2011年1月18日 星期二
2011年1月17日 星期一
WiMAX2及LTE 雙軌並進
好久前就說過 LTE 會起來吧.
2011-01-17 工商時報 【記者林淑惠／台北報導】
電信產業政策急轉彎，經濟部定調同步押寶WiMAX2及LTE，定調4G為台灣未來電信產業發展政策主軸，WiMAX2及LTE並軌推動！
台灣在以「M台灣」主導推動WiMAX技術、於2010年告一段落後，經濟部透露，政府持續推動WiMAX，但同時推動LTE，讓目前已經發展WiMAX的台廠，透過上週在台通過技術標準的802.16m(WiMAX2)、儘速升級發展並接軌推展LTE，採取雙軌並進策略，讓台商在全球兩個4G技術都能雨露均霑。
WiMAX Forum工作小組會議預定今(16)在台召開，在WiMAX Forum上週在台確定802.16m技術標準備之後，電信技術中心及台灣立德桃園公司將從16e的認證中心躍升成為16m全球測試認證中心。
由於16m支援下載330Mbps、相較16e的10Mbps快速數十倍，使得WiMAX2正式納入ITU的4G技術標準，與LTE並列全球4G標準。
為此，經濟部已調整過去全力壓寶在WiMAX的策略，從今年開始，將以廣義的4G做為未來台灣電信產業技術發展主軸，這項產業政策的轉折，也代表台灣在未來幾年的電信產業政策，將同步押寶WiMAX2及LTE，不再偏執WiMAX一方。
正文科技執行董事楊正任率先表示，WiMAX和LTE技術雷同度約達80％，WiMAX和LTE對台灣廠商來說，並不是選邊站的戰爭，台廠累積WiMAX的能量，將有助於切入LTE。他強調，「台灣在LTE市場也不會缺席」，但能在WiMAX先行卡位，也能在LTE領域，搶先一步敲開國際電信大客戶大門，獲得進入4G的門票。
工研院資通所副主長黃文傑引用資策會MIC預估表示，3年後，WiMAX全球軟硬體商機將超過新台幣8,000億元，2011年到2014年的年複合成長率36％。
黃文傑強調，截至2010年底為止，全球WiMAX用戶已達1,300萬，預估2011年達到1,800萬，其中，全球WiMAX龍頭Clearwire在2010年12月底的用戶總數已經達到400萬，Sprint預定2011年2月引進宏達電平價智慧型手機EVO Shift、在售價還比EVO套價價150美元還低之後，預估WiMAX的美國用戶將以每月新增30萬用戶快速成長。
2011-01-17 工商時報 【記者林淑惠／台北報導】
電信產業政策急轉彎，經濟部定調同步押寶WiMAX2及LTE，定調4G為台灣未來電信產業發展政策主軸，WiMAX2及LTE並軌推動！
台灣在以「M台灣」主導推動WiMAX技術、於2010年告一段落後，經濟部透露，政府持續推動WiMAX，但同時推動LTE，讓目前已經發展WiMAX的台廠，透過上週在台通過技術標準的802.16m(WiMAX2)、儘速升級發展並接軌推展LTE，採取雙軌並進策略，讓台商在全球兩個4G技術都能雨露均霑。
WiMAX Forum工作小組會議預定今(16)在台召開，在WiMAX Forum上週在台確定802.16m技術標準備之後，電信技術中心及台灣立德桃園公司將從16e的認證中心躍升成為16m全球測試認證中心。
由於16m支援下載330Mbps、相較16e的10Mbps快速數十倍，使得WiMAX2正式納入ITU的4G技術標準，與LTE並列全球4G標準。
為此，經濟部已調整過去全力壓寶在WiMAX的策略，從今年開始，將以廣義的4G做為未來台灣電信產業技術發展主軸，這項產業政策的轉折，也代表台灣在未來幾年的電信產業政策，將同步押寶WiMAX2及LTE，不再偏執WiMAX一方。
正文科技執行董事楊正任率先表示，WiMAX和LTE技術雷同度約達80％，WiMAX和LTE對台灣廠商來說，並不是選邊站的戰爭，台廠累積WiMAX的能量，將有助於切入LTE。他強調，「台灣在LTE市場也不會缺席」，但能在WiMAX先行卡位，也能在LTE領域，搶先一步敲開國際電信大客戶大門，獲得進入4G的門票。
工研院資通所副主長黃文傑引用資策會MIC預估表示，3年後，WiMAX全球軟硬體商機將超過新台幣8,000億元，2011年到2014年的年複合成長率36％。
黃文傑強調，截至2010年底為止，全球WiMAX用戶已達1,300萬，預估2011年達到1,800萬，其中，全球WiMAX龍頭Clearwire在2010年12月底的用戶總數已經達到400萬，Sprint預定2011年2月引進宏達電平價智慧型手機EVO Shift、在售價還比EVO套價價150美元還低之後，預估WiMAX的美國用戶將以每月新增30萬用戶快速成長。
2011年1月13日 星期四
The S.O.L.I.D. Design Principles
The S.O.L.I.D. design principles are a collection of best practices for object-oriented design. All
of the Gang of Four design patterns adhere to these principles in one form or another. The term
S.O.L.I.D. comes from the initial letter of each of the five principles that were collected in the book
Agile Principles, Patterns, and Practices in C# by Robert C. Martin, or Uncle Bob to his friends.
The following sections look at each one in turn.
Single Responsibility Principle (SR P)
The principle of SRP is closely aligned with SoC. It states that every object should only have one
reason to change and a single focus of responsibility. By adhering to this principle, you avoid the
problem of monolithic class design that is the software equivalent of a Swiss army knife. By having
concise objects, you again increase the readability and maintenance of a system.
Open-Closed Principle (OCP)
The OCP states that classes should be open for extension and closed for modification, in that you
should be able to add new features and extend a class without changing its internal behavior. The
principle strives to avoid breaking the existing class and other classes that depend on it, which
would create a ripple effect of bugs and errors throughout your application.
Liskov Substitution Principle (LS P)
The LSP dictates that you should be able to use any derived class in place of a parent class and have it
behave in the same manner without modification. This principle is in line with OCP in that it ensures
that a derived class does not affect the behavior of a parent class, or, put another way, derived classes
must be substitutable for their base classes.
Interface Segregation Principle (IS P)
The ISP is all about splitting the methods of a contract into groups of responsibility and assigning
interfaces to these groups to prevent a client from needing to implement one large interface and a
host of methods that they do not use. The purpose behind this is so that classes wanting to use the
same interfaces only need to implement a specific set of methods as opposed to a monolithic interface
of methods.
Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)
The DIP is all about isolating your classes from concrete implementations and having them depend on
abstract classes or interfaces. It promotes the mantra of coding to an interface rather than an implementation,
which increases flexibility within a system by ensuring you are not tightly coupled to one
implementation.
of the Gang of Four design patterns adhere to these principles in one form or another. The term
S.O.L.I.D. comes from the initial letter of each of the five principles that were collected in the book
Agile Principles, Patterns, and Practices in C# by Robert C. Martin, or Uncle Bob to his friends.
The following sections look at each one in turn.
Single Responsibility Principle (SR P)
The principle of SRP is closely aligned with SoC. It states that every object should only have one
reason to change and a single focus of responsibility. By adhering to this principle, you avoid the
problem of monolithic class design that is the software equivalent of a Swiss army knife. By having
concise objects, you again increase the readability and maintenance of a system.
Open-Closed Principle (OCP)
The OCP states that classes should be open for extension and closed for modification, in that you
should be able to add new features and extend a class without changing its internal behavior. The
principle strives to avoid breaking the existing class and other classes that depend on it, which
would create a ripple effect of bugs and errors throughout your application.
Liskov Substitution Principle (LS P)
The LSP dictates that you should be able to use any derived class in place of a parent class and have it
behave in the same manner without modification. This principle is in line with OCP in that it ensures
that a derived class does not affect the behavior of a parent class, or, put another way, derived classes
must be substitutable for their base classes.
Interface Segregation Principle (IS P)
The ISP is all about splitting the methods of a contract into groups of responsibility and assigning
interfaces to these groups to prevent a client from needing to implement one large interface and a
host of methods that they do not use. The purpose behind this is so that classes wanting to use the
same interfaces only need to implement a specific set of methods as opposed to a monolithic interface
of methods.
Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)
The DIP is all about isolating your classes from concrete implementations and having them depend on
abstract classes or interfaces. It promotes the mantra of coding to an interface rather than an implementation,
which increases flexibility within a system by ensuring you are not tightly coupled to one
implementation.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)