Search Results

Search found 14531 results on 582 pages for 'doman driven design'.

Page 135/582 | < Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >

  • "Best fit" to avoid reuse of object instances in a collection

    - by Simon
    Imagine I have a collection of object instances which represent activities for a user to undertake. Dependent on user attributes, I have to randomly select instances to present activities to the user. For some users, I need to present more activities to them than there are available activities in which case, I want to use the following algorithm. If all available activities have already been presented to the user, then re-select a "used" activity, selecting the earliest presented activity ordered by frequency of use. In other words, try to reduce repetition and where repetition is unavoidable, use the instances which have been repeated less often and were presented furthest back in time. Before I go on to code that algorithm, I wondered if there is some existing pattern I can re-use? [EDIT] "Furthest back in time" is not relevant as I will pass the algorithm an ordered collection of used instances where the first entry is the first presented.

    Read the article

  • Implementing traffic conditions in TORCS

    - by user1837811
    I am working on a project about "Effects of Traffic conditions and Track Complexity on Car Driving Behavior". Is it possible to implement traffic in TORCS, or should I use another car simulator? By the word "traffic" I mean there are cars running on both tracks in both directions and I can detect the distances, direction and speed of these cars. Depending on this information I can decide whether I should slow down, speed up and calculate the correct timing to overtake.

    Read the article

  • Patterns for a tree of persistent data with multiple storage options?

    - by Robin Winslow
    I have a real-world problem which I'll try to abstract into an illustrative example. So imagine I have data objects in a tree, where parent objects can access children, and children can access parents: // Interfaces interface IParent<TChild> { List<TChild> Children; } interface IChild<TParent> { TParent Parent; } // Classes class Top : IParent<Middle> {} class Middle : IParent<Bottom>, IChild<Top> {} class Bottom : IChild<Middle> {} // Usage var top = new Top(); var middles = top.Children; // List<Middle> foreach (var middle in middles) { var bottoms = middle.Children; // List<Bottom> foreach (var bottom in bottoms) { var middle = bottom.Parent; // Access the parent var top = middle.Parent; // Access the grandparent } } All three data objects have properties that are persisted in two data stores (e.g. a database and a web service), and they need to reflect and synchronise with the stores. Some objects only request from the web service, some only write to it. Data Mapper My favourite pattern for data access is Data Mapper, because it completely separates the data objects themselves from the communication with the data store: class TopMapper { public Top FetchById(int id) { var top = new Top(DataStore.TopDataById(id)); top.Children = MiddleMapper.FetchForTop(Top); return Top; } } class MiddleMapper { public Middle FetchById(int id) { var middle = new Middle(DataStore.MiddleDataById(id)); middle.Parent = TopMapper.FetchForMiddle(middle); middle.Children = BottomMapper.FetchForMiddle(bottom); return middle; } } This way I can have one mapper per data store, and build the object from the mapper I want, and then save it back using the mapper I want. There is a circular reference here, but I guess that's not a problem because most languages can just store memory references to the objects, so there won't actually be infinite data. The problem with this is that every time I want to construct a new Top, Middle or Bottom, it needs to build the entire object tree within that object's Parent or Children property, with all the data store requests and memory usage that that entails. And in real life my tree is much bigger than the one represented here, so that's a problem. Requests in the object In this the objects request their Parents and Children themselves: class Middle { private List<Bottom> _children = null; // cache public List<Bottom> Children { get { _children = _children ?? BottomMapper.FetchForMiddle(this); return _children; } set { BottomMapper.UpdateForMiddle(this, value); _children = value; } } } I think this is an example of the repository pattern. Is that correct? This solution seems neat - the data only gets requested from the data store when you need it, and thereafter it's stored in the object if you want to request it again, avoiding a further request. However, I have two different data sources. There's a database, but there's also a web service, and I need to be able to create an object from the web service and save it back to the database and then request it again from the database and update the web service. This also makes me uneasy because the data objects themselves are no longer ignorant of the data source. We've introduced a new dependency, not to mention a circular dependency, making it harder to test. And the objects now mask their communication with the database. Other solutions Are there any other solutions which could take care of the multiple stores problem but also mean that I don't need to build / request all the data every time?

    Read the article

  • What is a 'good number' of exceptions to implement for my library?

    - by Fuzz
    I've always wondered how many different exception classes I should implement and throw for various pieces of my software. My particular development is usually C++/C#/Java related, but I believe this is a question for all languages. I want to understand what is a good number of different exceptions to throw, and what the developer community expect of a good library. The trade-offs I see include: More exception classes can allow very fine grain levels of error handling for API users (prone to user configuration or data errors, or files not being found) More exception classes allows error specific information to be embedded in the exception, rather than just a string message or error code More exception classes can mean more code maintenance More exception classes can mean the API is less approachable to users The scenarios I wish to understand exception usage in include: During 'configuration' stage, which might include loading files or setting parameters During an 'operation' type phase where the library might be running tasks and doing some work, perhaps in another thread Other patterns of error reporting without using exceptions, or less exceptions (as a comparison) might include: Less exceptions, but embedding an error code that can be used as a lookup Returning error codes and flags directly from functions (sometimes not possible from threads) Implemented an event or callback system upon error (avoids stack unwinding) As developers, what do you prefer to see? If there are MANY exceptions, do you bother error handling them separately anyway? Do you have a preference for error handling types depending on the stage of operation?

    Read the article

  • Avoiding null in a controller

    - by Kevin Burke
    I'm trying to work through how to write this code. def get(params): """ Fetch a user's details, or 404 """ user = User.fetch_by_id(params['id']) if not user: abort(404) # Render some template for the user... What's the best way to handle the case where the lookup fails? One principle says you should avoid returning null values from functions. These lead to mistakes and AttributeErrors etc. later on in the file. Another idea is to have fetch_by_id raise a ValueError or similar if no user exists with that id. However there's a general principle that you shouldn't use exceptions for control flow, either, which doesn't help much. What could be done better in this case?

    Read the article

  • How to handle sorting of complex objects?

    - by AedonEtLIRA
    How would one sort a list of objects that have more than one sortable element? Suppose you have a simple object Car and car is a defined as such: class Car { public String make; public String model; public int year; public String color; // ... No methods, just a structure / container } I designed a simple framework that would allow for multiple SortOptions to be provided to a Sorter that would then sort the list. interface ISorter<T> { List<T> sort(List<T> items); void addSortOption(ISortOption<T> option); ISortOption<T>[] getSortOptions(); void setSortOption(ISortOption<T> option); } interface ISortOption<T> { String getLabel(); int compare(T t1, T t2); } Example use class SimpleStringSorter extends MergeSorter<String> { { addSorter(new AlphaSorter()); } private static final class AlphaSorter implements ISortOption<String> { // ... implementation of alpha compare and get label } } The issue with this solution is that it is not easily expandable. If car was to ever receive a new field, say, currentOwner. I would need to add the field, then track down the sorter class file, implement a new sort option class then recompile the application for redistribution. Is there an easier more expandable/practical way to sort data like this?

    Read the article

  • Player & Level class structure in 2D python console game?

    - by Markus Meskanen
    I'm trying to create a 2D console game, where I have a player who can freely move around in a level (~map, but map is a reserved keyword) and interfere with other objects. Levels construct out of multiple Blocks, such as player(s), rocks, etc. Here's the Block class: class Block(object): def __init__(self, x=0, y=0, char=' ', solid=False): self.x = x self.y = y self.char = char self.solid = solid As you see, each block has a position (x, y) and a character to represent the block when it's printed. Each block also has a solid attribute, defining whether it can overlap with other solids or not. (Two solid blocks cannot overlap) I've now created few subclasses from Block (Rock might be useless for now) class Rock(Block): def __init__(self, x=0, y=0): super(Rock, self).__init__(x, y, 'x', True) class Player(Block): def __init__(self, x=0, y=0): super(Player, self).__init__(x, y, 'i', True) def move_left(self, x=1): ... # How do I make sure Player wont overlap with rocks? self.x -= x And here's the Level class: class Level(object): def __init__(self, name='', blocks=None): self.name = name self.blocks = blocks or [] Only way I can think of is to store a Player instance into Level's attributes (self.player=Player(), or so) and then give Level a method: def player_move_left(self): for block in self.blocks: if block.x == self.player.x - 1 and block.solid: return False But this doesn't really make any sense, why have a Player class if it can't even be moved without Level? Imo. player should be moved by a method inside Player. Am I wrong at something here, if not, how could I implement such behavior?

    Read the article

  • Level Representation in a 2D Game

    - by meszar.imola
    I would like to create a 2D game, where a character should move on a stage/level. My stage would be static, constructed some little cubes, similar to the well-known Mario game: some of the elements should represent an element of the way where the character can step, but if the element is missing, the character should fall. My problem is, how to represent this programmatically? My first thought was to represent the stage with a vector, which should contain boolean elements, depending on the state of the element on the stage - if it's missing or not. But this means, I have to verify at my character's x or y position change if it has a stage element under or not (if not, to simulate the falling of the character) - I think it is not the best practice, it's not the beautiful solution. Can you help me with some advice, how to represent the stage?

    Read the article

  • Logic or Algorithm to solve this problem [closed]

    - by jade
    I have two lists. List1 {a,b,c,d,e} and List2 {f,g,h,i,j} The relation between the two list is as follows a->g,a->h,h->c,h->d,d->i,d->j Now I have these two lists displayed. Based on the relation above on selecting element a from List1, List2 shows g,h. On selecting h from List2, in List1 c,d are shown in List1. On selecting d from List1 it shows i,j in List2. How to trace back to initial state by deselecting the elements in reverse order in which they have been selected?

    Read the article

  • .NET app - Should we use SQL Server and duplicate some reference data from an external Oracle DB? Or use Oracle and have a DB link?

    - by Daventry
    We're looking to migrate some existing Excel/Access processes into a new system which will provide the users with a Silverlight frontend to run and view the reports instead of using MS Access. The initial idea was to have SQL Server 2008 as RDBMS. The problem is that we've got some static data such as country codes, counterparties, etc which live in an existing Oracle DB. Since we do not want to duplicate that data (if possible), we were thinking of having a DB link between SQL Server and Oracle, but our firm does not allow that. So the options are either duplicate the data or use Oracle as RDBMS - surprise, the firm does allow DB links between Oracle databases. The initial idea was also to use WCF RIA Services, Entity Framework, etc which we're not sure they play well with Oracle, that's why it was decided to go with SQL Server in the first place. Would you advise to go for Oracle so that we can just link the static data? Or use SQL Server 2008 and replicate it because it's "safer" to stay within the Microsoft land? To use or not to use Entity Framework and WCF RIA Services at all? Regards. UPDATE: Thanks everyone for your answers. Nothing is set in stone yet. We'll try to import the data instead of linking, as if the other DB goes down, our system can still carry on. We're likely to use SQL Server just because most developers are more experienced with it. Even if we used RIA Services, we can swap out the Data Access Layer and use other frameworks such those mentioned below.

    Read the article

  • Centrally managing 100+ websites without bankrupting a small company

    - by palintropos
    I'm mainly interested in opinions on the trade-offs between having a single central server all the websites connect to as opposed to each website mirroring a subset of the master database with all the products in it. For example, will I run into severe performance issues (or even security issues, or restrictions) making queries to an offsite database? Will we hit scalability issues we can't handle early on from the sheer bandwidth required to maintain this? If we do go with something like a script that keeps smaller databases (each containing a subset of the central master data) in sync, what sorts of issues will we likely encounter there? I would really like the opinions of people far more knowledgeable than I am regarding the pros and cons of both setups and what headaches we are likely to encounter. CLARIFICATION: This should not be viewed as a question about whether we should implement one database vs multiple databases. This question has been answered numerous times. The question is regarding the pros and cons for a deployment like this having the ability to manage all the websites centrally (one server) vs trying to keep them all in sync if they each have their own db (multiple servers). REAL-WORLD EXAMPLE: We are a t-shirt company, and we have individual websites for our different kinds of t-shirts, but we're looking at a central order management integrated with our single shopping cart (which is ColdFusion + MySQL). Now, let's say we have a t-shirt that's on 10 of our websites and we change an image for it. Ideally we would change that in one place and the change would propagate, but how would we set this up?

    Read the article

  • Should an object know its own ID?

    - by xenoterracide
    obj.id seems fairly common and also seems to fall within the range of something an object could know about itself. I find myself asking why should my object know its own id? It doesn't seem to have a reason to have it? One of the main reason for it existing is retrieve it, and so my repositories need to know it, and thus use it for database interaction. I also once encountered a problem where I wanted to serialize an object to JSON for a RESTful API where the id did not seem to fit in the payload, but only the URI and including it in the object made that more difficult. Should an object know it's own id? why or why not?

    Read the article

  • How to handle new domain names?

    - by michael
    I have a new product which I'll call a pen ink reloader. I have a website using my products name, for example, www.inkywink.com which I want to have accessed by searches for keywords such as "pen ink", "pen out of ink" "ink for pens" etc. , since nobody knows that a pen ink reloader exists. I see that its quite difficult to get on front page for these keywords since they have lots of competition. However I notice that the exact phrases I want to rank highly for are available as domains. I purchase "www.penink.com" and "penoutofink.com" which for arguments sake are highly searched and the perfect keywords to get eyes on my money site www.inkywink.com . Two questions: 1. What is my best option to leverage those names so that they appear near top of searches so that I can get traffic to my money site? Do I just have them redirect 301 to inkywink.com or should I create small original content on each with links to my main site? 2. If I just have them redirected to inkywink.com, am I able to use keywords in metatag and headers for each site separately or do they all automatically obtain the same headers and tags as the site to which theyre redirected ? Thanks to anyone who can help as I'm a real newbie to all this.

    Read the article

  • DirectX 10 Instancing Problem (objects cannot be seen)

    - by Riffraff
    Right now I'm trying to implement an area that is filled with vegetation. I have tried mesh version and right now I'm trying to implement instancing version but I cannot manage to make it work. I can't see any object. I search for any problem of buffers with FAILED() and D3D10_CREATE_DEVICE_DEBUG but they didn't help me either. Right now I don't even know which part of my code to share to explain my problem.

    Read the article

  • Semantic coupling vs. large class

    - by user106587
    I have hardware I communicate with via TCP. This hardware accepts ~40 different commands/requests with about 20 different responses. I've created a HardwareProxy class which has a TcpClient to send and receive data. I didn't like the idea of having 40 different methods to send the commands/requests, so I started down the path of having a single SendCommand method which takes an ICommand and returns an IResponse, this results in 40 different SpecificCommand classes. The problem is this requires semantic coupling, i.e. the method that invokes SendCommand receives an IResponse which it has to downcast to SpecificResponse, I use a future map which I believe ensures the appropriate SpecificResponse, but I get the impression this code smells. Besides the semantic coupling, ICommand and IResponse are essentially empty abstract classes (Marker Interfaces) and this seems suspicious to me. If I go with the 40 methods I don't think I have broken the single responisbility principle as the responsibility of the HardwareProxy class is to act as the hardware, which has all of these commands. This route is just ugly, plus I'd like to have Asynchronous versions, so there'd be about 80 methods. Is it better to bite the bullet and have a large class, accept the coupling and MarkerInterfaces for a smaller soultuion, or am I missing a better way? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • does class reference itself static anti pattern in prism

    - by Michael Riva
    I have an application and my desing approach look like this: class Manager { public int State; static Manager _instance = null; public static Manager Instance { get { return _instance; } set { if (_instance == value) return; _instance = value; } } public Manager() { State = 0; Instance=this; } } class Module1 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module2 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module3 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } Manager class already registered in Bootstrapper like : protected override void ConfigureContainer() { base.ConfigureContainer(); Container.RegisterType<Manager>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager()); } protected override void InitializeModules() { Manager man= Container.Resolve<Manager>(); } Question is do I need to define my manager object as static in its field to be able to reach its state? Or this is anti pattern or bad for performance?

    Read the article

  • EAV - is it really bad in all scenarios?

    - by Giedrius
    I'm thinking to use EAV for some of the stuff in one of the projects, but all questions about it in stackoverflow end up to answers calling EAV an anti pattern. But I'm wondering, if is it that wrong in all cases? Let's say shop product entity, it has common features, like name, description, image, price, etc., that take part in logic many places and has (semi)unique features, like watch and beach ball would be described by completely different aspects. So I think EAV would fit for storing those (semi)unique features? All this is assuming, that for showing product list, it is enough info in product table (that means no EAV is involved) and just when showing one product/comparing up to 5 products/etc. data saved using EAV is used. I've seen such approach in Magento commerce and it is quite popular, so may be there are cases, when EAV is reasonable?

    Read the article

  • Programming Languages

    - by Shannon
    I realize this will be a very vague question, but please bear with me. I have a concept for an open-world game, hand to hand combat, with a fairly open storyline, but there is an issue. I'm not sure which programming language to use, as I'm fairly new to programming. I am considering c++, but I would like to hear your opinions on which language you believe would support this type of game most efficiently. Pros and cons would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Tester/Doer pattern: Assume the caller conforms to the pattern or be defensive and repeat the check?

    - by Daniel Hilgarth
    Assume a simple class that implements the Tester/Doer pattern: public class FooCommandHandler : ICommandHandler { public bool CanHandle(object command) { return command is FooCommand; } public void Handle(object command) { var fooCommand = (FooCommand)command; // Do something with fooCommand } } Now, if someone doesn't conform to the pattern and calls Handle without verifying the command via CanHandle, the code in Handle throws an exception. However, depending on the actual implementation of Handle this can be a whole range of different exceptions. The following implementation would check CanHandle again in Handle and throw a descriptive exception: public void Handle(object command) { if(!CanHandle(command)) throw new TesterDoerPatternUsageViolationException("Please call CanHandle first"); // actual implementation of handling the command. } This has the advantage that the exception is very descriptive. It has the disadvantage that CanHandle is called twice for "good" clients. Is there a consensus on which variation should be used?

    Read the article

  • What are the advantages of storing xml in a relational database?

    - by Chris
    I was poking around the AdventureWorks database today and I noticed that a number of tables (HumanResources.JobCandidate and Sales.Individual for example) have a column which is storing xml data. What I would to know is, what is the advantage of storing basically a database table row's worth of data in another table's column? Doesn't this make it difficult to query off of this information? Or is the assumption that the data won't need to be queried and just needs to be stored?

    Read the article

  • Serialized values or separate table, which is more efficient?

    - by Aravind
    I have a Rails model email_condition_string with a word column in it. Now I have another model called request_creation_email_config with the following columns admin_filter_group:references vendor_service:references email_condition_string:references email_condition_string has many request_creation_email_config and request_creation_email_config belongs to email_condition_string. Instead of this model a colleague of mine is suggesting that strong the word inside the same model as comma separated values is efficient than storing as a separate model. Is that alright?

    Read the article

  • De-facto standards for customer information record

    - by maasg
    I'm currently evaluating a potential new project that involves creating a DB for typical customer information (userid, pwd, first & last name, email, adress, telfnr ...). At this point, requirements are only roughly defined. The customer DB is expected in the O(millions) of records. In order to calculate some back-of-the-envelope numbers for DB sizing and evaluate potential DB options & architectures, I'm looking for some de-facto standards for these kind of records. In particular, the std size of every field (first name, last name, address,...) or typical avg for a simple customer record would be great info. With so many e-commerce websites out there, there should be some kind of typical config that can be reused and avoid re-inventing the wheel. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Why is x=x++ undefined?

    - by ugoren
    It's undefined because the it modifies x twice between sequence points. The standard says it's undefined, therefore it's undefined. That much I know. But why? My understanding is that forbidding this allows compilers to optimize better. This could have made sense when C was invented, but now seems like a weak argument. If we were to reinvent C today, would we do it this way, or can it be done better? Or maybe there's a deeper problem, that makes it hard to define consistent rules for such expressions, so it's best to forbid them? So suppose we were to reinvent C today. I'd like to suggest simple rules for expressions such as x=x++, which seem to me to work better than the existing rules. I'd like to get your opinion on the suggested rules compared to the existing ones, or other suggestions. Suggested Rules: Between sequence points, order of evaluation is unspecified. Side effects take place immediately. There's no undefined behavior involved. Expressions evaluate to this value or that, but surely won't format your hard disk (strangely, I've never seen an implementation where x=x++ formats the hard disk). Example Expressions x=x++ - Well defined, doesn't change x. First, x is incremented (immediately when x++ is evaluated), then it's old value is stored in x. x++ + ++x - Increments x twice, evaluates to 2*x+2. Though either side may be evaluated first, the result is either x + (x+2) (left side first) or (x+1) + (x+1) (right side first). x = x + (x=3) - Unspecified, x set to either x+3 or 6. If the right side is evaluated first, it's x+3. It's also possible that x=3 is evaluated first, so it's 3+3. In either case, the x=3 assignment happens immediately when x=3 is evaluated, so the value stored is overwritten by the other assignment. x+=(x=3) - Well defined, sets x to 6. You could argue that this is just shorthand for the expression above. But I'd say that += must be executed after x=3, and not in two parts (read x, evaluate x=3, add and store new value). What's the Advantage? Some comments raised this good point. It's not that I'm after the pleasure of using x=x++ in my code. It's a strange and misleading expression. What I want is to be able to understand complicated expressions. Normally, a complicated expression is no more than the sum of its parts. If you understand the parts and the operators combining them, you can understand the whole. C's current behavior seems to deviate from this principle. One assignment plus another assignment suddenly doesn't make two assignments. Today, when I look at x=x++, I can't say what it does. With my suggested rules, I can, by simply examining its components and their relations.

    Read the article

  • Necessary Infrastructure for large project with many components communicating through IPCs

    - by jluzwick
    I have a fairly in depth question which probably doesn't have an exact answer. As a software engineer, I am usually tasked with working on a program or project with minimal understanding of how other components or programs in the project interact with each other. When one program fails in a sea of multiple components and processes, what infrastructure elements are necessary to ensure that the problem can be accurately tracked to the violating application? More specifically, what infrastructure elements should be necessary for this large project and which are optional but very helpful. One such example I can think of is some form of a common logging infrastructure that allows for a developer or tester to easily browse through a log that contains numerous components for messages that might allude to the culprit program along with a "trail" of what happened before the issue occurred. I'm thinking of something similar to Androids alogcat tool. These necessary infrastructure elements should be language-agnostic. While these elements should be understood by all engineers on the team in question, which elements should be understood at great detail by the technical system engineers and what should the individual software engineers be responsible for adding to their tools to allow for such infrastructures to take hold? Please feel free to ask for clarification if something does not make sense as I understand this question is very broad and needs some refinement. I will refine as necessary from the answers and comments I receive. Thanks for any help!

    Read the article

  • I have an "amoeba" game mechanic. Any idea on how to implement it?

    - by Jason
    Outside of a tetris clone, a crappy 2D top-down shooter, and some messing around with stuff like Unity and Flixel, I realize that I have yet to complete a single, polished, bells-and-whistles game. I want to change this, and I have an idea for my next project. The idea is that you're an amoeba. Amoebas have these eye-like cores (or something like that, I don't know biology), and you have two of 'em. You control one with WASD and the other with IJKL. There has to be a constant radius of stuff around each of the cores: And the area of the amoeba has to stay constant. So if you move a core in one direction, you increase the amoeba's area, but that increase is compensated by a decrease somewhere else: Aaaaaand I'd like to implement a vagination mechanic. You absorb things by engulfing them, like a boss. Maybe even an extra core, or a needle that pops you and causes all your inner stuff to start gushing out: But here's the problem: I don't know how to make this. However, I would like some ideas on how to implement it. Should I explore physics libraries like Box2D? Or maybe something involving fluid physics? Any help would be much appreciated. P.S. Feel free to steal this idea. I have plenty of ideas. If you do, please tell me how you made it so I can try it myself.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >