Search Results

Search found 44734 results on 1790 pages for 'model based design'.

Page 10/1790 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Application Design: Single vs. Multiple Hits to the DB

    - by shyneman
    I'm building a service that performs a set of configured activities based on the type of request that it receives. Each activity involves going to the database and retrieving/updating some kind of information. The logic for each activity can be generalized and re-used across different request types. The activities may need to participate in a transaction for the duration of the servicing the request. One option, I'm considering is having each activity maintain its own access to DAL/database. This fully encapsulates the activity into a stand-alone re-usable piece, but hitting the database multiple times for one request doesn't seem like a viable option. I don't really know how to easily implement the concept of a transaction across the multiple activities here either. The second option is to encapsulate ALL the activities into one big activity and hit the database once. But this does not allow re-use and configuration of these activities for different requests. Does anyone have any suggestions and input about what should be the best way to approach my problem? Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Implementing Database Settings Using Policy Based Management

    - by Ashish Kumar Mehta
    Introduction Database Administrators have always had a tough time to ensuring that all the SQL Servers administered by them are configured according to the policies and standards of organization. Using SQL Server’s  Policy Based Management feature DBAs can now manage one or more instances of SQL Server 2008 and check for policy compliance issues. In this article we will utilize Policy Based Management (aka Declarative Management Framework or DMF) feature of SQL Server to implement and verify database settings on all production databases. It is best practice to enforce the below settings on each Production database. However, it can be tedious to go through each database and then check whether the below database settings are implemented across databases. In this article I will explain it to you how to utilize the Policy Based Management Feature of SQL Server 2008 to create a policy to verify these settings on all databases and in cases of non-complaince how to bring them back into complaince. Database setting to enforce on each user database : Auto Close and Auto Shrink Properties of database set to False Auto Create Statistics and Auto Update Statistics set to True Compatibility Level of all the user database set as 100 Page Verify set as CHECKSUM Recovery Model of all user database set to Full Restrict Access set as MULTI_USER Configure a Policy to Verify Database Settings 1. Connect to SQL Server 2008 Instance using SQL Server Management Studio 2. In the Object Explorer, Click on Management > Policy Management and you will be able to see Policies, Conditions & Facets as child nodes 3. Right click Policies and then select New Policy…. from the drop down list as shown in the snippet below to open the  Create New Policy Popup window. 4. In the Create New Policy popup window you need to provide the name of the policy as “Implementing and Verify Database Settings for Production Databases” and then click the drop down list under Check Condition. As highlighted in the snippet below click on the New Condition… option to open up the Create New Condition window. 5. In the Create New Condition popup window you need to provide the name of the condition as “Verify and Change Database Settings”. In the Facet drop down list you need to choose the Facet as Database Options as shown in the snippet below. Under Expression you need to select Field value as @AutoClose and then choose Operator value as ‘ = ‘ and finally choose Value as False. Now that you have successfully added the first field you can now go ahead and add rest of the fields as shown in the snippet below. Once you have successfully added all the above shown fields of Database Options Facet, click OK to save the changes and to return to the parent Create New Policy – Implementing and Verify Database Settings for Production Database windows where you will see that the newly created condition “Verify and Change Database Settings” is selected by default. Continues…

    Read the article

  • Sample domain model for online store

    - by Carel
    We are a group of 4 software development students currently studying at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Currently, we are tasked with developing a web application that functions as a online store. We decided to do the back-end in Java while making use of Google Guice for persistence(which is mostly irrelevant for my question). The general idea so far to use PHP to create the website. We decided that we would like to try, after handing in the project, and register a business to actually implement the website. The problem we have been experiencing is with the domain model. These are mostly small issues, however they are starting to impact the schedule of our project. Since we are all young IT students, we have virtually no experience in the business world. As such, we spend quite a significant amount of time planning the domain model in the first place. Now, some of the issues we're picking up is say the reference between the Customer entity and the order entity. Currently, we don't have the customer id in the order entity and we have a list of order entities in the customer entity. Lately, I have wondered if the persistence mechanism will put the client id physically in the order table, even if it's not in the entity? So, I started wondering, if you load a customer object, it will search the entire order table for orders with the customer's id. Now, say you have 10 000 customers and 500 000 orders, won't this take an extremely long time? There are also some business processes that I'm not completely clear on. Finally, my question is: does anyone know of a sample domain model out there that is similar to what we're trying to achieve that will be safe to look at as a reference? I don't want to be accused of stealing anybody's intellectual property, especially since we might implement this as a business.

    Read the article

  • Logical and Physical Modeling for Analytical Applications

    - by Dejan Sarka
    I am proud to announce that my first course for Pluralsight is released. The course title is Logical and Physical Modeling for Analytical Applications. Here is the description of the course. A bad data model leads to an application that does not perform well. Therefore, when developing an application, you should create a good data model from the start. However, even the best logical model can’t help when the physical implementation is bad. It is also important to know how SQL Server stores and accesses data, and how to optimize the data access. Database optimization starts by splitting transactional and analytical applications. In this course, you learn how to support analytical applications with logical design, get understanding of the problems with data access for queries that deal with large amounts of data, and learn about SQL Server optimizations that help solving these problems. Enjoy the course!

    Read the article

  • What are the software design essentials? [closed]

    - by Craig Schwarze
    I've decided to create a 1 page "cheat sheet" of essential software design principles for my programmers. It doesn't explain the principles in any great depth, but is simply there as a reference and a reminder. Here's what I've come up with - I would welcome your comments. What have I left out? What have I explained poorly? What is there that shouldn't be? Basic Design Principles The Principle of Least Surprise – your solution should be obvious, predictable and consistent. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) - the simplest solution is usually the best one. You Ain’t Gonna Need It (YAGNI) - create a solution for the current problem rather than what might happen in the future. Don’t Repeat Yourself (DRY) - rigorously remove duplication from your design and code. Advanced Design Principles Program to an interface, not an implementation – Don’t declare variables to be of a particular concrete class. Rather, declare them to an interface, and instantiate them using a creational pattern. Favour composition over inheritance – Don’t overuse inheritance. In most cases, rich behaviour is best added by instantiating objects, rather than inheriting from classes. Strive for loosely coupled designs – Minimise the interdependencies between objects. They should be able to interact with minimal knowledge of each other via small, tightly defined interfaces. Principle of Least Knowledge – Also called the “Law of Demeter”, and is colloquially summarised as “Only talk to your friends”. Specifically, a method in an object should only invoke methods on the object itself, objects passed as a parameter to the method, any object the method creates, any components of the object. SOLID Design Principles Single Responsibility Principle – Each class should have one well defined purpose, and only one reason to change. This reduces the fragility of your code, and makes it much more maintainable. Open/Close Principle – A class should be open to extension, but closed to modification. In practice, this means extracting the code that is most likely to change to another class, and then injecting it as required via an appropriate pattern. Liskov Substitution Principle – Subtypes must be substitutable for their base types. Essentially, get your inheritance right. In the classic example, type square should not inherit from type rectangle, as they have different properties (you can independently set the sides of a rectangle). Instead, both should inherit from type shape. Interface Segregation Principle – Clients should not be forced to depend upon methods they do not use. Don’t have fat interfaces, rather split them up into smaller, behaviour centric interfaces. Dependency Inversion Principle – There are two parts to this principle: High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions. Abstractions should not depend on details. Details should depend on abstractions. In modern development, this is often handled by an IoC (Inversion of Control) container.

    Read the article

  • Adobe Air turn based multiplayer Game, sockets vs http bandwidth

    - by Arin Aivazian
    I am developing an Adobe Air multiplayer game for iPad. It is turn based and not realtime. It is like checkers game. I want to use a client server model. I have found 2 options to connect to server so far: socket connection and http requests My question is: Is the bandwidth requirement for socket connection vs http requests different? I need the game to work with very low speed internet connections

    Read the article

  • Doing powerups in a component-based system

    - by deft_code
    I'm just starting really getting my head around component based design. I don't know what the "right" way to do this is. Here's the scenario. The player can equip a shield. The the shield is drawn as bubble around the player, it has a separate collision shape, and reduces the damage the player receives from area effects. How is such a shield architected in a component based game? Where I get confused is that the shield obviously has three components associated with it. Damage reduction / filtering A sprite A collider. To make it worse different shield variations could have even more behaviors, all of which could be components: boost player maximum health health regen projectile deflection etc Am I overthinking this? Should the shield just be a super component? I really think this is wrong answer. So if you think this is the way to go please explain. Should the shield be its own entity that tracks the location of the player? That might make it hard to implement the damage filtering. It also kinda blurs the lines between attached components and entities. Should the shield be a component that houses other components? I've never seen or heard of anything like this, but maybe it's common and I'm just not deep enough yet. Should the shield just be a set of components that get added to the player? Possibly with an extra component to manage the others, e.g. so they can all be removed as a group. (accidentally leave behind the damage reduction component, now that would be fun). Something else that's obvious to someone with more component experience?

    Read the article

  • Doing powerups in a component-based system

    - by deft_code
    I'm just starting really getting my head around component based design. I don't know what the "right" way to do this is. Here's the scenario. The player can equip a shield. The the shield is drawn as bubble around the player, it has a separate collision shape, and reduces the damage the player receives from area effects. How is such a shield architected in a component based game? Where I get confused is that the shield obviously has three components associated with it. Damage reduction / filtering A sprite A collider. To make it worse different shield variations could have even more behaviors, all of which could be components: boost player maximum health health regen projectile deflection etc Am I overthinking this? Should the shield just be a super component? I really think this is wrong answer. So if you think this is the way to go please explain. Should the shield be its own entity that tracks the location of the player? That might make it hard to implement the damage filtering. It also kinda blurs the lines between attached components and entities. Should the shield be a component that houses other components? I've never seen or heard of anything like this, but maybe it's common and I'm just not deep enough yet. Should the shield just be a set of components that get added to the player? Possibly with an extra component to manage the others, e.g. so they can all be removed as a group. (accidentally leave behind the damage reduction component, now that would be fun). Something else that's obvious to someone with more component experience?

    Read the article

  • How to update entity states and animations in a component-based game

    - by mivic
    I'm trying to design a component-based entity system for learning purposes (and later use on some games) and I'm having some troubles when it comes to updating entity states. I don't want to have an update() method inside the Component to prevent dependencies between Components. What I currently have in mind is that components hold data and systems update components. So, if I have a simple 2D game with some entities (e.g. player, enemy1, enemy 2) that have Transform, Movement, State, Animation and Rendering components I think I should have: A MovementSystem that moves all the Movement components and updates the State components And a RenderSystem that updates the Animation components (the animation component should have one animation (i.e. a set of frames/textures) for each state and updating it means selecting the animation corresponding to the current state (e.g. jumping, moving_left, etc), and updating the frame index). Then, the RenderSystem updates the Render components with the texture corresponding to the current frame of each entity's Animation and renders everything on screen. I've seen some implementations like Artemis framework, but I don't know how to solve this situation: Let's say that my game has the following entities. Each entity have a set of states and one animation for each state: player: "idle", "moving_right", "jumping" enemy1: "moving_up", "moving_down" enemy2: "moving_left", "moving_right" What are the most accepted approaches in order to update the current state of each entity? The only thing that I can think of is having separate systems for each group of entities and separate State and Animation components so I would have PlayerState, PlayerAnimation, Enemy1State, Enemy1Animation... PlayerMovementSystem, PlayerRenderingSystem... but I think this is a bad solution and breaks the purpose of having a component-based system. As you can see, I'm quite lost here, so I'd very much appreciate any help.

    Read the article

  • State Changes in a Component Based Architecture [closed]

    - by Maxem
    I'm currently working on a game and using the naive component based architecture thingie (Entities are a bag of components, entity.Update() calls Update on each updateable component), while the addition of new features is really simple, it makes a few things really difficult: a) multithreading / currency b) networking c) unit testing. Multithreading / Concurrency is difficult because I basically have to do poor mans concurrency (running the entity updates in separate threads while locking only stuff that crashes (like lists) and ignoring the staleness of read state (some states are already updated, others aren't)) Networking: There are no explicit state changes that I could efficiently push over the net. Unit testing: All updates may or may not conflict, so automated testing is at least awkward. I was thinking about these issues a bit and would like your input on these changes / idea: Switch from the naive cba to a cba with sub systems that work on lists of components Make all state changes explicit Combine 1 and 2 :p Example world update: statePostProcessing.Wait() // ensure that post processing has finished Apply(postProcessedState) state = new StateBag() Concurrently( () => LifeCycleSubSystem.Update(state), // populates the state bag () => MovementSubSystem.Update(state), // populates the state bag .... }) statePostProcessing = Future(() => PostProcess(state)) statePostProcessing.Start() // Tick is finished, the post processing happens in the background So basically the changes are (consistently) based on the data for the last tick; the post processing can a) generate network packages and b) fix conflicts / remove useless changes (example: entity has been destroyed - ignore movement etc.). EDIT: To clarify the granularity of the state changes: If I save these post processed state bags and apply them to an empty world, I see exactly what has happened in the game these state bags originated from - "Free" replay capability. EDIT2: I guess I should have used the term Event instead of State Change and point out that I kind of want to use the Event Sourcing pattern

    Read the article

  • Java design: too many getters

    - by dege
    After writing a few lesser programs when learning Java the way I've designed the programs is with Model-View-Control. With using MVC I have a plethora of getter methods in the model for the view to use. It feels that while I gain on using MVC, for every new value added I have to add two new methods in the model which quickly get all cluttered with getter & setters. So I was thinking, maybe I should use the notifyObserver method that takes an argument. But wouldn't feel very smart to send every value by itself either so I figured, maybe if I send a kind of container with all the values, preferably only those that actually changed. What this would accomplish would be that instead of having a whole lot of getter methods I could just have one method in the model which put all relevant values in the container. Then in the view I would have a method called from the update which extracted the values from the container and assigning them to the correct fields. I have two questions concerning this. First: is this actually a viable way to do this. Would you recommend me doing something along these lines? Secondly: if I do use this plan and I don't want to keep sending fields that didn't actually change. How would I handle that without having to have if statements to check if the value is not null for every single value?

    Read the article

  • OO Design / Patterns - Fat Model Vs Transaction Script?

    - by ben
    Ok, 'Fat' Model and Transaction Script both solve design problems associated with where to keep business logic. I've done some research and popular thought says having all business logic encapsulated within the model is the way to go (mainly since Transaction Script can become really complex and often results in code duplication). However, how does this work if I want to use the TDG of a second Model in my business logic? Surely Transaction Script presents a neater, less coupled solution than using one Model inside the business logic of another? A practical example... I have two classes: User & Alert. When pushing User instances to the database (eg, creating new user accounts), there is a business rule that requires inserting some default Alerts records too (eg, a default 'welcome to the system' message etc). I see two options here: 1) Add this rule as a User method, and in the process create a dependency between User and Alert (or, at least, Alert's Table Data Gateway). 2) Use a Transaction Script, which avoids the dependency between models. (Also, means the business logic is kept in a 'neutral' class & easily accessible by Alert. That probably isn't too important here, though). User takes responsibility for it's own validation etc, however, but because we're talking about a business rule involving two Models, Transaction Script seems like a better choice to me. Anyone spot flaws with this approach?

    Read the article

  • Pagination in a Rich Domain Model

    - by user246790
    I use rich domain model in my app. The basic ideas were taken there. For example I have User and Comment entities. They are defined as following: <?php class Model_User extends Model_Abstract { public function getComments() { /** * @var Model_Mapper_Db_Comment */ $mapper = $this->getMapper(); $commentsBlob = $mapper->getUserComments($this->getId()); return new Model_Collection_Comments($commentsBlob); } } class Model_Mapper_Db_Comment extends Model_Mapper_Db_Abstract { const TABLE_NAME = 'comments'; protected $_mapperTableName = self::TABLE_NAME; public function getUserComments($user_id) { $commentsBlob = $this->_getTable()->fetchAllByUserId((int)$user_id); return $commentsBlob->toArray(); } } class Model_Comment extends Model_Abstract { } ?> Mapper's getUserComments function simply returns something like: return $this->getTable->fetchAllByUserId($user_id) which is array. fetchAllByUserId accepts $count and $offset params, but I don't know to pass them from my Controller to this function through model without rewriting all the model code. So the question is how can I organize pagination through model data (getComments). Is there a "beatiful" method to get comments from 5 to 10, not all, as getComments returns by default.

    Read the article

  • Design patterns for Agent / Actor based concurrent design.

    - by nso1
    Recently i have been getting into alternative languages that support an actor/agent/shared nothing architecture - ie. scala, clojure etc (clojure also supports shared state). So far most of the documentation that I have read focus around the intro level. What I am looking for is more advanced documentation along the gang of four but instead shared nothing based. Why ? It helps to grok the change in design thinking. Simple examples are easy, but in a real world java application (single threaded) you can have object graphs with 1000's of members with complex relationships. But with agent based concurrency development it introduces a whole new set of ideas to comprehend when designing large systems. ie. Agent granularity - how much state should one agent manage - implications on performance etc or are their good patterns for mapping shared state object graphs to agent based system. tips on mapping domain models to design. Discussions not on the technology but more on how to BEST use the technology in design (real world "complex" examples would be great).

    Read the article

  • MVC: Model View Controller -- does the View call the Model?

    - by Gary Green
    I've been reading about MVC design for a while now and it seems officially the View calls objects and methods in the Model, builds and outputs a view. I think this is mainly wrong. The Controller should act and retrieve/update objects inside the Model, select an appropriate View and pass the information to it so it may display. Only crude and rudiementary PHP variables/simple if statements should appear inside the View. If the View gets the information it needs to display from the Model, surely there will be a lot of PHP inside the View -- completely violating the point of seperating presentation logic.

    Read the article

  • N-Tiered application design tool

    - by Ben V
    I'm beginning the design of a medium-sized web application. I usually like to design from the top down, i.e., start at the highest level and design my way down. I am planning to have the following layers: Presentation (PHP/Ajax) Business Logic Data Access Database Now I'd like to start sketching out the major objects in each layer and the interaction between layers. Is there a tool more specific to this purpose than just using a graphics/diagramming tool like Visio?

    Read the article

  • General rule - when to use a model (Codeigniter)

    - by pingu
    Hi guys, I was just curious as to what the rule of thumb was for models. Generally, I use them only for situations where I need to add/edit or update database entries for an object. However, I'm building an app at the moment that has a "config" table which holds various data, such as last updated, which will control when certain features in the app should be displayed. In this instance, I will mostly need to retrieve data from the config table. Is it worth putting these config methods in model? I'm interested to hear how more experienced coders approach the MVC methodology in CI - example pseudo methods (e.g., what methods relating to the same object you'd use in the model and the controller) would be most helpful.

    Read the article

  • Specialization hierarchy in a domain-model

    - by devoured elysium
    I'm trying to make the domain model of a management system. I have the following kinds of persons in this system: employee manager top mananger I decided to define a User, from where employee, manager and top manager will specialize from. What I don't know is what kind of specialization hierarchy I should choose from. I thought of two ways: or Which might be preferable and why? As a long time coder, every time I try to do a domain-model, I have to fight against the idea of trying to think in how I'm going to code this. From what I've understood, I should not think about those matters in the domain-model, only in object relationships. I don't have to think of code duplication or any of these kind of details here, so I can't really pick any of the options over the other. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Cakephp change model's title without rename model/dbtable

    - by Vincent
    I have a table that store all information about class, but because Class is reserved for class name I had to rename the table from classes to types. But in the view section I need it to be displayed as "Class", including the Paginator links. Anyway to achieve this by adding something in the Type model, without completely customize Paginator and and all view compoenents?

    Read the article

  • Good design of mapping Java Domain objects to Tables (using Hibernate)

    - by M. McKenzie
    Hey guys, I have a question that is more in the realm of design, than implementation. I'm also happy for anyone to point out resources for the answer and I'll gladly, research for myself. Highly simplified Java and SQL: Say I have a business domain POJO called 'Picture' with three attributes. class Picture int idPicture String fileName long size Say I have another business domain POJO called "Item" with 3 attributes Class Item int idItem String itemName ArrayList itemPictures These would be a normal simple relationship. You could say that 'Picture' object, will never exist outside an 'Item' object. Assume a picture belongs only to a specific item, but that an item can have multiple pictures Now - using good database design (3rd Normal Form), we know that we should put items and pictures in their own tables. Here is what I assume would be correct. table Item int idItem (primary key) String itemName table Picture int idPicture (primary key) varchar(45) fileName long size int idItem (foreign key) Here is my question: If you are making Hibernate mapping files for these objects. In the data design, your Picture table needs a column to refer to the Item, so that a foreign key relation can be maintained. However,in your business domain objects - your Picture does not hold a reference/attribute to the idItem - and does not need to know it. A java Picture instance is always instantiated inside an Item instance. If you want to know the Item that the Picture belongs to you are already in the correct scope. Call myItem.getIdItem() and myItem.getItemPictures(),and you have the two pieces of information you need. I know that Hibernate tools have a generator that can auto make your POJO's from looking at your database. My problem stems from the fact that I planned out the data design for this experiment/project first. Then when I went to make the domain java objects, I realized that good design dictated that the objects hold other objects in a nested way. This is obviously different from the way that a database schema is - where all objects(tables) are flat and hold no other complex types within them. What is a good way to reconcile this? Would you: (A) Make the hibernate mapping files so that Picture.hbm.xml has a mapping to the POJO parent's idItem Field (if it's even possible) (B) Add an int attribute in the Picture class to refer to the idItem and set it at instantiation, thus simplifying the hbm.xml mapping file by having all table fields as local attributes in the class (C) Fix the database design because it is wrong, dork. I'd truly appreciate any feedback

    Read the article

  • General Overview of Design Pattern Types

    Typically most software engineering design patterns fall into one of three categories in regards to types. Three types of software design patterns include: Creational Type Patterns Structural Type Patterns Behavioral Type Patterns The Creational Pattern type is geared toward defining the preferred methods for creating new instances of objects. An example of this type is the Singleton Pattern. The Singleton Pattern can be used if an application only needs one instance of a class. In addition, this singular instance also needs to be accessible across an application. The benefit of the Singleton Pattern is that you control both instantiation and access using this pattern. The Structural Pattern type is a way to describe the hierarchy of objects and classes so that they can be consolidated into a larger structure. An example of this type is the Façade Pattern.  The Façade Pattern is used to define a base interface so that all other interfaces inherit from the parent interface. This can be used to simplify a number of similar object interactions into one single standard interface. The Behavioral Pattern Type deals with communication between objects. An example of this type is the State Design Pattern. The State Design Pattern enables objects to alter functionality and processing based on the internal state of the object at a given time.

    Read the article

  • Design for XML mapping scenarios between two different systems [on hold]

    - by deepak_prn
    Mapping XML fields between two systems is a mundane routine in integration scenarios. I am trying to make the design documents look better and provide clear understanding to the developers especially when we do not use XSLT or any other IDE such as jDeveloper or eclipse plugins. I want it to be a high level design but at the same time talk in developer's language. So that there is no requirements that slip under the crack. For example, one of the scenarios goes: the store cashier sells an item, the transaction data is sent to Data management system. Now, I am writing a functional design for the scenario which deals with mapping XML fields between our system and the data management system. Question : I was wondering if some one had to deal with mapping XML fields between two systems? (without XSLT being involved) and if you used a table to represent the fields mapping (example is below) or any other visualization tool which does not break the bank ? I am trying to find out if there is a better way to represent XML mapping in your design documents. The widely accepted and used method seems to be using a simple table such as in the picture to illustrate the mapping. I am wondering if there are alternate ways/ tools to represent such as in Altova:

    Read the article

  • How to design good & continuous tiles

    - by Mikalichov
    I have trouble designing tiles so that when assembled, they don't look like tiles, but look like an homogeneous thing. For example on the image below: even though the main part of the grass is only one tile, you don't "see" the grid; you know where it is if you look a bit carefully, but it is not obvious. Whereas when I design tiles, you can only see "oh, jeez, 64 times the same tile". A bit like on that image: (taken from a gamedev.stackexchange question, sorry; no critic about the game, but it proves my point, and actually has better tile design that what I manage) I think the main problem is that I design them so they are independent, there is no junction between two tiles if put closed to each other. I think having the tiles more "continuous" would have a smoother effect, but can't manage to do it, it seems overly complex to me. I think it is probably simpler than I think once you know how to do it, but couldn't find a tutorial on that specific point. Is there a known method to design continuous / homogeneous tiles? (my terminology might be totally wrong, don't hesitate to correct me)

    Read the article

  • How can I design good continuous (seamless) tiles?

    - by Mikalichov
    I have trouble designing tiles so that when assembled, they don't look like tiles, but look like a homogeneous thing. For example, see the image below: Even though the main part of the grass is only one tile, you don't "see" the grid; you know where it is if you look a bit carefully, but it is not obvious. Whereas when I design tiles, you can only see "oh, jeez, 64 times the same tile," like in this image: (I took this from another GDSE question, sorry; not be critical of the game, but it proves my point. And actually has better tile design that what I manage, anyway.) I think the main problem is that I design them so they are independent, there is no junction between two tiles if put closed to each other. I think having the tiles more "continuous" would have a smoother effect, but can't manage to do it, it seems overly complex to me. I think it is probably simpler than I think once you know how to do it, but couldn't find a tutorial on that specific point. Is there a known method to design continuous / homogeneous tiles? (My terminology might be totally wrong, don't hesitate to correct me.)

    Read the article

  • Learning good OOP design & unlearning some bad habits

    - by Nick
    I have been mostly a C programmer so far in my career with knowledge of C++. I rely on C++ mostly for the convenience STL provides and I hardly ever focus on good design practices. As I have started to look for a new job position, this bad habit of mine has come back to haunt me. During the interviews, I have been asked to design a problem (like chess, or some other scenario) using OOP and I doing really badly at that (I came to know this through feedback from one interview). I tried to google stuff and came up with so many opinions and related books that I don't know where to begin. I need a good through introduction to OOP design with which I can learn practical design, not just theory. Can you point me to any book which meets my requirements ? I prefer C++, but any other language is fine as long as I can pick-up good practices. Also, I know that books can only go so far. I would also appreciate any good practice project ideas that helped you learn and improve your OOP concepts. Thanks.

    Read the article

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