Search Results

Search found 11404 results on 457 pages for 'ui patterns'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 104/457 | < Previous Page | 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111  | Next Page >

  • Implement Exception Handling in ASP.NET C# Project

    - by Shrewd Demon
    hi, I have an application that has many tiers. as in, i have... Presentation Layer (PL) - contains all the html My Codes Layer (CL) - has all my code Entity Layer (EL) - has all the container entities Business Logic Layer (BLL) - has the necessary business logic Data Logic Layer (DLL) - any logic against data Data Access Layer (DAL) - one that accesses data from the database Now i want to provide error handling in my DLL since it is responsible for executing statement like ExecureScalar and all.... And i am confused as to how to go about it...i mean do i catch the error in the DLL and throw it back to the BLL and from there throw it back to my code or what.... can any one please help me how do i implement a clean and easy error handling techinque help you be really appreciated. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Optional Member Objects

    - by David Relihan
    Okay, so you have a load of methods sprinkled around your systems main class. So you do the right thing and refactor by creating a new class and perform move method(s) into a new class. The new class has a single responsibility and all is right with the world again: class Feature { public: Feature(){}; void doSomething(); void doSomething1(); void doSomething2(); }; So now your original class has a member variable of type object: Feature _feature; Which you will call in the main class. Now if you do this many times, you will have many member-objects in your main class. Now these features may or not be required based on configuration so in a way it's costly having all these objects that may or not be needed. Can anyone suggest a way of improving this? At the moment I plan to test in the newly created class if the feature is enabled - so the when a call is made to method I will return if it is not enabled. I could have a pointer to the object and then only call new if feature is enabled - but this means I will have to test before I call a method on it which would be potentially dangerous and not very readable. Would having an auto_ptr to the object improve things: auto_ptr<Feature> feature; Or am I still paying the cost of object invokation even though the object may\or may not be required. BTW - I don't think this is premeature optimisation - I just want to consider the possibilites.

    Read the article

  • 3 tier application pattern suggestion

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    I have attempted to make my first 3 tier application. In the process I have run into one problem I am yet to find an optimal solution for. Basically all my objects use an IFillable interface which forces the implementation of a sub as follows Public Sub Fill(ByVal Datareader As Data.IDataReader) Implements IFillable.Fill This sub then expects the Ids from the datareader will be identical to the properties of the object as such. Me.m_StockID = Datareader.GetGuid(Datareader.GetOrdinal("StockID")) In the end I end up with a datalayer that looks something like this. Public Shared Function GetStockByID(ByVal ConnectionString As String, ByVal StockID As Guid) As Stock Dim res As New Stock Using sqlConn As New SqlConnection(ConnectionString) sqlConn.Open() res.Fill(StockDataLayer.GetStockByIDQuery(sqlConn, StockID)) End Using Return res End Function Mostly this pattern seems to make sense. However my problem is, lets say I want to implement a property for Stock called StockBarcodeList. Under the above mentioned pattern any way I implement this property I will need to pass a connectionstring to it which obviously breaks my attempt at layer separation. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might be able to solve this problem or am I going about this the completely wrong way? Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might improve my implementation? Please note however I am deliberately trying to avoid using the dataset in any form.

    Read the article

  • Is a "factory" method the right pattern?

    - by jdt141
    Hey all - So I'm working to improve an existing implementation. I have a number of polymorphic classes that are all composed into a higher level container class. The problem I'm dealing with at the moment is that the higher level container class, well, sucks. It looks something like this, which I really don't have a problem with (as the polymorphic classes in the container should be public). My real issue is the constructor... /* * class1 and class 2 derive from the same superclass */ class Container { public: boost::shared_ptr<ComposedClass1> class1; boost::shared_ptr<ComposedClass2> class2; private: ... } /* * Constructor - builds the objects that we need in this container. */ Container::Container(some params) { class1.reset(new ComposedClass1(...)); class2.reset(new ComposedClass2(...)); } What I really need is to make this container class more re-usable. By hard-coding up the member objects and instantiating them, it basically isn't and can only be used once. A factory is one way to build what I need (potentially by supplying a list of objects and their specific types to be created?) Other ways to get around this problem? Seems like someone should have solved it before... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Custom Classes Passed from Service to a UI threads via AIDL

    - by Honza Pokorny
    I have a service that regularly queries a web server for new messages. The service stores the new messages in an arrayList. These messages are implemented using a custom class, storing all kinds of metadata (strings and longs). An activity then connects to this service to retrieve those messages and display them to the user. I have an .aidl file that describes the interface that the service exposes. package com.example.package; interface MyInterface { List<Message> getMessages(); } The Message class extends the Parcelable class which should allow for the IPC transfer. The problem is this: Eclipse gives me an error saying that the type of List<Message> is unknown. Any imports are marked as invalid. Ideas? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Java library class to handle scheduled execution of "callbacks"?

    - by Hanno Fietz
    My program has a component - dubbed the Scheduler - that lets other components register points in time at which they want to be called back. This should work much like the Unix cron service, i. e. you tell the Scheduler "notify me at ten minutes past every full hour". I realize there are no real callbacks in Java. Here's my approach, is there a library which already does this stuff? Feel free to suggest improvements, too. Register call to Scheduler passes: a time specification containing hour, minute, second, year month, dom, dow, where each item may be unspecified, meaning "execute it every hour / minute etc." (just like crontabs) an object containing data that will tell the calling object what to do when it is notified by the Scheduler. The Scheduler does not process this data, just stores it and passes it back upon notification. a reference to the calling object Upon startup, or after a new registration request, the Scheduler starts with a Calendar object of the current system time and checks if there are any entries in the database that match this point in time. If there are, they are executed and the process starts over. If there aren't, the time in the Calendar object is incremented by one second and the entreis are rechecked. This repeats until there is one entry or more that match(es). (Discrete Event Simulation) The Scheduler will then remember that timestamp, sleep and wake every second to check if it is already there. If it happens to wake up and the time has already passed, it starts over, likewise if the time has come and the jobs have been executed. Edit: Thanks for pointing me to Quartz. I'm looking for something much smaller, however.

    Read the article

  • Strategy Pattern with Type Reflection affecting Performances ?

    - by Aurélien Ribon
    Hello ! I am building graphs. A graph consists of nodes linked each other with links (indeed my dear). In order to assign a given behavior to each node, I implemented the strategy pattern. class Node { public BaseNodeBehavior Behavior {get; set;} } As a result, in many parts of the application, I am extensively using type reflection to know which behavior a node is. if (node.Behavior is NodeDataOutputBehavior) workOnOutputNode(node) .... My graph can get thousands of nodes. Is type reflection greatly affecting performances ? Should I use something else than the strategy pattern ? I'm using strategy because I need behavior inheritance. For example, basically, a behavior can be Data or Operator, a Data behavior can IO, Const or Intermediate and finally an IO behavior can be Input or Output. So if I use an enumeration, I wont be able to test for a node behavior to be of data kind, I will need to test it to be [Input, Output, Const or Intermediate]. And if later I want to add another behavior of Data kind, I'm screwed, every data-testing method will need to be changed.

    Read the article

  • Disposing underlying object from finalizer in an immutable object

    - by Juan Luis Soldi
    I'm trying to wrap around Awesomium and make it look to the rest of my code as close as possible to NET's WebBrowser since this is for an existing application that already uses the WebBrowser. In this library, there is a class called JSObject which represents a javascript object. You can get one of this, for instance, by calling the ExecuteJavascriptWithResult method of the WebView class. If you'd call it like myWebView.ExecuteJavascriptWithResult("document", string.Empty).ToObject(), then you'd get a JSObject that represents the document. I'm writing an immutable class (it's only field is a readonly JSObject object) called JSObjectWrap that wraps around JSObject which I want to use as base class for other classes that would emulate .NET classes such as HtmlElement and HtmlDocument. Now, these classes don't implement Dispose, but JSObject does. What I first thought was to call the underlying JSObject's Dispose method in my JSObjectWrap's finalizer (instead of having JSObjectWrap implement Dispose) so that the rest of my code can stay the way it is (instead of having to add using's everywhere and make sure every JSObjectWrap is being properly disposed). But I just realized if more than two JSObjectWrap's have the same underlying JSObject and one of them gets finalized this will mess up the other JSObjectWrap. So now I'm thinking maybe I should keep a static Dictionary of JSObjects and keep count of how many of each of them are being referenced by a JSObjectWrap but this sounds messy and I think could cause major performance issues. Since this sounds to me like a common pattern I wonder if anyone else has a better idea.

    Read the article

  • Passing data structures to different threads

    - by Robb
    I have an application that will be spawning multiple threads. However, I feel there might be an issue with threads accessing data that they shouldn't be. I'm relatively new to threading so bare with me. Here is the structure of the threaded application (sorry for the crudeness): MainThread / \ / \ / \ Thread A Thread B / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ Thread A_1 Thread A_2 Thread B_1 Thread B_2 Under each lettered thread (which could be many), there will only be two threads and they are fired of sequentially. The issue i'm having is I'm not entirely sure how to pass in a datastructure into these threads. So, the datastructure is created in MainThread, will be modified in the lettered thread (Thread A, etc) specific to that thread and then a member variable from that datastructure is sent to Letter_Numbered threads. Currently, the lettered thread class has a member variable and when the class is constructed, the datastructure from mainthread is passed in by reference, invoking the copy constructor so the lettered thread has it's own copy to play with. The lettered_numbered thread simply takes in a string variable from the data structure within the lettered thread. My question is, is this accceptable? Is there a much better way to ensure each lettered thread gets its own data structure to play with? Sorry for the somewhat poor explanation, please leave comments and i'll try to clarify.

    Read the article

  • Hierarchy / Flyweight / Instancing Problem in Python

    - by Dan
    Here is the problem I am trying to solve, (I have simplified the actual problem, but this should give you all the relevant information). I have a hierarchy like so: 1.A 1.B 1.C 2.A 3.D 4.B 5.F (This is hard to illustrate - each number is the parent, each letter is the child). Creating an instance of the 'letter' objects is expensive (IO, database costs, etc), so should only be done once. The hierarchy needs to be easy to navigate. Children in the hierarchy need to have just one parent. Modifying the contents of the letter objects should be possible directly from the objects in the hierarchy. There needs to be a central store containing all of the 'letter' objects (and only those in the hierarchy). 'letter' and 'number' objects need to be possible to create from a constructor (such as Letter(**kwargs) ). It is perfectably acceptable to expect that when a letter changes from the hierarchy, all other letters will respect the same change. Hope this isn't too abstract to illustrate the problem. What would be the best way of solving this? (Then I'll post my solution) Here's an example script: one = Number('one') a = Letter('a') one.addChild(a) two = Number('two') a = Letter('a') two.addChild(a) for child in one: child.method1() for child in two: print '%s' % child.method2()

    Read the article

  • Using DTOs and BOs

    - by ryanzec
    One area of question for me about DTOs/BOs is about when to pass/return the DTOs and when to pass/return the BOs. My gut reaction tells me to always map NHibernate to the DTOs, not BOs, and always pass/return the DTOs. Then whenever I needed to perform business logic, I would convert my DTO into a BO. The way I would do this is that my BO would have a have a constructor that takes a parameter that is the type of my interface (that defines the required fields/properties) that both my DTO and BO implement as the only argument. Then I would be able to create my BO by passing it the DTO in the constructor (since both with implement the same interface, they both with have the same properties) and then be able to perform my business logic with that BO. I would then also have a way to convert a BO to a DTO. However, I have also seen where people seem to only work with BOs and only work with DTOs in the background where to the user, it looks like there are no DTOs. What benefits/downfalls are there with this architecture vs always using BO's? Should I always being passing/returning either DTOs or BOs or mix and match (seems like mixing and matching could get confusing)?

    Read the article

  • Is this a well known design pattern? what is it's name

    - by GenEric35
    Hi I have seen this often in code, but when I speak of it i don't know the name of such 'pattern' I have a method with 2 arguments that calls an overloaded method that has 3 arguments and intentionality sets the 3rd one to empty string. public DoWork(string name, string phoneNumber) { CreateContact(name, phoneNumber, string.Empty) } public DoWork(string name, string phoneNumber, string emailAddress) { //do the work } The reason I'm doing this is I to not duplicate code, and allow the existing callers to still call the method that has only 2 parameters. I have associate a few tags to this question, but it probably fit in more categories of questions. Is this a pattern, and does it have a name?

    Read the article

  • Activator.CreateInstance(string) and Activator.CreateInstance<T>() difference

    - by Juan Manuel Formoso
    No, this is not a question about generics. I have a Factory pattern with several classes with internal constructors (I don't want them being instantiated if not through the factory). My problem is that CreateInstance fails with a "No parameterless constructor defined for this object" error unless I pass "true" on the non-public parameter. Example // Fails Activator.CreateInstance(type); // Works Activator.CreateInstance(type, true); I wanted to make the factory generic to make it a little simpler, like this: public class GenericFactory<T> where T : MyAbstractType { public static T GetInstance() { return Activator.CreateInstance<T>(); } } However, I was unable to find how to pass that "true" parameter for it to accept non-public constructors (internal). Did I miss something or it isn't possible?

    Read the article

  • Having trouble deselecting all jquery tabs

    - by Julian
    I set up some jQuery tabs to start off with no tabs selected like this: $('#tabs').tabs( { selected: -1 } ); Then I also have a separate link that when pressed needs to deselect all the tabs. $("#deselectButton").click(function(){ $('#tabs').tabs( 'select' , -1 ) }); or $("#deselectButton").click(function(){ $('#tabs').tabs( 'selected' , -1 ) }); The deselectButton click does deselect the tabs content, however the tabs title remains active with the class 'ui-tabs-selected ui-state-active'. What is the correct way to deselect all the tabs?

    Read the article

  • Question about design (inheritance, polymorphism)

    - by Dan
    Hi, I have a question about a problem I'm struggling with. Hope you can bear with me. Imagine I have an Object class representing the base class of a hierarchy of physical objects. Later I inherit from it to create an Object1D, Object2D and Object3D classes. Each of these derived classes will have some specific methods and attributes. For example, the 3d object might have functionality to download a 3d model to be used by a renderer. So I'd have something like this: class Object {}; class Object1D : public Object { Point mPos; }; class Object2D : public Object { ... }; class Object3D : public Object { Model mModel; }; Now I'd have a separate class called Renderer, which simply takes an Object as argument and well, renders it :-) In a similar way, I'd like to support different kinds of renderers. For instance, I could have a default one that every object could rely on, and then provide other specific renderers for some kind of objects: class Renderer {}; // Default one class Renderer3D : public Renderer {}; And here comes my problem. A renderer class needs to get an Object as an argument, for example in the constructor in order to retrieve whatever data it needs to render the object. So far so good. But a Renderer3D would need to get an Object3D argument, in order to get not only the basic attributes but also the specific attributes of a 3d object. Constructors would look like this: CRenderer(Object& object); CRenderer3D(Object3D& object); Now how do I specify this in a generic way? Or better yet, is there a better way to design this? I know I could rely on RTTI or similar but I'd like to avoid this if possible as I feel there is probably a better way to deal with this. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Command Pattern : How to pass parameters to a command ?

    - by Romain Verdier
    My question is related to the command pattern, where we have the following abstraction (C# code) : public interface ICommand { Execute(); } Let's take a simple concrete command, which aims to delete an entity from our application. A Person instance, for example. I'll have a DeletePersonCommand, which implements ICommand. This command needs the Person to delete as a parameter, in order to delete it when Execute method is called. What is the best way to manage parametrized commands ? How to pass parameters to commands, before executing them ?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to make a setter return "this"?

    - by Ken Liu
    Is it a good or bad idea to make setters in java return "this"? public Employee setName(String name){ this.name = name; return this; } This pattern can be useful because then you can chain setters like this: list.add(new Employee().setName("Jack Sparrow").setId(1).setFoo("bacon!")); instead of this: Employee e = new Employee(); e.setName("Jack Sparrow"); ...and so on... list.add(e); ...but it sort of goes against standard convention. I suppose it might be worthwhile just because it can make that setter do something else useful. I've seen this pattern used some places (e.g. JMock, JPA), but it seems uncommon, and only generally used for very well defined APIs where this pattern is used everywhere. Update: What I've described is obviously valid, but what I am really looking for is some thoughts on whether this is generally acceptable, and if there are any pitfalls or related best practices. I know about the Builder pattern but it is a little more involved then what I am describing - as Josh Bloch describes it there is an associated static Builder class for object creation.

    Read the article

  • What is the "Dispatcher" design pattern?

    - by Ben Farmer
    What is the "dispatcher" pattern and how would I implement it in code? I have a property bag of generic objects and would like to have the retrieval delegated to a generic method. Currently, I have properties looking for a specific key in the bag. For example: private Dictionary<String, Object> Foo { get; set; } private const String WidgetKey = "WIDGETKEY"; public Widget? WidgetItem { get { return Foo.ContainsKey(WidgetKey) ? Foo[WidgetKey] as Widget: null; } set { if (Foo.ContainsKey(WidgetKey)) Foo[WidgetKey] = value; else Foo.Add(WidgetKey, value); } } It was suggested that this could be more generic with the "dispatcher" pattern, but I've been unable to find a good description or example. I'm looking for a more generic way to handle the property bag store/retrieve.

    Read the article

  • Practical rules for premature optimization

    - by DougW
    It seems that the phrase "Premature Optimization" is the buzz-word of the day. For some reason, iphone programmers in particular seem to think of avoiding premature optimization as a pro-active goal, rather than the natural result of simply avoiding distraction. The problem is, the term is beginning to be applied more and more to cases that are completely inappropriate. For example, I've seen a growing number of people say not to worry about the complexity of an algorithm, because that's premature optimization (eg http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2190275/help-sorting-an-nsarray-across-two-properties-with-nssortdescriptor/2191720#2191720). Frankly, I think this is just laziness, and appalling to disciplined computer science. But it has occurred to me that maybe considering the complexity and performance of algorithms is going the way of assembly loop unrolling, and other optimization techniques that are now considered unnecessary. What do you think? Are we at the point now where deciding between an O(n^n) and O(n!) complexity algorithm is irrelevant? What about O(n) vs O(n*n)? What do you consider "premature optimization"? What practical rules do you use to consciously or unconsciously avoid it? This is a bit vague, but I'm curious to hear other peoples' opinions on the topic.

    Read the article

  • Silverlight Async Design Pattern Issue

    - by Mike Mengell
    I'm in the middle of a Silverlight application and I have a function which needs to call a webservice and using the result complete the rest of the function. My issue is that I would have normally done a synchronous web service call got the result and using that carried on with the function. As Silverlight doesn't support synchronous web service calls without additional custom classes to mimic it, I figure it would be best to go with the flow of async rather than fight it. So my question relates around whats the best design pattern for working with async calls in program flow. In the following example I want to use the myFunction TypeId parameter depending on the return value of the web service call. But I don't want to call the web service until this function is called. How can I alter my code design to allow for the async call? string _myPath; bool myFunction(Guid TypeId) { WS_WebService1.WS_WebService1SoapClient proxy = new WS_WebService1.WS_WebService1SoapClient(); proxy.GetPathByTypeIdCompleted += new System.EventHandler<WS_WebService1.GetPathByTypeIdCompleted>(proxy_GetPathByTypeIdCompleted); proxy.GetPathByTypeIdAsync(TypeId); // Get return value if (myPath == "\\Server1") { //Use the TypeId parameter in here } } void proxy_GetPathByTypeIdCompleted(object sender, WS_WebService1.GetPathByTypeIdCompletedEventArgs e) { string server = e.Result.Server; myPath = '\\' + server; } Thanks in advance, Mike

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111  | Next Page >