We used this to automate UI tests on an iOS app a couple of years ago (before they added the UI automation stuff). Seemed to work pretty well, though it was a fair bit of work to get it set up.
I've been using it since the first alpha release back in December or whenever it was released and I can say that alpha absolutely fixes the one character at a time undo (and has since the first release).
Seems to have a minor glitch with unicode characters? When you do Colors.remove() everything goes away, but the entries with unicode all come back? Somewhat strange...
Interesting tech, but db access from the client scares me to no end, call me a curmudgeon I guess.
I just did this about a month ago, and it couldn't be easier to get from London to Bletchley Park, it's literally right up the road from the Milton Keynes train station, maybe a two minute walk.
Getting to Down House (Darwin's House) from London, on the other hand, while totally worthwhile... what a hassle!
I just visited Bletchley Park last week. It was great to see, especially the Colossus MK2 reconstruction and the working rebuild of Turing's Bombe. The only thing that made me sad was the lack of discussion of the way the government treated Turing; it was glossed over on a sign next to the Turing statue, but other than that, not a word was said.
Yeah, I assumed there had to be libraries to do this already, but didn't come across anything that did what I wanted. I'll check out async though, thanks for the heads up.
I've written a library for internal use (that I'm waiting for work to agree to open source) that basically lets you bundle a group of asynchronous calls into a single callback. I prefer this method because it doesn't try and hide the asynchronous nature of the code, it just frees you up from having to nest your callbacks N deep when you require the output from all N asynchronous operations to continue. Wondering what others think about this? Do folks prefer the methods in this article that let you hide the asynchronous nature of some code?
Related from a technology standpoint: CASH Music (http://cashmusic.org/) is a non profit dedicated to providing technology to enable a more direct musician to patron relationship. Lots of artists are going this route, which is really much more in line with how artists typically made a living up until the 20th century (i.e. patronage).
I love these 826 stores. I've got a set of time-travel travel posters from Echo Park and some cans of immortality and omnipotence from the Brooklyn Superhero Supply Company as well :).
Actually, I think best practice is to not put the version number in the URI at all. Instead versioning should be handled via content negotiation. That is to say, a client specifies the type of resource they want back via the Accepts: header, and that resource is versioned. So A request would look something like:
GET /client
Accepts: application/vnd.clientlist.v1+json
And they would get back the version 1 client list response. If they want v2, etc, they can specify a different content type (clientlist.v2+json, etc). Also note, that putting verbs in your URIs is counterintuitive. The verb for a REST operation is the HTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE). The URI should simply represent the resource being retrieved. An argument can be made that the client list is the resource, but in reality listing things from a REST API is a first class concept and shouldn't need separate URIs. It's simply a request for a specific resource type without qualifying it by asking for a single instance of that resource. So, GET /client would return all clients (can add query parameters for pagination, etc), GET /client/834 would return a single client resource.