Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Sagacity
May 2, 2003
Hopefully my epitaph will be funnier than my custom title.

Essential posted:

What do you guys use for installing and updating distributed/commercial applications? Not huge scale commercial, but installed across 1000's of computers around the world and able to update to the latest version.
There's also WinSparkle and Squirrel.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Sagacity
May 2, 2003
Hopefully my epitaph will be funnier than my custom title.

Mr Shiny Pants posted:

something like Akka persistence makes the whole object - relational impedance mismatch go away. CQRS is also neat.
It gives you a different set of problems, though. It's good to have immutable events, but you will never escape the fact that sometimes you designed your events in the wrong way.

Sagacity
May 2, 2003
Hopefully my epitaph will be funnier than my custom title.
ORMs are kinda nice in that they allow you to do some complex querying using higher-level query syntax, but that's honestly about it. They infiltrate the design of your domain and once you're at any kind of scale at all you'll be looking at a ORM profiling tool to figure out why the hell it's generating N+1 queries. Not to mention the fact that usually you can only map your domain in one way whereas you may want to have different mappings depending on the type of query.

Sagacity
May 2, 2003
Hopefully my epitaph will be funnier than my custom title.
Please note that unit testing also doesn't necessarily mean that you need to test ALL the details. I've seen people write tests on the level of

code:
  client.Name = "Test";
  Assert.Equals("Test", client.Name);
Not completely of course, but you get the gist. It's perfectly fine to test a big chunk of your code (a unit, if you will) in one go so that it implicity tests a lot of the details. The main thing is to avoid touching all sorts of dependencies outside of this unit and that's why you typically isolate database and filesystem access if you're testing business logic, for instance.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply