Search Results

Search found 176 results on 8 pages for 'factories'.

Page 1/8 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >

  • ASP.NET Web Forms Extensibility: Handler Factories

    - by Ricardo Peres
    An handler factory is the class that implements IHttpHandlerFactory and is responsible for instantiating an handler (IHttpHandler) that will process the current request. This is true for all kinds of web requests, whether they are for ASPX pages, ASMX/SVC web services, ASHX/AXD handlers, or any other kind of file. Also used for restricting access for certain file types, such as Config, Csproj, etc. Handler factories are registered on the global Web.config file, normally located at %WINDIR%\Microsoft.NET\Framework<x64>\vXXXX\Config for a given path and request type (GET, POST, HEAD, etc). This goes on section <httpHandlers>. You would create a custom handler factory for a number of reasons, let me list just two: A centralized place for using dependency injection; Also a centralized place for invoking custom methods or performing some kind of validation on all pages. Let’s see an example using Unity for injecting dependencies into a page, suppose we have this on Global.asax.cs: 1: public class Global : HttpApplication 2: { 3: internal static readonly IUnityContainer Unity = new UnityContainer(); 4: 5: void Application_Start(Object sender, EventArgs e) 6: { 7: Unity.RegisterType<IFunctionality, ConcreteFunctionality>(); 8: } 9: } We instantiate Unity and register a concrete implementation for an interface, this could/should probably go in the Web.config file. Forget about its actual definition, it’s not important. Then, we create a custom handler factory: 1: public class UnityPageHandlerFactory : PageHandlerFactory 2: { 3: public override IHttpHandler GetHandler(HttpContext context, String requestType, String virtualPath, String path) 4: { 5: IHttpHandler handler = base.GetHandler(context, requestType, virtualPath, path); 6: 7: //one scenario: inject dependencies 8: Global.Unity.BuildUp(handler.GetType(), handler, String.Empty); 9:  10: return (handler); 11: } 12: } It inherits from PageHandlerFactory, which is .NET’s included factory for building regular ASPX pages. We override the GetHandler method and issue a call to the BuildUp method, which will inject required dependencies, if any exist. An example page with dependencies might be: 1: public class SomePage : Page 2: { 3: [Dependency] 4: public IFunctionality Functionality 5: { 6: get; 7: set; 8: } 9: } Notice the DependencyAttribute, it is used by Unity to identify properties that require dependency injection. When BuildUp is called, the Functionality property (or any other properties with the DependencyAttribute attribute) will receive the concrete implementation associated with it’s type, as registered on Unity. Another example, checking a page for authorization. Let’s define an interface first: 1: public interface IRestricted 2: { 3: Boolean Check(HttpContext ctx); 4: } An a page implementing that interface: 1: public class RestrictedPage : Page, IRestricted 2: { 3: public Boolean Check(HttpContext ctx) 4: { 5: //check the context and return a value 6: return ...; 7: } 8: } For this, we would use an handler factory such as this: 1: public class RestrictedPageHandlerFactory : PageHandlerFactory 2: { 3: private static readonly IHttpHandler forbidden = new UnauthorizedHandler(); 4:  5: public override IHttpHandler GetHandler(HttpContext context, String requestType, String virtualPath, String path) 6: { 7: IHttpHandler handler = base.GetHandler(context, requestType, virtualPath, path); 8: 9: if (handler is IRestricted) 10: { 11: if ((handler as IRestricted).Check(context) == false) 12: { 13: return (forbidden); 14: } 15: } 16:  17: return (handler); 18: } 19: } 20:  21: public class UnauthorizedHandler : IHttpHandler 22: { 23: #region IHttpHandler Members 24:  25: public Boolean IsReusable 26: { 27: get { return (true); } 28: } 29:  30: public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) 31: { 32: context.Response.StatusCode = (Int32) HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized; 33: context.Response.ContentType = "text/plain"; 34: context.Response.Write(context.Response.Status); 35: context.Response.Flush(); 36: context.Response.Close(); 37: context.ApplicationInstance.CompleteRequest(); 38: } 39:  40: #endregion 41: } The UnauthorizedHandler is an example of an IHttpHandler that merely returns an error code to the client, but does not cause redirection to the login page, it is included merely as an example. One thing we must keep in mind is, there can be only one handler factory registered for a given path/request type (verb) tuple. A typical registration would be: 1: <httpHandlers> 2: <remove path="*.aspx" verb="*"/> 3: <add path="*.aspx" verb="*" type="MyNamespace.MyHandlerFactory, MyAssembly"/> 4: </httpHandlers> First we remove the previous registration for ASPX files, and then we register our own. And that’s it. A very useful mechanism which I use lots of times.

    Read the article

  • Passing single attributes to associated factories

    - by lambdabutz
    I'm looking for a way to pass fields into the factories of associated models without having to explicitly call the factory itself. For example, lets say I have some factories like so: Factory.define :person do |person| person.name "Default Bob" person.sex "M" person.house {|p| p.association(:house)} end Factory.define :house do |house| house.color "Red" house.has_ac true house.suburb {|h| h.association(:suburb)} end Factory.define :suburb do |suburb| suburb.name "Little boxes" end This is fine and all, but if I want to use factories to create someone in a specific house in a specific suburb I have do this: sub = Factory(:suburb, :name => "Blue town") house = Factory(:house, :color => "Blue", :suburb => sub) person = Factory(:person, :name => "Bill", :house => house) While this isn't bad in this small case, my actual models sometimes have 7 or 8 associations, and when I want to create an object whose associations I only care about a single attribute, the code for this starts to get really heavy. Is there somewhat I can pass attributes to nested Factories without having to recall the Factory itself?

    Read the article

  • Multiple, Simultaneous Factories and Protocols in Twisted: Same Service, Different Ports

    - by RichardCroasher
    Greetings, Forum. I'm working on a program in Python that uses Twisted to manage networking. The basis of this program is a TCP service that is to listen for connections on multiple ports. However, instead of using one Twisted factory to handle a protocol object for each port, I am trying to use a separate factory for each port. The reason for this is to force a separation among the groups of clients connecting to the different ports. Unfortunately, it appears that this architecture isn't quite working: clients that connect to one port appear to be available among all the factories (e.g., the protocol class used by each factory includes a 'self.factory.clients.append (self)' statement...instead of adding a given client to just the factory for a particular port, the client is added to all factories), and whenever I shutdown service on one port the listeners on all ports also stop. I've been working with Twisted for a short while, and fear I simply don't fully understand how its factory classes are managed. My question is: is it simply not possible to have multiple, simultaneous instances of the same factory and same protocol in use across different ports (without these instances stepping on each other's toes)?

    Read the article

  • How to create factories with attr_accesible?

    - by regedarek
    How to deal with factories and attr_accessible? My example: # model class SomeModel attr_accessible :name, full_name, other_name end #spec require 'spec_helper' describe "test" do it do create(:some_model, name: "test name", user: User.first) #factory end end #error ruby(17122,0x12a055000) malloc: *** error for object 0x8: pointer being freed was not allocated *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug I think the error is because user_id is not in attr_accesible atributes

    Read the article

  • Should Factories Persist Entities?

    - by mxmissile
    Should factories persist entities they build? Or is that the job of the caller? Pseudo Example Incoming: public class OrderFactory { public Order Build() { var order = new Order(); .... return order; } } public class OrderController : Controller { public OrderController(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public ActionResult MyAction() { var order = factory.Build(); repository.Insert(order); ... } } or public class OrderFactory { public OrderFactory(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public Order Build() { var order = new Order(); ... repository.Insert(order); return order; } } public class OrderController : Controller { public ActionResult MyAction() { var order = factory.Build(); ... } } Is there a recommended practice here?

    Read the article

  • Configurationless WCF using Factories and JSONP

    - by FlySwat
    I'm using the WebServiceHostFactory in my WCF services to avoid having to create a crapton of binding configuration in web.config. However, I'd like to expose the services as XML/JSON and JSONP. Reading: http://jasonkelly.net/archive/2009/02/24/using-jquery-amp-jsonp-for-cross-domain-ajax-with-wcf-services.aspx It does not look like I can extend WCF to add JSONP without resorting to a mountain of custom binding config. So, for those who have done it, is it possible to have a restful WCF service that responds in XML/JSON/JSONP depending on the UriTemplate, without resorting to a ton of config wiring?

    Read the article

  • Factories, or Dependency Injection for object instantiation in WCF, when coding against an interface

    - by Saajid Ismail
    Hi I am writing a client/server application, where the client is a Windows Forms app, and the server is a WCF service hosted in a Windows Service. Note that I control both sides of the application. I am trying to implement the practice of coding against an interface: i.e. I have a Shared assembly which is referenced by the client application. This project contains my WCF ServiceContracts and interfaces which will be exposed to clients. I am trying to only expose interfaces to the clients, so that they are only dependant on a contract, not any specific implementation. One of the reasons for doing this is so that I can have my service implementation, and domain change at any time without having to recompile and redeploy the clients. The interfaces/contracts will in this case not change. I only need to recompile and redeploy my WCF service. The design issue I am facing now, is: on the client, how do I create new instances of objects, e.g. ICustomer, if the client doesn't know about the Customer concrete implementation? I need to create a new customer to be saved to the DB. Do I use dependency injection, or a Factory class to instantiate new objects, or should I just allow the client to create new instances of concrete implementations? I am not doing TDD, and I will typically only have one implementation of ICustomer or any other exposed interface.

    Read the article

  • Swift CMutablePointers in factories e.g. NewMusicSequence

    - by Gene De Lisa
    How do you use C level factory methods in Swift? Let's try using a factory such as NewMusicSequence(). OSStatus status var sequence:MusicSequence status=NewMusicSequence(&sequence) This errors out with "error: variable 'sequence' passed by reference before being initialized". Set sequence to nil, and you get EXC_BAD_INSTRUCTION. You can try being explicit like this: var sp:CMutablePointer<MusicSequence>=nil status=NewMusicSequence(sp) But then you get a bad access exception when you set sp to nil. If you don't set sp, you get an "error: variable 'sp' used before being initialized" Here's the reference.

    Read the article

  • TestNG - Factories and Dataproviders

    - by Tim K
    Background Story I'm working at a software firm developing a test automation framework to replace our old spaghetti tangled system. Since our system requires a login for almost everything we do, I decided it would be best to use @BeforeMethod, @DataProvider, and @Factory to setup my tests. However, I've run into some issues. Sample Test Case Lets say the software system is a baseball team roster. We want to test to make sure a user can search for a team member by name. (Note: I'm aware that BeforeMethods don't run in any given order -- assume that's been taken care of for now.) @BeforeMethod public void setupSelenium() { // login with username & password // acknowledge announcements // navigate to search page } @Test(dataProvider="players") public void testSearch(String playerName, String searchTerm) { // search for "searchTerm" // browse through results // pass if we find playerName // fail (Didn't find the player) } This test case assumes the following: The user has already logged on (in a BeforeMethod, most likely) The user has already navigated to the search page (trivial, before method) The parameters to the test are associated with the aforementioned login The Problems So lets try and figure out how to handle the parameters for the test case. Idea #1 This method allows us to associate dataproviders with usernames, and lets us use multiple users for any specific test case! @Test(dataProvider="players") public void testSearch(String user, String pass, String name, String search) { // login with user/pass // acknowledge announcements // navigate to search page // ... } ...but there's lots of repetition, as we have to make EVERY function accept two extra parameters. Not to mention, we're also testing the acknowledge announcements feature, which we don't actually want to test. Idea #2 So lets use the factory to initialize things properly! class BaseTestCase { public BaseTestCase(String user, String password, Object[][] data); } class SomeTest { @Factory public void ... } With this, we end up having to write one factory per test case... Although, it does let us have multiple users per test-case. Conclusion I'm about fresh out of ideas. There was another idea I had where I was loading data from an XML file, and then calling the methods from a program... but its getting silly. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • C# Class Factories

    - by Andy
    I have a class called Foo that has a function that looks like the following List<Bar> LoadData(); Both Foo and Bar are in a library that I want to reuse in other projects. Now I am working on a new project and I want to subclass Bar. Let's call it NewBar. What is a simple and flexible way to get Foo.LoadData to return a list of NewBar? I think that a factory is needed or perhaps just a delegate function. Can anyone provide an example? Thanks, Andy

    Read the article

  • Designing different Factory classes (and what to use as argument to the factories!)

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say we have the following piece of code: public class Event { } public class SportEvent1 : Event { } public class SportEvent2 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent1 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent2 : Event { } public interface IEventFactory { bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString); Event CreateEvent(string inputString); } public class EventFactory { private List<IEventFactory> factories = new List<IEventFactory>(); public void AddFactory(IEventFactory factory) { factories.Add(factory); } //I don't see a point in defining a RemoveFactory() so I won't. public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { try { //iterate through all factories. If one and only one of them accepts //the string, generate the event. Otherwise, throw an exception. return factories.Single(factory => factory.AcceptsInputString(inputString)).CreateEvent(inputString); } catch (InvalidOperationException e) { throw new InvalidOperationException("No valid factory found to generate this kind of Event!", e); } } } public class SportEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("SportEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new SportEvent1(); } } public class MedicalEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("MedicalEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new MedicalEvent1(); } } And here is the code that runs it: static void Main(string[] args) { EventFactory medicalEventFactory = new EventFactory(); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent1Factory()); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent2Factory()); EventFactory sportsEventFactory = new EventFactory(); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent1Factory()); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent2Factory()); } I have a couple of questions: Instead of having to add factories here in the main method of my application, should I try to redesign my EventFactory class so it is an abstract factory? It'd be better if I had a way of not having to manually add EventFactories every time I want to use them. So I could just instantiate MedicalFactory and SportsFactory. Should I make a Factory of factories? Maybe that'd be over-engineering? As you have probably noticed, I am using a inputString string as argument to feed the factories. I have an application that lets the user create his own events but also to load/save them from text files. Later, I might want to add other kinds of files, XML, sql connections, whatever. The only way I can think of that would allow me to make this work is having an internal format (I choose a string, as it's easy to understand). How would you make this? I assume this is a recurrent situation, probably most of you know of any other more intelligent approach to this. I am then only looping in the EventFactory for all the factories in its list to check if any of them accepts the input string. If one does, then it asks it to generate the Event. If you find there is something wrong or awkward with the method I'm using to make this happen, I'd be happy to hear about different implementations. Thanks! PS: Although I don't show it in here, all the different kind of events have different properties, so I have to generate them with different arguments (SportEvent1 might have SportName and Duration properties, that have to be put in the inputString as argument).

    Read the article

  • How can I make this simple C# generics factory work?

    - by Kevin Brassen
    I have this design: public interface IFactory<T> { T Create(); T CreateWithSensibleDefaults(); } public class AppleFactory : IFactory<Apple> { ... } public class BananaFactory : IFactory<Banana> { ... } // ... The fictitious Apple and Banana here do not necessarily share any common types (other than object, of course). I don't want clients to have to depend on specific factories, so instead, you can just ask a FactoryManager for a new type. It has a FactoryForType method: IFactory<T> FactoryForType<T>(); Now you can invoke the appropriate interface methods with something like FactoryForType<Apple>().Create(). So far, so good. But there's a problem at the implementation level: how do I store this mapping from types to IFactory<T>s? The naive answer is an IDictionary<Type, IFactory<T>>, but that doesn't work since there's no type covariance on the T (I'm using C# 3.5). Am I just stuck with an IDictionary<Type, object> and doing the casting manually?

    Read the article

  • Application error with MyFaces 1.2: java.lang.IllegalStateException: No Factories configured for this Application.

    - by IgorB
    For my app I'm using Tomcat 6.0.x and Mojarra 1.2_04 JSF implementation. It works fine, just I would like to switch now to MyFaces 1.2_10 impl of JSF. During the deployment of my app a get the following error: ERROR [org.apache.catalina.core.ContainerBase.[Catalina].[localhost].[/myApp]] StandardWrapper.Throwable java.lang.IllegalStateException: No Factories configured for this Application. This happens if the faces-initialization does not work at all - make sure that you properly include all configuration settings necessary for a basic faces application and that all the necessary libs are included. Also check the logging output of your web application and your container for any exceptions! If you did that and find nothing, the mistake might be due to the fact that you use some special web-containers which do not support registering context-listeners via TLD files and a context listener is not setup in your web.xml. A typical config looks like this; <listener> <listener-class>org.apache.myfaces.webapp.StartupServletContextListener</listener-class> </listener> at javax.faces.FactoryFinder.getFactory(FactoryFinder.java:106) at javax.faces.webapp.FacesServlet.init(FacesServlet.java:137) at org.apache.myfaces.webapp.MyFacesServlet.init(MyFacesServlet.java:113) at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapper.loadServlet(StandardWrapper.java:1172) at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapper.load(StandardWrapper.java:992) at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContext.loadOnStartup(StandardContext.java:4058) at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContext.start(StandardContext.java:4371) ... Here is part of my web.xml configuration: <servlet> <servlet-name>Faces Servlet</servlet-name> <!-- <servlet-class>javax.faces.webapp.FacesServlet</servlet-class> --> <servlet-class>org.apache.myfaces.webapp.MyFacesServlet</servlet-class> <load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup> </servlet> ... <listener> <listener- class>org.apache.myfaces.webapp.StartupServletContextListener</listener-class> </listener> Has anyone experienced similar error, and what should I do i order to fix it? Thanx!

    Read the article

  • What relationship do software Scrum or Lean have to industrial engineering concepts like theory of constraints?

    - by DeveloperDon
    In Scrum, work is delivered to customers through a series of sprints in which project work is time boxed to a fixed number of days or weeks, usually 30 days. In lean software development, the goal is to deliver as soon as possible, permitting early feedback for the next iteration. Both techniques stress the importance of workflow in which software work product does not accumulate in development awaiting release at some future date. Both permit new or refined requirements and feedback from QA and customers to be acted on with as little delay as possible based on priority. A few years ago I heard a lecture where the speaker talked briefly about a family of concepts from industrial engineering called theory of constraints. In the factory, they use an operations model based on three components: drum, buffer, and rope. The drum synchronizes work product as it flows through the system. Buffers that protect the system by holding output from one stage as it waits to be consumed by the next. The rope pulls product from one work station to the next. Historically, are these ideas part of the heritage of Scrum and Lean, or are they on a separate track? It we wanted to think about Scrum and Lean in terms of drum-buffer-rope, what are the parts? Drum = {daily scrum meeting, monthly release)? Buffer = {burn down list, source control system)? Rope = { daily meeting, constant integration server, monthly releases}? Industrial engineers define work flow in terms of different kinds of factories. I-Factories: straight pipeline. One input, one output. A-Factories: many inputs and one output. V-Factories: one input, many output products. T-Plants: many inputs, many outputs. If it applies, what kind of factory is most like Scrum or Lean and why?

    Read the article

  • Initializing ExportFactory using MEF

    - by Riz
    Scenario Application has multiple parts. Each part is in separate dll and implements interface IFoo All such dlls are present in same directory (plugins) The application can instantiate multiple instances of each part Below is the code snippet for the interfaces, part(export) and the import. The problem I am running into is, the "factories" object is initialized with empty list. However, if I try container.Resolve(typeof(IEnumerable< IFoo )) I do get object with the part. But that doesn't serve my purpose (point 4). Can anyone point what I am doing wrong here? public interface IFoo { string Name { get; } } public interface IFooMeta { string CompType { get; } } Implementation of IFoo in separate Dll [ExportMetadata("CompType", "Foo1")] [Export(typeof(IFoo), RequiredCreationPolicy = CreationPolicy.NonShared))] public class Foo1 : IFoo { public string Name { get { return this.GetType().ToString(); } } } Main application that loads all the parts and instantiate them as needed class PartsManager { [ImportMany] private IEnumerable<ExportFactory<IFoo, IFooMeta>> factories; public PartsManager() { IContainer container = ConstructContainer(); factories = (IEnumerable<ExportFactory<IFoo, IFooMeta>>) container.Resolve(typeof(IEnumerable<ExportFactory<IFoo, IFooMeta>>)); } private static IContainer ConstructContainer() { var catalog = new DirectoryCatalog(@"C:\plugins\"); var builder = new ContainerBuilder(); builder.RegisterComposablePartCatalog(catalog); return builder.Build(); } public IFoo GetPart(string compType) { var matchingFactory = factories.FirstOrDefault( x => x.Metadata.CompType == compType); if (factories == null) { return null; } else { IFoo foo = matchingFactory.CreateExport().Value; return foo; } } }

    Read the article

  • Rhino Mocks - Fluent Mocking - Expect.Call question

    - by Ben Cawley
    Hi, I'm trying to use the fluent mocking style of Rhino.Mocks and have the following code that works on a mock IDictionary object called 'factories': With.Mocks(_Repository).Expecting(() => { Expect.Call(() => factories.ContainsKey(Arg<String>.Is.Anything)); LastCall.Return(false); Expect.Call(() => factories.Add(Arg<String>.Is.Anything, Arg<Object>.Is.Anything)); }).Verify(() => { _Service = new ObjectRequestService(factories); _Service.RegisterObjectFactory(Valid_Factory_Key, factory); }); Now, the only way I have been able to set the return value of the ContainsKey call is to use LastCall.Return(true) on the following line. I'm sure I'm mixing styles here as Expect.Call() has a .Return(Expect.Action) method but I can't figure out how I am suppose to use it correctly to return a boolean value? Can anyone help out? Hope the question is clear enough - let me know if anyone needs more info! Cheers, Ben

    Read the article

  • A simple factory_girl question

    - by gmile
    I have two factories (post_factory.rb, comment_factory.rb) in separate files. I'd like to create a bit complex factory, which will create a post with associated comments for me. I created a third file, called complex_factory.rb, and wrote the following code: Factory.define :post_with_comments, :parent => :post do |post| post.after_create { |p| Factory(:user_last_state, :post => p) } end But rake spec raises an error, stating that the file is unaware of post and comment factories. At the very next moment, I naïvely wrote requires at the top: require "post_factory.rb" require "comment_factory.rb" But that didn't gave any proper result. Maybe this requires actually looking the wrong direction? Or they pretty much don't matter (as registering factories for visibility might be more complex that I assume). Am I missing something? Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Oracle: Addressing Information Overload in Factory Automation

    - by [email protected]
     ORACLE's Stephen Slade has written about addressing information overload on the factory floor.  According to Slade, today's automated processes create large amounts of valuable data, but only a small percentage remains actionable.Oracle claims information overload can cost financially, as companies struggle to store and collect reams of data needed to identify embedded trends, while producing manual reports to meet quality standards, regulatory requirements and general reporting goals.Increasing scrutiny of new requirements and standards add to the need to find new ways to process data. Many companies are now using analytical engines to contextualise data into 'actionable information'. Oracle claims factories need to seriously address their data collection, audit trail and records retention processes. By organising their data, factories can maximise outcomes from excellence and contuinuous improvement programs, and gain visibility into costs int the supply chain.Analytics tools and technologies such as Business Intelligence (BI), Enterprise Manufacturing Intelligence (EMI) and Manufacturing Operations Centers (MOC) can help consolidate, contextual and distribute information.   FULL ARICLE:  http://www.myfen.com.au/news/oracle--addressing-information-overload-in-factory

    Read the article

  • This Is How Pencils Are Made [Video]

    - by Gopinath
    Pencil are the most commonly used instrument for writing and none of the offices are complete without them. This simple instrument is made of Graphite, which was first discovered in England during mid 1500s.  The initial days of making a pencil was a bit crude and handmade, but now sophisticated technology and highly precise machines are powering pencil factories around the world. Here is an interesting video that takes you through the entire process of making a pencil at one such sophisticated factories cc image credit:flickr/pinksherbet This article titled,This Is How Pencils Are Made [Video], was originally published at Tech Dreams. Grab our rss feed or fan us on Facebook to get updates from us.

    Read the article

  • Run two shell file with thread

    - by user1149157
    How i can run two file shell in parallel and do not shared the same jvm. may be i use thread but how i run two file shell bu two thread ? File 1: #!/bin/bash # # Script for running several experimentations one the same JVM # Usage : TRACE_DIR NB_EXPE Factories... # param="parameter1" another="parameter2" for ((i = 10; i >= 0; i -= 1)) do echo "run my file with param another " done File 2 : #!/bin/bash # # Script for running several experimentations one the same JVM # Usage : TRACE_DIR NB_EXPE Factories... # a="101" b="400" c="500" echo "run my programme with a b c "

    Read the article

  • when does factory girl create objects in db?

    - by Pavel K.
    i am trying to simulate a session using factory girl/shoulda (it worked with fixtures but i am having problems with using factories). i have following factories (user login and email both have 'unique' validations): Factory.define :user do |u| u.login 'quentin' u.email '[email protected]' end Factory.define :session_user, :class => Session do |u| u.association :user, :factory => :user u.session_id 'session_user' end and here's the test class MessagesControllerTest < ActionController::TestCase context "normal user" do setup do @request.session[:user_id]=Factory(:user).id @request.session[:session_id]=Factory(:session_user).session_id end should "be able to access new message creation" do get :new assert_response :success end end end but when i run "rake test:functionals", i get this test result 1) Error: test: normal user should be able to access new message creation. (MessagesControllerTest): ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid: Validation failed: Account name already exists!, Email already exists! which means that record already exists in db when i am referring to it in test setup. is there something i don't understand here? does factory girl create all factories in db on startup? rails 2.3.5/shoulda/factory girl

    Read the article

  • What's the difference between DI and factory patterns?

    - by Anthony Short
    I have a class which depends on 3 classes, all 3 of which have other classes they rely on. Currently, I'm using a container class to build up all the required classes, inject them into one another and return the application. The simplified version of the container looks something like this: class Builder { private $_options; public function __construct($options) { $this->_options = $options; } public function build() { $cache = $this->getCache(); $response = $this->getResponse(); $engine = $this->getEngine(); return new Application($cache,$response,$engine); } public function getResponse() { $encoder = $this->getResponseEncoder(); $cache = $this->getResponseCache(); return new Response($encoder,$cache); } // Methods for building each object } I'm not sure if this would be classified as FactoryMethod or a DI Container. They both seem to solve the same problem in the same way - They build objects and inject dependencies. This container has some more complicated building methods, like loading observers and attaching them to observable objects. Should factories be doing all the building (loading extensions etc) and the DI container should use these factories to inject dependencies? That way the sub-packages, like Cache, Response etc, can each have their own specialised factories.

    Read the article

  • Use decorator and factory together to extend objects?

    - by TheClue
    I'm new to OOP and design pattern. I've a simple app that handles the generation of Tables, Columns (that belong to Table), Rows (that belong to Column) and Values (that belong to Rows). Each of these object can have a collection of Property, which is in turn defined as an enum. They are all interfaces: I used factories to get concrete instances of these products, depending on circumnstances. Now I'm facing the problem of extending these classes. Let's say I need another product called "SpecialTable" which in turn has some special properties or new methods like 'getSomethingSpecial' or an extended set of Property. The only way is to extend/specialize all my elements (ie. build a SpecialTableFactory, a SpecialTable interface and a SpecialTableImpl concrete)? What to do if, let's say, I plan to use standard methods like addRow(Column column, String name) that doesn't need to be specialized? I don't like the idea to inherit factories and interfaces, but since SpecialTable has more methods than Table i guess it cannot share the same factory. Am I wrong? Another question: if I need to define product properties at run time (a Table that is upgraded to SpecialTable at runtime), i guess i should use a decorator. Is it possible (and how) to combine both factory and decorator design? Is it better to use a State or Strategy pattern, instead?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >