Search Results

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

Page 170/348 | < Previous Page | 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177  | Next Page >

• c# wpf command pattern

  - by evan

  I have a wpf gui which displays a list of information in separate window and in a separate thread from the main application. As the user performs actions in the main window the side window is updated. (For example if you clicked page down in the main window a listbox in the side window would page down). Right now the architecture for this application feels very messy and I'm sure there is a cleaner way to do it. It looks like this: Main Window contains a singleton SideWindowControl which communicates with an instance of the SideWindowDisplay using events - so, for example, the pagedown button would work like: 1) the event handler of the button on the main window calls SideWindowControl.PageDown() 2) in the PageDown() function a event is created and thrown. 3) finally the gui, ShowSideWindowDisplay is subscribing to the SideWindowControl.Actions event handles the event and actually scrolls the listbox down - note because it is in a different thread it has to do that by running the command via Dispatcher.Invoke() This just seems like a very messy way to this and there must be a clearer way (The only part that can't change is that the main window and the side window must be on different threads). Perhaps using WPF commands? I'd really appreciate any suggestions!! Thanks

  Read the article

• Is Domain Anaemia appropriate in a Service Oriented Architecture?

  - by Stimul8d

  I want to be clear on this. When I say domain anaemia, I mean intentional domain anaemia, not accidental. In a world where most of our business logic is hidden away behind a bunch of services, is a full domain model really necessary? This is the question I've had to ask myself recently since working on a project where the "domain" model is in reality a persistence model; none of the domain objects contain any methods and this is a very intentional decision. Initially, I shuddered when I saw a library full of what are essentially type-safe data containers but after some thought it struck me that this particular system doesn't do much but basic CRUD operations, so maybe in this case this is a good choice. My problem I guess is that my experience so far has been very much focussed on a rich domain model so it threw me a little. The remainder of the domain logic is hidden away in a group of helpers, facades and factories which live in a separate assembly. I'm keen to hear what people's thoughts are on this. Obviously, the considerations for reuse of these classes are much simpler but is really that great a benefit?

  Read the article

• Books on Debugging Techniques?

  - by zooropa

  Are there any books on debugging techniques? A friend of mine is learning to code and he asked me this question. I told him I don't know of any. Is it that you just have to go through the School of Hard Knocks to learn?

  Read the article

• Are there any inherent benefits or drawbacks to choosing Google Code vs. SourceForge vs. Codeplex?

  - by kdmurray

  I've got a couple of different projects that I'd like to post up as open source. I've been trying to decide which of the three big open-source project hosting sites makes the most sense, or if I should just host it myself. Are there any inherent drawbacks or benefits to these three? Is there a "best" place to host a project? Do different sites make more sense for different kinds of projects?

  Read the article

• Should you always write code for else cases that "can never happen"?

  - by johnswamps

  Take some code like if (person.IsMale()) { doGuyStuff(); } else { doGirlOtherStuff(); } (Yes, I realize this is bad OO code, it's an example) Should this be written so that to explicitly check if person.isFemale(), and then add a new else that throws an exception? Or maybe you're checking values in an enum, or something like that. You think that no one will add new elements to the enum, but who knows? "Can never happen" sounds like famous last words.

  Read the article

• The Wheel Invention - Beneficial For Learning?

  - by Sarfraz

  Hello, Chris Coyier of css-tricks.com has written a good article titled Regarding Wheel Invention. In a paragraph he says: On the “reinventing” side, you benefit from complete control and learning from the process. And on the very next line he says: On the other side, you benefit from speed, reliability, and familiarity. Also often at odds are time spent and cost. He is right in both statements I think. I really like his first statement. I do actually sometimes re-invent the wheel to learn more and gain complete control over what I am inventing. I wonder why people are so much against that or rather biased. Isn't there the benefit of learning and getting complete control or probably some other benefits too. I would love to see what you have to say about this.

  Read the article

• how to make objects globally accessible?

  - by fayer

  i have this code: class IC_Core { /** * Database * @var IC_Database */ public static $db = NULL; /** * Core * @var IC_Core */ protected static $_instance = NULL; private function __construct() { } public static function getInstance() { if ( ! is_object(self::$_instance)) { self::$_instance = new self(); self::initialize(self::$_instance); } return self::$_instance; } private static function initialize(IC_Core $IC_Core) { self::$db = new IC_Database($IC_Core); } } but when i wanna access IC_Database with: $IC = IC_Core::getInstance(); $IC->db->add() // it says that its not an object. i think the problem lies in self::$db = new IC_Database($IC_Core); but i dont know how to make it work. could someone give me a hand=) thanks!

  Read the article

• What is the correct approach to using GWT with persistent objects?

  - by dankilman

  Hi, I am currently working on a simple web application through Google App engine using GWT. It should be noted that this is my first attempt at such a task. I have run into to following problem/dilema: I have a simple Class (getters/setters and nothing more. For the sake of clarity I will refer to this Class as DataHolder) and I want to make it persistent. To do so I have used JDO which required me to add some annotations and more specifically add a Key field to be used as the primary key. The problem is that using the Key class requires me to import com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Key which is ok on the server side, but then I can't use DataHolder on the client side, because GWT doesn't allow it (as far as I know). So I have created a sister Class ClientDataHolder which is almost identical, though it doesn't have all the JDO annotations nor the Key field. Now this actually works but It feels like I'm doing something wrong. Using this approach would require maintaining to separate classes for each entity I wish to have. So my question is: Is there a better way of doing this? Thank you.

  Read the article

• help me to choose between two designs

  - by alex

  // stupid title, but I could not think anything smarter I have a code (see below, sorry for long code but it's very-very simple): namespace Option1 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public AuxClass1 AuxClass { get { return _auxClass; } set { _auxClass = value; } } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } namespace Option2 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public string Field1 { get { return _auxClass.Field1; } set { _auxClass.Field1 = value; } } public void Method1() { _auxClass.Method1(); } public void Method2() { _auxClass.Method2(); } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { // Option1 Option1.MainClass mainClass1 = new Option1.MainClass(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Field1 = "string1"; mainClass1.AuxClass.Method1(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Method2(); // Option2 Option2.MainClass mainClass2 = new Option2.MainClass(); mainClass2.Field1 = "string2"; mainClass2.Method1(); mainClass2.Method2(); Console.ReadKey(); } } What option (option1 or option2) do you prefer ? In which cases should I use option1 or option2 ? Is there any special name for option1 or option2 (composition, aggregation) ?

  Read the article

• Tool that auto-generate a code for accesing a xml-file

  - by alex

  My application have a configuration xml-file. That file contains more than 50 program settings. At the present time I read and save each program setting separately. I guess It is not effi?iently for such tasks. I need something that can auto-generate a code for load and save my program settings using predefined xml-schema. I found a dataset in Add New Item dialog. Unfortunately, i cannot add new code to dataset1 such as events in set-accessors of properties because of this // Changes to this file may cause incorrect behavior and will be lost if // the code is regenerated. Maybe, there is a tool that allows a user to generate a wrapper for accesing a xml-file ? Such as DataSet1, but with availability to add events.

  Read the article

• Which pattern to use for logging? Dependency Injection or Service Locator?

  - by andlju

  Consider this scenario. I have some business logic that now and then will be required to write to a log. interface ILogger { void Log(string stuff); } interface IDependency { string GetInfo(); } class MyBusinessObject { private IDependency _dependency; public MyBusinessObject(IDependency dependency) { _dependency = dependency; } public string DoSomething(string input) { // Process input var info = _dependency.GetInfo(); var intermediateResult = PerformInterestingStuff(input, info); if (intermediateResult== "SomethingWeNeedToLog") { // How do I get to the ILogger-interface? } var result = PerformSomethingElse(intermediateResult); return result; } } How would you get the ILogger interface? I see two main possibilities; Pass it using Dependency Injection on the constructor. Get it via a singleton Service Locator. Which method would you prefer, and why? Or is there an even better pattern? Update: Note that I don't need to log ALL method calls. I only want to log a few (rare) events that may or may not occur within my method.

  Read the article

• Documentation style: how do you differentiate variable names from the rest of the text within a comm

  - by Alix

  Hi, This is a quite superfluous and uninteresting question, I'm afraid, but I always wonder about this. When you're commenting code with inline comments (as opposed to comments that will appear in the generated documentation) and the name of a variable appears in the comment, how do you differentiate it from normal text? E.g.: // Try to parse type. parsedType = tryParse(type); In the comment, "type" is the name of the variable. Do you mark it in any way to signify that it's a symbol and not just part of the comment's text? I've seen things like this: // Try to parse "type". // Try to parse 'type'. // Try to parse *type*. // Try to parse <type>. // Try to parse [type]. And also: // Try to parse variable type. (I don't think the last one is very helpful; it's a bit confusing; you could think "variable" is an adjective there) Do you have any preference? I find that I need to use some kind of marker; otherwise the comments are sometimes ambiguous, or at least force you to reread them when you realise a particular word in the comment was actually the name of a variable. (In comments that will appear in the documentation I use the appropriate tags for the generator, of course: @code, <code></code>, etc) Thanks!

  Read the article

• In Java how instance of and type cast(i.e (ClassName)) works on proxy object ?

  - by learner

  Java generates a proxy class for a given interface and provides the instance of the proxy class. But when we type cast the proxy object to our specific Object, how java handles this internally? Is this treated as special scenario? For example I have class 'OriginalClass' and it implements 'OriginalInterface', when I create proxy object by passing 'OriginalInterface' interface java created proxy class 'ProxyClass' using methods in the provided interface and provides object of this class(i.e ProxyClass). If my understanding is correct then can you please answer following queries 1) When I type cast object of ProxyClass to my class OriginalClass this works, but how java is allowing this? Same in case of instace of? 2) As my knowledge java creates a proxy class only with the methods, but what happen when I try to access attributes on this object? 3) Only interface methods are getting implemented in Proxy, but what happens when I try to access a method which not in interface and only mentioned in the class? Thanks, Student

  Read the article

• C# Open Source Projects with good architecture

  - by Steav

  Hello everyone.... I'm curious what are some good open source projects written in c# to learn about project architecture?

  Read the article

• Is there a design pattern to cut down on code duplication when subclassing Activities in Android?

  - by Daniel Lew

  I've got a common task that I do with some Activities - downloading data then displaying it. I've got the downloading part down pat; it is, of course, a little tricky due to the possibility of the user changing the orientation or cancelling the Activity before the download is complete, but the code is there. There is enough code handling these cases such that I don't want to have to copy/paste it to each Activity I have, so I thought to create an abstract subclass Activity itself such that it handles a single background download which then launches a method which fills the page with data. This all works. The issue is that, due to single inheritance, I am forced to recreate the exact same class for any other type of Activity - for example, I use Activity, ListActivity and MapActivity. To use the same technique for all three requires three duplicate classes, except each extends a different Activity. Is there a design pattern that can cut down on the code duplication? As it stands, I have saved much duplication already, but it pains me to see the exact same code in three classes just so that they each subclass a different type of Activity.

  Read the article

• Validation - Data Integrity

  - by Thomas

  A table can only store 10 records in a particular state, 10 users over 30 years for example, the others must be less than 30 years. It is a business rule and as such should be respected. How to ensure that state? Think: multiple users accessing this table.

  Read the article

• Arguments against Create or Update

  - by Nix

  Recently someone stated that they thought all Creates should be CreateOrUpdates. Instinctively i thought bad, but now I am trying to find out if I have any grounds. Situation interface IService{ void Create(Object a); void Update(Object a); } or interface IService{ void CreateOrUpdate(Object a); } My first thought is if you implemented everything CreateOrUpdate then you have no control if someone accidentally sends you wrong data, or concurrency issues where someone changes a "primary" field right before you call update.... But if you remove those cases, are there any other cons?

  Read the article

• MemoryStream instance timing help

  - by rod

  Hi All, Is it ok to instance a MemoryStream at the top of my method, do a bunch of stuff to it, and then use it? For instance: public static byte[] TestCode() { MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream(); ... ... whole bunch of stuff in between ... ... //finally using(m) { return m.ToArray(); } } Updated code public static byte[] GetSamplePDF() { using (MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream()) { Document document = new Document(); PdfWriter.GetInstance(document, m); document.Open(); PopulateTheDocument(document); document.Close(); return m.ToArray(); } } private static void PopulateTheDocument(Document document) { Table aTable = new Table(2, 2); aTable.AddCell("0.0"); aTable.AddCell("0.1"); aTable.AddCell("1.0"); aTable.AddCell("1.1"); document.Add(aTable); for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) { document.Add(new Phrase("Hello World, Hello Sun, Hello Moon, Hello Stars, Hello Sea, Hello Land, Hello People. ")); } } My point was to try to reuse building the byte code. In other words, build up any kind of document and then send it to TestCode() method.

  Read the article

• Is this a problem typically solved with IOC?

  - by Dirk

  My current application allows users to define custom web forms through a set of admin screens. it's essentially an EAV type application. As such, I can't hard code HTML or ASP.NET markup to render a given page. Instead, the UI requests an instance of a Form object from the service layer, which in turn constructs one using a several RDMBS tables. Form contains the kind of classes you would expect to see in such a context: Form= IEnumerable<FormSections>=IEnumerable<FormFields> Here's what the service layer looks like: public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenForm(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } } Everything works splendidly (for a while). The UI is none the wiser about what sections/fields exist in a given form: It happily renders the Form object it receives into a functional ASP.NET page. A few weeks later, I get a new requirement from the business: When viewing a non-editable (i.e. read-only) versions of a form, certain field values should be merged together and other contrived/calculated fields should are added. No problem I say. Simply amend my service class so that its methods are more explicit: public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenFormForEditing(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } public Form OpenFormForViewing(int formId){ //construct and a concrete implementation of Form //apply additional transformations to the form } } Again everything works great and balance has been restored to the force. The UI continues to be agnostic as to what is in the Form, and our separation of concerns is achieved. Only a few short weeks later, however, the business puts out a new requirement: in certain scenarios, we should apply only some of the form transformations I referenced above. At this point, it feels like the "explicit method" approach has reached a dead end, unless I want to end up with an explosion of methods (OpenFormViewingScenario1, OpenFormViewingScenario2, etc). Instead, I introduce another level of indirection: public interface IFormViewCreator{ void CreateView(Form form); } public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenFormForEditing(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } public Form OpenFormForViewing(int formId, IFormViewCreator formViewCreator){ //construct a concrete implementation of Form //apply transformations to the dynamic field list return formViewCreator.CreateView(form); } } On the surface, this seems like acceptable approach and yet there is a certain smell. Namely, the UI, which had been living in ignorant bliss about the implementation details of OpenFormForViewing, must possess knowledge of and create an instance of IFormViewCreator. My questions are twofold: Is there a better way to achieve the composability I'm after? (perhaps by using an IoC container or a home rolled factory to create the concrete IFormViewCreator)? Did I fundamentally screw up the abstraction here?

  Read the article

• Right design to validate attributes of a class instance

  - by systempuntoout

  Having a simple Python class like this: class Spam(object): __init__(self, description, value): self.description = description self.value = value Which is the correct approach to check these constraints: "description cannot be empty" "value must be greater than zero" Should i: 1.validate data before creating spam object ? 2.check data on __init__ method ? 3.create an is_valid method on Spam class and call it with spam.isValid() ? 4.create an is_valid static method on Spam class and call it with Spam.isValid(description, value) ? 5.check data on setters? 6.... Could you recommend a well designed\Pythonic\not verbose (on class with many attributes)\elegant approach?

  Read the article

• Is it poor form to use class attributes with no corresponding css rule?

  - by CRice

  For example if I wanted to select some elements with a certain class using jQuery, and for that reason only, is it always expected that those classes SHOULD be defined in the css?. <div class="xyz"> something </div> <div class="xyz"> something else </div> //with example jQuery $(".xyz").hide(); //is it wrong no element 'xyz' is defined in css?

  Read the article

• When NOT to use MVVM?

  - by Vitalij

  I have started using MVVM pattern recently. I have had several projects where I used it and with every new one, I start to see that it will fit great within that new project. And now I start to ask myself are there situation when it's better NOT to use MVVM. Or is it such a nice pattern which you can use anywhere? Could you please describe several scenarios where MVVM wouldn't be the best choice?

  Read the article

• Should I use a modified singleton design pattern that only allows one reference to its instance?

  - by Graham

  Hi, I have a class that would normally just generate factory objects, however this class should only used once throughout the program in once specifix place. What is the best design pattern to use in this instance? I throught that having a modified singleton design which only allows one reference to instance throughout the program would be the correct way to go. So only the first call to getInstance() returns the factory library. Is this a good or bad idea? Have I missed out another fundermental design pattern for solving this problem? Thanks for your help.

  Read the article

• Why is Visual Basic used?

  - by Arrieta

  I don't mean to start a holy war here, but I cannot fathom why would anybody use Visual Basic for a new project. Can you explain me why is it used? What new applications (which a lay person may be familiar with) have been developed in it? Why is it chosen over other languages? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Best way to force Spring shutdown from a bean?

  - by xcut

  My application uses a Spring DefaultMessageListenerContainer to process incoming messages. The main method of the app already registers a shutdown hook. Question is this: what is the best way to force the application context to shut down? If I throw a RuntimeException in the message listener, it is handled by the container, and not passed on. Is calling System.exit acceptable? Do I pass along the ApplicationContext to every class that needs to shut down, so I can call close() on it?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177  | Next Page >