Search Results

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

Page 176/348 | < Previous Page | 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183  | Next Page >

  • commad 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

  • Design pattern suggestion

    - by Avinash
    Following is the problem statement. There are n numbers of match strings, If event A occurs and then in certain period of time event B occurs then I do not raise alarm. but if B do not occurs then i have to raise alarm. There can be multiple chain of events which defines whether to raise alarm or not.

    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

  • 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

  • CSS Brace Styles

    - by Nimbuz
    I'm unable to figure how the standard (or just popular) brace style names apply to CSS. Here're all the brace styles: /* one - pico? */ selector { property: value; property: value; } /* two */ selector { property: value; /* declaration starts on newline */ property: value; } /* three */ selector { property: value; property: value; } /* four - Allman or GNU?*/ selector { property: value; /* declaration starts on newline */ property: value; }? /* five */ selector { property: value; property: value; } /* six - horstmann? */ selector { property: value; /* declaration starts on newline */ property: value; } /* seven - banner?*/ selector { property: value; property: value; } /* eight */ selector { property: value; /* declaration starts on newline */ property: value; } Can someone please name each brace style for me? Many thanks!

    Read the article

  • android thread management onPause

    - by Kwan Cheng
    I have a class that extends the Thread class and has its run method implemented as so. public void run(){ while(!terminate){ if(paused){ Thread.yield(); }else{ accummulator++; } } } This thread is spawned from the onCreate method. When my UI is hidden (when the Home key is pressed) my onPause method will set the paused flag to true and yield the tread. However in the DDMS I still see the uTime of the thread accumulate and its state as "running". So my question is. What is the proper way to stop the thread so that it does not use up CPU time?

    Read the article

  • Rails: Pass association object to the View

    - by Fedyashev Nikita
    Model Item belongs_to User. In my controller I have code like this: @items = Item.find(:all) I need to have a corresponding User models for each item in my View templates. it works in controller(but not in View template): @items.each { |item| item.user } But manual looping just to build associations for View template kinda smells. How can I do this not in a creepy way?

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with having a few private methods exposing IQueryable<T> and all public meth

    - by Nate Bross
    I'm wondering if there is a better way to approach this problem. The objective is to reuse code. Let’s say that I have a Linq-To-SQL datacontext and I've written a "repository style" class that wraps up a lot of the methods I need and exposes IQueryables. (so far, no problem). Now, I'm building a service layer to sit on top of this repository, many of the service methods will be 1<-1 with repository methods, but some will not. I think a code sample will illustrate this better than words. public class ServiceLayer { MyClassDataContext context; IMyRepository rpo; public ServiceLayer(MyClassDataContext ctx) { context = ctx; rpo = new MyRepository(context); } private IQueryable<MyClass> ReadAllMyClass() { // pretend there is some complex business logic here // and maybe some filtering of the current users access to "all" // that I don't want to repeat in all of the public methods that access // MyClass objects. return rpo.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetAllMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing return this.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetActiveMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing // in this case a .Where() clause return this.ReadAllMyClass().Where(mc => mc.IsActive.Equals(true)); } #region "Something my class MAY need to do in the future" private IQueryable<MyOtherTable> ReadAllMyOtherTable() { // there could be additional constrains which define // "all" for the current user return context.MyOtherTable; } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetAllMyOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable(); } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetInactiveOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable.Where(ot => ot.IsActive.Equals(false)); } #endregion } This particular case is not the best illustration, since I could just call the repository directly in the GetActiveMyClass method, but let’s presume that my private IQueryable does some extra processing and business logic that I don't want to replicate in both of my public methods. Is that a bad way to attack an issue like this? I don't see it being so complex that it really warrants building a third class to sit between the repository and the service class, but I'd like to get your thoughts. For the sake of argument, lets presume two additional things. This service is going to be exposed through WCF and that each of these public IEnumerable methods will be calling a .Select(m => m.ToViewModel()) on each returned collection which will convert it to a POCO for serialization. The service will eventually need to expose some context.SomeOtherTable which wont be wrapped into the repository.

    Read the article

  • Alternative to singleton for unique resources

    - by user1320881
    I keep reading over and over again that one should avoid using singletons for various reasons. I'm wondering how to correctly handle a situation where a class represents a unique system resource. For example, a AudioOutput class using SDL. Since SDL_OpenAudio can only be open once at a time it makes no sense having more then one object of this type and it seems to me preventing accidentally making more then one object would actually be good. Just wondering what experienced programmers think about this, am i missing another option ?

    Read the article

  • Design patter for extending Android's activities?

    - by Carl
    While programming on Android, I end up writing a parent activity which is extended by several others. A bit like ListActivity. My parent activity extends Activity. if I intend to use a Map or a List, I can't use my parent activity as superclass - the child activity can only extend one activity obviously. As such I end up writing my parent activities with the same logic for Activity, ListActivity, MapActivity and so forth. What am I looking for is some sort of trait functionality/design pattern which would help in this case. Any suggestions?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Unit testing directory structure

    - by zachary
    Huge project tons of classes and directories. Do I make my unit test project mirror these directories or do I put them all at the root directory? Somewhat annoying to have to make directory changes and class name changes twice.

    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 can I "force" a branch upon the trunk, in the case I can't "reintegrate"?

    - by davka
    We created a branch from the trunk on which a major refactoring was done. Meanwhile, the trunk advanced a few revisions with some fixes. We don't want these changes on the branch, so we don't want to "catch-up" merge the trunk to the branch, because we don't want to mix the old and new code. But without this I can't reintegrate the branch back to the trunk. Is there a way to impose the branch on the trunk "as-is"? (an idea I considered is to undo ("reverse-merge") the trunk back to the revision where the branch started, and then it is safe to merge it on branch - nothing should happen. Then I can reintegrate. What do you think?) thanks!

    Read the article

  • Java Interfaces Methodology: Should every class implement an interface?

    - by Amir Rachum
    I've been programming in Java for a few courses in the University and I have the following question: Is it methodologically accepted that every class should implement an interface? Is it considered bad practice not to do so? Can you describe a situation where it's not a good idea to use interfaces? Edit: Personally, I like the notion of using Interfaces for everything as a methodology and habit, even if it's not clearly beneficial. Eclipse automatically created a class file with all the methods, so it doesn't waste any time anyway.

    Read the article

  • Static method,new thread performance question

    - by ylazez
    Hey guys i just have two questions about two methods used in many controllers/servlets in my app: 1-what is the difference between calling a static method in a util class or a non static method (like methods dealing with dates i.e getting current time,converting between timezones), which is better ? 2-what is the difference between calling a method(contain too many logic like sending emails) in the controller directly or running this method in a different thread ?

    Read the article

  • I'd want a method to be called only by objects of a specific class

    - by mp
    Suppose you have this class: public class A { private int number; public setNumber(int n){ number = n; } } I'd like the method setNumber could be called only by objects of a specific class. Does it make sense? I know it is not possible, is it? Which are the design alternatives? Some well known design pattern? Sorry for the silly question, but I'm a bit rusty in OO design.

    Read the article

  • Generating new tasks in a foreach loop

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    I know from the codeing guidlines that I have read you should not do for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine(i)); } Console.ReadLine(); as it will write 5 5's, I understand that and I think i understand why it is happening. I know the solution is just to do for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { int localI = i; Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine(localI)); } Console.ReadLine(); However is something like this ok to do? Task currentTask = myFirstTask; currentTask.Start(); foreach (Task task in _TaskList) { currentTask.ContinueWith((antecendent) => { if(antecendent.IsCompleated) { task.Start(); } else //do error handling; }); currentTask = task; } } or do i need to do this? Task currentTask = myFirstTask; foreach (Task task in _TaskList) { Task localTask = task; currentTask.ContinueWith((antecendent) => { if(antecendent.IsCompleated) { localTask.Start(); } else //do error handling; }); currentTask = task; }

    Read the article

  • sql: DELETE + INSERT vs UPDATE + INSERT

    - by user93422
    A similar question has been asked, but since it always depends, I'm asking for my specific situation separately. I have a web-site page that shows some data that comes from a database, and to generate the data from that database I have to do some fairly complex multiple joins queries. The data is being updated once a day (nightly). I would like to pre-generate the data for the said view to speed up the page access. For that I am creating a table that contains exact data I need. Question: for my situation, is it reasonable to do complete table wipe followed by insert? or should I do update,insert? SQL wise seems like DELETE + INSERT will be easier (it is single SQL expression). EDIT: RDBMS: MS SQL Server 2008 Ent

    Read the article

  • C++ Singleton design pattern

    - by Artem Barger
    Recently I've bumped into a realization/implementation of the Singleton design pattern for C++. It has looked like this (I have adopted it from the real life example): // a lot of methods are omitted here class Singleton { public: static Singleton* getInstance( ); ~Singleton( ); private: Singleton( ); static Singleton* instance; }; From this declaration I can deduce that the instance field is initiated on the heap. That means there is a memory allocation. What is completely unclear for me is when exactly the memory is going to be deallocated? Or is there a bug and memory leak? It seems like there is a problem in the implementation. My main question is, how do I implement it in the right way?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183  | Next Page >