Search Results

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

Page 130/1616 | < Previous Page | 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137  | Next Page >

  • If immutable objects are good, why do people keep creating mutable objects?

    - by Vinoth Kumar
    If immutable objects are good,simple and offers benefits in concurrent programming why do programmers keep creating mutable objects? I have four years of experience in Java programming and as I see it, the first thing people do after creating a class is generate getters and setters in the IDE (thus making it mutable). Is there a lack of awareness or can we get away with using mutable objects in most scenarios?

    Read the article

  • Which of these algorithms is best for my goal?

    - by JonathonG
    I have created a program that restricts the mouse to a certain region based on a black/white bitmap. The program is 100% functional as-is, but uses an inaccurate, albeit fast, algorithm for repositioning the mouse when it strays outside the area. Currently, when the mouse moves outside the area, basically what happens is this: A line is drawn between a pre-defined static point inside the region and the mouse's new position. The point where that line intersects the edge of the allowed area is found. The mouse is moved to that point. This works, but only works perfectly for a perfect circle with the pre-defined point set in the exact center. Unfortunately, this will never be the case. The application will be used with a variety of rectangles and irregular, amorphous shapes. On such shapes, the point where the line drawn intersects the edge will usually not be the closest point on the shape to the mouse. I need to create a new algorithm that finds the closest point to the mouse's new position on the edge of the allowed area. I have several ideas about this, but I am not sure of their validity, in that they may have far too much overhead. While I am not asking for code, it might help to know that I am using Objective C / Cocoa, developing for OS X, as I feel the language being used might affect the efficiency of potential methods. My ideas are: Using a bit of trigonometry to project lines would work, but that would require some kind of intense algorithm to test every point on every line until it found the edge of the region... That seems too resource intensive since there could be something like 200 lines that would have each have to have as many as 200 pixels checked for black/white.... Using something like an A* pathing algorithm to find the shortest path to a black pixel; however, A* seems resource intensive, even though I could probably restrict it to only checking roughly in one direction. It also seems like it will take more time and effort than I have available to spend on this small portion of the much larger project I am working on, correct me if I am wrong and it would not be a significant amount of code (100 lines or around there). Mapping the border of the region before the application begins running the event tap loop. I think I could accomplish this by using my current line-based algorithm to find an edge point and then initiating an algorithm that checks all 8 pixels around that pixel, finds the next border pixel in one direction, and continues to do this until it comes back to the starting pixel. I could then store that data in an array to be used for the entire duration of the program, and have the mouse re-positioning method check the array for the closest pixel on the border to the mouse target position. That last method would presumably execute it's initial border mapping fairly quickly. (It would only have to map between 2,000 and 8,000 pixels, which means 8,000 to 64,000 checked, and I could even permanently store the data to make launching faster.) However, I am uncertain as to how much overhead it would take to scan through that array for the shortest distance for every single mouse move event... I suppose there could be a shortcut to restrict the number of elements in the array that will be checked to a variable number starting with the intersecting point on the line (from my original algorithm), and raise/lower that number to experiment with the overhead/accuracy tradeoff. Please let me know if I am over thinking this and there is an easier way that will work just fine, or which of these methods would be able to execute something like 30 times per second to keep mouse movement smooth, or if you have a better/faster method. I've posted relevant parts of my code below for reference, and included an example of what the area might look like. (I check for color value against a loaded bitmap that is black/white.) // // This part of my code runs every single time the mouse moves. // CGPoint point = CGEventGetLocation(event); float tX = point.x; float tY = point.y; if( is_in_area(tX,tY, mouse_mask)){ // target is inside O.K. area, do nothing }else{ CGPoint target; //point inside restricted region: float iX = 600; // inside x float iY = 500; // inside y // delta to midpoint between iX,iY and tX,tY float dX; float dY; float accuracy = .5; //accuracy to loop until reached do { dX = (tX-iX)/2; dY = (tY-iY)/2; if(is_in_area((tX-dX),(tY-dY),mouse_mask)){ iX += dX; iY += dY; } else { tX -= dX; tY -= dY; } } while (abs(dX)>accuracy || abs(dY)>accuracy); target = CGPointMake(roundf(tX), roundf(tY)); CGDisplayMoveCursorToPoint(CGMainDisplayID(),target); } Here is "is_in_area(int x, int y)" : bool is_in_area(NSInteger x, NSInteger y, NSBitmapImageRep *mouse_mask){ NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; NSUInteger pixel[4]; [mouse_mask getPixel:pixel atX:x y:y]; if(pixel[0]!= 0){ [pool release]; return false; } [pool release]; return true; }

    Read the article

  • How to make players be creative in a game, if the game cannot evaluate it?

    - by Mensonge
    I am working on a prototype game with several funny/visual effects that the player can trigger. The player can be quite creative in the way to use or combine these effects but it seems impossible to make detect/evaluate this creativity by the computer. So, from a game design perspective, I wonder what could be the features to drive the players to be creative (experiment various combinations). For the moment i think about "Draw something" where the result is evaluated by other players. I think about levels designed by "Little Big Planet" players but this aspect is out of the core game. I think also about "Minecraft" but I do not understand really how this game encourages the people to be creative (except of the open world). Please tell me if you have any ideas, articles or references that could help me coping with this problem.

    Read the article

  • Does semi-normalization exist as a concept? Is it "normalized"?

    - by Gracchus
    If you don't mind, a tldr on my experience: My experience tldr I have an application that's heavily dependent upon uncertainty, a bane to database design. I tried to normalize it as best as I could according to the capabilities of my database of choice, but a "simple" query took 50ms to read. Nosql appeals to me, but I can't trust myself with it, and besides, normalization has cut down my debugging time immensely over and over. Instead of 100% normalization, I made semi-redundant 1:1 tables with very wide primary keys and equivalent foreign keys. Read times dropped to a few ms, and write times barely degraded. The semi-normalized point Given this reality, that anyone who's tried to rely upon views of fully normalized data is aware of, is this concept codified? Is it as simple as having wide unique and foreign keys, or are there any hidden secrets to this technique? Or is uncertainty merely a special case that has extremely limited application and can be left on the ash heap?

    Read the article

  • Register Game Object Components in Game Subsystems? (Component-based Game Object design)

    - by topright
    I'm creating a component-based game object system. Some tips: GameObject is simply a list of Components. There are GameSubsystems. For example, rendering, physics etc. Each GameSubsystem contains pointers to some of Components. GameSubsystem is a very powerful and flexible abstraction: it represents any slice (or aspect) of the game world. There is a need in a mechanism of registering Components in GameSubsystems (when GameObject is created and composed). There are 4 approaches: 1: Chain of responsibility pattern. Every Component is offered to every GameSubsystem. GameSubsystem makes a decision which Components to register (and how to organize them). For example, GameSubsystemRender can register Renderable Components. pro. Components know nothing about how they are used. Low coupling. A. We can add new GameSubsystem. For example, let's add GameSubsystemTitles that registers all ComponentTitle and guarantees that every title is unique and provides interface to quering objects by title. Of course, ComponentTitle should not be rewrited or inherited in this case. B. We can reorganize existing GameSubsystems. For example, GameSubsystemAudio, GameSubsystemRender, GameSubsystemParticleEmmiter can be merged into GameSubsystemSpatial (to place all audio, emmiter, render Components in the same hierarchy and use parent-relative transforms). con. Every-to-every check. Very innefficient. con. Subsystems know about Components. 2: Each Subsystem searches for Components of specific types. pro. Better performance than in Approach 1. con. Subsystems still know about Components. 3: Component registers itself in GameSubsystem(s). We know at compile-time that there is a GameSubsystemRenderer, so let's ComponentImageRender will call something like GameSubsystemRenderer::register(ComponentRenderBase*). pro. Performance. No unnecessary checks as in Approach 1. con. Components are badly coupled with GameSubsystems. 4: Mediator pattern. GameState (that contains GameSubsystems) can implement registerComponent(Component*). pro. Components and GameSubystems know nothing about each other. con. In C++ it would look like ugly and slow typeid-switch. Questions: Which approach is better and mostly used in component-based design? What Practice says? Any suggestions about implementation of Approach 4? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Making own clothes website [on hold]

    - by Manjushree
    I am BSc student in Mathematics but i would like to create own clothes website. Can anyone help me how can i design the clothes website. I never have any background knowledge about making the webpage online. The clothes website does not have to look professional but simple enough where i can put my clothes to show the items to people or customers. Once I created the clothes website then i can open the business account and starting selling the goods online with that account. Do i need to buy any domains to create the website? Please help me?

    Read the article

  • How to explain OOP to a matlab programmer?

    - by Oak
    I have a lot of friends who come from electrical / physical / mechanical engineering background, and are curious about what is "OOP" all about. They all know Matlab quite well, so they do have basic programming background; but they have a very hard time grasping a complex type system which can benefit from the concepts OOP introduces. Can anyone propose a way I can try to explain it to them? I'm just not familiar with Matlab myself, so I'm having troubles finding parallels. I think using simple examples like shapes or animals is a bit too abstract for those engineers. So far I've tried using a Matrix interface vs array-based / sparse / whatever implementations, but that didn't work so well, probably because different matrix types are already well-supported in Matlab.

    Read the article

  • Basis of definitions

    - by Yttrill
    Let us suppose we have a set of functions which characterise something: in the OO world methods characterising a type. In mathematics these are propositions and we have two kinds: axioms and lemmas. Axioms are assumptions, lemmas are easily derived from them. In C++ axioms are pure virtual functions. Here's the problem: there's more than one way to axiomatise a system. Given a set of propositions or methods, a subset of the propositions which is necessary and sufficient to derive all the others is called a basis. So too, for methods or functions, we have a desired set which must be defined, and typically every one has one or more definitions in terms of the others, and we require the programmer to provide instance definitions which are sufficient to allow all the others to be defined, and, if there is an overspecification, then it is consistent. Let me give an example (in Felix, Haskell code would be similar): class Eq[t] { virtual fun ==(x:t,y:t):bool => eq(x,y); virtual fun eq(x:t, y:t)=> x == y; virtual fun != (x:t,y:t):bool => not (x == y); axiom reflex(x:t): x == x; axiom sym(x:t, y:t): (x == y) == (y == x); axiom trans(x:t, y:t, z:t): implies(x == y and y == z, x == z); } Here it is clear: the programmer must define either == or eq or both. If both are defined, the definitions must be equivalent. Failing to define one doesn't cause a compiler error, it causes an infinite loop at run time. Defining both inequivalently doesn't cause an error either, it is just inconsistent. Note the axioms specified constrain the semantics of any definition. Given a definition of == either directly or via a definition of eq, then != is defined automatically, although the programmer might replace the default with something more efficient, clearly such an overspecification has to be consistent. Please note, == could also be defined in terms of !=, but we didn't do that. A characterisation of a partial or total order is more complex. It is much more demanding since there is a combinatorial explosion of possible bases. There is an reason to desire overspecification: performance. There also another reason: choice and convenience. So here, there are several questions: one is how to check semantics are obeyed and I am not looking for an answer here (way too hard!). The other question is: How can we specify, and check, that an instance provides at least a basis? And a much harder question: how can we provide several default definitions which depend on the basis chosen?

    Read the article

  • Functional programming readability

    - by Jimmy Hoffa
    I'm curious about this because I recall before learning any functional languages, I thought them all horribly, awfully, terribly unreadable. Now that I know Haskell and f#, I find it takes a little longer to read less code, but that little code does far more than an equivalent amount would in an imperative language, so it feels like a net gain and I'm not extremely practiced in functional. Here's my question, I constantly hear from OOP folks that functional style is terribly unreadable. I'm curious if this is the case and I'm deluding myself, or if they took the time to learn a functional language, the whole style would no longer be more unreadable than OOP? Has anybody seen any evidence or got any anecdotes where they saw this go one way or another with frequency enough to possibly say? If writing functionally really is of lower readability than I don't want to keep using it, but I really don't know if that's the case or not..

    Read the article

  • Do first impressions really count?

    - by Matt
    So, i am currently writing something up for a college class. Problem is everything is hypothetical. I need some proof. I believe a first impression on a website is imperative so that people actually use it and in my case, buy your product or services as well. Basically I'm wondering has there been any studies that shows how a better web design will increase revenue for any kind of services? I don't just mean selling products like a T-shirt, but labor services as well. If someone wanted their computer fixed and searched for companies that can do so, will a first impression on the website help them make their decision to use your company? Are there any studies like this? White papers maybe? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • When should I use AtomPub?

    - by Gary Rowe
    I have been conducting some research into RESTful web service design and I've reached what I think is a key decision point so I thought I'd offer it up to the community to get some advice. In keeping with the principles of a RESTful architecture I want to present a discoverable API, so I will be supporting the various HTTP verbs as fully as possible. My difficulty comes with the choice of representation of those resources. You see, it would be easy for me to come up with my own API that covers how search results are to be presented and how links to other resources are provided, but this would be unique to my application. I've read about the Atom Publishing Protocol (RFC 5023), and how OData promotes its use, but it seems to add an extra level of abstraction over what is (currently) a rather simple API. So my question is, when should a developer select AtomPub as their choice of representation - if at all? And if not, what is the current recommended approach?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to procedurally generate the history of a world?

    - by pdusen
    I am somewhat intrigued by the diagram found here representing 1800 years of cultural history in an imaginary world some guy created. This sort of thing would seem to have strong applications for game development, insofar as world design. It looks like he did this diagram by hand. What I'm interested in is seeing if there is a way to create this sort of diagram programatically. If you were tasked with generating diagrams in the style of the above from random values, how would you go about it? Are there any particular data structures or algorithms that you would consider?

    Read the article

  • Should data structures be integrated into the language (as in Python) or be provided in the standard library (as in Java)?

    - by Anto
    In Python, and most likely many other programming languages, common data structures can be found as an integrated part of the core language with their own dedicated syntax. If we put LISP's integrated list syntax aside, I can't think of any other languages that I know which provides some kind of data structure above the array as an integrated part of their syntax, though all of them (but C, I guess) seem to provide them in the standard library. From a language design perspective, what are your opinions on having a specific syntax for data structures in the core language? Is it a good idea, and does the purpose of the language (etc.) change how good this could be of a choice? Edit: I'm sorry for (apparently) causing some confusion about which data structures I mean. I talk about the basic and commonly used ones, but still not the most basic ones. This excludes trees (too complex, uncommon), stacks (too seldom used), arrays (too simple) but includes e.g. sets, lists and hashmaps.

    Read the article

  • Mac mini 2012 graphic upgrade for UE4 Unity3D Blender

    - by DaCrAn
    I have a mac mini (late 2012) i7, 16gb ram Vengeance graphic card intel HD4000. I buy recently a thunderbolt expansion PCIE whit support a graphic card PCIE 2.0 16x whit space for Full leght card. I have dubts about what graphic card gona give me the best results for using the Unreal Engine 4 UE4 or Unity3D, and Blender. My badget cover a Nvidia Quadro K4000 3gb or ATI Firepro W7000 4gb. Any recomendation? What professional graphic card can be better for design games in 3D? Thanks. DaCrAn

    Read the article

  • Is Java's ElementCollection Considered a Bad Practice?

    - by SoulBeaver
    From my understanding, an ElementCollection has no primary key, is embedded with the class, and cannot be queried. This sounds pretty hefty, but it allows me the comfort of writing an enum class which also helps with internationalization (using the enum key for lookup in my ResourceBundle). Example: We have a user on a media site and he can choose in which format he downloads the files @Entity @Table(name = "user") public class User { /* snip other fields */ @Enumerated @ElementCollection( targetClass = DownloadFilePreference.class, fetch = FetchType.EAGER ) @CollectionTable(name = "download_file_preference", joinColumns = @JoinColumn(name = "user_id") ) @Column(name = "name") private Set<DownloadFilePreference> downloadFilePreferences = new HashSet<>(); } public enum DownloadFilePreference { MP3, WAV, AIF, OGG; } This seems pretty great to me, and I suppose it comes down to "it depends on your use case", but I also know that I'm quite frankly only an initiate when it comes to Database design. Some best practices suggest to never have a class without a primary key- even in this case? It also doesn't seem very extensible- should I use this and gamble on the chance I will never need to query on the FilePreferences?

    Read the article

  • Application qos involving priority and bandwidth

    - by Steve Peng
    Our manager wants us to do applicaiton qos which is quite different from the well-known system qos. We have many services of three types, they have priorites, the manager wants to suspend low priority services requests when there are not enough bandwidth for high priority services. But if the high priority services requests decrease, the bandwidth for low priority services should increase and low priority service requests are allowed again. There should be an algorithm involving priority and bandwidth. I don't know how to design the algorithm, is there any example on the internet? Somebody can give suggestion? Thanks. UPDATE All these services are within a same process. We are setting the maximum bandwidth for the three types of services via ports of services via TC (TC is the linux qos tool whose name means traffic control).

    Read the article

  • Designing complex query builders in java/jpa/hibernate

    - by Ramraj Edagutti
    I need to build complex sql queries programatically, based on large filter conditions. For example, below are few sample/hypothitical filter conditions, based on which i need to fetch users Country: india States: Andhra Pradesh(AP), Gujarat(GUJ), karnataka(KTK) Districts: All districts in AP except 3 district, 5 any districts from GUJ, all district from KTK except 1 district Cities: All cities in AP, all cities except few, include only 50 specific cities from KTK Villages: similar conditions like above with varies combinations... Currently, we have a query builder, which is very complex in nature, and not easy to modify/re-factory for improvements. So, thinking of complete re-design of it. Any suggesations on how to build this kind of complex query builders programmatically using some best practices/deisgn patterns?

    Read the article

  • Throwing exception from a property when my object state is invalid

    - by Rumi P.
    Microsoft guidelines say: "Avoid throwing exceptions from property getters", and I normally follow that. But my application uses Linq2SQL, and there is the case where my object can be in invalid state because somebody or something wrote nonsense into the database. Consider this toy example: [Table(Name="Rectangle")] public class Rectangle { [Column(Name="ID", IsPrimaryKey = true, IsDbGenerated = true)] public int ID {get; set;} [Column(Name="firstSide")] public double firstSide {get; set;} [Column(Name="secondSide")] public double secondSide {get; set;} public double sideRatio { get { return firstSide/secondSide; } } } Here, I could write code which ensures that my application never writes a Rectangle with a zero-length side into the database. But no matter how bulletproof I make my own code, somebody could open the database with a different application and create an invalid Rectangle, especially one with a 0 for secondSide. (For this example, please forget that it is possible to design the database in a way such that writing a side length of zero into the rectangle table is impossible; my domain model is very complex and there are constraints on model state which cannot be expressed in a relational database). So, the solution I am gravitating to is to change the getter to: get { if(firstSide > 0 && secondSide > 0) return firstSide/secondSide; else throw new System.InvalidOperationException("All rectangle sides should have a positive length"); } The reasoning behind not throwing exceptions from properties is that programmers should be able to use them without having to make precautions about catching and handling them them. But in this case, I think that it is OK to continue to use this property without such precautions: if the exception is thrown because my application wrote a non-zero rectangle side into the database, then this is a serious bug. It cannot and shouldn't be handled in the application, but there should be code which prevents it. It is good that the exception is visibly thrown, because that way the bug is caught. if the exception is thrown because a different application changed the data in the database, then handling it is outside of the scope of my application. So I can't do anything about it if I catch it. Is this a good enough reasoning to get over the "avoid" part of the guideline and throw the exception? Or should I turn it into a method after all? Note that in the real code, the properties which can have an invalid state feel less like the result of a calculation, so they are "natural" properties, not methods.

    Read the article

  • 'module' object has no attribute 'PY2'

    - by ManikandanV
    I am using ubuntu 14.04, was trying to install python-memcache. I have got an error like Downloading/unpacking python-memcached Downloading python-memcached-1.53.tar.gz Cleaning up... Exception: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pip/basecommand.py", line 122, in main status = self.run(options, args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pip/commands/install.py", line 278, in run requirement_set.prepare_files(finder, force_root_egg_info=self.bundle, bundle=self.bundle) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pip/req.py", line 1229, in prepare_files req_to_install.run_egg_info() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pip/req.py", line 292, in run_egg_info logger.notify('Running setup.py (path:%s) egg_info for package %s' % (self.setup_py, self.name)) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pip/req.py", line 284, in setup_py if six.PY2 and isinstance(setup_py, six.text_type): AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'PY2' Storing debug log for failure in /home/mani/.pip/pip.log I am getting the same error when installing Django-celery, pymongo etc

    Read the article

  • Examples of Liskov Substitution

    - by james lewis
    I'm facilitating a session next week on the Liskov Substitution Principle and I was wondering if anyone had any examples of violations 'from the trenches'? I'm looking for something other than uncle Bob's rectangle - square problem and the persistent set problem he talks about in A-PPP (although that is a great example). So far I'm using the example of a (very simple) List and an IndexedList as the 'correct' use of inheritance. And the addition of a Set to this hierarchy as a violation (as a Set is distinct; strengthening the pre condition of the Add method). I've also taken this great example and it's solution from this question Both those examples are great but I'm looking for something more subtle and harder to spot. So far I've come up with nothing so if you've got a great, subtle example post it up. Also, any metaphors you've come across that helped you understand LSP would be really useful too.

    Read the article

  • Liskov principle: violation by type-hinting

    - by Elias Van Ootegem
    According to the Liskov principle, a construction like the one below is invalid, as it strengthens a pre-condition. I know the example is pointless/nonsense, but when I last asked a question like this, and used a more elaborate code sample, it seemed to distract people too much from the actual question. //Data models abstract class Argument { protected $value = null; public function getValue() { return $this->value; } abstract public function setValue($val); } class Numeric extends Argument { public function setValue($val) { $this->value = $val + 0;//coerce to number return $this; } } //used here: abstract class Output { public function printValue(Argument $arg) { echo $this->format($arg); return $this; } abstract public function format(Argument $arg); } class OutputNumeric extends Output { public function format(Numeric $arg)//<-- VIOLATION! { $format = is_float($arg->getValue()) ? '%.3f' : '%d'; return sprintf($format, $arg->getValue()); } } My question is this: Why would this kind of "violation" be considered harmful? So much so that some languages, like the one I used in this example (PHP), don't even allow this? I'm not allowed to strengthen the type-hint of an abstract method but, by overriding the printValue method, I am allowed to write: class OutputNumeric extends Output { final public function printValue(Numeric $arg) { echo $this->format($arg); } public function format(Argument $arg) { $format = is_float($arg->getValue()) ? '%.3f' : '%d'; return sprintf($format, $arg->getValue()); } } But this would imply repeating myself for each and every child of Output, and makes my objects harder to reuse. I understand why the Liskov principle exists, don't get me wrong, but I find it somewhat difficult to fathom why the signature of an abstract method in an abstract class has to be adhered to so much stricter than a non-abstract method. Could someone explain to me why I'm not allowed to hind at a child class, in a child class? The way I see it, the child class OutputNumeric is a specific use-case of Output, and thus might need a specific instance of Argument, namely Numeric. Is it really so wrong of me to write code like this?

    Read the article

  • SharePoint Client Object Model: Step One

    - by PeterBrunone
    I almost didn't make it out alive.  I followed the instructions in every piece of sample code and every forum post by someone who had no idea why their client OM code wasn't working, and my code still wouldn't get past the page load.  I kept getting "'Type' is undefined" errors when sp.core.js tried to register the SP namespace.As it turns out, you need the help of the default master page (or one like it) to get the object model loaded.  Once I told my sample page to use the default master and modified everything accordingly, it hooked up and ran just fine.Now I can finally get some work done.

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: Only for single-instance objects?

    - by HappyDeveloper
    What if I want to also decouple my application, from classes like Product or User? (which usually have more than one instance) Take a look at this example: class Controller { public function someAction() { $product_1 = new Product(); $product_2 = new Product(); // do something with the products } } Is it right to say that Controller now depends on Product? I was thinking that we could decouple them too (as we would with single-instance objects like Database) In this example, however ugly, they are decoupled: class Controller { public function someAction(ProductInterface $new_product) { $product_1 = clone $new_product; $product_2 = clone $new_product; // do something with the products } } Has anyone done something like this before? Is it excessive?

    Read the article

  • MVVM - how to make creating viewmodels at runtime less painfull

    - by Mr Happy
    I apologize for the long question, it reads a bit as a rant, but I promise it's not! I've summarized my question(s) below In the MVC world, things are straightforward. The Model has state, the View shows the Model, and the Controller does stuff to/with the Model (basically), a controller has no state. To do stuff the Controller has some dependencies on web services, repository, the lot. When you instantiate a controller you care about supplying those dependencies, nothing else. When you execute an action (method on Controller), you use those dependencies to retrieve or update the Model or calling some other domain service. If there's any context, say like some user wants to see the details of a particular item, you pass the Id of that item as parameter to the Action. Nowhere in the Controller is there any reference to any state. So far so good. Enter MVVM. I love WPF, I love data binding. I love frameworks that make data binding to ViewModels even easier (using Caliburn Micro a.t.m.). I feel things are less straightforward in this world though. Let's do the exercise again: the Model has state, the View shows the ViewModel, and the ViewModel does stuff to/with the Model (basically), a ViewModel does have state! (to clarify; maybe it delegates all the properties to one or more Models, but that means it must have a reference to the model one way or another, which is state in itself) To do stuff the ViewModel has some dependencies on web services, repository, the lot. When you instantiate a ViewModel you care about supplying those dependencies, but also the state. And this, ladies and gentlemen, annoys me to no end. Whenever you need to instantiate a ProductDetailsViewModel from the ProductSearchViewModel (from which you called the ProductSearchWebService which in turn returned IEnumerable<ProductDTO>, everybody still with me?), you can do one of these things: call new ProductDetailsViewModel(productDTO, _shoppingCartWebService /* dependcy */);, this is bad, imagine 3 more dependencies, this means the ProductSearchViewModel needs to take on those dependencies as well. Also changing the constructor is painfull. call _myInjectedProductDetailsViewModelFactory.Create().Initialize(productDTO);, the factory is just a Func, they are easily generated by most IoC frameworks. I think this is bad because Init methods are a leaky abstraction. You also can't use the readonly keyword for fields that are set in the Init method. I'm sure there are a few more reasons. call _myInjectedProductDetailsViewModelAbstractFactory.Create(productDTO); So... this is the pattern (abstract factory) that is usually recommended for this type of problem. I though it was genious since it satisfies my craving for static typing, until I actually started using it. The amount of boilerplate code is I think too much (you know, apart from the ridiculous variable names I get use). For each ViewModel that needs runtime parameters you'll get two extra files (factory interface and implementation), and you need to type the non-runtime dependencies like 4 extra times. And each time the dependencies change, you get to change it in the factory as well. It feels like I don't even use an DI container anymore. (I think Castle Windsor has some kind of solution for this [with it's own drawbacks, correct me if I'm wrong]). do something with anonymous types or dictionary. I like my static typing. So, yeah. Mixing state and behavior in this way creates a problem which don't exist at all in MVC. And I feel like there currently isn't a really adequate solution for this problem. Now I'd like to observe some things: People actually use MVVM. So they either don't care about all of the above, or they have some brilliant other solution. I haven't found an indepth example of MVVM with WPF. For example, the NDDD-sample project immensely helped me understand some DDD concepts. I'd really like it if someone could point me in the direction of something similar for MVVM/WPF. Maybe I'm doing MVVM all wrong and I should turn my design upside down. Maybe I shouldn't have this problem at all. Well I know other people have asked the same question so I think I'm not the only one. To summarize Am I correct to conclude that having the ViewModel being an integration point for both state and behavior is the reason for some difficulties with the MVVM pattern as a whole? Is using the abstract factory pattern the only/best way to instantiate a ViewModel in a statically typed way? Is there something like an in depth reference implementation available? Is having a lot of ViewModels with both state/behavior a design smell?

    Read the article

  • Make methods that do not depend on instance fields, static?

    - by m3th0dman
    Recently I started programming in Groovy for a integration testing framework, for a Java project. I use Intellij IDEA with Groovy plug-in and I am surprised to see as a warning for all the methods that are non-static and do not depend on any instance fields. In Java, however, this is not an issue (at least from IDE's point of view). Should all methods that do not depend onto any instance fields be transformed into static functions? If true, is this specific to Groovy or it is available for OOP in general? And why?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137  | Next Page >