This reference is either acquired through a stringified URI string, NameService lookup (similar to DNS), or passed-in as a method parameter during a call. Object references are lightweight objects matching the interface of the real object (remote or local). Method calls on the reference result in subsequent calls to the ORB and blocking on the thread while waiting for a reply, success or failure. The parameters, return data (if any), and exception data are marshaled internally by the ORB according the local language and OS mapping. [edit]
JT has posted his view on rules and decisions and how they relate. Given that James talks more about services than events, I thought it would be worth reviewing his post from both a Complex Event Processing and a TIBCO BusinessEvents event processing platform perspective.
”Decision Services:
Support business processes by making the business decisions that allow a process to continue.
Support event processing systems by adding business decisions to event correlation decisions (they are often called Decision Agents in this context).
Allow crucial and high-maintenance parts of legacy enterprise applications to be externalized for reuse and agility.
Can be plugged into a variety of systems using Enterprise Service Bus approaches.”
Most BREs today are deployed as “decision services”, and are used in “stateless” transactions to make “decisions” as a part of a business process. A CEP application is instead processing multiple event streams and sources over time, which requires a “stateful” rule service optimized for long running. This is an important distinction, as a stateful BRE for long-running processes needs to have failover support - the ability to cache its working memory for application restarting or distribution. And of course long-running processes need to be very particular over issues like memory handling - no memory leaks allowed!
Bruce makes an interesting comment on business rules too: that “routing logic in process gateways” are not “business rules”. That doesn’t really make sense: for sure some gateways will be process-housekeeping decisions of little interest to the business user, but others will surely embed business-critical decisions. On the other hand, it has long been acknowledged that a best practice for BPM is to delegate such business decisions to a managed decision service - hence the explicit new business rule (aka decision) task in BPMN 2.0. And,in the CEP world, for tools like TIBCO BusinessEvents to invoke a decision managed by its Decision Manager tool.
Multiple channels and types of events…
… executing in multiple Inference Agents (Event Processing Agents on an Event Processing Network)…
… where Events drive Production Rules with associated (shared) data…
… and event patterns (complex events) are derived from the simple events and also drive Production Rules via inferencing…
… to lead to “real-time” decisions.
The main characteristic to be aware of in these tools is that BE is primarily rule-based (using an embedded rule engine), whereas BW and iProcess are orchestration / flow engines. In BE we can use a state diagram to indicate a sequence of states which may define what process / rules apply, but this is really just another way of specifying a particular type of rules (i.e. state transition rules).
The main advantages to specifying behavior as declarative rules are:
Handling complex, event-driven behavior and choreography
Iterative development, rule-by-rule
The main advantages of flow diagrams and BPMN-type models are:
Ease of understanding (especially for simpler process routes)
Process paths are pre-determined and therefore deemed guaranteeable.
In combination these tools provide many of the IT capabilities required in an organization. For example, a business automation task uses BW to consolidate information from multiple existing sources, with human business processes for tasks such as process exceptions managed by iProcess. BE is used to consolidate (complex) events from systems to provide business information, or feed into or drive both BW and iProcess, and also monitors end-to-end system and case performance.
CEP is intelligent software that is essentially the next step in algorithmic trading – it sifts through market events looking for possible patterns and acts on them. A recent study into banks’ IT spending patterns by consultancy Aite Group, suggested that while budgets as a whole were likely to shrink by 5%, CEP investment remains on an upward trajectory. 36% of respondents to the survey intended to spend more on CEP this year than in 2008.
Adam Honore, senior analyst at Aite and author of the report, says: “We’re still bullish on the potential for CEP across financial services. Once one group successfully deploys a CEP application, word spreads and more technology groups look at CEP to help solve their issues.”
Free or low-cost sources of unstructured information, such as Internet news and online discussion sites, provide detailed local and near real-time data on disease outbreaks, even in countries that lack traditional public health surveillance. To improve public health surveillance and, ultimately, interventions, we examined 3 primary systems that process event-based outbreak information: Global Public Health Intelligence Network, HealthMap, and EpiSPIDER. Despite similarities among them, these systems are highly complementary because they monitor different data types, rely on varying levels of automation and human analysis, and distribute distinct information. Future development should focus on linking these systems more closely to public health practitioners in the field and establishing collaborative networks for alert verification and dissemination. Such development would further establish event-based monitoring as an invaluable public health resource that provides critical context and an alternative to traditional indicator-based outbreak reporting.
About a month ago I promised to make some tutorials about Digital Compositing using Processing. Finally I found the time to write an introduction and create a first example.
About a month ago I promised to make some tutorials about Digital Compositing using Processing. Finally I found the time to write an introduction and create a first example.
A. Bogoni, W. Xiaoxia, I. Fazal, und A. Willner. Optical Fiber Communication - incudes post deadline papers, 2009.
OFC 2009. Conference on, Seite 1-3--. (2009)
A. McAndrew, und A. Venables. SIGCSE '05: Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Seite 337--341. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2005)- Kuvaprosessoinnin osa-alueita opetettiin yläkoululaisille: kvantisointi, kohinanpoisto, yms.
- Oppilaat tyytyväisiä
- Ei syytä miksei voisi opettaa jo ennen undergraduate/post-graduate tasoa.
C. Paris, N. Colineau, und R. Wilkinson. HT '09: Proceedings of the Twentieth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, New York, NY, USA, ACM, (Juli 2009)
C. Janeczko, und H. Lopes. Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary
Computation CEC00, Seite 373--378. La Jolla Marriott Hotel La Jolla, California, USA, IEEE Press, (6-9 July 2000)
M. Schwab, R. Jäschke, und F. Fischer. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Natural Language and Speech Processing, Seite 99--109. Association for Computational Linguistics, (2023)