Search Results

Search found 33755 results on 1351 pages for 'object repository'.

Page 11/1351 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • How does one mirror a maven repository?

    - by Randy
    Our company would like to mirror our Maven 2 Repository inside of the Amazon network. What software should one use to do this? We have looked into a Wagon-S3 but that sort of functionality is not desirable... we want the artifacts to already be present when we are ready for a build.

    Read the article

  • Repository Pattern : Add Item

    - by No Body
    Just need to clarify this one, If I have the below interface public interface IRepository<T> { T Add(T entity); } when implementing it, does checking for duplication if entity is already existing before persist it is still a job of the Repository, or it should handle some where else?

    Read the article

  • N-tier Repository POCOs - Aggregates?

    - by Sam
    Assume the following simple POCOs, Country and State: public partial class Country { public Country() { States = new List<State>(); } public virtual int CountryId { get; set; } public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual string CountryCode { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<State> States { get; set; } } public partial class State { public virtual int StateId { get; set; } public virtual int CountryId { get; set; } public virtual Country Country { get; set; } public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual string Abbreviation { get; set; } } Now assume I have a simple respository that looks something like this: public partial class CountryRepository : IDisposable { protected internal IDatabase _db; public CountryRepository() { _db = new Database(System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["DbConnName"]); } public IEnumerable<Country> GetAll() { return _db.Query<Country>("SELECT * FROM Countries ORDER BY Name", null); } public Country Get(object id) { return _db.SingleById(id); } public void Add(Country c) { _db.Insert(c); } /* ...And So On... */ } Typically in my UI I do not display all of the children (states), but I do display an aggregate count. So my country list view model might look like this: public partial class CountryListVM { [Key] public int CountryId { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public string CountryCode { get; set; } public int StateCount { get; set; } } When I'm using the underlying data provider (Entity Framework, NHibernate, PetaPoco, etc) directly in my UI layer, I can easily do something like this: IList<CountryListVM> list = db.Countries .OrderBy(c => c.Name) .Select(c => new CountryListVM() { CountryId = c.CountryId, Name = c.Name, CountryCode = c.CountryCode, StateCount = c.States.Count }) .ToList(); But when I'm using a repository or service pattern, I abstract away direct access to the data layer. It seems as though my options are to: Return the Country with a populated States collection, then map over in the UI layer. The downside to this approach is that I'm returning a lot more data than is actually needed. -or- Put all my view models into my Common dll library (as opposed to having them in the Models directory in my MVC app) and expand my repository to return specific view models instead of just the domain pocos. The downside to this approach is that I'm leaking UI specific stuff (MVC data validation annotations) into my previously clean POCOs. -or- Are there other options? How are you handling these types of things?

    Read the article

  • Accessing the Identity object in a MVC repository

    - by Rod
    Hi, I have a pretty generic repository that does basic CRUD for many of my business entities. The entities enherit form a generic object that has a few fields I maintain for all objects. eg. ModifiedBy, CreatedBy, CreatedDate, ModifiedDate. These fields ModifiedBy and CreatedBy will always be set before any update/save. My questions is: Is there any way to gain access to the Identity object from my MVC web application in my repositories? I was hoping to set the modifiedby to the identity user for any update in one shot?? Best Regard, Rod

    Read the article

  • Loose Coupling in Object Oriented Design

    - by m3th0dman
    I am trying to learn GRASP and I found this explained (here on page 3) about Low Coupling and I was very surprised when I found this: Consider the method addTrack for an Album class, two possible methods are: addTrack( Track t ) and addTrack( int no, String title, double duration ) Which method reduces coupling? The second one does, since the class using the Album class does not have to know a Track class. In general, parameters to methods should use base types (int, char ...) and classes from the java.* packages. I tend to diasgree with this; I believe addTrack(Track t) is better than addTrack(int no, String title, double duration) due to various reasons: It is always better for a method to as fewer parameters as possible (according to Uncle Bob's Clean Code none or one preferably, 2 in some cases and 3 in special cases; more than 3 needs refactoring - these are of course recommendations not holly rules). If addTrack is a method of an interface, and the requirements need that a Track should have more information (say year or genre) then the interface needs to be changed and so that the method should supports another parameter. Encapsulation is broke; if addTrack is in an interface, then it should not know the internals of the Track. It is actually more coupled in the second way, with many parameters. Suppose the no parameter needs to be changed from int to long because there are more than MAX_INT tracks (or for whatever reason); then both the Track and the method need to be changed while if the method would be addTrack(Track track) only the Track would be changed. All the 4 arguments are actually connected with each other, and some of them are consequences from others. Which approach is better?

    Read the article

  • Object model design: collections on classes

    - by Luke Puplett
    Hi all, Consider Train.Passengers, what type would you use for Passengers where passengers are not supposed to be added or removed by the consuming code? I'm using .NET Framework, so this discussion would suit .NET, but it could apply to a number of modern languages/frameworks. In the .NET Framework, the List is not supposed to be publicly exposed. There's Collection and ICollection and guidance, which I tend to agree with, is to return the closest concrete type down the inheritance tree, so that'd be Collection since it is already an ICollection. But Collection has read/write semantics and so possibly it should be a ReadOnlyCollection, but its arguably common sense not to alter the contents of a collection that you don't have intimate knowledge about so is it necessary? And it requires extra work internally and can be a pain with (de)serialization. At the extreme ends I could just return Person[] (since LINQ now provides much of the benefits that previously would have been afforded by a more specified collection) or even build a strongly-typed PersonCollection or ReadOnlyPersonCollection! What do you do? Thanks for your time. Luke

    Read the article

  • Circular dependency and object creation when attempting DDD

    - by Matthew
    I have a domain where an Organization has People. Organization Entity public class Organization { private readonly List<Person> _people = new List<Person>(); public Person CreatePerson(string name) { var person = new Person(organization, name); _people.Add(person); return person; } public IEnumerable<Person> People { get { return _people; } } } Person Entity public class Person { public Person(Organization organization, string name) { if (organization == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("organization"); } Organization = organization; Name = name; } public Organization { get; private set; } public Name { get; private set; } } The rule for this relationship is that a Person must belong to exactly one Organization. The invariants I want to guarantee are: A person must have an organization this is enforced via the Person's constuctor An organization must know of its people this is why the Organization has a CreatePerson method A person must belong to only one organization this is why the organization's people list is not publicly mutable (ignoring the casting to List, maybe ToEnumerable can enforce that, not too concerned about it though) What I want out of this is that if a person is created, that the organization knows about its creation. However, the problem with the model currently is that you are able to create a person without ever adding it to the organizations collection. Here's a failing unit-test to describe my problem [Test] public void AnOrganizationMustKnowOfItsPeople() { var organization = new Organization(); var person = new Person(organization, "Steve McQueen"); CollectionAssert.Contains(organization.People, person); } What is the most idiomatic way to enforce the invariants and the circular relationship?

    Read the article

  • Is functional programming a superset of object oriented?

    - by Jimmy Hoffa
    The more functional programming I do, the more I feel like it adds an extra layer of abstraction that seems like how an onion's layer is- all encompassing of the previous layers. I don't know if this is true so going off the OOP principles I've worked with for years, can anyone explain how functional does or doesn't accurately depict any of them: Encapsulation, Abstraction, Inheritance, Polymorphism I think we can all say, yes it has encapsulation via tuples, or do tuples count technically as fact of "functional programming" or are they just a utility of the language? I know Haskell can meet the "interfaces" requirement, but again not certain if it's method is a fact of functional? I'm guessing that the fact that functors have a mathematical basis you could say those are a definite built in expectation of functional, perhaps? Please, detail how you think functional does or does not fulfill the 4 principles of OOP.

    Read the article

  • Recommended reading for (Object Oriented) application design architecture?

    - by e4rthdog
    In life it doesnt matter if you do one thing for 15 years. You will end up waking one day and asking stuff that are equal to "how do i walk?" :) My specific question is that as a new entrant to C# and OOP i am stepping into many little "details" that need to be addressed. Written a lot of code in VB.NET / cobol / simple php e.t.c surely does not help much into the OOP world... So , even after reading entry level books for C# and watching some videos i recently found out about the "factory model design" for applications. I would appreciate if any of you guys recomment some reading on application design architecture for further reading...

    Read the article

  • Newton Game Dynamics: Making an object not affect another object

    - by Boreal
    I'm going to be using Newton in my networked action game with Mogre. There will be two "types" of physics object: global and local. Global objects will be kept in sync for everybody; these include the players, projectiles, and other gameplay-related objects. Local objects are purely for effect, like ragdolls, debris, and particles. Is there a way to make the global objects affect the local objects without actually getting affected themselves? I'd like debris to bounce off of a tank, but I don't want the tank to respond in any way.

    Read the article

  • Design for object with optional and modifiable attributtes?

    - by Ikuzen
    I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

    Read the article

  • Object inheritance and method parameters/return types - Please check my logic

    - by user2368481
    I'm preparing for a test and doing practice questions, this one in particular I am unsure I did correctly: We are given a very simple UML diagram to demonstrate inheritance: I hope this is clear, it shows that W inherits from V and so on: |-----Y V <|----- W<|-----| |-----X<|----Z and this code: public X method1(){....} method2(new Y()); method2(method1()); method2(method3()); The questions and my answers: Q: What types of objects could method1 actually return? A: X and Z, since the method definition includes X as the return type and since Z is a kind of X is would be OK to return either. Q: What could the parameter type of method2 be? A: Since method2 in the code accepts Y, X and Z (as the return from method1), the parameter type must be either V or W, as Y,X and Z inherit from both of these. Q: What could return type of method3 be? A: Return type of method3 must be V or W as this would be consistent with answer 2.

    Read the article

  • Tips about how to spread Object Oriented practices

    - by Augusto
    I work for a medium company that has around 250 developers. Unfortunately, lots of them are stuck in a procedural way of thinking and some teams constantly deliver big Transactional Script applications, when in fact the application contains rich logic. They also fail to manage the design dependencies, and end up with services which depend on another large number of services (a clean example of Big Ball of Mud). My question is: Can you suggest how to spread this type of knowledge? I know that the surface of the problem is that these applications have a poor architecture and design. Another issue is that there are some developers who are against writing any kind of test. A few things I'm doing to change this (but I'm either failing or the change is too small are) Running presentations about design principles (SOLID, clean code, etc). Workshops about TDD and BDD. Coaching teams (this includes using sonar, findbugs, jdepend and other tools). IDE & Refactoring talks. A few things I'm thinking to do in the future (but I'm concern that they might not be good) Form a team of OO evangelists, who disseminate an OO way of thinking in differet teams (these people would need to change teams every few months). Running design review sessions, to criticise the design and suggest improvements (even if the improvements are not done because of time constraints, I think this might be useful) . Something I found with the teams I coach, is that as soon as I leave them, they revert back to the old practices. I know I don't spend a lot of time with them, usually just one month. So whatever I'm doing, it doesn't stick. I'm sorry this question is spattered with frustration, but the alterative to write this was to hit my head on the wall until I pass out.

    Read the article

  • Object construction design

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

    Read the article

  • Using visitor pattern with large object hierarchy

    - by T. Fabre
    Context I've been using with a hierarchy of objects (an expression tree) a "pseudo" visitor pattern (pseudo, as in it does not use double dispatch) : public interface MyInterface { void Accept(SomeClass operationClass); } public class MyImpl : MyInterface { public void Accept(SomeClass operationClass) { operationClass.DoSomething(); operationClass.DoSomethingElse(); // ... and so on ... } } This design was, however questionnable, pretty comfortable since the number of implementations of MyInterface is significant (~50 or more) and I didn't need to add extra operations. Each implementation is unique (it's a different expression or operator), and some are composites (ie, operator nodes that will contain other operator/leaf nodes). Traversal is currently performed by calling the Accept operation on the root node of the tree, which in turns calls Accept on each of its child nodes, which in turn... and so on... But the time has come where I need to add a new operation, such as pretty printing : public class MyImpl : MyInterface { // Property does not come from MyInterface public string SomeProperty { get; set; } public void Accept(SomeClass operationClass) { operationClass.DoSomething(); operationClass.DoSomethingElse(); // ... and so on ... } public void Accept(SomePrettyPrinter printer) { printer.PrettyPrint(this.SomeProperty); } } I basically see two options : Keep the same design, adding a new method for my operation to each derived class, at the expense of maintainibility (not an option, IMHO) Use the "true" Visitor pattern, at the expense of extensibility (not an option, as I expect to have more implementations coming along the way...), with about 50+ overloads of the Visit method, each one matching a specific implementation ? Question Would you recommand using the Visitor pattern ? Is there any other pattern that could help solve this issue ?

    Read the article

  • Object desing problem for simple school application

    - by Aragornx
    I want to create simple school application that provides grades,notes,presence,etc. for students,teachers and parents. I'm trying to design objects for this problem and I'm little bit confused - because I'm not very experienced in class designing. Some of my present objects are : class PersonalData() { private String name; private String surename; private Calendar dateOfBirth; [...] } class Person { private PersonalData personalData; } class User extends Person { private String login; private char[] password; } class Student extends Person { private ArrayList<Counselor> counselors = new ArrayList<>(); } class Counselor extends Person { private ArrayList<Student> children = new ArrayList<>(); } class Teacher extends Person { private ArrayList<ChoolClass> schoolClasses = new ArrayList<>(); private ArrayList<Subject> subjects = new ArrayList<>(); } This is of course a general idea. But I'm sure it's not the best way. For example I want that one person could be a Teacher and also a Parent(Counselor) and present approach makes me to have two Person objects. I want that user after successful logging in get all roles that it has (Student or Teacher or (Teacher & Parent) ). I think I should make and use some interfaces but I'm not sure how to do this right. Maybe like this: interface Role { } interface TeacherRole implements Role { void addGrade( Student student, Grade grade, [...] ); } class Teacher implements TeacherRole { private Person person; [...] } class User extends Person{ ArrayList<Role> roles = new ArrayList<>(); } Please if anyone could help me to make this right or maybe just point me to some literature/article that covers practical objects design.

    Read the article

  • Structuring Access Control In Hierarchical Object Graph

    - by SB2055
    I have a Folder entity that can be Moderated by users. Folders can contain other folders. So I may have a structure like this: Folder 1 Folder 2 Folder 3 Folder 4 I have to decide how to implement Moderation for this entity. I've come up with two options: Option 1 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a moderator relationship between Folder 1 and User 1. No other relationships are added to the db. To determine if the user can moderate Folder 3, I check and see if User 1 is the moderator of any parent folders. This seems to alleviate some of the complexity of handling updates / moved entities / additions under Folder 1 after the relationship has been defined, and reverting the relationship means I only have to deal with one entity. Option 2 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a new relationship between User 1 and Folder 1, and all child entities down to the grandest of grandchildren when the relationship is created, and if it's ever removed, iterate back down the graph to remove the relationship. If I add something under Folder 2 after this relationship has been made, I just copy all Moderators into the new Entity. But when I need to show only the top-level Folders that a user is Moderating, I need to query all folders that have a parent folder that the user does not moderate, as opposed to option 1, where I just query any items that the user is moderating. Thoughts I think it comes down to determining if users will be querying for all parent items more than they'll be querying child items... if so, then option 1 seems better. But I'm not sure. Is either approach better than the other? Why? Or is there another approach that's better than both? I'm using Entity Framework in case it matters.

    Read the article

  • In a DDD approach, is this example modelled correctly?

    - by Tag
    Just created an acc on SO to ask this :) Assuming this simplified example: building a web application to manage projects... The application has the following requirements/rules. 1) Users should be able to create projects inserting the project name. 2) Project names cannot be empty. 3) Two projects can't have the same name. I'm using a 4-layered architecture (User Interface, Application, Domain, Infrastructure). On my Application Layer i have the following ProjectService.cs class: public class ProjectService { private IProjectRepository ProjectRepo { get; set; } public ProjectService(IProjectRepository projectRepo) { ProjectRepo = projectRepo; } public void CreateNewProject(string name) { IList<Project> projects = ProjectRepo.GetProjectsByName(name); if (projects.Count > 0) throw new Exception("Project name already exists."); Project project = new Project(name); ProjectRepo.InsertProject(project); } } On my Domain Layer, i have the Project.cs class and the IProjectRepository.cs interface: public class Project { public int ProjectID { get; private set; } public string Name { get; private set; } public Project(string name) { ValidateName(name); Name = name; } private void ValidateName(string name) { if (name == null || name.Equals(string.Empty)) { throw new Exception("Project name cannot be empty or null."); } } } public interface IProjectRepository { void InsertProject(Project project); IList<Project> GetProjectsByName(string projectName); } On my Infrastructure layer, i have the implementation of IProjectRepository which does the actual querying (the code is irrelevant). I don't like two things about this design: 1) I've read that the repository interfaces should be a part of the domain but the implementations should not. That makes no sense to me since i think the domain shouldn't call the repository methods (persistence ignorance), that should be a responsability of the services in the application layer. (Something tells me i'm terribly wrong.) 2) The process of creating a new project involves two validations (not null and not duplicate). In my design above, those two validations are scattered in two different places making it harder (imho) to see whats going on. So, my question is, from a DDD perspective, is this modelled correctly or would you do it in a different way?

    Read the article

  • Repository Pattern with Entity Framework 3.5 and MVVM

    - by Ravi
    I am developing a Database File System. I am using - .Net framework 3.5 Entity Framework 3.5 WPF with MVVM pattern The project spans across multiple assemblies each using same model. One assembly,let's call it a "server", only adds data to the database using EF i.e. same model.Other assemblies (including the UI) both reads and writes the data.The changes made by server should immediately reflect in other assemblies. The database contains self referencing tables where each entity can have single OR no parent and (may be) some children. I want to use repository pattern which can also provide some mechanism to handle this hierarchical nature. I have already done reading on this on Code Project. It shares the same context(entities) everywhere. My question is - Should I share the same context everywhere? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing that?

    Read the article

  • EF4, self tracking, repository pattern, SQL Server 2008 AND SQL Server Compact

    - by Darren
    Hi, I am creating a project using Entity Frameworks 4 and self tracking entities. I want to be able to either get the data from a sql server 2008 database or from sql server compact database (with the switch being in the config file). I am using the repository pattern and I will have the self tracking entities sitting in a separate assembly. Do I need two edmx files? If so, how do I generate only one set of STE's in the separate assembly? Also do I need to generate two context classes as well? I am unsure of the plumbing for all this. Can anyone help? Darren I forgot to add that the two databases will be identical and that the compact version is for offline usage.

    Read the article

  • Repository Pattern with Entity Framework 3.5

    - by Ravi
    I am developing a Database File System. I am using - .Net framework 3.5 Entity Framework 3.5 WPF with MVVM pattern The project spans across multiple assemblies each using same model. One assembly,let's call it a "server", only adds data to the database using EF i.e. same model.Other assemblies (including the UI) both reads and writes the data.The changes made by server should immediately reflect in other assemblies. The database contains self referencing tables where each entity can have single OR no parent and (may be) some children. I want to use repository pattern which can also provide some mechanism to handle this hierarchical nature. I have already done reading on this on Code Project. It shares the same context(entities) everywhere. My question is - Should I share the same context everywhere? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing that?

    Read the article

  • Repository Pattern with Entity Framework 3.5

    - by Ravi
    I am developing a Database File System. I am using - .Net framework 3.5 Entity Framework 3.5 WPF with MVVM pattern The project spans across multiple assemblies each using same model. One assembly,let's call it a "server", only adds data to the database using EF i.e. same model.Other assemblies (including the UI) both reads and writes the data.The changes made by server should immediately reflect in other assemblies. The database contains self referencing tables where each entity can have single OR no parent and (may be) some children. I want to use repository pattern which can also provide some mechanism to handle this hierarchical nature. I have already done reading on this on Code Project. It shares the same context(entities) everywhere. My question is - Should I share the same context everywhere? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing that?

    Read the article

  • NHibernate with or without Repository

    - by Groo
    There are several similar questions on this matter, by I still haven't found enough reasons to decide which way to go. The real question is, is it reasonable to abstract the NHibernate using a Repository pattern, or not? It seems that the only reason behind abstracting it is to leave yourself an option to replace NHibernate with a different ORM if needed. But creating repositories and abstracting queries seems like adding yet another layer, and doing much of the plumbing by hand. One option is to use expose IQueryable<T> to the business layer and use LINQ, but from my experience LINQ support is still not fully implemented in NHibernate (queries simply don't always work as expected, and I hate spending time on debugging a framework). Although referencing NHibernate in my business layer hurts my eyes, it is supposed to be an abstraction of data access by itself, right? What are you opinions on this?

    Read the article

  • Proper way to build a data Repository in ASP.NET MVC

    - by rockinthesixstring
    I'm working on using the Repository methodology in my App and I have a very fundamental question. When I build my Model, I have a Data.dbml file and then I'm putting my Repositories in the same folder with it.... IE: Data.dbml IUserRepository.cs UserRepository.cs My question is simple. Is it better to build the folder structure like that above, or is it ok to simply put my Interface in with the UserRepository.cs? Data.dbml UserRepository.cs              which contains both the interface and the class Just looking for "best practices" here. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >