Search Results

Search found 14545 results on 582 pages for 'design patterns'.

Page 169/582 | < Previous Page | 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176  | Next Page >

  • How to make a jQuery plugin (the right way)?

    - by macek
    I know there are jQuery cookie plugins out there, but I wanted to write one for the sake of better learning the jQuery plugin pattern. I like the separation of "work" in small, manageable functions, but I feel like I'm passing name, value, and options arguments around too much. Is there a way this can be refactored? I'm looking for snippets of code to help illustrate examples provided with in answers. Any help is appreciated. Thanks :) example usage $.cookie('foo', 'bar', {expires:7}); $.cookie('foo'); //=> bar $.cookie('foo', null); $.cookie('foo'); //=> undefined Edit: I did a little bit of work on this. You can view the revision history to see where this has come from. It still feels like more refactoring can be done to optimize the flow a bit. Any ideas? the plugin (function($){ $.cookie = function(name, value, options) { if (typeof value == 'undefined') { return get(name); } else { options = $.extend({}, $.cookie.defaults, options || {}); return (value != null) ? set(name, value, options) : unset(name, options); } }; $.cookie.defaults = { expires: null, path: '/', domain: null, secure: false }; var set = function(name, value, options){ console.log(options); return document.cookie = options_string(name, value, options); }; var get = function(name){ var cookies = {}; $.map(document.cookie.split(';'), function(pair){ var c = $.trim(pair).split('='); cookies[c[0]] = c[1]; }); return decodeURIComponent(cookies[name]); }; var unset = function(name, options){ value = ''; options.expires = -1; set(name, value, options); }; var options_string = function(name, value, options){ var pairs = [param.name(name, value)]; $.each(options, function(k,v){ pairs.push(param[k](v)); }); return $.map(pairs, function(p){ return p === null ? null : p; }).join(';'); }; var param = { name: function(name, value){ return name + "=" + encodeURIComponent(value); }, expires: function(value){ // no expiry if(value === null){ return null; } // number of days else if(typeof value == "number"){ d = new Date(); d.setTime(d.getTime() + (value * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000)); } // date object else if(typeof value == "object" && value instanceof "Date") { d = value; } return "expires=" + d.toUTCString(); }, path: function(value){ return "path="+value; }, domain: function(value){ return value === null ? null : "domain=" + value; }, secure: function(bool){ return bool ? "secure" : null; } }; })(jQuery);

    Read the article

  • Modular enterprise architecture using MVC and Orchard CMS

    - by MrJD
    I'm making a large scale MVC application using Orchard. And I'm going to be separating my logic into modules. I'm also trying to heavily decouple the application for maximum extensibility and testability. I have a rudimentary understanding of IoC, Repository Pattern, Unit of Work pattern and Service Layer pattern. I've made myself a diagram. I'm wondering if it is correct and if there is anything I have missed regarding an extensible application. Note that each module is a separate project.

    Read the article

  • Is there a pattern that allows a constructor to be called only from a specific factory and from nowh

    - by willem
    We have a class, say LegacyUserSettingsService. LegacyUserSettingsService implements an interface, IUserSettingsService. You can get an instance of the IUserSettingsService by calling our ApplicationServicesFactory. The factory uses Spring.NET to construct the concrete LegacyUserSettingsService. The trouble is that new developers sometimes do their own thing and construct new instances of the LegacyUserSettingsService directly (instead of going via the factory). Is there a way to protect the constructor of the concrete class so it can only be called from the factory? A well-known pattern perhaps? Note that the concrete class resides in a different assembly (separate from the Factory's assembly, so the internal keyword is not a solution). The factory assembly references the other assembly that contains the concrete class. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • C++ visitor pattern handling templated string types?

    - by Steve the Plant
    I'm trying to use the visitor pattern to serialize the contents of objects. However one snag I'm hitting is when I'm visiting strings. My strings are of a templated type, similar to STL's basic_string. So something like: basic_string<char_type, memory_allocator, other_possible_stuff> \\ many variations possible! Since I can have very many different templated string types, I can't go and add them to my visitor interface. It would be ridiculous. But I can't add templates to my VisitString method because C++ prevents using templates parameters in virtual methods. So what are my options to work around this?

    Read the article

  • Is there a pattern for this?

    - by Timmy
    i have something that requires a matrix of values, similar to pokemon: i have a class object for each of the types, is there a pattern or a good way to implement this, as a middle layer or in the classes?

    Read the article

  • MyController class must produce class according to the enum type.

    - by programmerist
    GenoTipController must produce class according to the enum type. i have 3 class: _Company,_Muayene,_Radyoloji. Also i have CompanyView Class GetPersonel method. if you look GenoTipController my codes need refactoring. Can you understand me? i need a class according to ewnum type must me produce class. For example; case DataModelType.Radyoloji it must return radyoloji= new Radyoloji . Everything must be one switch case? public class GenoTipController { public _Company GenerateCompany(DataModelType modeltype) { _Company company = null; switch (modeltype) { case DataModelType.Radyoloji: break; case DataModelType.Satis: break; case DataModelType.Muayene: break; case DataModelType.Company: company = new Company(); break; default: break; } return company; } public _Muayene GenerateMuayene(DataModelType modeltype) { _Muayene muayene = null; switch (modeltype) { case DataModelType.Radyoloji: break; case DataModelType.Satis: break; case DataModelType.Muayene: muayene = new Muayene(); break; case DataModelType.Company: break; default: break; } return muayene; } public _Radyoloji GenerateRadyoloji(DataModelType modeltype) { _Radyoloji radyoloji = null; switch (modeltype) { case DataModelType.Radyoloji: radyoloji = new Radyoloji(); break; case DataModelType.Satis: break; case DataModelType.Muayene: break; case DataModelType.Company: break; default: break; } return radyoloji; } } public class CompanyView { public static List GetPersonel() { GenoTipController controller = new GenoTipController(); _Company company = controller.GenerateCompany(DataModelType.Company); return company.GetPersonel(); } } public enum DataModelType { Radyoloji, Satis, Muayene, Company } }

    Read the article

  • PHP MVC: How to implement an effective Controller/View Association like ZendFramework guys do!

    - by Navi
    Hi, I am making my own PHP-MVC framework. i have a question regarding Controller and View Association. I love the way Zend framework uses view within Controller as follow: $this->view->data = 'Data here'; so it can be used in view as follow: echo $this->data; I am wondering how can i implement this association. I want to remove codes between /** **/ and want to replace with some magic functions. My codes for controller as as follow: class UserController extends Controller{ /************************************/ public function __construct(){ $this->view = new View(); $this->view->setLayout( 'home' ); } function __destruct(){ $this->view->render(); } /************************************/ public function index(){ $this->redirect('user/login'); } public function login(){ } public function register(){ } public function forgotPassword(){ } } Thanks and best regards, -Navi

    Read the article

  • Service Layer Pattern - Could we avoid the service layer on a specific case?

    - by lidermin
    Hi, we are trying to implement an application using the Service Layer Pattern cause our application needs to connect to other multiple applications too, and googling on the web, we found this link of a demonstrative graphic for the "right" way of apply the pattern: martinfowler.com - Service Layer Pattern But now we have a question: what if our system needs to implement some business logic, only for our application (like some maintenance data for the system itself) that we don't need to share with other systems. Based on this graphic: As it seems, it will be unnecesary to implement a service layer just for that; it will be more practical to avoid the service layer, and just go from User Interface to the Business Layer (for example). What should be the right way in this case to implement the Service Layer Pattern? What do you suggest us for a scenario like the one I told you? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Question about factory classes

    - by devoured elysium
    Currently I have created a ABCFactory class that has a single method creating ABC objects. Now that I think of it, maybe instead of having a factory, I could just make a static method in my ABC Method. What are the pro's and con's on making this change? Will it not lead to the same? I don't foresee having other classes inherit ABC, but one never knows! Thanks

    Read the article

  • how can i use switch statement on type-safe enum pattern

    - by Fer
    I found a goodlooking example about implementation enums in a different way. That is called type-safe enum pattern i think. I started using it but i realized that i can not use it in a switch statement. My implementation looks like the following: public sealed class MyState { private readonly string m_Name; private readonly int m_Value; public static readonly MyState PASSED= new MyState(1, "OK"); public static readonly MyState FAILED= new MyState(2, "ERROR"); private MyState(int value, string name) { m_Name = name; m_Value = value; } public override string ToString() { return m_Name; } public int GetIntValue() { return m_Value; } } What can i add to my class in order to be able to use this pattern in switch statements in C#? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Should Factories Persist Entities?

    - by mxmissile
    Should factories persist entities they build? Or is that the job of the caller? Pseudo Example Incoming: public class OrderFactory { public Order Build() { var order = new Order(); .... return order; } } public class OrderController : Controller { public OrderController(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public ActionResult MyAction() { var order = factory.Build(); repository.Insert(order); ... } } or public class OrderFactory { public OrderFactory(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public Order Build() { var order = new Order(); ... repository.Insert(order); return order; } } public class OrderController : Controller { public ActionResult MyAction() { var order = factory.Build(); ... } } Is there a recommended practice here?

    Read the article

  • Are we using IoC effectively?

    - by Juliet
    So my company uses Castle Windsor IoC container, but in a way that feels "off": All the data types are registered in code, not the config file. All data types are hard-coded to use one interface implementation. In fact, for nearly all given interfaces, there is and will only ever be one implementation. All registered data types have a default constructor, so Windsor doesn't instantiate an object graph for any registered types. The people who designed the system insist the IoC container makes the system better. We have 1200+ public classes, so its a big system, the kind where you'd expect to find a framework like Windsor. But I'm still skeptical. Is my company using IoC effectively? Is there an advantage to new'ing objects with Windsor than new'ing objects with the new keyword?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Module Pattern - What about using "return this"?

    - by Rob
    After doing some reading about the Module Pattern, I've seen a few ways of returning the properties which you want to be public. One of the most common ways is to declare your public properties and methods right inside of the "return" statement, apart from your private properties and methods. A similar way (the "Revealing" pattern) is to provide simply references to the properties and methods which you want to be public. Lastly, a third technique I saw was to create a new object inside your module function, to which you assign your new properties before returning said object. This was an interesting idea, but requires the creation of a new object. So I was thinking, why not just use "this.propertyName" to assign your public properties and methods, and finally use "return this" at the end? This way seems much simpler to me, as you can create private properties and methods with the usual "var" or "function" syntax, or use the "this.propertyName" syntax to declare your public methods. Here's the method I'm suggesting: (function() { var privateMethod = function () { alert('This is a private method.'); } this.publicMethod = function () { alert('This is a public method.'); } return this; })(); Are there any pros/cons to using the method above? What about the others?

    Read the article

  • Would ViewModels fit in the Model View Presenter pattern?

    - by Jonn
    Having used ViewModels in MVC, I was wondering if applying the same to the MVP pattern is practical. I only have a few considerations, one being that MVP is already fairly hard to implement (with all the additional coding, not much on the seeming complexity) or that ViewModels already have a slightly similar way of modeling data or entities. Would adding another layer in the form of ViewModels be redundant or is it a logical abstraction that I, as one implementing the MVP pattern, should adhere to?

    Read the article

  • Haskell: Pattern Matching with Lists

    - by user1670032
    I'm trying to make a function that takes in a list, and if one of the elements is negative, then any elements in that list that are equal to its positive counterpart should be changed to 0. Eg, if there is a -2 in a list, then all 2's in that list should be changed to 0. Any ideas why it only works for some cases and not others? I'm not understanding why this is, I've looked it over several times. changeToZero [] = [] changeToZero [x] = [x] changeToZero (x:zs:y:ws) | (x < 0) && ((-1)*(x) == y) = x : zs : 0 : changeToZero ws changeToZero (x:xs) = x : changeToZero xs *Main changeToZero [-1,1,-2,2,-3,3] [-1,1,-2,2,-3,3] *Main changeToZero [-2,1,2,3] [-2,1,0,3] *Main changeToZero [-2,1,2,3,2] [-2,1,0,3,2] *Main changeToZero [1,-2,2,2,1] [1,-2,2,0,1]

    Read the article

  • Best practice to modularise a large Grails app?

    - by Mulone
    Hi all, A Grails app I'm working on is becoming pretty big, and it would be good to refactor it into several modules, so that we don't have to redeploy the whole thing every time. In your opinion, what is the best practice to split a Grails app in several modules? In particular I'd like to create a package of domain classes + relevant services and use it in the app as a module. Is this possible? Is it possible to do it with plugins? Cheers, Mulone

    Read the article

  • Explain "Leader/Follower" Pattern

    - by Alex B
    I can't seem to find a good explanation of "Leader/Follower" pattern. All explanations either simply refer to it in the context of some problem, or are completely meaningless. Can anyone explain to the the mechanics of how this pattern works, and why and how it improves performance over more traditional asynchronous IO models? Examples and links to diagrams are appreciated too.

    Read the article

  • Good case for a Null Object Pattern? (Provide some service with a mailservice)

    - by fireeyedboy
    For a website I'm working on, I made an Media Service object that I use in the front end, as well as in the backend (CMS). This Media Service object manipulates media in a local repository (DB); it provides the ability to upload/embed video's and upload images. In other words, website visitors are able to do this in the front end, but administrators of the site are also able to do this in the backend. I'ld like this service to mail the administrators when a visitor has uploaded/embedded a new medium in the frontend, but refrain from mailing them when they upload/embed a medium themself in the backend. So I started wondering whether this is a good case for passing a null object, that mimicks the mail funcionality, to the Media Service in the backend. I thought this might come in handy when they decide the backend needs to have implemented mail functionality as well. In simplified terms I'ld like to do something like this: Frontend: $mediaService = new MediaService( new MediaRepository(), new StandardMailService() ); Backend: $mediaService = new MediaService( new MediaRepository(), new NullMailService() ); How do you feel about this? Does this make sense? Or am I setting myself up for problems down the road?

    Read the article

  • Handling Dialogs in WPF with MVVM

    - by Ray Booysen
    In the MVVM pattern for WPF, handling dialogs is one of the more complex operations. As your view model does not know anything about the view, dialog communication can be interesting. I can expose an ICommand that when the view invokes it, a dialog can appear. Does anyone know of a good way to handle results from dialogs? I am speaking about windows dialogs such as MessageBox. One of the ways we did this was have an event on the viewmodel that the view would subscribe to when a dialog was required. public event EventHandler<MyDeleteArgs> RequiresDeleteDialog; This is OK, but it means that the view requires code which is something I would like to stay away from.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176  | Next Page >