Roel De Meester

Greenhorn
+ Follow
since Dec 22, 2003
Merit badge: grant badges
For More
Cows and Likes
Cows
Total received
0
In last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Likes
Total received
0
Received in last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Given in last 30 days
0
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Roel De Meester

Tnx..
Found it on that link .

I got 350 on 400

Considerations (maximum = 100): 90
Documentation (maximum = 70): 69
O-O Design (maximum = 30): 27
GUI (maximum = 40): 40
Locking (maximum = 80): 44
Data store (maximum = 40): 40
Network server (maximum = 40): 40

Apparantely lost a lot on LOCKING.
Can i ask them for more info on that particular part?

Greetz.. And thanks to all for the help..
Now up to SCWD...
17 years ago
I just received the SCJD kit containing a certificate and pin to congratulate me on my scjd fullfillment.
But where is my score?
I don't see it on the galton site, not in the history, not in email..
Should i wait a bit longer?

[Andrew: Changed title]
[ April 18, 2005: Message edited by: Andrew Monkhouse ]
17 years ago

Originally posted by Andrew Monkhouse:
I agree with Max - 3 months at 10 hours a week is reasonable for most people.

Regards, Andrew



It has been 11 months now since i started coding and reading through the great discussions on this forum. It took me about 4 months [10 hours a week] to finish test and javadoc the program. It is taking me 7 months already to write down a decent userguide and choises.txt.
Should i mention that i really don't like to write documentation?

btw. During this 11 months a started my own sofware company and became father of 2 children.
My wife has pushed me now to finish the assignment, stating that i don't get my 30th birthday gift if i don't finish the assigment before my birhtday. [next friday]. I cannot think of a better motivation than that to finally finish things off.

GL to all
The most trivial of them all Eclipse.
Hi Ulrich,
From your snippet i see that you have put the validation (48hours + owner="") on the server. Another option is to move the validation to the Client. (The option that I choose).
Do you know of any argument pro/contra my option.
My only argumentation PRO my solution is "If validation change (48h->72h)there is no reason to stop the server".
I'm using junit and junitperf. I've copied the junitperf loadTest from some other thread in this forum.
My unit testcase which can run on it's own (AND is succesfull in both tests)

The performance tests which starts 50 clients at the same time and does a 1 time only setup/teardown. WithLock->succes | WithoutLock->fails (as expected)

[ January 22, 2004: Message edited by: Roel De Meester ]
Hi all,
My design
I have a singleton Data class implementing SUN's DB interface.
The only class fields are
private static Data;
public static Data getInstance(){..}
I have not started the remote part yet. I'm only unit testing and load testing (JunitPerf) the Data.class for the moment.
My Data constructor does not take arguments since i expect the db-location to be in the suncertify.properties (if not i take a default_value). This is documented in javadoc and choices.txt.

I have not synchronized any methods! I synchronize all DB-access by putting synchronized(raf){ .. } around each raf access.
I synchronize all locking(with cookie) by putting synchronized(lockedRecord){ .. } around all lock access.
My Questions
1. raf and lockedRecord and cookie are private instance variables. They are not static because i'm using a singleton already. Is this correct design?
2. If the Data has never been constructed, and two clients try to getInstance() at the same time. How does this behave? Will They both get into the constructor since for both of them instance == null? And if so .. how is this prevented?
3. Does anyone have experience (unit)testing the correct synchronization and locking of the Data class.
4. deadlocks. Is it true to say that putting a synchronized block within another synchronized block is bad practice? I have the impression i'm doing weird stuff in my delete method which automatically unlocks itself. Could anyone comment?
This is no longer relevant in this thread but i'll post it anyway.
in my assignment. I have a DB interface implemented by Data.java.
The javadoc of DB interface consists only of the documentation giving in the snippet of the instructions.html, on which i added some CONTRACT statements.

while the in Data.java javadoc i only ADD some extra info like @throws DBAccessException, and for other info a refer to the DB javadoc using the @see tag.

while writing this.. i'm thinking that it may be better to mover the CONTRACTS to Data also.. i have to think it over.
Does anyone know the 'correct' way to add contracts to a javadoc?
[ January 21, 2004: Message edited by: Roel De Meester ]
[ January 21, 2004: Message edited by: Roel De Meester ]
Instead of writing

Try this ...

[ January 17, 2004: Message edited by: Roel De Meester ]
[ January 17, 2004: Message edited by: Roel De Meester ]
I'm working on 1.1.2 which is fairly similar
I'm going to implement SecurityException as checked exception within my project. Why?
From my instructions i read :

Any unimplemented exceptions in this interface must all be created as member classes of the suncertify.db package


So is this Security unimplemented or already implemented as java.lang.SecurityException? I think it is NOT the java.lang.SecurityException because:
1) From the javadoc of java.lang.SecurityException i read :

Thrown by the security manager to indicate a security violation.


We are NOT a security manager!
2) From my instructions i read :

You must not require the installation of a security manager.


We are not a security manager and are not installing one!
3) From javadoc tool (as already mentioned by philippe).

By convention, unchecked exceptions should not be included in a throws clause. (Including them is considered to be poor programming practice. The compiler treats them as comments, and does no checking on them.)


[ January 17, 2004: Message edited by: Roel De Meester ]
[ January 17, 2004: Message edited by: Roel De Meester ]
[ January 17, 2004: Message edited by: Roel De Meester ]
[ January 21, 2004: Message edited by: Roel De Meester ]