Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns practices'.

Page 164/348 | < Previous Page | 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171  | Next Page >

  • how to tackle a new project

    - by stevo
    Hi, I have a question about best practice on how to tackle a new project, any project. When starting a new project how do you go about tackling the project, do you split it into sections, start writing code, draw up flow diagrams. I'm asking this question because I'm looking for advice on how I can start new projects so I can get going on them quicker. I can have it planned, designed and starting coding with everything worked out. Any advice? Thanks Stephen

    Read the article

  • How can i implement the NULL Object Design Pattern in a generic form?

    - by Colour Blend
    Is there a way to implement the null object design pattern in a generic form so that i don't need to implement it for every buisness object. For me, there are two high level classes you'll need for every business class. One for a single record and another for a list. So i think there should be a way to implement the NULL Object design pattern at a high level and not have to implement it for every class. Is there a way and how please?

    Read the article

  • Should a C++ constructor do real work?

    - by Wade Williams
    I'm strugging with some advice I have in the back of my mind but for which I can't remember the reasoning. I seem to remember at some point reading some advice (can't remember the source) that C++ constructors should not do real work. Rather, they should initialize variables only. The advice when on to explain that real work should be done in some sort of init() method, to be called separately after the instance was created. The situation is I have a class that represents a hardware device. It makes logical sense to me for the constructor to call the routines that query the device in order to build up the instance variables that describe the device. In other words, once new instantiates the object, the developer receives an object which is ready to be used, no separate call to object-init() required. Is there a good reason why constructors shouldn't do real work? Obviously it could slow allocation time, but that wouldn't be any different if calling a separate method immediately after allocation. Just trying to figure out what gotchas I not currently considering that might have lead to such advice.

    Read the article

  • user interface pattern for associating single or many objects to an entity

    - by Samuel
    Need suggestions on implementing associating single or many objects to an entity. All soccer team players are registered individually (e.g. they are part of 'players' table) A soccer team has many players. The click sequence is like this:- a] Soccer team owner provides a name and brief description of the soccer team. b] Now it wants to add players to this team. c] You have the following button 'Add players to team' which lets you navigate to the 'View Players' page and lets you multi select users from there. Assuming this is a paginated list of players, how do you handle the following:- Do you provide a check box against each player and let the manager do a multi selection. If you need to add more players, it doesn't make sense to show the players who have been already added to the team. Do you mark those entries as not selectable or you would adding showing these entries. If you need to filter, do you provide search filters at the top of this page. Am looking for ideas on how to implement this or sites which have already done something similar.

    Read the article

  • Where do you put your dependencies?

    - by The All Foo
    If I use the dependency injection pattern to remove dependencies they end up some where else. For example, Snippet 1, or what I call Object Maker. I mean you have to instantiate your objects somewhere...so when you move dependency out of one object, you end up putting it another one. I see that this consolidates all my dependencies into one object. Is that the point, to reduce your dependencies so that they all reside in a single ( as close to as possible ) location? Snippet 1 - Object Maker <?php class ObjectMaker { public function makeSignUp() { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); $SignUpObject = new ControlSignUp(); $SignUpObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject, $TextObject, $MessageObject); return $SignUpObject; } public function makeSignIn() { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); $SignInObject = new ControlSignIn(); $SignInObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject, $TextObject, $MessageObject); return $SignInObject; } public function makeTweet( $DatabaseObject = NULL, $TextObject = NULL, $MessageObject = NULL ) { if( $DatabaseObject == 'small' ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); } else if( $DatabaseObject == NULL ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); } $TweetObject = new ControlTweet(); $TweetObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject, $TextObject, $MessageObject); return $TweetObject; } public function makeBookmark( $DatabaseObject = NULL, $TextObject = NULL, $MessageObject = NULL ) { if( $DatabaseObject == 'small' ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); } else if( $DatabaseObject == NULL ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); } $BookmarkObject = new ControlBookmark(); $BookmarkObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject,$TextObject,$MessageObject); return $BookmarkObject; } }

    Read the article

  • Should I make a ImageHelper in this situation?

    - by Dejan.S
    Hi I'm working with a project (asp.net mvc) where I need to show pictures on one site. They gone have jquery and be surrounded by a div like <div><img/></div> I'm relatively new on MVC so I'm not sure what ways are the best to work in it yet. Should I do a ImageHelper so i can access it like <% Html.ImageJquery() %> or should i just do it plain in the view what are your thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • Zend Framework Application: module dependencies

    - by takeshin
    How do you handle dependencies between modules in Zend Framework to create reusable, drop-in modules? E.g. I have Newsletter module, which allows users to subscribe, providing e-mail address. Next, I plan to add Blog module, which allows to subscribe to posts by e-mail (it obviously duplicates some functionality of the newsletter, but the e-mails addresses are stored in User model). Next one is the Forum module, with the same subscribe to post functionality. But I want to have ability to use these modules independent to each one, i.e. application with newsletter alone, newsletter with blog, comibnation two or three modules at once. This is pretty common, e.g. the same story with search feature. I want to have search module, with options to search in all data, blog data or forum data if available. Is there any design pattern for this? Do I have to add some moduleExists($moduleMame), or provide some interface or abstract classes, some base controller pattern, similar for each module?

    Read the article

  • Should I be using the command pattern? Seems like a lot of work...

    - by Fedor
    My Room class has a lot of methods I used before I decided to use the command pattern. Previously, I was invoking a lot of commands and now it seems I have to make a method in my roomParser class for every method. If I wanted to invoke say, setHotelCode I would have to create a method in roomParser that iterates through and invokes the method. Is this the way I should be using the command pattern? <?php interface Parseable { public function parse( $arr, $dept ); } class Room implements Parseable { protected $_adults; protected $_kids; protected $_startDate; protected $_endDate; protected $_hotelCode; protected $_sessionNs; protected $_minRate; protected $_maxRate; protected $_groupCode; protected $_rateCode; protected $_promoCode; protected $_confCode; protected $_currency = 'USD'; protected $_soapAction; protected $_soapHeaders; protected $_soapServer; protected $_responseXml; protected $_requestXml; public function __construct( $startdate,$enddate,$rooms=1,$adults=2,$kids=0 ) { $this->setNamespace(SESSION_NAME); $this->verifyDates( $startdate, $enddate ); $this->_rooms= $rooms; $this->_adults= $adults; $this->_kids= $kids; $this->setSoapAction(); $this->setRates(); } public function parse( $arr, $dept ) { $this->_price = $arr * $dept * rand(); return $this; } public function setNamespace( $namespace ) { $this->_sessionNs = $namespace; } private function verifyDates( $startdate, $enddate ) {} public function setSoapAction( $str= 'CheckAvailability' ) { $this->_soapAction = $str; } public function setRates( $rates='' ) { } public function setHotelCode($code ) { $this->_hotelCode = $code; } private function getSoapHeader() { return '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <soap:Header> </soap:Header>'; } private function getSoapFooter() { return '</soap:Envelope>'; } private function getSource() { return '<POS> <Source><RequestorId ID="" ID_Context="" /></Source> </POS>'; } function requestXml() { $this->_requestXml = $this->getSoapHeader(); $this->_requestXml .='<soap:Body></soap:Body>'; return $this->_requestXml; } private function setSoapHeaders ($contentLength) { $this->_soapHeaders = array('POST /url HTTP/1.1', 'Host: '.SOAP_HOST, 'Content-Type: text/xml; charset=utf-8', 'Content-Length: '.$contentLength); } } class RoomParser extends SplObjectStorage { public function attach( Parseable $obj ) { parent::attach( $obj ); } public function parseRooms( $arr, $dept ) { for ( $this->rewind(); $this->valid(); $this->next() ) { $ret = $this->current()->parse( $arr, $dept ); echo $ret->getPrice(), PHP_EOL; } } } $arrive = '12/28/2010'; $depart = '01/02/2011'; $rooms = new RoomParser( $arrive, $depart); $rooms->attach( new Room( '12/28/2010', '01/02/2011') ); $rooms->attach( new Room( '12/29/2010', '01/04/2011') ); echo $rooms->count(), ' Rooms', PHP_EOL; Edit: I'm thinking it may be easier if I made the RoomParser less generic by storing properties that all the objects will share. Though I'll probably have to make methods if I want to override for a certain object.

    Read the article

  • Effective communication in a component-based system

    - by Tesserex
    Yes, this is another question about my game engine, which is coming along very nicely, with much thanks to you guys. So, if you watched the video (or didn't), the objects in the game are composed of various components for things like position, sprites, movement, collision, sounds, health, etc. I have several message types defined for "tell" type communication between entities and components, but this only goes so far. There are plenty of times when I just need to ask for something, for example an entity's position. There are dozens of lines in my code that look like this: SomeComponent comp = (SomeComponent)entity.GetComponent(typeof(SomeComponent)); if (comp != null) comp.GetSomething(); I know this is very ugly, and I know that casting smells of improper OO design. But as complex as things are, there doesn't seem to be a better way. I could of course "hard-code" my component types and just have SomeComponent comp = entity.GetSomeComponent(); but that seems like a cop-out, and a bad one. I literally JUST REALIZED, while writing this, after having my code this way for months with no solution, that a generic will help me. SomeComponent comp = entity.GetComponent<SomeComponent>(); Amazing how that works. Anyway, this is still only a semantic improvement. My questions remain. Is this actually that bad? What's a better alternative?

    Read the article

  • Writing a synchronized thread-safety wrapper for NavigableMap

    - by polygenelubricants
    java.util.Collections currently provide the following utility methods for creating synchronized wrapper for various collection interfaces: synchronizedCollection(Collection<T> c) synchronizedList(List<T> list) synchronizedMap(Map<K,V> m) synchronizedSet(Set<T> s) synchronizedSortedMap(SortedMap<K,V> m) synchronizedSortedSet(SortedSet<T> s) Analogously, it also has 6 unmodifiedXXX overloads. The glaring omission here are the utility methods for NavigableMap<K,V>. It's true that it extends SortedMap, but so does SortedSet extends Set, and Set extends Collection, and Collections have dedicated utility methods for SortedSet and Set. Presumably NavigableMap is a useful abstraction, or else it wouldn't have been there in the first place, and yet there are no utility methods for it. So the questions are: Is there a specific reason why Collections doesn't provide utility methods for NavigableMap? How would you write your own synchronized wrapper for NavigableMap? Glancing at the source code for OpenJDK version of Collections.java seems to suggest that this is just a "mechanical" process Is it true that in general you can add synchronized thread-safetiness feature like this? If it's such a mechanical process, can it be automated? (Eclipse plug-in, etc) Is this code repetition necessary, or could it have been avoided by a different OOP design pattern?

    Read the article

  • Benefits of arrays

    - by Vitalii Fedorenko
    As I see it, the advantages of List over array are pretty obvious: Generics provide more precise typing: List<Integer>, List<? extends Number>, List<? super Integer>. List interface has a bunch useful methods: addAll, remove etc. While for arrays all standard operations except get/set must be performed in a procedure manner by passing it to a static method. Collections offer different implementations like ArrayList, LinkedList, unmodifieable and synchronized lists, which can be hidden under common List interface. OOB length control. As disadvantages I can only mention absence of syntactic sugar and runtime type check. At the same time supporting of both structures requires frequent using of asList and toArray methods, which makes code less readable. So I am curious if there are any important benefits of using arrays that I miss.

    Read the article

  • How to synchronize static method in java.

    - by Summer_More_More_Tea
    Hi there: I come up with this question when implementing singleton pattern in Java. Even though the example listed blow is not my real code, yet very similar to the original one. public class ConnectionFactory{ private static ConnectionFactory instance; public static synchronized ConnectionFactory getInstance(){ if( instance == null ){ instance = new ConnectionFactory(); } return instance; } private ConnectionFactory(){ // private constructor implementation } } Because I'm not quite sure about the behavior of a static synchronized method, I get some suggestion from google -- do not have (or as less as possible) multiple static synchronized methods in the same class. I guess when implementing static synchronized method, a lock belongs to Class object is used so that multiple static synchronized methods may degrade performance of the system. Am I right? or JVM use other mechanism to implement static synchronized method? What's the best practice if I have to implement multiple static synchronized methods in a class? Thank you all! Kind regards!

    Read the article

  • What's the worst name you've seen for a product? [closed]

    - by Dean J
    (Community wiki from the start.) What's the worst name you've seen for a product? It might be a euphemism the company didn't know about, maybe something like Penetrode (from Office Space). It might be something impossible to do a web search on, like the band named "Download". It might be some combination of random syllables that's just awful. But no matter what, it's bad. What's the worst you've seen?

    Read the article

  • Single-Page Web Apps: Client-side datastores & server persistence

    - by fig-gnuton
    How should client-side datastores & persistence be handled in a single-page web application? Global vars vs. DI/IoC: Should datastores be assigned to global variables so any part of the application can access them? Or should they be dependency injected where required? Server persistence: Assuming a datastore's data needn't always be persisted to the server immediately, should the datastore itself handle persistence? If not, then what class should handle persistence and how should the persistence class fit into the client-side architecture overall? Is the datastore considered the model in MVC, or is it something else since it just stores raw data?

    Read the article

  • How can I get my business objects layer to use the management layer in their methods?

    - by Tom Pickles
    I have a solution in VS2010 with several projects, each making up a layer within my application. I have business entities which are currently objects with no methods, and I have a management layer which references the business entities layer in it's project. I now think I have designed my application poorly and would like to move methods from helper classes (which are in another layer) into methods I'll create within the business entities themselves. For example I have a VirtualMachine object, which uses a helper class to call a Reboot() method on it which passes the request to the management layer. The static manager class talks to an API that reboots the VM. I want to move the Reboot() method into the VirtualMachine object, but I will need to reference the management layer: public void Reboot() { VMManager.Reboot(this.Name); } So if I add a reference to my management project in my entities project, I get the circular dependency error, which is how it should be. How can I sort this situation out? Do I need to an yet another layer between the entity layer and the management layer? Or, should I just forget it and leave it as it is. The application works ok now, but I am concerned my design isn't particularly OOP centric and I would like to correct this.

    Read the article

  • Haskell function composition (.) and function application ($) idioms: correct use.

    - by Robert Massaioli
    I have been reading Real World Haskell and I am nearing the end but a matter of style has been niggling at me to do with the (.) and ($) operators. When you write a function that is a composition of other functions you write it like: f = g . h But when you apply something to the end of those functions I write it like this: k = a $ b $ c $ value But the book would write it like this: k = a . b . c $ value Now to me they look functionally equivalent, they do the exact same thing in my eyes. However, the more I look, the more I see people writing their functions in the manner that the book does: compose with (.) first and then only at the end use ($) to append a value to evaluate the lot (nobody does it with many dollar compositions). Is there a reason for using the books way that is much better than using all ($) symbols? Or is there some best practice here that I am not getting? Or is it superfluous and I shouldn't be worrying about it at all? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Extend legacy site with another server-side programming platform best practice

    - by Andrew Florko
    Company I work for have a site developed 6-8 years ago by a team that was enthusiastic enough to use their own private PHP-based CMS. I have to put dynamic data from one intranet company database on this site in one week: 2-3 pages. I contacted company site administrator and she showed me administrative part - CMS allows only to insert html blocks & manage site map (site is deployed on machine that is inside company & fully accessible & upgradeable). I'm not a PHP-guy & I don't want to dive into legacy hardly-who-ever-heard-about CMS engine I also don't want to contact developers team, 'cos I'm not sure they are still present and capable enough to extend this old days site and it'll take too much time anyway. I am about to deploy helper asp.net site on IIS with 2-3 pages required & refer helper site via iframe from present site. New pages will allow to download some dynamic content from present site also. Is it ok and what are the pitfalls with iframe approach?

    Read the article

  • pattern to transfer search model to dao

    - by zeroed
    We have a dao as a project (jar file). Clients use its interfaces and factories to operate with database. Using standard CRUD operations, dao allows you to search an entity by some search criteria. What is the best way to represent this criteria? Is transfer object appropriate pattern in this situation? How should client create SearchModel instance? Please, share. Regards.

    Read the article

  • Multiple leaf methods problem in composite pattern

    - by Ondrej Slinták
    At work, we are developing an PHP application that would be later re-programmed into Java. With some basic knowledge of Java, we are trying to design everything to be easily re-written, without any headaches. Interesting problem came out when we tried to implement composite pattern with huge number of methods in leafs. What are we trying to achieve (not using interfaces, it's just an example): class Composite { ... } class LeafOne { public function Foo( ); public function Moo( ); } class LeafTwo { public function Bar( ); public function Baz( ); } $c = new Composite( Array( new LeafOne( ), new LeafTwo( ) ) ); // will call method Foo in all classes in composite that contain this method $c->Foo( ); It seems like pretty much classic Composite pattern, but problem is that we will have quite many leaf classes and each of them might have ~5 methods (of which few might be different than others). One of our solutions, which seems to be the best one so far and might actually work, is using __call magic method to call methods in leafs. Unfortunately, we don't know if there is an equivalent of it in Java. So the actual question is: Is there a better solution for this, using code that would be eventually easily re-coded into Java? Or do you recommend any other solution? Perhaps there's some different, better pattern I could use here. In case there's something unclear, just ask and I'll edit this post.

    Read the article

  • Where do you put your unit test?

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewers?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171  | Next Page >