Search Results

Search found 6209 results on 249 pages for 'composite pattern'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 10/249 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • java - check if string ends with certain pattern

    - by The Learner
    I have string like: This.is.a.great.place.too.work. (or) This/is/a/great/place/too/work/ than my java program should give me that the sentence is valid and it has "work". if i Have : This.is.a.great.place.too.work.hahahha (or) This/is/a/great/place/too/work/hahahah Should not give me that there is a work in the sentance. so I am looking at java strings to find a word at the end of the sentance having . (or),(or)/ before it. How can I achieve that

    Read the article

  • Best Practice, objects design ASP.NET MVC

    - by DoomStone
    Hello Stackoverflow I have a code design question that have been torbeling me for a while, you see I’m doing a refactoring of my website Cosplay Denmark, a site where cospalyers can upload images of them self in their costumes. The original site was done in php, Zend MVC, but my refactoring is being done in ASP.NET MVC 2. If you take the site http://www.cosplaydanmark.dk/Costumes/ (You can switch to English in the left column (Sprog)) Here you see a list of all the anime’s we have on the site with images, we show the name, how many different characters and how many images there are under this anime. http://www.cosplaydanmark.dk/Costumes/Bleach If you click on an anime will you get a list of characters within the given anime which we have images in, here do we show the character name, how many galleries and how many images. http://www.cosplaydanmark.dk/Costumes/Bleach/Ichigo_Kurosaki/ If you click on the character name, will you get a list of the galleries under the given character in the given anime. Here we have some information about the gallery, such as image count. http://www.cosplaydanmark.dk/Costumes/Bleach/Ichigo_Kurosaki/Admi/ Should you click the gallery do you get a list of the images in the gallery. My database look like this at the moment. As you can might imagine there are a lot of different query’s to create the site, on the first site I need to do a select on the on the “animes” table and for each result, I need to do a count select on characters and galleries. My plan to create this will be one of the following Where the IList, would be a lazy load list. But I can’t decide what would be the best solution for this would be, also if there is a better way of doing this. My priority is to have good performance with a minimum lose of features and code upkeep. I’m using a service pattern with a linq to sql repository. My design is not absolute, I’m willing to change it if it could increase performance :D I hope that I have describe my question good enough for you to understand what I mean, but ask away if there are anything I have missed.

    Read the article

  • Does my use of the strategy pattern violate the fundamental MVC pattern in iOS?

    - by Goodsquirrel
    I'm about to use the 'strategy' pattern in my iOS app, but feel like my approach violates the somehow fundamental MVC pattern. My app is displaying visual "stories", and a Story consists (i.e. has @properties) of one Photo and one or more VisualEvent objects to represent e.g. animated circles or moving arrows on the photo. Each VisualEvent object therefore has a eventType @property, that might be e.g. kEventTypeCircle or kEventTypeArrow. All events have things in common, like a startTime @property, but differ in the way they are being drawn on the StoryPlayerView. Currently I'm trying to follow the MVC pattern and have a StoryPlayer object (my controller) that knows about both the model objects (like Story and all kinds of visual events) and the view object StoryPlayerView. To chose the right drawing code for each of the different visual event types, my StoryPlayer is using a switch statement. @implementation StoryPlayer // (...) - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { switch (event.eventType) { case kEventTypeCircle: [self showCircleEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; case kEventTypeArrow: [self showArrowDrawingEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; // (...) } But switch statements for type checking are bad design, aren't they? According to Uncle Bob they lead to tight coupling and can and should almost always be replaced by polymorphism. Having read about the "Strategy"-Pattern in Head First Design Patterns, I felt this was a great way to get rid of my switch statement. So I changed the design like this: All specialized visual event types are now subclasses of an abstract VisualEvent class that has a showOnStoryPlayerView: method. @interface VisualEvent : NSObject - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView; // abstract Each and every concrete subclass implements a concrete specialized version of this drawing behavior method. @implementation CircleVisualEvent - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView { [storyPlayerView drawCircleAtPoint:self.position color:self.color lineWidth:self.lineWidth radius:self.radius]; } The StoryPlayer now simply calls the same method on all types of events. @implementation StoryPlayer - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { [event showOnStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; } The result seems to be great: I got rid of the switch statement, and if I ever have to add new types of VisualEvents in the future, I simply create new subclasses of VisualEvent. And I won't have to change anything in StoryPlayer. But of cause this approach violates the MVC pattern since now my model has to know about and depend on my view! Now my controller talks to my model and my model talks to the view calling methods on StoryPlayerView like drawCircleAtPoint:color:lineWidth:radius:. But this kind of calls should be controller code not model code, right?? Seems to me like I made things worse. I'm confused! Am I completely missing the point of the strategy pattern? Is there a better way to get rid of the switch statement without breaking model-view separation?

    Read the article

  • Composite Moon Map Offers Stunning Views of the Lunar Surface [Astronomy]

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    Researchers at Arizona State University have stitched together a massive high-resolution map of the moon; seen the moon in astounding detail. Using images fro the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) they carefully stitch a massive map of the moon with a higher resolution than the public has ever seen before: The WAC has a pixel scale of about 75 meters, and with an average altitude of 50 km, a WAC image swath is 70 km wide across the ground-track. Because the equatorial distance between orbits is about 30 km, there is nearly complete orbit-to-orbit stereo overlap all the way around the Moon, every month. Using digital photogrammetric techniques, a terrain model was computed from this stereo overlap. Hit up the link below to check out the images and the process they used. Lunar Topography as Never Seen Before [via NASA] How to Make the Kindle Fire Silk Browser *Actually* Fast! Amazon’s New Kindle Fire Tablet: the How-To Geek Review HTG Explains: How Hackers Take Over Web Sites with SQL Injection / DDoS

    Read the article

  • The Dispose Pattern (and FxCop warnings)

    - by Scott Dorman
    [This is actually a response to Bill’s blog post, but since it isn’t possible to leave this as a comment on his blog it’s a post here.] There are many different ways to implement the Dispose pattern correctly. Some are (in my opinion) better than others. In Bill’s blog post he presents a particular pattern, which is an excerpt from his book (Effective C#). The issue centers around the fact that a reader took the code sample presented in the book and ran FxCop (Code Analysis) on it, which generated a warning: “Ensure that base.Dispose() is always called.” The “lesson learned” that Bill presents is that “tools are there to help us, not control us.” While I completely agree with the belief that tools are there to help us, I think it’s important to understand why FxCop is raising this particular warning. The code presented in Bill’s book looks like: // Have its own disposed flag.private bool disposed = false;protected override void Dispose(bool isDisposing){ // Don't dispose more than once. if (disposed) return; if (isDisposing) { // TODO: free managed resources here. } // TODO: free unmanaged resources here. // Let the base class free its resources. // Base class is responsible for calling // GC.SuppressFinalize( ) base.Dispose(isDisposing); // Set derived class disposed flag: disposed = true;} This code does follow all of the guidelines for implementing the Dispose pattern. In this case, it’s presumably part of a larger example showing how to implement the pattern as part of a base class. The reason FxCop is warning you about this code is the first if statement in the Dispose method, which will cause the method to exit if disposed is true. The problem here is that there is the possibility that if the disposed flag is true, the call to base.Dispose() will never be executed. As Bill points out, it is possible for some other code elsewhere in the class to set this flag. He states that this is an “unlikely occurrence.” While that is probably true, it can be a potentially dangerous assumption to make and is one that can be easily corrected. By changing the code slightly you can remove this assumption and correct the FxCop violation. private bool disposed = false;protected override void Dispose(bool disposing){ if (!disposed) { if (disposing) { // Dispose managed resources. } // Dispose unmanaged resources. disposed = true; } base.Dispose(disposing);} Using this implementation allows the call to base.Dispose() to always occur, which ensures that the the disposal chain is always properly followed. Technorati Tags: .NET,C#,Dispose Pattern

    Read the article

  • Hibernate : Opinions in Composite PK vs Surrogate PK

    - by Albert Kam
    As i understand it, whenever i use @Id and @GeneratedValue on a Long field inside JPA/Hibernate entity, i'm actually using a surrogate key, and i think this is a very nice way to define a primary key considering my not-so-good experiences in using composite primary keys, where : there are more than 1 business-value-columns combination that become a unique PK the composite pk values get duplicated across the table details cannot change the business value inside that composite PK I know hibernate can support both types of PK, but im left wondering by my previous chats with experienced colleagues where they said that composite PK is easier to deal with when doing complex SQL queries and stored procedure processes. They went on saying that when using surrogate keys will complicate things when doing joining and there are several condition when it's impossible to do some stuffs when using surrogate keys. Although im sorry i cant explain the detail here since i was not clear enough when they explain it. Maybe i'll put more details next time. Im currently trying to do a project, and want to try out surrogate keys, since it's not getting duplicated across tables, and we can change the business-column values. And when the need for some business value combination uniqueness, i can use something like : @Table(name="MY_TABLE", uniqueConstraints={ @UniqueConstraint(columnNames={"FIRST_NAME", "LAST_NAME"}) // name + lastName combination must be unique But im still in doubt because of the previous discussion about the composite key. Could you share your experiences in this matter ? Thank you !

    Read the article

  • Multiple leaf methods problem in composite pattern

    - by Ondrej Slinták
    At work, we are developing an PHP application that would be later re-programmed into Java. With some basic knowledge of Java, we are trying to design everything to be easily re-written, without any headaches. Interesting problem came out when we tried to implement composite pattern with huge number of methods in leafs. What are we trying to achieve (not using interfaces, it's just an example): class Composite { ... } class LeafOne { public function Foo( ); public function Moo( ); } class LeafTwo { public function Bar( ); public function Baz( ); } $c = new Composite( Array( new LeafOne( ), new LeafTwo( ) ) ); // will call method Foo in all classes in composite that contain this method $c->Foo( ); It seems like pretty much classic Composite pattern, but problem is that we will have quite many leaf classes and each of them might have ~5 methods (of which few might be different than others). One of our solutions, which seems to be the best one so far and might actually work, is using __call magic method to call methods in leafs. Unfortunately, we don't know if there is an equivalent of it in Java. So the actual question is: Is there a better solution for this, using code that would be eventually easily re-coded into Java? Or do you recommend any other solution? Perhaps there's some different, better pattern I could use here. In case there's something unclear, just ask and I'll edit this post.

    Read the article

  • Pattern for Accessing MySQL connection

    - by Dipan Mehta
    We have an application which is C++ trying to access MySQL database. There are several (about 5 or so) threads in the application (with Boost library for threading) and in each thread has a few objects, each of which is trying to access Database for its' own purpose. It has a simple ORM kind of model but that really is not an important factor here. There are three potential access patterns i can think of: There could be single connection object per application or thread and is shared between all (or group). The object needs to be thread safe and there will be contentions but MySQL will not be fired with too many connections. Every object could initiate connection on its own. The database needs to take care of concurrency (which i think MySQL can) and the design could be much simpler. There could be two possibilities here. a. either object keeps a persistent connection for its life OR b. object initiate connection as and when needed. To simplify the contention as in case of 1 and not to create too many sockets as in case of 2, we can have group/set based connections. So there could be there could be more than one connection (say N), each of this connection could be shared connection across M objects. Naturally, each of the pattern has different resource cost and would work under different constraints and objectives. What criteria should i use to choose the pattern of this for my own application? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each of these pattern over the other? Are there any other pattern which is better? PS: I have been through these questions: mysql, one connection vs multiple and MySQL with mutiple threads and processes But they don't quite answer exactly what i am trying to ask.

    Read the article

  • Using visitor pattern with large object hierarchy

    - by T. Fabre
    Context I've been using with a hierarchy of objects (an expression tree) a "pseudo" visitor pattern (pseudo, as in it does not use double dispatch) : public interface MyInterface { void Accept(SomeClass operationClass); } public class MyImpl : MyInterface { public void Accept(SomeClass operationClass) { operationClass.DoSomething(); operationClass.DoSomethingElse(); // ... and so on ... } } This design was, however questionnable, pretty comfortable since the number of implementations of MyInterface is significant (~50 or more) and I didn't need to add extra operations. Each implementation is unique (it's a different expression or operator), and some are composites (ie, operator nodes that will contain other operator/leaf nodes). Traversal is currently performed by calling the Accept operation on the root node of the tree, which in turns calls Accept on each of its child nodes, which in turn... and so on... But the time has come where I need to add a new operation, such as pretty printing : public class MyImpl : MyInterface { // Property does not come from MyInterface public string SomeProperty { get; set; } public void Accept(SomeClass operationClass) { operationClass.DoSomething(); operationClass.DoSomethingElse(); // ... and so on ... } public void Accept(SomePrettyPrinter printer) { printer.PrettyPrint(this.SomeProperty); } } I basically see two options : Keep the same design, adding a new method for my operation to each derived class, at the expense of maintainibility (not an option, IMHO) Use the "true" Visitor pattern, at the expense of extensibility (not an option, as I expect to have more implementations coming along the way...), with about 50+ overloads of the Visit method, each one matching a specific implementation ? Question Would you recommand using the Visitor pattern ? Is there any other pattern that could help solve this issue ?

    Read the article

  • MVC Architecture

    Model-View-Controller (MVC) is an architectural design pattern first written about and implemented by  in 1978. Trygve developed this pattern during the year he spent working with Xerox PARC on a small talk application. According to Trygve, “The essential purpose of MVC is to bridge the gap between the human user's mental model and the digital model that exists in the computer. The ideal MVC solution supports the user illusion of seeing and manipulating the domain information directly. The structure is useful if the user needs to see the same model element simultaneously in different contexts and/or from different viewpoints.”  Trygve Reenskaug on MVC The MVC pattern is composed of 3 core components. Model View Controller The Model component referenced in the MVC pattern pertains to the encapsulation of core application data and functionality. The primary goal of the model is to maintain its independence from the View and Controller components which together form the user interface of the application. The View component retrieves data from the Model and displays it to the user. The View component represents the output of the application to the user. Traditionally the View has read-only access to the Model component because it should not change the Model’s data. The Controller component receives and translates input to requests on the Model or View components. The Controller is responsible for requesting methods on the model that can change the state of the model. The primary benefit to using MVC as an architectural pattern in a project compared to other patterns is flexibility. The flexibility of MVC is due to the distinct separation of concerns it establishes with three distinct components.  Because of the distinct separation between the components interaction is limited through the use of interfaces instead of classes. This allows each of the components to be hot swappable when the needs of the application change or needs of availability change. MVC can easily be applied to C# and the .Net Framework. In fact, Microsoft created a MVC project template that will allow new project of this type to be created with the standard MVC structure in place before any coding begins. The project also creates folders for the three key components along with default Model, View and Controller classed added to the project. Personally I think that MVC is a great pattern in regards to dealing with web applications because they could be viewed from a myriad of devices. Examples of devices include: standard web browsers, text only web browsers, mobile phones, smart phones, IPads, IPhones just to get started. Due to the potentially increasing accessibility needs and the ability for components to be hot swappable is a perfect fit because the core functionality of the application can be retained and the View component can be altered based on the client’s environment and the View component could be swapped out based on the calling device so that the display is targeted to that specific device.

    Read the article

  • iOS - Unit tests for KVO/delegate codes

    - by ZhangChn
    I am going to design a MVC pattern. It could be either designed as a delegate pattern, or a Key-Value-Observing(KVO), to notify the controller about changing models. The project requires certain quality control procedures to conform to those verification documents. My questions: Does delegate pattern fit better for unit testing than KVO? If KVO fits better, would you please suggest some sample codes?

    Read the article

  • Ranking based string matching algorithm..for Midi Music

    - by Taha
    i am working on midi music project. What i am trying to do is:- matching the Instrument midi track with the similar instrument midi track... for example Flute track in a some midi music is matched against the Flute track in some other music midi file... After matching ,the results should come ranking wise according to their similarity.. Like 1) track1 2) track2 3) track3 I have this sort of string coming from my midi music .. F4/0.01282051282051282E4/0.01282051282051282Eb4/0.01282051282051282 D4/0.01282051282051282C#4/0.01282051282051282C4/0.01282051282051282 Which ranking algorithm with good metrics should i use for such data ? Thanking you in anticipation!

    Read the article

  • using sed to replace two patterns within a larger pattern

    - by Hair of the Dog
    Using sed how could I replace two patterns within a larger pattern on a single line? Given a single line of text I want to find a pattern (Let's call this the outer pattern) and then within that outer pattern replace two inner patterns. Here's a one line example of the input text: Z:\source\private\main\developer\foo\setenv.sh(25): export 'FONTCONFIG_PATH'="$WINE_SHARED_SUPPORT/X11/etc/fonts" In the example above the outer pattern is "/^.*([[:digit:]]+):/" which should equal "Z:\source\private\main\developer\foo\setenv.sh(25):" The two inner patterns are "/^[A-Za-z]:/" and "/\/". Another way to phrase my question is: Using sed I know how to perform replacements of a pattern using the "s" command, but how do I limit the range of "s" command so it only works on the portion of the input string up to the "(25):"? The ultimate result I am trying to get is the line of text is transformed into this: /enlistments/source/private/main/developer/foo/setenv.sh(25): export 'FONTCONFIG_PATH'="$WINE_SHARED_SUPPORT/X11/etc/fonts"

    Read the article

  • How do I map a composite primary key in Entity Framework 4 code first?

    - by jamesfm
    I'm getting to grips with EF4 code first, and liking it so far. But I'm having trouble mapping an entity to a table with a composite primary key. The configuration I've tried looks like this: public SubscriptionUserConfiguration() { Property(u => u.SubscriptionID).IsIdentity(); Property(u => u.UserName).IsIdentity(); } Which throws this exception: Unable to infer a key for entity type 'SubscriptionUser'. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • XML/XSL nub: Is it possible to create an COMPOSITE XML/XSLT document?

    - by jmweekes
    I have just recently (like 2 days) started using XSLT documents with XML. I understand the basics and am able to generate a formatted document using an .XML document that references a separate .XSLT document. My question, as in the subject, is "Is it possible to create a SINGLE, composite document that contains both the XML data and XSLT processing/formatting/styling and displays as formatted HTML?" I am writing a desktop application in which I need to generate a formatted document on the fly from XML stored in the database. I want to do this without creating or referencing any actual physical files. I will generate a text string containing the XML/XSLT document and feed this to a WebBrowser component for formatted display. Hopefully what I want to do doesn't totally go against the whole XML/XSLT methodology. Any information, direction or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Expando Object and dynamic property pattern

    - by Al.Net
    I have read about 'dynamic property pattern' of Martin Fowler in his site under the tag 1997 in which he used dictionary kind of stuff to achieve this pattern. And I have come across about Expando object in c# very recently. When I see its implementation, I am able to see IDictionary implemented. So Expando object uses dictionary to store dynamic properties and is it what, Martin Fowler already defined 15 years ago?

    Read the article

  • Identifying which pattern fits better.

    - by Daniel Grillo
    I'm developing a software to program a device. I have some commands like Reset, Read_Version, Read_memory, Write_memory, Erase_memory. Reset and Read_Version are fixed. They don't need parameters. Read_memory and Erase_memory need the same parameters that are Length and Address. Write_memory needs Lenght, Address and Data. For each command, I have the same steps in sequence, that are something like this sendCommand, waitForResponse, treatResponse. I'm having difficulty to identify which pattern should I use. Factory, Template Method, Strategy or other pattern. Edit I'll try to explain better taking in count the given comments and answers. I've already done this software and now I'm trying to refactoring it. I'm trying to use patterns, even if it is not necessary because I'm taking advantage of this little software to learn about some patterns. Despite I think that one (or more) pattern fits here and it could improve my code. When I want to read version of the software of my device, I don't have to assembly the command with parameters. It is fixed. So I have to send it. After wait for response. If there is a response, treat (or parse) it and returns. To read a portion of the memory (maximum of 256 bytes), I have to assembly the command using the parameters Len and Address. So I have to send it. After wait for response. If there is a response, treat (or parse) it and returns. To write a portion in the memory (maximum of 256 bytes), I have to assembly the command using the parameters Len, Address and Data. So I have to send it. After wait for response. If there is a response, treat (or parse) it and returns. I think that I could use Template Method because I have almost the same algorithm for all. But the problem is some commands are fixes, others have 2 or 3 parameters. I think that parameters should be passed on the constructor of the class. But each class will have a constructor overriding the abstract class constructor. Is this a problem for the template method? Should I use other pattern?

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to the Singleton Design Pattern

    The Singleton Design Pattern is one of the simplest and most widely known design patterns in use in software development. However, despite its simplicity, it is very easy to get wrong and the consequences of its use even when properly implemented can outweigh its benefits. It turns out there are other ways to achieve the goals of the Singleton pattern which will often prove to be simpler, safer, and more maintainable.

    Read the article

  • AntFarm anti-pattern -- strategies to avoid, antidotes to help heal from

    - by alchemical
    I'm working on a 10 page web site with a database back-end. There are 500+ objects in use, trying to implement the MVP pattern in ASP.Net. I'm tracing the code-execution from a single-page, my finger has been on F-11 in Visual Studio for about 40 minutes, there seems to be no end, possibly 1000+ method calls for one web page! If it was just 50 objects that would be one thing, however, code execution snakes through all these objects just like millions of ants frantically woring in their giant dirt mound house, riddled with object tunnels. Hence, a new anti-pattern is born : AntFarm. AntFarm is also known as "OO-Madnes", "OO-Fever", OO-ADD, or simply design-pattern junkie. This is not the first time I've seen this, nor my associates at other companies. It seems that this style is being actively propogated, or in any case is a misunderstanding of the numerous OO/DP gospels going around... I'd like to introduce an anti-pattern to the anti-pattern: GST or "Get Stuff Done" AKA "Get Sh** done" AKA GRD (GetRDone). This pattern focused on just what it says, getting stuff done, in a simple way. I may try to outline it more in a later post, or please share your ideas on this antidote pattern. Anyway, I'm in the midst of a great example of AntFarm anti-pattern as I write (as a bonus, there is no documentation or comments). Please share you thoughts on how this anti-pattern has become so prevelant, how we can avoid it, and how can one undo or deal with this pattern in a live system one must work with!

    Read the article

  • How should I define a composite foreign key for domain constraints in the presence of surrogate keys

    - by Samuel Danielson
    I am writing a new app with Rails so I have an id column on every table. What is the best practice for enforcing domain constraints using foreign keys? I'll outline my thoughts and frustration. Here's what I would imagine as "The Rails Way". It's what I started with. Companies: id: integer, serial company_code: char, unique, not null Invoices: id: integer, serial company_id: integer, not null Products: id: integer, serial sku: char, unique, not null company_id: integer, not null LineItems: id: integer, serial invoice_id: integer, not null, references Invoices (id) product_id: integer, not null, references Products (id) The problem with this is that a product from one company might appear on an invoice for a different company. I added a (company_id: integer, not null) to LineItems, sort of like I'd do if only using natural keys and serials, then added a composite foreign key. LineItems (product_id, company_id) references Products (id, company_id) LineItems (invoice_id, company_id) references Invoices (id, company_id) This properly constrains LineItems to a single company but it seems over-engineered and wrong. company_id in LineItems is extraneous because the surrogate foreign keys are already unique in the foreign table. Postgres requires that I add a unique index for the referenced attributes so I am creating a unique index on (id, company_id) in Products and Invoices, even though id is simply unique. The following table with natural keys and a serial invoice number would not have these issues. LineItems: company_code: char, not null sku: char, not null invoice_id: integer, not null I can ignore the surrogate keys in the LineItems table but this also seems wrong. Why make the database join on char when it has an integer already there to use? Also, doing it exactly like the above would require me to add company_code, a natural foreign key, to Products and Invoices. The compromise... LineItems: company_id: integer, not null sku: integer, not null invoice_id: integer, not null does not require natural foreign keys in other tables but it is still joining on char when there is a integer available. Is there a clean way to enforce domain constraints with foreign keys like God intended, but in the presence of surrogates, without turning the schema and indexes into a complicated mess?

    Read the article

  • Changing order of children of an SWT Composite

    - by Alexey Romanov
    In my case I have two children of a SashForm, but the question applies to all Composites and different layouts. class MainWindow { Sashform sashform; Tree child1 = null; Table child2 = null; MainWindow(Shell shell) { sashform = new SashForm(shell, SWT.NONE); } // Not called from constructor because it needs data not available at that time void CreateFirstChild() { ... Tree child1 = new Tree(sashform, SWT.NONE); } void CreateSecondChild() { ... Table child2 = new Table(sashform, SWT.NONE); } } I don't know in advance in what order these methods will be called. How can I make sure that child1 is placed on the left, and child2 on the right? Alternately, is there a way to change their order as children of sashform after they are created? Currently my best idea is to put in placeholders like this: class MainWindow { Sashform sashform; private Composite placeholder1; private Composite placeholder2; Tree child1 = null; Table child2 = null; MainWindow(Shell shell) { sashform = new SashForm(shell, SWT.NONE); placeholder1 = new Composite(sashform, SWT.NONE); placeholder2 = new Composite(sashform, SWT.NONE); } void CreateFirstChild() { ... Tree child1 = new Tree(placeholder1, SWT.NONE); } void CreateSecondChild() { ... Table child2 = new Table(placeholder2, SWT.NONE); } }

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >