Search Results

Search found 15233 results on 610 pages for 'ssis design patterns'.

Page 185/610 | < Previous Page | 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192  | Next Page >

• Practical rules for premature optimization

  - by DougW

  It seems that the phrase "Premature Optimization" is the buzz-word of the day. For some reason, iphone programmers in particular seem to think of avoiding premature optimization as a pro-active goal, rather than the natural result of simply avoiding distraction. The problem is, the term is beginning to be applied more and more to cases that are completely inappropriate. For example, I've seen a growing number of people say not to worry about the complexity of an algorithm, because that's premature optimization (eg http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2190275/help-sorting-an-nsarray-across-two-properties-with-nssortdescriptor/2191720#2191720). Frankly, I think this is just laziness, and appalling to disciplined computer science. But it has occurred to me that maybe considering the complexity and performance of algorithms is going the way of assembly loop unrolling, and other optimization techniques that are now considered unnecessary. What do you think? Are we at the point now where deciding between an O(n^n) and O(n!) complexity algorithm is irrelevant? What about O(n) vs O(n*n)? What do you consider "premature optimization"? What practical rules do you use to consciously or unconsciously avoid it? This is a bit vague, but I'm curious to hear other peoples' opinions on the topic.

  Read the article

• Has anyone ever encountered a Monad Transformer in the wild?

  - by martingw

  In my area of business - back office IT for a financial institution - it is very common for a software component to carry a global configuration around, to log it's progress, to have some kind of error handling / computation short circuit... Things that can be modelled nicely by Reader-, Writer-, Maybe-monads and the like in Haskell and composed together with monad transformers. But there seem to some drawbacks: The concept behind monad transformers is quite tricky and hard to understand, monad transformers lead to very complex type signatures, and they inflict some performance penalty. So I'm wondering: Are monad transformers best practice when dealing with those common tasks mentioned above?

  Read the article

• Disposing underlying object from finalizer in an immutable object

  - by Juan Luis Soldi

  I'm trying to wrap around Awesomium and make it look to the rest of my code as close as possible to NET's WebBrowser since this is for an existing application that already uses the WebBrowser. In this library, there is a class called JSObject which represents a javascript object. You can get one of this, for instance, by calling the ExecuteJavascriptWithResult method of the WebView class. If you'd call it like myWebView.ExecuteJavascriptWithResult("document", string.Empty).ToObject(), then you'd get a JSObject that represents the document. I'm writing an immutable class (it's only field is a readonly JSObject object) called JSObjectWrap that wraps around JSObject which I want to use as base class for other classes that would emulate .NET classes such as HtmlElement and HtmlDocument. Now, these classes don't implement Dispose, but JSObject does. What I first thought was to call the underlying JSObject's Dispose method in my JSObjectWrap's finalizer (instead of having JSObjectWrap implement Dispose) so that the rest of my code can stay the way it is (instead of having to add using's everywhere and make sure every JSObjectWrap is being properly disposed). But I just realized if more than two JSObjectWrap's have the same underlying JSObject and one of them gets finalized this will mess up the other JSObjectWrap. So now I'm thinking maybe I should keep a static Dictionary of JSObjects and keep count of how many of each of them are being referenced by a JSObjectWrap but this sounds messy and I think could cause major performance issues. Since this sounds to me like a common pattern I wonder if anyone else has a better idea.

  Read the article

• Java library class to handle scheduled execution of "callbacks"?

  - by Hanno Fietz

  My program has a component - dubbed the Scheduler - that lets other components register points in time at which they want to be called back. This should work much like the Unix cron service, i. e. you tell the Scheduler "notify me at ten minutes past every full hour". I realize there are no real callbacks in Java. Here's my approach, is there a library which already does this stuff? Feel free to suggest improvements, too. Register call to Scheduler passes: a time specification containing hour, minute, second, year month, dom, dow, where each item may be unspecified, meaning "execute it every hour / minute etc." (just like crontabs) an object containing data that will tell the calling object what to do when it is notified by the Scheduler. The Scheduler does not process this data, just stores it and passes it back upon notification. a reference to the calling object Upon startup, or after a new registration request, the Scheduler starts with a Calendar object of the current system time and checks if there are any entries in the database that match this point in time. If there are, they are executed and the process starts over. If there aren't, the time in the Calendar object is incremented by one second and the entreis are rechecked. This repeats until there is one entry or more that match(es). (Discrete Event Simulation) The Scheduler will then remember that timestamp, sleep and wake every second to check if it is already there. If it happens to wake up and the time has already passed, it starts over, likewise if the time has come and the jobs have been executed. Edit: Thanks for pointing me to Quartz. I'm looking for something much smaller, however.

  Read the article

• Is there any reason for an object pool to not be treated as a singleton?

  - by Chris Charabaruk

  I don't necessarily mean implemented using the singleton pattern, but rather, only having and using one instance of a pool. I don't like the idea of having just one pool (or one per pooled type). However, I can't really come up with any concrete situations where there's an advantage to multiple pools for mutable types, at least not any where a single pool can function just as well. What advantages are there to having multiple pools over a singleton pool?

  Read the article

• Is there a recommended way to use the Observer pattern in MVP using GWT?

  - by Tomislav Nakic-Alfirevic

  I am thinking about implementing a user interface according to the MVP pattern using GWT, but have doubts about how to proceed. These are (some of) my goals: - the presenter knows nothing about the UI technology (i.e. uses nothing from com.google.*) - the view knows nothing about the model or the presenter - the model knows nothing of the view or the presenter (...obviously) I would place an interface between the view and the presenter and use the Observer pattern to decouple the two: the view generates events and the presenter gets notified. What confuses me is that java.util.Observer and java.util.Observable are not supported in GWT. This suggests that what I'm doing is not the recommended way to do it, as far as GWT is concerned, which leads me to my questions: what is the recommended way to implement MVP using GWT, specifically with the above goals in mind? How would you do it?

  Read the article

• Activator.CreateInstance(string) and Activator.CreateInstance<T>() difference

  - by Juan Manuel Formoso

  No, this is not a question about generics. I have a Factory pattern with several classes with internal constructors (I don't want them being instantiated if not through the factory). My problem is that CreateInstance fails with a "No parameterless constructor defined for this object" error unless I pass "true" on the non-public parameter. Example // Fails Activator.CreateInstance(type); // Works Activator.CreateInstance(type, true); I wanted to make the factory generic to make it a little simpler, like this: public class GenericFactory<T> where T : MyAbstractType { public static T GetInstance() { return Activator.CreateInstance<T>(); } } However, I was unable to find how to pass that "true" parameter for it to accept non-public constructors (internal). Did I miss something or it isn't possible?

  Read the article

• Can the Singleton be replaced by Factory?

  - by lostiniceland

  Hello Everyone There are already quite some posts about the Singleton-Pattern around, but I would like to start another one on this topic since I would like to know if the Factory-Pattern would be the right approach to remove this "anti-pattern". In the past I used the singleton quite a lot, also did my fellow collegues since it is so easy to use. For example, the Eclipse IDE or better its workbench-model makes heavy usage of singletons as well. It was due to some posts about E4 (the next big Eclipse version) that made me start to rethink the singleton. The bottom line was that due to this singletons the dependecies in Eclipse 3.x are tightly coupled. Lets assume I want to get rid of all singletons completely and instead use factories. My thoughts were as follows: hide complexity less coupling I have control over how many instances are created (just store the reference I a private field of the factory) mock the factory for testing (with Dependency Injection) when it is behind an interface In some cases the factories can make more than one singleton obsolete (depending on business logic/component composition) Does this make sense? If not, please give good reasons for why you think so. An alternative solution is also appreciated. Thanks Marc

  Read the article

• Using DTOs and BOs

  - by ryanzec

  One area of question for me about DTOs/BOs is about when to pass/return the DTOs and when to pass/return the BOs. My gut reaction tells me to always map NHibernate to the DTOs, not BOs, and always pass/return the DTOs. Then whenever I needed to perform business logic, I would convert my DTO into a BO. The way I would do this is that my BO would have a have a constructor that takes a parameter that is the type of my interface (that defines the required fields/properties) that both my DTO and BO implement as the only argument. Then I would be able to create my BO by passing it the DTO in the constructor (since both with implement the same interface, they both with have the same properties) and then be able to perform my business logic with that BO. I would then also have a way to convert a BO to a DTO. However, I have also seen where people seem to only work with BOs and only work with DTOs in the background where to the user, it looks like there are no DTOs. What benefits/downfalls are there with this architecture vs always using BO's? Should I always being passing/returning either DTOs or BOs or mix and match (seems like mixing and matching could get confusing)?

  Read the article

• Problem implementing Interceptor pattern

  - by ph0enix

  I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? Update: I came across Spring.NET. I've heard of it before, but never really looked into it. It sounds like it has a lot of great features that would be very useful for what I'm trying to do. Does anyone have any experience with Spring.NET? TIA, Jeremy

  Read the article

• Am I abusing Policies?

  - by pmr

  I find myself using policies a lot in my code and usually I'm very happy with that. But from time to time I find myself confronted with using that pattern in situations where the Policies are selected and runtime and I have developed habbits to work around such situations. Usually I start with something like that: class DrawArrays { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; class DrawElements { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public Policy { using Policy::sendDraw(); public: void render() const; }; When the policy is picked at runtime I have different choices of working around the situation. Different code paths: if(drawElements) { Vertices<DrawElements> vertices; } else { Vertices<DrawArrays> vertices; } Inheritance and virtual calls: class PureVertices { public: void render()=0; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public PureVertices, public Policy { //.. }; Both solutions feel wrong to me. The first creates an umaintainable mess and the second introduces the overhead of virtual calls that I tried to avoid by using policies in the first place. Am I missing the proper solutions or do I use the wrong pattern to solve the problem?

  Read the article

• SQL Server - CAST AND DIVIDE

  - by rs

  DECLARE @table table(XYZ VARCHAR(8) , id int) INSERT INTO @table SELECT '4000', 1 UNION ALL SELECT '3.123', 2 UNION ALL SELECT '7.0', 3 UNION ALL SELECT '80000', 4 UNION ALL SELECT NULL, 5 SELECT CASE WHEN PATINDEX('^[0-9]{1,5}[\.][0-9]{1,3}$', XYZ) = 0 THEN XYZ WHEN PATINDEX('^[0-9]{1,8}$',XYZ) = 0 THEN CAST(XYZ AS decimal(18,3))/1000 ELSE NULL END FROM @table This part - CAST(XYZ AS decimal(18,3))/1000 doesn't divide value it gives me more number of zeros after decimal instead of dividing it. (I even enclosed that in brackets and tried but same result) Am i doing something wrong here?

  Read the article

• How do I write user-specific configuration into a rails app?

  - by dchua

  Hi all, What is the current practice like to write user-specific configuration settings into a rails application? For example, privacy settings in a social networking application. I know application-wide settings can be stored in a .yml file in config/ but what about users?

  Read the article

• pattern for the following condition in java

  - by zahir hussain

  hi i want to know how to write pattern.. for example : the word is "AboutGoogle AdWords Drive traffic and customers to your site. Pay through Cheque, Net Banking or Credit Card. Google Toolbar Add a search box to your browser. Google SMS To find out local information simply SMS to 54664. Gmail Free email with 7.2GB storage and less spam. Try Gmail today. Our ProductsHelp Help with Google Search, Services and ProductsGoogle Web Search Features Translation, I'm Feeling Lucky, CachedGoogle Services & Tools Toolbar, Google Web APIs, ButtonsGoogle Labs Ideas, Demos, ExperimentsFor Site OwnersAdvertising AdWords, AdSenseBusiness Solutions Google Search Appliance, Google Mini, WebSearchWebmaster Central One-stop shop for comprehensive info about how Google crawls and indexes websitesSubmit your content to Google Add your site, Google SitemapsOur CompanyPress Center News, Images, ZeitgeistJobs at Google Openings, Perks, CultureCorporate Info Company overview, Philosophy, Diversity, AddressesInvestor Relations Financial info, Corporate governanceMore GoogleContact Us FAQs, Feedback, NewsletterGoogle Logos Official Logos, Holiday Logos, Fan LogosGoogle Blog Insights to Google products and cultureGoogle Store Pens, Shirts, Lava lamps©2010 Google - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service" I have to search some word... for example "google insights" so how to write the code in java... i just write small code... check my code and answer my question... that code only use for find the search word, where is that. but i need to display some words front of search word and display some words rear of search workd... similar to google search... my code is Pattern p = Pattern.compile("(?i)(.*?)"+search+""); Matcher m = p.matcher(full); String title=""; while (m.find() == true) { title=m.group(1); System.out.println(title); } the full is orignal content, search s search word... thanks and advance

  Read the article

• Hide Non-Displayed ASP Elements in Design View

  - by Steven

  Is there a way to prevent non-displayed elements from appearing in the ASPX Design View editor? By "non-displayed elements", I mean the background elements (Managers, DataSources, Validators, etc) that show up as grey boxes containing the type and id. If I have several of those at the top of the page, I can't see much of the preview of my page.

  Read the article

• Design decisions

  - by Drew Gain

  I have been asked to choose between Web Forms and MVC for a minor internal company project. I do not know MVC. How much of MVC do i have to know to be able to make a decision? Note: 1. I have read up on MVC to an extent that i know the high level design choices that I will have to make, however as a developer, I do not feel comfortable unless i code in it...

  Read the article

• Disable resizing tables in mozilla in design mode

  - by Anatoliy

  Is there a way to remove the attribute '_moz_resizing="true"' added by Firefox from to avoid giving user the possibility to resize table in design mode (when contentEditable=true).

  Read the article

• Command Pattern : How to pass parameters to a command ?

  - by Romain Verdier

  My question is related to the command pattern, where we have the following abstraction (C# code) : public interface ICommand { Execute(); } Let's take a simple concrete command, which aims to delete an entity from our application. A Person instance, for example. I'll have a DeletePersonCommand, which implements ICommand. This command needs the Person to delete as a parameter, in order to delete it when Execute method is called. What is the best way to manage parametrized commands ? How to pass parameters to commands, before executing them ?

  Read the article

• actionscript-3: refactor interface inheritance to get rid of ambiguous reference error

  - by maxmc

  hi! imagine there are two interfaces arranged via composite pattern, one of them has a dispose method among other methods: interface IComponent extends ILeaf { ... function dispose() : void; } interface ILeaf { ... } some implementations have some more things in common (say an id) so there are two more interfaces: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf { function get id() : String; } interface ICommonComponent extends ICommonLeaf, IComponent { } so far so good. but there is another interface which also has a dispose method: interface ISomething { ... function dispose() : void; } and ISomething is inherited by ICommonLeaf: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf, ISomething { function get id() : String; } As soon as the dispose method is invoked on an instance which implements the ICommonComponent interface, the compiler fails with an ambiguous reference error because ISomething has a method called dispose and ILeaf also has a dispose method, both living in different interfaces (IComponent, ISomething) within the inheritace tree of ICommonComponent. I wonder how to deal with the situation if the IComponent, the ILeaf and the ISomething can't change. the composite structure must also work for for the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent implementations and the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent must conform to the ISomething type. this might be an actionscript-3 specific issue. i haven't tested how other languages (for instance java) handle stuff like this.

  Read the article

• Easymock vs Mockito: Design vs Maintainability?

  - by RAbraham

  One way of thinking about this is: if we care about the Design of the code then Easymock is the better choice as it gives feedback to you by its concept of expectations If we care about the maintainability of tests( easier to read,write and having less brittle tests which are not affected much by change), then Mockito seems a better choice. My question is: - If you have used Easymock in large scale projects, do you find that your tests are harder to maintain? - What are the limitations of Mockito( other than endo testing)

  Read the article

• Game AI: Pattern for implementing Sense-Think-Act components?

  - by Rosarch

  I'm developing a game. Each entity in the game is a GameObject. Each GameObject is composed of a GameObjectController, GameObjectModel, and GameObjectView. (Or inheritants thereof.) For NPCs, the GameObjectController is split into: IThinkNPC: reads current state and makes a decision about what to do IActNPC: updates state based on what needs to be done ISenseNPC: reads current state to answer world queries (eg "am I being in the shadows?") My question: Is this ok for the ISenseNPC interface? public interface ISenseNPC { // ... /// <summary> /// True if `dest` is a safe point to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="dest"></param> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <param name="range"></param> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeToRetreat(Vector2 dest, float angleToThreat, float range); /// <summary> /// Finds a new location to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <returns></returns> Vector2 newRetreatDest(float angleToThreat); /// <summary> /// Returns the closest LightSource that illuminates the NPC. /// Null if the NPC is not illuminated. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> ILightSource ClosestIlluminatingLight(); /// <summary> /// True if the NPC is sufficiently far away from target. /// Assumes that target is the only entity it could ever run from. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeFromTarget(); } None of the methods take any parameters. Instead, the implementation is expected to maintain a reference to the relevant GameObjectController and read that. However, I'm now trying to write unit tests for this. Obviously, it's necessary to use mocking, since I can't pass arguments directly. The way I'm doing it feels really brittle - what if another implementation comes along that uses the world query utilities in a different way? Really, I'm not testing the interface, I'm testing the implementation. Poor. The reason I used this pattern in the first place was to keep IThinkNPC implementation code clean: public BehaviorState RetreatTransition(BehaviorState currentBehavior) { if (sense.IsCollidingWithTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "is colliding with target"); return BehaviorState.ATTACK; } if (sense.IsSafeFromTarget() && sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() == null) { return BehaviorState.WANDER; } if (sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() != null && sense.SeesTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "collides with target"); return BehaviorState.CHASE; } return currentBehavior; } Perhaps the cleanliness isn't worth it, however. So, if ISenseNPC takes all the params it needs every time, I could make it static. Is there any problem with that?

  Read the article

• What is the most EVIL code you have ever seen in a production enterprise environment?

  - by Registered User

  What is the most evil or dangerous code fragment you have ever seen in a production environment at a company? I've never encountered production code that I would consider to be deliberately malicious and evil, so I'm quite curious to see what others have found. The most dangerous code I have ever seen was a stored procedure two linked-servers away from our core production database server. The stored procedure accepted any NVARCHAR(8000) parameter and executed the parameter on the target production server via an double-jump sp_executeSQL command. That is to say, the sp_executeSQL command executed another sp_executeSQL command in order to jump two linked servers. Oh, and the linked server account had sysadmin rights on the target production server.

  Read the article

• Designing a general database interface in PHP

  - by lamas

  I'm creating a small framework for my web projects in PHP so I don't have to do the basic work over and over again for every new website. It is not my goal to create a second CakePHP or Codeigniter and I'm also not planning to build my websites with any of the available frameworks as I prefer to use things I've created myself in general. I have no problems in designing that framework when it comes to parts like the core structure, request handling, and so on but I'm getting stuck with designing the database interface for my modules. I've already thought about using the MVC pattern but thought that it would be a bit of a overkill. So the exact problem I'm facing is how my frameworks modules (viewCustomers could be a module, for example) should interact with the database. Is it a good idea to write SQL directly in PHP (mysql_query( 'SELECT firstname, lastname(.....))? How could I abstract a query like SELECT firstname, lastname FROM customers WHERE id=X Would MySQL helper functions like $this->db->get( array('firstname', 'lastname'), array('id'=>X) ) be a good idea? I suppose not because they actually make everything more complicated by requiring arrays to be created and passed. Is the Model pattern from MVC my only real option?

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC: post-redirect-get pattern, with only two overloaded action methods

  - by Rafi

  Is it possible to implement post-redirect-get pattern, with two overloaded action methods(One for GET action and the other for POST action) in ASP.NET MVC. In all of the MVC post-redirect-get pattern samples, I have seen three different action methods for the post-redirect-get process, each having different names. Is this really required? For Eg:(Does the code shown below, follows Post-Redirect-Get pattern?) public class SalaryTransferController : Controller { // // GET: /SalaryTransfer/ [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index(int id) { SalaryTransferIndexViewModel vm = new SalaryTransferIndexViewModel(id) { SelectedDivision = DivisionEnum.Contracting }; //Do some processing here return View(vm); } // // POST: /SalaryTransfer/ [HttpPost] public ActionResult Index(SalaryTransferIndexViewModel vm) { bool validationsuccess = false; //validate if (validationsuccess) return RedirectToAction("Index", new {id=1234 }); else return View(vm); } } Thank you for your responses.

  Read the article

• Service Layer Patter - Could we avoid the service layer on a specific case?

  - by lidermin

  Hi, we are trying to implement an application using the Service Layer Pattern cause our application needs to connect to other multiple applications too, and googling on the web, we found this link of a demostrative graphic for the "right" way of apply the pattern: martinfowler.com - Service Layer Pattern But now we have a question: what if our system needs to implement some business logic, only for our application (like some maintenance data for the system itself) that we don't need to share with other systems. Based on this graphic: As it seems, it will be unnecesary to implement a service layer just for that; it will be more practical to avoid the service layer, and just go from User Interface to the Business Layer (for example). What should be the right way in this case to implement the Service Layer Pattern? What do you suggest us for a scenario like the one I told you? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192  | Next Page >