物件導向軟體之架構(Object-Oriented Software Construction)探討

It is shown that, particularly for terrestrial cellular telephony, the interference-suppression feature of CDMA (code division multiple access) can result in a many-fold increase in capacity over analog and even over competing digital techniques. A single-cell system, such as a hubbed satellite network, is addressed, and the basic expression for capacity is developed. The corresponding expressions for a multiple-cell system are derived. and the distribution on the number of users supportable per cell is determined. It is concluded that properly augmented and power-controlled multiple-cell CDMA promises a quantum increase in current cellular capacity. >

On the capacity of a cellular CDMA system

The objective of this paper is to give a comprehensive introduction to applied cryptography with an engineer or computer scientist in mind. The emphasis is on the knowledge needed to create practical systems which supports integrity, confidentiality, or authenticity. Topics covered includes an introduction to the concepts in cryptography, attacks against cryptographic systems, key use and handling, random bit generation, encryption modes, and message authentication codes. Recommendations on algorithms and further reading is given in the end of the paper. This paper should make the reader able to build, understand and evaluate system descriptions and designs based on the cryptographic components described in the paper.

[서평]「Applied Cryptography」

/pdf/a-break-in-the-clouds-towards-a-cloud-definition-svovsw1r5a.pdf

A Break in the Clouds: Towards a Cloud Definition

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

In this paper, we analyze CSMA-CA access for interconnection of IEEE 802.15.4 beacon enabled network clusters using ordinary network nodes as bridge nodes. Bridge design involves uplink transmission to the coordinator and downlink transmission to the bridge. Bridge periodically visits upper and lower clusters and exchanges data using CSMACA access. We develop the queuing model for bridging algorithm and present numerically obtained performance results. The effects of different parameters of the bridging algorithm, i.e. event sensing reliability, number of clusters and bridging period, are investigated. Our analysis shows how parameters of clustering algorithm should be tuned in order to prolong the lifetime. Our results demonstrate fair distribution of lifetime of nodes which means that all nodes of a cluster will deplete their energy within short window of time.

/pdf/evaluation-of-single-dimensional-sensor-network-implemented-3gupa0kmnb.pdf

Evaluation of Single Dimensional Sensor Network Implemented Using Slave-Slave Bridging in IEEE 802.15.4 Technology

Long-Term Evolution (LTE) and its improvement, Long-Term Evolution-Advanced (LTE-A), are attractive choices for Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communication due to their ubiquitous coverage and high bandwidth. However, the focus of LTE design was high performance connection-based communications between human-operated devices (also known as human-to-human, or H2H traffic), which was initially established over the Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH). On the other hand, M2M traffic is mostly based on contention-based transmission of short messages and does not need connection establishment. As a result, M2M traffic transmitted over LTE PRACH has to use the inefficient four-way handshake and compete for resources with H2H traffic. When a large number of M2M devices attempts to access the PRACH, an outage condition may occur; furthermore, traffic prioritization is regulated only through age-based power ramping, which drives the network even faster towards the outage condition. In this article, we describe an overlay network that allows a massive number of M2M devices to coexist with H2H traffic and access the network without going through the full LTE handshake. The overlay network is patterned after IEEE 802.15.6 to support multiple priority classes of M2M traffic. We analyse the performance of the joint M2M and H2H system and investigate the trade-offs needed to keep satisfactory performance and reliability for M2M traffic in the presence of H2H traffic of known intensity. Our results confirm the validity of this approach for applications in crowd sensing, monitoring and others utilized in smart city development.

https://www.mdpi.com/2224-2708/7/3/27/pdf

Priority-Based Machine-To-Machine Overlay Network over LTE for a Smart City

Cognitive radio technology necessitates accurate and timely sensing of primary users' activity on the chosen set of channels. The simplest selection procedure is a simple random choice of channels to be sensed, but the impact of sensing errors with respect to primary user activity or inactivity differs considerably. In order to improve sensing accuracy and increase the likelihood of finding channels which are free from primary user activity, the selection procedure is modified by assigning different sensing probabilities to active and inactive channels. The paper presents a probabilistic analysis of this policy and investigates the range of values in which the modulation of sensing probability is capable of maintaining an accurate view of the status of the working channel set. We also present a modification of the probability modulation algorithm that allows for even greater reduction of sensing error in a limited range of the duty cycle of primary users' activity. Finally, we give some guidelines as to the optimum application ranges for the original and modified algorithm, respectively.

https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/misy/2009/635947.pdf

Improving sensing accuracy in cognitive PANs through modulation of sensing probability

The performance of a Bluetooth scatternet with a slave/slave bridge is analyzed using queueing theory tools and through simulations. The exhaustive service discipline is found to provide lower values for all delay variables, over a wide range of parameter values. All analytical results have been confirmed through simulations.

Queueing analysis of delays in Bluetooth slave/slave bridge

\n The rapid and widespread adoption of internet of things-related services advances the development of the cloud-edge framework, including multiple cloud datacenters (CDCs) and edge micro-datacenters (EDCs). This paper aims to apply analytical modeling techniques to assess the effectiveness of cloud-edge computing resource allocation policies from the perspective of improving the performance of cloud-edge service. We focus on two types of physical device (PD)-allocation policies that define how to select a PD from a CDC/EDC for service provision. The first is randomly selecting a PD, denoted as RandAvail. The other is denoted as SEQ, in which an available idle PD is selected to serve client requests only after the waiting queues of all busy PDs are full. We first present the models in the case of an On–Off request arrival process and verify the approximate accuracy of the proposed models through simulations. Then, we apply analytical models for comparing RandAvail and SEQ policies, in terms of request rejection probability and mean response time, under various system parameter settings.

Vojislav B. Misic

Papers

Evaluation of Single Dimensional Sensor Network Implemented Using Slave-Slave Bridging in IEEE 802.15.4 Technology

Priority-Based Machine-To-Machine Overlay Network over LTE for a Smart City

Improving sensing accuracy in cognitive PANs through modulation of sensing probability

Queueing analysis of delays in Bluetooth slave/slave bridge

Model-Based Comparison of Cloud-Edge Computing Resource Allocation Policies