set or Array and making this Observable but. I'm not sure if the contents (Realm Objects) are going to be handled correctly. Knowing my luck, I suspect not!
There's a Pull Request towards the RxRealm project adding Swift 3 support: https://github.com/RxSwiftCommunity/RxRealm/pull/26
I suggest you try using that.
More generally, targeting an Xcode beta will by definition give you a less stable software ecosystem, since no one is submitting apps with that and it's a moving target (often with weekly breaking changes). So if you want stable software, use stable tools. Realm and RxRealm both support Swift 2.2 quite well, so using that will give you the best experience.
I am preparing to start on a new short-term contract (1-2 months) that involves replacing an Access application by moving it to ASP.NET and SQL Server.
I am only responsible for the ASP part and connecting it to the database.
The only requirement is that whatever technologies I use be relatively well-known in the area, so that if they need to have someone else work on it, it isn't specialized knowledge.
So, I could do this in Rails or ASP.NET, but, when should the development be aiming for .NET 4 Framework, as there are many changes coming out that may be advantageous to use.
Or, even though it may be useful, when is it better to just ignore new features and stay on an older version of .NET?
I am assuming that hardware isn't the limitation, as many computers won't be able to run .NET 4 Framework, but that would be an issue for a hosting company, as they can find a hosting company to support whichever framework the application is designed for. If Rails makes the most sense, as their hope is to have the application written quickly, but have it reliable, then again, the hosting company would need to support it, or they use a different one.
This company hasn't used a hosting company, they need to find one, so there isn't a relationship that could be an issue.
UPDATE: Part of my concern is that initially the application will not require javascript, but phase 2 will be to make it more interactive, as some clients won't be allowed to have javascript on their computers. In order to limit how much javascript must be known by a developer there are frameworks that will adapt to browsers and situations fairly well, which is why I am also thinking about RoR and the fact that there appears to be changes coming out in .NET 4 that may help with this.
As a general rule of thumb, I wait one year before building sites in a new framework unless the client specifically asks for the newest technology. This has worked out very well for me. The advantages are:
The technology is much more stable (hotfixes, service packs, etc.)
Common complaints about missing functionality are usually resolved
Hosting companies, support communities and corporate IT departments have had time to get used to the technology, find out more about it, play around with it and have it mature within their organization
Unless there is specific need for new functionality introduced by .Net 4, there is no point in subjecting your clients to the immediate problems with an initial release, or making it more difficult for them to find hosting. You should either investigate all of this up-front, or use .Net 3.5 in the meantime.
The only requirement is that whatever
technologies I use that it be
relatively well-known in the area, so
that if they need to have someone else
work on it, it isn't specialized
knowledge.
I would have thought that requirement was enough not to develop this project on .NET 4.0 - it takes time for a new framework version to filter down into the market, and it will be a while yet before there are a lot of developers around with .NET 4.0 experience.
Also, you would be essentially developing on top of a BETA product - while I'm sure most of the features will remain unbroken from BETA -> RTM, there is always a risk that something will break or not work like it did in BETA, so why risk this on a commercial project?
I wouldn't target .NET 4.0 yet on a commercial project unless there was a specific reason for doing so, and even then you would have to have buy-in from the client, ie "I can do this much more quickly and with less effort if we use the current beta version X rather than established, stable version Y" - good luck with that.
I worked on a commercial project that used the CTP version of LINQ to SQL - then when we went to VS2008 / 3.5, suddenly everything changed and we had to make a lot of changes just to get LINQ to SQL working again.
Stick with 3.5 - it's easier for hosting and getting developers.
Just a couple of thoughts, I wouldn't even think about creating an application for production use in .NET 4/ASP.NET 4 until:
There is a release candidate. It's
not the first time I've seen
features in beta's not make it to
RC/RTM.
Microsoft have permitted development and deployment
of production applications by way of a 'Go
Live' license.
There are some hosters out in the market such as OrcsWeb who are participating in public beta testing, but they aren't intended for production use.
I'd run with the .NET 3.5/ASP.NET 2.0 or MVC bits for now. Better safe than sorry.
Generally speaking it's going to be easier finding hosting for a Rails app. If you want to run .net 4.0 you're probably going to have to run a VPS or dedicated machine. However if you're bailing after the application is finished and assuming your client is in Knoxville, they're going to have a tougher time finding a Rails developer to maintain the application.
I think the bigger question is your role. They're looking to you to solve this problem for them. Are you productive in both technologies? How about getting a Windows server up and running? A Linux server? How's your SQL Server vs MySql? I'd guess that you're probably stronger on one stack vs the other - for a contract that short I wouldn't want to be doing a lot of experimental development.
i wait until the OS that everyone will be using has it.
Just last month i took a dependancy on GDI+, which first shipped with Windows XP.
My company (a large organization) is developing a "road-map" for evolving their rather old, tangled confederation of systems to an SOA model. A few people are pushing hard for using Websphere Integration Developer and Websphere Process Server as the defacto platform for developing future applications...because they feel IBM is a stable vendor, the tools are made for the enterprise, they drank the "business agility" BPEL kool-aid, etc.
Does anyone have positive or negative thoughts on this platform? Do the GUI tools help eliminate monotonous/redundant coding...or just obscure things and make things harder to maintain? Basically, do the benefits justify the complexity?
My experience with the IBM Java tool set is pure pain. Days to install lots of different versions of different components all incompatible with each other, discover a bug in component A get told to update to see if it fixes, updating component A breaks component B and C, get told to update these etc.
I find Eclipse with out the IBM extensions far more stable and quicker and provides more features (as its stable versions are a couple releases ahead of WID/RAD).
I would advise against going the IBM way for development tools. As for process server I have less experience but the people in my team using it seemed to enjoy it as much as I enjoyed WID. not a lot.
So far I havent been impressed by any tools with the "SOA" and/or "BPM" labels on them. My "roadmap" would be very very iterative to see some results with the archetecture as fast as possible while trying to grab some of the easy fruits. That way you gain your feel for what works for you and your people.
I would never let any vendor push me anywhere in the "scuplturing" of the architecture.
I agree with other users complaining about WID. The only reason we are using WID is that a decision was made a while back to use IBM products across the board by our sales department.
That's right, our sales department made the decision to use IBM products.
Development has been painful and frustrating. We have lots of stability problems with Process Server, sometimes it doesn't want to start or shutdown properly. Yeah you can easily draw processes in the IDE, but most any toolset provides that functionality these days. It is nothing special or unique to WID or IBM. IBM is a few iterations behind mainstream.
There are plenty of open source implementations out there that offer great support. Checkout JBoss or RedHat, they are pretty good. If that doesn't float your boat, you can always use Apache tools.
Walter
Developers don't choose WID, WMB, or WPS. Managers do, because IBM is a "stable vendor".
Look at JBoss, or K.I.S.S.
WID/WPS is actually pretty simple. The original intention was for analysts and business people to "compose" services (DO NOT LET THEM DO THIS!) so the UI is simple and easy.
Most of the work will be in defineing and implementing the back end services which depending on the platform will mostly involve wrapping existing code in SOA service.
The most important thing to bear in mind is that SOAP is technoligy and SOA is an architecture and a state of mind.
There is a zen to a succesful SOA implementation. Its all about "business services", if you have a service that you cannot describe to a business user in less than six words you have done it wrong! Ideally the service name alone should be enough to describe the functionality of the service.
If you end up with a service called "MyApp.GetContactData" described as "get name, addresses tel fax etc." then you are there. If You have a service called MyAppGetFaxNoFromOldSys" described as "Retrieve current-fax-nmbr from telephony table in legacy system" you are doomed!
Incidently most of the Websphere tooling for WS* is pretty nice. But I would recommend the very wonderful SAOPUI tool from http://www.eviware.com which is very good for compsing/reading WSDL based messages and also function as a useful test client or server.
Do the GUI tools help eliminate monotonous/redundant coding...or just obscure things and make things harder to maintain? Basically, do the benefits justify the complexity?
As a Developer, I find the tools at varying levels of being bug free. 6.0.1 was a pain, 6.2 is so much better. But once you develop with the tool, there is minimal effort to maintain it. I develop in hours what java developers take days to do. It is also easy to maintain as changes can be made very quickly. I cannot answer your question from the perspective of an architect or a Manager but i would agree with comments of some others here.
I've been searching (with little success) for a free/opensource session clustering and replication solution for asp.net. I've run across the usual suspects (indexus sharedcache, memcached), however, each has some limitations.
Indexus - Very immature, stubbed session interface implementation. Its otherwise a great caching solution, though.
Memcached - Little replication/failover support without going to a db backend.
Several SF.Net projects - All aborted in the early stages... nothing that appears to have any traction, and one which seems to have gone all commercial.
Microsoft Velocity - Not OSS, but seems nice. Unfortunately, I didn't see where CTP1 supported failover, and there is no clear roadmap for this one. I fear that this one could fall off into the ether like many other MS dev projects.
I am fairly used to the Java world where it is kind of taken for granted that many solutions to problems such as this will be available from the FOSS world.
Are there any suitable alternatives available on the .Net world?
As far as Velocity is concerned I have heard some great things about that project lately. It's still in the developing stages and probably not primetime ready yet. But I think the project has a solid footing and will become a strong mature product from Microsoft and not fall off into the ether like you predict.
Recently I've heard podcasts from Scott Hanselman and Polymorphic Podcast regarding Velocity.
BTW Windows Server AppFabric is out of beta. That's what i mentioned in my previous post.
here is the link on general availability;- http://blogs.technet.com/b/appfabric/archive/2010/06/07/windows-server-appfabric-now-generally-available.aspx
which specific features do you think one can get on NCache and not on AppFabric?
Just a quick update on this thread for the sake of completion.
Velocity (now known as Windows Server AppFabric) is already out in the production and offers a great distributed caching platform. More details are available on the msdn site
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/ee695849.aspx
Although Velocity has made progress from CTP1 to CTP2, it still leaves much to be desired. It will be some time before they provide all the important features in a distributed cache and even longer before it is tested in the market. I wish them good luck.
In the meantime, NCache already provides all CTP2 & V1, and many more features. NCache is the first, the most mature, and the most feature-rich distributed cache in the .NET space. NCache is an enterprise level in-memory distributed cache for .NET and also provides a distributed ASP.NET Session State. Check it out at Distributed Cache.
NCache Express is a totally free version of NCache. Check it out at Free Distributed Cache.