Search Results

Search found 17041 results on 682 pages for 'architecture and design'.

Page 13/682 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • Modular Web App Network Architecture

    - by nairware
    Assuming that I am dealing with dedicated physical servers or VPSs, is it conceivable and does it make sense to have distinct servers setup with the following roles to host a web application? Reverse Proxy Web server Application server Database server Specific points of interest: I am confused how to even separate the web and application servers. My understanding was that such 3-tier architectures were feasible. It is unclear to me if the app server would reside directly between the web and database server, or if the web server could directly interact with the database as well. The app server could either do the computational heavy-lifting on behalf of the app server or it could do heavy-lifting plus control all of the business logic (as implied in the diagram above, thus denying the web server of direct database access). I am also unsure what role the reverse proxy (ex. nginx) could and should fulfill as a web server, given the above mentioned setup. I know that nginx has web server features. But I do not know if it makes sense to have the reverse proxy be its own VPS, given that the web server–in theory–would be separate from the app server.

    Read the article

  • Architecture : am I doing things right?

    - by Jeremy D
    I'm trying to use a '~classic' layered arch using .NET and Entity Framework. We are starting from a legacy database which is a little bit crappy: Inconsistent naming Unneeded views (view referencing other views, select * views etc...) Aggregated columns Potatoes and Carrots in the same table etc... So I ended with fully isolating my database structure from my domain model. To do so EF entities are hidden from presentation layer. The goal is to permit an easier database refactoring while lowering the impact of it on applications. I'm now facing a lot of challenges and I'm starting to ask myself if I'm doing things right. My Domain Model is highly volatile, it keeps evolving with apps as new fields needs are arising. Complexity of it keeps raising and class it contains start to get a lot of properties. Creating include strategy and reprojecting to EF is very tricky (my domain objects don't have any kind of lazy/eager loading relationship properties): DomainInclude<Domain.Model.Bar>.Include("Customers").Include("Customers.Friends") // To... IFooContext.Bars.Include(...).Include(...).Where(...) Some framework are raping the isolation levels (Devexpress Grids which needs either XPO or IQueryable for filtering and paging large data sets) I'm starting to ask myself if : the isolation of EF auto-generated entities is an unneeded cost. I should allow frameworks to hit IQueryable? Slow slope to hell? (it's really hard to isolate DevExpress framework, any successful experience?) the high volatility of my domain model is normal? Did you have similar difficulties? Any advice based on experience?

    Read the article

  • C# class architecture for REST services

    - by user15370
    Hi. I am integrating with a set of REST services exposed by our partner. The unit of integration is at the project level meaning that for each project created on our partners side of the fence they will expose a unique set of REST services. To be more clear, assume there are two projects - project1 and project2. The REST services available to access the project data would then be: /project1/search/getstuff?etc... /project1/analysis/getstuff?etc... /project1/cluster/getstuff?etc... /project2/search/getstuff?etc... /project2/analysis/getstuff?etc... /project2/cluster/getstuff?etc... My task is to wrap these services in a C# class to be used by our app developer. I want to make it simple for the app developer and am thinking of providing something like the following class. class ProjectClient { SearchClient _searchclient; AnalysisClient _analysisclient; ClusterClient _clusterclient; string Project {get; set;} ProjectClient(string _project) { Project = _project; } } SearchClient, AnalysisClient and ClusterClient are my classes to support the respective services shown above. The problem with this approach is that ProjectClient will need to provide public methods for each of the API's exposed by SearchClient, etc... public void SearchGetStuff() { _searchclient.getStuff(); } Any suggestions how I can architect this better?

    Read the article

  • Software architecture for two similar classes which require different input parameters for the same method

    - by I Like to Code
    I am writing code to simulate a supply chain. The supply chain can be simulated in either an intermediate stocking or a cross-docking configuration. So, I wrote two simulator objects IstockSimulator and XdockSimulator. Since the two objects share certain behaviors (e.g. making shipments, demand arriving), I wrote an abstract simulator object AbstractSimulator which is a parent class of the two simulator objects. The abstract simulator object has a method runSimulation() which takes an input parameter of class SimulationParameters. Up till now, the simulation parameters only contains fields that are common to both simulator objects, such as randomSeed, simulationStartPeriod and simulationEndPeriod. However, I now want to include fields that are specific to the type of simulation that is being run, i.e. an IstockSimulationParameters class for an intermediate stocking simulation, and a XdockSimulationParameters class for a cross-docking simulation. My current idea is take the method runSimulation() out of the AbstractSimulator class, but to put a runSimulation(IstockSimulationParameters) method in the IstockSimulator class, and a runSimulation(XdockSimulationParameters) method in the IstockSimulator class. I am worried however, that this approach will lead to code duplication. What should I do?

    Read the article

  • Data architecture for event log metrics?

    - by elliot42
    My service has a large ongoing number of user events, and we would like to do things like "count occurrence of event type T since date D." We are trying to make two basic decisions: What to store? Storing every event vs. only storing aggregates (Event log style) log every event and count them later, vs. (Time-series style) store a single aggregated "count of event E for date D" for every day Where to store the data In a relational database (particularly MySQL) In a non-relational (NoSQL) database In flat log files (collected centrally over the network via syslog-ng) What is standard practice / where can I read more about comparing the different types of systems? Additional details: The total event stream is large, potentially hundreds of thousands of entries per day But our current need is only to count certain types of events within it We don't necessarily need real-time access to the raw data or aggregation results IMHO, "log all events to files, crawl them at a later time to filter and aggregate the stream" is a pretty standard UNIX Way, but my Rails-y compatriots seem to think that nothing is real unless it's in MySQL.

    Read the article

  • PyQt application architecture

    - by L. De Leo
    I'm trying to give a sound structure to a PyQt application that implements a card game. So far I have the following classes: Ui_Game: this describes the ui of course and is responsible of reacting to the events emitted by my CardWidget instances MainController: this is responsible for managing the whole application: setup and all the subsequent states of the application (like starting a new hand, displaying the notification of state changes on the ui or ending the game) GameEngine: this is a set of classes that implement the whole game logic Now, the way I concretely coded this in Python is the following: class CardWidget(QtGui.QLabel): def __init__(self, filename, *args, **kwargs): QtGui.QLabel.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs) self.setPixmap(QtGui.QPixmap(':/res/res/' + filename)) def mouseReleaseEvent(self, ev): self.emit(QtCore.SIGNAL('card_clicked'), self) class Ui_Game(QtGui.QWidget): def __init__(self, window, *args, **kwargs): QtGui.QWidget.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs) self.setupUi(window) self.controller = None def place_card(self, card): cards_on_table = self.played_cards.count() + 1 print cards_on_table if cards_on_table <= 2: self.played_cards.addWidget(card) if cards_on_table == 2: self.controller.play_hand() class MainController(object): def __init__(self): self.app = QtGui.QApplication(sys.argv) self.window = QtGui.QMainWindow() self.ui = Ui_Game(self.window) self.ui.controller = self self.game_setup() Is there a better way other than injecting the controller into the Ui_Game class in the Ui_Game.controller? Or am I totally off-road?

    Read the article

  • Class architecture, no friends allowed

    - by Captain Comic
    The question of why there are no friends in C# has been extensively discussed. I have the following design problems. I have a class that has only one public function AddOrder(Order ord). Clients are allowed to call only this function. All other logic must be hidden. Order class is listening to market events and must call other other function of TradingSystem ExecuteOrder, so I have to make it public as well. Doing that I will allow clients of Trading system to call this function and I don't want that. class TradingSystem { // Trading system stores list of orders List<Order> _orders; // this function is made public so that Order can call ir public ExecuteOrder(Order ord) { } // this function is made public for external clients public AddOrder(OrderRequest ordreq) { // create order and pass it this order.OnOrderAdded(this); } } class Order { TradingSystem _ts; public void OnOrderAdded(TradingSystem ts) { _ts = ts; } void OnMarketEvent() { _ts.ExecuteOrder() } }

    Read the article

  • Gathering application architecture

    - by userbb
    Suppose there is system for gathering info about system activities. There is a client part with an interface and there are agent parts that are installed on each machine. I estimate that there could be max 20 computers now. Later could be more like 50. My solutions: Agent stores data into local database e.g. sqlite. There is also a service which can be used by a client to query data. So if a client wants to display data for 50 computers, he sends a query to 50 computers. I'am on that solution now but maybe it's totally wrong. Agent stores data into local database (I don't known good one for that). There is also server (main database) and local databases are synchronized with the server. In this case, a client connects to the main database to display data. Agent sends data in realtime to main database. So same as point 2, but there is no sync. Like in point 3, but agent buffers data in local database and sends it in small chunks to main database. What is the best approach?

    Read the article

  • Architecture for dashboard showing aggregated stats [on hold]

    - by soulnafein
    I'd like to know what are common architectural pattern for the following problem. Web application A has information on sales, users, responsiveness score, etc. Some of this information are computationally intensive and or have a complex business logic (e.g. responsiveness score). I'm building a separate application (B) for internal admin tasks that modifies data in web application A and report on data from web application A. For writing I'm planning to use a restful api. E.g. create a new entity, update entity, etc. In application B I'd like to show some graphs and other aggregate data for the previous 12 months. I'm planning to store the aggregate data for each month in redis. Some data should update more often, e.g every 10 minutes. I can think of 3 ways of doing this. A scheduled task in app B that connects to an api of app A that provides some aggregated data. Then app B stores it in Redis and use that to visualise pages. Cons: it makes complex calculation within a web request, requires lot's of work e.g. api server and client, storing, etc., pros: business logic still lives in app A. A scheduled task in app A that aggregates data in an non-web process and stores it directly in Redis to be accessed by app B. A scheduled task in app A that aggregates data in a non-web process and uses an api in app B to save it. I'd like to know if there is a well known architectural solution to this type of problems and if not what are other pros/cons for the solution I've suggested?

    Read the article

  • Mobile (Client) to Amazon S3 (Server) - Architecture

    - by wasabii
    let's start off with the problem statement: My iOS application has a login form. When the user logs in, a call is made to my API and access granted or denied. If access was granted, I want the user to be able to upload pictures to his account and/or manage them. As storage I've picked Amazon S3, and I figured it'd be a good idea to have one bucket called "myappphotos" for instance, which contains lots of folders. The folder names are hashes of a user's email and a secret key. So, every user has his own, unique folder in my Amazon S3 bucket. Since I've just recently started working with AWS, here's my question: What are the best practices for setting up a system like this? I want the user to be able to upload pictures directly to Amazon S3, but of course I cannot hard-code the access key. So I need my API to somehow talk to Amazon and request an access token of sorts - only for the particular folder that belongs to the user I'm making the request for. Can anyone help me out and/or guide me to some sources where a similar problem was addressed? Don't think I'm the first one and the amazon documentation is so extensive that I don't really know where to start looking. Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • Recommended design pattern for object with optional and modifiable attributtes? [on hold]

    - 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

  • Examples of different architecture methodologies

    - by Lane
    Is there a resource or site which illustrates building the same application (desktop or web) using several different contrasting architectures? Such as MVP versus MVVM versus MVC, etc. It would be very helpful to see how they look side-by-side using real-world code instead of comparing written theory to written theory. I've often found that something can be described well in a book, but when you go to implement it, the subtleties and weaknesses of the theory become readily apparent.

    Read the article

  • Design/Architecture Advice Needed

    - by Rachel
    Summary: I have different components on homepage and each components shows some promotion to the user. I have Cart as one Component and depending upon content of the cart promotion are show. I have to track user online activities and send that information to Omniture for Report Generation. Now my components are loaded asynchronously basically are loaded when AjaxRequest is fired up and so there is not fix pattern or rather information on when components will appear on the webpages. Now in order to pass information to Omniture I need to call track function on $(document).(ready) and append information for each components(7 parameters are required by Omniture for each component). So in the init:config function of each component am calling Omniture and passing paramters but now no. of Omniture calls is directly proportional to no. of Components on the webpage but this is not acceptable as each call to Omniture is very expensive. Now I am looking for a way where in I can club the information about 7 parameters and than make one Call to Omniture wherein I pass those information. Points to note is that I do not know when the components are loaded and so there is no pre-defined time or no. of components that would be loaded. The thing is am calling track function when document is ready but components are loaded after call to Omniture has been made and so my question is Q: How can I collect the information for all the components and than just make one call to Omniture to send those information ? As mentioned, I do not know when the components are loaded as they are done on the Ajax Request. Hope I am able to explain my challenge and would appreciate if some one can provide from Design/Architect Solutions for the Challenge.

    Read the article

  • I like the way they Design/Architecture it but how do I implement this

    - by Rachel
    Summary: I have different components on homepage and each components shows some promotion to the user. I have Cart as one Component and depending upon content of the cart promotion are show. I have to track user online activities and send that information to Omniture for Report Generation. Now my components are loaded asynchronously basically are loaded when AjaxRequest is fired up and so there is not fix pattern or rather information on when components will appear on the webpages. Now in order to pass information to Omniture I need to call track function on $(document).(ready) and append information for each components(7 parameters are required by Omniture for each component). So in the init:config function of each component am calling Omniture and passing paramters but now no. of Omniture calls is directly proportional to no. of Components on the webpage but this is not acceptable as each call to Omniture is very expensive. Now I am looking for a way where in I can club the information about 7 parameters and than make one Call to Omniture wherein I pass those information. Points to note is that I do not know when the components are loaded and so there is no pre-defined time or no. of components that would be loaded. The thing is am calling track function when document is ready but components are loaded after call to Omniture has been made and so my question is Q: How can I collect the information for all the components and than just make one call to Omniture to send those information ? As mentioned, I do not know when the components are loaded as they are done on the Ajax Request. Hope I am able to explain my challenge and would appreciate if some one can provide from Design/Architect Solutions for the Challenge.

    Read the article

  • Why can't we capture the design of software more effectively?

    - by Ira Baxter
    As engineers, we all "design" artifacts (buildings, programs, circuits, molecules...). That's an activity (design-the-verb) that produces some kind of result (design-the-noun). I think we all agree that design-the-noun is a different entity than the artifact itself. A key activity in the software business (indeed, in any business where the resulting product artifact needs to be enhanced) is to understand the "design (the-noun)". Yet we seem, as a community, to be pretty much complete failures at recording it, as evidenced by the amount of effort people put into rediscovering facts about their code base. Ask somebody to show you the design of their code and see what you get. I think of a design for software as having: An explicit specification for what the software is supposed to do and how well it does it An explicit version of the code (this part is easy, everybody has it) An explanation for how each part of the code serves to achieve the specification A rationale as to why the code is the way it is (e.g., why a particualr choice rather than another) What is NOT a design is a particular perspective on the code. For example [not to pick specifically on] UML diagrams are not designs. Rather, they are properties you can derive from the code, or arguably, properties you wish you could derive from the code. But as a general rule, you can't derive the code from UML. Why is it that after 50+ years of building software, why don't we have regular ways to express this? My personal opinion is that we don't have good ways to express this. Even if we do, most of the community seems so focused on getting "code" that design-the-noun gets lost anyway. (IMHO, until design becomes the purpose of engineering, with the artifact extracted from the design, we're not going to get around this). What have you seen as means for recording designs (in the sense I have described it)? Explicit references to papers would be good. Why do you think specific and general means have not been succesful? How can we change this?

    Read the article

  • (Database Design - products attributes): What is better option for product attribute database design

    - by meyosef
    Hi, I new in database design. What is better option for product attribute database design for cms?(Please suggest other options also). option 1: 1 table products{ id product_name color price attribute_name1 attribute_value1 attribute_name2 attribute_value2 attribute_name3 attribute_value3 } option 2: 3 tables products{ id product_name color price } attribute{ id name value } products_attribute{ products_id attribute_id } Thanks, Yosef

    Read the article

  • Domain Validation in a CQRS architecture

    - by Jupaol
    Basically I want to know if there is a better way to validate my domain entities. This is how I am planning to do it but I would like your opinion The first approach I considered was: class Customer : EntityBase<Customer> { public void ChangeEmail(string email) { if(string.IsNullOrWhitespace(email)) throw new DomainException(“...”); if(!email.IsEmail()) throw new DomainException(); if(email.Contains(“@mailinator.com”)) throw new DomainException(); } } I actually do not like this validation because even when I am encapsulating the validation logic in the correct entity, this is violating the Open/Close principle (Open for extension but Close for modification) and I have found that violating this principle, code maintenance becomes a real pain when the application grows up in complexity. Why? Because domain rules change more often than we would like to admit, and if the rules are hidden and embedded in an entity like this, they are hard to test, hard to read, hard to maintain but the real reason why I do not like this approach is: if the validation rules change, I have to come and edit my domain entity. This has been a really simple example but in RL the validation could be more complex So following the philosophy of Udi Dahan, making roles explicit, and the recommendation from Eric Evans in the blue book, the next try was to implement the specification pattern, something like this class EmailDomainIsAllowedSpecification : IDomainSpecification<Customer> { private INotAllowedEmailDomainsResolver invalidEmailDomainsResolver; public bool IsSatisfiedBy(Customer customer) { return !this.invalidEmailDomainsResolver.GetInvalidEmailDomains().Contains(customer.Email); } } But then I realize that in order to follow this approach I had to mutate my entities first in order to pass the value being valdiated, in this case the email, but mutating them would cause my domain events being fired which I wouldn’t like to happen until the new email is valid So after considering these approaches, I came out with this one, since I am going to implement a CQRS architecture: class EmailDomainIsAllowedValidator : IDomainInvariantValidator<Customer, ChangeEmailCommand> { public void IsValid(Customer entity, ChangeEmailCommand command) { if(!command.Email.HasValidDomain()) throw new DomainException(“...”); } } Well that’s the main idea, the entity is passed to the validator in case we need some value from the entity to perform the validation, the command contains the data coming from the user and since the validators are considered injectable objects they could have external dependencies injected if the validation requires it. Now the dilemma, I am happy with a design like this because my validation is encapsulated in individual objects which brings many advantages: easy unit test, easy to maintain, domain invariants are explicitly expressed using the Ubiquitous Language, easy to extend, validation logic is centralized and validators can be used together to enforce complex domain rules. And even when I know I am placing the validation of my entities outside of them (You could argue a code smell - Anemic Domain) but I think the trade-off is acceptable But there is one thing that I have not figured out how to implement it in a clean way. How should I use this components... Since they will be injected, they won’t fit naturally inside my domain entities, so basically I see two options: Pass the validators to each method of my entity Validate my objects externally (from the command handler) I am not happy with the option 1 so I would explain how I would do it with the option 2 class ChangeEmailCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<ChangeEmailCommand> { public void Execute(ChangeEmailCommand command) { private IEnumerable<IDomainInvariantValidator> validators; // here I would get the validators required for this command injected, and in here I would validate them, something like this using (var t = this.unitOfWork.BeginTransaction()) { var customer = this.unitOfWork.Get<Customer>(command.CustomerId); this.validators.ForEach(x =. x.IsValid(customer, command)); // here I know the command is valid // the call to ChangeEmail will fire domain events as needed customer.ChangeEmail(command.Email); t.Commit(); } } } Well this is it. Can you give me your thoughts about this or share your experiences with Domain entities validation EDIT I think it is not clear from my question, but the real problem is: Hiding the domain rules has serious implications in the future maintainability of the application, and also domain rules change often during the life-cycle of the app. Hence implementing them with this in mind would let us extend them easily. Now imagine in the future a rules engine is implemented, if the rules are encapsulated outside of the domain entities, this change would be easier to implement

    Read the article

  • Can a loosely typed language be considered true object oriented?

    - by user61852
    Can a loosely typed programming language like PHP be really considered object oriented? I mean, the methods don't have returning types and method parameters has no declared type either. Doesn't class design require methods to have a return type? Don't methods signatures have specifically-typed parameters? How can OOP techniques help you code in PHP if you always have to check the types of parameters received because the language doesn't enforce types? Please, if I'm wrong, explain it to me. When you design things using UML, then code classes in PHP with no return-typed methods and no-type parameters... Is the code really compliant with the UML design? You spend time designing the architecture of your software, then the compiler doesn't force the programmer to follow your design while coding, letting he/she assign any object variable to any other variable with no "type-mismatch" warning.

    Read the article

  • What are the software design essentials? [closed]

    - by Craig Schwarze
    I've decided to create a 1 page "cheat sheet" of essential software design principles for my programmers. It doesn't explain the principles in any great depth, but is simply there as a reference and a reminder. Here's what I've come up with - I would welcome your comments. What have I left out? What have I explained poorly? What is there that shouldn't be? Basic Design Principles The Principle of Least Surprise – your solution should be obvious, predictable and consistent. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) - the simplest solution is usually the best one. You Ain’t Gonna Need It (YAGNI) - create a solution for the current problem rather than what might happen in the future. Don’t Repeat Yourself (DRY) - rigorously remove duplication from your design and code. Advanced Design Principles Program to an interface, not an implementation – Don’t declare variables to be of a particular concrete class. Rather, declare them to an interface, and instantiate them using a creational pattern. Favour composition over inheritance – Don’t overuse inheritance. In most cases, rich behaviour is best added by instantiating objects, rather than inheriting from classes. Strive for loosely coupled designs – Minimise the interdependencies between objects. They should be able to interact with minimal knowledge of each other via small, tightly defined interfaces. Principle of Least Knowledge – Also called the “Law of Demeter”, and is colloquially summarised as “Only talk to your friends”. Specifically, a method in an object should only invoke methods on the object itself, objects passed as a parameter to the method, any object the method creates, any components of the object. SOLID Design Principles Single Responsibility Principle – Each class should have one well defined purpose, and only one reason to change. This reduces the fragility of your code, and makes it much more maintainable. Open/Close Principle – A class should be open to extension, but closed to modification. In practice, this means extracting the code that is most likely to change to another class, and then injecting it as required via an appropriate pattern. Liskov Substitution Principle – Subtypes must be substitutable for their base types. Essentially, get your inheritance right. In the classic example, type square should not inherit from type rectangle, as they have different properties (you can independently set the sides of a rectangle). Instead, both should inherit from type shape. Interface Segregation Principle – Clients should not be forced to depend upon methods they do not use. Don’t have fat interfaces, rather split them up into smaller, behaviour centric interfaces. Dependency Inversion Principle – There are two parts to this principle: High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions. Abstractions should not depend on details. Details should depend on abstractions. In modern development, this is often handled by an IoC (Inversion of Control) container.

    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

  • Design patterns for Agent / Actor based concurrent design.

    - by nso1
    Recently i have been getting into alternative languages that support an actor/agent/shared nothing architecture - ie. scala, clojure etc (clojure also supports shared state). So far most of the documentation that I have read focus around the intro level. What I am looking for is more advanced documentation along the gang of four but instead shared nothing based. Why ? It helps to grok the change in design thinking. Simple examples are easy, but in a real world java application (single threaded) you can have object graphs with 1000's of members with complex relationships. But with agent based concurrency development it introduces a whole new set of ideas to comprehend when designing large systems. ie. Agent granularity - how much state should one agent manage - implications on performance etc or are their good patterns for mapping shared state object graphs to agent based system. tips on mapping domain models to design. Discussions not on the technology but more on how to BEST use the technology in design (real world "complex" examples would be great).

    Read the article

  • N-Tiered application design tool

    - by Ben V
    I'm beginning the design of a medium-sized web application. I usually like to design from the top down, i.e., start at the highest level and design my way down. I am planning to have the following layers: Presentation (PHP/Ajax) Business Logic Data Access Database Now I'd like to start sketching out the major objects in each layer and the interaction between layers. Is there a tool more specific to this purpose than just using a graphics/diagramming tool like Visio?

    Read the article

  • Good design of mapping Java Domain objects to Tables (using Hibernate)

    - by M. McKenzie
    Hey guys, I have a question that is more in the realm of design, than implementation. I'm also happy for anyone to point out resources for the answer and I'll gladly, research for myself. Highly simplified Java and SQL: Say I have a business domain POJO called 'Picture' with three attributes. class Picture int idPicture String fileName long size Say I have another business domain POJO called "Item" with 3 attributes Class Item int idItem String itemName ArrayList itemPictures These would be a normal simple relationship. You could say that 'Picture' object, will never exist outside an 'Item' object. Assume a picture belongs only to a specific item, but that an item can have multiple pictures Now - using good database design (3rd Normal Form), we know that we should put items and pictures in their own tables. Here is what I assume would be correct. table Item int idItem (primary key) String itemName table Picture int idPicture (primary key) varchar(45) fileName long size int idItem (foreign key) Here is my question: If you are making Hibernate mapping files for these objects. In the data design, your Picture table needs a column to refer to the Item, so that a foreign key relation can be maintained. However,in your business domain objects - your Picture does not hold a reference/attribute to the idItem - and does not need to know it. A java Picture instance is always instantiated inside an Item instance. If you want to know the Item that the Picture belongs to you are already in the correct scope. Call myItem.getIdItem() and myItem.getItemPictures(),and you have the two pieces of information you need. I know that Hibernate tools have a generator that can auto make your POJO's from looking at your database. My problem stems from the fact that I planned out the data design for this experiment/project first. Then when I went to make the domain java objects, I realized that good design dictated that the objects hold other objects in a nested way. This is obviously different from the way that a database schema is - where all objects(tables) are flat and hold no other complex types within them. What is a good way to reconcile this? Would you: (A) Make the hibernate mapping files so that Picture.hbm.xml has a mapping to the POJO parent's idItem Field (if it's even possible) (B) Add an int attribute in the Picture class to refer to the idItem and set it at instantiation, thus simplifying the hbm.xml mapping file by having all table fields as local attributes in the class (C) Fix the database design because it is wrong, dork. I'd truly appreciate any feedback

    Read the article

  • Good workflow for website design

    - by Olav
    I would like some idea about a good workflow for Website Design, with a high degree of "offshoring" (Elance, Odesk etc.). I would to do as much as possible "pre production", with client input, ideas etc. stored in IA diagrams, wireframe mockups etc. in something like a Wiki. Also a like the idea about having different people come up with different design proposals. Wouldlike to have some ideas of costs of different phases and tasks ($, %, hours). With Design I mean roughly the aspects of a site that can be done with client-side tools, especially XHTML and CSS. What other tools should I use than IA diagrams.

    Read the article

  • General Overview of Design Pattern Types

    Typically most software engineering design patterns fall into one of three categories in regards to types. Three types of software design patterns include: Creational Type Patterns Structural Type Patterns Behavioral Type Patterns The Creational Pattern type is geared toward defining the preferred methods for creating new instances of objects. An example of this type is the Singleton Pattern. The Singleton Pattern can be used if an application only needs one instance of a class. In addition, this singular instance also needs to be accessible across an application. The benefit of the Singleton Pattern is that you control both instantiation and access using this pattern. The Structural Pattern type is a way to describe the hierarchy of objects and classes so that they can be consolidated into a larger structure. An example of this type is the Façade Pattern.  The Façade Pattern is used to define a base interface so that all other interfaces inherit from the parent interface. This can be used to simplify a number of similar object interactions into one single standard interface. The Behavioral Pattern Type deals with communication between objects. An example of this type is the State Design Pattern. The State Design Pattern enables objects to alter functionality and processing based on the internal state of the object at a given time.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >