Search Results

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

Page 172/348 | < Previous Page | 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Using Remote Web Page to Initialize iPhone App

    - by Chris_K
    My iPhone app relies on a vendor's XML feed to provide data. But that feed is not locked down. The vendor could change the format of the XML at any time, although so far they've promised not to. Since I might want to tell my app to use a different URL for its data source, I'd like to set up a single "Command Central" Web page, on my own server, to direct the app to the correct data source. In other words, each time my app starts, in the background and unseen by the user, it would visit "http://www.myserver.com/iphoneapp_data_sources.xml" to retrieve the URL for retrieving data from my vendor. That way, if my vendor suddenly changes the exact URL or the XML feed that the app needs, I can update that Web page and ensure that all installations of the app are using the correct XML feed. Does anyone have any advice or examples showing this kind of approach? It seems as if this must be a common problem, but so far I haven't found a well-established design pattern that fits it.

    Read the article

  • C# Class Factories

    - by Andy
    I have a class called Foo that has a function that looks like the following List<Bar> LoadData(); Both Foo and Bar are in a library that I want to reuse in other projects. Now I am working on a new project and I want to subclass Bar. Let's call it NewBar. What is a simple and flexible way to get Foo.LoadData to return a list of NewBar? I think that a factory is needed or perhaps just a delegate function. Can anyone provide an example? Thanks, Andy

    Read the article

  • How to send complete POST to Model in Code Igniter

    - by Constant M
    Hi there, What would be the best way to send a complete post to a model in Code Igniter? Methods I know are as follow: Name form elements as array, eg. <input type="text" name="contact[name]"> <input type="text" name="contact[surname]"> and then use: $this->Model_name->add_contact($this->input->post('contact')); The other would be to add each element to an array and then send it to the model as such: <input type="text" name="name"> <input type="text" name="surname"> and $contact_array = array('name' => $this->input->post('name'), 'surname' => $this->input->post('surname')); $this->Model_name->add_contact($this->input->post('contact')); Which one of these would be best practice, and is there a way to directly send a whole POST to a model (or a whole form maybe?)

    Read the article

  • Java: Inputting text from a file using split

    - by 00PS
    I am inputting an adjacency list for a graph. There are three columns of data (vertex, destination, edge) separated by a single space. Here is my implementation so far: FileStream in = new FileStream("input1.txt"); Scanner s = new Scanner(in); String buffer; String [] line = null; while (s.hasNext()) { buffer = s.nextLine(); line = buffer.split("\\s+"); g.add(line[0]); System.out.println("Added vertex " + line[0] + "."); g.addEdge(line[0], line[1], Integer.parseInt(line[2])); System.out.println("Added edge from " + line[0] + " to " + line[1] + " with a weight of " + Integer.parseInt(line[2]) + "."); } System.out.println("Size of graph = " + g.size()); Here is the output: Added vertex a. Added edge from a to b with a weight of 9. Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at structure5.GraphListDirected.addEdge(GraphListDirected.java:93) at Driver.main(Driver.java:28) I was under the impression that line = buffer.split("\\s+"); would return a 2 dimensional array of Strings to the variable line. It seemed to work the first time but not the second. Any thoughts? I would also like some feedback on my implementation of this problem. Is there a better way? Anything to help out a novice! :)

    Read the article

  • Could this be considered a well-written PHP5 class?

    - by Ben Dauphinee
    I have been learning OOP principals on my own for a while, and taken a few cracks at writing classes. What I really need to know now is if I am actually using what I have learned correctly, or if I could improve as far as OOP is concerned. I have chopped a massive portion of code out of a class that I have been working on for a while now, and pasted it here. To all you skilled and knowledgeable programmers here I ask: Am I doing it wrong? class acl extends genericAPI{ // -- Copied from genericAPI class protected final function sanityCheck($what, $check, $vars){ switch($check){ case 'set': if(isset($vars[$what])){return(1);}else{return(0);} break; } } // --------------------------------- protected $db = null; protected $dataQuery = null; public function __construct(Zend_Db_Adapter_Abstract $db, $config = array()){ $this->db = $db; if(!empty($config)){$this->config = $config;} } protected function _buildQuery($selectType = null, $vars = array()){ // Removed switches for simplicity sake $this->dataQuery = $this->db->select( )->from( $this->config['table_users'], array('tf' => '(CASE WHEN count(*) > 0 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END)') )->where( $this->config['uidcol'] . ' = ?', $vars['uid'] ); } protected function _sanityRun_acl($sanitycheck, &$vars){ switch($sanitycheck){ case 'uid_set': if(!$this->sanityCheck('uid', 'set', $vars)){ throw new Exception(ERR_ACL_NOUID); } $vars['uid'] = settype($vars['uid'], 'integer'); break; } } private function user($action = null, $vars = array()){ switch($action){ case 'exists': $this->_sanityRun_acl('uid_set', $vars); $this->_buildQuery('user_exists_idcheck', $vars); return($this->db->fetchOne($this->dataQuery->__toString())); break; } } public function user_exists($uid){ return($this->user('exists', array('uid' => $uid))); } } $return = $acl_test->user_exists(1);

    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

  • Building a life-critical System using Agile

    - by Ben Breen
    Looking at the general trend of comments in my question about Building an Aircraft using Agile, the biggest problem other than cost appears to be safety. Do people feel that it is not possible to build a safe system (or prove it is safe) using agile? Doesn’t all the iterative testing mitigate this? Is it likely that a piece of software developed using agile will never be as reliable as counterparts such as waterfall?

    Read the article

  • How to implement the API/SPI Pattern in Java?

    - by Adam Tannon
    I am creating a framework that exposes an API for developers to use: public interface MyAPI { public void doSomeStuff(); public int getWidgets(boolean hasRun); } All the developers should have to do is code their projects against these API methods. I also want them to be able to place different "drivers"/"API bindings" on the runtime classpath (the same way JDBC or SLF4J work) and have the API method calls (doSomeStuff(), etc.) operate on different 3rd party resources (files, servers, whatever). Thus the same code and API calls will map to operations on different resources depending on what driver/binding the runtime classpath sees (i.e. myapi-ftp, myapi-ssh, myapi-teleportation). How do I write (and package) an SPI that allows for such runtime binding, and then maps MyAPI calls to the correct (concrete) implementation? In other words, if myapi-ftp allows you to getWidgets(boolean) from an FTP server, how would I could this up (to make use of both the API and SPI)? Bonus points for concrete, working Java code example! Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Is it good practice to initialize array in C/C++?

    - by sand
    I recently encountered a case where I need to compare two files (golden and expected) for verification of test results and even though the data written to both the files were same, the files does not match. On further investigation, I found that there is a structure which contains some integers and a char array of 64 bytes, and not all the bytes of char array were getting used in most of the cases and unused fields from the array contain random data and that was causing the mismatch. This brought me ask the question whether it is good practice to initialize the array in C/C++ as well, as it is done in Java?

    Read the article

  • Repository Pattern Standardization of methods

    - by Nix
    All I am trying to find out the correct definition of the repository pattern. My original understanding was this (extremely dubmed down) Separate your Business Objects from your Data Objects Standardize access methods in data access layer. I have really seen 2 different implementations. Implementation 1 : public Interface IRepository<T>{ List<T> GetAll(); void Create(T p); void Update(T p); } public interface IProductRepository: IRepository<Product> { //Extension methods if needed List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Implementation 2 : public interface IProductRepository { List<Product> GetAllProducts(); void CreateProduct(Product p); void UpdateProduct(Product p); List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Notice the first is generic Get/Update/GetAll, etc, the second is more of what I would define "DAO" like. Both share an extraction from your data entities. Which I like, but i can do the same with a simple DAO. However the second piece standardize access operations I see value in, if you implement this enterprise wide people would easily know the set of access methods for your repository. Am I wrong to assume that the standardization of access to data is an integral piece of this pattern ? Rhino has a good article on implementation 1, and of course MS has a vague definition and an example of implementation 2 is here.

    Read the article

  • Help me to find a better approach-Design Pattern

    - by DJay
    I am working on an ASP.Net web application in which several WCF services are being used. At client level, I am creating channel factory mechanism to invoke service operations. Right now, I have created an assembly having classes used for channel factory creation code for every service. As per my assumption this is some sort of facade pattern. Please help me to find a better approach or any design pattern, which I can use here.

    Read the article

  • How to reference a class that implements certain interface?

    - by vikp
    Hi, I have an interface for logging the exceptions, i.e. IExceptionLogger. This interface has 3 implementations: DBExceptionLogger, XMLExceptionLogger, CSVExceptionLogger. I have an application that will make a use of DBExceptionLogger. The application references only IExceptionLogger. How do I create an instance of DBExceptionLogger within the application. I can't reference the DBExceptionLogger directly since it will break the purpose of having IExceptionLogger interface. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Number of characters recommended for a statement

    - by liaK
    Hi, I have been using Qt 4.5 and so do C++. I have been told that it's a standard practice to maintain the length of each statement in the application to 80 characters. Even in Qt creator we can make a right border visible so that we can know whether we are crossing the 80 characters limit. But my question is, Is it really a standard being followed? Because in my application, I use indenting and all, so it's quite common that I cross the boundary. Other cases include, there might be a error statement which will be a bit explanatory one and which is in an inner block of code, so it too will cross the boundary. Usually my variable names look bit lengthier so as to make the names meaningful. When I call the functions of the variable names, again I will cross. Function names will not be in fewer characters either. I agree a horizontal scroll bar shows up and it's quite annoying to move back and forth. So, for function calls including multiple arguments, when the boundary is reached I will make the forth coming arguments in the new line. But besides that, for a single statement (for e.g a very long error message which is in double quotes " " or like longfun1()->longfun2()->...) if I use an \ and split into multiple lines, the readability becomes very poor. So is it a good practice to have those statement length restrictions? If this restriction in statement has to be followed? I don't think it depends on a specific language anyway. I added C++ and Qt tags since if it might. Any pointers regarding this are welcome.

    Read the article

  • Where do I put the Current user query so as to not repeat per controller?

    - by Kevin
    I have a standard query that gets the current user object: @user = User.find_by_email(session[:email]) but I'm putting it as the first line in every single controller action which is obviously not the best way to do this. What is the best way to refactor this? Do I put this as a method in the Application controller (and if so, can you just show me a quick example)? Do I put the entire @user object into the session (has about 50 columns and some sensitive ones like is_admin)? Or is there another way to remove this kind of redundancy?

    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

  • Is there a design pattern for this ?

    - by ytrewq
    I have a component that needs to call a specific service depending on the input it receives. So my component has to look at the input and based on a configuration that says "for this input call this service with this data" needs to call the proper service. The services have a common signature method and a specific one (each). I thought about an abstract class that includes the signatures for all three methods. The implementation for the two services will override all three methods (throwing NotImplementedException for the methods that are not supported by current service). A component that could be initialized with a map (that for each input type will have the type of the service to be called) will also be defined. Do you have a better approach to cope this scenario ?

    Read the article

  • How to format dates in Jahia 6 CMS?

    - by dpb
    I am helping a friend of mine put up a site for his business. I’ve read different posts and sites trying to find the ideal CMS tool, but people have different views of what is the best, so I finally just picked one of them at random. So I went for an evaluation of Jahia 6.0-CE. As you’ve probably guessed by now, I don’t have so much experience with CMS tools. I just want to setup the CMS, write the templates for the site and let my friend manage the content from there on. So I extracted the sources from SVN and went for a test drive. I managed to create some simple templates to get a hang of things but now I have an issue with a date format. In my definitions.cnd I declared the field like so: date myDateField (datetimepicker[format='dd.MM.yyyy']) This is formatted in the page and the selector also presents this in the dd.MM.yyyy format when inserting the content. But how about sites in other countries, countries that represent the date as MM.dd.yyyy for example? If I specify the format in the CND, hard coded, how can I change this later on so that it adapts based on the browser’s language? Do I extract the content from the repository and format it by hand in the JSP template based on a Locale, or is there a better way? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Returning back to the results after editing

    - by Parhs
    Hello, I am developing an application which has several CRUD actions... I am using Java and i am forced to use Struts framework. My problem is: I have a search page which returns some results.The user can click at a result and then he goes to another edit-page... He may apply changes or not...What i need is a way to return at the result page again and at the same scroll position.Javascript must be enabled for this project however.. I am wondering which is the best practice to achieve this effect... A solution would be to save the last search URL but i know that this wouldnt work if the user has multiple results. I know how to do it but i am lloking for a good practice!

    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

  • 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

< Previous Page | 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179  | Next Page >