Sorry not a coding question, not sure if I should be posting it here.
I struggle with the concept of what is 'large' in Notes nsf application design elements as opposed to the amount of data or records stored. For example it is stated that we shouldn't have too many views, but 'too many' does not give any scale whatsoever, is it 10,50,100,500 before it 'slows down'. I realise it also based on the view design but some idea of 'too many' would be beneficial. In this instance data and design elements are in the same nsf.
Is there a recommendation regarding number of elements such as XPages, Custom Controls, Managed Beans, Java Classes etc. What would be deemed excessive? In this instance I have data and logic in separate nsfs.
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
There is a limit on the number of design elements. But unless you're importing a whole JavaScript framework into an NSF, uou're not likely to hit it.
As has been mentioned, view performance is dependent on many factors. 500 decently designed views are fine. 50 badly performing views can be bad. Lots of resorts on columns impacts the number of indexes that need to be created and managed. Using #Today or #Now in a view selection formula or column formula will be a big problem. Having lots of documents that rarely change, smaller numbers of documents that are updated every 30 seconds, lots of users regularly updating - these will all be impacts on performance.
Performance in code will also impact and XPages Toolbox or agent profiling will give an idea. DocumentCollection.count() is slow, but sometimes is needed. NoteCollections may be quicker. There are various blog posts covering this.
A managed bean that has a Map that grows and grows will impact Java memory.
But there are always performance enhancements being made on the server side. gRPC in Domino 10 will be extremely performant. So always try to be on a recent version and keep up to date with sessions at conferences etc so you know what TCO improvements are being made.
The bottom line is without an intimate understanding of your architecture and code, no one will be able to give you a definitive answer.
Related
I am researching a problem that is pretty unique.
Imagine a roadside assistance company that wants to dynamically route its vehicles. Hence for each packet of new incidents wants to create routes that will satisfy them, according to some constraints (time constraints, road accessibility, vehicle - incident matching).
The company has an heterogeneous fleet of vehicle (motorbikes for easy cases, up to tow trucks for the hard cases) and each incident states it's uniqueness (we know if it wants just fuel, or needs towing).
There is no depot, only the vehicles roaming on the streets.
The objective is to dynamically create routes on the way, having in mind the minimization of time and the total traveled distance.
Have you ever met such a problem? Do you have any idea in which VRP variant it belongs?
I have seen two previous questions but unfortunately they don't fit with my problem.
The respected optaplanner - VRP but with no depot and Does optaplanner out of box support VRP with multiple trips and no depot, which are both open VRPs.
Unfortunately I don't have code right now, as I am still modelling the way I will approach this problem.
I am really sorry for creating a suggestion question and not a real one.
Thank you so much in advance.
It's a rich dynamic/realtime vehicle routing problem. You won't find an exact name for your problem, as when VRPs get too complex they don't fit inside any of the standard categories.
It's clearly a dynamic/realtime problem (the terms are used interchangeably) as you would typically only find out about roadside breakdowns at short notice.
Sometimes you're servicing a broken down car, which would be a single stop (so a vehicle routing problem). Sometimes you're towing a car, which would be a pick-up delivery problem. So you have a mix of both together.
You would want to get to the broken down vehicles ASAP and some would need fixing sooner than others (think a car broken down in a dangerous position on a motorway). You would therefore need soft time windows so you can penalise lateness instead of the standard hard time windows supported in most VRP formulations.
Also for you to be able to scale to larger problems, you need an incremental optimiser that can restart from the previous (possibly now infeasible) solution when new jobs are added, vehicle positions are changed etc. This isn't supported out of the box in the open source solvers I know of.
We developed a commercial engine which does the above. We started off using the jsprit library, which supports mixing single stop and pickup delivery problems together. We later had to replace jsprit due to the amount of code we had to override to get it running happily for realtime problems, however jsprit may still prove a useful starting point for you. We discuss some of the early technical obstacles we had to overcome in getting jsprit to handle realtime problems in this white paper.
I am new to SuiteScript and want to make our code more efficient. Looking at our code it seems there are many script of the same type for the same record type. For example, 3 clientscripts on a sales order. Is it bad practice to roll all of these scripts into the same script?
I also want to centralise the code. The last 3 years I've written in C# and any reusable code was placed in a relevant class. I want to rewrite the code we have in the same manner. For example, any method that is to do with a sales order is placed in a module called SalesOrderServices. This module can then be added to any of the scripts and the methods are all available if needed. My concern is this would make things less efficient due to loading all the modules in the Services module, even if they are not really needed. So as a second part to this question, is this a good idea or will it make our code be less efficient?
There is quite a lot to consider in a question like this, and there won't be one correct answer, but I'll chime in with my perspective.
It is not necessarily bad practice to combine the similar scripts into one, but it also is not bad practice to keep them separate. That's really a decision that only you and your team can decide on what is most efficient for you to maintain.
I do think you are right to want to break out any reusable functionality into separate modules, but I would be careful putting "everything related to a Sales Order" into one module. My personal preference is to design and group code based on features and business processes rather than around record types. If you try to modularize based on record type, what happens when you have an approval process that touches both Purchase Orders and Vendor Bills? Where will that live? I prefer small, focused modules rather than large monolithic ones, but that is just my preference. That doesn't work best for everyone and every team.
Have you proven that loading additional modules or Script records is a performance bottleneck for your system? I would be very surprised if that were the case, and so I would caution against premature optimization of these sorts of things. There are many facets of NetSuite that operate on the order of seconds and are out of your control, so saving a few micro- or milliseconds here and there isn't going to do anything appreciable for your users.
In my current application, which is quite simple, I have a class responsible for keeping track of all the customers. It adds new customers, updates details, assigns managers etc. All in all, it performs some logic and keeps track of what is there.
Now, I need to display this database in a complicated way, with certain string formatting, column widths etc. Should this behaviour be part of an external class that would take a list of cusomers, or should it rather stay within the Database itself, as it is the "closest" to the customer objects? What are pros/cons of both approaches? What makes more sense semantically?
Thx in advance.
I would use an external class because the code will be reusable for other applications. If you tie the formatting to the database, then you'll end up with very specific code that will cost you time further on down the road.
That being said, the elegant solution is not always the fastest. If there's a looming deadline, and you find it easier and faster to hard code your formatting info, then it may be more prudent to brute force your way through it so you don't end up with an angry client, an unfinished project and an unpaid invoice.
My web applications have pages that display many static fields.
I know that poor layout invariably leads to information overload and poor readability.
My Question:
Are there any best-practices or heuristics for laying out a screen that contains many static fields?
Ordinarily, I would reference Bill Scott and Theresa Neil's excellent book, but I can't seem to find any guidance for this issue.
Here are some guidelines that I'm inclined to follow:
Group related fields.
Position the major (or parent) fields towards the top and the left. Position the minor (or child) fields towards the bottom and right.
Don't feel obliged to fill every pixel. Consider white space if it will improve readability.
Favor progressive disclosure wherever possible.
Consider an accordion control.
Perhaps a Details on Demand approach would work well. Ask yourself which data are absolutely and immediately relevant to the user and group those, while hiding the other data. You can always provide an 'Expand' link or control that would allow a user to view the details if desired.
(It's good to see that you're looking at interface design patterns. They are often overlooked!)
I work on HR software and have faced this problem many times. One thing that we keep seeing in feedback when we introduce collapse controls or any progressive disclosure pattern really is that our users don't like the way those types of "web 2.0" (their words lol) pages don't print out. So just a reminder if your user base still insists on printing large pages of data include a print media stylesheet.
Depending on how large your set of data is I'd seriously consider a some search functionality or a sorting mechanism. Many times when the data set is large different users have different priorities and allowing customization is the only way to satisfy a wide audience.
I think you pretty much answered your own question, especially the grouping of important fields tied to progressive disclosure.
For an ecommerce website how do you measure if a change to your site actually improved usability? What kind of measurements should you gather and how would you set up a framework for making this testing part of development?
Multivariate testing and reporting is a great way to actually measure these kind of things.
It allows you to test what combination of page elements has the greatest conversion rate, providing continual improvement on your site design and usability.
Google Web Optimiser has support for this.
Similar methods that you used to identify the usability problems to begin with-- usability testing. Typically you identify your use-cases and then have a lab study evaluating how users go about accomplishing certain goals. Lab testing is typically good with 8-10 people.
The more information methodology we have adopted to understand our users is to have anonymous data collection (you may need user permission, make your privacy policys clear, etc.) This is simply evaluating what buttons/navigation menus users click on, how users delete something (i.e. changing quantity - are more users entering 0 and updating quantity or hitting X)? This is a bit more complex to setup; you have to develop an infrastructure to hold this data (which is actually just counters, i.e. "Times clicked x: 138838383, Times entered 0: 390393") and allow data points to be created as needed to plug into the design.
To push the measurement of an improvement of a UI change up the stream from end-user (where the data gathering could take a while) to design or implementation, some simple heuristics can be used:
Is the number of actions it takes to perform a scenario less? (If yes, then it has improved). Measurement: # of steps reduced / added.
Does the change reduce the number of kinds of input devices to use (even if # of steps is the same)? By this, I mean if you take something that relied on both the mouse and keyboard and changed it to rely only on the mouse or only on the keyboard, then you have improved useability. Measurement: Change in # of devices used.
Does the change make different parts of the website consistent? E.g. If one part of the e-Commerce site loses changes made while you are not logged on and another part does not, this is inconsistent. Changing it so that they have the same behavior improves usability (preferably to the more fault tolerant please!). Measurement: Make a graph (flow chart really) mapping the ways a particular action could be done. Improvement is a reduction in the # of edges on the graph.
And so on... find some general UI tips, figure out some metrics like the above, and you can approximate usability improvement.
Once you have these design approximations of user improvement, and then gather longer term data, you can see if there is any predictive ability for the design-level usability improvements to the end-user reaction (like: Over the last 10 projects, we've seen an average of 1% quicker scenarios for each action removed, with a range of 0.25% and standard dev of 0.32%).
The first way can be fully subjective or partly quantified: user complaints and positive feedbacks. The problem with this is that you may have some strong biases when it comes to filter those feedbacks, so you better make as quantitative as possible. Having some ticketing system to file every report from the users and gathering statistics about each version of the interface might be useful. Just get your statistics right.
The second way is to measure the difference in a questionnaire taken about the interface by end-users. Answers to each question should be a set of discrete values and then again you can gather statistics for each version of the interface.
The latter way may be much harder to setup (designing a questionnaire and possibly the controlled environment for it as well as the guidelines to interpret the results is a craft by itself) but the former makes it unpleasantly easy to mess up with the measurements. For example, you have to consider the fact that the number of tickets you get for each version is dependent on the time it is used, and that all time ranges are not equal (e.g. a whole class of critical issues may never be discovered before the third or fourth week of usage, or users might tend not to file tickets the first days of use, even if they find issues, etc.).
Torial stole my answer. Although if there is a measure of how long it takes to do a certain task. If the time is reduced and the task is still completed, then that's a good thing.
Also, if there is a way to record the number of cancels, then that would work too.