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

Cognitive radio technology necessitates accurate and timely sensing of the primary users' activity on the chosen set of channels. If sensing error is unacceptably high, we can undertake differential sensing in which subsets of sensing nodes target idle and active channels, respectively, or even reduce the number of working channels so as to improve the channels-vs.-sensing nodes ratio. The paper presents a probabilistic analysis of a flexible differential sensing policy and investigates the range of values in which such, incomplete sensing is capable of maintaining an accurate view of the status of the working channel set.

Reducing sensing error in cognitive PANs through differential sensing

In this paper the queueing theoretic analysis of J. Misic and V.B. Misic (Feb. 2003) to the performance of the Bluetooth piconet in which the master polls its slaves using E-limited scheduling is extended. The results indicated that E-limited service is among the scheduling policies of choice for Bluetooth piconets. First, it offers lower delays than either limited or exhaustive service, under a wide range of traffic load. Second, it provides fairness by default, since the limit on the number of frames exchanged with any single slave prevents the slaves from monopolizing the network. Third, it does not require the master to know the status of slaves' uplink queues. The paper shows that the end-to-end packet delays can be minimized if the value of AI is chosen to be close to the mean size of the packet bursts coming from the slaves. Also, the derived quality-of-service parameters as the basis for two admission control schemes, based on queue stability and predefined mean access delay, respectively is used. Either of these schemes could be incorporated in the scatternet (piconet) formation algorithm.

E-limited scheduling in Bluetooth piconets: performance and admission control

We propose a scalable self-sovereign identity (S3I) system architecture that uses a hierarchically structured Byzantine fault tolerance layer of validating authorities and a permissioned blockchain to record and manage user identities. Users and service providers interact with the S3I system through nearby proxy nodes that store copies of the blockchain but do not participate in the consensus protocol. We identify different challenges of such a system and discuss design choices that allow those challenges to be addressed and ultimately resolved, with focus on networking issues such as performance and coverage. We also show preliminary performance evaluation results that confirm the validity of the proposed approach.

Scalable Self-Sovereign Identity Architecture

The recommendation of points of interest (POIs) is essential in location-based social networks. It makes it easier for users and locations to share information. Recently, researchers tend to recommend POIs by treating them as large-scale retrieval systems that require a large amount of training data representing query-item relevance. However, gathering user feedback in retrieval systems is an expensive task. Existing POI recommender systems make recommendations based on user and item (location) interactions solely. However, there are numerous sources of feedback to consider. For example, when the user visits a POI, what is the POI is about and such. Integrating all these different types of feedback is essential when developing a POI recommender. In this paper, we propose using user and item information and auxiliary information to improve the recommendation modelling in a retrieval system. We develop a deep neural network architecture to model query-item relevance in the presence of both collaborative and content information. We also improve the quality of the learned representations of queries and items by including the contextual information from the user feedback data. The application of these learned representations to a large-scale dataset resulted in significant improvements.

Improving Rating and Relevance with Point-of-Interest Recommender System

Traditionally, the cohesion of a software component is considered to be a characteristic of its internal structure, and most cohesion measures proposed so far measure cohesion through the similarity of its constituent parts. However, cohesion may also be interpreted as an externally observed functional property, without regard for the component's internal structure. One way of measuring functional cohesion would be to measure the similarity of usage patterns of a component's external clients. One such measure is defined in this paper using a generic system model and its associated mechanism for calculating object sizes as the foundation. The new measure is simple to understand, easy to automate, and flexible enough to be used at different levels of abstraction. Moreover, it satisfies the most important properties that a cohesion measure is expected to satisfy. Examples are provided to illustrate the concept and its possible uses in analyzing and re-packaging of the components of a software system.

Vojislav B. Misic

Papers

Reducing sensing error in cognitive PANs through differential sensing

E-limited scheduling in Bluetooth piconets: performance and admission control

Scalable Self-Sovereign Identity Architecture

Improving Rating and Relevance with Point-of-Interest Recommender System

Cohesion is structural, coherence is functional: Different views, different measures