Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 174/348 | < Previous Page | 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181  | Next Page >

  • command design pattern usage

    - by sagie
    Hi. I've read 3 descriptions of the command design pattern: wikipedia, dofactory and source making. In all of them, the UML shows a relation between the client to the receiver & the concrete command, but no relation to the invoker. But in all 3 examples the client is the one that initiates the invoker and call its Execute method. I think that should be a relation to the invoker as well. Am I missing somthing in here? Maybe even a basic UML knowladge?

    Read the article

  • Is there any difference between var name = function() {} & function name() {} in Javascript?

    - by Fletcher Moore
    Suppose we are inside a function and not in the global namespace. function someGlobalFunction() { var utilFunction1 = function() { } function utilFunction2 () { } utilFunction1(); utilFunction2(); } Are these synonymous? And do these functions completely cease to exist when someGlobalFunction returns? Should I prefer one or the other for readability or some other reason?

    Read the article

  • #Define Compiler Directive in C#

    - by pm_2
    In C, I could declare a compiler directive as follows: #define MY_NUMBER 10 However, in C#, I only appear to be able to do this: #define MY_NUMBER Which is obviously useless in this case. Is this correct, or am I doing something wrong? If not, can anyone suggest a way of doing this, either at namespace or solution level? I thought of maybe creating a static class, but that seems to be overkill for one value.

    Read the article

  • Does MVC replace traditional manually created BLL?

    - by used2could
    I'm used to creating the UI, BLL, DAL by hand (some times I've used LINQ-to-SQL or SubSonic for the DAL). I've done several small projects using MVC since its release. On these projects I've still continued to write a BLL and DAL by hand and then incorporate those into the MVC's models/controllers. I'm looking to optimize my time on projects this seems like overkill and a potential waste of time. Question Would it be acceptable to roll a DAL such as SubSonic and directly use it in the Models/Controllers of my MVC web app? Now the models & controllers would act as the BLL. I just see this as a major timesaver to not have to worry about another tier. UPDATE: I just wanted to add that my concern isn't really with the DAL (I frequently use SubSonic and NH) but rather focus on the BLL. Sorry for the confusion.

    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

  • Symfony 1.3: Any opinion about this code? Coud be shorter or better?

    - by user248959
    Hi, I need your opinion about this code below. I have a list of messages: each message has a link that change the state of the message (read - non read). In the partial "_message" i have this: <div class="switching_link" id="switching_link_<?php echo $message ?>"> echo include_partial('link_switch_state', array('message' => $message)) </div> In the partial "_link_switch_state" i have this: if((int)$message->getState() == 1) { $string_state_message="non read"; } else { $string_state_message="read"; } echo link_to_remote('Mark as '.$string_state_message, array( 'url' => 'message/switchState?id='.$message->getId(), 'update' => 'switching_link_'.$message, "complete" => "switchClassMessage('$message');", )); And in message/actions/actions.class.php i have this: public function executeSwitchState(sfWebRequest $request) { // searching the message we want to change its state. $this->messages = Doctrine::getTable('Message')->findById($request->getParameter('id')); // changing the state of the message. if($this->messages[0]->getState() == 1) { $this->messages[0]->setState(0); } else { $this->messages[0]->setState(1); } $this->messages[0]->save(); // rendering the partial that shows the link ("Mark as read/non read"). return $this->renderPartial('mensaje/link_switch_state', array( 'message' => $this->messages[0])); } Regards Javi

    Read the article

  • how to implement this observer pattern?

    - by lethal
    Hello. I have 4 classes, that describe state diagram. Node, Edge, ComponentOfNode, ComponentOfEdge. ComponentOfEdge compounds from ComponentsOfNode. Node can have 0..n outgoing edges. Edge can have only 2 nodes. Edge should be able to offer ComponentOfNode, but only from nodes that Edge has, in form ComponentOfEdge. The user can change ComponentsOfNode. I need this change spreads to all Edge. Hw to do it? I expect the observer should be used. Can you give me example in pseudocode please?

    Read the article

  • Adding behaviour to a set of classes

    - by devoured elysium
    I have defined an Event class: Event and all the following classes inherit from Event: SportEventType1 SportEventType2 SportEventType3 SportEventType4 Right now I will only have SportEvents but I don't know if in the future I'll want some other kind of events that doesn't even have anything to do with Sports. Later, I will want to draw some graphics with info taken from Events, and the drawing logic can be a bit complex. But, for the moment, I think I shouldn't think of how the drawing will be done and I believe that maybe it'd be better if that drawing part was not put as an integral part of the Event/SportEventX class chain. I am looking for solutions for this problem. I know I could just make Event have an instance variable(attribute, for the java crowds) pointing to something as an IDrawInterface, but that would make the Event class "assume" it will be later used for drawing. I would like to make the Event class oblivious to this if possible. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Ignoring (serious) errors to keep the program alive?

    - by SQuirreL bites
    One of the main things I wanted to achieve in my experimental programming language was: When errors occur (Syntax, Name, Type, etc.) keep the program running, no matter how serious or devastating it is. I know that this is probably very bad, but I just wanted something that doesn't kill itself on every error - I find it interesting what happens when a serious error occurs but the program continues. Does this "paradigm" have a name? I mean expect for How bad is it to do the above? Are there programs in use out there that just follow: "Hey, this is a fatal, unexpected error - but you know what? I don't care!"?

    Read the article

  • To change checkbox text or to not change?

    - by Axarydax
    Hi, I'm having an argument with a co-worker, and I'm trying to convince him that it's a bad idea to change checkbox text (label) according to the checkbox state. For example, we have a combobox that automatically picks selected value (and is disabled) when checkbox next to it is checked and is enabled when checkbox is cleared. His idea is to show Autoselect when checkbox is checked and Manual select when it's cleared. I'm sure that this will confuse the user as users tend to think that checking a checkbox next to a verb will make it true, only to find that the label has changed to something else. What is your opinion on this matter? P.S. I remember reading about changing checkbox text somewhere, in a book or blog article, but can't remember where. It would be great to have this in writing :-)

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection in C++

    - by Yorgos Pagles
    This is also a question that I asked in a comment in one of Miško Hevery's google talks that was dealing with dependency injection but it got buried in the comments. I wonder how can the factory / builder step of wiring the dependencies together can work in C++. I.e. we have a class A that depends on B. The builder will allocate B in the heap, pass a pointer to B in A's constructor while also allocating in the heap and return a pointer to A. Who cleans up afterwards? Is it good to let the builder clean up after it's done? It seems to be the correct method since in the talk it says that the builder should setup objects that are expected to have the same lifetime or at least the dependencies have longer lifetime (I also have a question on that). What I mean in code: class builder { public: builder() : m_ClassA(NULL),m_ClassB(NULL) { } ~builder() { if (m_ClassB) { delete m_ClassB; } if (m_ClassA) { delete m_ClassA; } } ClassA *build() { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB); return m_ClassA; } }; Now if there is a dependency that is expected to last longer than the lifetime of the object we are injecting it into (say ClassC is that dependency) I understand that we should change the build method to something like: ClassA *builder::build(ClassC *classC) { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB, classC); return m_ClassA; } What is your preferred approach?

    Read the article

  • Writing my own implementation of stl-like Iterator in C++.

    - by Negai
    Good evening everybody, I'm currently trying to understand the intrinsics of iterators in various languages i.e. the way they are implemented. For example, there is the following class exposing the list interface. template<class T> class List { public: virtual void Insert( int beforeIndex, const T item ) throw( ListException ) =0 ; virtual void Append( const T item ) =0; virtual T Get( int position ) const throw( ListException ) =0; virtual int GetLength() const =0; virtual void Remove( int position ) throw( ListException ) =0; virtual ~List() =0 {}; }; According to GoF, the best way to implement an iterator that can support different kinds of traversal is to create the base Iterator class (friend of List) with protected methods that can access List's members. The concrete implementations of Iterator will handle the job in different ways and access List's private and protected data through the base interface. From here forth things are getting confusing. Say, I have class LinkedList and ArrayList, both derived from List, and there are also corresponding iterators, each of the classes returns. How can I implement LinkedListIterator? I'm absolutely out of ideas. And what kind of data can the base iterator class retrieve from the List (which is a mere interface, while the implementations of all the derived classes differ significantly) ? Sorry for so much clutter. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is it considered bad practice to have ViewModel objects hold the Dispatcher?

    - by stiank81
    My WPF application is structured using the MVVM pattern. The ViewModels will communicate asynchronously with a server, and when the requested data is returned a callback in the ViewModel is triggered, and it will do something with this data. This will run on a thread which is not the UI Thread. Sometimes these callbacks involve work that needs to be done on the UI thread, so I need the Dispatcher. This might be things such as: Adding data to an ObservableCollection Trigger Prism commands that will set something to be displayed in the GUI Creating WPF objects of some kind. I try to avoid the latter, but the two first points here I find to be reasonable things for ViewModels to do. So; is it okay to have ViewModels hold the Dispatcher to be able to Invoke commands for the UI thread? Or is this considered bad practice? And why?

    Read the article

  • Why would you precede the main() function in C with a data type?

    - by Milktrader
    Many are familiar with the hello world program in C #include <stdio.h> main () { printf ("hello world"); return 0; } Why do some precede the main () function with int as in: int main() Also, I've seen the word 'void' entered inside the () as in: int main(void) It seems like extra typing for nothing, but maybe it's a best practice that pays dividends in other situations? Also, why precede main() with an int if you're returning a character string? If anything, one would expect: char main(void) I'm also foggy about why we return 0 at the end of the function.

    Read the article

  • Is it a good or bad practice to call instance methods from a java constructor?

    - by Steve
    There are several different ways I can initialize complex objects (with injected dependencies and required set-up of injected members), are all seem reasonable, but have various advantages and disadvantages. I'll give a concrete example: final class MyClass { private final Dependency dependency; @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { this.dependency = dependency; dependency.addHandler(new Handler() { @Override void handle(int foo) { MyClass.this.doSomething(foo); } }); doSomething(0); } private void doSomething(int foo) { dependency.doSomethingElse(foo+1); } } As you can see, the constructor does 3 things, including calling an instance method. I've been told that calling instance methods from a constructor is unsafe because it circumvents the compiler's checks for uninitialized members. I.e. I could have called doSomething(0) before setting this.dependency, which would have compiled but not worked. What is the best way to refactor this? Make doSomething static and pass in the dependency explicitly? In my actual case I have three instance methods and three member fields that all depend on one another, so this seems like a lot of extra boilerplate to make all three of these static. Move the addHandler and doSomething into an @Inject public void init() method. While use with Guice will be transparent, it requires any manual construction to be sure to call init() or else the object won't be fully-functional if someone forgets. Also, this exposes more of the API, both of which seem like bad ideas. Wrap a nested class to keep the dependency to make sure it behaves properly without exposing additional API:class DependencyManager { private final Dependency dependency; public DependecyManager(Dependency dependency) { ... } public doSomething(int foo) { ... } } @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { DependencyManager manager = new DependencyManager(dependency); manager.doSomething(0); } This pulls instance methods out of all constructors, but generates an extra layer of classes, and when I already had inner and anonymous classes (e.g. that handler) it can become confusing - when I tried this I was told to move the DependencyManager to a separate file, which is also distasteful because it's now multiple files to do a single thing. So what is the preferred way to deal with this sort of situation?

    Read the article

  • Instantiate a javascript module only one time.

    - by Cedric Dugas
    Hey guys, I follow a module pattern where I instantiate components, however, a lot of time a component will only be instantiate one time (example: a comment system for an article). For now I instantiate in the same JS file. but I was wondering if it is the wrong approach? It kind of make no sense to instantiate in the same file and always only once. But at the same time, if this file is in the page I want to have access to my module without instantiate from elsewhere, and IF I need another instance, I just create another from elsewhere... Here is the pattern I follow: ApplicationNamespace.Classname = function() { // constructor function privateFunctionInit() { // private } this.privilegedFunction = function() { // privileged privateFunction(); }; privateFunctionInit() }; ApplicationNamespace.Classname.prototype = { Method: function(){} } var class = new ApplicationNamespace.Classname(); What do you think, wrong approach, or is this good?

    Read the article

  • How to proxy calls to the instance of an object

    - by mr.b
    Edit: Changed question title from "Does C# allow method overloading, PHP style (__call)?" - figured out it doesn't have much to do with actual question. Also edited question text. What I want to accomplish is to proxy calls to a an instance of an object methods, so I could log calls to any of its methods. Right now, I have code similar to this: class ProxyClass { static logger; public AnotherClass inner { get; private set; } public ProxyClass() { inner = new AnotherClass(); } } class AnotherClass { public void A() {} public void B() {} public void C() {} // ... } // meanwhile, in happyCodeLandia... ProxyClass pc = new ProxyClass(); pc.inner.A(); // need to write log message like "method A called" pc.inner.B(); // need to write log message like "method B called" // ... So, how can I proxy calls to an object instance in extensible way? Method overloading would be most obvious solution (if it was supported in PHP way). By extensible, meaning that I don't have to modify ProxyClass whenever AnotherClass changes. In my case, AnotherClass can have any number of methods, so it wouldn't be appropriate to overload or wrap all methods to add logging. I am aware that this might not be the best approach for this kind of problem, so if anyone has idea what approach to use, shoot. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Refactoring one large list of C# properties/fields

    - by dotnetdev
    If you take a look at http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/dhananjaycoder/activedirectoryoperations11132009113015AM/activedirectoryoperations.aspx, there is a huge list of properties for AD in one class. What is a good way to refactor such a large list of (Related) fields? Would making seperate classes be adequate or is there a better way to make this more manageable? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Should I *always* import my file references into the database in drupal?

    - by sprugman
    I have a cck type with an image field, and a unique_id text field. The file name of the image is based on the unique_id. All of the content, including the image itself is being generated automatically via another process, and I'm parsing what that generates into nodes. Rather than creating separate fields for the id and the image, and doing an official import of the image into the files table, I'm tempted to only create the id field and create the file reference in the theme layer. I can think of pros and cons: 1) Theme Layer Approach Pros: makes the import process much less complex don't have to worry about syncing the db with the file system as things change more flexible -- I can move my images around more easily if I want Cons: maybe not as much The Drupal Way™ not as pure -- I'll wind up with more logic on the theme side. 2) Import Approach Pros: import method is required if we ever wanted to make the files private (we won't.) safer? Maybe I'll know if there's a problem with the image at import time, rather than view time. Since I'll be bulk importing, that might make a difference. if I delete a node through the admin interface, drupal might be able to delete the file for me, as well. Con: more complex import and maintenance All else being equal, simpler is always better, so I'm leaning toward #1. Are there any other issues I'm missing? (Since this is an open ended question, I guess I'll make it a community wiki, whatever that means.)

    Read the article

  • Is it advisable to have an interface as the return type?

    - by wb
    I have a set of classes with the same functions but with different logic. However, each class function can return a number of objects. It is safe to set the return type as the interface? Each class (all using the same interface) is doing this with different business logic. protected IMessage validateReturnType; <-- This is in an abstract class public bool IsValid() <-- This is in an abstract class { return (validateReturnType.GetType() == typeof(Success)); } public IMessage Validate() { if (name.Length < 5) { validateReturnType = new Error("Name must be 5 characters or greater."); } else { validateReturnType = new Success("Name is valid."); } return validateReturnType; } Are there any pitfalls with unit testing the return type of an function? Also, is it considered bad design to have functions needing to be run in order for them to succeed? In this example, Validate() would have to be run before IsValid() or else IsValid() would always return false. Thank you.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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