Search Results

Search found 40386 results on 1616 pages for 'object design'.

Page 102/1616 | < Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >

  • Hiding System Objects in Object Explorer in SQL Server Management Studio

    While looking through the new features and improvements in SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) we found a potentially interesting one to Hide System Objects in Object Explorer in SQL Server Management Studio. In this tip we will take a look at how to Hide System Objects in Object Explorer. Join SQL Backup’s 35,000+ customers to compress and strengthen your backups "SQL Backup will be a REAL boost to any DBA lucky enough to use it." Jonathan Allen. Download a free trial now.

    Read the article

  • Term for a single C++ endpoint/object file

    - by Qix
    I have heard several terms for a C++ "Codepoint" (which is what I've heard used the most often), or a .cpp file that is compiled into an object file. For instance, .cpp files can include other .cpp files (or any other file, really, so long as it compiles), but during compilation, there is really only one 'main' code file that is used/generated. I know there is a widely accepted term, I just can't recall what it is. What is the accepted term for the final .c/.cpp file used to generate an object file?

    Read the article

  • Object Dependency in SQL Server

    When a SQL Server object is created that references another SQL Server object, such as a stored procedure called from a trigger, that dependency is recorded by the database engine. This article details how to get at that dependency information.

    Read the article

  • gradient coloring of an object

    - by perrakdar
    I have an object(FBX format) in my project, it's a line drawn in 3D max. I want to color the line in XNA so that the color starts from a specific RGB color in both the start and end points of the line and finish in a specific RGB color.(e.x., from (255,255,255) to (128,128,128). Something like gradient coloring of an object. I need to do that programmatically, since later in my code I have to change these two specific colors a lot.

    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

  • When are Getters and Setters Justified

    - by Winston Ewert
    Getters and setters are often criticized as being not proper OO. On the other hand most OO code I've seen has extensive getters and setters. When are getters and setters justified? Do you try to avoid using them? Are they overused in general? If your favorite language has properties (mine does) then such things are also considered getters and setters for this question. They are same thing from an OO methodology perspective. They just have nicer syntax. Sources for Getter/Setter Criticism (some taken from comments to give them better visibility): http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbox.html http://typicalprogrammer.com/?p=23 http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AccessorsAreEvil http://www.darronschall.com/weblog/2005/03/no-brain-getter-and-setters.cfm http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/encapsulation_violation_with_getters_and To state the criticism simply: Getters and Setters allow you to manipulate the internal state of objects from outside of the object. This violates encapsulation. Only the object itself should care about its internal state. And an example Procedural version of code. struct Fridge { int cheese; } void go_shopping(Fridge fridge) { fridge.cheese += 5; } Mutator version of code: class Fridge { int cheese; void set_cheese(int _cheese) { cheese = _cheese; } int get_cheese() { return cheese; } } void go_shopping(Fridge fridge) { fridge.set_cheese(fridge.get_cheese() + 5); } The getters and setters made the code much more complicated without affording proper encapsulation. Because the internal state is accessible to other objects we don't gain a whole lot by adding these getters and setters. The question has been previously discussed on Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/565095/java-are-getters-and-setters-evil http://stackoverflow.com/questions/996179

    Read the article

  • Should I use an interface when methods are only similar?

    - by Joshua Harris
    I was posed with the idea of creating an object that checks if a point will collide with a line: public class PointAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { // ... } } This made me think that if I decided to create a Box object, then I would need a PointAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndBoxCollisionDetector. I might even realize that I should have a BoxAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector. And, when I add new objects that can collide I would need to add even more of these. But, they all have a Collides method, so everything I learned about abstraction is telling me, "Make an interface." public interface CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Spatial s1, Spatial s2); } But now I have a function that only detects some abstract class or interface that is used by Point, LineSegment, Box, etc.. So if I did this then each implementation would have to to a type check to make sure that the types are the appropriate type because the collision algorithm is different for each different type match up. Another solution could be this: public class CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { ... } public void Collides(LineSegment s, Box b) { ... } public void Collides(Point p, Box b) { ... } // ... } But, this could end up being a huge class that seems unwieldy, although it would have simplicity in that it is only a bunch of Collide methods. This is similar to C#'s Convert class. Which is nice because it is large, but it is simple to understand how it works. This seems to be the better solution, but I thought I should open it for discussion as a wiki to get other opinions.

    Read the article

  • An ideal way to decode JSON documents in C?

    - by AzizAG
    Assuming I have an API to consume that uses JSON as a data transmission method, what is an ideal way to decode the JSON returned by each API resource? For example, in Java I'd create a class for each API resource then initiate an object of that class and consume data from it. for example: class UserJson extends JsonParser { public function UserJson(String document) { /*Initial document parsing goes here...*/ } //A bunch of getter methods . . . . } The probably do something like this: UserJson userJson = new UserJson(jsonString);//Initial parsing goes in the constructor String username = userJson.getName();//Parse JSON name property then return it as a String. Or when using a programming language with associative arrays(i.e., hash table) the decoding process doesn't require creating a class: (PHP) $userJson = json_decode($jsonString);//Decode JSON as key=>value $username = $userJson['name']; But, when I'm programming in procedural programming languages (C), I can't go with either method, since C is neither OOP nor supports associative arrays(by default, at least). What is the "correct" method of parsing pre-defined JSON strings(i.e., JSON documents specified by the API provider via examples or documentation)? The method I'm currently using is creating a file for each API resource to parse, the problem with this method is that it's basically a lousy version of the OOP method, as it looks exactly like the OOP method but doesn't provide any OOP benefits(e.g., can't pass an object of the parser, etc.). I've been thinking about encapsulating each API resource parser file in a publicly accessed structure(pointing all functions/publicly usable variables to the structure) then accessing the parser file code from within the structure(parser.parse(), parser.getName(), etc.). As this way looks a bit better than the my current method, it still just a rip off the OOP way, isn't it? Any suggestions for methods to parse JSON documents on procedural programming lanauges? Any comments on the methods I'm currently using(either 3 of them)?

    Read the article

  • Composing programs from small simple pieces: OOP vs Functional Programming

    - by Jay Godse
    I started programming when imperative programming languages such as C were virtually the only game in town for paid gigs. I'm not a computer scientist by training so I was only exposed to Assembler and Pascal in school, and not Lisp or Prolog. Over the 1990s, Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) became more popular because one of the marketing memes for OOP was that complex programs could be composed of loosely coupled but well-defined, well-tested, cohesive, and reusable classes and objects. And in many cases that is quite true. Once I learned object-oriented programming my C programs became better because I structured them more like classes and objects. In the last few years (2008-2014) I have programmed in Ruby, an OOP language. However, Ruby has many functional programming (FP) features such as lambdas and procs, which enable a different style of programming using recursion, currying, lazy evaluation and the like. (Through ignorance I am at a loss to explain why these techniques are so great). Very recently, I have written code to use methods from the Ruby Enumerable library, such as map(), reduce(), and select(). Apparently this is a functional style of programming. I have found that using these methods significantly reduce code volume, and make my code easier to debug. Upon reading more about FP, one of the marketing claims made by advocates is that FP enables developers to compose programs out of small well-defined, well-tested, and reusable functions, which leads to less buggy code, and low code volume. QUESTIONS: Is the composition of complex program by using FP techniques contradictory to or complementary to composition of a complex program by using OOP techniques? In which situations is OOP more effective, and when is FP more effective? Is it possible to use both techniques in the same complex program? Do the techniques overlap or contradict each other?

    Read the article

  • Mocking concrete class - Not recommended

    - by Mik378
    I've just read an excerpt of "Growing Object-Oriented Software" book which explains some reasons why mocking concrete class is not recommended. Here some sample code of a unit-test for the MusicCentre class: public class MusicCentreTest { @Test public void startsCdPlayerAtTimeRequested() { final MutableTime scheduledTime = new MutableTime(); CdPlayer player = new CdPlayer() { @Override public void scheduleToStartAt(Time startTime) { scheduledTime.set(startTime); } } MusicCentre centre = new MusicCentre(player); centre.startMediaAt(LATER); assertEquals(LATER, scheduledTime.get()); } } And his first explanation: The problem with this approach is that it leaves the relationship between the objects implicit. I hope we've made clear by now that the intention of Test-Driven Development with Mock Objects is to discover relationships between objects. If I subclass, there's nothing in the domain code to make such a relationship visible, just methods on an object. This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I can't figure out exactly what he means when he says: This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I understand that the service corresponds to MusicCentre's method called startMediaAt. What does he mean by "elsewhere"? The complete excerpt is here: http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-mocking-concrete-classes.html

    Read the article

  • How to REALLY start thinking in terms of objects?

    - by Mr Grieves
    I work with a team of developers who all have several years of experience with languages such as C# and Java. Most of them are young enough to have been shown OOP as a standard way to develop software in university and are very comfortable with concepts such as inheritance, abstraction, encapsulation and polymorphism. Yet, many of them, and I have to include myself, still tend to create classes which are meant to be used in a very functional fashion. The resulting software is often several smaller classes which correctly represent business objects which get passed through larger classes which only supply ways to modify and use those objects (functions). Large complex difficult-to-maintain classes named Manager are usually the result of such behaviour. I can see two theoretical reasons why people might write this type of code: It's easy to start thinking of everything in terms of the database Deep down, for me, a computer handling a web request feels more like a functional operation than an object oriented operation when you think about Request Handlers, Threads, Processes, CPU Cores and CPU operations... I want source code which is easy to read and easy to modify. I have seen excellent examples of OO code which meet these objectives. How can I start writing code like this? How I can I really start thinking in an object oriented fashion? How can I share such a mentality with my colleagues?

    Read the article

  • Bootstrap responsive CSS [migrated]

    - by savolai
    I have a four column design and I am using Bootstrap. The design renders fine in a single column in mobile devices, but in "(min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 979px)", I get four columns though there is room for only two. So clearly, the rows/spans setup would need to be rethought for those sizes. The only way I can imagine of doing this is to have semantic CSS classes used in the HTML and only including grid classes in the CSS using LESS, and then depending on screen size, including different grid classes to achieve four or two column layout. Not sure if this would work either though. Is this the way to go with, or am I thinking this too complicatedly? Thanks! Also at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/twitter-bootstrap/R5jEp0oQ_-E

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – SSMS: Top Object and Batch Execution Statistics Reports

    - by Pinal Dave
    The month of June till mid of July has been the fever of sports. First, it was Wimbledon Tennis and then the Soccer fever was all over. There is a huge number of fan followers and it is great to see the level at which people sometimes worship these sports. Being an Indian, I cannot forget to mention the India tour of England later part of July. Following these sports and as the events unfold to the finals, there are a number of ways the statisticians can slice and dice the numbers. Cue from soccer I can surely say there is a team performance against another team and then there is individual member fairs against a particular opponent. Such statistics give us a fair idea to how a team in the past or in the recent past has fared against each other, head-to-head stats during World cup and during other neutral venue games. All these statistics are just pointers. In reality, they don’t reflect the calibre of the current team because the individuals who performed in each of these games are totally different (Typical example being the Brazil Vs Germany semi-final match in FIFA 2014). So at times these numbers are misleading. It is worth investigating and get the next level information. Similar to these statistics, SQL Server Management studio is also equipped with a number of reports like a) Object Execution Statistics report and b) Batch Execution Statistics reports. As discussed in the example, the team scorecard is like the Batch Execution statistics and individual stats is like Object Level statistics. The analogy can be taken only this far, trust me there is no correlation between SQL Server functioning and playing sports – It is like I think about diet all the time except while I am eating. Performance – Batch Execution Statistics Let us view the first report which can be invoked from Server Node -> Reports -> Standard Reports -> Performance – Batch Execution Statistics. Most of the values that are displayed in this report come from the DMVs sys.dm_exec_query_stats and sys.dm_exec_sql_text(sql_handle). This report contains 3 distinctive sections as outline below.   Section 1: This is a graphical bar graph representation of Average CPU Time, Average Logical reads and Average Logical Writes for individual batches. The Batch numbers are indicative and the details of individual batch is available in section 3 (detailed below). Section 2: This represents a Pie chart of all the batches by Total CPU Time (%) and Total Logical IO (%) by batches. This graphical representation tells us which batch consumed the highest CPU and IO since the server started, provided plan is available in the cache. Section 3: This is the section where we can find the SQL statements associated with each of the batch Numbers. This also gives us the details of Average CPU / Average Logical Reads and Average Logical Writes in the system for the given batch with object details. Expanding the rows, I will also get the # Executions and # Plans Generated for each of the queries. Performance – Object Execution Statistics The second report worth a look is Object Execution statistics. This is a similar report as the previous but turned on its head by SQL Server Objects. The report has 3 areas to look as above. Section 1 gives the Average CPU, Average IO bar charts for specific objects. The section 2 is a graphical representation of Total CPU by objects and Total Logical IO by objects. The final section details the various objects in detail with the Avg. CPU, IO and other details which are self-explanatory. At a high-level both the reports are based on queries on two DMVs (sys.dm_exec_query_stats and sys.dm_exec_sql_text) and it builds values based on calculations using columns in them: SELECT * FROM    sys.dm_exec_query_stats s1 CROSS APPLY sys.dm_exec_sql_text(sql_handle) AS s2 WHERE   s2.objectid IS NOT NULL AND DB_NAME(s2.dbid) IS NOT NULL ORDER BY  s1.sql_handle; This is one of the simplest form of reports and in future blogs we will look at more complex reports. I truly hope that these reports can give DBAs and developers a hint about what is the possible performance tuning area. As a closing point I must emphasize that all above reports pick up data from the plan cache. If a particular query has consumed a lot of resources earlier, but plan is not available in the cache, none of the above reports would show that bad query. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com)Filed under: SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Server Management Studio, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL Tagged: SQL Reports

    Read the article

  • Seperating entities from their actions or behaviours

    - by Jamie Dixon
    Hi everyone, I'm having a go at creating a very simple text based game and am wondering what the standard design patterns are when it comes to entities (characters, sentient scenery) and the actions those entities can perform. As an example, I have entity that is a 'person' with various properties such as age, gender, height, etc. This 'person' can also perform some actions such as speaking, walking, jumping, flying, etc etc. How would you seperate out the entity from the actions it can perform and what are some common design patterns that solve this kind of problem?

    Read the article

  • Best practices for web page styling with CSS?

    - by adifire
    I have a website to design. I have information on how the page should look and interact. The problem is I'm not good in front-end design, and have put many many hours to get the hang of the stuff. Currently, i am getting the CSS from sample sites in github and use them to style my site, which seems to be Not a ethical way. Question: how do you style webpages? Are there some really good tools? I would be deeply appreciated if a detailed answer will bee provided or link to wiki will work as well.

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason to use "plain old data" classes?

    - by Michael
    In legacy code I occasionally see classes that are nothing but wrappers for data. something like: class Bottle { int height; int diameter; Cap capType; getters/setters, maybe a constructor } My understanding of OO is that classes are structures for data and the methods of operating on that data. This seems to preclude objects of this type. To me they are nothing more than structs and kind of defeat the purpose of OO. I don't think it's necessarily evil, though it may be a code smell. Is there a case where such objects would be necessary? If this is used often, does it make the design suspect?

    Read the article

  • Builder Pattern: When to fail?

    - by skiwi
    When implementing the Builder Pattern, I often find myself confused with when to let building fail and I even manage to take different stands on the matter every few days. First some explanation: With failing early I mean that building an object should fail as soon as an invalid parameter is passed in. So inside the SomeObjectBuilder. With failing late I mean that building an object only can fail on the build() call that implicitely calls a constructor of the object to be built. Then some arguments: In favor of failing late: A builder class should be no more than a class that simply holds values. Moreover, it leads to less code duplication. In favor of failing early: A general approach in software programming is that you want to detect issues as early as possible and therefore the most logical place to check would be in the builder class' constructor, 'setters' and ultimately in the build method. What is the general concensus about this?

    Read the article

  • Given the presentation model pattern, is the view, presentation model, or model responsible for adding child views to an existing view at runtime?

    - by Ryan Taylor
    I am building a Flex 4 based application using the presentation model design pattern. This application will have several different components to it as shown in the image below. The MainView and DashboardView will always be visible and they each have corresponding presentation models and models as necessary. These views are easily created by declaring their MXML in the application root. <s:HGroup width="100%" height="100%"> <MainView width="75% height="100%"/> <DashboardView width="25%" height="100%"/> </s:HGroup> There will also be many WidgetViewN views that can be added to the DashboardView by the user at runtime through a simple drop down list. This will need to be accomplished via ActionScript. The drop down list should always show what WidgetViewN has already been added to the DashboardView. Therefore some state about which WidgetViewN's have been created needs to be stored. Since the list of available WidgetViewN and which ones are added to the DashboardView also need to be accessible from other components in the system I think this needs to be stored in a Model object. My understanding of the presentation model design pattern is that the view is very lean. It contains as close to zero logic as is practical. The view communicates/binds to the presentation model which contains all the necessary view logic. The presentation model is effectively an abstract representation of the view which supports low coupling and eases testability. The presentation model may have one or more models injected in in order to display the necessary information. The models themselves contain no view logic whatsoever. So I have a several questions around this design. Who should be responsible for creating the WidgetViewN components and adding these to the DashboardView? Is this the responsibility of the DashboardView, DashboardPresentationModel, DashboardModel or something else entirely? It seems like the DashboardPresentationModel would be responsible for creating/adding/removing any child views from it's display but how do you do this without passing in the DashboardView to the DashboardPresentationModel? The list of available and visible WidgetViewN components needs to be accessible to a few other components as well. Is it okay for a reference to a WidgetViewN to be stored/referenced in a model? Are there any good examples of the presentation model pattern online in Flex that also include creating child views at runtime?

    Read the article

  • What language, or language feature, do you wish made it to the mainstream?

    - by Macneil
    Some languages in the past have been influential without ever reaching wide adoption. For example, many languages owe much to the design of Algol 68, even though few compilers were ever written for it. The Dylan language was killed by Apple but had a clean and interesting design. What other programming languages had cool ideas but-- for whatever reasons-- didn't make it to the mainstream? Is there an interesting language feature that you wish your main language had? Is there a feature ahead of its time that we'll soon see used?

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason to use "container" classes?

    - by Michael
    I realize the term "container" is misleading in this context - if anyone can think of a better term please edit it in. In legacy code I occasionally see classes that are nothing but wrappers for data. something like: class Bottle { int height; int diameter; Cap capType; getters/setters, maybe a constructor } My understanding of OO is that classes are structures for data and the methods of operating on that data. This seems to preclude objects of this type. To me they are nothing more than structs and kind of defeat the purpose of OO. I don't think it's necessarily evil, though it may be a code smell. Is there a case where such objects would be necessary? If this is used often, does it make the design suspect?

    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

  • Opensource showcase for MVC in Java Swing

    - by Regular John
    I've allready created small desktop CRUD applications using Java/Swing. In hindsight I'm not quite sure if the overall design of these applications is good. I've also done some reading on MVC and looked at different Swing-tutorials. My problem is, that I've got a very theroatical knowledge of MVC and on the other hand, most Swing-resources don't implement the MVC-pattern. Now I would like to get my hands dirty and see how MVC is implemented in Swing in a real-world-application. Are there any opensource project you could recommend? It would be also interesting to have more than one project, to see different approaches. Best fit would be a software, that uses a relational database in the backend, to see an overall design, that I can compare to my former applications.

    Read the article

  • Build one to throw away vs Second-system effect

    - by m3th0dman
    One one hand there is an advice that says "Build one to throw away". Only after finishing a software system and seeing the end product we realize what went wrong in the design phase and understand how we should have really done it. On the other hand there is the "second-system effect" which says that the second system of the same kind that is designed is usually worse than the first one; there are many features that did not fit in the first project and were pushed into the second version usually leading to overly complex and overly engineered. Isn't here some contradiction between these principles? What is the correct view over the problems and where is the border between these two? I believe that these "good practices" are were firstly promoted in the seminal book The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks. I know that some of these issues are solved by Agile methodologies, but deep down, the problem is still the principles still stand; for example we would not make important design changes 3 sprints before going live.

    Read the article

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