Search Results

Search found 14545 results on 582 pages for 'design patterns'.

Page 174/582 | < Previous Page | 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181  | 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

  • What pattern to use in this scenario?

    - by jess
    Hi, We have got many forms(windows app C#) in our application.We have similar steps in most of them - user adds a new object(in a grid),fills values and save.On,save,we validate,and save if everything ok,else show message.Now,adding of object usually means we add a new row with some default values.

    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 are the best practices for writing maintainable CSS?

    - by Art
    I am just starting to explore this area and wonder what are the best practices when it comes to production of clean, well-structured and maintainable CSSes. There seems to be few different approaches to structuring CSS rules. One of the most commonly encountered ones I saw was throwing everything together in one rule, i.e. margins, borders, typefaces, backgrounds, something like this: .my-class { border-top:1px solid #c9d7f1; font-size:1px; font-weight:normal; height:0; position:absolute; top:24px; width:100%; } Another approach I noticed employed grouping of properties, say text-related properties like font-size, typeface, emphasis etc goes into one rule, backgrounds go into other, borders/margins go into yet another one: .my-class { border-top:1px solid #c9d7f1; } .my-class { font-size:1px; font-weight:normal; } .my-class { height:0; top:24px; width:100%; position:absolute; } I guess I am looking for a silver bullet here which I know I am not going to get, bet nevertheless - what are the best practices in this space?

    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

  • 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

  • Using a regex pattern to find revision numbers from a svn merge

    - by zyzy
    svn diff -rXX:HEAD Will give me a format like this, if there has been a merge between those revisions: Merged /<branch>:rXXX,XXX-XXX or Merged /<branch>:rXXX I'm not very familiar with regex and am trying to put together a pattern which will match all the numbers (merged revision numbers) AFTER matching the "Merged /branch:r" part. So far I have this to match the first part: [Mm]erged.*[a-zA-Z]:r Thanks in adv. for the help :)

    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

  • Function chaining depending on boolean result

    - by Markive
    This is just an efficiency question really.. I'm interested to know if there is a more efficient or logical way that people use to handle this sort of scenario. In my asp.net application I am running a script to generate a new project my code at the top level looks like this: Dim ok As Boolean = True ok = createFolderStructure() If ok Then ok = createMDB() If ok Then ok = createProjectConfig() If ok Then ok = updateCompanyConfig() I create a boolean and each function returns a boolean result, the next function in this chain will only run if the previous one was successful. I do this because an asp.net application will continue to run through the page life cycle unless there is an unhandled exception and I don't want my whole application to be screwed up if something in the chain goes wrong (there is a lot of copying and deleting of files etc.. in this example). I was just wondering how other people handle this scenario? the vb.net single line if statement is quite succinct but I'm wondering if there is a better way?

    Read the article

  • How do I write a Java text file viewer for big log files

    - by Hannes de Jager
    I am working on a software product with an integrated log file viewer. Problem is, its slow and unstable for really large files because it reads the whole file into memory when you view a log file. I'm wanting to write a new log file viewer that addresses this problem. What are the best practices for writing viewers for large text files? How does editors like notepad++ and VIM acomplish this? I was thinking of using a buffered Bi-directional text stream reader together with Java's TableModel. Am I thinking along the right lines and are such stream implementations available for 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

  • 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

  • Should we avoid to use Object as the input parameter/ output value of a method?

    - by developer.cyrus
    Take Java syntax as an example, though the question itself is language independent. If the following snippet takes an object MyAbstractEmailTemplate as input argument in the method setTemplate, the class MyGateway will then become tightly-coupled with the object MyAbstractEmailTemplate, which lessens the re-usability of the class MyGateway. A compromise is to use dependency-injection to ease the instantiation of MyAbstractEmailTemplate. This might solve the coupling problem to some extent, but the interface is still rigid, hardly providing enough ?exibility to other developers/ applications. So if we only use primitive data type (or even plain XML in web service) as the input/ output of a method, it seems the coupling problem no longer exists. So what do you think? public class MyGateway { protected MyAbstractEmailTemplate template; publoc void setTemplate(MyAbstractEmailTemplate template) { this.template = template; } }

    Read the article

  • Is Embed Resource a good approach for a read only xml database?

    - by Nasser Hajloo
    I have an open source application (here) This application get a character or a sentence and give some unicode information about it. Iuse Unicode Character Database which provided by Unicode.org this is a XML document (130MB) At first I embed this XML to my DLL but I don't know is it a good approach or no. because DLL size growth just because of this XML document. I can use it like any other resources but usercan see it. What Should I do? What is the best pattern for this? and Why ? TIA

    Read the article

  • using partials in view helpers

    - by takeshin
    Creating custom Zend View helpers I often end up with something like: // logic here if ($condition) { $output = <<<EOS... } else { $output = <<<EOS... } or using switch. Then to eliminate this, I create setPartial(), getPartial() and htmlize() for using external .phtml's. This is not the best solution, because partials do not support doctype changing. Is there any better solution, than creating abstract class handling this common case? Are there any ready Zend solutions for this case? Separate view helper for each case? And where to put common code?

    Read the article

  • PHP Access property of a class from within a class instantiated in the original class.

    - by Iain
    I'm not certain how to explain this with the correct terms so maybe an example is the best method... $master = new MasterClass(); $master->doStuff(); class MasterClass { var $a; var $b; var $c; var $eventProccer; function MasterClass() { $this->a = 1; $this->eventProccer = new EventProcess(); } function printCurrent() { echo '<br>'.$this->a.'<br>'; } function doStuff() { $this->printCurrent(); $this->eventProccer->DoSomething(); $this->printCurrent(); } } class EventProcess { function EventProcess() {} function DoSomething() { // trying to access and change the parent class' a,b,c properties } } My problem is i'm not certain how to access the properties of the MasterClass from within the EventProcess-DoSomething() method? I would need to access, perform operations on and update the properties. The a,b,c properties will be quite large arrays and the DoSomething() method would be called many times during the execuction of the script. Any help or pointers would be much appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • Can I use the decorator pattern to wrap a method body?

    - by mgroves
    I have a bunch of methods with varying signatures. These methods interact with a fragile data connection, so we often use a helper class to perform retries/reconnects, etc. Like so: MyHelper.PerformCall( () => { doStuffWithData(parameters...) }); And this works fine, but it can make the code a little cluttery. What I would prefer to do is decorate the methods that interact with the data connection like so: [InteractsWithData] protected string doStuffWithData(parameters...) { // do stuff... } And then essentially, whenever doStuffWithData is called, the body of that method would be passed in as an Action to MyHelper.PerformCall(). How do I do this?

    Read the article

  • Help with database design

    - by Jonny
    Hey im new to database design and having trouble trying to figure this one out. I have two tables Team and Fixtures. Team has rows of football teams and Fixture has 2 of those football teams in each row (home and away team). I want to link team id to home_team and away_team but it doesnt allow me to. Please tell me how i can solve this. Here is an image of my tables/relationships http://i49.tinypic.com/288qwpg.jpg

    Read the article

  • Using an interface as a constructor parameter in Java?

    - by aperson
    How would I be able to accomplish the following: public class testClass implements Interface { public testClass(Interface[] args) { } } So that I could declare Interface testObject = new testClass(new class1(4), new class2(5)); Where class1 and class2 are also classes that implement Interface. Also, once I accomplish this, how would I be able to refer to each individual parameter taken in to be used in testClass? Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • Is this the correct why of speaking to a "Content Manager" Class?

    - by DeanMc
    I am creating a silverlight site. I am currently breaking out my ideas into pieces of functionality. One of the idea's I have is the concept of a content manager. This is essentially a UI control with 4 regions. Top, Bottom, Right & Left. I also have a collection of objects that are considered "Menu Items". These are controls that function as a way to navigate around, similar to links. The idea I have is to implement an IMenuItem interface. Among the standard pieces of information (Text, PageReference, etc) I was also going to hold a reference to the content manager. My idea behind this thinking is that I can pass the PageReference to a property on the ContentManager and then call a method which knows how to update the content manager accordingly. Is this the best way of implementing this or is their some sort of pattern for it?

    Read the article

  • Is there a case for parameterising using Abstract classes rather than Interfaces?

    - by Chris
    I'm currently developing a component based API that is heavily stateful. The top level components implement around a dozen interfaces each. The stock top-level components therefore sit ontop of a stack of Abstract implementations which in turn contain multiple mixin implementations and implement multiple mixin interfaces. So far, so good (I hope). The problem is that the base functionality is extremely complex to implement (1,000s of lines in 5 layers of base classes) and therefore I do not wish for component writers to implement the interfaces themselves but rather to extend my base classes (where all the boiler plate code is already written). If the API therefore accepts interfaces rather than references to the Abstract implementation that I wish for component writers to extends, then I have a risk that the implementer will not perform the validation that is both required and assumed by other areas of code. Therefore, my question is, is it sometimes valid to paramerise API methods using an abstract implementation reference rather than a reference to the interface(s) that it implements? Do you have an example of a well-designed API that uses this technique or am I trying to talk myself into bad-practice?

    Read the article

  • Files mapping architecture

    - by user326198
    I need to know How I can achieve this goal by classes : we have two different applications in the company (App1 , App2) Appl can export xml with know items ( ID , Name) we need app2 to import this data but App2 display different items (CarID, CarName) and this items defined like this with the mapping info <CarID> <Mapping name="ID"/> </CarID> <CarNAme> <Mapping name="Name"/> </CarNAme>" How I can achieve this as classes or ARCHITECTURE , i will develop this with c# I need one interface because we may support different type of files not just xml

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181  | Next Page >