Skip to main content

Flow Based Programming - toolchain

With the team at NoFlow going public with an early beta I have had a chance to further develop some ideas that were previously just cloudy thought bubbles.

Assuming that the development team is morphing into a multidiscipline team of logic designers and component programmers then the question is where does one begin when there is an empty pallet? This is a particularly difficult question when the designer needs building blocks to connect and when the programmer needs requirements in order to construct the components. The chicken and the egg argument has never been so clear.

In my vision I see that everything is made up DNA. There is a network DNA and a component DNA. Depending on signatures; instances of each can connect and interact. (in a very, high school, biomechanics way). Therefore, the designer can layout the network using very basic component and pathway definitions; and later refine the network with more precisely named channels and add individual requirements for each component in order to help the component programmer.

The empty components are put into a work queue that the component programmers work from. The programmers take the requirements, implement them and the necessary test cases. I, personally, prefer that the components limit the usage of conditionals and loops because that makes them harder to test. I do not limit the use of 3rd party libraries because I expect that those tools have been adequately tested. (life experience suggests that this is wrong but at least I'm taking a stand with several ways out)

So that sums it up. (1) Simple point of entry to describe the work. (2) Simple way to implement and test the details. (3) Simple way to refine everything.

PS: One thing that I like about the NoFlow project is that they are pretty close.  The intent of the NoFlow project is to map the application network, however, the interface is dependent on the existence of the components. So somewhere in there they designer and programmer already collaborated to build components that were later assembled. To the contrary I want to capture the design before implementing any code or engaging programmers.


Popular posts from this blog

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

UPDATE 2017-10-30: With gratitude the CoreOS team has provided updated information on their pricing, however, I stand by my conclusion that the effective cost is lower when you deploy monster machines. The cost per node of my 1 CPU Intel NUC is the same as a 96 CPU server when you get beyond 10 nodes. I'll also reiterate that while my pricing notes are not currently…

eGalax touch on default Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS

I have not had success with the touch drivers as yet.  The touch works and evtest also seems to report events, however, I have noticed that the button click is not working and no matter what I do xinput refuses to configure the buttons correctly.  When I downgraded to ubuntu 10.04 LTS everything sort of worked... there must have been something in the kermel as 10.04 was in the 2.6 kernel and 4.04 is in the 3.x branch.

One thing ... all of the documentation pointed to the wrong website or one in Taiwanese. I was finally able to locate the drivers again: (it would have been nice if they provided the install instructions in text rather than PDF)
Please open the document "EETI_eGTouch_Programming_Guide" under the Guide directory, and follow the Guidline to install driver.
download the appropriate versionunzip the fileread the programming manual And from that I'm distilling to the following: execute the answer all of the questio…

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).


I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…