Search Results

Search found 25902 results on 1037 pages for 'design vs customer'.

Page 18/1037 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • Buy vs. Build - FTP Service

    - by Joel Martinez
    We have a need to FTP files that are generated by our system, so we're trying to decide whether we should spend the time to build something that meets our criteria (relatively easy, .NET has FTP functionality built in, among other more advanced libs from 3rd parties). Or if we should buy something off the shelf. Our requirements are roughly: Must be able to trigger a file send programmatically Needs to retry N number of times (configurable) Queryable status of FTP requests Callback on completion or fail of an FTP request I don't need to be sold on the relative simplicity of building something like that for myself. However I do want to do the due diligence of seeing what products are available ... because if something does exist that matches the requirements above, I wouldn't mind paying for it :-) Any thoughts or links would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Build one to throw away vs Second-system effect

    - by m3th0dman
    One one hand there is an advice that says "Build one to throw away". Only after finishing a software system and seeing the end product we realize what went wrong in the design phase and understand how we should have really done it. On the other hand there is the "second-system effect" which says that the second system of the same kind that is designed is usually worse than the first one; there are many features that did not fit in the first project and were pushed into the second version usually leading to overly complex and overly engineered. Isn't here some contradiction between these principles? What is the correct view over the problems and where is the border between these two? I believe that these "good practices" are were firstly promoted in the seminal book The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks. I know that some of these issues are solved by Agile methodologies, but deep down, the problem is still the principles still stand; for example we would not make important design changes 3 sprints before going live.

    Read the article

  • Need suggestion for Mutiple Windows application design

    - by King Chan
    This was previously posted in StackOverflow, I just moved to here... I am using VS2008, MVVM, WPF, Prism to make a mutiple window CRM Application. I am using MidWinow in my MainWindow, I want Any ViewModel would able to make request to MainWindow to create/add/close MidChildWindow, ChildWindow(from WPF Toolkit), Window (the Window type). ViewModel can get the DialogResult from the ChildWindow its excutes. MainWindow have control on all opened window types. Here is my current approach: I made Dictionary of each of the windows type and stores them into MainWindow class. For 1, i.e in a CustomerInformationView, its CustomerInformationViewModel can execute EditCommand and use EventAggregator to tell MainWindow to open a new ChildWindow. CustomerInformationViewModel: CustomerEditView ceView = new CustomerEditView (); CustomerEditViewModel ceViewModel = CustomerEditViewModel (); ceView.DataContext = ceViewModel; ChildWindow cWindow = new ChildWindow(); cWindow.Content = ceView; MainWindow.EvntAggregator.GetEvent<NewWindowEvent>().Publish(new WindowEventArgs(ceViewModel.ViewModeGUID, cWindow )); cWindow.Show(); Notice that all my ViewModel will generates a Guid for help identifies the ChildWindow from MainWindow's dictionary. Since I will only be using 1 View 1 ViewModel for every Window. For 2. In CustomerInformationViewModel I can get DialogResult by OnClosing event from ChildWindow, in CustomerEditViewModel can use Guid to tell MainWindow to close the ChildWindow. Here is little question and problems: Is it good idea to use Guid here? Or should I use HashKey from ChildWindow? My MainWindows contains windows reference collections. So whenever window close, it will get notifies to remove from the collection by OnClosing event. But all the Windows itself doesn't know about its associated Guid, so when I remove it, I have to search for every KeyValuePair to compares... I still kind of feel wrong associate ViewModel's Guid for ChildWindow, it would make more sense if ChildWindow has it own ID then ViewModel associate with it... But most important, is there any better approach on this design? How can I improve this better?

    Read the article

  • Highlights from the Oracle Customer Experience Summit @ OpenWorld

    - by Richard Lefebvre
    The Oracle Customer Experience Summit was the first-ever event covering the full breadth of Oracle's CX portfolio -- Marketing, Sales, Commerce, and Service. The purpose of the Summit was to articulate the customer experience imperative and to showcase the suite of Oracle products that can help our customers create the best possible customer experience. This topic has always been a very important one, but now that there are so many alternative companies to do business with and because people have such public ways to voice their displeasure, it's necessary for vendors to have multiple listening posts in place to gauge consumer sentiment. They need to know what is going on in real time and be able to react quickly to turn negative situations into positive ones. Those can then be shared in a social manner to enhance the brand and turn the customer into a repeat customer. The Summit was focused on Oracle's portfolio of products and entirely dedicated to customers who are committed to building great customer experiences within their businesses. Rather than DBAs, the attendees were business people looking to collaborate with other like-minded experts and find out how Oracle can help in terms of technology, best practices, and expertise. The event was at the Westin St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco as part of Oracle OpenWorld. We had eight hundred people attend, which was great for the first year. Next year, there's no doubt in my mind, we can raise that number to 5,000. Alignment and Logic Oracle's Customer Experience portfolio is made up of a combination of acquired and organic products owned by many people who are new to Oracle. We include homegrown Fusion CRM, as well as RightNow, Inquira, OPA, Vitrue, ATG, Endeca, and many others. The attendees knew of the acquisitions, so naturally they wanted to see how the products all fit together and hear the logic behind the portfolio. To tell them about our alignment, we needed to be aligned. To accomplish that, a cross functional team at Oracle agreed on the messaging so that every single Oracle presenter could cover the big picture before going deep into a product or topic. Talking about the full suite of products in one session produced overflow value for other products. And even though this internal coordination was a huge effort, everyone saw the value for our customers and for our long-term cooperation and success. Keynotes, Workshops, and Tents of Innovation We scored by having Seth Godin as our keynote speaker ? always provocative and popular. The opening keynote was a session orchestrated by Mark Hurd, Anthony Lye, and me. Mark set the stage by giving real-world examples of bad customer experiences, Anthony clearly articulated the business imperative for addressing these experiences, and I brought it all to life by taking the audience around the Customer Lifecycle and showing demos and videos, with partners included at each of the stops around the lifecycle. Brian Curran, a VP for RightNow Product Strategy, presented a session that was in high demand called The Economics of Customer Experience. People loved hearing how to build a business case and justify the cost of building a better customer experience. John Kembel, another VP for RightNow Product Strategy, held a workshop that customers raved about. It was based on the journey mapping methodology he created, which is a way to talk to customers about where they want to make improvements to their customers' experiences. He divided the audience into groups led by facilitators. Each person had the opportunity to engage with experts and peers and construct some real takeaways. The conference hotel was across from Union Square so we used that space to set up Innovation Tents. During the day we served lunch in the tents and partners showed their different innovative ideas. It was very interesting to see all the technologies and advancements. It also gave people a place to mix and mingle and to think about the fringe of where we could all take these ideas. Product Portfolio Plus Thought Leadership Of course there is always room for improvement, but the feedback on the format of the conference was positive. Ninety percent of the sessions had either a partner or a customer teamed with an Oracle presenter. The presentations weren't dry, one-way information dumps, but more interactive. I just followed up with a CEO who attended the conference with his Head of Marketing. He told me that they are using John Kembel's journey mapping methodology across the organization to pull people together. This sort of thought leadership in these highly competitive areas gives Oracle permission to engage around the technology. We have to differentiate ourselves and it's harder to do on the product side because everyone looks the same on paper. But on thought leadership ? we can, and did, take some really big steps. David Vap Group Vice President Oracle Applications Product Development

    Read the article

  • 6 Ways to Modernize Your Customer Experience

    - by Mike Stiles
    If customers have changed, if the way they research and shop have changed, if their expectations have changed, if their ability to act on dissatisfaction has changed, but your customer experience has NOT changed, what was once “good enough” may now be crippling. Well, the customer has changed, and why wouldn’t they? You’ve probably changed too in your role as consumer. There’s more info available, it’s easier to get, there’s more choice, you’re more mobile, you’re more connected, it’s easier to buy, and yes, it’s easier to switch brands if experiences don’t meet your now higher expectations. Thanks to technological advances, we as marketers can increasingly work borderline miracles. But if we’re still not adamantly adopting customer centricity, and if we aren’t making the customer experience paramount amongst business goals, the tech is wasted. A far more modern customer experience is called for. Here are 6 ways to get there: 1. Modern Marketing: Marketing data is aggregated and targeted to the right customers, who are getting personal, relevant communications. In return, you’re getting insight that finally properly attributes revenue to your marketing efforts. 2. Modern Selling: Demand is being driven across all channels with modern selling tools. Productivity is up thanks to coordinated communication and selling, and performance is ever optimized using powerful analytics. 3. Modern CPQ: You’re cross-selling and upselling more effectively since reps and channel partners have been empowered with the ability to quickly, automatically generate 100% accurate, customer-friendly quotes complete with price controls and automated approvals. 4. Modern Commerce: You’re leveraging data and delivering personalized, targeted digital experiences to everyone. You’re attracting more visitors, and you’re able to scale and keep up with the market and control the experience. 5. Modern Service: You’re better serving your customers by making it easier for them to engage with your brand, plus you’re lowering your costs by increasing agent and tech support efficiencies. 6. Modern Social: You’re getting faster, deeper, more accurate insights from social and turning content around faster, which then goes out to the right people at the right time in the right place. You’ve also gotten proactive in your service, and customers love that. For far too many brands, the buying journey of Need, Research, Select, Buy, Use, Recommend across the multiple connect points of Social, Mobile, Store, Call Center, Site, Ecommerce is a disconnected mess. Oracle’s approach to CX is to connect every interaction your customer has with your brand, avoiding the revenue losses lousy customer experiences bring. How important is the experience to customers? 94% are willing to pay more of their hard-earned money to have better ones, while a meager 1% say they get the good, consistent experiences they expect. Brands, your words aren’t as loud anymore, so your actions as they relate to customer experience are going to have to do the talking. @mikestiles @oraclesocialPhoto: Julien Tromeur, freeimages.com

    Read the article

  • 81% of European Shoppers Willing to Pay More for Better Customer Experience

    - by Richard Lefebvre
    Customer Experience provides strategic driver for business growth Research released today from Oracle has revealed that customer experience is now a key driver for revenue growth in Europe, and an effective channel for brand differentiation in a globalized economy where products and services are increasingly commoditized. The research report, “Why Customer Satisfaction is No Longer Good Enough,” reveals that 81% of consumers surveyed are willing to pay more for superior customer experience. With nearly half (44%) willing to pay a premium of more than 5%. Improvement of the overall customer experience (40%), providing quick access to information and making it easier for customers to ask questions (35%) were cited as key drivers for spending more with a brand. The pan-European research, carried out in June 2012 by independent research company Loudhouse, surveyed 1400 online shoppers (50% female, 50% male) who had made a complaint or enquiry to a customer service department in the last 12 months. For full research findings please go to: http://bit.ly/UwmB3j or check the Press Release

    Read the article

  • Communications: Customer Experience

    - by Michael Seback
    What might a new customer experience look like in Communications? Could a customer research comments from social networks, buy online and be geo directed to a nearby store to pick up the device?  Could the customer be contacted proactively that he is approaching a data threshold for a smart phone and be offered value added options to manage usage? Could the customer upgrade video features interactively and leverage loyalty points for payment? Watch this short Communications Customer Experience story to see a scenario that addresses these challenges and many more.   Learn about the Oracle Customer Experience and Oracle Communications.

    Read the article

  • You Can Deliver an Engaging Online Experience Across All Phases of the Customer Journey

    - by Christie Flanagan
    Engage. Empower. Optimize. Today’s customers have higher expectations and more choices than ever before.  To succeed in this environment, organizations must deliver an engaging online experience that is personalized, interactive and consistent across all phases of the customer journey. This requires a new approach that connects and optimizes all customer touch points as they research, select and transact with your brand.  Oracle WebCenter Sites combines with other customer experience applications such as Oracle ATG Commerce, Oracle Endeca, Oracle Real-Time Decisions and Siebel CRM to deliver a connected customer experience across your websites and campaigns. Attend this Webcast to learn how Oracle WebCenter: Works with Oracle ATG Commerce and Oracle Endeca to deliver consistent and engaging browsing, shopping and search experiences across all of your customer facing websites Enables you to optimize the performance of your online initiatives through integration with Oracle Real-Time Decisions for automated targeting and segmentation Connects with Siebel CRM to maintain a single view of the customer and integrate campaigns across channels Register now for the Webcast.

    Read the article

  • Calling Customer Service Leaders

    - by Charles Knapp
    and by Suzy Meriwether The Customer Service Leader is under greater pressure today than ever before. With rapid adoption of new communication technologies and devices by customers, customer expectations are on the rise and social media provides a venue to share their experiences. To respond to these industry change drivers, Customer Service Leaders need to deliver a superior customer experience, achieve operational excellence, and transform their service organization. Oracle is hosting a series of evening seminars to discuss these drivers and how to improve efficiency within the service organization while treating every interaction as an opportunity to deliver superior customer experiences and increase revenue throughout the entire customer lifecycle. • Miami – November 7th @ Marlins Park – Call to register: 1-800-820-5592 x 10996 • Dallas – November 8th @ Cowboys Stadium – Call to register: 1-800-820-5592 x 11016 • Philadelphia – November 13th @ Rodin Museum – Call to register: 1-800-820-5592 x 11013 Be sure to mention you heard about this event from the Oracle CX Blog. I hope to see you there.

    Read the article

  • Process for beginning a Ruby on Rails project

    - by Daniel Beardsley
    I'm about to begin a Ruby on Rails project and I'd love to hear how others go through the process of starting an application design. I have quite a bit of experience with RoR, but don't have that many starting from scratch with only a vision experiences and would appreciate the wisdom of others who've been there. I'm looking for an order of events, reasons for the order, and maybe why each part is important. I can think of a few starting points, but I'm not sure where it's best to begin Model design and relationships (entities, how they relate, and their attributes) Think of user use-cases (or story-boards) and implement the minimum to get these done Create Model unit-tests then create the necessary migrations and AR models to get the tests to pass Hack out the most basic version of the simplest part of your application and go from there Start with a template for a rails app (like http://github.com/thoughtbot/suspenders) Do the boring gruntwork first (User auth, session management, ...) ...

    Read the article

  • Improvements to Joshua Bloch's Builder Design Pattern?

    - by Jason Fotinatos
    Back in 2007, I read an article about Joshua Blochs take on the "builder pattern" and how it could be modified to improve the overuse of constructors and setters, especially when an object has a large number of properties, most of which are optional. A brief summary of this design pattern is articled here [http://rwhansen.blogspot.com/2007/07/theres-builder-pattern-that-joshua.html]. I liked the idea, and have been using it since. The problem with it, while it is very clean and nice to use from the client perspective, implementing it can be a pain in the bum! There are so many different places in the object where a single property is reference, and thus creating the object, and adding a new property takes a lot of time. So...I had an idea. First, an example object in Joshua Bloch's style: Josh Bloch Style: public class OptionsJoshBlochStyle { private final String option1; private final int option2; // ...other options here <<<< public String getOption1() { return option1; } public int getOption2() { return option2; } public static class Builder { private String option1; private int option2; // other options here <<<<< public Builder option1(String option1) { this.option1 = option1; return this; } public Builder option2(int option2) { this.option2 = option2; return this; } public OptionsJoshBlochStyle build() { return new OptionsJoshBlochStyle(this); } } private OptionsJoshBlochStyle(Builder builder) { this.option1 = builder.option1; this.option2 = builder.option2; // other options here <<<<<< } public static void main(String[] args) { OptionsJoshBlochStyle optionsVariation1 = new OptionsJoshBlochStyle.Builder().option1("firefox").option2(1).build(); OptionsJoshBlochStyle optionsVariation2 = new OptionsJoshBlochStyle.Builder().option1("chrome").option2(2).build(); } } Now my "improved" version: public class Options { // note that these are not final private String option1; private int option2; // ...other options here public String getOption1() { return option1; } public int getOption2() { return option2; } public static class Builder { private final Options options = new Options(); public Builder option1(String option1) { this.options.option1 = option1; return this; } public Builder option2(int option2) { this.options.option2 = option2; return this; } public Options build() { return options; } } private Options() { } public static void main(String[] args) { Options optionsVariation1 = new Options.Builder().option1("firefox").option2(1).build(); Options optionsVariation2 = new Options.Builder().option1("chrome").option2(2).build(); } } As you can see in my "improved version", there are 2 less places in which we need to add code about any addition properties (or options, in this case)! The only negative that I can see is that the instance variables of the outer class are not able to be final. But, the class is still immutable without this. Is there really any downside to this improvement in maintainability? There has to be a reason which he repeated the properties within the nested class that I'm not seeing?

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for logging changes in parent/child objects saved to database

    - by andrew
    I’ve got a 2 database tables in parent/child relationship as one-many. I’ve got three classes representing the data in these two tables: Parent Class { Public int ID {get; set;} .. other properties } Child Class { Public int ID {get;set;} Public int ParentID {get; set;} .. other properties } TogetherClass { Public Parent Parent; Public List<Child> ChildList; } Lastly I’ve got a client and server application – I’m in control of both ends so can make changes to both programs as I need to. Client makes a request for ParentID and receives a Together Class for the matching parent, and all of the child records. The client app may make changes to the children – add new children, remove or modify existing ones. Client app then sends the Together Class back to the server app. Server app needs to update the parent and child records in the database. In addition I would like to be able to log the changes – I’m doing this by having 2 separate tables one for Parent, one for child; each containing the same columns as the original plus date time modified, by whom and a list of the changes. I’m unsure as to the best approach to detect the changes in records – new records, records to be deleted, records with no fields changed, records with some fields changed. I figure I need to read the parent & children records and compare those to the ones in the Together Class. Strategy A: If Together class’s child record has an ID of say 0, that indicates a new record; insert. Any deleted child records are no longer in the Together Class; see if any of the comparison child records are not found in the Together class and delete if not found (Compare using ID). Check each child record for changes and if changed log. Strategy B: Make a new Updated TogetherClass UpdatedClass { Public Parent Parent {get; set} Public List<Child> ListNewChild {get;set;} Public List<Child> DeletedChild {get;set;} Public List<Child> ExistingChild {get;set;} // used for no changes and modified rows } And then process as per the list. The reason why I’m asking for ideas is that both of these solutions don’t seem optimal to me and I suspect this problem has been solved already – some kind of design pattern ? I am aware of one potential problem in this general approach – that where Client App A requests a record; App B requests same record; A then saves changes; B then saves changes which may overwrite changes A made. This is a separate locking issue which I’ll raise a separate question for if I’ve got trouble implementing. The actual implementation is c#, SQL Server and WCF between client and server - sharing a library containing the class implementations. Apologies if this is a duplicate post – I tried searching various terms without finding a match though.

    Read the article

  • TDD - Outside In vs Inside Out

    - by Songo
    What is the difference between building an application Outside In vs building it Inside Out using TDD? These are the books I read about TDD and unit testing: Test Driven Development: By Example Test-Driven Development: A Practical Guide: A Practical Guide Real-World Solutions for Developing High-Quality PHP Frameworks and Applications Test-Driven Development in Microsoft .NET xUnit Test Patterns: Refactoring Test Code The Art of Unit Testing: With Examples in .Net Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided by Tests---This one was really hard to understand since JAVA isn't my primary language :) Almost all of them explained TDD basics and unit testing in general, but with little mention of the different ways the application can be constructed. Another thing I noticed is that most of these books (if not all) ignore the design phase when writing the application. They focus more on writing the test cases quickly and letting the design emerge by itself. However, I came across a paragraph in xUnit Test Patterns that discussed the ways people approach TDD. There are 2 schools out there Outside In vs Inside Out. Sadly the book doesn't elaborate more on this point. I wish to know what is the main difference between these 2 cases. When should I use each one of them? To a TDD beginner which one is easier to grasp? What is the drawbacks of each method? Is there any materials out there that discuss this topic specifically?

    Read the article

  • Inheritance vs composition in this example

    - by Gerenuk
    I'm wondering about the differences between inheritance and composition examined with concrete code relevant arguments. In particular my example was Inheritance: class Do: def do(self): self.doA() self.doB() def doA(self): pass def doB(self): pass class MyDo(Do): def doA(self): print("A") def doB(self): print("B") x=MyDo() vs Composition: class Do: def __init__(self, a, b): self.a=a self.b=b def do(self): self.a.do() self.b.do() x=Do(DoA(), DoB()) (Note for composition I'm missing code so it's not actually shorter) Can you name particular advantages of one or the other? I'm think of: composition is useful if you plan to reuse DoA() in another context inheritance seems easier; no additional references/variables/initialization method doA can access internal variable (be it a good or bad thing :) ) inheritance groups logic A and B together; even though you could equally introduce a grouped delegate object inheritance provides a preset class for the users; with composition you'd have to encapsule the initialization in a factory so that the user does have to assemble the logic and the skeleton ... Basically I'd like to examine the implications of inheritance vs composition. I heard often composition is prefered, but I'd like to understand that by example. Of course I can always start with one and refactor later to the other.

    Read the article

  • Implementing Audit Trail- Spring AOP vs.Hibernate Interceptor vs DB Trigger

    - by RN
    I found couple of discussion threads on this- but nothing which brought a comparison of all three mechanism under one thread. So here is my question... I need to audit DB changes- insert\updates\deletes to business objects. I can think of three ways to do this 1) DB Triggers 2) Hibernate interceptors 3) Spring AOP (This question is specific to a Spring\Hibernate\RDBMS- I guess this is neutral to java\c# or hibernate\nhibernate- but if your answer is dependent upon C++ or Java or specific implementation of hibernate- please specify) What are the pros and cons of selecting one of these strategies ? I am not asking for implementation details.-This is a design discussion. I am hoping we can make this as a part of community wiki

    Read the article

  • C# Design How to Elegantly wrap a DAL class

    - by guazz
    I have an application which uses MyGeneration's dOODads ORM to generate it's Data Access Layer. dOODad works by generating a persistance class for each table in the database. It works like so: // Load and Save Employees emps = new Employees(); if(emps.LoadByPrimaryKey(42)) { emps.LastName = "Just Got Married"; emps.Save(); } // Add a new record Employees emps = new Employees(); emps.AddNew(); emps.FirstName = "Mr."; emps.LastName = "dOOdad"; emps.Save(); // After save the identity column is already here for me. int i = emps.EmployeeID; // Dynamic Query - All Employees with 'A' in thier last name Employees emps = new Employees(); emps.Where.LastName.Value = "%A%"; emps.Where.LastName.Operator = WhereParameter.Operand.Like; emps.Query.Load(); For the above example(i.e. Employees DAL object) I would like to know what is the best method/technique to abstract some of the implementation details on my classes. I don't believe that an Employee class should have Employees(the DAL) specifics in its methods - or perhaps this is acceptable? Is it possible to implement some form of repository pattern? Bear in mind that this is a high volume, perfomacne critical application. Thanks, j

    Read the article

  • Domain driven design: Manager and service

    - by ryudice
    I'm creating some business logic in the application but I'm not sure how or where to encapsulate it, I've used the repository pattern for data access, I've seen some projects that use DDD that have some classes with the "Service" suffix and the "manager" suffix, what are each of this clases suppose to take care of in DDD?

    Read the article

  • Repeated properties design pattern

    - by Mark
    I have a DownloadManager class that manages multiple DownloadItem objects. Each DownloadItem has events like ProgressChanged and DownloadCompleted. Usually you want to use the same event handler for all download items, so it's a bit annoying to have to set the event handlers over and over again for each DownloadItem. Thus, I need to decide which pattern to use: Use one DownloadItem as a template and clone it as necessary var dm = DownloadManager(); var di = DownloadItem(); di.ProgressChanged += new DownloadProgressChangedEventHandler(di_ProgressChanged); di.DownloadCompleted += new DownloadProgressChangedEventHandler(di_DownloadCompleted); DownloadItem newDi; newDi = di.Clone(); newDi.Uri = "http://google.com"; dm.Enqueue(newDi); newDi = di.Clone(); newDi.Uri = "http://yahoo.com"; dm.Enqueue(newDi); Set the event handlers on the DownloadManager instead and have it copy the events over to each DownloadItem that is enqeued. var dm = DownloadManager(); dm.ProgressChanged += new DownloadProgressChangedEventHandler(di_ProgressChanged); dm.DownloadCompleted += new DownloadProgressChangedEventHandler(di_DownloadCompleted); dm.Enqueue(new DownloadItem("http://google.com")); dm.Enqueue(new DownloadItem("http://yahoo.com")); Or use some kind of factory var dm = DownloadManager(); var dif = DownloadItemFactory(); dif.ProgressChanged += new DownloadProgressChangedEventHandler(di_ProgressChanged); dif.DownloadCompleted += new DownloadProgressChangedEventHandler(di_DownloadCompleted); dm.Enqueue(dif.Create("http://google.com")); dm.Enqueue(dif.Create("http://yahoo.com")); What would you recommend?

    Read the article

  • RESTful Question/Answer design?

    - by Kirschstein
    This is a toy project I'm working on at the moment. My app contains questions with multiple choice answers. The question url is in the following format, with GET & POST mapping to different actions on the questions controller. GET: url.com/questions/:category/:difficulty => 'ask' POST: url.com/questions/:category/:difficulty => 'answer' I'm wondering if it's worth redesigning this into a RESTful style. I know I'd need to introduce answers as a resource, but I'm struggling to think of a url that would look natural for answering that question. Would a redesign be worthwhile? How would you go about structuring the urls?

    Read the article

  • Design Question on when to save

    - by Ben
    Hi, I was just after peoples opinion on when the best time to save an object (or collection of objects) is. I appreciate that it can be completely dependent on the situation that you are in but here is my situation. I have a collection of objects "MyCollection" in a grid. You can open each object "MyObject" in an editor dialogue by double clicking on the grid. Selecting "Cancel" on the dialogue will back out any changes you have made, but should selecting "ok" commit those changes back to the database, or should they commit the changes on that object back to the collection and have a save method that iterates through the collection and saves all changed objects? If i have an object "MyParentObject", that contains a collection of childen "MyChildObjectCollection", none of the changes made to each "MyChildObject" would be commited to the database until the "MyParentObject" was saved - this makes sense. However in my current situation, none of the objects in the collection are linked, therefore should the "Ok" on the dialogue commit the changes to the database? Appreciate any opinions on this. Thanks

    Read the article

  • User account design and security...

    - by espinet
    Before I begin, I am using Ruby on Rails and the Devise gem for user authentication. Hi, I was doing some research about account security and I found a blog post about the topic awhile ago but I can no longer find it again. I read something about when making a login system you should have 1 model for User, this contains a user's username, encrypted password, and email. You should also have a model for a user's Account. This contains everything else. A User has an Account. I don't know if I'm explaining this correctly since I haven't seen the blog post for several months and I lost my bookmark. Could someone explain how and why I should or shouldn't do this. My application deals with money so I need to cover my bases with security. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Schema design: many to many plus additional one to many

    - by chrisj
    Hi, I have this scenario and I'm not sure exactly how it should be modeled in the database. The objects I'm trying to model are: teams, players, the team-player membership, and a list of fees due for each player on a given team. So, the fees depend on both the team and the player. So, my current approach is the following: **teams** id name **players** id name **team_players** id player_id team_id **team_player_fees** id team_players_id amount send_reminder_on Schema layout ERD In this schema, team_players is the junction table for teams and players. And the table team_player_fees has records that belong to records to the junction table. For example, playerA is on teamA and has the fees of $10 and $20 due in Aug and Feb. PlayerA is also on teamB and has the fees of $25 and $25 due in May and June. Each player/team combination can have a different set of fees. Questions: Are there better ways to handle such a scenario? Is there a term for this type of relationship? (so I can google it) Or know of any references with similar structures?

    Read the article

  • General ORM design question

    - by Calvin
    Suppose you have 2 classes, Person and Rabbit. A person can do a number of things to a rabbit, s/he can either feed it, buy it and become its owner, or give it away. A rabbit can have none or at most 1 owner at a time. And if it is not fed for a while, it may die. Class Person { Void Feed(Rabbit r); Void Buy(Rabbit r); Void Giveaway(Person p, Rabbit r); Rabbit[] rabbits; } Class Rabbit { Bool IsAlive(); Person pwner; } There are a couple of observations from the domain model: Person and Rabbit can have references to each other Any actions on 1 object can also change the state of the other object Even if no explicit actions are invoked, there can still be a change of state in the objects (e.g. Rabbit can be starved to death, and that causes it to be removed from the Person.rabbits array) As DDD is concerned, I think the correct approach is to synchronize all calls that may change the states in the domain model. For instance, if a Person buys a Rabbit, s/he would need to acquire a lock in Person to make a change to the rabbits array AND also another lock in Rabbit to change its owner before releasing the first one. This would prevent a race condition where 2 Persons claim to be the owner of the little Rabbit. The other approach is to let the database to handle all these synchronizations. Who makes the first call wins, but then the DB needs to have some kind of business logics to figure out if it is a valid transaction (e.g. if a Rabbit already has an owner, it cannot change its owner unless the Person gives it away). There are both pros/cons in either approach, and I’d expect the “best” solution would be somewhere in-between. How would you do it in real life? What’s your take and experience? Also, is it a valid concern that there can be another race condition the domain model has committed its change but before it is fully committed in the database? And for the 3rd observation (i.e. state change due to time factor). How will you do it?

    Read the article

  • Project design / FS layout for large django projects

    - by rcreswick
    What is the best way to layout a large django project? The tutuorials provide simple instructions for setting up apps, models, and views, but there is less information about how apps and projects should be broken down, how much sharing is allowable/necessary between apps in a typical project (obviously that is largely dependent on the project) and how/where general templates should be kept. Does anyone have examples, suggestions, and explanations as to why a certain project layout is better than another? I am particularly interested in the incorporation of large numbers of unit tests (2-5x the size of the actual code base) and string externalization / templates.

    Read the article

  • How to better design it ???

    - by Deepak
    public interface IBasePresenter { } public interface IJobViewPresenter : IBasePresenter { } public interface IActivityViewPresenter : IBasePresenter { } public class BaseView { public IBasePresenter Presenter { get; set; } } public class JobView : BaseView { public IJobViewPresenter JobViewPresenter { get { this.Presenter as IJobViewPresenter;} } } public class ActivityView : BaseView { public IActivityViewPresenter ActivityViewPresenter { get { this.Presenter as IActivityViewPresenter;} } } Lets assume that I need a IBasePresenter property on BaseView. Now this property is inherited by JobView and ActivityView but if I need reference to IJobViewPresenter object in these derived classes then I need to type cast IBasePresenter property to IJobViewPresenter or IActivityPresenter (which I want to avoid) or create JobViewPresenter and ActivityViewPresenter on derived classes (as shown above). I want to avoid type casting in derived classes and still have reference to IJobViewPresenter or IActivityViewPresenter and still have IBasePresenter in BaseView. Is there a way I can achieve it ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >