Search Results

Search found 14602 results on 585 pages for 'objected oriented design'.

Page 17/585 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

• Business Layer Design in J2EE Project

  - by user63157

  Currently the project on which I am working is being developed with Spring, Hibernate and struts. The business layer consists of simple java beans with no behavior in them only properties and getter and setter methods, the services are written on them which operates on them and call DAO layer methods and all. My questions is that is it object oriented way of designing or simply the procedure way in which the data and the functions on which they operate are not together. Please provide your thoughts and inputs on how the business logic is design and implemented in j2ee application, is the domain model contains business methods or are they simply dumb objects which have only data and services written on to them.

  Read the article

• Repository Design Pattern Guidance

  - by thefactor

  Let's say you have an MVVM CRM application. You have a number of customer objects in memory, through a repository. What would be the appropriate place to handle tasks that aren't associated with traditional MVVM tasks from a GUI? For example, let's say every few minutes you want to check to see if their address is valid and pop up a notification if it is not. Or you want to send out an hourly e-mail update. Or you want a window to pop up to remind you to call a customer at a specific time. Where does this logic go? It's not GUI/action-oriented, and it's not logic that would be appropriate for a repository, I think.

  Read the article

• Are document-oriented databases any more suitable than relational ones for persisting objects?

  - by Owen Fraser-Green

  In terms of database usage, the last decade was the age of the ORM with hundreds competing to persist our object graphs in plain old-fashioned RMDBS. Now we seem to be witnessing the coming of age of document-oriented databases. These databases are highly optimized for schema-free documents but are also very attractive for their ability to scale out and query a cluster in parallel. Document-oriented databases also hold a couple of advantages over RDBMS's for persisting data models in object-oriented designs. As the tables are schema-free, one can store objects belonging to different classes in an inheritance hierarchy side-by-side. Also, as the domain model changes, so long as the code can cope with getting back objects from an old version of the domain classes, one can avoid having to migrate the whole database at every change. On the other hand, the performance benefits of document-oriented databases mainly appear to come about when storing deeper documents. In object-oriented terms, classes which are composed of other classes, for example, a blog post and its comments. In most of the examples of this I can come up with though, such as the blog one, the gain in read access would appear to be offset by the penalty in having to write the whole blog post "document" every time a new comment is added. It looks to me as though document-oriented databases can bring significant benefits to object-oriented systems if one takes extreme care to organize the objects in deep graphs optimized for the way the data will be read and written but this means knowing the use cases up front. In the real world, we often don't know until we actually have a live implementation we can profile. So is the case of relational vs. document-oriented databases one of swings and roundabouts? I'm interested in people's opinions and advice, in particular if anyone has built any significant applications on a document-oriented database.

  Read the article

• SSIS Design Pattern: Loading Variable-Length Rows

  - by andyleonard

  Introduction I encounter flat file sources with variable-length rows on occassion. Here, I supply one SSIS Design Pattern for loading them. What's a Variable-Length Row Flat File? Great question - let's start with a definition. A variable-length row flat file is a text source of some flavor - comma-separated values (CSV), tab-delimited file (TDF), or even fixed-length, positional-, or ordinal-based (where the location of the data on the row defines its field). The major difference between a "normal"...(read more)

  Read the article

• The right way to start out in game development/design [closed]

  - by Marco Sacristão

  Greetings everyone I'm a 19 year old student looking for some help in the field of game development. This question may or may not seem a bit overused, but the fact is that game development has been my life long dream, and after several hours of search I've realized that I've been going in circles for the past three or four months whilst doing such research on how to really get down and dirty with game development, therefor I decided to ask you guys if you could help me out at all. Let me start off with some information about me and things i've already learned about GameDev which might help you out on helping me out (wordplay!): I'm not an expert programmer, but I do have knowledge on how to program in several languages including C and Java (Currently learning Java in my degree in Computer Engineering), but my methodology might not be most correct in terms of syntax (hence my difficulty in starting out, i'm afraid that the starting point might not be the most correct, and it would deploy a wrongful development methodology that would be to corrected later on, in terms of game development or other projects). I have yet to work in a project as large as a game, never in my learning curve of programming I've done a project to the scale of a video game, only very small software (PHP Front-ends and Back-ends, with some basic JQuery and CSS knowledge). I'm not the biggest mathematician or physicist, but I already know that is not a problem, because there are several game engines already available for use and integration with home-made projects (Box2D, etc). I've also learned about some libraries that could be included in said projects, to ease out some process in game development, like SDL for example. I do not know how sprites, states, particles or any specific game-related techniques work. With that being said, you can see that I have some ideas on game development, but I have absolutely no clue on how to design and produce a game, or even how game-like mechanics work. It does not have to be a complex game just to start out, I'd rather learn the basic of game design (Like 2D drawing, tiling, object collision) and test that out in a language that I feel comfortable in which could be later on migrated to other platforms, as long that what I've learned is the correct way to do things, and not just something that I've learned from some guy on Youtube by replicating that code on the video. I'm sorry if my question is not in the best format possible, but I've got so many questions on my mind that are still un-answered that I don't know were to start! Thank you for reading.

  Read the article

• 5 Mac Applications For Web And Graphic Design

  - by Jyoti

  In this article free applications useful and effective for the development and creation of websites with your Mac computer. Without further ado, here are 5 Excellent Mac Application for Web and Graphic Design. Fotoflexer : Fotoflexer claims to be “The world’s most advanced online image editor”. It offers completely free access to numerous features such as [...]

  Read the article

• how to evaluate own project

  - by gruszczy

  I am working on a open source project in pure C, that I have started some time ago, but only recently found time to add some features. I can clearly some weaknesses of my old design, so I am trying to refactor my old code. I have no idea however, how to evaluate properly my new code. Do you know about any techniques or tools for code evaluation? I am pretty good with object oriented design, but for about three years I had no contact with purely structural one. Therefore I don't have enough experience, to be able to discern between good and bad design choices.

  Read the article

• Do I suffer from encapsulation overuse?

  - by Florenc

  I have noticed something in my code in various projects that seems like code smell to me and something bad to do, but I can't deal with it. While trying to write "clean code" I tend to over-use private methods in order to make my code easier to read. The problem is that the code is indeed cleaner but it's also more difficult to test (yeah I know I can test private methods...) and in general it seems a bad habit to me. Here's an example of a class that reads some data from a .csv file and returns a group of customers (another object with various fields and attributes). public class GroupOfCustomersImporter { //... Call fields .... public GroupOfCustomersImporter(String filePath) { this.filePath = filePath; customers = new HashSet<Customer>(); createCSVReader(); read(); constructTTRP_Instance(); } private void createCSVReader() { //.... } private void read() { //.... Reades the file and initializes the class attributes } private void readFirstLine(String[] inputLine) { //.... Method used by the read() method } private void readSecondLine(String[] inputLine) { //.... Method used by the read() method } private void readCustomerLine(String[] inputLine) { //.... Method used by the read() method } private void constructGroupOfCustomers() { //this.groupOfCustomers = new GroupOfCustomers(**attributes of the class**); } public GroupOfCustomers getConstructedGroupOfCustomers() { return this.GroupOfCustomers; } } As you can see the class has only a constructor which calls some private methods to get the job done, I know that's not a good practice not a good practice in general but I prefer to encapsulate all the functionality in the class instead of making the methods public in which case a client should work this way: GroupOfCustomersImporter importer = new GroupOfCustomersImporter(filepath) importer.createCSVReader(); read(); GroupOfCustomer group = constructGoupOfCustomerInstance(); I prefer this because I don't want to put useless lines of code in the client's side code bothering the client class with implementation details. So, Is this actually a bad habit? If yes, how can I avoid it? Please note that the above is just a simple example. Imagine the same situation happening in something a little bit more complex.

  Read the article

• Rule of thumb for enemy art design in 2D platformer

  - by Terrance

  I'm at the early stages of developing a 2D side scrolling open ended platformer (think Metroidvania) and am having a bit of difficulty at enemy design inspiration for something of a scifi, nature, fantasy setting that isn't overly familar or obvious. I haven't seen too many articles, blogs or books that talk about the subject at great length. Is there a fair rule of thumb when coming up with enemy art with respect to keeping your player engaged?

  Read the article

• Central Exception Handler

  - by J-unior

  Recently I've been thinking about a general ExceptionHandler, that I could initialize once in my app context and inject it everywhere. The idea that it will have quite simple interface with just public void handle(Exception ex), and then according to exception type it should decide what to do, maybe just log it, or show an alert message to the user, or maybe kill the whole app. The question is, what is the prettiest way to write such handler without lots of instanceofs? Unfortunately googling gives me only the default exception handler for RuntimeException that was introduced in Java 5. My first idea is to create an enum, that will have Class field for exception type and it will return the appropriate execution point, for example a concrete exception handler that also implements the interface public void handle(Exception ex), but with the required casting already.

  Read the article

• Why is it a good practice to wrap all primitives and Strings?

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

  According to Jeff Bay's Essay on Object Callisthenics, One of the practices is set to be "Wrap all primitives and Strings" Can anyone elaborate on this ? In languages where we already have wrappers for primitives like C# and Java. and In languages where Collections can have generics where you are sure of what type goes into the collection, do we need to wrap string's inside their own classes ? Does it have any other advantage ?

  Read the article

• Wrappers/law of demeter seems to be an anti-pattern...

  - by Robert Fraser

  I've been reading up on this "Law of Demeter" thing, and it (and pure "wrapper" classes in general) seem to generally be anti patterns. Consider an implementation class: class Foo { void doSomething() { /* whatever */ } } Now consider two different implementations of another class: class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething() { _foo.doSomething(); } } And the ways to call said methods: callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(); // Version 2 } At first blush, version 1 seems a bit simpler, and follows the "rule of Demeter", hide Foo's implementation, etc, etc. But this ties any changes in Foo to Bar. For example, if a parameter is added to doSomething, then we have: class Foo { void doSomething(int x) { /* whatever */ } } class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething(int x) { _foo.doSomething(x); } } callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(5); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(5); // Version 2 } In both versions, Foo and callingMethod need to be changed, but in Version 2, Bar also needs to be changed. Can someone explain the advantage of having a wrapper/facade (with the exception of adapters or wrapping an external API or exposing an internal one).

  Read the article

• Circular dependency and object creation when attempting DDD

  - by Matthew

  I have a domain where an Organization has People. Organization Entity public class Organization { private readonly List<Person> _people = new List<Person>(); public Person CreatePerson(string name) { var person = new Person(organization, name); _people.Add(person); return person; } public IEnumerable<Person> People { get { return _people; } } } Person Entity public class Person { public Person(Organization organization, string name) { if (organization == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("organization"); } Organization = organization; Name = name; } public Organization { get; private set; } public Name { get; private set; } } The rule for this relationship is that a Person must belong to exactly one Organization. The invariants I want to guarantee are: A person must have an organization this is enforced via the Person's constuctor An organization must know of its people this is why the Organization has a CreatePerson method A person must belong to only one organization this is why the organization's people list is not publicly mutable (ignoring the casting to List, maybe ToEnumerable can enforce that, not too concerned about it though) What I want out of this is that if a person is created, that the organization knows about its creation. However, the problem with the model currently is that you are able to create a person without ever adding it to the organizations collection. Here's a failing unit-test to describe my problem [Test] public void AnOrganizationMustKnowOfItsPeople() { var organization = new Organization(); var person = new Person(organization, "Steve McQueen"); CollectionAssert.Contains(organization.People, person); } What is the most idiomatic way to enforce the invariants and the circular relationship?

  Read the article

• Why is permadeath essential to a roguelike design?

  - by Gregory Weir

  Roguelikes and roguelike-likes (Spelunky, The Binding of Isaac) tend to share a number of game design elements: Procedurally generated worlds Character growth by way of new abilities and powers Permanent death I can understand why starting with permadeath as a premise would lead you to the other ideas: if you're going to be starting over a lot, you'll want variety in your experiences. But why do the first two elements imply a permadeath approach?

  Read the article

• Is it a good practice to wrap all primitives and Strings?

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

  According to Jeff Bay's Essay on Object Callisthenics, One of the practices is set to be "Wrap all primitives and Strings" Can anyone elaborate on this ? In languages where we already have wrappers for primitives like C# and Java. and In languages where Collections can have generics where you are sure of what type goes into the collection, do we need to wrap string's inside their own classes ? Does it have any other advantage ?

  Read the article

• When should a method of a class return the same instance after modifying itself?

  - by modiX

  I have a class that has three methods A(), B() and C(). Those methods modify the own instance. While the methods have to return an instance when the instance is a separate copy (just as Clone()), I got a free choice to return void or the same instance (return this;) when modifying the same instance in the method and not returning any other value. When deciding for returning the same modified instance, I can do neat method chains like obj.A().B().C();. Would this be the only reason for doing so? Is it even okay to modify the own instance and return it, too? Or should it only return a copy and leave the original object as before? Because when returning the same modified instance the user would maybe admit the returned value is a copy, otherwise it would not be returned? If it's okay, what's the best way to clarify such things on the method?

  Read the article

• LSP vs OCP / Liskov Substitution VS Open Close

  - by Kolyunya

  I am trying to understand the SOLID principles of OOP and I've come to the conclusion that LSP and OCP have some similarities (if not to say more). the open/closed principle states "software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification". LSP in simple words states that any instance of Foo can be replaced with any instance of Bar which is derived from Foo and the program will work the same very way. I'm not a pro OOP programmer, but it seems to me that LSP is only possible if Bar, derived from Foo does not change anything in it but only extends it. That means that in particular program LSP is true only when OCP is true and OCP is true only if LSP is true. That means that they are equal. Correct me if I'm wrong. I really want to understand these ideas. Great thanks for an answer.

  Read the article

• How important is Programming for a Level Designer?

  - by WryGrin

  I'm currently attending school in a Level Design program, and I was wondering how important programming really is in being a Level Designer? I'm apparently incapable of learning programming (despite my best efforts), and tend to do very well in all other courses 3D modelling, story/character design, narrative and dialogue writing, environmental and conceptual design etc. I'm wondering if my strengths in the other areas are enough (with practice) to let me become a Level Designer, or I'm wasting my time if I can't program? I really want to be a Designer, but I just can't seem to wrap my head around the "language" of programming in general (Java kicks my teeth in even with tutoring and additional work on my own).

  Read the article

• Removing hard-coded values and defensive design vs YAGNI

  - by Ben Scott

  First a bit of background. I'm coding a lookup from Age - Rate. There are 7 age brackets so the lookup table is 3 columns (From|To|Rate) with 7 rows. The values rarely change - they are legislated rates (first and third columns) that have stayed the same for 3 years. I figured that the easiest way to store this table without hard-coding it is in the database in a global configuration table, as a single text value containing a CSV (so "65,69,0.05,70,74,0.06" is how the 65-69 and 70-74 tiers would be stored). Relatively easy to parse then use. Then I realised that to implement this I would have to create a new table, a repository to wrap around it, data layer tests for the repo, unit tests around the code that unflattens the CSV into the table, and tests around the lookup itself. The only benefit of all this work is avoiding hard-coding the lookup table. When talking to the users (who currently use the lookup table directly - by looking at a hard copy) the opinion is pretty much that "the rates never change." Obviously that isn't actually correct - the rates were only created three years ago and in the past things that "never change" have had a habit of changing - so for me to defensively program this I definitely shouldn't store the lookup table in the application. Except when I think YAGNI. The feature I am implementing doesn't specify that the rates will change. If the rates do change, they will still change so rarely that maintenance isn't even a consideration, and the feature isn't actually critical enough that anything would be affected if there was a delay between the rate change and the updated application. I've pretty much decided that nothing of value will be lost if I hard-code the lookup, and I'm not too concerned about my approach to this particular feature. My question is, as a professional have I properly justified that decision? Hard-coding values is bad design, but going to the trouble of removing the values from the application seems to violate the YAGNI principle. EDIT To clarify the question, I'm not concerned about the actual implementation. I'm concerned that I can either do a quick, bad thing, and justify it by saying YAGNI, or I can take a more defensive, high-effort approach, that even in the best case ultimately has low benefits. As a professional programmer does my decision to implement a design that I know is flawed simply come down to a cost/benefit analysis?

  Read the article

• Design pattern for an ASP.NET project using Entity Framework

  - by MPelletier

  I'm building a website in ASP.NET (Web Forms) on top of an engine with business rules (which basically resides in a separate DLL), connected to a database mapped with Entity Framework (in a 3rd, separate project). I designed the Engine first, which has an Entity Framework context, and then went on to work on the website, which presents various reports. I believe I made a terrible design mistake in that the website has its own context (which sounded normal at first). I present this mockup of the engine and a report page's code behind: Engine (in separate DLL): public Engine { DatabaseEntities _engineContext; public Engine() { // Connection string and procedure managed in DB layer _engineContext = DatabaseEntities.Connect(); } public ChangeSomeEntity(SomeEntity someEntity, int newValue) { //Suppose there's some validation too, non trivial stuff SomeEntity.Value = newValue; _engineContext.SaveChanges(); } } And report: public partial class MyReport : Page { Engine _engine; DatabaseEntities _webpageContext; public MyReport() { _engine = new Engine(); _databaseContext = DatabaseEntities.Connect(); } public void ChangeSomeEntityButton_Clicked(object sender, EventArgs e) { SomeEntity someEntity; //Wrong way: //Get the entity from the webpage context someEntity = _webpageContext.SomeEntities.Single(s => s.Id == SomeEntityId); //Send the entity from _webpageContext to the engine _engine.ChangeSomeEntity(someEntity, SomeEntityNewValue); // <- oops, conflict of context //Right(?) way: //Get the entity from the engine context someEntity = _engine.GetSomeEntity(SomeEntityId); //undefined above //Send the entity from the engine's context to the engine _engine.ChangeSomeEntity(someEntity, SomeEntityNewValue); // <- oops, conflict of context } } Because the webpage has its own context, giving the Engine an entity from a different context will cause an error. I happen to know not to do that, to only give the Engine entities from its own context. But this is a very error-prone design. I see the error of my ways now. I just don't know the right path. I'm considering: Creating the connection in the Engine and passing it off to the webpage. Always instantiate an Engine, make its context accessible from a property, sharing it. Possible problems: other conflicts? Slow? Concurrency issues if I want to expand to AJAX? Creating the connection from the webpage and passing it off to the Engine (I believe that's dependency injection?) Only talking through ID's. Creates redundancy, not always practical, sounds archaic. But at the same time, I already recuperate stuff from the page as ID's that I need to fetch anyways. What would be best compromise here for safety, ease-of-use and understanding, stability, and speed?

  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

• Explanation of the definition of interface inheritance as described in GoF book

  - by Geek

  I am reading the first chapter of the Gof book. Section 1.6 discusses about class vs interface inheritance: Class versus Interface Inheritance It's important to understand the difference between an object's class and its type. An object's class defines how the object is implemented.The class defines the object's internal state and the implementation of its operations.In contrast,an object's type only refers to its interface--the set of requests on which it can respond. An object can have many types, and objects of different classes can have the same type. Of course, there's a close relationship between class and type. Because a class defines the operations an object can perform, it also defines the object's type . When we say that an object is an instance of a class, we imply that the object supports the interface defined by the class. Languages like c++ and Eiffel use classes to specify both an object's type and its implementation. Smalltalk programs do not declare the types of variables; consequently,the compiler does not check that the types of objects assigned to a variable are subtypes of the variable's type. Sending a message requires checking that the class of the receiver implements the message, but it doesn't require checking that the receiver is an instance of a particular class. It's also important to understand the difference between class inheritance and interface inheritance (or subtyping). Class inheritance defines an object's implementation in terms of another object's implementation. In short, it's a mechanism for code and representation sharing. In contrast,interface inheritance(or subtyping) describes when an object can be used in place of another. I am familiar with the Java and JavaScript programming language and not really familiar with either C++ or Smalltalk or Eiffel as mentioned here. So I am trying to map the concepts discussed here to Java's way of doing classes, inheritance and interfaces. This is how I think of of these concepts in Java: In Java a class is always a blueprint for the objects it produces and what interface(as in "set of all possible requests that the object can respond to") an object of that class possess is defined during compilation stage only because the class of the object would have implemented those interfaces. The requests that an object of that class can respond to is the set of all the methods that are in the class(including those implemented for the interfaces that this class implements). My specific questions are: Am I right in saying that Java's way is more similar to C++ as described in the third paragraph. I do not understand what is meant by interface inheritance in the last paragraph. In Java interface inheritance is one interface extending from another interface. But I think the word interface has some other overloaded meaning here. Can some one provide an example in Java of what is meant by interface inheritance here so that I understand it better?

  Read the article

• Questioning the motivation for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

  - by oberlies

  Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So dependency injection may really be an advantage in advanced use cases, but I don't need it for easy construction and testability, do I?

  Read the article

• Isn't MVC anti OOP?

  - by m3th0dman

  The main idea behind OOP is to unify data and behavior in a single entity - the object. In procedural programming there is data and separately algorithms modifying the data. In the Model-View-Controller pattern the data and the logic/algorithms are placed in distinct entities, the model and the controller respectively. In an equivalent OOP approach shouldn't the model and the controller be placed in the same logical entity?

  Read the article

• Code Smell: Inheritance Abuse

  - by dsimcha

  It's been generally accepted in the OO community that one should "favor composition over inheritance". On the other hand, inheritance does provide both polymorphism and a straightforward, terse way of delegating everything to a base class unless explicitly overridden and is therefore extremely convenient and useful. Delegation can often (though not always) be verbose and brittle. The most obvious and IMHO surest sign of inheritance abuse is violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle. What are some other signs that inheritance is The Wrong Tool for the Job even if it seems convenient?

  Read the article

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