I'm looking for some visual statechart-editor, for my customer. I'm building for him server application, and he needs tool to build statecarts and upload them to the servers. Ofcourse, the tool needs to have the capability to export to some readable format (such as SCXML), so I could build a reader for it.
I saw some tools, like fsm-editor. But they can't be good for me, because I want to limit my customer to set of specific set of parametrized-conditions, parametrized-events and parametrized-actions.
For example, I'll define:
conditions: coIsDoorOpen, coIsThereNAppelsOnTheTree(n as uint[0..200]), ...
events: evLightOn, evLightOff, evTimeout(ms as uint[1..10,000]), ...
actions: acSetAlarmOn, acCloseWindowN(n as uint[1..10]), ...
and my customer could build some dozens statecharts with those explicit predefined attributes (conds, events & actions), and upload the export of them to the approperiate places.
There is no need to be strict to one statechart-standard or to another. But I need support on this things:
parametrized conditions/events/actions
before entering/exiting state actions
no need to support inner variables; I can use actions&conditions for it.
Is there any tool for it (preferably free)?
If not - is there any OpenSource (C# / JS) implementation of editor that supports all abpve without the stricting of conds/events/actions, that I could easily break in to it and add the requested strict mode?
Based upon your needs, my knee-jerk reaction of recommending Visio or Dia would be inappropriate here. You appear to require a tool with some form of an API or descriptive language to lock users to a constrained set of components Lemmings-style, and your needs would best be serviced by something relatively simple if possible.
I'm curious why altering the source code to SCXML-GUI (fsm-editor) or Violet would not solve your needs, however. You seem to indicate that an open source utility written in C# or JavaScript is most desirable, which I cannot easily locate.
But, in the interests of completeness, here's a comparable question that may help your search. Most notably, this appears to be exactly what you desire and may be worth purchasing.
Best of luck with your project.
Related
I have recently been tasked to look into Workflow Foundation. The actual goal would be to implement a system in which the end users can define custom workflows in the deployed application (and of course, use them). Personally I have never used WF before (and reading around here on SO people are very doubtful about it - so am I reading those questions/answers), and I am having a hard time finding my way around it given the sparse learning resources available.
Anyway, there are some questions, for example, this, which mention something they call dynamic or user-defined workflows. They point out that WF makes it possible to "rehost" the designer, so that end-users can define their own new workflows after the application is deployed (without developer intervention (?), this is the part I am not really sure about).
I have been told by fellow employees that this way we could implement an application in which once this feature is implemented we would no longer have to keep modifying the application every time a new workflow is to be implemented. However, they also pointed out that they just "heard it", they don't have firsthand experience themselves either.
I have been looking around for samples online but the best thing I could find was a number guess app - barely more than a simple hello world. So not much that would point me to the right direction of how this user-defined workflow feature actually works and how it can be used, what its limitations are etc.
My primary concern is this: it is alright that one can define custom workflows but no workflow is worth a penny without the possibility of actually inputting data throughout the process. For example, even if the only thing I need to do is to register a customer in a complaint management system, I would need the customer's name, contact, etc. If the end user should be able to define any workflow the given toolset makes possible then of course there needs to be a way to provide the workflow consumers with a way of inputting data through forms. If the workflow can be of pretty much any nature then so needs to be the data - otherwise if we need to implement the UIs ourselves then this "end-user throws together a workflow" feature is kind of useless because they would still end up at us requiring to implement a form or some sort of data input for the individual steps.
So I guess that there should be a way of defining the "shape" of the data that needs to be filled at any given user interaction phase of the workflow which I can investigate and dynamically generate forms based on the data. So for example, if I found that the required data was made up of a name and a date of birth, then I would need to render a textbox and a datepicker on the page.
What I couldn't really figure out from the Q&As here and elsewhere is whether this is even possible. Can I define and then later "query" the structure of the data to be passed to the workflow at any point? If so, how? If not, how should this user-defined workflow feature even be used, what is it good for?
To clarify it a little, I could imagine something as specifying a complex type, which would be the view model (input model) in a regular MVC app, and then I could reflect over it, get the properties and render input fields based on that.
Windows Workflow Foundation is about machine workflows, not business workflows. True, it is the foundational tool set Microsoft created for building their business workflow products. But out of the box WWF does not have the components you need to quickly and easily build business workflows. If you want to send an email in a workflow, you have to write that from scratch. Just about anything you can think of doing from a business point of view you have to write from scratch.
If you want to easily create business workflows using Microsoft products check out the workflow stuff in SharePoint. It is the easiest of the Microsoft products to work with (in my experience.) If that does not meet your needs there are other products like BizTalk.
K2 is another company with a business workflow product that uses WWF as their base to more easily build business workflows, the older K2 products actually create web pages automatically to collect the data from the user.
WWF is very low level, arguably it lost traction after they re-wrote the whole thing in 4.0. While not publically stated by Microsoft, my personal opinion is Service Fabric (from Microsoft) achieves the goals WWF originally tried to solve which was a "more robust programming environment."
I'm looking for an alternative to FileMaker Pro. I've been playing with a trial for a week now.
I'm looking for a rapid application development platform for small relational databases to run on iOS and OS X
Things I like about FM
Can make reasonable looking layouts quite quickly.
Can access the database from an iPad with Filemaker Go.
Things I don't like about FM
EVERYTHING takes a half a dozen clicks. In particular constructing a script with mouse clicks is painful.
The number of modal dialog boxes is astounding. It is routine to have them layered 3 deep.
Syntax is verbose. Set Variable [ $name Value:value ] Some of the examples start to look like excel formulas. (Excel is a write only language....) Or COBOL.
Near as I can figure variable scope is either local or global. If a script calls a script, you must call it with any local variables you want it to have access to.
Debugging is very difficult in the FM Pro version.
Doesn't seem to be any provision for building a library of functions in a single file.
No clear and obvious guide to how to document your database so that it can be maintained.
No clear and obvious way to print out all your scripts.
No clear and obvious way to print out a calling tree/dependency tree.
No clear guide to best practices.
The short answer is: Despite it's shortcomings (and I'll admit it has many), FileMaker is still the best rapid-development platform for OS X and iOS (and Windows, for that matter). The closest second-place (for OS X/iOS) I can think of would be Cocoa/Cocoa Touch with Core Data with Ruby on Rails for a web interface a distant third.
Having said that, I can offer a few tips for some of your complaints:
If you're a keyboard-centric person like myself, turn on Full Keyboard Access (in the Keyboard System Preference within the Shortcuts tab). This will allow you to tab through all of the controls, such as buttons, which makes it much easier to select deep dialog options from the keyboard. For example, when building a script, you can use the tab key to focus on the list of script steps, then type a few letters of the step you want, which will highlight it, and press return, which will add it to the script. Then, while a script step in the script is highlighted, you can use Ctrl-Up and Ctrl-Down to move the step up and down in the execution order.
Script variables, both local and global, can be set within any calculation. For example, if you're capturing a primary key value to a local variable and you already have an If script step, you can do the capture within the If script step.
If[ Let( [ $record_id = Table::ID ]; not IsEmpty( $record_id ) ) ]
Similarly, if you have a number of Set Variable script steps in a row, you can combine them into one:
Set Variable[ $? Value:Let( [ $var1 = 1; $var2 = "two" ] ) "" ]
This sets the $? variable to an empty string, but has the side effect of also setting $var1 and $var2.
You're correct that variables are either local to a script (or calculation) or global to the file. If you want to share information between scripts, parameters are the solution. For my personal solution for sending multiple parameters to a script, read my article on Multiple FileMaker Script Parameters.
If you're going to do any amount of custom development with FileMaker, you really want to get FileMaker Pro Advanced, which, inaddition to a step-level debugger, offers the ability to create custom menus and, my personal favorite, custom functions. Using custom functions (which can easily be brought from one file to another), you can built a complex library of functions.
To print out all of your scripts, open Manage Scripts, select all of the scripts with Cmd-A and click the print button on the bottom right of the window.
For script dependencies, look into BaseElements, a FileMaker-based solution for documenting FileMaker systems.
While there's no standard "best practices" across the board, and because of how FileMaker organizes its objects, documentation is often found in various places (script comments, calculation comments, field comments), there are many ways to build a system in FileMaker so that you increase its maintainability. Unlike Objective-C or PHP, where you can be fairly certain where the comment for something will be (either in the declaration or at its first use), FileMaker is more flexible. The important idea behind "best practices" and documentation, in my opinion, is consistency. If you comment a field by using the field comments, always comment fields that way, don't comment calculation fields within the calculation or use dummy validation to put comments in a calculation there.
If you're looking for one guide (but not the only guide) for best practices, check out FileMaker Coding Standards. I use some of those guidelines, and others are my own that have evolved over time.
Finally, if you're looking for generally great material on how to get the most from FileMaker, check out FileMaker Magazine, published by one of the people involved with the FileMaker Coding Standards site.
The truth is, if you're coming from some more conventional development platform, FileMaker is going to take a bit of getting used to. I've been using it for over 20 years, so I'll admit it's probably difficult for me to completely empathize with that situation. But if you give it a bit of a chance, I think you'll find that there's no other platform available that can build complex database systems for OS X and iOS so quickly.
Filemaker takes a lot of getting used to, it's very different to SQL or any of the mainstream taught languages so if you have done some training you will need to re-think how to get to the same end goal.
If you are serious about it then get Filemaker Pro Advanced v14 and that should fix some of your GUI editing issues and join developer.filemaker.com and do the training course that you can download from there.
Once doing that and getting some experience you will find Filemaker is very RAD. Also there IS a way to get around any shortcomings, everything is possible in Filemaker.
As for passing multiple parameters to a script a quick and easy way to do it for 99.5% of cases is to do this:
Calling the script - In the parameters box separate your parameters with a carraige return like so: "parameter 1" & "¶" & "parameter 2" & "¶" & "parameter 3" etc.
In your receiving script use GetValue(get(scriptparameter),1) for parameter 1, 2 for 2, etc.
This technique won't work when you are trying to pass text with carraige returns but that is the exception.
I am looking for a good way to translate an excisting Sitecore installation (English language is available) to 4 other languages (Russian , Chinese, Portuguese etc.) A dedicated translation company will translate all texts we deliver to the specified languages, but I'm curious on how other companies set this up. I thought about just exporting all Sitecore items which have to be translated using the Database language Export function in Sitecore and having the translation company edit those files. By just replacing the language tags in the XML we should be able to import this file as the newly created other language, however I'm affraid that this XML structure will be totally useless for a translation company and that they will drown in the codes inside this XML. How can we efficiently do this? Is there any other way then just giving those translation people access to the Sitecore environment and having them edit the languages here? Any Shared Source Module to achieve this? I still have alot of questions, is there anyone with some experience in achieving this?
Your primary options are either the language export/import functionality (as you mention), or a workflow-based solution that integrates with your translation agency's Translation Management System (if they have one -- hopefully they do).
The former is better for the initial translation. Typically, your agency should be able to handle translation of content within XML files. A good one can. If you create all needed language versions beforehand and copy english content into them, it will make the files easier to work with as they'll have tags for the new languages in them already. I've seen the creation of these layers done with Revolver (http://www.codeflood.net/revolver/) but could also be done with custom code or workflow.
For ongoing maintenance of your translated content, you'll probably want to integrate through workflow. Clay Tablet Technologies (http://www.clay-tablet.com/) have a middleware component w/ Sitecore integration that can make this easier, depending on your translation agency. You can also do your own workflow-based integration, with workflow commands that allow your users to send content for translation. Then you'd need some sort of listener that pulls the translated content back in, and continues the workflow.
Hope this helps!
You could also check out Lionbrdige (http://en-us.lionbridge.com/sitecore-and-lionbridge-announce-partnership-to-help-companies-thrive-across-borders.htm) as a solution.
From my own experience our customers normally use the Sitecore import/export function as a first step and then use Lionbridge or Clay Tablet as a service.
One important thing to think about with translations is the ongoing work. The initial translation is rather simple, but the second and so on might be more troublesome. What if different changes has been made in different languages. If local changes were made in the content for sat the french version you couldn´t just send the English version (second translate then) since you would also have to accomodate for the regional changes in the content.
Having worked with literally dozens of Sitecore clients worldwide — and helped get content to and from all the largest, and many smaller translation firms —, I can attest to the ineffeciency of trying to do translation in situ, that is in Sitecore. I liken it to asking an electrician to come over and rewire your house, but as they reach for their toolbox from the truck you tell them, "Nope — you need to do it by hand".
The very best way to manage anything more than a page or two of content for translation is to export it seamlessly. Deliver it to the LSP in a proper format (XML or XLIFF) and, when possible, auto import it to their TMS. Once translated, the content should then flow seamlessly back into Sitecore.
You can code this yourself — but the pitfalls are non-trivial just on the Sitecore side. (If you want intuitive UI's, scalability, and all the features that meet the needs of translation). Let alone the challenges of connecting to the systems LSP's use. (For example, who here knows the relative merits/risks of using SLD's Nexus connector versus their CTA for connecting to TMS?)
As kindly mentioned above, there are commecially available solutions that meet all these needs and more. So if you've got even a modest amount of content — and want to send that to any translation provider of your choice — I'd be happy to discuss how we can help.
The main issue with translation isn't technical at all, the XML export is a simple enough format and all agencies should be able to deal with it with no porblems. as others have suggested, maintenance after the initial translation is slightly more problematic but they also point to tools to achieve this.
The main issue we've found with translation is actually linguistic: how to achieve consistency of phrasing and that matches the original but is sufficiently adjusted to local requirements. Translation companies usually have software to aid this - libraries of of the phrases they translate etc. - working with an exported XML file doesn't provide the context of seeing content in situ. A particular item may be translated correctly and the site consistently, but as each page may be built from multiple items there can easily be conflicts between content as presented.
That makes working with the Sitecore backend (maybe with field security settings to limit ) or in the page editor (possibly pre filling fields with English values) a viable idea.
I wonder what sort of things you look for when you start working on an existing, but new to you, system? Let's say that the system is quite big (whatever it means to you).
Some of the things that were identified are:
Where is a particular subroutine or procedure invoked?
What are the arguments, results and predicates of a particular function?
How does the flow of control reach a particular location?
Where is a particular variable set, used or queried?
Where is a particular variable declared?
Where is a particular data object accessed, i.e. created, read, updated or deleted?
What are the inputs and outputs of a particular module?
But if you look for something more specific or any of the above questions is particularly important to you please share it with us :)
I'm particularly interested in something that could be extracted in dynamic analysis/execution.
I like to use a "use case" approach:
First, I ask myself "what's this software's purpose?": I try to identify how users are going to interact with the application;
Once I have some "use case", I try to understand what are the objects that are more involved and how they interact with other objects.
Once I did this, I draw a UML-type diagram that describe what I've just learned for further reference. What happens after depends on the task I've been assigned, i.e. modify the code, document the code etc.
There is the question of what motivation do I have for learning the new system:
Bug fix/minor enhancement - In this case, I may focus solely on that portion of the system that performs a specific function that needs to be altered. This is a way to break down a huge system but also is a way to identify if the issue is something I can fix or if it is something that I have to hand to the off-the-shelf company whose software we are using,e.g. a CRM, CMS, or ERP system can be a customized off-the-shelf system so there are many pieces to it.
Project work - This would be the other case and is where I'd probably try to build myself a view from 30,000 feet or so to know what are the high-level components and which areas of the system does the project impact. An example of this is where I'd join a company and work off of an existing code base but I don't have the luxury of having the small focus like in the previous case. Part of that view is to look for any patterns in the code in terms of naming conventions, project structure, etc. as this may be useful once I start changing some code in the system. I'd probably do some tracing through the system and try to see where are the uglier parts of the code. By uglier I mean those parts that are kludge-like and may have some spaghetti code as this was rushed when first written and is now being reworked heavily.
To my mind another way to view this is the question of whether I'm going to be spending days or weeks wrapping my head around a system like in the second case or should this be a case where it hopefully takes only a few hours, optimistically that is, to get my footing to make the necessary changes.
Is there anyone that's currently using Zircon Zircomp? How is their technology different from something like ZeroC ICE? Are they trying to solve the same problem domain? How's their target audience different?
Additional question: if I could choose between Ice and CORBA, should I go with Ice based on your experience?
Well, ICE is sort of simplified CORBA, where you still have to write idl, create object adapters and write your own implementations of interfaces, etc. Zircomp doesn't require any of this. To put it simply it provides you a tool for making your synchronous calls asynchronous and then offers a "commodity" server that would run any such call/function. "Commodity" - because you do not have to modify it at all. The only coding is on client side. You have to supply your original (to be distributed) function in the library and provide an xml description of function parameters library/headers location. Note that the library source code itself is also not necessary. Such xml description is supplied to a builder that produces another library to be linked now with a client. It contains function with the same arguments as the original one, but that you now use in your code. And this function takes care of detecting available servers, load balancing, data caching, routing and recovery of lost network/engines. Replies come to the application via barrier synchronization or callback. Note, that the same functionality could be configured to execute locally, by co-location, no code change required. In this case multi-thread/core usage would benefit from absence of copy or marshalling.
And finally, there is no GPL license, this is commercial product.
I'm not using or have ever used Zircon Z, but all I've seen is that it's an enterprise system and company controlled. Douglas C. Schmidt (a former CORBA guru) joined the company which is an indicator of pushing the company to commercial success. But both, ICE and Zircomp are available with GPL v2 ... so, I'd prefer ICE as I've used it and I'd say: I like it.
2nd question: ICE; if you're free. But your decision may depend on other requirements.
With ICE you circumvent the CORBA over NAT problem and you're as flexible as possible if you have to connect to plain old CORBA stuff later.