标签：#m

You’re an action hero, and you need a camera to match. We guide you through all the models, plus accessory recommendations and hidden software tricks to try.

You don’t have to upload your video to the cloud or pay a monthly fee to secure your home. These security cameras record locally.

Opus 5 runs at 5 and 25 per million tokens against Fable 5 at 10 and 50, so the top tier now costs double for a much smaller gap Thinking is on by default on Opus 5, which silently changes what a tight max_tokens setting does to your output Disabling thinking now returns an error above high effort, so any xhigh or max route that turns it off needs an audit before you migrate Prompt caching starts at 512 tokens on Opus 5, half the Opus 4.8 floor, so short reusable prompts cache with no code change In June I worked through whether Claude Fable 5 was worth double the price of Opus 4.8 and concluded that it usually was, for hard work. Claude Opus 5 landed on July 24 at Opus 4.8's exact price and closed most of that gap. So the answer changed, and a few of the changes will throw errors in code that worked last week. The Price Gap Held, the Capability Gap Closed Opus 5 costs 5 and 25 per million tokens, input and output. That is identical to Opus 4.8 and exactly half of Fable 5 at 10 and 50. Anthropic did not raise the sticker price on the tier it improved, which is the single most consequential fact in this release. What that buys, on the numbers: 79.2 percent on SWE-bench Pro against Fable 5's 80.3, and a CursorBench 3.2 result Anthropic describes as landing within 0.5 percent of Fable 5's peak at max effort, at half the cost per task. On OSWorld 2.0 it goes past Fable 5's best computer-use result at just over a third of the cost. A 1.1 point deficit on the headline coding row, for half the money. Last month the equivalent comparison had an 11 point spread. That is what actually changed, and it flips the default: Fable 5 used to be the reasonable choice for anything hard, and now it has to argue for itself on each task. There is a quieter cost lever too. The minimum cacheable prompt on Opus 5 is 512 tokens, down from 1024 on Opus 4.8. Prompts I had written off as too short to cache now create entries with no code change at all. If you run a lot of small repeated calls,

Three labs shipped flagship models in fifteen days: GPT-5.6 Sol on July 9, Kimi K3 on July 16, Claude Opus 5 on July 24 Opus 5 leads SWE-bench Pro 79.2 to 64.6 over Sol, and ARC-AGI-3 30.2 to 7.8 Sol holds Terminal-Bench 2.1 at 91.9 percent in its top mode and still takes DeepSWE 1.1 and HealthBench Professional Kimi K3 is a 2.8 trillion parameter open-weight model at 3 and 15 per million tokens, roughly 40 percent under Opus 5 on input Fifteen days. That is the gap between OpenAI making GPT-5.6 Sol generally available and Anthropic shipping Claude Opus 5, with Moonshot dropping a 2.8 trillion parameter open-weight model in the middle of it. I wrote a frontier check like this in June and most of it is already out of date, so here is where the three current flagships actually stand. Three Flagships in Fifteen Days Model Lab GA Context Per million (in / out) GPT-5.6 Sol OpenAI 2026-07-09 1.05M 5 / 30 Kimi K3 Moonshot AI 2026-07-16 1M 3 / 15 Claude Opus 5 Anthropic 2026-07-24 1M 5 / 25 The specs have converged to the point where they barely differentiate anything. All three sit at or just above a million tokens of context. All three cap output around 128k. The input prices are within a factor of two of each other. Two years ago a context window was a headline; now it is table stakes, and the interesting differences have moved entirely into behavior under load. Two timing details that get flattened in the coverage. GPT-5.6 Sol was previewed on June 26 and only became generally available on July 9, so some of the earliest benchmark tables were run against a preview build. And Sol is the top of a three-model family alongside Terra and Luna, spanning roughly 1 to 30 per million tokens depending on tier. Comparing Opus 5 to "GPT-5.6" without saying which one is close to meaningless, which is a large share of the comparisons currently circulating. One structural note on Kimi K3, because the parameter count gets quoted carelessly. It is a mixture-of-experts model with 896 exp

Every few weeks I'd end up rewriting the same 10 things from scratch: rate limiter middleware, webhook signature check, retry-with-backoff, connection pool config. So I built AutoSnippets. 50 snippets across Python, JS, TS, Java, C#, C++, Go, PHP, Rust, and SQL. All production-ready, and even more are being made. Favorites of mine: Go channel-based worker pool (snippet #32) Rust Arc + Mutex safe counter (#41) SQL recursive CTE for org charts (#50) PHP RBAC in like 8 lines (#38) Free, no signup. Bookmark it if you find it useful.

AI-Driven Development: How Machine Learning is Reshaping Software Workflows in 2026 The software development landscape of 2026 looks almost unrecognizable compared to just a few years ago. Artificial intelligence has moved from being a novel assistant to a core pillar of the development workflow. Today, AI doesn't just autocomplete a line of code; it helps architect entire systems, automatically detects and fixes bugs before they reach production, and continuously learns from the organization's codebase to accelerate every phase of delivery. This article explores the key transformations and practical examples of how AI is reshaping software development in 2026. AI-Powered Code Generation and Completion By 2026, AI-powered code assistants have evolved far beyond simple autocomplete. Modern systems understand natural language requirements, project architecture, and even business logic. Developers can describe complex features in plain English, and the AI generates multi-file implementations, including dependency management, configuration, and tests. Example: Generating a REST API with AI A developer might request: "Create a FastAPI endpoint for user registration with email verification, rate limiting, and an asynchronous database call." The AI would produce: from fastapi import APIRouter , HTTPException , Depends from sqlalchemy.ext.asyncio import AsyncSession from app.database import get_async_session from app.models import User from app.schemas import UserCreate , UserResponse from app.services import create_user , send_verification_email from app.rate_limiter import rate_limit router = APIRouter ( prefix = " /auth " , tags = [ " auth " ]) @router.post ( " /register " , response_model = UserResponse ) @rate_limit ( max_requests = 5 , window_seconds = 60 ) async def register ( user_data : UserCreate , db : AsyncSession = Depends ( get_async_session )): existing_user = await User . find_by_email ( db , user_data . email ) if existing_user : raise HTTPException ( statu

Video transitions are one of those details that quietly shape the feel of an edit. In Reel Quick issue #13 , the goal was simple: let users control how long a scene transition lasts instead of forcing a fixed value. Issue URL: https://github.com/ronin1770/reel-quick/issues/13 The problem The app already supported transition effects between scenes, but the duration was fixed. That meant creators could choose what transition to use, but not how long it should run. For short-form video, that matters a lot: fast transitions create a snappier pace longer transitions feel smoother or more cinematic some edits need no transition at all The feature The new behavior adds a configurable transition duration: minimum: 0.0 seconds maximum: 4.0 seconds step: 0.5 seconds A slider in the frontend lets the user choose the duration, and that value is sent to the backend for FFmpeg video generation. If the value is 0.0 , transitions are disabled entirely. The FFmpeg math When two clips are joined with a transition, the transition overlaps the end of the first clip and the start of the second clip. So the final duration is: final length = clip 1 + clip 2 - transition duration Example 1 Clip 1 = 7 seconds Clip 2 = 8 seconds Transition duration = 4 seconds Math: 7 + 8 - 4 = 11 seconds Final video length: 11 seconds Example 2 Clip 1 = 7 seconds Clip 2 = 8 seconds Transition duration = 0.5 seconds Math: 7 + 8 - 0.5 = 14.5 seconds Final video length: 14.5 seconds Why validation matters This feature also needs guardrails. The backend validates that: the duration is between 0 and 4 the duration is a multiple of 0.5 clips are long enough for the selected transition That last point is important. A 4 second transition cannot work safely if a clip itself is only 3 seconds long. Implementation notes The implementation touches both frontend and backend: Frontend add a transition duration slider show the selected value beside it send transition_duration in the video creation request show inline vali

1. Introdução: Conectando IaC e Automação Nos artigos anteriores desta série, exploramos a poderosa combinação de Terraform e YAML para gerenciar configurações de infraestrutura em múltiplos ambientes, desde os conceitos básicos até padrões avançados de deep merge e modularização. No entanto, a verdadeira força da Infraestrutura como Código (IaC) se manifesta quando integrada a um pipeline de Integração Contínua e Entrega Contínua (CI/CD). É no CI/CD que a promessa de provisionamento automatizado, consistente e seguro da infraestrutura se torna realidade. Este artigo se aprofundará na implementação prática desses conceitos em um projeto real de CI/CD. Abordaremos a estrutura ideal do repositório, as etapas essenciais de um pipeline, estratégias de branching, considerações de segurança e as melhores práticas para garantir que sua infraestrutura seja implantada de forma eficiente e confiável. 2. Estrutura do Repositório para CI/CD Eficaz Uma estrutura de repositório bem definida é crucial para a organização e automação em um ambiente de CI/CD. Ela deve refletir a separação entre código Terraform e dados YAML, além de acomodar múltiplos ambientes e serviços. . (root do repositório) ├── README.md ├── .github/workflows/ # Ou .gitlab-ci/, .azure-pipelines/, etc. │ └── terraform.yml ├── terraform/ # Código Terraform genérico e módulos │ ├── main.tf │ ├── variables.tf │ ├── outputs.tf │ └── modules/ │ ├── vpc/ │ │ ├── main.tf │ │ └── variables.tf │ └── webserver/ │ ├── main.tf │ └── variables.tf └── config/ # Dados de configuração YAML por ambiente/serviço ├── global.yaml ├── environments/ │ ├── dev/ │ │ ├── base.yaml │ │ └── services/ │ │ ├── webapp.yaml │ │ └── database.yaml │ ├── staging/ │ │ ├── base.yaml │ │ └── services/ │ │ ├── webapp.yaml │ │ └── database.yaml │ └── prod/ │ ├── base.yaml │ └── services/ │ ├── webapp.yaml │ └── database.yaml └── services/ ├── defaults/ │ ├── webapp.yaml │ └── database.yaml └── overrides/ ├── webapp-prod.yaml └── database-dev.yaml Exp

The most expensive part of running AI-powered customer support isn't the token cost or the infrastructure—it's the maintenance of truth. You deploy a chatbot, it works brilliantly for three days, then your product team pushes a breaking change to your API or shifts your refund policy. Suddenly, that 'intelligent' agent is hallucinating outdated information with extreme confidence. This is where most developers fail: they treat AI support as a static RAG (Retrieance-Augmented Generation) problem when it should be treated as an observability and orchestration problem. I've spent years building systems where the drift between documentation and reality was the primary cause of production incidents. The MCP (Model Context Protocol) changes this trajectory because, for the first time, we have a standardized way to move beyond 'read-only' agents. When I looked at how Aidbase implements its MCP server, I didn't see just another way to query an FAQ. I saw the blueprint for a self-healing support loop. The Shift from Reading to Operating Most people use MCP to give Claude or Cursor access to their codebase or some documentation files. It's useful, but it's passive. You ask a question; the agent finds an answer. With the Aidbase implementation, the capabilities are fundamentally different because they include 'write' operations via tools like add_aidbase_faq_item and add_aidbase_website_knowledge . This shifts the LLM from being a passive librarian to an active Support Engineer. Think about your current workflow. You find a bug, you fix it, you update the PR, and then... you remember you need to go into the Aidbase dashboard (or Zendesk, or Intercom) to manually update the FAQ so the bot doesn't keep telling customers the old way is correct. That manual step is where human error lives. With this MCP server, your workflow looks like this: You finish the PR in Cursor. You point at the new documentation URL or a snippet of code. You tell Claude: "Update our Aidbase knowledge base

JFrog Security Research revealed "PixelSmash," a vulnerability in the FFmpeg media framework, allowing for Remote Code Execution and Denial of Service attacks. Present for sixteen years, it affects numerous applications using the MagicYUV decoder. Exploitation requires only a crafted media file. Users are advised to check for the vulnerability and apply patches or disable the decoder if necessary. By Olimpiu Pop

Opus 5 posts 79.2 percent on SWE-bench Pro against Opus 4.8 at 69.2, a 10 point jump with no change in per-token price Anthropic published most gains as ratios (three times ARC-AGI-3, more than double Frontier-Bench) rather than absolute scores On CursorBench 3.2 at max effort it lands within 0.5 percent of Fable 5's peak at half the cost per task Public GDPval-AA figures disagree across sources by up to 117 Elo, so I left that row out entirely Anthropic shipped Claude Opus 5 on July 24, and the coverage filled up with ratios instead of scores. Three times the next-best model. More than double the previous Opus. Just over a third of the cost. I went looking for the actual numbers behind those phrases. What I found says as much about how model launches get reported as it does about the model. The Numbers That Are Actually Comparable The cleanest row is SWE-bench Pro, which runs a model against real GitHub issues and checks whether the patch passes the repository's own tests. It is harder than the older SWE-bench Verified set and it is the row the whole industry now quotes. Model SWE-bench Pro Released Claude Fable 5 80.3 2026-06-09 Claude Opus 5 79.2 2026-07-24 Claude Opus 4.8 69.2 2026-05-29 GPT-5.6 Sol 64.6 2026-07-09 That is a 10 point jump from Opus 4.8 to Opus 5 inside two months, and the per-token price did not move (both tiers run at 5 and 25 per million tokens). Fable 5 keeps a 1.1 point lead and charges double for it. Those two facts together are the actual story of this release, and neither one is a ratio. On SWE-bench Verified, the older and easier set, Opus 5 reports 96.0 percent averaged over five trials. The averaging matters. A single run on a set that saturated above 90 percent tells you very little, because the spread between runs starts to rival the gap between models. Five trials is better practice than most launch tables bother with, and it is worth noticing when a lab does it. It is worth being precise about why those two rows behave differently,

Let's get the joke out of the way, because you're going to hear it within four minutes of telling anyone you're learning C#: "Oh, C#? Isn't that just Microsoft Java?" Yes. Kind of. A little. Here's the actual story. Back around 2000, Microsoft wanted a modern, garbage-collected, object-oriented language for their shiny new .NET platform. Java existed and was extremely popular. Microsoft had previously shipped their own version of Java, Sun sued them into the sea, and the whole thing ended in tears and lawyers. So Microsoft did the very sensible, very corporate thing: they hired Anders Hejlsberg , the man who built Turbo Pascal and Delphi, and said: "make us a Java, but ours, and don't get us sued." He did. And then he kept improving it for twenty-five years while Java spent a decade arguing about whether it should add lambdas. So calling C# "Microsoft Java" today is like calling a smartphone "a Microsoft telegraph." Technically, you can trace the lineage. It is also extremely funny to the person being insulted, which is the only thing that matters. So, what can you actually do with this thing? More than you'd think. Let's take the tour. First, the obligatory Hello World Every language tour is legally required to start here. C#'s has changed a lot, which tells you something about the language's whole vibe. The old way, circa 2005, was a ceremony: using System ; namespace MyFirstApp { class Program { static void Main ( string [] args ) { Console . WriteLine ( "Hello, world!" ); } } } Eleven lines to say hello. You needed a namespace , a class , a Main method with a specific signature, and the kind of static void incantation that makes beginners quietly close the tab and go learn Python instead. The modern way (C# 9 and later) is this: Console . WriteLine ( "Hello, world!" ); That's the whole program. The compiler quietly puts all the ceremony back for you behind the scenes. This is C# in a nutshell: it grew up in a buttoned-up enterprise suit, and over twenty years it

submitted by /u/deniskyashif [link] [留言]

There are a few reasons why problems from International Mathematical Olympiad function as a good benchmark for LLMs: - The problems are new, not included in the training data of any model - Hard math problems are quite a good proxy for general intelligence capability - These are complex multi-step tasks that can benefit from orchestration / harness engineering Results: Frontier models (sol and fable) were able to get perfect / nearly perfect score regardless of harness. For both sonnet and opus, the webapp performance was quite poor, improved by provider harness (claude code) and even further improved using AutoFyn, a customizable multi-agent harness we developed. Even with harness, we were not able to match the performance of the frontier models. Open weight model GLM performed roughly at the same level as sonnet without harness, and improved similarly with AutoFyn. Numerical scores are available in the attached paper below. https://preview.redd.it/fy4ayale5nfh1.png?width=2155&format=png&auto=webp&s=040e466171a2f9480d4d6578b34f4d930b41e292 Grading was done by a different frontier model as well as manual verification (we are former IMO medalists, able to sanity check the results). There were cases when the model claimed a false solution (on P3 by sonnet, for example), so hallucination issue still persists in a verifiable domain like math. On the hardest problem: P3's key reduction was missed by every sub-frontier model in every harness, including a 20-hour run that proved everything else and stalled at the identical step. The harness supplied retrieval and verification, not a key idea needed for the solution. Paper: https://github.com/SignalPilot-Labs/AutoFyn/blob/main/results/imo-2026/autofyn-beyond-model-imo26-report.pdf Audit Trails: https://github.com/SignalPilot-Labs/AutoFyn/tree/main/results/imo-2026 submitted by /u/pequalnp92 [link] [留言]

I took a week off from Dev.to. Not a planned one — I just sat down last Sunday and realized I had nothing left. Eighteen stories into a 36-story series, and my tank was empty. So I didn't post a single article for a full week. I'd pop into the comments section now and then, but that was it. The day job was still there, but I stopped staying up till 1:30 AM writing like I did when the series first started. I adjusted to a 10 PM bedtime instead. Then on Friday afternoon, something happened. I spent twenty minutes writing a rant about bugs and layoffs, hit publish, and went back to doing nothing. When I checked back on Sunday, that rant had more eyeballs on it than most of my 36 Stratagems stories. You're supposed to have an existential crisis about your content strategy at this point, right? I didn't. The Series That Wasn't a Strategy Eighteen stories ago, I sat down and wrote the first Stratagem. I wasn't starting from nothing — there was a rough outline in my head, a skeleton of 36 chapters with each of the six characters mapped to a specific stratagem. But I hadn't figured out the details of each story yet. Not because I had a content calendar. Not because an editor was pushing me. Because it clicked. The six protagonists — Derek, Lena, Leo, Alex, Mark, and P — had been living in my head long before the first post went up. They came from an earlier series I'd written, 15 stories about AI systems collapsing in the wild. Those people weren't characters I invented for a series. They were people I'd met, worked with, watched navigate impossible situations. They stayed with me because their stories weren't finished. The 36 Stratagems wasn't a strategy. It was a container. I found an ancient Chinese military text that happened to map perfectly onto what I'd already seen happen in AI engineering teams across the industry. The fit was uncanny — like the text had been waiting two thousand years for someone to rewrite it in Python and production incidents. Each Stratagem too

Codename One Settings used to be a screen inside the old GUI Builder jar. It edited project properties, managed accounts, opened signing workflows, monitored builds, installed extensions, and accumulated every job that did not have a better home. What is Codename One? Codename One is an open-source framework for building native iOS, Android, desktop, and web apps from a single Java or Kotlin codebase. Learn more at codenameone.com . PR #5359 replaces it with a standalone Codename One desktop application. It does fewer things, which is the point. One command, one project Run the new tool from a Codename One Maven project: mvn cn1:settings The Maven plugin resolves the com.codenameone:codenameone-settings artifact, launches it against the current project, and writes changes back to that project's codenameone_settings.properties and Maven configuration. The tool has its own release lifecycle instead of borrowing the GUI Builder's jar and version. This is the new Basic screen. It keeps the properties that belong to the source project: display name, package name, version, main class, icon, and related build choices. Build hints are searchable project data Build hints used to feel like an untyped text file with a dialog in front of it. The new editor preserves direct key-value control, but adds descriptions, known value types, filtering, and a focused editing flow. Nothing prevents you from editing the property file by hand. The Settings tool is useful when you do not remember whether the current spelling is ios.themeMode , and.themeMode , or a platform-specific signing key. It also keeps project values visible without mixing them with account state from the cloud. For example, selecting the modern native themes still produces ordinary project settings: nativeTheme = modern ios.themeMode = modern and.themeMode = modern The file remains the source of truth. The UI is an editor, not a second configuration system. Extensions keep compatibility warnings The Extensions screen

This was my Bachelor's Final Project: implementing YOLO26n inference completely from scratch using ARM64 Assembly Language and C, without relying on existing inference frameworks. The goal was to understand how modern neural network inference engines work at a low level and explore optimization techniques for faster and more efficient edge AI execution on Raspberry Pi 4. The implementation includes: * ARM64 Assembly Language + C inference engine * ARM NEON SIMD optimization * Winograd convolution * Optimized GEMM kernels * Cache-aware tiling * Custom ARM64 micro-kernels * Operator fusion * Attention mechanism * YOLO26 components: Conv, C3K2, SPPF, C2PSA, PSA, BottleNeck, and Detect I extracted the YOLO26n model parameters and redesigned the memory layout into a custom binary format optimized for the inference pipeline. The implementation produces correct object detection results, but the performance improvement was lower than I initially expected. I would appreciate feedback and suggestions from anyone about: * CNN inference optimization * ARM NEON/vectorization * Memory layout and cache optimization * Low-level neural network acceleration Repository: https://github.com/mohammad-ghaderi/YOLO26 Thanks for any feedback or suggestions. submitted by /u/Forward_Confusion902 [link] [留言]

We’ve all been there: It’s 11 PM, the bug is still alive, your tests are failing, and you’re about to throw your laptop out the window. We usually view debugging as a pure logic problem: stack traces, breakpoints, and logs. But Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is often the real reason you fix a bug in 20 minutes instead of 3 hours. Here is how EQ actually applies to your daily workflow: 1. Spotting Tunnel Vision Before It Wastes Your Time Frustration causes confirmation bias. You start forcing your initial hypothesis ( "It MUST be the cache!" ) even when the logs say otherwise. EQ Move: Recognize physical signs like tight shoulders or rage-typing. Take a 5-minute bio-break. Stepping away resets your mental stack, which is usually faster than another hour of blind grinding. 2. Separating code.hasBug() from dev.isBad() A stubborn bug easily triggers imposter syndrome: "A senior dev would have solved this already." That inner voice just adds noise to your debugging stack. EQ Move: Reframe the problem objectively: ❌ "I don't know what I'm doing." (Emotion) ✅ "This async function isn't returning the expected payload." (Fact) Debug the code, not your self-worth. 3. Handling Spicy Bug Reports A ticket comes in: "This is completely broken, who let this ship?!" Your gut reaction might be to get defensive or send a passive-aggressive response. EQ Move: Filter out the noise. Translate panic or bad phrasing into actionable facts. Reply calmly to de-escalate, pull the missing repro steps, and ship the fix without unnecessary Slack drama. 4. Rubber Ducking and Asking for Help (Ego-Free) How many times have you fixed a bug just by explaining it out loud to a peer? Sitting in silent frustration for hours doesn't make you a hero; it just delays the feature. EQ Move: Treat asking for help as an optimization tactic. Send a concise message with context: > "Hey, expecting X, getting Y. Already tried A and B. Got 5 mins to glance at this snippet?" 5. Staying Cool During Prod Outages Panicked

Most MCP servers I see in the wild start as a quick script and stay that way — no validation, no structured logging, no tests, and a deploy story that means shipping node_modules around. I got tired of rebuilding the same scaffolding every time a client project needed a Model Context Protocol server, so I open-sourced the template I now start every one from: 🚀 mcp-server-template It's a production-ready TypeScript/Node.js foundation for building MCP servers that connect AI agents like Claude Desktop and Cursor to your tools, data, and workflows. 𝗚𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀: git clone https://github.com/qmmughal/mcp-server-template.git cd mcp-server-template && npm install cp .env.example .env npm run dev That spins up a working server in watch mode. npm test runs the Vitest suite, npm run build bundles everything into a single dist/index.js with esbuild — no node_modules to deploy. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲: Every tool gets a Zod schema, a definition, and a handler — so a malformed AI payload gets rejected with a clean error instead of crashing your process: const schema = z . object ({ text : z . string (). describe ( " The text to process " ), repeat : z . number (). int (). min ( 1 ). max ( 10 ). optional () }); export async function handleExampleTool ( args : unknown , service : ExampleService ) { return withErrorHandling ( " process_text " , async () => { const { text , repeat } = validateArgs ( schema , args ); const result = await service . processText ( text , repeat ); return { content : [{ type : " text " , text : result }] }; }); } 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀: Drop a new file in src/tools/ following the same schema → definition → handler shape Register it in src/tools/index.ts — add your definition to the tools list and a case to the switch statement that routes CallToolRequest to your handler Put your real logic in src/services/ so the protocol layer stays thin and your business logic stays unit-testable in isolation Resources (data the

When you need process orchestration — approval workflows, business rules, data pipelines — the usual answer is a heavyweight engine: BPMN 2.0 XML, database schemas, a management UI, and a framework that drags in half of enterprise Java. Solon Flow takes a different approach. It's a ~200KB engine that treats process definitions as flat YAML or JSON, runs without a database, and lets you resume interrupted processes from a JSON snapshot. You can embed it in any JVM framework — Solon, Spring Boot, Quarkus, or even a plain main() method. This article walks through the core API, node types, context persistence, and driver customization — all verified against the official documentation at solon.noear.org . Getting Started Add the dependency: <dependency> <groupId> org.noear </groupId> <artifactId> solon-flow </artifactId> </dependency> Define a flow in YAML ( flow/demo1.yml ): id : " c1" layout : - { id : " n1" , type : " start" , link : " n2" } - { id : " n2" , type : " activity" , link : " n3" , task : ' System.out.println("hello world!");' } - { id : " n3" , type : " end" } Load and execute: FlowEngine engine = FlowEngine . newInstance (); engine . load ( "classpath:flow/demo1.yml" ); engine . eval ( "c1" ); That's it. No database, no XML schema, no deployment step. In a Solon application, you can inject the engine directly and let it auto-load flow definitions: solon.flow : - " classpath:flow/*.yml" @Component public class DemoCom implements LifecycleBean { @Inject private FlowEngine flowEngine ; @Override public void start () throws Throwable { flowEngine . eval ( "c1" ); } } The engine scans all matching files on startup, so adding a new flow is just dropping a YAML file. Node Types Solon Flow supports seven node types via the NodeType enum: Type Description Task Condition Parallel In Out start Entry point — — — 0 1 activity Default node Yes — — 1..n 1..n exclusive Exclusive gateway (if/else) Yes Yes — 1..n 1..n inclusive Inclusive gateway (multi-select) Yes Yes — 1