|
I'm kind of rubber ducking you all, so bear with me (or skip) and thanks.
It's the wee hours here. I don't know what I changed in my code, but one minute it was working.
The next minute every time I start it it's like the procedure that builds all the windows exits halfway through without creating everything, and then the app doesn't exit. (It appears to, but you have to kill it in TaskMan)
I should pack it in but that leaves me for want of something to do (I woke up recently), and code in a known bad state.
All of this mess is to simply read and write serial ports in win32, but due to a sort of polarity mismatch between the Arduino and Win32 APIs I need to spin a thread to continually fetch data from the COM port. This seems to be what is causing the problem. It's not a race condition though - it's consistent.
I need to do this due to the presence of a peek() function which peeks the next character in the stream, and an available() function which returns the # of bytes waiting in the receive buffer. Win32 has no such facilities, so I need to emulate them.
I'm wondering if I can't just cooperatively thread the whole thing. I already have my main application loop where I could poll each com port, but due to separation of the various parts of Winduino I need to expose an uncomfortable amount of serial functionality "publicly" to make that happen.
It kind of makes me want to give up and play fallout, but I really don't want to leave my code in its present state.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Hello guys,
We are into healthcare application development.
I see there's a good amount of Standardization of the healthcare data. Like HL7 / FHIR etc.
All these are needed for interops between different HC systems.
The question is, Should our App DB schema that will be used internally should also adhere to FHIR standards?
I see these options:
1. Store App Data in application domain schema - just plain JSON with our own attributes. Snappy format helps faster transfers between the Apps.
2. Store App Data in FHIR transformation-compatible format. (Make it easier for ETL later into FHIR std). Schema needs some effort.
3. Sore App Data in full FHIR format. This makes the json payloads heap up like a landslide. A lot of effort upfront and bloated transport all around.
What would you recommend?
modified 3hrs 5mins ago.
|
|
|
|
|
If you have a standard, use it.
It means your apps can be more flexible, more generic - and can interface with other manufacturers apps, which is why we have standards in the first place!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Healthcare implementations are complex.
If you notice, Azure FHIR architecture examples never insist we store our Application Data in FHIR standard.
They say just go with what our App needs and don't worry about interop with external systems.
When there's a need for interop, Azure FHIR adaptors can transform the app domain data into standard Healthcaredata.
This has been the recommendation from different corners. But still want to hear from you guys here.
|
|
|
|
|
Apps have a shelf life. One day, someone is going to need to migrate the data in your (presumably) massive vertical healthcare application to some other system.
Use the standard, even if it's a lot of extra work up front. You'll recoup some of it on the back end, because you won't have to do things like document every nook and cranny rather than refer to existing standard docs for your data format.
Gosh just reading your post feeds into my burnout. Ugh, not your fault, it's just, my days of coding monolithic enterprise applications is over.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 833 5/6
🟨⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
🟩🟩⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 833 5/6
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
🟨⬛🟩⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 833 3/6
🟨🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 833 4/6
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟩🟨🟩
⬛🟩🟩⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 833 6/6*
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟩
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩⬜🟩🟩
⬜🟩⬜🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
So nearly broke my streak!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟨⬜⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Thought I'd lost
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 833 4/6
🟨🟨⬛⬛⬛
🟩🟩⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩⬛🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm contractor for one of the wealthiest companies in the country. They have enough money to buy best in class software from biggest names in the industry.
2 out of 3 internal departments ( Eng. and Utility departments ) that I've worked with, know me and trust in my software. Now I'm going to introduce myself to the 3rd and most important department ( Maintenance Dep. ). Generally speaking, Management and engineers in this department go for the big names and don't waste their time and money on unknown vendors.
I'm brave enough to host them in a meeting in coming months. I'm thinking about the ways I can assure them about my software. Management and Engineers from the first 2 departments have told me, If they are asked, will talk in favor of me. Literally, this is the only chance I have.
Please share your thoughts, hints and suggestions for the meeting.
Thanks
Behzad
Behzad
|
|
|
|
|
...ok so u sold to two dept and want the third dept to buy... possibly they should do a pilot and evaluate and come to a decision and then
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote: Management and Engineers from the first 2 departments have told me, If they are asked, will talk in favor of me.
Having departments A and B vouch for you is your best chance, IMO, to get your foot in the door and cut through corporate red tape. Department C knows you're known and trusted by someone else internally. You can't ask for a better position to be in.
All I can add is, good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
In an ideal world you could just present something and they would be able to see what you can do from that.
But it isn't ideal. So politics are better.
Call the two depts that know you A/B.
And the one that doesn't C.
What you want is the following
1. Someone in A/B that is known to be technically proficient by someone of significance in C.
2. Someone in A/B that is known as an excellent manager by someone of significance in C.
Then you have that person talk to the person in C.
Of course better if you have more than one person that can do this.
Also you would want to make sure that the person (or persons) does not have any 'issues' with someone else in C. Doesn't matter if they have a good rep with one person in C but also has a bad rep with someone else. That second person would then end up fighting against without even knowing anything about you.
What does 'significance' mean?
1. A senior level engineer who is respected.
2. A manager at the tech level who is respected. You don't want something like a VP because then the tech side will probably look down upon the reference. But then the might force the decision and you could prove yourself over time.
3. Even to some extent someone that is just popular.
|
|
|
|
|
Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote: Please share your thoughts, hints and suggestions for the meeting.
You ever notice that the more expensive a product is, the less you see the price on the site? It's always call us. It'll be business speak because the business doesn't care about or even understand the tech speak -- and then contact us for sales.
Ever wonder why that is?
It's because the business side doesn't give two flips about the tech. What they care about is reliability, the cost, and what happens if something goes wrong. That's probably why they prefer big name vendors, you can trust they are reliable. A no name has no guarantee of quality or assurance. They never will.
For instance, open source software is free and pretty good tech. Business doesn't care at all. Not unless they save millions and can hire someone to deal with it. For average stuff, they won't care two flips. They have the money; what they need is a solution they can trust.
Which is to say, when you're going into sell this thing. Yes, talk about the software. But remember, you're selling YOU... not the software. If they trust you and/or your team you have a chance. If they don't, nothing you say about the software will make a difference - ever.
Also, don't get cheesy when you're selling yourself. Just be genuinely friendly. Don't try and sell them. Just be their friend and honest. If there's a shortcoming with your offer SAY IT. It'll come out in the wash anyway. But, earn their trust.
By now the word trust should be evident. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Look out for the dammed bus, the bane of every contractor/ single person development is the bus that seems to follow them into every office. "What happens if you get hit by a bus?" The number of times I ran into this question when trying to sell either myself or software to large companies was depressing. And I never did find a satisfactory response.
You need a champion from each of your current department clients to push for you. Good luck!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Noooooo.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the tiny (relative) number of Windows 7 and Windows 8 systems out there, I suspect Microsoft decided that the remaining systems would never be upgraded. We already know they won't run Windows 11 and were only a little over two years to Windows 10 end of support.
|
|
|
|
|
...and therefore, what's the benefit to them?
I mean, the more people on 10/11 (rather than 7/8), the better for MS, no? Are they really thinking they're losing so much money on license sales that didn't happen because of that loophole?
|
|
|
|
|
While people frequently gripe about Microsoft, I think the reality in this case is that it's easier to support fewer operating systems, so Microsoft "benefited" by keeping this upgrade route alive.
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly my point, it still benefits them to keep this loophole...so why close it now?
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect there's a service that needs to be updated or removed and it has a direct impact on this upgrade path.
|
|
|
|
|
back to the future or something..
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
