Search Results

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

Page 175/582 | < Previous Page | 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • A cross-platform application WPF, ASP.NET, Silverlight, WP7, XAML

    - by J. Lennon
    Considering the fact that all applications will interact with the web project (which will use the cloud or web services).. Is there any way to share my class models between applications? If yes, what is the best way to do it? About sending / receiving data from the Webservice, serialize and deserialize, how can I do this in a simple way without having to manually populate the objects? Any information about this applications would be really helpful!

    Read the article

  • C++ Iterator Pipelining Designs

    - by Kirakun
    Suppose we want to apply a series of transformations, int f1(int), int f2(int), int f3(int), to a list of objects. A naive way would be SourceContainer source; TempContainer1 temp1; transform(source.begin(), source.end(), back_inserter(temp1), f1); TempContainer2 temp2; transform(temp1.begin(), temp1.end(), back_inserter(temp2), f2); TargetContainer target; transform(temp2.begin(), temp2.end(), back_inserter(target), f3); This first solution is not optimal because of the extra space requirement with temp1 and temp2. So, let's get smarter with this: int f123(int n) { return f3(f2(f1(n))); } ... SourceContainer source; TargetContainer target; transform(source.begin(), source.end(), back_inserter(target), f123); This second solution is much better because not only the code is simpler but more importantly there is less space requirement without the intermediate calculations. However, the composition f123 must be determined at compile time and thus is fixed at run time. How would I try to do this efficiently if the composition is to be determined at run time? For example, if this code was in a RPC service and the actual composition--which can be any permutation of f1, f2, and f3--is based on arguments from the RPC call.

    Read the article

  • Decorator that can take both init args and call args?

    - by digitala
    Is it possible to create a decorator which can be __init__'d with a set of arguments, then later have methods called with other arguments? For instance: from foo import MyDecorator bar = MyDecorator(debug=True) @bar.myfunc(a=100) def spam(): pass @bar.myotherfunc(x=False) def eggs(): pass If this is possible, can you provide a working example?

    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

  • 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

  • Object Events, how do are they implemented

    - by Malfist
    Events are really awesome, and I wouldn't know what I would do without them, but they're a mystery to me. I'm talking about events in a sense, a function(s) is called if a property, or value, a special event happens. I have only the vaguest idea how these actually work. I know it's an observer pattern, but I don't truly know how it works and/or how to implement it. Can someone explain that to me?

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Doubleton Pattern Implementation

    - by Pierreten
    I'm leveraging the Doubleton Pattern from this link http://www.codeproject.com/KB/architecture/designpattern_doubleton.aspx in my own code. I think it makes things a lot easier since the Singleton only provides one instance, but I get two with this pattern. I was wondering if it would make sense to have it implement an interface so I can inject it into my domain layer.

    Read the article

  • Wicket: Where to add components? Constructor? Or onBeforeRender?

    - by gmallett
    I'm a Wicket newb. This may just be my ignorance of the Wicket lifecycle so please enlighten me! My understanding is that Wicket WebPage objects are instantiated once and then serialized. This has led to a point of confusion for me, see below. Currently I have a template class which I intend to subclass. I followed the example in the Wicket docs demonstrating how to override the template's behavior in the subclass: protected void onBeforeRender() { add(new Label("title", getTitle())); super.onBeforeRender(); } protected String getTitle() { return "template"; } Subclass: protected String getTitle() { return "Home"; } This works very well. What's not clear to me are the "best practices" for this. It seems like onBeforeRender() is called on every request for the page, no? This seems like there would be substantially more processing done on a page if everything is in onBeforeRender(). I could easily follow the example of the other Wicket examples and add some components in the constructor that I do not want to override, but then I've divided by component logic into two places, something I'm hesitant to do. If I add a component that I intend to be in all subclasses, should I add it to the constructor or onBeforeRender()?

    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

  • 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

  • Makefile: expand dependencies

    - by Danyel
    First off, the title is very generic because there are just tons of ways of how to possibly solve this. However, I'm looking for a clean and neat way. Situation: I have two equal object files foo.o and foo-pi.o, the latter of which is position-independent (compiled with -fPIC). Both depend on foo.h and bar.h. Problem: How do I, without code duplication, declare dependency of all foo*.o to bar.h? Solutions so far: $(shell bash -c 'echo -ne foo{-pi,}.o'}: bar.h $(addsuffix .o, $(addprefix fo, o-pi o)): bar.h The first solution is not portable on systems that don't support bash, the second is a dirty solution since I could not figure out how to use empty strings in addprefix.

    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

  • How to write this in better way?

    - by dario
    Hi all. Let's look at this code: IList<IHouseAnnouncement> list = new List<IHouseAnnouncement>(); var table = adapter.GetData(); //get data from repository object -> DataTable if (table.Rows.Count >= 1) { for (int i = 0; i < table.Rows.Count-1; i++) { var anno = new HouseAnnouncement(); anno.Area = float.Parse(table.Rows[i][table.powierzchniaColumn].ToString()); anno.City = table.Rows[i][table.miastoColumn].ToString(); list.Add(anno); } } return list; Is it better way to write this in less code and better fashion (must be :-) )? Maybe using labda (but let mi know how)? Thanks in advance!

    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 handle request/response propagation up and down a widget hierarchy in a GUI app?

    - by fig-gnuton
    Given a GUI application where widgets can be composed of other widgets: If the user triggers an event resulting in a lower level widget needing data from a model, what's the cleanest way to be able to send that request to a controller (or the datastore itself)? And subsequently get the response back to that widget? Presumably one wouldn't want the controller or datastore to be a singleton directly available to all levels of widgets, or is this an acceptable use of singleton? Or should a top level controller be injected as a dependency through a widget hierarchy, as far down as the lowest level widget that might need that controller? Or a different approach entirely?

    Read the article

  • Magic Method __set() on a Instanciated Object

    - by streetparade
    Ok i have a problem, sorry if i cant explaint it clear but the code speaks for its self. i have a class which generates objects from a given class name; Say we say the class is Modules: public function name($name) { $this->includeModule($name); try { $module = new ReflectionClass($name); $instance = $module->isInstantiable() ? $module->newInstance() : "Err"; $this->addDelegate($instance); } catch(Exception $e) { Modules::Name("Logger")->log($e->getMessage()); } return $this; } The AddDelegate Method: protected function addDelegate($delegate) { $this->aDelegates[] = $delegate; } The __call Method public function __call($methodName, $parameters) { $delegated = false; foreach ($this->aDelegates as $delegate) { if(class_exists(get_class($delegate))) { if(method_exists($delegate,$methodName)) { $method = new ReflectionMethod(get_class($delegate), $methodName); $function = array($delegate, $methodName); return call_user_func_array($function, $parameters); } } } The __get Method public function __get($property) { foreach($this->aDelegates as $delegate) { if ($delegate->$property !== false) { return $delegate->$property; } } } All this works fine expect the function __set public function __set($property,$value) { //print_r($this->aDelegates); foreach($this->aDelegates as $k=>$delegate) { //print_r($k); //print_r($delegate); if (property_exists($delegate, $property)) { $delegate->$property = $value; } } //$this->addDelegate($delegate); print_r($this->aDelegates); } class tester { public function __set($name,$value) { self::$module->name(self::$name)->__set($name,$value); } } Module::test("logger")->log("test"); // this logs, it works echo Module::test("logger")->path; //prints /home/bla/test/ this is also correct But i cant set any value to class log like this Module::tester("logger")->path ="/home/bla/test/log/"; The path property of class logger is public so its not a problem of protected or private property access. How can i solve this issue? I hope i could explain my problem clear.

    Read the article

  • How to separate model and view with Core Data?

    - by andrewebling
    I have a subclass of UIView which draws itself based on data held in a corresponding model class, which is a subclass of NSManagedObject. The problem is, some fields in the data model (e.g. the position of the view) are already held in the view (i.e. the frame property in this case). I then have a data duplication/synchronization problem to solve. To complicate matters further, the view needs to update in response to changes made to the data model and the data model needs to be updated in responses made to the view (e.g. the user dragging it to a new location). What's the best way to solve this? Using KVO and references in both directions? Or is there a better approach?

    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

< Previous Page | 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182  | Next Page >