Search Results

Search found 14602 results on 585 pages for 'objected oriented design'.

Page 12/585 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Most appropriate diagram for GUI button design?

    - by JustADude
    What is the most appropriate diagram for GUI button design? Specifically, I have numerous buttons that will be changing color based on state information from operator input and input from various subcomponents and sensors. I would like to use UML or some other type of design diagrams to be able to capture the color transition. Some folks have suggested sequence diagrams, but I haven't been able to find any good examples that show how to incorporate this design artifact. I would really like to head in this direction to help developers. Thanks a ton for feedback and insights.

    Read the article

  • Should we design programs to randomly kill themselves?

    - by jimbojw
    In a nutshell, should we design death into our programs, processes, and threads at a low level, for the good of the overall system? Failures happen. Processes die. We plan for disaster and occasionally recover from it. But we rarely design and implement unpredictable program death. We hope that our services' uptimes are as long as we care to keep them running. A macro-example of this concept is Netflix's Chaos Monkey, which randomly terminates AWS instances in some scenarios. They claim that this has helped them discover problems and build more redundant systems. What I'm talking about is lower level. The idea is for traditionally long-running processes to randomly exit. This should force redundancy into the design and ultimately produce more resilient systems. Does this concept already have a name? Is it already being used in the industry?

    Read the article

  • Are sequence designs appropriate for GUI button design?

    - by JustADude
    Specifically, I have numerous buttons that will be changing color based on state information from operator input and input from various subcomponents and sensors. I would like to use UML or some other type of design diagrams to be able to capture the color transition. Some folks have suggested sequence diagrams, but I haven't been able to find any good examples that show how to incorporate this design artifact. I would really like to head in this direction to help developers. Are sequence designs in fact, appropriate, or is there a more appropriate design?

    Read the article

  • Interface hierarchy design for separate domains

    - by jerzi
    There are businesses and people. People could be liked and businesses could be commented on: class Like class Comment class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget Likes and comments are performed by a user(person) so they are authored: class Like implements iAuthored class Comment implements iAuthored People's like could also be used in their history: class history class Like implements iAuthored, iHistoryTarget Now, a smart developer comes and says each history is attached to a user so history should be authored: interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored so it could be removed from class Like: class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget class Like implements iHistoryTarget class Comment implements iAuthored class history interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored Here, another smart guy comes with a question: How could I capture the Authored fact in Like and Comment classes? He may knows nothing about history concept in the project. By scalling these kind of functionallities, interfaces may goes to their encapsulated types which cause more type strength, on the other hand explicitness suffered and also code end users will face much pain to process. So here is the question: Should I encapsulate those dependant types to their parent types (interface hierarchies) or not or explicitly repeat each type for every single level of my type system or ...?

    Read the article

  • Looking for a better Factory pattern (Java)

    - by Sam Goldberg
    After doing a rough sketch of a high level object model, I am doing iterative TDD, and letting the other objects emerge as a refactoring of the code (as it increases in complexity). (That whole approach may be a discussion/argument for another day.) In any case, I am at the point where I am looking to refactor code blocks currently in an if-else blocks into separate objects. This is because there is another another value combination which creates new set of logical sub-branches. To be more specific, this is a trading system feature, where buy orders have different behavior than sell orders. Responses to the orders have a numeric indicator field which describes some event that occurred (e.g. fill, cancel). The combination of this numeric indicator field plus whether it is a buy or sell, require different processing buy the code. Creating a family of objects to separate the code for the unique handling each of the combinations of the 2 fields seems like a good choice at this point. The way I would normally do this, is to create some Factory object which when called with the 2 relevant parameters (indicator, buysell), would return the correct subclass of the object. Some times I do this pattern with a map, which allows to look up a live instance (or constructor to use via reflection), and sometimes I just hard code the cases in the Factory class. So - for some reason this feels like not good design (e.g. one object which knows all the subclasses of an interface or parent object), and a bit clumsy. Is there a better pattern for solving this kind of problem? And if this factory method approach makes sense, can anyone suggest a nicer design?

    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

  • A better alternative to incompatible implementations for the same interface?

    - by glenatron
    I am working on a piece of code which performs a set task in several parallel environments where the behaviour of the different components in the task are similar but quite different. This means that my implementations are quite different but they are all based on the relationships between the same interfaces, something like this: IDataReader -> ContinuousDataReader -> ChunkedDataReader IDataProcessor -> ContinuousDataProcessor -> ChunkedDataProcessor IDataWriter -> ContinuousDataWriter -> ChunkedDataWriter So that in either environment we have an IDataReader, IDataProcessor and IDataWriter and then we can use Dependency Injection to ensure that we have the correct one of each for the current environment, so if we are working with data in chunks we use the ChunkedDataReader, ChunkedDataProcessor and ChunkedDataWriter and if we have continuous data we have the continuous versions. However the behaviour of these classes is quite different internally and one could certainly not go from a ContinuousDataReader to the ChunkedDataReader even though they are both IDataProcessors. This feels to me as though it is incorrect ( possibly an LSP violation? ) and certainly not a theoretically correct way of working. It is almost as though the "real" interface here is the combination of all three classes. Unfortunately in the project I am working on with the deadlines we are working to, we're pretty much stuck with this design, but if we had a little more elbow room, what would be a better design approach in this kind of scenario?

    Read the article

  • Is OOP becoming easier or harder?

    - by tunmise fasipe
    When the concepts of Object Oriented Programming were introduced to programmers years back it looks interesting and programming was cleaner. OOP was like this Stock stock = new Stock(); stock.addItem(item); stock.removeItem(item); That was easier to understand with self-descriptive name. But now OOP, with pattern like Data Transfer Objects (or Value Objects), Repository, Dependency Injection etc, has become more complex. To achieve the above you may have to create several classes (e.g. abstract, factory, DAO etc) and Implement several interfaces Note: I am not against best practices that makes Collaboration, Testing and Integration easier

    Read the article

  • Progressbar patterns (Eclipse)

    - by JesperE
    I've struggled quite a bit with Eclipse and progress-monitors to try to have good progressbars which report useful progress information to the user. Inevitably the code gets cluttered with lots of things like if (monitor.isCancelled()) return; ... lengthyMethodCall(monitor.newChild(10)); and all over the place I need to pass a IProgressMonitor as an argument to my methods. This is bad, for several reasons: The code gets cluttered with lots of code which is not relevant to what the function actually does. I need to manually guesstimate which parts of the code takes time, and which parts do not. It interacts badly with automated tests; where much of the information which goes into a progressbar instead should be logged for later inspection. Is there a way out of this? Are there tools which can help me out with one or more of these problems? Should I be looking at Aspect-Oriented Programming tools, or are there other alternatives?

    Read the article

  • Game Design Schools in Canada

    - by CptJackLoder
    I am a High School student in Ontario and i am trying looking for college/university programs the are specifically about game design. There are quite a few at most colleges near me, but they are all BA's and I am looking for a BSc. The only one i have been able to find is at digipen but that is across the continent and more importantly outrageously expensive. Does anyone know of and programs in Canada or the US that offer a BSc in Game design?

    Read the article

  • The importance of Design Patterns with Javascript, NodeJs et al

    - by Lewis
    With Javascript appearing to be the ubiquitous programming language of the web over the next few years, new frameworks popping up every five minutes and event driven programming taking a lead both server and client side: Do you as a Javascript developer consider the traditional Design Patterns as important or less important than they have been with other languages / environments?. Please name the top three design patterns you, as a Javascript developer use regularly and give an example of how they have helped in your Javascript development.

    Read the article

  • Design Issues With Forms

    - by ultan o'broin
    Interesting article on UX Matters, well worth reading, especially the idea that global design research can take for a better user experience in all languages: Label Placement in Austrian Forms, with Some Lessons for English Forms What is perhaps underplayed here is the cultural influence of how people worked with forms in the past, and how a proper global user-centered design process needs to address this issue and move usability gains (in the enterprise space, productivity especially) in the right direction.

    Read the article

  • I'm interested in checking out a stack-oriented programming language. Which one would you recommend?

    - by Anto
    I'm interested in learning a stack-oriented programming language (such as Forth), which one would you recommend? The qualities I want are: You should be able to develop non-trivial software in it, but it mustn't be a great language for that as: I want to learn the language so I can try out a new paradigm (that is, not because I (think) that I will have great use of it). The reason I want to learn another paradigm is that I want to broaden my views on different approaches (learn to think in new ways, different from OOP, functional and structured). The language should let me do that (learn to think differently). The language should have available and good resources to learn from. The resources should also approach stack-oriented programming in a way that you understand the paradigm (after all, I do this for the paradigm).

    Read the article

  • So what *did* Alan Kay really mean by the term "object-oriented"?

    - by Charlie Flowers
    Reportedly, Alan Kay is the inventor of the term "object oriented". And he is often quoted as having said that what we call OO today is not what he meant. For example, I just found this on Google: I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I didn't have C++ in mind -- Alan Kay, OOPSLA '97 I vaguely remember hearing something pretty insightful about what he did mean. Something along the lines of "message passing". Do you know what he meant? Can you fill in more details of what he meant and how it differs from today's common OO? Please share some references if you have any. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • SQL Saturday Birmingham #328 Database Design Precon In One Week

    - by drsql
    On September 22, I will be doing my "How to Design a Relational Database" pre-conference session in Birmingham, Alabama. You can see the abstract here if you are interested, and you can sign up there too, naturally. At just $100, which includes a free ebook copy of my database design book, it is a great bargain and I totally promise it will be a little over 7 hours of talking about and designing databases, which will certainly be better than what you do on a normal work day, even a Friday....(read more)

    Read the article

  • Development: SDK for Social Net

    - by loldop
    I have a task: development sdk for social networking service like facebook, twitter and etc. At now i'm developing facebook-extension-sdk which based on facebook-ios-sdk 3.0. But not all social networking services have good sdks. And all time i improved my facebook-extension-sdk, when i see ugly code :( Please, advise me good techniques to development these sdks (like design-patterns or your own experience or good books/sites). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What do you think was a poor design choice in Java

    - by Phobia
    Java has been one of the most (the most?) popular programming languages till this day, but this also brought controversy as well. A lot of people now like to bash Java simply because "it's slow", or simply because it's not language X, for example. My question isn't related to any of these arguments at all, I simply want to know what you consider a design flaw, or a poor design choice in Java, and how it might be improved from your point of view. Something like this.

    Read the article

  • Book Review: SSIS Design Patterns

    - by andyleonard
    Samuel Vanga ( Blog | @SamuelVanga ) has posted a review of our new book SSIS Design Patterns at his blog . Several of Sam’s statements struck me, but none more than this: Within a few hours of reading SQL Server 2012 Integration Services Design Patterns , it stood out that none of the authors were trying to impress by showing what they all know in SSIS. Instead, they focused on describing solutions and patterns in a great detail (exactly why I paid for). Sam mentions he could not locate the source...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Design Patterns - Why the need for interfaces?

    - by Kyle Johnson
    OK. I am learning design patterns. Every time I see someone code an example of a design pattern they use interfaces. Here is an example: http://visualstudiomagazine.com/Articles/2013/06/18/the-facade-pattern-in-net.aspx?Page=1 Can someone explain to me why was the interfaces needed in this example to demonstrate the facade pattern? The program work if you pass in the classes to the facade instead of the interface. If I don't have interfaces does that mean

    Read the article

  • How did you get good practices for your OOP designs?

    - by Darf Zon
    I realized I have a difficulty creating OOP designs. I spent many time deciding if this property is correctly set it to X class. For example, this is a post which has a few days: http://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/8041/how-to-improve-my-factory-design I'm not convinced of my code. So I want to improve my designs, take less time creating it. How did you learn creating good designs? Some books that you can recommend me?

    Read the article

  • Design for an interface implementation that provides additional functionality

    - by Limbo Exile
    There is a design problem that I came upon while implementing an interface: Let's say there is a Device interface that promises to provide functionalities PerformA() and GetB(). This interface will be implemented for multiple models of a device. What happens if one model has an additional functionality CheckC() which doesn't have equivalents in other implementations? I came up with different solutions, none of which seems to comply with interface design guidelines: To add CheckC() method to the interface and leave one of its implementations empty: interface ISomeDevice { void PerformA(); int GetB(); bool CheckC(); } class DeviceModel1 : ISomeDevice { public void PerformA() { // do stuff } public int GetB() { return 1; } public bool CheckC() { bool res; // assign res a value based on some validation return res; } } class DeviceModel2 : ISomeDevice { public void PerformA() { // do stuff } public int GetB() { return 1; } public bool CheckC() { return true; // without checking anything } } This solution seems incorrect as a class implements an interface without truly implementing all the demanded methods. To leave out CheckC() method from the interface and to use explicit cast in order to call it: interface ISomeDevice { void PerformA(); int GetB(); } class DeviceModel1 : ISomeDevice { public void PerformA() { // do stuff } public int GetB() { return 1; } public bool CheckC() { bool res; // assign res a value based on some validation return res; } } class DeviceModel2 : ISomeDevice { public void PerformA() { // do stuff } public int GetB() { return 1; } } class DeviceManager { private ISomeDevice myDevice; public void ManageDevice(bool newDeviceModel) { myDevice = (newDeviceModel) ? new DeviceModel1() : new DeviceModel2(); myDevice.PerformA(); int b = myDevice.GetB(); if (newDeviceModel) { DeviceModel1 newDevice = myDevice as DeviceModel1; bool c = newDevice.CheckC(); } } } This solution seems to make the interface inconsistent. For the device that supports CheckC(): to add the logic of CheckC() into the logic of another method that is present in the interface. This solution is not always possible. So, what is the correct design to be used in such cases? Maybe creating an interface should be abandoned altogether in favor of another design?

    Read the article

  • Rule of thumb for enemy design

    - by Terrance
    I'm at the early stages of developing a 2d side scrolling open ended platformer (think metroidvania) and am having a bit of difficulty at enemy design inspiration for something of a scifi, nature, fantasy setting that isn't overly familar or obvious. I haven't seen too many articles blogs or books that talk about the subject at great length. Is there a fair rule of thumb when coming up with enemy design with respect to keeping your player engaged?

    Read the article

  • Should I use JavaFx properties?

    - by Mike G
    I'm usually very careful to keep my Model, View, and Controller code separate. The thing is JavaFx properties are so convenient to bind them all together. The issue is that it makes my entire code design dependent on JavaFx, which I feel I should not being doing. I should be able to change the view without changing too much of the model and controller. So should I ignore the convenience of JavaFx properties, or should I embrace them and the fact that it reduces my codes flexibility.

    Read the article

  • Can an object oriented program be seen as a Finite State Machine?

    - by Peretz
    This might be a philosophical/fundamental question, but I just want to clarify it. In my understanding a Finite State Machine is a way of modeling a system in which the system's output will not only depend on the current inputs, but also the current state of the system. Additionally, as the name suggests it, a finite state machine can be segmented in a finite N number of states with its respective state and behavior. If this is correct, shouldn't every single object with data and function members be a state in our object oriented model, making any object oriented design a finite state machine? If that is not the interpretation of a FSM in object design, what exactly people mean when they implement a FSM in software? am I missing something? Thanks

    Read the article

  • As a tooling/automation developer, can I be making better use of OOP?

    - by Tom Pickles
    My time as a developer (~8 yrs) has been spent creating tooling/automation of one sort or another. The tools I develop usually interface with one or more API's. These API's could be win32, WMI, VMWare, a help-desk application, LDAP, you get the picture. The apps I develop could be just to pull back data and store/report. It could be to provision groups of VM's to create live like mock environments, update a trouble ticket etc. I've been developing in .Net and I'm currently reading into design patterns and trying to think about how I can improve my skills to make better use of and increase my understanding of OOP. For example, I've never used an interface of my own making in anger (which is probably not a good thing), because I honestly cannot identify where using one would benefit later on when modifying my code. My classes are usually very specific and I don't create similar classes with similar properties/methods which could use a common interface (like perhaps a car dealership or shop application might). I generally use an n-tier approach to my apps, having a presentation layer, a business logic/manager layer which interfaces with layer(s) that make calls to the API's I'm working with. My business entities are always just method-less container objects, which I populate with data and pass back and forth between my API interfacing layer using static methods to proxy/validate between the front and the back end. My code by nature of my work, has few common components, at least from what I can see. So I'm struggling to see how I can better make use of OOP design and perhaps reusable patterns. Am I right to be concerned that I could be being smarter about how I work, or is what I'm doing now right for my line of work? Or, am I missing something fundamental in OOP? EDIT: Here is some basic code to show how my mgr and api facing layers work. I use static classes as they do not persist any data, only facilitate moving it between layers. public static class MgrClass { public static bool PowerOnVM(string VMName) { // Perform logic to validate or apply biz logic // call APIClass to do the work return APIClass.PowerOnVM(VMName); } } public static class APIClass { public static bool PowerOnVM(string VMName) { // Calls to 3rd party API to power on a virtual machine // returns true or false if was successful for example } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >