Search Results

Search found 14602 results on 585 pages for 'objected oriented design'.

Page 10/585 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Design Pattern for Social Game Mission Mechanics

    - by Furkan ÇALISKAN
    When we want to design a mission sub-system like in the The Ville or Sims Social, what kind of design pattern / idea would fit the best? There may be relation between missions (first do this then this etc...) or not. What do you think sims social or the ville or any other social games is using for this? I'm looking for a best-practise method to contruct a mission framework for tha game. How the well-known game firms do this stuff for their large scale social facebook games? Giving missions to the players and wait players to complete them. when they finished the missions, providing a method to catch this mission complete events considering large user database by not using server-side not so much to prevent high-traffic / resource consumption. how should i design the database and server-client communication to achive this design condidering this trade-off.

    Read the article

  • Design patterns: when to use and when to stop doing everything using patterns

    - by honeybadger
    This question arises due to comment of FredOverflow in my previous post. Design pattern used in projects I am quite confused by the comment. I know design pattern help in making code reusable and readable (may lack in efficiency a bit). But when to use design patterns and most importantly when to stop doing everything using patterns or carried away by it ? Any comments from you will be helpful. tagging programing languages too to cover broader audience.

    Read the article

  • So, "Are Design Patterns Missing Language Features"?

    - by Eduard Florinescu
    I saw the answer to this question: How does thinking on design patterns and OOP practices change in dynamic and weakly-typed languages? There it is a link to an article with an outspoken title: Are Design Patterns Missing Language Features. But where you can get snippets that seem very objective and factual and that can be verified from experience like: PaulGraham said "Peter Norvig found that 16 of the 23 patterns in Design Patterns were 'invisible or simpler' in Lisp." and a thing that confirms what I recently seen with people trying to simulate classes in javascript: Of course, nobody ever speaks of the "function" pattern, or the "class" pattern, or numerous other things that we take for granted because most languages provide them as built-in features. OTOH, programmers in a purely PrototypeOrientedLanguage? might well find it convenient to simulate classes with prototypes... I am taking into consideration also that design patterns are a communcation tool and because even with my limited experience participating in building applications I can see as an anti-pattern(ineffective and/or counterproductive) for example forcing a small PHP team to learn GoF patterns for small to medium intranet app, I am aware that scale, scope and purpose can determine what is effective and/or productive. I saw small commercial applications that mixed functional with OOP and still be maintainable, and I don't know if many would need for example in python to write a singleton but for me a simple module does the thing. patterns So are there studies or hands on experience shared that takes into consideration, all this, scale and scope of project, dynamics and size of the team, languages and technologies, so that you don't feel that a (difficult for some)design pattern is there just because there isn't a simpler way to do it or that it cannot be done by a language feature?

    Read the article

  • New book in the style of Advanced Programming Language Design by R. A. Finkel [closed]

    - by mfellner
    I am currently researching visual programming language design for a university paper and came across Advanced Programming Language Design by Raphael A. Finkel from 1996. Other, older discussions in the same vein on Stackoverflow have mentioned Language Implementation Patterns by Terence Parr and Programming Language Pragmatics* by Michael L. Scott. I was wondering if there is even more (and especially up-to-date) literature on the general topic of programming language design. *) http://www.cs.rochester.edu/~scott/pragmatics/

    Read the article

  • Does TDD lead to the good design?

    - by Eugen Martynov
    I'm in transition from "writing unit tests" state to TDD. I saw as Johannes Brodwall creates quite acceptable design from avoiding any of architecture phase before. I'll ask him soon if it was real improvisation or he had some thoughts upfront. I also clearly understand that everyone has experience that prevents to write explicit design bad patterns. But after participating in code retreat I hardly believe that writing test first could save us from mistakes. But I also believe that tests after code will lead to mistakes much faster. So this night question is asking for people who is using TDD for a long time share their experience about results of design without upfront thinking. If they really practice it and get mostly suitable design. Or it's my small understanding about TDD and probably agile.

    Read the article

  • Procedural world generation oriented on gameplay features

    - by Richard Fabian
    In large procedural landscape games, the land seems dull, but that's probably because the real world is largely dull, with only limited places where the scenery is dramatic or tactical. Looking at world generation from this point of view, a landscape generator for a game needs to not follow the rules of landscaping, but instead some rules married to the expectations of the gamer. For example, there could be a choke point / route generator that creates hills ravines, rivers and mountains between cities, rather than cities plotted on the land based on the resources or conditions generated by the mountains and rainfall patterns. Is there any existing work being done like this? Start with cities or population centres and then add in terrain afterwards?

    Read the article

  • Functional/nonfunctional requirements VS design ideas

    - by Nicholas Chow
    Problem domain Functional requirements defines what a system does. Non-Functional requirements defines quality attributes of what the system does as a whole.(performance, security, reliability, volume, useability, etc.) Constraints limits the design space, they restrict designers to certain types of solutions. Solution domain Design ideas , defines how the system does it. For example a stakeholder need might be we want to increase our sales, therefore we must improve the usability of our webshop so more customers will purchase, a requirement can be written for this. (problem domain) Design takes this further into the solution domain by saying "therefore we want to offer credit card payments in addition to the current prepayment option". My problem is that the transition phase from requirement to design seems really vague, therefore when writing requirements I am often confused whether or not I incorporated design ideas in my requirements, that would make my requirement wrong. Another problem is that I often write functional requirements as what a system does, and then I also specify in what timeframe it must be done. But is this correct? Is it then a still a functional requirement or a non functional one? Is it better to seperate it into two distinct requirements? Here are a few requirements I wrote: FR1 Registration of Organizer FR1 describes the registration of an Organizer on CrowdFundum FR1.1 The system shall display a registration form on the website. FR1.2 The system shall require a Name, Username, Document number passport/ID card, Address, Zip code, City, Email address, Telephone number, Bank account, Captcha code on the registration form when a user registers. FR1.4 The system shall display an error message containing: “Registration could not be completed” to the subscriber within 1 seconds after the system check of the registration form was unsuccessful. FR1.5 The system shall send a verification email containing a verification link to the subscriber within 30 seconds after the system check of the registration form was successful. FR1.6 The system shall add the newly registered Organizer to the user base within 5 seconds after the verification link was accessed. FR2 Organizer submits a Project FR2 describes the submission of a Project by an Organizer on CrowdFundum - FR2 The system shall display a submit Project form to the Organizer accounts on the website.< - FR2.3 The system shall check for completeness the Name of the Project, 1-3 Photo’s, Keywords of the Project, Punch line, Minimum and maximum amount of people, Funding threshold, One or more reward tiers, Schedule of when what will be organized, Budget plan, 300-800 Words of additional information about the Project, Contact details within 1 secondin after an Organizer submits the submit Project form. - FR2.8 The system shall add to the homepage in the new Projects category the Project link within 30 seconds after the system made a Project webpage - FR2.9 The system shall include in the Project link for the homepage : Name of the Project, 1 Photo, Punch line within 30 seconds after the system made a Project webpage. Questions: FR 1.1 : Have I incorporated a design idea here, would " the system shall have a registration form" be a better functional requirement? F1.2 ,2.3 : Is this not singular? Would the conditions be better written for each its own separate requirement FR 1.4: Is this a design idea? Is this a correct functional requirement or have I incorporated non functional(performance) in it? Would it be better if I written it like this: FR1 The system shall display an error message when check is unsuccessful. NFR: The system will respond to unsuccesful registration form checks within 1 seconds. Same question with FR 2.8 and 2.9. FR2.3: The system shall check for "completeness", is completeness here used ambigiously? Should I rephrase it? FR1.2: I added that the system shall require a "Captcha code" is this a functional requirement or does it belong to the "security aspect" of a non functional requirement. I am eagerly waiting for your response. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Good resources for language design

    - by Aaron Digulla
    There are lots of books about good web design, UI design, etc. With the advent of Xtext, it's very simple to write your own language. What are good books and resources about language design? I'm not looking for a book about compiler building (like the dragon book) but something that answers: How to create a grammar that is forgiving (like adding optional trailing commas)? Which grammar patterns cause problems for users of a language? How create a compact grammar without introducing ambiguities

    Read the article

  • Design Patterns and their most common uses for them [closed]

    - by cable729
    Possible Duplicate: What are some programming design patterns that are useful in game development? As I'm returning to game dev, I've realized that I've lost a lot of the knowledge I had before. So now I'm looking at design patterns that I can use for my next project. One design pattern that I've seen a lot is the 'composition method,' which uses actors and components. Is that the right name for it? I'd like to look more at this and see what the advantages/pitfalls are. So what design patterns are out there, and what are the advantages/disadvantages to them?

    Read the article

  • How to explain why design choices are good?

    - by Telastyn
    As I've become a better developer, I find that much of my design skill comes more from intuition than mechanical analysis. This is great. It lets me read code and get a feel for it quicker. It lets me translate designs between languages and abstractions much easier. And it let's me get stuff done faster. The downside is that I find it harder to explain to teammates (and worse, management) why a particular design is advantageous; especially teammates that are behind the times on best practices. "This design is more testable!" or "You should favor composition over inheritance." go right over their heads, and lead into the rabbit hole of me trying to clue everyone in to the last decade of software engineering advances. I'll get better at it with practice of course, but in the mean time it involves a lot of wasted time and/or bad design (that will lead to wasted time fixing it later). How can I better explain why a certain design is superior, when the benefits aren't completely obvious to the audience?

    Read the article

  • Help with MVC design pattern?

    - by user3681240
    I am trying to build a java program for user login but I am not sure if my MVC design is accurate. I have the following classes: LoginControl - servlet LoginBean - data holder java class with private variables getters and setters LoginDAO - concrete java class where I am running my SQL queries and doing rest of the logical work. Connection class - java class just to connect to the database view - jsp to display the results html - used for form Is this how you design a java program based on MVC design pattern? Please provide some suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Best approach to design a service oriented system

    - by Gustavo Paulillo
    Thinking about service orientation, our team are involved on new application designs. We consist in a group of 4 developers and a manager (that knows something about programming and distributed systems). Each one, having own opinion on service design. It consists in a distributed system: a user interface (web app) accessing the services in a dedicated server (inside the firewall), to obtain the business logic operations. So we got 2 main approachs that I list above : Modular services Having many modules, each one consisting of a service (WCF). Example: namespaces SystemX.DebtService, SystemX.CreditService, SystemX.SimulatorService Unique service All the business logic is centralized in a unique service. Example: SystemX.OperationService. The web app calls the same service for all operations. In your opinion, whats the best? Or having another approach is better for this scenario?

    Read the article

  • Separation of memory oriented process and CPU oriented process

    - by Jeevan Dongre
    I am develops guy working for an e-commerce company I am running my e-commerce application built using ruby on rails spree commerce. I am presently running 2 medium instances in the production. One is a high memory instance which has 3.8 RAM and single Core CPU and another one is high CPU instance which has Dual Core CPU. Basically AWS calls it has m1.medium and c1.medium instance respectively. My question is it possible to separate the processes according the cpu intense and memory intense? So that all the cpu intense process can be made run in high cpu instance and all the memory intense process can be made to run in the high memory instances. Is any tool available to identify those process. Kindly give me some heads up. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Object construction design

    - by James
    I recently started to use c# to interface with a database, and there was one part of the process that appeared odd to me. When creating a SqlCommand, the method I was lead to took the form: SqlCommand myCommand = new SqlCommand("Command String", myConnection); Coming from a Java background, I was expecting something more similar to SqlCommand myCommand = myConnection.createCommand("Command String"); I am asking, in terms of design, what is the difference between the two? The phrase "single responsibility" has been used to suggest that a connection should not be responsible for creating SqlCommands, but I would also say that, in my mind, the difference between the two is partly a mental one of the difference between a connection executing a command and a command acting on a connection, the latter of which seems less like what I have been lead to believe OOP should be. There is also a part of me wondering if the two should be completely separate, and should only come together in some sort of connection.execute(command) method. Can anyone help clear up these differences? Are any of these methods "more correct" than the others from an OO point of view? (P.S. the fact that c# is used is completely irrelevant. It just highlighted to me that different approaches were used)

    Read the article

  • Benefits of classic OOP over Go-like language

    - by tylerl
    I've been thinking a lot about language design and what elements would be necessary for an "ideal" programming language, and studying Google's Go has led me to question a lot of otherwise common knowledge. Specifically, Go seems to have all of the interesting benefits from object oriented programming without actually having any of the structure of an object oriented language. There are no classes, only structures; there is no class/structure inheritance -- only structure embedding. There aren't any hierarchies, no parent classes, no explicit interface implementations. Instead, type casting rules are based on a loose system similar to duck-typing, such that if a struct implements the necessary elements of a "Reader" or a "Request" or an "Encoding", then you can cast it and use it as one. Does such a system obsolete the concept of OOP? Or is there something about OOP as implemented in C++ and Java and C# that is inherently more capable, more maintainable, somehow more powerful that you have to give up when moving to a language like Go? What benefit do you have to give up to gain the simplicity that this new paradigm represents?

    Read the article

  • Is this kind of design - a class for Operations On Object - correct?

    - by Mithir
    In our system we have many complex operations which involve many validations and DB activities. One of the main Business functionality could have been designed better. In short, there were no separation of layers, and the code would only work from the scenario in which it was first designed at, and now there were more scenarios (like requests from an API or from other devices) So I had to redesign. I found myself moving all the DB code to objects which acts like Business to DB objects, and I've put all the business logic in an Operator kind of a class, which I've implemented like this: First, I created an object which will hold all the information needed for the operation let's call it InformationObject. Then I created an OperatorObject which will take the InformationObject as a parameter and act on it. The OperatorObject should activate different objects and validate or check for existence or any scenario in which the business logic is compromised and then make the operation according to the information on the InformationObject. So my question is - Is this kind of implementation correct? PS, this Operator only works on a single Business-wise Operation.

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for parsing data that will be grouped to two different ways and flipped

    - by lewisblackfan
    I'm looking for an easily maintainable and extendable design model for a script to parse an excel workbook into two separate workbooks after pulling data from other locations like the command line, and a database. The high level details are as follows. I need to parse an excel workbook containing a sheet that lists unique question names, the only reliable information that can be parsed from the question name is the book code that identifies the title and edition of the textbook the question is associated with, the rest of the question name is not standardized well enough to be reliably parsed by computer. The general form of the question name is best described by the following regular expression. '^(\w+)\s(\w{1,2})\.(\w{1,2})\.(\w{1,3})\.(\w{1,3}\.)*$' The first sub-pattern is the book code, the second sub-pattern is 90% of the time the chapter, and the rest of the sub-patterns could be section, problem type, problem number, or question type information. There is no simple logic, at least not one I can find. There will be a minimum of three other columns in this spreadsheet; one column will be the chapter the question is associated with, the second will be the section within the chapter the question is associated with, and the third will be some kind of asset indicated by a uniform resource locator. 1 | 1 | qname1 | url | description | url | description ... 1 | 1 | qname2 | url | description 1 | 1 | qname3 | url | description | url | description | url | The asset can be indicated by a full or partial uniform resource locator, the partial url will need to be completed before it can be fed into the application. There theoretically could be no limit to the number of asset columns, the assets will be grouped in columns by type. Some times additional data will have to be retrieved from a database or combined with the book code before the asset url is complete and can be understood by the application that will be using the asset. The type is an abstraction, there are eight types right now, each with their own logic in how the uniform resource locator is handled and or completed, and I have to add a new type and its logic every three or four months. For each asset url there is the possibility of a description column, a character string for display in the application, but not always. (I've already worked out validating the description text, and squashing MSs obscure code page down to something 7-bit ascii can handle.) Now that all the details are filled-in I can get to the actual problem of parsing the file. I need to split the information in this excel workbook into two separate workbooks. The first workbook will group all the questions by section in rows. With the first cell being the section doublet and the rest of the cells in the row are the question names. 1.1 | qname1 | qname2 | qname3 | qname4 | 1.2 | qname1 | qname2 | qname3 | 1.3 | qname1 | qname2 | qname3 | qname4 | qname5 There is no set number of questions for each section as you can see from the above example. The second workbook is more complicated, there is one row per asset, and question names that have more than one asset will be duplicated. There will be four or five columns on this sheet. The first is the question name for the asset, the second is a media type used to select the correct icon for the asset in the application, the third is string representing the asset type, the four is the full and complete uniform resource locator for the asset, and the fifth columns is the optional text description for the asset. q1 | mtype1 | atype1 | url | description q1 | mtype2 | atype2 | url | description q1 | mtype2 | atype3 | url | description q2 | mtype1 | atype1 | url | description q2 | mtype2 | atype3 | url | description For the original six types I did have a script that parsed the source excel workbook into the other two excel workbooks, and I was able to add two more types until I ran aground on the implementation of the ninth type and tenth types. What broke my script was the fact that the ninth type is actually a sub-type of one of the original six, but with entirely different logic, and my mostly procedural script could not accommodate without duplicating a lot of code. I also had a lot of bugs in the script and will be writing the test first on this time around. I'm stuck with the format for the resulting two workbooks, this script is glue code, development went ahead with the project without bothering to get a complete spec from the sponsor. I work for the same company as the developers but in the editorial department, editorial is co-sponsor of the project, and am expected to fix pesky details like this (I'm foaming at the mouth as I type this). I've tried factories, I've tried different object models, but each resulting workbook is so different when I find a design that works for generating one workbook the code is not really usable for generating the other. What I would really like are ideas about a maintainable and extensible design for parsing the source workbook into both workbooks with maximum code reuse, and or sympathy.

    Read the article

  • Python - Converting CSV to Objects - Code Design

    - by victorhooi
    Hi, I have a small script we're using to read in a CSV file containing employees, and perform some basic manipulations on that data. We read in the data (import_gd_dump), and create an Employees object, containing a list of Employee objects (maybe I should think of a better naming convention...lol). We then call clean_all_phone_numbers() on Employees, which calls clean_phone_number() on each Employee, as well as lookup_all_supervisors(), on Employees. import csv import re import sys #class CSVLoader: # """Virtual class to assist with loading in CSV files.""" # def import_gd_dump(self, input_file='Gp Directory 20100331 original.csv'): # gd_extract = csv.DictReader(open(input_file), dialect='excel') # employees = [] # for row in gd_extract: # curr_employee = Employee(row) # employees.append(curr_employee) # return employees # #self.employees = {row['dbdirid']:row for row in gd_extract} # Previously, this was inside a (virtual) class called "CSVLoader". # However, according to here (http://tomayko.com/writings/the-static-method-thing) - the idiomatic way of doing this in Python is not with a class-fucntion but with a module-level function def import_gd_dump(input_file='Gp Directory 20100331 original.csv'): """Return a list ('employee') of dict objects, taken from a Group Directory CSV file.""" gd_extract = csv.DictReader(open(input_file), dialect='excel') employees = [] for row in gd_extract: employees.append(row) return employees def write_gd_formatted(employees_dict, output_file="gd_formatted.csv"): """Read in an Employees() object, and write out each Employee() inside this to a CSV file""" gd_output_fieldnames = ('hrid', 'mail', 'givenName', 'sn', 'dbcostcenter', 'dbdirid', 'hrreportsto', 'PHFull', 'PHFull_message', 'SupervisorEmail', 'SupervisorFirstName', 'SupervisorSurname') try: gd_formatted = csv.DictWriter(open(output_file, 'w', newline=''), fieldnames=gd_output_fieldnames, extrasaction='ignore', dialect='excel') except IOError: print('Unable to open file, IO error (Is it locked?)') sys.exit(1) headers = {n:n for n in gd_output_fieldnames} gd_formatted.writerow(headers) for employee in employees_dict.employee_list: # We're using the employee object's inbuilt __dict__ attribute - hmm, is this good practice? gd_formatted.writerow(employee.__dict__) class Employee: """An Employee in the system, with employee attributes (name, email, cost-centre etc.)""" def __init__(self, employee_attributes): """We use the Employee constructor to convert a dictionary into instance attributes.""" for k, v in employee_attributes.items(): setattr(self, k, v) def clean_phone_number(self): """Perform some rudimentary checks and corrections, to make sure numbers are in the right format. Numbers should be in the form 0XYYYYYYYY, where X is the area code, and Y is the local number.""" if self.telephoneNumber is None or self.telephoneNumber == '': return '', 'Missing phone number.' else: standard_format = re.compile(r'^\+(?P<intl_prefix>\d{2})\((?P<area_code>\d)\)(?P<local_first_half>\d{4})-(?P<local_second_half>\d{4})') extra_zero = re.compile(r'^\+(?P<intl_prefix>\d{2})\(0(?P<area_code>\d)\)(?P<local_first_half>\d{4})-(?P<local_second_half>\d{4})') missing_hyphen = re.compile(r'^\+(?P<intl_prefix>\d{2})\(0(?P<area_code>\d)\)(?P<local_first_half>\d{4})(?P<local_second_half>\d{4})') if standard_format.search(self.telephoneNumber): result = standard_format.search(self.telephoneNumber) return '0' + result.group('area_code') + result.group('local_first_half') + result.group('local_second_half'), '' elif extra_zero.search(self.telephoneNumber): result = extra_zero.search(self.telephoneNumber) return '0' + result.group('area_code') + result.group('local_first_half') + result.group('local_second_half'), 'Extra zero in area code - ask user to remediate. ' elif missing_hyphen.search(self.telephoneNumber): result = missing_hyphen.search(self.telephoneNumber) return '0' + result.group('area_code') + result.group('local_first_half') + result.group('local_second_half'), 'Missing hyphen in local component - ask user to remediate. ' else: return '', "Number didn't match recognised format. Original text is: " + self.telephoneNumber class Employees: def __init__(self, import_list): self.employee_list = [] for employee in import_list: self.employee_list.append(Employee(employee)) def clean_all_phone_numbers(self): for employee in self.employee_list: #Should we just set this directly in Employee.clean_phone_number() instead? employee.PHFull, employee.PHFull_message = employee.clean_phone_number() # Hmm, the search is O(n^2) - there's probably a better way of doing this search? def lookup_all_supervisors(self): for employee in self.employee_list: if employee.hrreportsto is not None and employee.hrreportsto != '': for supervisor in self.employee_list: if supervisor.hrid == employee.hrreportsto: (employee.SupervisorEmail, employee.SupervisorFirstName, employee.SupervisorSurname) = supervisor.mail, supervisor.givenName, supervisor.sn break else: (employee.SupervisorEmail, employee.SupervisorFirstName, employee.SupervisorSurname) = ('Supervisor not found.', 'Supervisor not found.', 'Supervisor not found.') else: (employee.SupervisorEmail, employee.SupervisorFirstName, employee.SupervisorSurname) = ('Supervisor not set.', 'Supervisor not set.', 'Supervisor not set.') #Is thre a more pythonic way of doing this? def print_employees(self): for employee in self.employee_list: print(employee.__dict__) if __name__ == '__main__': db_employees = Employees(import_gd_dump()) db_employees.clean_all_phone_numbers() db_employees.lookup_all_supervisors() #db_employees.print_employees() write_gd_formatted(db_employees) Firstly, my preamble question is, can you see anything inherently wrong with the above, from either a class design or Python point-of-view? Is the logic/design sound? Anyhow, to the specifics: The Employees object has a method, clean_all_phone_numbers(), which calls clean_phone_number() on each Employee object inside it. Is this bad design? If so, why? Also, is the way I'm calling lookup_all_supervisors() bad? Originally, I wrapped the clean_phone_number() and lookup_supervisor() method in a single function, with a single for-loop inside it. clean_phone_number is O(n), I believe, lookup_supervisor is O(n^2) - is it ok splitting it into two loops like this? In clean_all_phone_numbers(), I'm looping on the Employee objects, and settings their values using return/assignment - should I be setting this inside clean_phone_number() itself? There's also a few things that I'm sorted of hacked out, not sure if they're bad practice - e.g. print_employee() and gd_formatted() both use __dict__, and the constructor for Employee uses setattr() to convert a dictionary into instance attributes. I'd value any thoughts at all. If you think the questions are too broad, let me know and I can repost as several split up (I just didn't want to pollute the boards with multiple similar questions, and the three questions are more or less fairly tightly related). Cheers, Victor

    Read the article

  • Class design issue

    - by user2865206
    I'm new to OOP and a lot of times I become stumped in situations similar to this example: Task: Generate an XML document that contains information about a person. Assume the information is readily available in a database. Here is an example of the structure: <Person> <Name>John Doe</Name> <Age>21</Age> <Address> <Street>100 Main St.</Street> <City>Sylvania</City> <State>OH</State> </Address> <Relatives> <Parents> <Mother> <Name>Jane Doe</Name> </Mother> <Father> <Name>John Doe Sr.</Name> </Father> </Parents> <Siblings> <Brother> <Name>Jeff Doe</Name> </Brother> <Brother> <Name>Steven Doe</Name> </Brother> </Siblings> </Relatives> </Person> Ok lets create a class for each tag (ie: Person, Name, Age, Address) Lets assume each class is only responsible for itself and the elements directly contained Each class will know (have defined by default) the classes that are directly contained within them Each class will have a process() function that will add itself and its childeren to the XML document we are creating When a child is drawn, as in the previous line, we will have them call process() as well Now we are in a recursive loop where each object draws their childeren until all are drawn But what if only some of the tags need to be drawn, and the rest are optional? Some are optional based on if the data exists (if we have it, we must draw it), and some are optional based on the preferences of the user generating the document How do we make sure each object has the data it needs to draw itself and it's childeren? We can pass down a massive array through every object, but that seems shitty doesnt it? We could have each object query the database for it, but thats a lot of queries, and how does it know what it's query is? What if we want to get rid of a tag later? There is no way to reference them. I've been thinking about this for 20 hours now. I feel like I am misunderstanding a design principle or am just approaching this all wrong. How would you go about programming something like this? I suppose this problem could apply to any senario where there are classes that create other classes, but the classes created need information to run. How do I get the information to them in a way that doesn't seem fucky? Thanks for all of your time, this has been kicking my ass.

    Read the article

  • Why can't we capture the design of software more effectively?

    - by Ira Baxter
    As engineers, we all "design" artifacts (buildings, programs, circuits, molecules...). That's an activity (design-the-verb) that produces some kind of result (design-the-noun). I think we all agree that design-the-noun is a different entity than the artifact itself. A key activity in the software business (indeed, in any business where the resulting product artifact needs to be enhanced) is to understand the "design (the-noun)". Yet we seem, as a community, to be pretty much complete failures at recording it, as evidenced by the amount of effort people put into rediscovering facts about their code base. Ask somebody to show you the design of their code and see what you get. I think of a design for software as having: An explicit specification for what the software is supposed to do and how well it does it An explicit version of the code (this part is easy, everybody has it) An explanation for how each part of the code serves to achieve the specification A rationale as to why the code is the way it is (e.g., why a particualr choice rather than another) What is NOT a design is a particular perspective on the code. For example [not to pick specifically on] UML diagrams are not designs. Rather, they are properties you can derive from the code, or arguably, properties you wish you could derive from the code. But as a general rule, you can't derive the code from UML. Why is it that after 50+ years of building software, why don't we have regular ways to express this? My personal opinion is that we don't have good ways to express this. Even if we do, most of the community seems so focused on getting "code" that design-the-noun gets lost anyway. (IMHO, until design becomes the purpose of engineering, with the artifact extracted from the design, we're not going to get around this). What have you seen as means for recording designs (in the sense I have described it)? Explicit references to papers would be good. Why do you think specific and general means have not been succesful? How can we change this?

    Read the article

  • (Database Design - products attributes): What is better option for product attribute database design

    - by meyosef
    Hi, I new in database design. What is better option for product attribute database design for cms?(Please suggest other options also). option 1: 1 table products{ id product_name color price attribute_name1 attribute_value1 attribute_name2 attribute_value2 attribute_name3 attribute_value3 } option 2: 3 tables products{ id product_name color price } attribute{ id name value } products_attribute{ products_id attribute_id } Thanks, Yosef

    Read the article

  • Is it good to subclass a class only to separate some functional parts?

    - by prostynick
    Suppose we have abstract class A (all examples in C#) public abstract class A { private Foo foo; public A() { } public void DoSomethingUsingFoo() { //stuff } public void DoSomethingElseUsingFoo() { //stuff } //a lot of other stuff... } But we are able to split it into two classes A and B: public abstract class A { public A() { } //a lot of stuff... } public abstract class B : A { private Foo foo; public B() : base() { } public void DoSomethingUsingFoo() { //stuff } public void DoSomethingElseUsingFoo() { //stuff } //nothing else or just some overrides of A stuff } That's good, but we are 99.99% sure, that no one will ever subclass A, because functionality in B is very important. Is it still good to have two separate classes only to split some code into two parts and to separate functional elements?

    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

  • What is the diffference between "data hiding" and "encapsulation"?

    - by john smith optional
    I'm reading "Java concurrency in practice" and there is said: "Fortunately, the same object-oriented techniques that help you write well-organized, maintainable classes - such as encapsulation and data hiding -can also help you crate thread-safe classes." The problem #1 - I never heard about data hiding and don't know what it is. The problem #2 - I always thought that encapsulation is using private vs public, and is actually the data hiding. Can you please explain what data hiding is and how it differs from encapsulation?

    Read the article

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