Search Results

Search found 15120 results on 605 pages for 'mock driven design'.

Page 102/605 | < Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >

  • In some games, we just let the main() loop be the Player object or Table object?

    - by ????
    I was thinking that let's say if there is a game of Blackjack or MasterMind, then we should have a class called Dealer or ComputerPal, which is how the computer interact with us (as a dealer for Blackjack or as the person giving hints for MasterMind). And then there should be a Player object, and the way to play one game is aPlayer.playGame but I noticed that a book was just using the main() loop to act as the player (or as the Controller of the game), calling the Dealer methods to dealer the cards, ask for player's action, etc... 1) Is this just a lazy way to model all the proper objects? 2) If more objects are to be added, who should call the aDealer.dealCards and then ask for aPlayer.askForAction? (because it is strange to let the Player handle all the logical steps). Should there be a Table object that handle all these logic and then to play one round of game, use aTable.playGame? What is a good object design for such game?

    Read the article

  • How to elegantly work with a lot of print functions?

    - by user1824372
    I'm working on a Python project that is executed on a terminal (or console) for which I am planning to implement a GUI. I did not major in CS so I really have no idea how to effectively design a terminal GUI such that: the user interface looks good in GUI, it is directed to a certain widget, let's say, a text label, or a bottom bar, or a hide-able frame. Do you have any suggestions? Currently, I am using the print function to provide essential information on STDOUT during execution, so a lot of print calls are distributed here and there in the code. I'm thinking of using macro-like variables such as 'FILE_NOT_EXISTS_MESSAGE' for printing, and all of them and their values would be defined in one file. Is that a standard way to do this? Should I introduce a logging system? In summary, I'm looking for a pattern for handling console output that is effective and adaptable.

    Read the article

  • How accurate is "Business logic should be in a service, not in a model"?

    - by Jeroen Vannevel
    Situation Earlier this evening I gave an answer to a question on StackOverflow. The question: Editing of an existing object should be done in repository layer or in service? For example if I have a User that has debt. I want to change his debt. Should I do it in UserRepository or in service for example BuyingService by getting an object, editing it and saving it ? My answer: You should leave the responsibility of mutating an object to that same object and use the repository to retrieve this object. Example situation: class User { private int debt; // debt in cents private string name; // getters public void makePayment(int cents){ debt -= cents; } } class UserRepository { public User GetUserByName(string name){ // Get appropriate user from database } } A comment I received: Business logic should really be in a service. Not in a model. What does the internet say? So, this got me searching since I've never really (consciously) used a service layer. I started reading up on the Service Layer pattern and the Unit Of Work pattern but so far I can't say I'm convinced a service layer has to be used. Take for example this article by Martin Fowler on the anti-pattern of an Anemic Domain Model: There are objects, many named after the nouns in the domain space, and these objects are connected with the rich relationships and structure that true domain models have. The catch comes when you look at the behavior, and you realize that there is hardly any behavior on these objects, making them little more than bags of getters and setters. Indeed often these models come with design rules that say that you are not to put any domain logic in the the domain objects. Instead there are a set of service objects which capture all the domain logic. These services live on top of the domain model and use the domain model for data. (...) The logic that should be in a domain object is domain logic - validations, calculations, business rules - whatever you like to call it. To me, this seemed exactly what the situation was about: I advocated the manipulation of an object's data by introducing methods inside that class that do just that. However I realize that this should be a given either way, and it probably has more to do with how these methods are invoked (using a repository). I also had the feeling that in that article (see below), a Service Layer is more considered as a façade that delegates work to the underlying model, than an actual work-intensive layer. Application Layer [his name for Service Layer]: Defines the jobs the software is supposed to do and directs the expressive domain objects to work out problems. The tasks this layer is responsible for are meaningful to the business or necessary for interaction with the application layers of other systems. This layer is kept thin. It does not contain business rules or knowledge, but only coordinates tasks and delegates work to collaborations of domain objects in the next layer down. It does not have state reflecting the business situation, but it can have state that reflects the progress of a task for the user or the program. Which is reinforced here: Service interfaces. Services expose a service interface to which all inbound messages are sent. You can think of a service interface as a façade that exposes the business logic implemented in the application (typically, logic in the business layer) to potential consumers. And here: The service layer should be devoid of any application or business logic and should focus primarily on a few concerns. It should wrap Business Layer calls, translate your Domain in a common language that your clients can understand, and handle the communication medium between server and requesting client. This is a serious contrast to other resources that talk about the Service Layer: The service layer should consist of classes with methods that are units of work with actions that belong in the same transaction. Or the second answer to a question I've already linked: At some point, your application will want some business logic. Also, you might want to validate the input to make sure that there isn't something evil or nonperforming being requested. This logic belongs in your service layer. "Solution"? Following the guidelines in this answer, I came up with the following approach that uses a Service Layer: class UserController : Controller { private UserService _userService; public UserController(UserService userService){ _userService = userService; } public ActionResult MakeHimPay(string username, int amount) { _userService.MakeHimPay(username, amount); return RedirectToAction("ShowUserOverview"); } public ActionResult ShowUserOverview() { return View(); } } class UserService { private IUserRepository _userRepository; public UserService(IUserRepository userRepository) { _userRepository = userRepository; } public void MakeHimPay(username, amount) { _userRepository.GetUserByName(username).makePayment(amount); } } class UserRepository { public User GetUserByName(string name){ // Get appropriate user from database } } class User { private int debt; // debt in cents private string name; // getters public void makePayment(int cents){ debt -= cents; } } Conclusion All together not much has changed here: code from the controller has moved to the service layer (which is a good thing, so there is an upside to this approach). However this doesn't look like it had anything to do with my original answer. I realize design patterns are guidelines, not rules set in stone to be implemented whenever possible. Yet I have not found a definitive explanation of the service layer and how it should be regarded. Is it a means to simply extract logic from the controller and put it inside a service instead? Is it supposed to form a contract between the controller and the domain? Should there be a layer between the domain and the service layer? And, last but not least: following the original comment Business logic should really be in a service. Not in a model. Is this correct? How would I introduce my business logic in a service instead of the model?

    Read the article

  • Trouble with RSpec's with method

    - by Thiago
    Hi there, I've coded the following spec: it "should call user.invite_friend" do user = mock_model(User, :id = 1) other_user = mock_model(User, :id = 2) User.stub!(:find).with(user.id).and_return(user) User.stub!(:find).with(other_user.id).and_return(other_user) user.should_receive(:invite_friend).with(other_user) post :invite, { :id = other_user.id }, {:user_id = user.id} end But I'm getting the following error when I run the specs NoMethodError in 'UsersController POST invite should call user.invite_friend' undefined method `find' for # Class:0x86d6918 app/controllers/users_controller.rb:144:in `invite' ./spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb:13: What's the mistake? Without .with it works just fine, but I want different return values for different arguments to the stub method. The following controller's actions might be relevant: def invite me.invite_friend(User.find params[:id]) respond_to do |format| format.html { redirect_to user_path(params[:id]) } end end def me User.find(session[:user_id]) end

    Read the article

  • Junit and EasyMock understanding clarifications

    - by harigm
    Still Now I am using JUnit, I came across EasyMock, I am understanding both are for the same purpose. Is my understanding correct? What are the advantages does EasyMock has over the Junit? Which one is easier to configure? Does EasyMock has any limitations? Please help me to learn

    Read the article

  • How to create tests for poco objects

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I'm new to mocking/testing and wanting to know what level should you go to when testing. For example in my code I have the following object: public class RuleViolation { public string ErrorMessage { get; private set; } public string PropertyName { get; private set; } public RuleViolation( string errorMessage ) { ErrorMessage = errorMessage; } public RuleViolation( string errorMessage, string propertyName ) { ErrorMessage = errorMessage; PropertyName = propertyName; } } This is a relatively simple object. So my question is: Does it need a unit test? If it does what do I test and how? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Using jmock how to reuse parameter

    - by BenZen
    I'm building a test, in wich i need to send question, and wait for the answer. Message passing is not the problem. In fact to figure out wich answer correspond to wich question, i use an id. My id is generated using an UUID. an i want to retrieve this id, wich is given as a parameter to a mocked object. It look like this: oneOf(message).setJMSCorrelationID(with(correlationId)); inSequence(sequence); Where correlationId is the string i'd like to keep for an other expecteation like this one: oneOf(session).createBrowser(with(inputChannel), with("JMSType ='pong' AND JMSCorrelationId = '"+correlationId+"'")); have you got an answer?

    Read the article

  • mocking command object in grails controller results in hasErrors() return false no matter what! Plea

    - by egervari
    I have a controller that uses a command object in a controller action. When mocking this command object in a grails' controller unit test, the hasErrors() method always returns false, even when I am purposefully violating its constraints. def save = { RegistrationForm form -> if(form.hasErrors()) { // code block never gets executed } else { // code block always gets executed } } In the test itself, I do this: mockCommandObject(RegistrationForm) def form = new RegistrationForm(emailAddress: "ken.bad@gmail", password: "secret", confirmPassword: "wrong") controller.save(form) I am purposefully giving it a bad email address, and I am making sure the password and the confirmPassword properties are different. In this case, hasErrors() should return true... but it doesn't. I don't know how my testing can be any where reliable if such a basic thing does not work :/ Here is the RegistrationForm class, so you can see the constraints I am using: class RegistrationForm { def springSecurityService String emailAddress String password String confirmPassword String getEncryptedPassword() { springSecurityService.encodePassword(password) } static constraints = { emailAddress(blank: false, email: true) password(blank: false, minSize:4, maxSize: 10) confirmPassword(blank: false, validator: { confirmPassword, form -> confirmPassword == form.password }) } }

    Read the article

  • Automatically creating DynaActionForms in Mockrunner via struts-config.xml

    - by T Reddy
    I'm switching from MockStrutsTestCase to Mockrunner and I'm finding that having to manually re-create all of my DynaActionForms in Mockrunner is a pain...there has to be an easier way?! Can somebody offer a tip to simplify this process? For instance, this form bean definition in struts-config.xml: <form-bean name="myForm" type="org.apache.struts.action.DynaActionForm"> <form-property name="property" type="java.lang.String"/> </form-bean> results in this code in Mockrunner: //define form config FormBeanConfig config = new FormBeanConfig(); config.setName("myForm"); config.setType(DynaActionForm.class.getName()); FormPropertyConfig property = new FormPropertyConfig(); property.setName("property"); property.setType("java.lang.String"); config.addFormPropertyConfig(property); //create mockrunner objects ActionMockObjectFactory factory = new ActionMockObjectFactory(); ActionTestModule module = new ActionTestModule(factory); DynaActionForm form = module.createDynaActionForm(config); Now imagine that I have dozens of DynaActionForms with dozens of attributes...that stinks!

    Read the article

  • Question about API and Web application code sharing

    - by opendd
    This is a design question. I have a multi part application with several user types. There is a user client for the patient that interacts with a web service. There is an API evolving behind the web service that will be exposed to institutional "users" and an interface for clinicians, researchers and admin types. The patient UI is Flex. The clinician/admin portion of the application is RoR. The API is RoR/rack based. The web service component is Java WS. All components access the same data source. These components are deployed as separate components to their own subdomains. This decision was made to allow for scaling the components individually as needed. Initially, the decision was made to split the code for the RoR Web application from the RoR API. This decision was made in the interests of security and keeping the components focused on specific tasks. Over the course of time, there is necessarily going to be overlap and I am second guessing my decision to keep the code totally separate. I am noticing code being lifted from the admin side being lifted, modified and used in the API. This being the case, I have been considering merging the Ruby based repositories. I am interested in ideas and insight on this situation along with the reasoning behind your thoughts. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Do you need all that data?

    - by BuckWoody
    I read an amazing post over on ars technica (link: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/the-software-brains-behind-the-particle-colliders.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss) abvout the LHC, or as they are also known, the "particle colliders". Beyond just the pure scientific geek awesomeness, these instruments have the potential to collect more data than you can (or possibly should) store. Actually, this problem has a lot in common with a BI system. There's so much granular detail available in the source systems that a designer has to decide how, and how much, to roll up the data. Whenver you do that, you lose fidelity, but in many cases that's OK. Take, for example, your car's speedometer. You don't actually need to track each and every point of speed as it happens. You only need to know that you're hovering around the speed limit at a certain point in time. Since this is the way that humans percieve data, is there some lesson we should take in the design of data "flows" - and what implications does this have for new technologies like StreamInsight? Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • Game Components, Game Managers and Object Properties

    - by George Duckett
    I'm trying to get my head around component based entity design. My first step was to create various components that could be added to an object. For every component type i had a manager, which would call every component's update function, passing in things like keyboard state etc. as required. The next thing i did was remove the object, and just have each component with an Id. So an object is defined by components having the same Ids. Now, i'm thinking that i don't need a manager for all my components, for example i have a SizeComponent, which just has a Size property). As a result the SizeComponent doesn't have an update method, and the manager's update method does nothing. My first thought was to have an ObjectProperty class which components could query, instead of having them as properties of components. So an object would have a number of ObjectProperty and ObjectComponent. Components would have update logic that queries the object for properties. The manager would manage calling the component's update method. This seems like over-engineering to me, but i don't think i can get rid of the components, because i need a way for the managers to know what objects need what component logic to run (otherwise i'd just remove the component completely and push its update logic into the manager). Is this (having ObjectProperty, ObjectComponent and ComponentManager classes) over-engineering? What would be a good alternative?

    Read the article

  • Cost to licence characters or ships for a game

    - by Michael Jasper
    I am producing a game pitch document for a university game design class, and I am looking for examples of licencing cost for using characters or ships from other IP holders in a game. For example: cost of using an X-Wing in a game, licencing from Lucas cost of using the Enterprise in a game, licencing from Paramount cost of using the Space Shuttle (if any), licencing from Nasa EDIT The closest information I can find is from an article about Nights of the Old Republic, but isn't nearly specific enough for my needs: What Kotick means by Lucas being the principal beneficiary of the success of The Old Republic is that there are most likely clauses in the license agreement that give percentages, points, or another denomination of revenue out to Lucas and his people just for the Star Wars name, and that amount is presumed to be a great deal of money. Kotick is saying that because the cost of the license is so prohibitive, as he has personally had experience with in his position as CEO of Activision Blizzard, that EA will not be able to be profitable because of the hemorrhaging of money to the licensor. EDIT 2 Another vague source stating that FOX uses a "five-figure rule" (assuming between $10,000 - $99,000) It seems FOX, like most studios, will not license individuals to create new works based upon their products. They will only commission individuals of their choosing if they elect to branch out into expanded product lines related to those licenses. Alternately, they are open to making the licencing available to large corporations with access to global markets, but only if those corporations agree to what Ms Friedman called a "five-figure guarantee". Presumably this means that the corporation seeking the licensing must agree to pay a 5-figure sum for that license, and be confident that their product will sell enough volume to recoup that fee, and to produce sufficient profits to make the acquisition worth their while. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Structuring database for multi-object "activity" and "following" functionalities

    - by romaninsh
    I am working on a web application which operate with different types of objects such as user, profiles, pages etc. All objects have unique object_id. When objects interact it may produce "activity", such as user posting on the page or profile. Activity may be related to multiple objects through their object_id. Users may also follow "objects" and they need to be able to see stream of relevant activity. Could you provide me with some data structure suggestions which would be efficient and scalable? My goal is to show activity limited to the objects which user is following I am not limited by relational databases. Update As I'm getting advices on ORM and how index things, I'd like to again, stress my question. According to my current design model the database structure looks like this: As you can see - it's quite easy to implement database like that. Activity and Follower tables do contain much larger amount of records than the upper level but it's tolerable. But when it comes for me to create a "timeline" table, it becomes a nightmare. For every user I need to reference all the object activities which he follows. In terms of records it easily gets out of control. Please suggest me how to change this structure to avoid timeline creation and also be abel to quickly retrieve activity for any given user. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Browser-based GUI for a python application

    - by ack__
    I want to create a web/browser-based GUI for a command-line python application. The goal is to make use of HTML/JS technologies to create this GUI. As the application itself, it needs to run on Linux and Windows, and the interface will be accessible only from localhost (not exposed to internet). The GUI will contain 5 to 10 pages. I don't want a traditional desktop GUI that includes HTML/JS, but just a bunch of html files and some kind of controller between those and the application. I also want to make use of asynchronous programming (ajax like) so I can load and print data in the GUI without refreshing the whole page. I'd probably use jQuery for that and a couple other things. How would you recommend to design this? Performance is not the key here, I'm rather looking at reliability, portability and simplicity. I'm thinking of using a lightweight python HTTP server / framework (like CherryPy) and maybe later a Python templating system (at the begining it will just be a couple pages). EDIT: I'm looking for ideas/recommendations how to build this, not for alternatives to browser/web-based GUI.

    Read the article

  • Character progression through leveling, skills or items?

    - by Anton
    I'm working on a design for an RPG game, and I'm having some doubts about the skill and level system. I'm going for a more casual, explorative gaming experience and so thought about lowering the game complexity by simplifying character progression. But I'm having trouble deciding between the following: Progression through leveling, no complex skill progression, leveling increases base stats. Progression through skills, no leveling or base stat changes, skills progress through usage. Progression through items, more focus on stat-changing items, items confer skills, no leveling. However, I'm uncertain what the effects on gameplay might be in the end. So, my question is this: What would be the effects of choosing one of the above alternatives over the others? (Particularly with regards to the style and feel of the gameplay) My take on it is that the first sacrifices more frequent rewards and customization in favor of a simpler gameplay; the second sacrifices explicit customization and player control in favor of more frequent rewards and a somewhat simpler gameplay; while the third sacrifices inventory simplicity and a player metric in favor of player control, customization and progression simplicity. Addendum: I'm not really limiting myself to the above three, they are just the ones I liked most and am primarily interested in.

    Read the article

  • Designing a Content-Based ETL Process with .NET and SFDC

    - by Patrick
    As my firm makes the transition to using SFDC as our main operational system, we've spun together a couple of SFDC portals where we can post customer-specific documents to be viewed at will. As such, we've had the need for pseudo-ETL applications to be implemented that are able to extract metadata from the documents our analysts generate internally (most are industry-standard PDFs, XML, or MS Office formats) and place in networked "queue" folders. From there, our applications scoop of the queued documents and upload them to the appropriate SFDC CRM Content Library along with some select pieces of metadata. I've mostly used DbAmp to broker communication with SFDC (DbAmp is a Linked Server provider that allows you to use SQL conventions to interact with your SFDC Org data). I've been able to create [console] applications in C# that work pretty well, and they're usually structured something like this: static void Main() { // Load parameters from app.config. // Get documents from queue. var files = someInterface.GetFiles(someFilterOrRegexPattern); foreach (var file in files) { // Extract metadata from the file. // Validate some attributes of the file; add any validation errors to an in-memory // structure (e.g. List<ValidationErrors>). if (isValid) { var fileData = File.ReadAllBytes(file); // Upload using some wrapper for an ORM or DAL someInterface.Upload(fileData, meta.Param1, meta.Param2, ...); } else { // Bounce the file } } // Report any validation errors (via message bus or SMTP or some such). } And that's pretty much it. Most of the time I wrap all these operations in a "Worker" class that takes the needed interfaces as constructor parameters. This approach has worked reasonably well, but I just get this feeling in my gut that there's something awful about it and would love some feedback. Is writing an ETL process as a C# Console app a bad idea? I'm also wondering if there are some design patterns that would be useful in this scenario that I'm clearly overlooking. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Is there a pattern or best practice for passing a reference type to multiple classes vs a static class?

    - by Dave
    My .NET application creates HTML files, and as such, the structure looks like variable myData BuildHomePage() variable graph = new BuildGraphPage(myData) variable table = BuildTablePage(myData) BuildGraphPage and BuildTablePage both require access data, the myData object. In the above example, I've passed the myData object to 2 constructors. This is what I'm doing now, in my current project. The myData object, and it's properties are all readonly. The problem is, the number of pages which will require this object has grown. In the real project, there are currently 4, but the new spec is to have about 20. Passing this object to the constructor of each new object and assigning it to a field is a little time consuming, but not a hardship! This poses the question whether it's better practice to continue as I have, or to refactor and create a new static class for myData which can be referenced from any where in my project. I guess my abilities to use Google are poor, because I did try and find an appropriate pattern as I am sure this type of design must be common place but my results returned nothing. Is there a pattern which is suited, or do best practices lean towards one implementation over another.

    Read the article

  • Highly scalable and dynamic "rule-based" applications?

    - by Prof Plum
    For a large enterprise app, everyone knows that being able to adjust to change is one of the most important aspects of design. I use a rule-based approach a lot of the time to deal with changing business logic, with each rule being stored in a DB. This allows for easy changes to be made without diving into nasty details. Now since C# cannot Eval("foo(bar);") this is accomplished by using formatted strings stored in rows that are then processed in JavaScript at runtime. This works fine, however, it is less than elegant, and would not be the most enjoyable for anyone else to pick up on once it becomes legacy. Is there a more elegant solution to this? When you get into thousands of rules that change fairly frequently it becomes a real bear, but this cannot be that uncommon of a problem that someone has not thought of a better way to do this. Any suggestions? Is this current method defensible? What are the alternatives? Edit: Just to clarify, this is a large enterprise app, so no matter which solution works, there will be plenty of people constantly maintaining its rules and data (around 10). Also, The data changes frequently enough to say that some sort of centralized server system is basically a must.

    Read the article

  • What are the factors affecting a new programming language?

    - by Saurav Sengupta
    I am developing a new general-purpose programming language of my own design. It's currently my own personal project. I have read of some experts saying that new languages do not usually survive (unfortunately I can't find a reference to that right now). What are the most substantial problems that a new language faces? The language syntax is similar to C/Python families, it does not use S-expressions, and it is an imperative language, but I'm doing first-class functions in it to provide the facilities of currying. In particular, I am concentrating on translating the source language to an intermediate language for execution by an interpreter, but I'm not in a position to translate to native code yet. What would be the issues with that? I've not personally used many non-native code languages, so I'm not well aware of the performance issues on today's machines. I also can't decide upon a lexer and parser generator. What would be the pros and cons of Flex and Yacc vs. hand-made? And what benefits will LLVM provide? I need to get the interpreter ready as quickly as possible. Finally, what factors will affect the language's use post release? I am planning a small library of essentials and full documentation for the first phase.

    Read the article

  • Command-Query-Separation and multithreading safe interfaces

    - by Tobias Langner
    I like the command query separation pattern (from OOSC / Eiffel - basically you either return a value or you change the state of the class - but not both). This makes reasoning about the class easier and it is easier to write exception safe classes. Now, with multi threading, I run into a major problem: the separation of the query and the command basically invalidates the result from the query as anything can happen between those 2. So my question is: how do you handle command query separation in an multi-threaded environment? Clarification example: A stack with command query separation would have the following methods: push (command) pop (command - but does not return a value) top (query - returns the value) empty (query) The problem here is - I can get empty as status, but then I can not rely on top really retrieving an element since between the call of empty and the call of top, the stack might have been emptied. Same goes for pop & top. If I get an item using top, I can not be sure that the item that I pop is the same. This can be solved using external locks - but that's not exactly what I call threadsafe design.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >