Search Results

Search found 9492 results on 380 pages for 'logic unit'.

Page 100/380 | < Previous Page | 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107  | Next Page >

  • I asked a question about arrays before, but this one won't compile

    - by unit
    I asked about this array a little while ago, and I can't see what the problem is. Too tired. What have I done wrong? Basically, I am taking a string array and trying to check to see if it contains numbers or an x (ISBN number validation). I want to take the number from a given input (bookNum), check the input, and feed any valid input into a new array (book). At the line 'bookNum.charAt[j]==book[i]' I get the 'not a statement error'. What gives? String[] book = new String [ISBN_NUM]; bookNum.replaceAll("-",""); if (bookNum.length()!=ISBN_NUM) throw new ISBNException ("ISBN "+ bookNum + " must be 10 characters"); for (int i=0;i<bookNum.length();i++) { if (Character.isDigit(bookNum.charAt(i))) bookNum.CharAt[j]==book[i]; j++; if (book[9].isNotDigit()|| book[9]!="x" || book[9]!="X") throw new ISBNException ("ISBN " + bookNum + " must contain all digits" + "or 'X' in the last position");

    Read the article

  • Beginner SQL question(s)

    - by unit
    I am two months in to an intro sql course, it's late at night, and I am drawing a blank. I have two tables, one customers, and one orders. I have to increase any customers credit limit by twenty five percent for all customers who have made two or more orders in which each order is more than the amount of 250.00. I get how to UPDATE CreditLimit * 1.25 and Cust with an order 250, but how the hell do I get it to check if they have made two orders over 250? Second question, we are just starting to take subqueries, and I am having a difficult time getting it into my skull. Another question posed by the prof of our class is to increase the credit limit of a customer who has an order that exceeds their credit limit. (Credit limit is on a customers table, order and amount are on an orders table). I then take that customer and UPDATE his CreditLimit +1000. Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Test Driven Development (TDD) in Visual Studio 2010- Microsoft Mondays

    - by Hosam Kamel
    November 14th , I will be presenting at Microsoft Mondays a session about Test Driven Development (TDD) in Visual Studio 2010 . Microsoft Mondays is program consisting of a series of Webcasts showcasing various Microsoft products and technologies. Each Monday we discuss a particular topic pertaining to development, infrastructure, Office tools, ERP, client/server operating systems etc. The webcast will be broadcast via Lync and can viewed from a web client. The idea behind the “Microsoft Mondays” program is to help you become more proficient in the products and technologies that you use and help you utilize their full potential.   Test Driven Development in Visual Studio 2010 Level – 300 (  Intermediate – Advanced ) Test Driven Development (TDD), also frequently referred to as Test Driven Design, is a development methodology where developers create software by first writing a unit test, then writing the actual system code to make the unit test pass.  The unit test can be viewed as a small specification around how the system should behave; writing it first helps the developer to focus on only writing enough code to make the test pass, thereby helping ensure a tight, lightweight system which is specifically focused meeting on the documented requirements. TDD follows a cadence of “Red, Green, Refactor.” Red refers to the visual display of a failing test – the test you write first will not pass because you have not yet written any code for it. Green refers to the step of writing just enough code in your system to make your unit test pass – your test runner’s UI will now show that test passing with a green icon. Refactor refers to the step of refactoring your code so it is tighter, cleaner, and more flexible. This cycle is repeated constantly throughout a TDD developer’s workday. Date:   November 14, 2011 Time:  10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. (GMT+3)  http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2437620990/efbnen?ebtv=F   See you there! Hosam Kamel Originally posted at

    Read the article

  • How to implement lockstep model for RTS game?

    - by user11177
    In my effort to learn programming I'm trying to make a small RTS style game. I've googled and read a lot of articles and gamedev q&a's on the topic of lockstep synchronization in multiplayer RTS games, but am still having trouble wrapping my head around how to implement it in my own game. I currently have a simple server/client system. For example if player1 selects a unit and gives the command to move it, the client sends the command [move, unit, coordinates] to the server, the server runs the pathfinding function and sends [move, unit, path] to all clients which then moves the unit and run animations. So far so good, but not synchronized for clients with latency or lower/higher FPS. How can I turn this into a true lockstep system? Is the right methodology supposed to be something like the following, using the example from above: Turn 1 start gather command inputs from player1 send to the server turn number and commands end turn, increment turn number The server receives the commands, runs pathfinding and sends the paths to all clients. Next turn receive paths from server, as well as confirmation that all clients completed previous turn, otherwise pause and wait for that confirmation move units gather new inputs end turn Is that the gist of it? Should perhaps pathfinding and other game logic be done client side instead of on the server, if so why? Is there anything else I'm missing? I hope someone can break down the concept, so I understand it better.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Validating Unique Columnname Across Whole Database

    - by pinaldave
    I sometimes come across very strange requirements and often I do not receive a proper explanation of the same. Here is the one of those examples. Asker: “Our business requirement is when we add new column we want it unique across current database.” Pinal: “Why do you have such requirement?” Asker: “Do you know the solution?” Pinal: “Sure I can come up with the answer but it will help me to come up with an optimal answer if I know the business need.” Asker: “Thanks – what will be the answer in that case.” Pinal: “Honestly I am just curious about the reason why you need your column name to be unique across database.” (Silence) Pinal: “Alright – here is the answer – I guess you do not want to tell me reason.” Option 1: Check if Column Exists in Current Database IF EXISTS (  SELECT * FROM sys.columns WHERE Name = N'NameofColumn') BEGIN SELECT 'Column Exists' -- add other logic END ELSE BEGIN SELECT 'Column Does NOT Exists' -- add other logic END Option 2: Check if Column Exists in Current Database in Specific Table IF EXISTS (  SELECT * FROM sys.columns WHERE Name = N'NameofColumn' AND OBJECT_ID = OBJECT_ID(N'tableName')) BEGIN SELECT 'Column Exists' -- add other logic END ELSE BEGIN SELECT 'Column Does NOT Exists' -- add other logic END I guess user did not want to share the reason why he had a unique requirement of having column name unique across databases. Here is my question back to you – have you faced a similar situation ever where you needed unique column name across a database. If not, can you guess what could be the reason for this kind of requirement?  Additional Reference: SQL SERVER – Query to Find Column From All Tables of Database Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL System Table, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • Input of mouseclick not always registered in XNA Update method

    - by LordrAider
    I have a problem that not all inputs of my mouse events seem to be registered. The update logic is checking a 2 dimensional array of 10x10 . It's logic for a jewel matching game. So when i switch my jewel I can't click on another jewel for like half a second. I tested it with a click counter variable and it doesn't hit the debugger when i click the second time after the jewel switch. Only if I do the second click after waiting half a second longer. Could it be that the update logic is too heavy that while he is executing update logic my click is happening and he doesn't register it? What am I not seeing here :)? Or doing wrong. It is my first game. My function of the update methode looks like this. public void UpdateBoard() { MouseState currentMouseState; currentMouseState = Mouse.GetState(); if (currentMouseState.LeftButton == ButtonState.Pressed && prevMouseState.LeftButton != ButtonState.Pressed) { UpdatingLogic = true; // this.CheckDropJewels(currentMouseState); //this.CheckMatches(3); //this.RemoveMatches(); this.CheckForSwitch(currentMouseState); this.MarkJewel(currentMouseState); UpdatingLogic = false; //reIndexMissingJewels = true; reIndexSwitchedJewels = true; } prevMouseState = currentMouseState; this.ReIndex(); this.UpdateJewels(); }

    Read the article

  • Avoiding bloated Domain Objects

    - by djcredo
    We're trying to move data from our bloated Service layer into our Domain layer using a DDD approach. We currently have a lot of business logic in our services, which is spread out all over the place and doesn't benefit from inheritance. We have a central Domain class which is the focus of most of our work - a Trade. The Trade object will know how to price itself, how to estimate risk, validate itself, etc. We can then replace conditionals with polymorphism. Eg: SimpleTrade will price itself one way, but ComplexTrade will price itself another. However, we are worried that this will bloat the Trade class(s). It really should be in charge of its own processing but the class size is going to increase exponentially as more features are added. So we have choices: Put processing logic in Trade class. Processing logic is now polymorphic based on the type of the trade, but Trade class is now has multiple responsibilites (pricing, risk, etc) and is large Put processing logic into other class such as TradePricingService. No longer polymorphic with the Trade inheritance tree, but classes are smaller and easier to test. What would be the suggested approach?

    Read the article

  • Model View Controller² [closed]

    - by user694971
    I am working on a quite complex web application in Go and I tried to stay in an MVC pattern. However, I ended up having a structure isomorphic to this: /boilerplate The usual boilerplate an application needs to survive in the wilderness /db Layer talking to an SQL DB /helpers Helpers /logic Backend logic, not directly affiliated with any routes, sessions etc. /templates View /web Glue between /logic and /templates. In more dynamic languages the size of /web would be next to zero. But Go doesn't exactly have a RoR integrated so I need a lot of helper structures to feed the templates with data, to process GET/POST parameters and session information. I remember once reading about patterns similar to MVC with one extra letter but Wiki-searching I couldn't find it right now. (BTW currently /logic also contains data retrieval from API services to fill some hash maps; this is no simple task, but that probably belongs into the model, right?) So question: is this structure considered sane? Or does it need some bending to be tagged MVC app?

    Read the article

  • Class-Level Model Validation with EF Code First and ASP.NET MVC 3

    - by ScottGu
    Earlier this week the data team released the CTP5 build of the new Entity Framework Code-First library.  In my blog post a few days ago I talked about a few of the improvements introduced with the new CTP5 build.  Automatic support for enforcing DataAnnotation validation attributes on models was one of the improvements I discussed.  It provides a pretty easy way to enable property-level validation logic within your model layer. You can apply validation attributes like [Required], [Range], and [RegularExpression] – all of which are built-into .NET 4 – to your model classes in order to enforce that the model properties are valid before they are persisted to a database.  You can also create your own custom validation attributes (like this cool [CreditCard] validator) and have them be automatically enforced by EF Code First as well.  This provides a really easy way to validate property values on your models.  I showed some code samples of this in action in my previous post. Class-Level Model Validation using IValidatableObject DataAnnotation attributes provides an easy way to validate individual property values on your model classes.  Several people have asked - “Does EF Code First also support a way to implement class-level validation methods on model objects, for validation rules than need to span multiple property values?”  It does – and one easy way you can enable this is by implementing the IValidatableObject interface on your model classes. IValidatableObject.Validate() Method Below is an example of using the IValidatableObject interface (which is built-into .NET 4 within the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace) to implement two custom validation rules on a Product model class.  The two rules ensure that: New units can’t be ordered if the Product is in a discontinued state New units can’t be ordered if there are already more than 100 units in stock We will enforce these business rules by implementing the IValidatableObject interface on our Product class, and by implementing its Validate() method like so: The IValidatableObject.Validate() method can apply validation rules that span across multiple properties, and can yield back multiple validation errors. Each ValidationResult returned can supply both an error message as well as an optional list of property names that caused the violation (which is useful when displaying error messages within UI). Automatic Validation Enforcement EF Code-First (starting with CTP5) now automatically invokes the Validate() method when a model object that implements the IValidatableObject interface is saved.  You do not need to write any code to cause this to happen – this support is now enabled by default. This new support means that the below code – which violates one of our above business rules – will automatically throw an exception (and abort the transaction) when we call the “SaveChanges()” method on our Northwind DbContext: In addition to reactively handling validation exceptions, EF Code First also allows you to proactively check for validation errors.  Starting with CTP5, you can call the “GetValidationErrors()” method on the DbContext base class to retrieve a list of validation errors within the model objects you are working with.  GetValidationErrors() will return a list of all validation errors – regardless of whether they are generated via DataAnnotation attributes or by an IValidatableObject.Validate() implementation.  Below is an example of proactively using the GetValidationErrors() method to check (and handle) errors before trying to call SaveChanges(): ASP.NET MVC 3 and IValidatableObject ASP.NET MVC 2 included support for automatically honoring and enforcing DataAnnotation attributes on model objects that are used with ASP.NET MVC’s model binding infrastructure.  ASP.NET MVC 3 goes further and also honors the IValidatableObject interface.  This combined support for model validation makes it easy to display appropriate error messages within forms when validation errors occur.  To see this in action, let’s consider a simple Create form that allows users to create a new Product: We can implement the above Create functionality using a ProductsController class that has two “Create” action methods like below: The first Create() method implements a version of the /Products/Create URL that handles HTTP-GET requests - and displays the HTML form to fill-out.  The second Create() method implements a version of the /Products/Create URL that handles HTTP-POST requests - and which takes the posted form data, ensures that is is valid, and if it is valid saves it in the database.  If there are validation issues it redisplays the form with the posted values.  The razor view template of our “Create” view (which renders the form) looks like below: One of the nice things about the above Controller + View implementation is that we did not write any validation logic within it.  The validation logic and business rules are instead implemented entirely within our model layer, and the ProductsController simply checks whether it is valid (by calling the ModelState.IsValid helper method) to determine whether to try and save the changes or redisplay the form with errors. The Html.ValidationMessageFor() helper method calls within our view simply display the error messages our Product model’s DataAnnotations and IValidatableObject.Validate() method returned.  We can see the above scenario in action by filling out invalid data within the form and attempting to submit it: Notice above how when we hit the “Create” button we got an error message.  This was because we ticked the “Discontinued” checkbox while also entering a value for the UnitsOnOrder (and so violated one of our business rules).  You might ask – how did ASP.NET MVC know to highlight and display the error message next to the UnitsOnOrder textbox?  It did this because ASP.NET MVC 3 now honors the IValidatableObject interface when performing model binding, and will retrieve the error messages from validation failures with it. The business rule within our Product model class indicated that the “UnitsOnOrder” property should be highlighted when the business rule we hit was violated: Our Html.ValidationMessageFor() helper method knew to display the business rule error message (next to the UnitsOnOrder edit box) because of the above property name hint we supplied: Keeping things DRY ASP.NET MVC and EF Code First enables you to keep your validation and business rules in one place (within your model layer), and avoid having it creep into your Controllers and Views.  Keeping the validation logic in the model layer helps ensure that you do not duplicate validation/business logic as you add more Controllers and Views to your application.  It allows you to quickly change your business rules/validation logic in one single place (within your model layer) – and have all controllers/views across your application immediately reflect it.  This help keep your application code clean and easily maintainable, and makes it much easier to evolve and update your application in the future. Summary EF Code First (starting with CTP5) now has built-in support for both DataAnnotations and the IValidatableObject interface.  This allows you to easily add validation and business rules to your models, and have EF automatically ensure that they are enforced anytime someone tries to persist changes of them to a database.  ASP.NET MVC 3 also now supports both DataAnnotations and IValidatableObject as well, which makes it even easier to use them with your EF Code First model layer – and then have the controllers/views within your web layer automatically honor and support them as well.  This makes it easy to build clean and highly maintainable applications. You don’t have to use DataAnnotations or IValidatableObject to perform your validation/business logic.  You can always roll your own custom validation architecture and/or use other more advanced validation frameworks/patterns if you want.  But for a lot of applications this built-in support will probably be sufficient – and provide a highly productive way to build solutions. Hope this helps, Scott P.S. In addition to blogging, I am also now using Twitter for quick updates and to share links. Follow me at: twitter.com/scottgu

    Read the article

  • techniques for an AI for a highly cramped turn-based tactics game

    - by Adam M.
    I'm trying to write an AI for a tactics game in the vein of Final Fantasy Tactics or Vandal Hearts. I can't change the game rules in any way, only upgrade the AI. I have experience programming AI for classic board games (basically minimax and its variants), but I think the branching factor is too great for the approach to be reasonable here. I'll describe the game and some current AI flaws that I'd like to fix. I'd like to hear ideas for applicable techniques. I'm a decent enough programmer, so I only need the ideas, not an implementation (though that's always appreciated). I'd rather not expend effort chasing (too many) dead ends, so although speculation and brainstorming are good and probably helpful, I'd prefer to hear from somebody with actual experience solving this kind of problem. For those who know it, the game is the land battle mini-game in Sid Meier's Pirates! (2004) and you can skim/skip the next two paragraphs. For those who don't, here's briefly how it works. The battle is turn-based and takes place on a 16x16 grid. There are three terrain types: clear (no hindrance), forest (hinders movement, ranged attacks, and sight), and rock (impassible, but does not hinder attacks or sight). The map is randomly generated with roughly equal amounts of each type of terrain. Because there are many rock and forest tiles, movement is typically very cramped. This is tactically important. The terrain is not flat; higher terrain gives minor bonuses. The terrain is known to both sides. The player is always the attacker and the AI is always the defender, so it's perfectly valid for the AI to set up a defensive position and just wait. The player wins by killing all defenders or by getting a unit to the city gates (a tile on the other side of the map). There are very few units on each side, usually 4-8. Because of this, it's crucial not to take damage without gaining some advantage from it. Units can take multiple actions per turn. All units on one side move before any units on the other side. Order of execution is important, and interleaving of actions between units is often useful. Units have melee and ranged attacks. Melee attacks vary widely in strength; ranged attacks have the same strength but vary in range. The main challenges I face are these: Lots of useful move combinations start with a "useless" move that gains no immediate advantage, or even loses advantage, in order to set up a powerful flank attack in the future. And, since the player units are stronger and have longer range, the AI pretty much always has to take some losses before they can start to gain kills. The AI must be able to look ahead to distinguish between sacrificial actions that provide a future benefit and those that don't. Because the terrain is so cramped, most of the tactics come down to achieving good positioning with multiple units that work together to defend an area. For instance, two defenders can often dominate a narrow pass by positioning themselves so an enemy unit attempting to pass must expose itself to a flank attack. But one defender in the same pass would be useless, and three units can defend a slightly larger pass. Etc. The AI should be able to figure out where the player must go to reach the city gates and how to best position its few units to cover the approaches, shifting, splitting, or combining them appropriately as the player moves. Because flank attacks are extremely deadly (and engineering flank attacks is key to the player strategy), the AI should be competent at moving its units so that they cover each other's flanks unless the sacrifice of a unit would give a substantial benefit. They should also be able to force flank attacks on players, for instance by threatening a unit from two different directions such that responding to one threat exposes the flank to the other. The AI should attack if possible, but sometimes there are no good ways to approach the player's position. In that case, the AI should be able to recognize this and set up a defensive position of its own. But the AI shouldn't be vulnerable to a trivial exploit where the player repeatedly opens and closes a hole in his defense and shoots at the AI as it approaches and retreats. That is, the AI should ideally be able to recognize that the player is capable of establishing a solid defense of an area, even if the defense is not currently in place. (I suppose if a good unit allocation algorithm existed, as needed for the second bullet point, the AI could run it on the player units to see where they could defend.) Because it's important to choose a good order of action and interleave actions between units, it's not as simple as just finding the best move for each unit in turn. All of these can be accomplished with a minimax search in theory, but the search space is too large, so specialized techniques are needed. I thought about techniques such as influence mapping, but I don't see how to use the technique to great effect. I thought about assigning goals to the units. This can help them work together in some limited way, and the problem of "how do I accomplish this goal?" is easier to solve than "how do I win this battle?", but assigning good goals is a hard problem in itself, because it requires knowing whether the goal is achievable and whether it's a good use of resources. So, does anyone have specific ideas for techniques that can help cleverize this AI? Update: I found a related question on Stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3133273/ai-for-a-final-fantasy-tactics-like-game The selected answer gives a decent approach to choosing between alternative actions, but it doesn't seem to have much ability to look into the future and discern beneficial sacrifices from wasteful ones. It also focuses on a single unit at a time and it's not clear how it could be extended to support cooperation between units in defending or attacking.

    Read the article

  • How TiVo is messing up customer support.

    - by James Fleming
    Ok,  So I've gotten a TiVo and overall, I'm happy, but there have been issues and I suspect I've a defective unit. - Now the nice folks after many service calls were happy to swap it out, and to ensure continuity of service, they sent me a new unit (after a $109 deposit).  That was yesterday. Today, when we go to watch a little TV, and wait for our replacement unit to arrive we find our TiVo service has been suspended. WTF? They have an exchange program, but your unit your waiting to exchange is as dead as a doornail until the replacement arrives. How hard is it to keep the old unit active for an extra week? Here is the exchange w/Tivo below... You are currently number 1 in the queue. We apologize for the delay. We will assign you to an agent as soon as one is available.The average amount of time a customer has to wait is 00:13.  Kaylene (Listening)  Kaylene: Thank you for contacting TiVo! My name is Kaylene. So that I may better assist you, are you an existing customer?  james Fleming: yes I am, but I'm now having second thoughts about being one    Kaylene: Thank you for verifying your information. How may I assist you today James?  james Fleming: I've been having issues w/a tivo box & I'm getting a replacement sent out to me (after paying an additional deposit) and now my current unit is no longer activated  Kaylene: I can help you today!  Kaylene: When we process an exchange we do transfer over the service to the replacement box so it is active and ready to go when you receive it.  james Fleming: which is to say you also make my current box worthless until such time I receive a new box?!?!?  Kaylene: I apologize that your original box was deactivated so we could activate your replacement box.  james Fleming: Why on Earth would I bother to pay in advance for a new box if you were going to kill my existing box.  Kaylene: What features are you needing to use on your current box?  james Fleming: I need to be able to access my netflix subscription (if I'm lucky enough to have it work without rebooting)  Kaylene: Can I have you verify the TiVo Service Number of your TiVo box please?  james Fleming: 7460011906979b4  Kaylene: We have your current box temporary service but not all features are available with temporary service as it is not paid for service.  Kaylene: If you like I can transfer your service back to your current box for now. Then once you receive the new box you will have to call in and have the service transferred back to the new box.  james Fleming: Not paid for? Let's see> one tivo box + 3 year service plan + monthly service + $109 deposit on a second box = what?  Kaylene: Would you like me to transfer your service back to your current box?  james Fleming: Yes - that would be helpful  Kaylene: All you will need to do is contact us again once you receive the new box so we can transfer it back.  Kaylene: I have put your service back on TiVo box 7460011906979b4.  james Fleming: What would also be helpful is your firm informing me to how you'd be cutting service in the interim.  james Fleming: Again - I opted to pay to have a second box delivered BEFORE returning the box I have - thus trying to have a continuity of service..  Kaylene: This is not something we normally do so it is important when you contact us to transfer the service back to the new box when you receive it that you reference this case number: 110622-006089.  Kaylene: I apologize about the inconvenience. You may need  force a few connections for the box to recognize the service again.  james Fleming: If it's not something you normally do than WHY would you have a $109 fee and a term for the service.  james Fleming: I am not mad at you, but your company is not impressing me and I'm blogging about this experience  Kaylene: Again I apologize about the inconvenience but you should be good to go now. Is there anything else I can help you with today?  james Fleming: so I need to go through the re-actviate process or is that somethign you do  Kaylene: When you receive the new TiVo box you need to contact us so we can transfer the service to the new box for you.  james Fleming: sure  Kaylene: Is there anything else I can help you with today James?  james Fleming: Nope - please email this transcript to me  Kaylene: I apologize but we do not have the ability to e-mail you a copy of this transcript. You can view it online at  http://www.tivo.com when you sign into your account or you can copy and paste it now to save it.  Kaylene: Thank you for contacting TiVo today. Your reference number for our conversation is 110622-006089. You can save this for your records, and if necessary, provide this to a later agent to pull up what we discussed. There will be a brief satisfaction survey emailed to you. We would appreciate any feedback on your TiVo Chat Support experience today.  Kaylene: Thank you for using TiVo Chat and have a great day James! Good-bye.  Kaylene has disconnected.

    Read the article

  • TDD - A question about the approach

    - by k25
    I have a question about TDD. I have always seen the recommendation that we should first write unit tests and then start writing code. But I feel that going the other way is much more comfortable (for me) - write code and then the unit tests, because I feel we have much more clarity after we have written the actual code. If I write the code and then the tests, I may have to change my code a little bit to make it testable, even if I concentrate much on creating a testable design. On the other hand, if I write the tests and then the code, the tests will change pretty frequently as and when the code shapes up. My questions are: 1) As I see a lot of recommendations to start writing tests and then move on to coding, what are the disadvantages if I do it the other way - write code and then the unit tests? 2) Could you please point me to some links that discuss about this or recommend some books (TDD)?

    Read the article

  • CQRS - Benefits

    - by Dylan Smith
    Thanks to all the comments and feedback from the last post I think I have a better understanding now of the benefits of CQRS (separate from the benefits of Event Sourcing). I’m going to try and sum it up here, and point out some areas where I could still use some advice: CQRS Benefits Sounds like the primary benefit of CQRS as an architecture is it allows you to create a simpler domain model by sucking out everything related to queries. I can definitely see the benefit to this, in general the domain logic related to commands is the high-value behavior in the software, but the logic required to service the queries would add a lot of low-value “noise” to the domain model that would dilute the high-value (command) behavior – sorting, paging, filtering, pre-fetch paths, etc. Also the most appropriate domain structure for implementing commands might not be the most optimal for implementing queries. To paraphrase Greg, this usually results in a domain model that is mediocre at both, piss-poor at one, or more likely piss-poor at both commands and queries. Not only will you be able to simplify your domain model by pulling out all the query logic, but at least a handful of commands in most systems will probably be “pass-though” type commands with little to no logic that just generate events. If these can be implemented directly in the command-handler and never touch the domain model, this allows you to slim down the domain model even more. Also, if you were to do event sourcing without CQRS, you no longer have a database containing the current state (only the domain model would) which makes it difficult (or impossible) to support ad-hoc querying and/or reporting that is common in most business software. Of course CQRS provides some great scalability benefits, not only scalability but I have to assume that it provides extremely low latency for most operations, especially if you have an asynchronous event bus. I know Greg says that you get a 3x scaling (Commands, Queries, Client) of your ability to perform parallel development, but IMHO, it seems like it only provides 1.5x scaling since even without CQRS you’re going to have your client loosely coupled to your domain - which is still a great benefit to be able to realize. Questions / Concerns If all the queries against an aggregate get pulled out to the Query layer, what if the only commands for that aggregate can be handled in a “pass-through” manner with the command handler directly generating events. Is it possible to have an aggregate that isn’t modeled in the domain model? Are there any issues or downsides to this? I know in the feedback from my previous posts it was suggested that having one domain model handling both commands and queries requires implementing a lot of traversals between objects that wouldn’t be necessary if it was only servicing commands. My question is, do you include traversals in your domain model based on the needs of the code, or based on the conceptual domain model? If none of my Commands require a Customer.Orders traversal, but the conceptual domain includes the concept of a set of orders belonging to a customer – should I model that in my domain model or not? I like the idea of using the Query side of the architecture as a place to put junior devs where the risk of them screwing something up has minimal impact. But I’m not sold on the idea that you can actually outsource it. Like I said in one of my comments on my previous post, the code to handle a query and generate DTO’s is going to be dead simple, but the code to process events and apply them to the tables on the query side is going to require a significant amount of domain knowledge to know which events to listen for to update each of the de-normalized tables (and what changes need to be made when each event is processed). I don’t know about everybody else, but having Indian/Russian/whatever outsourced developers have to do anything that requires significant domain knowledge has never been successful in my experience. And if you need to spec out for each new query which events to listen to and what to do with each one, well that’s probably going to be just as much work to document as it would be to just implement it. Greg made the point in a comment that doing an aggregate query like “Total Sales By Customer” is going to be inefficient if you use event sourcing but not CQRS. I don’t understand why that would be the case. I imagine in that case you’d simply have a method/property on the Customer object that calculated total sales for that customer by enumerating over the Orders collection. Then the application services layer would generate DTO’s off of the Customers collection that included say the CustomerID, CustomerName, TotalSales, or whatever the case may be. As long as you use a snapshotting implementation, I don’t see why that would be anymore inefficient in a DDD+Event Sourcing implementation than in a typical DDD implementation. Like I mentioned in my last post I still have some questions about query logic that haven’t been answered yet, but before I start asking those I want to make sure I have a strong grasp on what benefits CQRS provides.  My main concern with the query logic was that I know I could just toss it all into the query side, but I was concerned that I would be losing the benefits of using CQRS in the first place if I did that.  I want to elaborate more on this though with some example situations in an upcoming post.

    Read the article

  • Tips or techniques to use when you do't know how to code something?

    - by janoChen
    I have a background as UI designer. And I realized that it is a bit hard for me to write a pieces of logic. Sometimes I get it right, but most of the time, I end up with something hacky (and it usually takes a lot of time). And is not that I don't like programming, in fact, I'm starting to like it as much as design. It's just that sometimes I think that I'm better at dealing with colors an shapes, rather than numbers and logic (but I want to change that). What I usually do is to search the solution on the Internet, copy the example, and insert it into my app (I know this is not a very good practice). I've heard that one tip was to write the logic in common English as comment before writing the actual code. What other tips and techniques I can use?

    Read the article

  • Testing with Profiler Custom Events and Database Snapshots

    We've all had them. One of those stored procedures that is huge and contains complex business logic which may or may not be executed. These procedures make it an absolute nightmare when it comes to debugging problems because they're so complex and have so many logic offshoots that it's very easy to get lost when you're trying to determine the path that the procedure code took when it ran. Fortunately Profiler lets you define custom events that you can raise in your code and capture in a trace so you get a better window into the sub events occurring in your code. I found it very useful to use custom events and a database snapshot to debug some code recently and we'll explore both in this article. I find raising these events and running Profiler to be very useful for testing my stored procedures on my own as well as when my code is going through official testing and user acceptance. It's a simple approach and a great way to catch any performance problems or logic errors.

    Read the article

  • A Quantity class with units

    - by Ryan Ohs
    Goals Create a class that associates a numeric quantity with a unit of measurement. Provide support for simple arithmetic and comparison operations. Implementation An immutable class (Could have been struct but I may try inheritance later) Unit is stored in an enumeration Supported operations: Addition w/ like units Subtraction w/ like units Multiplication by scalar Division by scalar Modulus by scalar Equals() >, >=, <, <=, == IComparable ToString() Implicit cast to Decimal The Source The souce can be downloaded from Github. Notes This class does not support any arithmetic that would modify the unit. This class is not suitable for manipulating currencies. Future Ideas Have a CompositeQuantity class that would allow quantities with unlike units to be combined. Similar currency class with support for allocations/distributions. Provide conversion between units. (Actually I think this would be best placed in an external service. Many situations I deal with require some sort of dynamic conversion ratio.)

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET C# Session Variable

    - by SAMIR BHOGAYTA
    You can make changes in the web.config. You can give the location path i.e the pages to whom u want to apply the security. Ex. 1) In first case the page can be accessed by everyone. // Allow ALL users to visit the CreatingUserAccounts.aspx // location path="CreatingUserAccounts.aspx" system.web authorization allow users="*" / /authorization /system.web /location 2) in this case only admin can access the page // Allow ADMIN users to visit the hello.aspx location path="hello.aspx" system.web authorization allow roles="ADMIN' / deny users="*" / /authorization /system.web /location OR On the every page you need to check the authorization according to the page logic ex: On every page call this if (session[loggeduser] !=null) { DataSet dsUser=(DataSet)session[loggeduser]; if (dsUser !=null && dsUser.Tables.Count0 && dsUser.Tables[0] !=null && dsUser.Tables[0].Rows.Count0) { if (dsUser.Table[0].Rows[0]["UserType"]=="SuperAdmin") { //your page logic here } if (dsUser.Table[0].Rows[0]["UserType"]=="Admin") { //your page logic here } } }

    Read the article

  • Clean way to use mutable implementation of Immutable interfaces for encapsulation

    - by dsollen
    My code is working on some compost relationship which creates a tree structure, class A has many children of type B, which has many children of type C etc. The lowest level class, call it bar, also points to a connected bar class. This effectively makes nearly every object in my domain inter-connected. Immutable objects would be problematic due to the expense of rebuilding almost all of my domain to make a single change to one class. I chose to go with an interface approach. Every object has an Immutable interface which only publishes the getter methods. I have controller objects which constructs the domain objects and thus has reference to the full objects, thus capable of calling the setter methods; but only ever publishes the immutable interface. Any change requested will go through the controller. So something like this: public interface ImmutableFoo{ public Bar getBar(); public Location getLocation(); } public class Foo implements ImmutableFoo{ private Bar bar; private Location location; @Override public Bar getBar(){ return Bar; } public void setBar(Bar bar){ this.bar=bar; } @Override public Location getLocation(){ return Location; } } public class Controller{ Private Map<Location, Foo> fooMap; public ImmutableFoo addBar(Bar bar){ Foo foo=fooMap.get(bar.getLocation()); if(foo!=null) foo.addBar(bar); return foo; } } I felt the basic approach seems sensible, however, when I speak to others they always seem to have trouble envisioning what I'm describing, which leaves me concerned that I may have a larger design issue then I'm aware of. Is it problematic to have domain objects so tightly coupled, or to use the quasi-mutable approach to modifying them? Assuming that the design approach itself isn't inherently flawed the particular discussion which left me wondering about my approach had to do with the presence of business logic in the domain objects. Currently I have my setter methods in the mutable objects do error checking and all other logic required to verify and make a change to the object. It was suggested that this should be pulled out into a service class, which applies all the business logic, to simplify my domain objects. I understand the advantage in mocking/testing and general separation of logic into two classes. However, with a service method/object It seems I loose some of the advantage of polymorphism, I can't override a base class to add in new error checking or business logic. It seems, if my polymorphic classes were complicated enough, I would end up with a service method that has to check a dozen flags to decide what error checking and business logic applies. So, for example, if I wanted to have a childFoo which also had a size field which should be compared to bar before adding par my current approach would look something like this. public class Foo implements ImmutableFoo{ public void addBar(Bar bar){ if(!getLocation().equals(bar.getLocation()) throw new LocationException(); this.bar=bar; } } public interface ImmutableChildFoo extends ImmutableFoo{ public int getSize(); } public ChildFoo extends Foo implements ImmutableChildFoo{ private int size; @Override public int getSize(){ return size; } @Override public void addBar(Bar bar){ if(getSize()<bar.getSize()){ throw new LocationException(); super.addBar(bar); } My colleague was suggesting instead having a service object that looks something like this (over simplified, the 'service' object would likely be more complex). public interface ImmutableFoo{ ///original interface, presumably used in other methods public Location getLocation(); public boolean isChildFoo(); } public interface ImmutableSizedFoo implements ImmutableFoo{ public int getSize(); } public class Foo implements ImmutableSizedFoo{ public Bar bar; @Override public void addBar(Bar bar){ this.bar=bar; } @Override public int getSize(){ //default size if no size is known return 0; } @Override public boolean isChildFoo return false; } } public ChildFoo extends Foo{ private int size; @Override public int getSize(){ return size; } @Override public boolean isChildFoo(); return true; } } public class Controller{ Private Map<Location, Foo> fooMap; public ImmutableSizedFoo addBar(Bar bar){ Foo foo=fooMap.get(bar.getLocation()); service.addBarToFoo(foo, bar); returned foo; } public class Service{ public static void addBarToFoo(Foo foo, Bar bar){ if(foo==null) return; if(!foo.getLocation().equals(bar.getLocation())) throw new LocationException(); if(foo.isChildFoo() && foo.getSize()<bar.getSize()) throw new LocationException(); foo.setBar(bar); } } } Is the recommended approach of using services and inversion of control inherently superior, or superior in certain cases, to overriding methods directly? If so is there a good way to go with the service approach while not loosing the power of polymorphism to override some of the behavior?

    Read the article

  • How does a search functionality fit in DDD with CQRS?

    - by Songo
    In Vaughn Vernon's book Implementing domain driven design and the accompanying sample application I found that he implemented a CQRS approach to the iddd_collaboration bounded context. He presents the following classes in the application service layer: CalendarApplicationService.java CalendarEntryApplicationService.java CalendarEntryQueryService.java CalendarQueryService.java I'm interested to know if an application will have a search page that feature numerous drop downs and check boxes with a smart text box to match different search patterns; How will you structure all that search logic? In a command service or a query service? Taking a look at the CalendarQueryService.java I can see that it has 2 methods for a huge query, but no logic at all to mix and match any search filters for example. I've heard that the application layer shouldn't have any business logic, so where will I construct my dynamic query? or maybe just clutter everything in the Query service?

    Read the article

  • Should tests be in the same ruby file or in separeted ruby files?

    - by Junior Mayhé
    While using Selenium and Ruby to do some functional tests, I am worried with the performance. So is it better to add all test methods in the same ruby file, or I should put each one in separated code files? Below a sample with all tests in the same file: # encoding: utf-8 require "selenium-webdriver" require "test/unit" class Tests < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @driver = Selenium::WebDriver.for :firefox @base_url = "http://mysite" @driver.manage.timeouts.implicit_wait = 30 @verification_errors = [] @wait = Selenium::WebDriver::Wait.new :timeout => 10 end def teardown @driver.quit assert_equal [], @verification_errors end def element_present?(how, what) @driver.find_element(how, what) true rescue Selenium::WebDriver::Error::NoSuchElementError false end def verify(&blk) yield rescue Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError => ex @verification_errors << ex end def test_1 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_2 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_3 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_4 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_5 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end end

    Read the article

  • Easiest turn-base games you can think of?

    - by Edgar Miranda
    I'm planning to get into the process of programming multiplayer turn-base games. I would like to start off by making some of the simplest (yet fun) multiplayer turn-base games out there. What are some that you can provide? For example... Tic-Tac-Toe Rock-Paper-Scissors Checkers Some not so easy games... 4 in a row chess poker In terms of "ease" of implementation I'm mainly looking at logic. For example, Rock-Paper-Scissors has very simple logic, while chess has logic that is more complicated. So far I have the following: Hexagon Heroes of Might and Magic Nine Men's Morris Connect 4 21 (card game) Pen the Pig (The Dot game) Memory Match

    Read the article

  • Are too many assertions code smell?

    - by Florents
    I've really fallen in love with unit testing and TDD - I am test infected. However, unit testing is used for public methods. Sometimes though I do have to test some assumptions-assertions in private methods too, because some of them are "dangerous" and refactoring can't help further. (I know, testing frameworks allo testing private methods). So, It became a habit of mine that (almost always) the first and the last line of a private method are both assertions. I guess this couldn't be bad (right ??). However, I've noticed that I also tend to use assertions in public methods too (as in the private) just "to be sure". Could this be "testing duplication" since the public method assumpotions are tested from the unit testng framework? Could someone think of too many assertions as a code smell?

    Read the article

  • Should tests be in the same Ruby file or in separated Ruby files?

    - by Junior Mayhé
    While using Selenium and Ruby to do some functional tests, I am worried with the performance. So is it better to add all test methods in the same Ruby file, or I should put each one in separated code files? Below a sample with all tests in the same file: # encoding: utf-8 require "selenium-webdriver" require "test/unit" class Tests < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @driver = Selenium::WebDriver.for :firefox @base_url = "http://mysite" @driver.manage.timeouts.implicit_wait = 30 @verification_errors = [] @wait = Selenium::WebDriver::Wait.new :timeout => 10 end def teardown @driver.quit assert_equal [], @verification_errors end def element_present?(how, what) @driver.find_element(how, what) true rescue Selenium::WebDriver::Error::NoSuchElementError false end def verify(&blk) yield rescue Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError => ex @verification_errors << ex end def test_1 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_2 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_3 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_4 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_5 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end end

    Read the article

  • Formula for three competing heroes, each has one they can beat and one they're beaten by

    - by Georgiadis Abraam
    I am trying to design a game for a project I have, The main idea is: 3 Types of heroes 3 Stats per hero There are no levels involved so the differences must be located on stats. Fight logic - The logic of fight is that type1hero has good chances winning type2hero, type2hero has good chances type3hero and type3hero has good chances winning type1hero. For over a week I am trying to find a stats based formula that will allow me to fix this but I can't, I was meddling with numbers yesterday and it was decent but I can't extract the formula out of it. Could you please guide me or give me hints on how should I start creating formulas on a Non lvl game that fulfills the fight logic?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good practice to use branches to maintain different editions of the same software?

    - by Tamás Szelei
    We have a product that has a few different editions. The differences are minor: different strings here and there, very little additional logic in one, very little difference in logic in the other. When the software is being developed, most changes need to be added to each edition; however, there are a few that don't and a few that needs to differ. Is it a valid use of branches if I have release-editionA and release-editionB (..etc) branches? Are there any gotchas? Good practices? Update: Thanks for the insight everyone, lots of good answers here. The general consensus seems to be that it is a bad idea to use branches for this purpose. For anyone wondering, my final solution to the problem is to externalize strings as configuration, and externalize the differing logic as plugins or scripts.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107  | Next Page >