Search Results

Search found 14639 results on 586 pages for 'elegant design'.

Page 17/586 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • Client-server application design issue

    - by user2547823
    I have a collection of clients on server's side. And there are some objects that need to work with that collection - adding and removing clients, sending message to them, updating connection settings and so on. They should perform these actions simultaneously, so mutex or another synchronization primitive is required. I want to share one instance of collection between these objects, but all of them require access to private fields of collection. I hope that code sample makes it more clear[C++]: class Collection { std::vector< Client* > clients; Mutex mLock; ... } class ClientNotifier { void sendMessage() { mLock.lock(); // loop over clients and send message to each of them } } class ConnectionSettingsUpdater { void changeSettings( const std::string& name ) { mLock.lock(); // if client with this name is inside collection, change its settings } } As you can see, all these classes require direct access to Collection's private fields. Can you give me an advice about how to implement such behaviour correctly, i.e. keeping Collection's interface simple without it knowing about its users?

    Read the article

  • Layering Design Pattern in Java clean code style

    - by zeraDev
    As a Java developer, I am developing trying to use the clean code rules. But in my team we are facing a concrete problem: We have a business layer offering a service called "createObject", this service makes a lot of operation which can result to problem. E.g: parentObjectDontExist, objectAlreadyExist, dontHaveAuthorizationToCreate, operationFailed... and we want the UI using this service to display different information messages depending which error occurred. In old java dev, we should have create all signed exception type and throw it in createObject. As Clean code says, it is forbidden to use Exception for business logic AND signed exceptions are evil... Why not...But i don't know how to solved this problem and i don't want to use return code. How do you do? Thanks for youre experience return.

    Read the article

  • Android design advice - services & broadcast receivers

    - by basudz
    I'm in the process of learning the Android SDK and creating some projects to get a grasp on the system. The current project I'm working with works just fine but I'd like to get some advice about other ways I can go about designing it. Here's what it needs to do. When a text message is received from a specific number, it should fire off a toast message that repeats at a certain interval for a specific duration. To make this work, I created an SMS BroadcastReceiver and checked the incoming messages for the number I'm looking for. If found, an IntentService would be started that would pull out the interval and duration from saved shared prefs. The IntentService would then fire off a broadcast. The BroadcastReceiver for this would catch it and use the AlarmManager to handle the toast message repetitions. This all works just fine, but I'm wondering if there's a cleaner or more efficient way of going about doing this? Any suggestions or advice?

    Read the article

  • What OO Design to use ( is there a Design Pattern )?

    - by Blundell
    I have two objects that represent a 'Bar/Club' ( a place where you drink/socialise). In one scenario I need the bar name, address, distance, slogon In another scenario I need the bar name, address, website url, logo So I've got two objects representing the same thing but with different fields. I like to use immutable objects, so all the fields are set from the constructor. One option is to have two constructors and null the other fields i.e: class Bar { private final String name; private final Distance distance; private final Url url; public Bar(String name, Distance distance){ this.name = name; this.distance = distance; this.url = null; } public Bar(String name, Url url){ this.name = name; this.distance = null; this.url = url; } // getters } I don't like this as you would have to null check when you use the getters In my real example the first scenario has 3 fields and the second scenario has about 10, so it would be a real pain having two constructors, the amount of fields I would have to declare null and then when the object are in use you wouldn't know which Bar you where using and so what fields would be null and what wouldn't. What other options do I have? Two classes called BarPreview and Bar? Some type of inheritance / interface? Something else that is awesome?

    Read the article

  • Advice needed on Process - Service Design

    - by user99314
    Need some advice from experts on designing a flow. Create a service that will read a csv file which may contain anywhere over 6000+ rows of individual ids as shown in the sample below. Need to read that file and go to oracle database and fetch a vname,vnumber,vid of each id in the csv and then go to document repository i.e. Oracle UCM and download all documents matching vname,vnumber,vid there can be =0 documents for each vname,vnumber,vid and save them on a file system. UCM exposes a webservice to dowload the documents. Finally create a new csv appending the filenames that are downloaded for each id. Need to keep track of any errors but need to make sure to go over the whole ids in the csv to download the documents and skip in case of errors. Need some advice on how to go about designing this as there may be over 6000+ rows in a csv file and looping it and hitting the database for each individual id and then hitting a UCM may be a bit expensive so open for any idea. How to go by designing this solution. Wondering if messaging can be helpful here or offloading process of getting the vname,vnumber,vid to pl/sql packages, creating staging tables etc. Initial csv that contains ids: **ID** 12345a 12s345 3456fr we9795 we9797 Final csv output: **ID Files Downloaded from UCM** 12345a a.pdf,b.doc,d.txt 12s345 a1.pdf,s2.pdf,f4.gif 3456fr b.xls we9795 we9797 x.doc Thanks

    Read the article

  • How can I design multi-threaded application for larger user base

    - by rokonoid
    Here's my scenario, I need to develop a scalable application. My user base may be over 100K, every user has 10 or more small tasks. Tasks check every minute with a third party application through web services, retrieving data which is written in the database, then the data is forwarded to it's original destination. So here's the processing of a small task: while(true){ Boolean isNewInformationAvailable = checkWhetherInformationIsAvailableOrNot(); If(isNewInformationAvailable ==true){ fetchTheData(); writeToDatabase(); findTheDestination(); deliverTheData(); isAvailable =false; } } As the application is large, how should I approach designing this? I'm going to use Java to write it. Should I use concurrency, and how would you manage the concurrency?

    Read the article

  • Would Using a PHP Framework Be Beneficial in My Context?

    - by Fractal
    I've just started work at a small start-up company who mainly uses PHP to develop their front-end apps. I had no prior PHP experience before joining, and this has led to my apps becoming large pieces of spaghetti code. I essentially started by adding code to implement an initial feature, and then continued to hack in more code to implement further features – without much thought for the overall design. The apps themselves output XML to render on small mobile devices. I recently started looking into frameworks that I could use. I reckon an advantage would be that they seem to force developers to modularise their programs using good-practice design patterns. This seems great for someone in my position. The extra functions they provide, for example: interfacing with databases in such a way as to make SQL injection impossible, would be very useful too. The downside I can see is that there will be a lot of overhead for me in terms of the time taken to learn the framework itself (while still getting to grips with PHP itself). I'm also worried that it will be overkill for the scale of the apps we develop. They tend to be programs that interface with a fairly simple back-end DB, and will generate about 5 different XML screens. Probably around 1 or 2 thousand lines of code. The time it takes just to configure the frameworks may not be worth it. The final problem I can see is that developers in the company – who have to go over my code, and who do not know the PHP framework I may use – will have a much harder time understanding it. Given those pros and cons, I'm still not sure on what the best course of action will be; so any advice will be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Checking preconditions or not

    - by Robert Dailey
    I've been wanting to find a solid answer to the question of whether or not to have runtime checks to validate input for the purposes of ensuring a client has stuck to their end of the agreement in design by contract. For example, consider a simple class constructor: class Foo { public: Foo( BarHandle bar ) { FooHandle handle = GetFooHandle( bar ); if( handle == NULL ) { throw std::exception( "invalid FooHandle" ); } } }; I would argue in this case that a user should not attempt to construct a Foo without a valid BarHandle. It doesn't seem right to verify that bar is valid inside of Foo's constructor. If I simply document that Foo's constructor requires a valid BarHandle, isn't that enough? Is this a proper way to enforce my precondition in design by contract? So far, everything I've read has mixed opinions on this. It seems like 50% of people would say to verify that bar is valid, the other 50% would say that I shouldn't do it, for example consider a case where the user verifies their BarHandle is correct, but a second (and unnecessary) check is also being done inside of Foo's constructor.

    Read the article

  • Confused about implementing Single Responsibility Principle

    - by HichemSeeSharp
    Please bear with me if the question looks not well structured. To put you in the context of my issue: I am building an application that invoices vehicles stay duration in a parking. In addition to the stay service there are some other services. Each service has its own calculation logic. Here is an illustration (please correct me if the design is wrong): public abstract class Service { public int Id { get; set; } public bool IsActivated { get; set; } public string Name { get; set } public decimal Price { get; set; } } public class VehicleService : Service { //MTM : many to many public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Vehicles { get; set; } } public class StayService : VehicleService { } public class Vehicle { public int Id { get; set; } public string ChassisNumber { get; set; } public DateTime? EntryDate { get; set; } public DateTime? DeliveryDate { get; set; } //... public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Services{ get; set; } } Now, I am focusing on the stay service as an example: I would like to know at invoicing time which class(es) would be responsible for generating the invoice item for the service and for each vehicle? This should calculate the duration cost knowing that the duration could be invoiced partially so the like is as follows: not yet invoiced stay days * stay price per day. At this moment I have InvoiceItemsGenerator do everything but I am aware that there is a better design.

    Read the article

  • A better alternative to incompatible implementations for the same interface?

    - by glenatron
    I am working on a piece of code which performs a set task in several parallel environments where the behaviour of the different components in the task are similar but quite different. This means that my implementations are quite different but they are all based on the relationships between the same interfaces, something like this: IDataReader -> ContinuousDataReader -> ChunkedDataReader IDataProcessor -> ContinuousDataProcessor -> ChunkedDataProcessor IDataWriter -> ContinuousDataWriter -> ChunkedDataWriter So that in either environment we have an IDataReader, IDataProcessor and IDataWriter and then we can use Dependency Injection to ensure that we have the correct one of each for the current environment, so if we are working with data in chunks we use the ChunkedDataReader, ChunkedDataProcessor and ChunkedDataWriter and if we have continuous data we have the continuous versions. However the behaviour of these classes is quite different internally and one could certainly not go from a ContinuousDataReader to the ChunkedDataReader even though they are both IDataProcessors. This feels to me as though it is incorrect ( possibly an LSP violation? ) and certainly not a theoretically correct way of working. It is almost as though the "real" interface here is the combination of all three classes. Unfortunately in the project I am working on with the deadlines we are working to, we're pretty much stuck with this design, but if we had a little more elbow room, what would be a better design approach in this kind of scenario?

    Read the article

  • Use decorator and factory together to extend objects?

    - by TheClue
    I'm new to OOP and design pattern. I've a simple app that handles the generation of Tables, Columns (that belong to Table), Rows (that belong to Column) and Values (that belong to Rows). Each of these object can have a collection of Property, which is in turn defined as an enum. They are all interfaces: I used factories to get concrete instances of these products, depending on circumnstances. Now I'm facing the problem of extending these classes. Let's say I need another product called "SpecialTable" which in turn has some special properties or new methods like 'getSomethingSpecial' or an extended set of Property. The only way is to extend/specialize all my elements (ie. build a SpecialTableFactory, a SpecialTable interface and a SpecialTableImpl concrete)? What to do if, let's say, I plan to use standard methods like addRow(Column column, String name) that doesn't need to be specialized? I don't like the idea to inherit factories and interfaces, but since SpecialTable has more methods than Table i guess it cannot share the same factory. Am I wrong? Another question: if I need to define product properties at run time (a Table that is upgraded to SpecialTable at runtime), i guess i should use a decorator. Is it possible (and how) to combine both factory and decorator design? Is it better to use a State or Strategy pattern, instead?

    Read the article

  • Memento with optional state?

    - by Korey Hinton
    EDIT: As pointed out by Steve Evers and pdr, I am not correctly implementing the Memento pattern, my design is actually State pattern. Menu Program I built a console-based menu program with multiple levels that selects a particular test to run. Each level more precisely describes the operation. At any level you can type back to go back one level (memento). Level 1: Server Type? [1] Server A [2] Server B Level 2: Server environment? [1] test [2] production Level 3: Test type? [1] load [2] unit Level 4: Data Collection? [1] Legal docs [2] Corporate docs Level 4.5 (optional): Load Test Type [2] Multi TIF [2] Single PDF Level 5: Command Type? [1] Move [2] Copy [3] Remove [4] Custom Level 6: Enter a keyword [setup, cleanup, run] Design States PROBLEM: Right now the STATES enum is the determining factor as to what state is BACK and what state is NEXT yet it knows nothing about what the current memento state is. Has anyone experienced a similar issue and found an effective way to handle mementos with optional state? static enum STATES { SERVER, ENVIRONMENT, TEST_TYPE, COLLECTION, COMMAND_TYPE, KEYWORD, FINISHED } Possible Solution (Not-flexible) In reference to my code below, every case statement in the Menu class could check the state of currentMemo and then set the STATE (enum) accordingly to pass to the Builder. However, this doesn't seem flexible very flexible to change and I'm struggling to see an effective way refactor the design. class Menu extends StateConscious { private State state; private Scanner reader; private ServerUtils utility; Menu() { state = new State(); reader = new Scanner(System.in); utility = new ServerUtils(); } // Recurring menu logic public void startPromptingLoop() { List<State> states = new ArrayList<>(); states.add(new State()); boolean redoInput = false; boolean userIsDone = false; while (true) { // get Memento from last loop Memento currentMemento = states.get(states.size() - 1) .saveMemento(); if (currentMemento == null) currentMemento = new Memento.Builder(0).build(); if (!redoInput) System.out.println(currentMemento.prompt); redoInput = false; // prepare Memento for next loop Memento nextMemento = null; STATES state = STATES.values()[states.size() - 1]; // get user input String selection = reader.nextLine(); switch (selection) { case "exit": reader.close(); return; // only escape case "quit": nextMemento = new Memento.Builder(first(), currentMemento, selection).build(); states.clear(); break; case "back": nextMemento = new Memento.Builder(previous(state), currentMemento, selection).build(); if (states.size() <= 1) { states.remove(0); } else { states.remove(states.size() - 1); states.remove(states.size() - 1); } break; case "1": nextMemento = new Memento.Builder(next(state), currentMemento, selection).build(); break; case "2": nextMemento = new Memento.Builder(next(state), currentMemento, selection).build(); break; case "3": nextMemento = new Memento.Builder(next(state), currentMemento, selection).build(); break; case "4": nextMemento = new Memento.Builder(next(state), currentMemento, selection).build(); break; default: if (state.equals(STATES.CATEGORY)) { String command = selection; System.out.println("Executing " + command + " command on: " + currentMemento.type + " " + currentMemento.environment); utility.executeCommand(currentMemento.nickname, command); userIsDone = true; states.clear(); nextMemento = new Memento.Builder(first(), currentMemento, selection).build(); } else if (state.equals(STATES.KEYWORD)) { nextMemento = new Memento.Builder(next(state), currentMemento, selection).build(); states.clear(); nextMemento = new Memento.Builder(first(), currentMemento, selection).build(); } else { redoInput = true; System.out.println("give it another try"); continue; } break; } if (userIsDone) { // start the recurring menu over from the beginning for (int i = 0; i < states.size(); i++) { if (i != 0) { states.remove(i); // remove all except first } } reader = new Scanner(System.in); this.state = new State(); userIsDone = false; } if (!redoInput) { this.state.restoreMemento(nextMemento); states.add(this.state); } } } }

    Read the article

  • What elegant method callback design should be used ?

    - by ereOn
    Hi, I'm surprised this question wasn't asked before on SO (well, at least I couldn't find it). Have you ever designed a method-callback pattern (something like a "pointer" to a class method) in C++ and, if so, how did you do it ? I know a method is just a regular function with some hidden this parameter to serve as a context and I have a pretty simple design in mind. However, since things are often more complex than they seem to, I wonder how our C++ gurus would implement this, preferably in an elegant and standard way. All suggestions are welcome !

    Read the article

  • USE case to Class Diagram - How do I?

    - by 01010011
    Hi, I would like your guidance on how to create classes and their relationships (generalization, association, aggregation and composition) accurately from my USE case diagram (please see below). I am trying to create this class diagram so I can use it to create a simple online PHP application that allows the user to register an account, login and logout, and store, search and retrieve data from a MySQL database. Are my classes correct? Or should I create more classes? And if so, what classes are missing? What relationships should I use when connecting the register, login, logout, search_database and add_to_database to the users? I'm new to design patterns and UML class diagrams but from my understanding, the association relationship relates one object with another object; the aggregation relationship is a special kind of association that allows "a part" to belong to more than one "whole" (e.g. a credit card and its PIN - the PIN class can also be used in a debit card class); and a composition relationship is a special form of aggregation that allows each part to belong to only one whole at a time. I feel like I have left out some classes or something because I just can't seem to find the relationships from my understanding of relationships. Any assistance will be really appreciated. Thanks in advance. USE CASE DIAGRAM CLASS DIAGRAM

    Read the article

  • Separation of domain and ui layer in a composite

    - by hansmaad
    Hi all, i'm wondering if there is a pattern how to separate the domain logic of a class from the ui responsibilities of the objects in the domain layer. Example: // Domain classes interface MachinePart { CalculateX(in, out) // Where do we put these: // Draw(Screen) ?? // ShowProperties(View) ?? // ... } class Assembly : MachinePart { CalculateX(in, out) subParts } class Pipe : MachinePart { CalculateX(in, out) length, diamater... } There is an application that calculates the value X for machines assembled from many machine parts. The assembly is loaded from a file representation and is designed as a composite. Each concrete part class stores some data to implement the CalculateX(in,out) method to simulate behaviour of the whole assembly. The application runs well but without GUI. To increase the usability a GUi should be developed on top of the existing implementation (changes to the existing code are allowed). The GUI should show a schematic graphical representation of the assembly and provide part specific dialogs to edit several parameters. To achieve these goals the application needs new functionality for each machine part to draw a schematic representation on the screen, show a property dialog and other things not related to the domain of machine simulation. I can think of some different solutions to implement a Draw(Screen) functionality for each part but i am not happy with each of them. First i could add a Draw(Screen) method to the MachinePart interface but this would mix-up domain code with ui code and i had to add a lot of functionality to each machine part class what makes my domain model hard to read and hard to understand. Another "simple" solution is to make all parts visitable and implement ui code in visitors but Visitor does not belong to my favorite patterns. I could derive UI variants from each machine part class to add the UI implementation there but i had to check if each part class is suited for inheritance and had to be careful on changes to the base classes. My currently favorite design is to create a parallel composite hierarchy where each component stores data to define a machine part, has implementation for UI methods and a factory method which creates instances of the corresponding domain classes, so that i can "convert" a UI assembly to a domain assembly. But there are problems to go back from the created domain hierarchy to the UI hierarchy for showing calculation results in the drawing for example (imagine some parts store some values during the calculation i want to show in the schematic representation after the simluation). Maybe there are some proven patterns for such problems?

    Read the article

  • What should you do differently when designing websites for an embedded web server

    - by Roger Attrill
    When designing a website to be accessed from an embedded webserver such as KLone, what do you need to do differently compared to a 'standard' web server. I'm talking about considerations at the front end design stage, before the actual building and coding up. For example, typically in such situations, memory size is a premium, so I guess larger images are out, and maybe more attention should be focused on achieving a good look and feel using CSS/Javascript rather than bitmap images.

    Read the article

  • What is the greatest design flaw you have faced in any programming language?

    - by Anto
    All programming languages are having their design flaws simply because not a single language can be perfect, just as with most (all?) other things. That aside, which design fault in a programming language has annoyed you the most through your history as a programmer? Note that if a language is "bad" just because it isn't designed for a specific thing isn't a design flaw, but a feature of design, so don't list such annoyances of languages. If a language is illsuited for what it is designed for, that is of course a flaw in the design. Implementation specific things and under the hood things do not count either.

    Read the article

  • Development: SDK for Social Net

    - by loldop
    I have a task: development sdk for social networking service like facebook, twitter and etc. At now i'm developing facebook-extension-sdk which based on facebook-ios-sdk 3.0. But not all social networking services have good sdks. And all time i improved my facebook-extension-sdk, when i see ugly code :( Please, advise me good techniques to development these sdks (like design-patterns or your own experience or good books/sites). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How do I write code that doesn't suck? [closed]

    - by Afnan
    My friends and I would like to write a C# desktop application, and would like some guidance on how to make sure the code base is professional and well-kept. Should we use classes or interfaces for our inheritance patterns (which is better)? What are the best practices for professional applications? How do we know what sloppy code looks like, and how do we avoid creating sloppy code? Are there any best practices regarding the design of Winforms applications?

    Read the article

  • What is a useful pattern to maintaining an object state in a one to many relationship?

    - by ahenderson
    I am looking for a design for my application, here are the players(classes) involved. struct Transform { // Uses a matrix to transform the position. // Also acts acts as the state of a Dialog. Position transform(Position p); //other methods. }; struct Dialog { // There are multiple dialog for the user to transform the output. Transform& t; void ChangeTranformation(){t.rotate(360);} } struct Algorithm { //gives us a position based on an implementation. For example this can return points on a circle or line. Transform& t; Position m_p; Dialog& d; Position GetCurrentPosition(){ return t.transform(m_p);} //other methods. } Properties I need: Each algorithms has one dialog and each dialog can have many algorithms associated with it. When the user selects an algorithm a dialog associated with that algorithm is displayed. If the user selects a different algorithm then re-selects back the state is restored in the dialog. Basically I want a good design pattern to maintain the state of the dialog given that many algorithms use it and they can be switched back and forth. Does anyone have any suggestions? Here is a use case: Dialog1 has a single edit box to control the radius. Algorithm1 generates points on a unit circle. Algorithm2 is the same as Algorithm1. The user has selected Algorithm1 and entered 2 into the edit box. This will generate points on a circle of radius 2. The user then selects Algorithm2 and enters 10 into the edit box of Dialog1. This will generate points on a circle of radius 10. Finally Algorithm1 is selected again. The edit box of Dialog1 should show 2 and points on a circle of radius 2 should be generated.

    Read the article

  • How can you tell whether to use Composite Pattern or a Tree Structure, or a third implementation?

    - by Aske B.
    I have two client types, an "Observer"-type and a "Subject"-type. They're both associated with a hierarchy of groups. The Observer will receive (calendar) data from the groups it is associated with throughout the different hierarchies. This data is calculated by combining data from 'parent' groups of the group trying to collect data (each group can have only one parent). The Subject will be able to create the data (that the Observers will receive) in the groups they're associated with. When data is created in a group, all 'children' of the group will have the data as well, and they will be able to make their own version of a specific area of the data, but still linked to the original data created (in my specific implementation, the original data will contain time-period(s) and headline, while the subgroups specify the rest of the data for the receivers directly linked to their respective groups). However, when the Subject creates data, it has to check if all affected Observers have any data that conflicts with this, which means a huge recursive function, as far as I can understand. So I think this can be summed up to the fact that I need to be able to have a hierarchy that you can go up and down in, and some places be able to treat them as a whole (recursion, basically). Also, I'm not just aiming at a solution that works. I'm hoping to find a solution that is relatively easy to understand (architecture-wise at least) and also flexible enough to be able to easily receive additional functionality in the future. Is there a design pattern, or a good practice to go by, to solve this problem or similar hierarchy problems? EDIT: Here's the design I have: The "Phoenix"-class is named that way because I didn't think of an appropriate name yet. But besides this I need to be able to hide specific activities for specific observers, even though they are attached to them through the groups. A little Off-topic: Personally, I feel that I should be able to chop this problem down to smaller problems, but it escapes me how. I think it's because it involves multiple recursive functionalities that aren't associated with each other and different client types that needs to get information in different ways. I can't really wrap my head around it. If anyone can guide me in a direction of how to become better at encapsulating hierarchy problems, I'd be very glad to receive that as well.

    Read the article

  • Flags with deferred use

    - by Trenton Maki
    Let's say I have a system. In this system I have a number of operations I can do but all of these operations have to happen as a batch at a certain time, while calls to activate and deactivate these operations can come in at any time. To implement this, I could use flags like doOperation1 and doOperation2 but this seems like it would become difficult to maintain. Is there a design pattern, or something similar, that addresses this situation?

    Read the article

  • Associating an Object with other Objects and Properties of those Objects

    - by alzoid
    I am looking for some help with designing some functionality in my application. I already have something similar designed but this problem is a little different. Background: In my application we have different Modules. Data in each module can be associated to other modules. Each Module is represented by an Object in our application. Module 1 can be associated with Module 2 and Module 3. Currently I use a factory to provide the proper DAO for getting and saving this data. It looks something like this: class Module1Factory { public static Module1BridgeDAO createModule1BridgeDAO(int moduleid) { switch (moduleId) { case Module.Module2Id: return new Module1_Module2DAO(); case Module.Module3Id: return new Module1_Module3DAO(); default: return null; } } } Module1_Module2 and Module1_Module3 implement the same BridgeModule interface. In the database I have a Table for every module (Module1, Module2, Module3). I also have a bridge table for each module (they are many to many) Module1_Module2, Module1_Module3 etc. The DAO basically handles all code needed to manage the association and retrieve its own instance data for the calling module. Now when we add new modules that associate with Module1 we simply implement the ModuleBridge interface and provide the common functionality. New Development We are adding a new module that will have the ability to be associated with other Modules as well as specific properties of that module. The module is basically providing the user the ability to add their custom forms to our other modules. That way they can collect additional information along with what we provide. I want to start associating my Form module with other modules and their properties. Ie if Module1 has a property Category, I want to associate an instance From data with that property. There are many Forms. If a users creates an instance of Module2, they may always want to also have certain form(s) attached to that Module2 instance. If they create an instance of Module2 and select Category 1, then I may want additional Form(s) created. I prototyped something like this: Form FormLayout (contains the labels and gui controls) FormModule (associates a form with all instances of a module) Form Instance (create an instance of a form to be filled out) As I thought about it I was thinking about making a new FormModule table/class/dao for each Module and Property that I add. So I might have: FormModule1 FormModule1Property1 FormModule1Property2 FormModule1Property3 FormModule1Property4 FormModule2 FormModule3 FormModule3Property1 Then as I did previously, I would use a factory to get the proper DAO for dealing with all of these. I would hand it an array of ids representing different modules and properties and it would return all of the DAOs that I need to call getForms(). Which in turn would return all of the forms for that particular bridge. Some points This will be for a new module so I dont need to expand on the factory code I provided. I just wanted to show an example of what I have done in the past. The new module can be associated with: Other Modules (ie globally for any instance of that module data), Other module properties (ie only if the Module instance has a certian value in one of its properties) I want to make it easy for developers to add associations with other modules and properties easily Can any one suggest any design patterns or strategy's for achieving this? If anything is unclear please let me know. Thank you, Al

    Read the article

  • Elegant and 'correct' multiton implementation in Objective C?

    - by submachine
    Would you call this implementation of a multiton in objective-c 'elegant'? I have programmatically 'disallowed' use of alloc and allocWithZone: because the decision to allocate or not allocate memory needs to be done based on a key. I know for sure that I need to work with only two instances, so I'm using 'switch-case' instead of a map. #import "Multiton.h" static Multiton *firstInstance = nil; static Multiton *secondInstance = nil; @implementation Multiton + (Multiton *) sharedInstanceForDirection:(char)direction { return [[self allocWithKey:direction] init]; } + (id) allocWithKey:(char)key { return [self allocWithZone:nil andKey:key]; } + (id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone andKey:(char)key { Multiton **sharedInstance; @synchronized(self) { switch (key) { case KEY_1: sharedInstance = &firstInstance; break; case KEY_2: sharedInstance = &secondInstance; break; default: [NSException raise:NSInvalidArgumentException format:@"Invalid key"]; break; } if (*sharedInstance == nil) *sharedInstance = [super allocWithZone:zone]; } return *sharedInstance; } + (id) allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone { //Do not allow use of alloc and allocWithZone [NSException raise:NSObjectInaccessibleException format:@"Use allocWithZone:andKey: or allocWithKey:"]; return nil; } - (id) copyWithZone:(NSZone *)zone { return self; } - (id) retain { return self; } - (unsigned) retainCount { return NSUIntegerMax; } - (void) release { return; } - (id) autorelease { return self; } - (id) init { [super init]; return self; } PS: I've not tried out if this works as yet, but its compiling cleanly :)

    Read the article

  • Handling Types for Real and Complex Matrices in a BLAS Wrapper

    - by mga
    I come from a C background and I'm now learning OOP with C++. As an exercise (so please don't just say "this already exists"), I want to implement a wrapper for BLAS that will let the user write matrix algebra in an intuitive way (e.g. similar to MATLAB) e.g.: A = B*C*D.Inverse() + E.Transpose(); My problem is how to go about dealing with real (R) and complex (C) matrices, because of C++'s "curse" of letting you do the same thing in N different ways. I do have a clear idea of what it should look like to the user: s/he should be able to define the two separately, but operations would return a type depending on the types of the operands (R*R = R, C*C = C, R*C = C*R = C). Additionally R can be cast into C and vice versa (just by setting the imaginary parts to 0). I have considered the following options: As a real number is a special case of a complex number, inherit CMatrix from RMatrix. I quickly dismissed this as the two would have to return different types for the same getter function. Inherit RMatrix and CMatrix from Matrix. However, I can't really think of any common code that would go into Matrix (because of the different return types). Templates. Declare Matrix<T> and declare the getter function as T Get(int i, int j), and operator functions as Matrix *(Matrix RHS). Then specialize Matrix<double> and Matrix<complex>, and overload the functions. Then I couldn't really see what I would gain with templates, so why not just define RMatrix and CMatrix separately from each other, and then overload functions as necessary? Although this last option makes sense to me, there's an annoying voice inside my head saying this is not elegant, because the two are clearly related. Perhaps I'm missing an appropriate design pattern? So I guess what I'm looking for is either absolution for doing this, or advice on how to do better.

    Read the article

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