09-30-2012 11:30 AM
Now that the actor framework is built into LV2012, are you able to use it on the CLD test? The amount of vi's generated could drastically increase the documentation requirements which may make is outweight any benefits. I have been using it lately and find it faster to program in some situations just from familiarity.
Solved! Go to Solution.
09-30-2012 03:49 PM
@Jed394 wrote:
Now that the actor framework is built into LV2012, are you able to use it on the CLD test? The amount of vi's generated could drastically increase the documentation requirements which may make is outweight any benefits. I have been using it lately and find it faster to program in some situations just from familiarity.
Certainly you may. I would caution you to not do it though. One of thee requirements in the CLD exam is to choose a scaleable archetecture that can meet the reuirements IN 4 HOURS. If you feel that developing the classes needed for such simple singleton objects that the CLD will requires is worth the time investment I will not tell you to go another way. BUT, you have four hours to get'r'done.
(Hint- My first attempt at the CLD I dissmissed the get'r'done requirement and tried to do it the best way---- I made CLD on my next attempt)
10-06-2012 05:44 AM
I would recommend using a simpler architecture for your CLD!
11-01-2012 09:31 AM
Hi,
as Rodéric, I would recommend using a simple architecture : CLD is not a code contest where innovation is the goal.
The main purpose is to see if you can quicly implement a maintenable solution : 4 hours is verry short for this exam, and I think using actor framework will make you lose time...
Best Regards,
11-02-2012 03:32 PM - edited 11-02-2012 03:32 PM
I don't see the point of using the AF, since the CLD is meant for you to use a QSM. Why would you use asynchronous thread in such a simple application, it's overkill and you'll loose time...
11-02-2012 03:57 PM
@Rodéric wrote:
I don't see the point of using the AF, since the CLD is meant for you to use a QSM. Why would you use asynchronous thread in such a simple application, it's overkill and you'll loose time...
I thought the point of the CLD was to present a working program with good documentation and an architecture that allows for expansion and flexibility. While I agree with everyone that the AF might take an longer period that 4 hours, the main point is that every actor is essentially a QSM. The bonus of the AF is that all the messaging infrastructure is built into the AF already. In its most simplest form, you don't have to have several asynchronous threads. You can launch a single actor that does everything that is typically in these problems. Instead of generating messages in another thread, you can generate them in the seperate thread of the actor core override and then "message itself" to perform any actions you need.
I honestly think the only reason it would take more than 4 hours is due to the all the documentation that would come from the shear amount of vi's within the class structure.
Either way, thanks everyone for the feedback. I plan on using a typical QSM to solve the problem. Why rock the boat and go against the advice of people who already have done the test
04-13-2013 10:45 AM
04-19-2013 08:32 AM
Bah, I would be careful with that. Stick with the QSM. That's what I used to pass as well. AF is just not necessary for this program. I don't know if overkill is the word for it or just not the right direction. Go with the AF when preparing for the CLA (as I am doing now).
04-19-2013 01:44 PM
I took the test two days ago, and used AF. It definitely took more time to set things up and to document.
04-19-2013 02:03 PM
How did it go for you? Hope you did well.
P.S. You get a free shirt if you pass.