Search Results

Search found 69357 results on 2775 pages for 'data oriented design'.

Page 19/2775 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • How can I store all my level data in a single file instead of spread out over many files?

    - by Jon
    I am currently generating my level data, and saving to disk to ensure that any modifications done to the level are saved. I am storing "chunks" of 2048x2048 pixels into a file. Whenever the player moves over a section that doesn't have a file associated with the position, a new file is created. This works great, and is very fast. My issue, is that as you are playing the file count gets larger and larger. I'm wondering what are techniques that can be used to alleviate the file count, without taking a performance hit. I am interested in how you would store/seek/update this data in a single file instead of multiple files efficiently.

    Read the article

  • Subscribe/Publish Model in Web-based Application (c#) - Best Practices for Event Handlers

    - by KingOfHypocrites
    I was recently exposed to a desktop application that uses an publish/subscribe model to handle commands, events, etc. I can't seem to find any good examples of using this in a web application, so I wonder if I am off base in trying to use this for web based development (on the server side)? I'm using asp.net c#. My main question in regards to the design is: When using a publish/subscribe model, is it better to have generic commands/events that pass no parameters and then have the subscribers look at static context objects that contain the data relevant to the event? Or is it better to create custom arguments for every event that contain data related to the event? The whole concept of a global container seems so convenient but at the same time seems to break encapsulation. Any thoughts or best practices from anyone who has implemented this type of model in a web based application? Even suggestions on this model out of the scope of my question are appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Figuring out the Call chain

    - by BDotA
    Let's say I have an assemblyA that has a method which creates an instance of assemblyB and calls its MethodFoo(). Now assemblyB also creates an instance of assemblyC and calls MethodFoo(). So no matter if I start with assemblyB in the code flow or with assemlyA, at the end we are calling that MethodFoo of AssemblyC(). My question is when I am in the MethodFoo() how can I know who has called me? Has it been a call originally from assemblyA or was it from assemlyB? Is there any design pattern or a good OO way of solving this?

    Read the article

  • Python simulation-scripts architecture

    - by Beastcraft
    Situation: I've some scripts that simulate user-activity on desktop. Therefore I've defined a few cases (workflows) and implemented them in Python. I've also written some classes for interacting with the users' software (e.g. web browser etc.). Problem: I'm a total beginner in software design / architecture (coding isn't a problem). How could I structure what I described above? Providing a library which contains all the workflows as functions, or a separate class/module etc. for each workflow? I want to keep the the workflows simple. The complexity should be hidden in the classes for interacting with the users' software. Are there any papers / books I could read about this, or could you provide some tips? Kind regards, B

    Read the article

  • Validation and Error Generation when using the Data Mapper Pattern

    - by AndyPerlitch
    I am working on saving state of an object to a database using the data mapper pattern, but I am looking for suggestions/guidance on the validation and error message generation step (step 4 below). Here are the general steps as I see them for doing this: (1) The data mapper is used to get current info (assoc array) about the object in db: +=====================================================+ | person_id | name | favorite_color | age | +=====================================================+ | 1 | Andy | Green | 24 | +-----------------------------------------------------+ mapper returns associative array, eg. Person_Mapper::getPersonById($id) : $person_row = array( 'person_id' => 1, 'name' => 'Andy', 'favorite_color' => 'Green', 'age' => '24', ); (2) the Person object constructor takes this array as an argument, populating its fields. class Person { protected $person_id; protected $name; protected $favorite_color; protected $age; function __construct(array $person_row) { $this->person_id = $person_row['person_id']; $this->name = $person_row['name']; $this->favorite_color = $person_row['favorite_color']; $this->age = $person_row['age']; } // getters and setters... public function toArray() { return array( 'person_id' => $this->person_id, 'name' => $this->name, 'favorite_color' => $this->favorite_color, 'age' => $this->age, ); } } (3a) (GET request) Inputs of an HTML form that is used to change info about the person is populated using Person::getters <form> <input type="text" name="name" value="<?=$person->getName()?>" /> <input type="text" name="favorite_color" value="<?=$person->getFavColor()?>" /> <input type="text" name="age" value="<?=$person->getAge()?>" /> </form> (3b) (POST request) Person object is altered with the POST data using Person::setters $person->setName($_POST['name']); $person->setFavColor($_POST['favorite_color']); $person->setAge($_POST['age']); *(4) Validation and error message generation on a per-field basis - Should this take place in the person object or the person mapper object? - Should data be validated BEFORE being placed into fields of the person object? (5) Data mapper saves the person object (updates row in the database): $person_mapper->savePerson($person); // the savePerson method uses $person->toArray() // to get data in a more digestible format for the // db gateway used by person_mapper Any guidance, suggestions, criticism, or name-calling would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Designing a single look up entity

    - by altsyset
    In almost every application you have this look up entity that provides a dynamic references. This are things like type, category, etc. These entities will always have id, name, desc So at first I designed different entities for each look up. Like education_type, education_level, degree_type.... But on a second thought I decided to have on entity for each of these kinds of entities. But when I am done with the design and check the relation this entity will be referenced by almost all entities in the system and I don't believe that is appropriate. So What is your take on this? Can you give me some clear pros and cons?

    Read the article

  • How should I define my Java Objects?

    - by HonorGod
    I have a data grid where I sort of show the following information - All Guests Total Adults = 22 Total Children = 27 Confirmed Total Adults = 9 Total Children = 13 Country = Germany Total Adults = 5 Total Childres = 6 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 2 Relatives Adults = 3 Children = 4 Country = USA Total Adults = 4 Total Childres = 7 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 5 Relatives Adults = 2 Children = 2 Tentative Total Adults = 13 Total Children - 14 Country = Australia Total Adults = 7 Total Childres = 8 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 3 Relatives Adults = 5 Children = 5 Country = China Total Adults = 6 Total Childres = 6 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 4 Relatives Adults = 4 Children = 2 And in the database what I have is data at the lowest level which is Friends / Relatives and the corresponding countries set as a look-up value which in indirectly connected to another look-up that can tell me if they fall under confirmed or tentative. I guess my question is how do I layout my Java Object and perform the aggregations and give it back to the client. I am not sure if I am clear with my question, but feel free to comment so I can update the question accordingly.

    Read the article

  • Is there a pattern to restrict which classes can update another class?

    - by Mike
    Say I have a class ImportantInfo with a public writable property Data. Many classes will read this property but only a few will ever set it. Basically, if you want to update Data you should really know what you're doing. Is there a pattern I could use to make this explicit other than by documenting it? For example, some way to enforce that only classes that implement IUpdateImportantData can do it (this is just an example)? I'm not talking about security here, but more of a "hey, are you sure you want to do that?" kind of thing.

    Read the article

  • "Collection Wrapper" pattern - is this common?

    - by Prog
    A different question of mine had to do with encapsulating member data structures inside classes. In order to understand this question better please read that question and look at the approach discussed. One of the guys who answered that question said that the approach is good, but if I understood him correctly - he said that there should be a class existing just for the purpose of wrapping the collection, instead of an ordinary class offering a number of public methods just to access the member collection. For example, instead of this: class SomeClass{ // downright exposing the concrete collection. Things[] someCollection; // other stuff omitted Thing[] getCollection(){return someCollection;} } Or this: class SomeClass{ // encapsulating the collection, but inflating the class' public interface. Thing[] someCollection; // class functionality omitted. public Thing getThing(int index){ return someCollection[index]; } public int getSize(){ return someCollection.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ someCollection[index] = thing; } public void removeThing(int index){ someCollection[index] = null; } } We'll have this: // encapsulating the collection - in a different class, dedicated to this. class SomeClass{ CollectionWrapper someCollection; CollectionWrapper getCollection(){return someCollection;} } class CollectionWrapper{ Thing[] someCollection; public Thing getThing(int index){ return someCollection[index]; } public int getSize(){ return someCollection.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ someCollection[index] = thing; } public void removeThing(int index){ someCollection[index] = null; } } This way, the inner data structure in SomeClass can change without affecting client code, and without forcing SomeClass to offer a lot of public methods just to access the inner collection. CollectionWrapper does this instead. E.g. if the collection changes from an array to a List, the internal implementation of CollectionWrapper changes, but client code stays the same. Also, the CollectionWrapper can hide certain things from the client code - from example, it can disallow mutation to the collection by not having the methods setThing and removeThing. This approach to decoupling client code from the concrete data structure seems IMHO pretty good. Is this approach common? What are it's downfalls? Is this used in practice?

    Read the article

  • Convert table base design to table less design in best way

    - by Brij
    What is the best optimized way to convert following in table less design? the layout should be cross browser compatible and SEO Friendly. <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td>Row 1 Column 1</td> <td>Row 1 Column 2</td> <td>Row 1 Column 3</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3" align="center">Row 2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Row 3</td> <td align="right" colspan="2"><img src="test.jpg" alt="test" /></td> </tr> </table>

    Read the article

  • Data access pattern

    - by andlju
    I need some advice on what kind of pattern(s) I should use for pushing/pulling data into my application. I'm writing a rule-engine that needs to hold quite a large amount of data in-memory in order to be efficient enough. I have some rather conflicting requirements; It is not acceptable for the engine to always have to wait for a full pre-load of all data before it is functional. Only fetching and caching data on-demand will lead to the engine taking too long before it is running quickly enough. An external event can trigger the need for specific parts of the data to be reloaded. Basically, I think I need a combination of pushing and pulling data into the application. A simplified version of my current "pattern" looks like this (in psuedo-C# written in notepad): // This interface is implemented by all classes that needs the data interface IDataSubscriber { void RegisterData(Entity data); } // This interface is implemented by the data access class interface IDataProvider { void EnsureLoaded(Key dataKey); void RegisterSubscriber(IDataSubscriber subscriber); } class MyClassThatNeedsData : IDataSubscriber { IDataProvider _provider; MyClassThatNeedsData(IDataProvider provider) { _provider = provider; _provider.RegisterSubscriber(this); } public void RegisterData(Entity data) { // Save data for later StoreDataInCache(data); } void UseData(Key key) { // Make sure that the data has been stored in cache _provider.EnsureLoaded(key); Entity data = GetDataFromCache(key); } } class MyDataProvider : IDataProvider { List<IDataSubscriber> _subscribers; // Make sure that the data for key has been loaded to all subscribers public void EnsureLoaded(Key key) { if (HasKeyBeenMarkedAsLoaded(key)) return; PublishDataToSubscribers(key); MarkKeyAsLoaded(key); } // Force all subscribers to get a new version of the data for key public void ForceReload(Key key) { PublishDataToSubscribers(key); MarkKeyAsLoaded(key); } void PublishDataToSubscribers(Key key) { Entity data = FetchDataFromStore(key); foreach(var subscriber in _subscribers) { subscriber.RegisterData(data); } } } // This class will be spun off on startup and should make sure that all data is // preloaded as quickly as possible class MyPreloadingThread { IDataProvider _provider; MyPreloadingThread(IDataProvider provider) { _provider = provider; } void RunInBackground() { IEnumerable<Key> allKeys = GetAllKeys(); foreach(var key in allKeys) { _provider.EnsureLoaded(key); } } } I have a feeling though that this is not necessarily the best way of doing this.. Just the fact that explaining it seems to take two pages feels like an indication.. Any ideas? Any patterns out there I should have a look at?

    Read the article

  • Software Design & Web Service Design

    - by 001
    I'm about to design my Web service API, most of the functions of my API is basically very simular to my web application. Now the question is, should I create 1 single method and reuse them for both the web application and the web service api? (This seems to be the logical solution, however its very complicated; it's much easier to duplicate the method used by the web application, and keep both separate, ie one method for the web application and one method for the web service.) How do you guys do it? 1) REUSE: one main method and reuse them for both web application and web service application (I like this but it's complicated) WebAppMethodX --uses-- COMMONFUNCTIONMETHOD_X APIMethodX ---uses---- COMMONFUNCTIONMETHOD_X ie common function performs functions such as creating/updating/deleting records etc 2) DUPLICATE: two methods, one method for the web application and one method for the web service. WebAppMethodX APIMethodX

    Read the article

  • Data access pattern, combining push and pull?

    - by andlju
    I need some advice on what kind of pattern(s) I should use for pushing/pulling data into my application. I'm writing a rule-engine that needs to hold quite a large amount of data in-memory in order to be efficient enough. I have some rather conflicting requirements; It is not acceptable for the engine to always have to wait for a full pre-load of all data before it is functional. Only fetching and caching data on-demand will lead to the engine taking too long before it is running quickly enough. An external event can trigger the need for specific parts of the data to be reloaded. Basically, I think I need a combination of pushing and pulling data into the application. A simplified version of my current "pattern" looks like this (in psuedo-C# written in notepad): // This interface is implemented by all classes that needs the data interface IDataSubscriber { void RegisterData(Entity data); } // This interface is implemented by the data access class interface IDataProvider { void EnsureLoaded(Key dataKey); void RegisterSubscriber(IDataSubscriber subscriber); } class MyClassThatNeedsData : IDataSubscriber { IDataProvider _provider; MyClassThatNeedsData(IDataProvider provider) { _provider = provider; _provider.RegisterSubscriber(this); } public void RegisterData(Entity data) { // Save data for later StoreDataInCache(data); } void UseData(Key key) { // Make sure that the data has been stored in cache _provider.EnsureLoaded(key); Entity data = GetDataFromCache(key); } } class MyDataProvider : IDataProvider { List<IDataSubscriber> _subscribers; // Make sure that the data for key has been loaded to all subscribers public void EnsureLoaded(Key key) { if (HasKeyBeenMarkedAsLoaded(key)) return; PublishDataToSubscribers(key); MarkKeyAsLoaded(key); } // Force all subscribers to get a new version of the data for key public void ForceReload(Key key) { PublishDataToSubscribers(key); MarkKeyAsLoaded(key); } void PublishDataToSubscribers(Key key) { Entity data = FetchDataFromStore(key); foreach(var subscriber in _subscribers) { subscriber.RegisterData(data); } } } // This class will be spun off on startup and should make sure that all data is // preloaded as quickly as possible class MyPreloadingThread { IDataProvider _provider; MyPreloadingThread(IDataProvider provider) { _provider = provider; } void RunInBackground() { IEnumerable<Key> allKeys = GetAllKeys(); foreach(var key in allKeys) { _provider.EnsureLoaded(key); } } } I have a feeling though that this is not necessarily the best way of doing this.. Just the fact that explaining it seems to take two pages feels like an indication.. Any ideas? Any patterns out there I should have a look at?

    Read the article

  • Creating a dummy design before the development starts

    - by NLV
    Hello How can i create a dummy design of an application before the actual development starts? How to simulate the UI of the application. After completing the analysis phase do i need to start the design directly using dev tools or can i create some dummies (even images, using Visio or something) with other tools? Thank you

    Read the article

  • Learn Domain-Driven Design

    - by Ben Griswold
    I just wrote about how I like to present on unfamiliar topics. With this said, Domain-Driven Design (DDD) is no exception. This is yet another area I knew enough about to be dangerous but I certainly was no expert.  As it turns out, researching this topic wasn’t easy. I could be wrong, but it is as if DDD is a secret to which few are privy. If you search the Interwebs, you will likely find little information about DDD until you start rolling over rocks to find that one great write-up, a handful of podcasts and videos and the Readers’ Digest version of the Blue Book which apparently you must read if you really want to get the complete, unabridged skinny on DDD.  Even Wikipedia’s write-up is skimpy which I didn’t know was possible…   Here’s a list of valuable resources.  If you, too, are interested in DDD, this is a good starting place.  Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software by Eric Evans Domain-Driven Design Quickly, by Abel Avram & Floyd Marinescu An Introduction to Domain-Driven Design by David Laribee Talking Domain-Driven Design with David Laribee Part 1, Deep Fried Bytes Talking Domain-Driven Design with David Laribee Part 2, Deep Fried Bytes Eric Evans on Domain Driven Design, .NET Rocks Domain-Driven Design Community Eric Evans on Domain Driven Design Jimmy Nilsson on Domain Driven Design Domain-Driven Design Wikipedia What I’ve Learned About DDD Since the Book, Eric Evans Domain Driven Design, Alt.Net Podcast Applying Domain-Driven Design and Patterns: With Examples in C# and .NET, Jimmy Nilsson Domain-Driven Design Discussion Group DDD: Putting the Model to Work by Eric Evans The Official DDD Site

    Read the article

  • Best way to load application settings

    - by enzom83
    A simple way to keep the settings of a Java application is represented by a text file with ".properties" extension containing the identifier of each setting associated with a specific value (this value may be a number, string, date, etc..). C# uses a similar approach, but the text file must be named "App.config". In both cases, in source code you must initialize a specific class for reading settings: this class has a method that returns the value (as string) associated with the specified setting identifier. // Java example Properties config = new Properties(); config.load(...); String valueStr = config.getProperty("listening-port"); // ... // C# example NameValueCollection setting = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings; string valueStr = setting["listening-port"]; // ... In both cases we should parse strings loaded from the configuration file and assign the ??converted values to the related typed objects (parsing errors could occur during this phase). After the parsing step, we must check that the setting values ??belong to a specific domain of validity: for example, the maximum size of a queue should be a positive value, some values ??may be related (example: min < max), and so on. Suppose that the application should load the settings as soon as it starts: in other words, the first operation performed by the application is to load the settings. Any invalid values for the settings ??must be replaced automatically with default values??: if this happens to a group of related settings, those settings are all set with default values. The easiest way to perform these operations is to create a method that first parses all the settings, then checks the loaded values ??and finally sets any default values??. However maintenance is difficult if you use this approach: as the number of settings increases while developing the application, it becomes increasingly difficult to update the code. In order to solve this problem, I had thought of using the Template Method pattern, as follows. public abstract class Setting { protected abstract bool TryParseValues(); protected abstract bool CheckValues(); public abstract void SetDefaultValues(); /// <summary> /// Template Method /// </summary> public bool TrySetValuesOrDefault() { if (!TryParseValues() || !CheckValues()) { // parsing error or domain error SetDefaultValues(); return false; } return true; } } public class RangeSetting : Setting { private string minStr, maxStr; private byte min, max; public RangeSetting(string minStr, maxStr) { this.minStr = minStr; this.maxStr = maxStr; } protected override bool TryParseValues() { return (byte.TryParse(minStr, out min) && byte.TryParse(maxStr, out max)); } protected override bool CheckValues() { return (0 < min && min < max); } public override void SetDefaultValues() { min = 5; max = 10; } } The problem is that in this way we need to create a new class for each setting, even for a single value. Are there other solutions to this kind of problem? In summary: Easy maintenance: for example, the addition of one or more parameters. Extensibility: a first version of the application could read a single configuration file, but later versions may give the possibility of a multi-user setup (admin sets up a basic configuration, users can set only certain settings, etc..). Object oriented design.

    Read the article

  • DB Schema for ACL involving 3 subdomains

    - by blacktie24
    Hi, I am trying to design a database schema for a web app which has 3 subdomains: a) internal employees b) clients c) contractors. The users will be able to communicate with each other to some degree, and there may be some resources that overlap between them. Any thoughts about this schema? Really appreciate your time and thoughts on this. Cheers! -- -- Table structure for table locations CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS locations ( id bigint(20) NOT NULL, name varchar(250) NOT NULL ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; -- -- Table structure for table privileges CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS privileges ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, name varchar(255) NOT NULL, resource_id int(11) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=10 ; -- -- Table structure for table resources CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS resources ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, name varchar(255) NOT NULL, user_type enum('internal','client','expert') NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=3 ; -- -- Table structure for table roles CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS roles ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, name varchar(255) NOT NULL, type enum('position','department') NOT NULL, parent_id int(11) DEFAULT NULL, user_type enum('internal','client','expert') NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=3 ; -- -- Table structure for table role_perms CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS role_perms ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, role_id int(11) NOT NULL, privilege_id int(11) NOT NULL, mode varchar(250) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=2 ; -- -- Table structure for table users CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS users ( id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, email varchar(255) NOT NULL, password varchar(255) NOT NULL, salt varchar(255) NOT NULL, type enum('internal','client','expert') NOT NULL, first_name varchar(255) NOT NULL, last_name varchar(255) NOT NULL, location_id int(11) NOT NULL, phone varchar(255) NOT NULL, status enum('active','inactive') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'active', PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=4 ; -- -- Table structure for table user_perms CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS user_perms ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, user_id int(11) NOT NULL, privilege_id int(11) NOT NULL, mode varchar(250) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=2 ; -- -- Table structure for table user_roles CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS user_roles ( id int(11) NOT NULL, user_id int(11) NOT NULL, role_id int(11) NOT NULL ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;

    Read the article

  • Are first-class functions a substitute for the Strategy pattern?

    - by Prog
    The Strategy design pattern is often regarded as a substitute for first-class functions in languages that lack them. So for example say you wanted to pass functionality into an object. In Java you'd have to pass in the object another object which encapsulates the desired behavior. In a language such as Ruby, you'd just pass the functionality itself in the form of an annonymous function. However I was thinking about it and decided that maybe Strategy offers more than a plain annonymous function does. This is because an object can hold state that exists independently of the period when it's method runs. However an annonymous function by itself can only hold state that ceases to exist the moment the function finishes execution. So my question is: when using a language that features first-class functions, would you ever use the Strategy pattern (i.e. encapsulate the functionality you want to pass around in an explicit object), or would you always use an annonymous function? When would you decide to use Strategy when you can use a first-class function?

    Read the article

  • What type of pattern would be used in this case

    - by Admiral Kunkka
    I want to know how to tackle this type of scenario. We are building a person's background, from scratch, and I want to know, conceptually, how to proceed with a secure object pattern in both design and execution... I've been reading on Factory patterns, Model-View-Controller types, Dependency injection, Singleton approaches... and I can't seem to grasp or 'fit' these types of designs decisions into what I'm trying to do.. First and foremost, I started with having a big jack-of-all-trades class, then I read some more, and some tips were to make sure your classes only have a single purpose.. which makes sense and I started breaking down certain things into other classes. Okay, cool. Now I'm looking at dependency injection and kind of didn't really know what's going on. Example/insight of what kind of heirarchy I need to accomplish... class Person needs to access and build from a multitude of different classes. class Culture needs to access a sub-class for culture benefits class Social needs to access class Culture, and other sub-classes class Birth needs to access Social, Culture, and other sub-classes class Childhood/Adolescence/Adulthood need to access everything. Also, depending on different rolls, this class heirarchy needs to create multiple people as well, such as Family, and their backgrounds using some, if not all, of these same classes. Think of it as a people generator, all random, with backgrounds and things that happen to them. Ageing, death of loved ones, military careers, e.t.c. Most of the generation is done randomly, making calls to a mt_rand function to pick from most of the selections inside the classes, guaranteeing the data to be absolutely random. I have most of the bulk-data down, and was looking for some insight from fellow programmers, what do you think?

    Read the article

  • Is wrapping a third party code the only solution to unit test its consumers? [closed]

    - by Songo
    I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Now some people argue that if a library is stable enough and won't change often then there is no need to wrap it. So assuming that Zend_Mail is stable and won't change and it fits my needs entirely, then I won't need a wrapper for it. Now take a look at my class Logger that depends on Zend_Mail: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Now is wrapping Zend_Mail the only solution or is there a better approach to this problem? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

    Read the article

  • Should one use a separate database for application data and user data?

    - by trycatch
    I’ve been working on a project for a little while and I’m unsure which is the better architecture. I’m interested in the consensus. The answer to me seems fairly obvious but something about it is digging at me and I can't pick out what. The TL;DR is: how do you handle a program with application data and user data in the same DB which needs to be able to receive updates to the application data periodically? One database for user data and one for application, or both in one? The detailed version is.. if an application has a database which needs to maintain application data AND user data, and the user data all references application data, it feels more natural to me to store them in the same database. But if there exists a need to be able to update the application data within this database periodically, should this be stripped into two databases so that one can simply download the updated application data database file as an update and replace the old one? Or should they remain as one database, and the application data be updated via a script which inserts the new data into the existing database? The second sounds clearly preferable to me... but for some reason just doesn’t feel right, and I can't pick out quite why.

    Read the article

  • How to implement isValid correctly?

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

    Read the article

  • DB Object passing between classes singleton, static or other?

    - by Stephen
    So I'm designing a reporting system at work it's my first project written OOP and I'm stuck on the design choice for the DB class. Obviously I only want to create one instance of the DB class per-session/user and then pass it to each of the classes that need it. What I don't know it what's best practice for implementing this. Currently I have code like the following:- class db { private $user = 'USER'; private $pass = 'PASS'; private $tables = array( 'user','report', 'etc...'); function __construct(){ //SET UP CONNECTION AND TABLES } }; class report{ function __construct ($params = array(), $db, $user) { //Error checking/handling trimed //$db is the database object we created $this->db = $db; //$this->user is the user object for the logged in user $this->user = $user; $this->reportCreate(); } public function setPermission($permissionId = 1) { //Note the $this->db is this the best practise solution? $this->db->permission->find($permissionId) //Note the $this->user is this the best practise solution? $this->user->checkPermission(1) $data=array(); $this->db->reportpermission->insert($data) } };//end report I've been reading about using static classes and have just come across Singletons (though these appear to be passé already?) so what's current best practice for doing this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >