Search Results

Search found 15120 results on 605 pages for 'mock driven design'.

Page 153/605 | < Previous Page | 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160  | Next Page >

• How to mock Request.Files[] in MVC unit test class?

  - by kapil

  I want to test a controller method in MVC unit test. For my controller method to test, I require a Request.Files[] collection with length one. I want to mock Request.Files[] as I have used a file upload control on my view rendered by controller method. Can anyone please suggest how can I mock request.file collection in my unit test. thanks, kapil

  Read the article

• Moq - How to mock a function call on a concrete object?

  - by dferraro

  Hello, How can I do this in Moq? Foo bar = new Foo(); Fake(bar.PrivateGetter).Return('whatever value') It seems I can only find how to mock an object that was created via the framework. I want to mock just a single method/property on a concrete object I've created... In TypeMock, I would just do Isolate.WhenCalled(bar.PrivateGetter).Returns('whatever value').. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Survey Data Model - How to avoid EAV and excessive denormalization?

  - by AlexDPC

  Hi everyone, My database skills are mediocre at best and I have to design a data model for survey data. I have spent some thoughts on this and right now I feel that I am stuck between some kind of EAV model and a design involving hundreds of tables, each with hundreds of columns (and thousands of records). There must be a better way to do this and I hope that the wise folks on this forum can help me. I have already searched various forums, but I couldn't really find a solution. If it has already been given elsewhere, please excuse me and provide me with a link so I can read it up. Some assumptions about the data I have to deal with: Each survey consists of 1 to n questionnaires Each questionnaire consists of 100-2,000 questions (please ignore that 2,000 questions really sound like a lot to answer...) Questions can be of various types: multiple-choice, free text, a number (like age, income, percentages, ...) Each survey involves 10-200 countries (These are not the respondents. The respondents are actually people in the countries.) Depending on the type of questionnaire, each questionnaire is answered by 100-20,000 respondents per country. A country can adapt the questionnaires for a survey, i.e. add, remove or edit questions The data for one country is gathered in a separate database in that country. There is no possibility for online integration from the start. The data for all countries has to be integrated later. This means for example, if a country has deleted a question, that data must somehow be derived from what they sent in order to achieve a uniform design across all countries I will have to write the integration and cleaning software, which will need to work with every country's data In the end the data needs to be exported to flat files, one rectangular grid per country and questionnaire. I have already discussed this topic with people from various backgrounds and have not come to a good solution yet. I mainly got two kinds of opinions. The domain experts, who are used to working with flat files (spreadsheet-style) for data processing and analysis vote for a denormalized structure with loads of tables and columns as I described above (1 table per country and questionnaire). This sounds terrible to me, because I learned that wide tables are to be avoided, it will be annoying to determine which columns are actually in a table when working with it, the database will become cluttered with hundreds of tables (or I even need to set up multiple databases, each with a similar yet a bit differetn design), etc. O-O-programmers vote for a strongly "normalized" design, which would effectively lead to a central table containing all the answers from all respondents to all questions. This table would either need to contain a column of type sql_variant type or multiple answer columns with different types to store answers of different types (multiple choice, free text, ..). The former would essentially be a EAV model. I tend to follow Joe Celko here, who strongly discourages its use (he calls it OTLT or "One True Lookup Table"). The latter would imply that each row would contain null cells for the not applicable types by design. Another alternative I could think of would be to create one table per answer type, i.e., one for multiple-choice questions, one for free text questions, etc.. That's not so generic, it would lead to a lot of union joins, I think and I would have to add a table if a new answer type is invented. Sorry for boring you with all this text and thank you for your input! Cheers, Alex PS: I asked the same question here: http://www.eggheadcafe.com/community/aspnet/13/10242616/survey-data-model--how-to-avoid-eav-and-excessive-denormalization.aspx

  Read the article

• How to Mock the Internal Method of a class ?

  - by Shailendra

  I have a class which has a internal method and i want to mock the internal method . But i am unable to mock it i.e. it is not calling the mocked function but calling the original function. Is there any way to achieve this ?

  Read the article

• Does Test Driven Development (TDD) improve Quality and Correctness? (Part 1)

  - by David V. Corbin

  Since the dawn of the computer age, various methodologies have been introduced to improve quality and reduce cost. In this posting, I will by sharing my experiences with Test Driven Development; both its benefits and limitations. To start this topic, we need to agree on what TDD is. The first is to define each of the three words as used in this context. Test - An item or action which measures something in some quantifiable form. Driven - The primary motivation or focus of a series of activities (process) Development - All phases of a software project/product from concept through delivery. The above are very simple definitions that result in the following: "TDD is a process where the primary focus is on measuring and quantifying all aspects of the creation of a (software) product." There are many places where TDD is used outside of software development, even though it is not known by this name. Consider the (conventional) education process that most of us grew up on. The focus was to get the best grades as measured by different tests. Many of these tests measured rote memorization and not understanding of the subject matter. The result of this that many people graduated with high scores but without "quality and correctness" in their ability to utilize the subject matter (of course, the flip side is true where certain people DID understand the material but were not very good at taking this type of test). Returning to software development, let us look at some common scenarios. While these items are generally applicable regardless of platform, language and tools; the remainder of this post will utilize Microsoft Visual Studio and Team Foundation Server (TFS) for examples. It should be realized that everyone does at least some aspect of TDD. At the most rudimentary level, getting a program to compile involves a "pass/fail" measurement (is the syntax valid) that drives their ability to proceed further (run the program). Other developers may create "Unit Tests" in the belief that having a test for every method/property of a class and good code coverage is the goal of TDD. These items may be helpful and even important, but really only address a small aspect of the overall effort. To see TDD in a bigger view, lets identify the various activities that are part of the Software Development LifeCycle. These are going to be presented in a Waterfall style for simplicity, but each item also occurs within Iterative methodologies such as Agile/Scrum. the key ones here are: Requirements Gathering Architecture Design Implementation Quality Assurance Can each of these items be subjected to a process which establishes metrics (quantified metrics) that reflect both the quality and correctness of each item? It should be clear that conventional Unit Tests do not apply to all of these items; at best they can verify that a local aspect (e.g. a Class/Method) of implementation matches the (test writers perspective of) the appropriate design document. So what can we do? For each of area, the goal is to create tests that are quantifiable and durable. The ability to quantify the measurements (beyond a simple pass/fail) is critical to tracking progress(eventually measuring the level of success that has been achieved) and for providing clear information on what items need to be addressed (along with the appropriate time to address them - in varying levels of detail) . Durability is important so that the test can be reapplied (ideally in an automated fashion) over the entire cycle. Returning for a moment back to our "education example", one must also be careful of how the tests are organized and how the measurements are taken. If a test is in a multiple choice format, there is a significant statistical probability that a correct answer might be the result of a random guess. Also, in many situations, having the student simply provide a final answer can obscure many important elements. For example, on a math test, having the student simply provide a numeric answer (rather than showing the methodology) may result in a complete mismatch between the process and the result. It is hard to determine which is worse: The student who makes a simple arithmetric error at one step of a long process (resulting in a wrong answer) or The student who (without providing the "workflow") uses a completely invalid approach, yet still comes up with the right number. The "Wrong Process"/"Right Answer" is probably the single biggest problem in software development. Even very simple items can suffer from this. As an example consider the following code for a "straight line" calculation....Is it correct? (for Integral Points)         int Solve(int m, int b, int x) { return m * x + b; }   Most people would respond "Yes". But let's take the question one step further... Is it correct for all possible values of m,b,x??? (no fair if you cheated by being focused on the bolded text!)  Without additional information regarding constrains on "the possible values of m,b,x" the answer must be NO, there is the risk of overflow/wraparound that will produce an incorrect result! To properly answer this question (i.e. Test the Code), one MUST be able to backtrack from the implementation through the design, and architecture all the way back to the requirements. And the requirement itself must be tested against the stakeholder(s). It is only when the bounding conditions are defined that it is possible to determine if the code is "Correct" and has "Quality". Yet, how many of us (myself included) have written such code without even thinking about it. In many canses we (think we) "know" what the bounds are, and that the code will be correct. As we all know, requirements change, "code reuse" causes implementations to be applied to different scenarios, etc. This leads directly to the types of system failures that plague so many projects. This approach to TDD is much more holistic than ones which start by focusing on the details. The fundamental concepts still apply: Each item should be tested. The test should be defined/implemented before (or concurrent with) the definition/implementation of the actual item. We also add concepts that expand the scope and alter the style by recognizing: There are many things beside "lines of code" that benefit from testing (measuring/evaluating in a formal way) Correctness and Quality can not be solely measured by "correct results" In the future parts, we will examine in greater detail some of the techniques that can be applied to each of these areas....

  Read the article

• Event Driven Communication in Game Engine - Yes or No?

  - by Bunkai.Satori

  As I am reading book Game Coding Complete (http://www.amazon.com/Game-Coding-Complete-Third-McShaffry/dp/1584506806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295978774&sr=8-1), the author recommend Event Driven communication among the all game objects and modules. Basicaly, all the living game actors and object should communicate with the key modules (Physics, AI, Game Logic, Game View, etc..) via internal event messaging system. This would mean designing efficient event manager as well. My question is, whether this is proven and recommended approach. If it is not properly designed, it might mean consuming a lot of CPU cycles, which can be used elsewhere. This is especially true, if the game is targetted for mobile platform. What is your opinion and recommendation, please?

  Read the article

• How can I apply Readme Driven Development to an ongoing project?

  - by Metalcoder

  I'm assigned to a project where the goal is to update an existing software. This software was developed in a totally ad hoc manner, which means that any documentation generated is outdated, confused and just plain useless. I do not want to retroactivelly produce all the missing artifacts, since this would just be a waste of time. The code base is ugly, and really need some serious refactoring, but this is another story. What I want is to apply Readme Driven Development to guide this project. So, basically, I want to write a Readme, which will document every change meaningful at the user level. The problem is, I have no idea about how to structure this document. For me, it's pretty clear that it should have a different layout than the traditional Readme. I really want to document changes, and not the current state of affairs. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Mocking with Boost::Test

  - by Billy ONeal

  Hello everyone :) I'm using the Boost::Test library for unit testing, and I've in general been hacking up my own mocking solutions that look something like this: //In header for clients struct RealFindFirstFile { static HANDLE FindFirst(LPCWSTR lpFileName, LPWIN32_FIND_DATAW lpFindFileData) { return FindFirstFile(lpFileName, lpFindFileData); }; }; template <typename FirstFile_T = RealFindFirstFile> class DirectoryIterator { //.. Implementation } //In unit tests (cpp) #define THE_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_THE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING 42 struct FakeFindFirstFile { static HANDLE FindFirst(LPCWSTR lpFileName, LPWIN32_FIND_DATAW lpFindFileData) { return THE_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_THE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING; }; }; BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( MyTest ) { DirectoryIterator<FakeFindFirstFile> LookMaImMocked; //Test } I've grown frustrated with this because it requires that I implement almost everything as a template, and it is a lot of boilerplate code to achieve what I'm looking for. Is there a good method of mocking up code using Boost::Test over my Ad-hoc method? I've seen several people recommend Google Mock, but it requires a lot of ugly hacks if your functions are not virtual, which I would like to avoid. Oh: One last thing. I don't need assertions that a particular piece of code was called. I simply need to be able to inject data that would normally be returned by Windows API functions.

  Read the article

• Should tests be self written in TDD?

  - by martin

  We run a project, which we want to solve with test driven development. I thought about some questions that came up, when initiating the project. One question was, who should write the unit-test for a feature. Should the unit-test be written by the feature-implementing programmer? Or should the unit test be written by another programmer, who defines what a method should do and the feature-implementing programmer implements the method until the tests runs? If i understand the concept of TDD in the right way. The feature-implementing programmer has to write the test by himself, because TDD is procedure with mini-iterations. So it would be too complex to have the tests written by another programmer? What would you say, should the tests in TDD written by the programmer himself or should another programmer write the tests that describes what a method can do?

  Read the article

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

  - by Tag

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

  Read the article

• Where and how to validate and map ViewModel?

  - by chobo

  Hi, I am trying to learn Domain Driven Design and recently read that lots of people advocate creating a ViewModels for your views that store all the values you want to display in a given view. My question is how should I do the form validation? should I create separate validation classes for each view, or group them together? I'm also confused on what this would look like in code. This is how I currently think validation and viewmodels fit in to the scheme of things: View (some user input) - Controller - FormValidation(of ViewModel) - (If valid map to ViewModel to Domain Model) - Domain Layer Service - Infrastructure Thanks! P.S. I use Asp.net MVC with C#

  Read the article

• "Mail merge"-like functionality in Dreamweaver, or in any other web editing tool?

  - by Chris Farmer

  I have inherited several related, low-traffic web sites to manage and edit. These sites are implemented with static html, and they've accrued lots of stray tags and other cruft. I want to try to clean these up and migrate them to some common page template framework to simplify design and data changes and improve overall consistency. The pages will change on the timescale of weeks, and since the current web hosting plan does not support any dynamic server technologies, I was hoping to just use Dreamweaver or some other tool to merge my content data with some templating structure. I'd like to do content updates every several days and then run the content back through my templates, resulting in new static html that I can upload to the host. Do any tools support this kind of poor-man's data-driven web application? Are there better ways to approach this problem, aside from moving to a new hosting plan and using ASP.NET or PHP?

  Read the article

• OOP App Architecture: Which layer does a lazy loader sit in?

  - by JW

  I am planning the implemention an Inheritance Mapper pattern for an application component http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/inheritanceMappers.html One feature it needs to have is for a domain object to reference a large list of aggreageted items (10,000 other domain objects) So I need some kind of lazy loading collection to be passed out of the aggregate root domain object to other domain objects. To keep my (php) model scripts organised i am storing them in two folders: MyComponent\ controllers\ models\ domain\ <- domain objects, DDD repository, DDD factory daccess\ <- PoEAA data mappers, SQL queries etc views\ But now I am racking my brains wondering where my lazy loading collection sits. Any suggestions / justifications for putting it in one place over another another? DDD = Domain Driven Design Patterns, Eric Evans - book PoEAA = Patterns of Application Architecture Patterns, Martin Fowler - book

  Read the article

• In TDD, should tests be written by the person who implemented the feature under test?

  - by martin

  We run a project in which we want to solve with test driven development. I thought about some questions that came up when initiating the project. One question was: Who should write the unit-test for a feature? Should the unit-test be written by the feature-implementing programmer? Or should the unit test be written by another programmer, who defines what a method should do and the feature-implementing programmer implements the method until the tests runs? If I understand the concept of TDD in the right way, the feature-implementing programmer has to write the test by himself, because TDD is procedure with mini-iterations. So it would be too complex to have the tests written by another programmer? What would you say? Should the tests in TDD be written by the programmer himself or should another programmer write the tests that describes what a method can do?

  Read the article

• Best way of storing an "array of records" at design-time

  - by smartins

  I have a set of data that I need to store at design-time to construct the contents of a group of components at run-time. Something like this: type TVulnerabilityData = record Vulnerability: TVulnerability; Name: string; Description: string; ErrorMessage: string; end; What's the best way of storing this data at design-time for later retrieval at run-time? I'll have about 20 records for which I know all the contents of each "record" but I'm stuck on what's the best way of storing the data. The only semi-elegant idea I've come up with is "construct" each record on the unit's initialization like this: var VulnerabilityData: array[Low(TVulnerability)..High(TVulnerability)] of TVulnerabilityData; .... initialization VulnerabilityData[0].Vulnerability := vVulnerability1; VulnerabilityData[0].Name := 'Name of Vulnerability1'; VulnerabilityData[0].Description := 'Description of Vulnerability1'; VulnerabilityData[0].ErrorMessage := 'Error Message of Vulnerability1'; VulnerabilityData[1]...... ..... VulnerabilityData[20]...... Is there a better and/or more elegant solution than this? Thanks for reading.

  Read the article

• Using Essential Use Cases to design a UI-centric Application

  - by Bruno Brant

  Hello all, I'm begging a new project (oh, how I love the fresh taste of a new project!) and we are just starting to design it. In short: The application is a UI that will enable users to model an execution flow (a Visio like drag & drop interface). So our greatest concern is usability and features that will help the users model fast and clearly the execution flow. Our established methodology makes extensive use of Use Cases in order to create a harmonious view of the application between the programmers and users. This is a business concern, really: I'd prefer to use an Agile Method with User Stories rather than User Cases, but we need to define a clear scope to sell the product to our clients. However, Use Cases have a number of flaws, most of which are related to the fact that they include technical details, like UI, etc, as can be seem here. But, since we can't use User Stories and a fully interactive design, I've decided that we compromise: I will be using Essential Use Cases in order to hide those details. Now I have another problem: it's essential (no pun intended) to have a clear description of UI interaction, so, how should I document it? In other words, how do I specify a application through the use of Essential Use Cases where the UI interaction is vital to it? I can see some alternatives: Abandon the use of Use Cases since they don't correctly represent the problem Do not include interface descriptions in the use case, but create another documentation (Story Boards) and link then to the Essential Use Cases Include UI interaction description to the Essential Use Cases, since they are part of the business rules in the perspective of the users and the application itself

  Read the article

• Starting out Silverlight 4 design

  - by Fermin

  I come from mainly a web development background (ASP.NET, ASP.NET MVC, XHTML, CSS etc) but have been tasked with creating/designing a Silverlight application. The application is utilising Bing Maps control for Silverlight, this will be contained in a user control and will be the 'main' screen in the system. There will be numerous other user controls on the form that will be used to choose/filter/sort/order the data on the map. I think of it like Visual Studio: the Bing Maps will be like the code editor window and the other controls will be like Solutions Explorer, Find Results etc. (although a lot less of them!) I have read up and I'm comfortable with the data side (RIA-Services) of the application. I've (kinda) got my head around databinding and using a view model to present data and keep the code behind file lite. What I do need some help on is UI design/navigation framework, specifically 2 aspects: How do I best implement a fluid design so that the various user controls which filter the map data can be resized/pinned/unpinned (for example, like the Solution Explorer in VS)? I made a test using a Grid with a GridSplitter control, is this the best way? Would it be best to create a Grid/Gridsplitter with Navigation Frames inside the grid to load the content? Since I have multiple user controls that basically use the same set of data, should I set the dataContext at the highest possible level (e.g. if using a grid with multiple frames, at the Grid level?). Any help, tips, links etc. will be very much appreciated!

  Read the article

• Product Catalog Schema design

  - by FlySwat

  I'm building a proof of concept schema for a product catalog to possibly replace a very aging and crufty one we use. In our business, we sell both physical materials and services (one time and reoccurring charges). The current catalog schema has each distinct category broken out into individual tables, while this is nicely normalized and performs well, it is fairly difficult to extend. Adding a new attribute to a particular product involves changing the table schema and backpopulating old data. An idea I've been toying with has been something along the line of a base set of entity tables in 3rd normal form, these will contain the facts that are common among ALL products. Then, I'd like to build an Attribute-Entity-Value schema that allows each entity type to be extended in a flexible way using just data and no schema changes. Finally, I'd like to denormalize this data model into materialized views for each individual entity type. This views are what the application would access. We also have many tables that contain business rules and compatibility rules. These would join against the base entity tables instead of the views. My big concerns here are: Performance - Attribute-Entity-Value schemas are flexible, but typically perform poorly, should I be concerned? More Performance - Denormalizing using materialized views may have some risks, I'm not positive on this yet. Complexity - While this schema is flexible and maintainable using just data, I worry that the complexity of the design might make future schema changes difficult. For those who have designed product catalogs for large scale enterprises, am I going down the totally wrong path? Is there any good best practice schema design reading available for product catalogs?

  Read the article

• SECURITY Flaws in this design for User authentication.

  - by Shao

  SECURITY Flaws in this design for User authentication. From: http://wiki.pylonshq.com/display/pylonscookbook/Simple+Homegrown+Authentication Note: a. Project follows the MVC pattern. b. Only a user with a valid username and password is allowed submit something. Design: a. Have a base controller from which all controllers are derived from. b. Before any of the actions in the derived controllers are called the system calls a before action in the base controller. c. In each controller user hardcodes the actions that need to be verified in an array. d. The before action first looks in the array that has the actions that are protected and sees if a user is logged in or not by peaking into the session. If a user is present then user is allowed to submit otherwise user is redirected to login page. What do you think?

  Read the article

• Table Design For SystemSettings, Best Model

  - by Chris L

  Someone suggested moving a table full of settings, where each column is a setting name(or type) and the rows are the customers & their respective settings for each setting. ID | IsAdmin | ImagePath ------------------------------ 12 | 1          | \path\to\images 34 | 0          | \path\to\images The downside to this is every time we want a new setting name(or type) we alter the table(via sql) and add the new (column)setting name/type. Then update the rows(so that each customer now has a value for that setting). The new table design proposal. The proposal is to have a column for setting name and another column for setting. ID | SettingName | SettingValue ---------------------------- 12 | IsAdmin        | 1 12 | ImagePath   | \path\to\images 34 | IsAdmin        | 0 34 | ImagePath   | \path\to\images The point they made was that adding a new setting was as easy as a simple insert statement to the row, no added column. But something doesn't feel right about the second design, it looks bad, but I can't come up with any arguments against it. Am I wrong?

  Read the article

• Social Network News Feed Database & Design

  - by pws5068

  I'm designing a News Feed system using PHP/MySQL similar to facebook's. I have asked a similar question before but now I've changed the design and I'm looking for feedback. Example Notifications: User_A commented on User_B's new album. "Hey man nice picture!" User_B added a new Photo to [his/her] profile. [show photo thumbnail] Initially, I implemented this using excessive columns for Obj1:Type1 | Obj2:Type2 | etc.. Now the design is set up using a couple special keywords, and actor/receiver relationships. My database is designed for efficiency - using a table of messages joined on a table containing userid,actionid,receiverid,receiverObjectTypeID, Here's a condensed version of what it will look like once joined: News_ID | User_ID | Message | Timestamp 2643 A %a commented on %o's new %r. SomeTimestamp 2644 B %a added a new %r to [his/her] profile. SomeTimestamp %a = the User_ID of the person doing the action %r = the receiving object %o = the owner of the receiving object (for example the owner of the album) (NULL if %r is a user) Questions: Is this a smart (efficient/scalable) way to move forward? How can I show messages like: "User_B added 4 new photos to his profile."?

  Read the article

• PHP News Feed Database & Design

  - by pws5068

  I'm designing a News Feed system using PHP/MySQL similar to facebook's. I have asked a similar question before but now I've changed the design and I'm looking for feedback. Example News: User_A commented on User_B's new album. "Hey man nice pictures!" User_B added a new Photo to [his/her] profile. [show photo thumbnail] Initially, I implemented this using excessive columns for Obj1:Type1 | Obj2:Type2 | etc.. Now the design is set up using a couple special keywords, and actor/receiver relationships. My database uses a table of messages joined on a table containing userid,actionid,receiverid,receiverObjectTypeID, Here's a condensed version of what it will look like once joined: News_ID | User_ID | Message | Timestamp 2643 A %a commented on %o's new %r. SomeTimestamp 2644 B %a added a new %r to [his/her] profile. SomeTimestamp %a = the User_ID of the person doing the action %r = the receiving object %o = the owner of the receiving object (for example the owner of the album) (NULL if %r is a user) Questions: Is this a smart (efficient/scalable) way to move forward? How can I show messages like: "User_B added 4 new photos to his profile."?

  Read the article

• Thread-safe data structure design

  - by Inso Reiges

  Hello, I have to design a data structure that is to be used in a multi-threaded environment. The basic API is simple: insert element, remove element, retrieve element, check that element exists. The structure's implementation uses implicit locking to guarantee the atomicity of a single API call. After i implemented this it became apparent, that what i really need is atomicity across several API calls. For example if a caller needs to check the existence of an element before trying to insert it he can't do that atomically even if each single API call is atomic: if(!data_structure.exists(element)) { data_structure.insert(element); } The example is somewhat awkward, but the basic point is that we can't trust the result of "exists" call anymore after we return from atomic context (the generated assembly clearly shows a minor chance of context switch between the two calls). What i currently have in mind to solve this is exposing the lock through the data structure's public API. This way clients will have to explicitly lock things, but at least they won't have to create their own locks. Is there a better commonly-known solution to these kinds of problems? And as long as we're at it, can you advise some good literature on thread-safe design? EDIT: I have a better example. Suppose that element retrieval returns either a reference or a pointer to the stored element and not it's copy. How can a caller be protected to safely use this pointer\reference after the call returns? If you think that not returning copies is a problem, then think about deep copies, i.e. objects that should also copy another objects they point to internally. Thank you.

  Read the article

• DB design for master file in enterprise software

  - by Thang Nguyen

  Dear all. I want to write an enterprise software and now I'm in the DB design phase. The software will have some master data such as Suppliers, Customers, Inventories, Bankers... I considering 2 options: Put each of these on one separate table. The advantage: the table will have all necessary information for that kind of master file (Customer: name, address,.../Inventory: Type, Manufacturer, Condition...). Disadvantage: Not flexible. When I want to have a new type of master data, such as Insurer, I have to design another table. Put all in one table and this table have foreign key to another table which have type of each kind of master data (table 1: id, data_type, code, name, address....; table 2: data_type, data_type_name). Advantage: flexible - if I want more master data such as Insurer, I just put in table 2: code: 002, name: Insurer, and then put detail each insurer into table 1). Disadvantage: table 1 must have sufficient field to store all kind of information including: customer name, address, account, inventory's manufacturer, inventory's quality...). So which method do you usually do (or you think work better). Thank you very much

  Read the article

• Multiple websites, Single sign-on design

  - by Yannis

  Hi all, I have a question. A client I have been doing some work recently has a range of websites with different login mechanisms. He is looking to slowly migrate to a single sign-on mechanism for his websites (all written in asp.net mvc). I am looking at my options here, so here is a list of requirements: 1) It has to be secure (duh) 2) It needs to support extra user properties over and above the usual name, address stuff (such as money or credits for a user) 3) It has to provide a centralized user management web console for his convenience (I understand that this will be a small project on top of whatever design solution I choose to go for) 4) It has to integrate with the existing websites without re-engineering the whole product (I understand that this depends on the current product implementation). 5) It has to deal with emailing the user when he registers (in order for him to activate his account) 6) It has to deal with activating the user when he clicks the activate me link in the email (I understand that 5 and 6 require some form of email templating system to support different emails per application) I was thinking of creating a library working together with forms authentication that exposes whatever methods are required (e.g. login, logout, activate, etc. and a small restful service to implement activation from email, registration processing etc. Taking into account that loads of things have been left out to make this question brief and to the point, does this sound like a good design? But this looks like a very common problem so arent there any existing projects that I could use? Thanks for reading.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160  | Next Page >