Search Results

Search found 8962 results on 359 pages for 'abstract factory pattern'.

Page 17/359 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • How to work with PHP abstract?

    - by YumYumYum
    Why would you use such abstract? Does it speed up work or what exactly its for? // file1.php abstract class Search_Adapter_Abstract { private $ch = null; abstract private function __construct() { } abstract public funciton __destruct() { curl_close($this->ch); } abstract public function search($searchString,$offset,$count); } // file2.php include("file1.php"); class abc extends Search_Adapter_Abstract { // Will the curl_close now automatically be closed? } What is the reason of extending abstract here? Makes me confused. What can i get from it now?

    Read the article

  • WCF service with Factory attribute on .svc is not working on web server (IIS6), but is locally using

    - by Jessica
    I am working on implementing a non web.config approach of WCF services using the factory attribute on the .svc file per Rick Strahl's blog post: Factory="System.ServiceModel.Activation.WebScriptServiceHostFactory" Locally, I am running IIS7 in Visual Studio 2008 and have no problem, but when I deploy to my web server (currently running IIS6), I am getting an authentication error in the event log: Exception: System.ServiceModel.ServiceActivationException: The service '/Services/ResourcesService.svc' cannot be activated due to an exception during compilation. The exception message is: IIS specified authentication schemes 'IntegratedWindowsAuthentication, Anonymous', but the binding only supports specification of exactly one authentication scheme. Valid authentication schemes are Digest, Negotiate, NTLM, Basic, or Anonymous. Change the IIS settings so that only a single authentication scheme is used.. --- System.InvalidOperationException: IIS specified authentication schemes 'IntegratedWindowsAuthentication, Anonymous', but the binding only supports specification of exactly one authentication scheme. Valid authentication schemes are Digest, Negotiate, NTLM, Basic, or Anonymous. Change the IIS settings so that only a single authentication scheme is used. at System.ServiceModel.Web.WebServiceHost.SetBindingCredentialBasedOnHostedEnvironment(ServiceEndpoint serviceEndpoint, AuthenticationSchemes supportedSchemes) at System.ServiceModel.Web.WebServiceHost.AddAutomaticWebHttpBindingEndpoints(ServiceHost host, IDictionary`2 implementedContracts, String multipleContractsErrorMessage) at System.ServiceModel.WebScriptServiceHost.OnOpening() at System.ServiceModel.Channels.CommunicationObject.Open(TimeSpan timeout) at System.ServiceModel.Channels.CommunicationObject.Open() at System.ServiceModel.ServiceHostingEnvironment.HostingManager.ActivateService(String normalizedVirtualPath) at System.ServiceModel.ServiceHostingEnvironment.HostingManager.EnsureServiceAvailable(String normalizedVirtualPath) After doing some Googling, I changed my authentication settings on the .svc folder within my project (on the server) to only anonymous authentication, but it did not work. I still get web service failed on the calls. IIS7 by default only had anonymous. I do not have any entries in my web.config for the services (I stripped them out per this pattern). I am using a nant script to deploy the website to the server and use this also locally to verify the script was not causing the issue. Any known issue with this? IIS 6 not able to handle?

    Read the article

  • Java abstract visitor - guarantueed to succeed? If so, why?

    - by disown
    I was dealing with hibernate, trying to figure out the run-time class behind proxied instances by using the visitor pattern. I then came up with an AbstractVisitable approach, but I wonder if it will always produce correct results. Consider the following code: interface Visitable { public void accept(Visitor v); } interface Visitor { public void visit(Visitable visitorHost); } abstract class AbstractVisitable implements Visitable { @Override public void accept(Visitor v) { v.visit(this); } } class ConcreteVisitable extends AbstractVisitable { public static void main(String[] args) { final Visitable visitable = new ConcreteVisitable(); final Visitable proxyVisitable = (Visitable) Proxy.newProxyInstance( Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader(), new Class<?>[] { Visitable.class }, new InvocationHandler() { @Override public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args) throws Throwable { return method.invoke(visitable, args); } }); proxyVisitable.accept(new Visitor() { @Override public void visit(Visitable visitorHost) { System.out.println(visitorHost.getClass()); } }); } } This makes a ConcreteVisitable which inherits the accept method from AbstractVisitable. In c++, I would consider this risky, since this in AbstractVisitable could be referencing to AbstractVisitable::this, and not ConcreteVisitable::this. I was worried that the code under certain circumstances would print class AbstractVisible. Yet the code above outputs class ConcreteVisitable, even though I hid the real type behind a dynamic proxy (the most difficult case I could come up with). Is the abstract visitor approach above guaranteed to work, or are there some pitfalls with this approach? What guarantees are given in Java with respect to the this pointer?

    Read the article

  • Pattern for Accessing MySQL connection

    - by Dipan Mehta
    We have an application which is C++ trying to access MySQL database. There are several (about 5 or so) threads in the application (with Boost library for threading) and in each thread has a few objects, each of which is trying to access Database for its' own purpose. It has a simple ORM kind of model but that really is not an important factor here. There are three potential access patterns i can think of: There could be single connection object per application or thread and is shared between all (or group). The object needs to be thread safe and there will be contentions but MySQL will not be fired with too many connections. Every object could initiate connection on its own. The database needs to take care of concurrency (which i think MySQL can) and the design could be much simpler. There could be two possibilities here. a. either object keeps a persistent connection for its life OR b. object initiate connection as and when needed. To simplify the contention as in case of 1 and not to create too many sockets as in case of 2, we can have group/set based connections. So there could be there could be more than one connection (say N), each of this connection could be shared connection across M objects. Naturally, each of the pattern has different resource cost and would work under different constraints and objectives. What criteria should i use to choose the pattern of this for my own application? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each of these pattern over the other? Are there any other pattern which is better? PS: I have been through these questions: mysql, one connection vs multiple and MySQL with mutiple threads and processes But they don't quite answer exactly what i am trying to ask.

    Read the article

  • (Abstract) Game engine design

    - by lukeluke
    I am writing a simple 2D game (for mobile platforms) for the first time. From an abstract point of view, i have the main player controlled by the human, the enemies, elments that will interact with the main player, other living elements that will be controlled by a simple AI (both enemies and non-enemies). The human player will be totally controlled by the player, the other actors will be controlled by AI. So i have a class CActor and a class CActorLogic to start with. I would define a CActor subclass CHero (the main player controlled with some input device). This class will probably implement some type of listener, in order to capture input events. The other players controlled by the AI will be probably a specific subclass of CActor (a subclass per-type, obviously). This seems to be reasonable. The CActor class should have a reference to a method of CActorLogic, that we will call something like CActorLogic::Advance() or similar. Actors should have a visual representation. I would introduce a CActorRepresentation class, with a method like Render() that will draw the actor (that is, the right frame of the right animation). Where to change the animation? Well, the actor logic method Advance() should take care of checking collisions and other things. I would like to discuss the design of a game engine (actors, entities, objects, messages, input handling, visualization of object states (that is, rendering, sound output and so on)) but not from a low level point of view, but from an high level point of view, like i have described above. My question is: is there any book/on line resource that will help me organize things (using an object oriented approach)? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Abstract Factory Method and Polymorphism

    - by Scotty C.
    Being a PHP programmer for the last couple of years, I'm just starting to get into advanced programming styles and using polymorphic patterns. I was watching a video on polymorphism the other day, and the guy giving the lecture said that if at all possible, you should get rid of if statements in your code, and that a switch is almost always a sign that polymorphism is needed. At this point I was quite inspired and immediately went off to try out these new concepts, so I decided to make a small caching module using a factory method. Of course the very first thing I have to do is create a switch to decide what file encoding to choose. DANG! class Main { public static function methodA($parameter='') { switch ($parameter) { case 'a': $object = new \name\space\object1(); break; case 'b': $object = new \name\space\object2(); break; case 'c': $object = new \name\space\object3(); break; default: $object = new \name\space\object1(); } return (sekretInterface $object); } } At this point I'm not really sure what to do. As far as I can tell, I either have to use a different pattern and have separate methods for each object instance, or accept that a switch is necessary to "switch" between them. What do you guys think?

    Read the article

  • Using visitor pattern with large object hierarchy

    - by T. Fabre
    Context I've been using with a hierarchy of objects (an expression tree) a "pseudo" visitor pattern (pseudo, as in it does not use double dispatch) : public interface MyInterface { void Accept(SomeClass operationClass); } public class MyImpl : MyInterface { public void Accept(SomeClass operationClass) { operationClass.DoSomething(); operationClass.DoSomethingElse(); // ... and so on ... } } This design was, however questionnable, pretty comfortable since the number of implementations of MyInterface is significant (~50 or more) and I didn't need to add extra operations. Each implementation is unique (it's a different expression or operator), and some are composites (ie, operator nodes that will contain other operator/leaf nodes). Traversal is currently performed by calling the Accept operation on the root node of the tree, which in turns calls Accept on each of its child nodes, which in turn... and so on... But the time has come where I need to add a new operation, such as pretty printing : public class MyImpl : MyInterface { // Property does not come from MyInterface public string SomeProperty { get; set; } public void Accept(SomeClass operationClass) { operationClass.DoSomething(); operationClass.DoSomethingElse(); // ... and so on ... } public void Accept(SomePrettyPrinter printer) { printer.PrettyPrint(this.SomeProperty); } } I basically see two options : Keep the same design, adding a new method for my operation to each derived class, at the expense of maintainibility (not an option, IMHO) Use the "true" Visitor pattern, at the expense of extensibility (not an option, as I expect to have more implementations coming along the way...), with about 50+ overloads of the Visit method, each one matching a specific implementation ? Question Would you recommand using the Visitor pattern ? Is there any other pattern that could help solve this issue ?

    Read the article

  • MVC Architecture

    Model-View-Controller (MVC) is an architectural design pattern first written about and implemented by  in 1978. Trygve developed this pattern during the year he spent working with Xerox PARC on a small talk application. According to Trygve, “The essential purpose of MVC is to bridge the gap between the human user's mental model and the digital model that exists in the computer. The ideal MVC solution supports the user illusion of seeing and manipulating the domain information directly. The structure is useful if the user needs to see the same model element simultaneously in different contexts and/or from different viewpoints.”  Trygve Reenskaug on MVC The MVC pattern is composed of 3 core components. Model View Controller The Model component referenced in the MVC pattern pertains to the encapsulation of core application data and functionality. The primary goal of the model is to maintain its independence from the View and Controller components which together form the user interface of the application. The View component retrieves data from the Model and displays it to the user. The View component represents the output of the application to the user. Traditionally the View has read-only access to the Model component because it should not change the Model’s data. The Controller component receives and translates input to requests on the Model or View components. The Controller is responsible for requesting methods on the model that can change the state of the model. The primary benefit to using MVC as an architectural pattern in a project compared to other patterns is flexibility. The flexibility of MVC is due to the distinct separation of concerns it establishes with three distinct components.  Because of the distinct separation between the components interaction is limited through the use of interfaces instead of classes. This allows each of the components to be hot swappable when the needs of the application change or needs of availability change. MVC can easily be applied to C# and the .Net Framework. In fact, Microsoft created a MVC project template that will allow new project of this type to be created with the standard MVC structure in place before any coding begins. The project also creates folders for the three key components along with default Model, View and Controller classed added to the project. Personally I think that MVC is a great pattern in regards to dealing with web applications because they could be viewed from a myriad of devices. Examples of devices include: standard web browsers, text only web browsers, mobile phones, smart phones, IPads, IPhones just to get started. Due to the potentially increasing accessibility needs and the ability for components to be hot swappable is a perfect fit because the core functionality of the application can be retained and the View component can be altered based on the client’s environment and the View component could be swapped out based on the calling device so that the display is targeted to that specific device.

    Read the article

  • iOS - Unit tests for KVO/delegate codes

    - by ZhangChn
    I am going to design a MVC pattern. It could be either designed as a delegate pattern, or a Key-Value-Observing(KVO), to notify the controller about changing models. The project requires certain quality control procedures to conform to those verification documents. My questions: Does delegate pattern fit better for unit testing than KVO? If KVO fits better, would you please suggest some sample codes?

    Read the article

  • Factory Method Pattern clarification

    - by nettguy
    My understanding of Factory Method Pattern is (Correct me if i am wrong) Factory Method Pattern "Factory Method allow the client to delegates the product creation (Instance Creation) to the subclass". There are two situation in which we can go for creating Factory Method pattern. (i) When the client is restricted to the product (Instance) creation. (ii) There are multiple products available.But a decision to be made which product instance need to be returned. If you want to create Abstract Method pattern You need to have abstract product Concrete Product Factory Method to return the appropriate product. Example : public enum ORMChoice { L2SQL, EFM, LS, Sonic } //Abstract Product public interface IProduct { void ProductTaken(); } //Concrete Product public class LinqtoSql : IProduct { public void ProductTaken() { Console.WriteLine("OR Mapping Taken:LinqtoSql"); } } //concrete product public class Subsonic : IProduct { public void ProductTaken() { Console.WriteLine("OR Mapping Taken:Subsonic"); } } //concrete product public class EntityFramework : IProduct { public void ProductTaken() { Console.WriteLine("OR Mapping Taken:EntityFramework"); } } //concrete product public class LightSpeed : IProduct { public void ProductTaken() { Console.WriteLine("OR Mapping Taken :LightSpeed"); } } public class Creator { //Factory Method public IProduct ReturnORTool(ORMChoice choice) { switch (choice) { case ORMChoice.EFM:return new EntityFramework(); break; case ORMChoice.L2SQL:return new LinqtoSql(); break; case ORMChoice.LS:return new LightSpeed(); break; case ORMChoice.Sonic:return new Subsonic(); break; default: return null; } } } **Client** Button_Click() { Creator c = new Creator(); IProduct p = c.ReturnORTool(ORMChoice.L2SQL); p.ProductTaken(); } Is my understanding of Factory Method is correct?

    Read the article

  • Php: Overriding abstract method goes wrong

    - by Lu4
    Hi! I think there is a problem in php's OOP implementation. EDIT: Consider more illustrative example: abstract class Animal { public $name; // public function Communicate(Animal $partner) {} // Works public abstract function Communicate(Animal $partner); // Gives error } class Panda extends Animal { public function Communicate(Panda $partner) { echo "Hi {$partner->name} I'm a Panda"; } } class Human extends Animal { public function Communicate(Human $partner) { echo "Hi {$partner->name} I'm a Human"; } } $john = new Human(); $john->name = 'John'; $mary = new Human(); $mary->name = 'Mary'; $john->Communicate($mary); // should be ok $zuzi = new Panda(); $zuzi->name = 'Zuzi'; $zuzi->Communicate($john); // should give error The problem is that when Animal::Communicate is an abstract method, php tells that the following methods are illegal: "public function Communicate(Panda $partner)" "public function Communicate(Human $partner)" but when Animal::Communicate is non-abstract but has zero-implementation Php thinks that these methods are legal. So in my opinion it's not right because we are doing override in both cases, and these both cases are equal, so it seems like it's a bug... Older part of the post: Please consider the following code: Framework.php namespace A { class Component { ... } abstract class Decorator { public abstract function Decorate(\A\Component $component); } } Implementation.php namespace B { class MyComponent extends \A\Component { ... } } MyDecorator.php namespace A { class MyDecorator extends Decorator { public function Decorate(\B\MyComponent $component) { ... } } } The following code gives error in MyDecorator.php telling Fatal error: Declaration of MyDecorator::Decorate() must be compatible with that of A\Decorator::Decorate() in MyDecorator.php on line ... But when I change the Framework.php::Decorator class to the following implementation: abstract class Decorator { public function Decorate(\A\Component $component) {} } the problem disappears.

    Read the article

  • How can I configure a Factory with the possible providers?

    - by Jonathas Costa
    I have three assemblies: "Framework.DataAccess", "Framework.DataAccess.NHibernateProvider" and "Company.DataAccess". Inside the assembly "Framework.DataAccess", I have my factory (with the wrong implementation of discovery): public class DaoFactory { private static readonly object locker = new object(); private static IWindsorContainer _daoContainer; protected static IWindsorContainer DaoContainer { get { if (_daoContainer == null) { lock (locker) { if (_daoContainer != null) return _daoContainer; _daoContainer = new WindsorContainer(new XmlInterpreter()); // THIS IS WRONG! THIS ASSEMBLY CANNOT KNOW ABOUT SPECIALIZATIONS! _daoContainer.Register( AllTypes.FromAssemblyNamed("Company.DataAccess") .BasedOn(typeof(IReadDao<>)).WithService.FromInterface(), AllTypes.FromAssemblyNamed("Framework.DataAccess.NHibernateProvider") .BasedOn(typeof(IReadDao<>)).WithService.Base()); } } return _daoContainer; } } public static T Create<T>() where T : IDao { return DaoContainer.Resolve<T>(); } } This assembly also defines the base interface for data access IReadDao: public interface IReadDao<T> { IEnumerable<T> GetAll(); } I want to keep this assembly generic and with no references. This is my base data access assembly. Then I have the NHibernate provider's assembly, which implements the above IReadDao using NHibernate's approach. This assembly references the "Framework.DataAccess" assembly. public class NHibernateDao<T> : IReadDao<T> { public NHibernateDao() { } public virtual IEnumerable<T> GetAll() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } At last, I have the "Company.DataAccess" assembly, which can override the default implementation of NHibernate provider and references both previously seen assemblies. public interface IProductDao : IReadDao<Product> { Product GetByName(string name); } public class ProductDao : NHibernateDao<Product>, IProductDao { public override IEnumerable<Product> GetAll() { throw new NotImplementedException("new one!"); } public Product GetByName(string name) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } I want to be able to write... IRead<Product> dao = DaoFactory.Create<IRead<Product>>(); ... and then get the ProductDao implementation. But I can't hold inside my base data access any reference to specific assemblies! My initial idea was to read that from a xml config file. So, my question is: How can I externally configure this factory to use a specific provider as my default implementation and my client implementation?

    Read the article

  • Ranking based string matching algorithm..for Midi Music

    - by Taha
    i am working on midi music project. What i am trying to do is:- matching the Instrument midi track with the similar instrument midi track... for example Flute track in a some midi music is matched against the Flute track in some other music midi file... After matching ,the results should come ranking wise according to their similarity.. Like 1) track1 2) track2 3) track3 I have this sort of string coming from my midi music .. F4/0.01282051282051282E4/0.01282051282051282Eb4/0.01282051282051282 D4/0.01282051282051282C#4/0.01282051282051282C4/0.01282051282051282 Which ranking algorithm with good metrics should i use for such data ? Thanking you in anticipation!

    Read the article

  • How to add member variable to an interface in c#

    - by Nassign
    I know this may be basic but I cannot seem to add a member variable to an interface. I tried inheriting the interface to an abstract class and add member variable to the abstract class but it still does not work. Here is my code: public interface IBase { void AddData(); void DeleteData(); } public abstract class AbstractBase : IBase { string ErrorMessage; abstract AddData(); abstract DeleteData(); }

    Read the article

  • Why can't create object of an abstract class?

    - by Gaurav
    Here is a scenario in my mind and I have googled, Binged it a lot but got the answer like "Abstract class has not implemented method so, we cant create the object" "The word 'Abstract' instruct the clr that not to create object of the class" But in a simple class where we have all virtual method, able to create an object??? Also, we can define different access modified to Abstract class constructor like private, protected or public. My search terminated to this question ; Why we can't create object of an Abstract class?

    Read the article

  • using sed to replace two patterns within a larger pattern

    - by Hair of the Dog
    Using sed how could I replace two patterns within a larger pattern on a single line? Given a single line of text I want to find a pattern (Let's call this the outer pattern) and then within that outer pattern replace two inner patterns. Here's a one line example of the input text: Z:\source\private\main\developer\foo\setenv.sh(25): export 'FONTCONFIG_PATH'="$WINE_SHARED_SUPPORT/X11/etc/fonts" In the example above the outer pattern is "/^.*([[:digit:]]+):/" which should equal "Z:\source\private\main\developer\foo\setenv.sh(25):" The two inner patterns are "/^[A-Za-z]:/" and "/\/". Another way to phrase my question is: Using sed I know how to perform replacements of a pattern using the "s" command, but how do I limit the range of "s" command so it only works on the portion of the input string up to the "(25):"? The ultimate result I am trying to get is the line of text is transformed into this: /enlistments/source/private/main/developer/foo/setenv.sh(25): export 'FONTCONFIG_PATH'="$WINE_SHARED_SUPPORT/X11/etc/fonts"

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between an Abstract Syntax Tree and a Concrete Syntax Tree?

    - by Jason Baker
    I've been reading a bit about how interpreters/compilers work, and one area where I'm getting confused is the difference between an AST and a CST. My understanding is that the parser makes a CST, hands it to the semantic analyzer which turns it into an AST. However, my understanding is that the semantic analyzer simply ensures that rules are followed. I don't really understand why it would actually make any changes to make it abstract rather than concrete. Is there something that I'm missing about the semantic analyzer, or is the difference between an AST and CST somewhat artificial?

    Read the article

  • Understanding Visitor Pattern

    - by Nezreli
    I have a hierarchy of classes that represents GUI controls. Something like this: Control-ContainerControl-Form I have to implement a series of algoritms that work with objects doing various stuff and I'm thinking that Visitor pattern would be the cleanest solution. Let take for example an algorithm which creates a Xml representaion of a hierarchy of objects. Using 'classic' approach I would do this: public abstract class Control { public virtual XmlElement ToXML(XmlDocument document) { XmlElement xml = document.CreateElement(this.GetType().Name); // Create element, fill it with attributes declared with control return xml; } } public abstract class ContainerControl : Control { public override XmlElement ToXML(XmlDocument document) { XmlElement xml = base.ToXML(document); // Use forech to fill XmlElement with child XmlElements return xml; } } public class Form : ContainerControl { public override XmlElement ToXML(XmlDocument document) { XmlElement xml = base.ToXML(document); // Fill remaining elements declared in Form class return xml; } } But I'm not sure how to do this with visitor pattern. This is the basic implementation: public class ToXmlVisitor : IVisitor { public void Visit(Form form) { } } Since even the abstract classes help with implementation I'm not sure how to do that properly in ToXmlVisitor. Perhaps there is a better solution to this problem. The reason that I'm considering Visitor pattern is that some algorithms will need references not available in project where the classes are implemented and there is a number of different algorithms so I'm avoiding large classes. Any thoughts are welcome.

    Read the article

  • Should I be using abstract methods in this Python scenario?

    - by sfjedi
    I'm not sure my approach is good design and I'm hoping I can get a tip. I'm thinking somewhere along the lines of an abstract method, but in this case I want the method to be optional. This is how I'm doing it now... from pymel.core import * class A(object): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): if callable(self.createDrivers): self._drivers = self.createDrivers(*args, **kwargs) select(self._drivers) class B(A): def createDrivers(self, *args, **kwargs): c1 = circle(sweep=270)[0] c2 = circle(sweep=180)[0] return c1, c2 b = B() In the above example, I'm just creating 2 circle arcs in PyMEL for Maya, but I fully intend on creating more subclasses that may or may not have a createDrivers method at all! So I want it to be optional and I'm wondering if my approach is—well, if my approach could be improved?

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to introduce methods that are used only during unit tests?

    - by Mchl
    Recently I was TDDing a factory method. The method was to create either a plain object, or an object wrapped in a decorator. The decorated object could be of one of several types all extending StrategyClass. In my test I wanted to check, if the class of returned object is as expected. That's easy when plain object os returned, but what to do when it's wrapped within a decorator? I code in PHP so I could use ext/Reflection to find out a class of wrapped object, but it seemed to me to be overcomplicating things, and somewhat agains rules of TDD. Instead I decided to introduce getClassName() that would return object's class name when called from StrategyClass. When called from the decorator however, it would return the value returned by the same method in decorated object. Some code to make it more clear: interface StrategyInterface { public function getClassName(); } abstract class StrategyClass implements StrategyInterface { public function getClassName() { return \get_class($this); } } abstract class StrategyDecorator implements StrategyInterface { private $decorated; public function __construct(StrategyClass $decorated) { $this->decorated = $decorated; } public function getClassName() { return $this->decorated->getClassName(); } } And a PHPUnit test /** * @dataProvider providerForTestGetStrategy * @param array $arguments * @param string $expected */ public function testGetStrategy($arguments, $expected) { $this->assertEquals( __NAMESPACE__.'\\'.$expected, $this->object->getStrategy($arguments)->getClassName() ) } //below there's another test to check if proper decorator is being used My point here is: is it OK to introduce such methods, that have no other use than to make unit tests easier? Somehow it doesn't feel right to me.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >