Search Results

Search found 40386 results on 1616 pages for 'object design'.

Page 19/1616 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • What kind of programs/solutions can only be written with OOP or are too hard to achieve without it?

    - by user1598390
    Paraphrasing a recent question: What is Object Oriented Programming ill-suited for? I would like to ask the opposite question: What kind of programs cannot be written unless you use OOP? What kind of programs are not recommended to be written using non-OOP techniques? What kind of programs need OOP in order to even be written? What kind of programs would be too hard to write without OOP ? The answer to this question can help sell the idea of OOP to project leaders that have no special interest in code quality. At least they could buy the idea if one shows them the kind of things that are not even possible unless you use OOP.

    Read the article

  • Interface hierarchy design for separate domains

    - by jerzi
    There are businesses and people. People could be liked and businesses could be commented on: class Like class Comment class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget Likes and comments are performed by a user(person) so they are authored: class Like implements iAuthored class Comment implements iAuthored People's like could also be used in their history: class history class Like implements iAuthored, iHistoryTarget Now, a smart developer comes and says each history is attached to a user so history should be authored: interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored so it could be removed from class Like: class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget class Like implements iHistoryTarget class Comment implements iAuthored class history interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored Here, another smart guy comes with a question: How could I capture the Authored fact in Like and Comment classes? He may knows nothing about history concept in the project. By scalling these kind of functionallities, interfaces may goes to their encapsulated types which cause more type strength, on the other hand explicitness suffered and also code end users will face much pain to process. So here is the question: Should I encapsulate those dependant types to their parent types (interface hierarchies) or not or explicitly repeat each type for every single level of my type system or ...?

    Read the article

  • MVC Design Pattern to Combine Multiple Models for use

    - by roverred
    In my design, I have multiple models and each model has a controller. I need to use all the models to process some operation. Most examples I see are pretty simple with 1 view, 1 controller, and 1 model. How would you get all these models together? Only ways I can think of are 1) Have a top-level controller which has a reference to every controller. Those controllers will have a getter/setter function for their model. Does this violate MVC because every controller should have a model? 2) Have an Intermediate class to combine every model into a one model. Then you create a controller for that new super model. Do you know of any better ideas? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • design for interruptable operations

    - by tpaksu
    I couldn't find a better topic but here it is; 1) When user clicks a button, code starts t work, 2) When another button is clicked, it would stop doing whatever it does and start to run the second button's code, 3) Or with not user interaction, an electrical power down detected from a connected device, so our software would cancel the current event and start doing the power down procedure. How is this design mostly applied to code? I mean "stop what you are doing" part? If you would say events, event handlers etc. how do you bind a condition to the event? and how do you tell the program without using laddered if's to end it's process? method1(); if (powerdown) return; method2(); if (powerdown) return; etc.

    Read the article

  • Business Layer Design in J2EE Project

    - by user63157
    Currently the project on which I am working is being developed with Spring, Hibernate and struts. The business layer consists of simple java beans with no behavior in them only properties and getter and setter methods, the services are written on them which operates on them and call DAO layer methods and all. My questions is that is it object oriented way of designing or simply the procedure way in which the data and the functions on which they operate are not together. Please provide your thoughts and inputs on how the business logic is design and implemented in j2ee application, is the domain model contains business methods or are they simply dumb objects which have only data and services written on to them.

    Read the article

  • Any tips/tricks/resources on actually TEACHING a class on OOP? [closed]

    - by Sempus
    I may slowly be getting into teaching an Object-Orientated Programming class at my school in a year or two. I just graduated and work at my school as an Application Programmer. I'd first start off as a TA/grader and then slowly move into the Professor role. The class would be in Java. I always see resources on this fine site about HOW to program, but does anyone know any tips/tricks/resources on how to TEACH a programming class? It would be full of all different skills levels(but still semi-technical) so it would have to be a little more understandable than if it was just CS kids.

    Read the article

  • Cleanest RESTful design for purely "action" calls?

    - by Josh Handel
    Hello all, I am sticking my toe in the RESTful waters and I just can't find a "satisfactory" solution to how to handle truely "action" oriented calls on a RESTful service? My quandry can be broken down into two parts. 1) Transactional calls: I understand the idea of having an ActionTransactor that you get a resource too with a post, update the parameters and then commit with a PUT (as described all over the place and in the Orilly RESTful Web services book).. But I struggle with the idea of keeping URLs with states present for ever.. If we really honestly don't need to keep a transaction for ever can we kill the resource URI? do URIs need to be perminate or can they be transiant URIs that expire 2) Non transactional calls: these might be calls to perform some workflow that spans multiple resources but having a resource just doesn't make since.. An example might be to re-generating some calculated ans cached value like a large aggreget or re-indexing blog or some such "purely" action. Anyways, I'm curious about the communities thoughts on this... Thus far, I've read that Overloading Post is the cleanest way to handle part 2.. But there is an equal amount of argument against that approach as well. And (to me) its not self documenting which I though was one of the key design goals of RESTful APIs.

    Read the article

  • Design considerations for temporarily transforming a player into an animal in a role playing game

    - by mikedev
    I am working on a role playing game for fun and to practice design patterns. I would like players to be able to transform themselves into different animals. For example, a Druid might be able to shape shift into a cheetah. Right now I'm planning on using the decorator pattern to do this but my question is - how do I make it so that when a druid is in the cheetah form, they can only access skills for the cheetah? In other words, they should not be able to access their normal Druid skills. Using the decorator pattern it appears that even in the cheetah form my druid will be able to access their normal druid skills. class Druid : Character { // many cool druid skills and spells void LightHeal(Character target) { } } abstract class CharacterDecorator : Character { Character DecoratedCharacter; } class CheetahForm : CharacterDecorator { Character DecoratedCharacter; public CheetahForm(Character decoratedCharacter) { DecoratedCharacter= decoratedCharacter; } // many cool cheetah related skills void CheetahRun() { // let player move very fast } } now using the classes Druid myDruid = new Druid(); myDruid.LightHeal(myDruid); // casting light heal here is fine myDruid = new CheetahForm(myDruid); myDruid.LightHeal(myDruid); // casting here should not be allowed Hmmmm...now that I think about it, will myDruid be unable to us the Druid class spells/skills unless the class is down-casted? But even if that's the case, is there a better way to ensure that myDruid at this point is locked out from all Druid related spells/skills until it is cast back to a Druid (since currently it's in CheetahForm)

    Read the article

  • What is the best software design to use in this scenario

    - by domdefelice
    I need to generate HTML snippets using jQuery. The creation of those snippets depends on some data. The data is stored server-side, in session (where PHP is used). At the moment I achieved this - retrieving the data from the server via AJAX in form of JSON - and building the snippets via specific javascript functions that read those data The problem is that the complexity of the data is getting bigger and hence the serialization into JSON is getting even more difficult since I can't do it automatically. I can't do it automatically because some information are sensible so I generate a "stripped" version to send to the client. I know it is difficult to understand without any code to read, but I am hoping this is a common scenario and would be glad for any tip, suggestion or even design-pattern you can give me. Should I store both a complete and a stripped data on the server and then use some library to automatically generate the JSON from the stripped data? But this also means I have to get the two data synchronized. Or maybe I could move the logic server-side, this way avoiding sending the data. But this means sending javascript code (since I rely on jQuery). Maybe not a good idea. Feel free to ask me more details if this is not clear. Thank you for any help

    Read the article

  • Implementation/interface inheritance design question.

    - by Neil G
    I would like to get the stackoverflow community's opinion on the following three design patterns. The first is implementation inheritance; the second is interface inheritance; the third is a middle ground. My specific question is: Which is best? implementation inheritance: class Base { X x() const = 0; void UpdateX(A a) { y_ = g(a); } Y y_; } class Derived: Base { X x() const { return f(y_); } } interface inheritance: class Base { X x() const = 0; void UpdateX(A a) = 0; } class Derived: Base { X x() const { return x_; } void UpdateX(A a) { x_ = f(g(a)); } X x_; } middle ground: class Base { X x() const { return x_; } void UpdateX(A a) = 0; X x_; } class Derived: Base { void UpdateX(A a) { x_ = f(g(a)); } } I know that many people prefer interface inheritance to implementation inheritance. However, the advantage of the latter is that with a pointer to Base, x() can be inlined and the address of x_ can be statically calculated.

    Read the article

  • Social Media Java Design Problem

    - by jboyd
    I need to put something together quickly that will take blog posts and place them on social media sites, the requirements are as follows: Blog Entries are independent records that already exist, they have a published date and a modified date, the blog entry application cannot be changed, at least not substantially A new blog entry, or update needs to be sent to social media sites I currently do not need to update or delete social media communications if the blog entry is edited, or deleted, though I may need to later My design problems here are as follows: how do I know the status of each update how can I figure out what blog entry updates and postings have already been sent out? how can I quickly poll the blog entry table for postings that haven't yet been sent out? Avoiding looking at each Entry record from the DB as an object and asking if it's been sent already. That would be too slow. I cannot hook into any Blog Entry update code, my only option would be to create a trigger that an update queues something to be processed I'm looking for general guiding principles here, the biggest problem I'm having is coming up with any reasonable way to figure out if a blog entry should be sent to our social media sites in the first place

    Read the article

  • Abstract Design Pattern implementation

    - by Pathachiever11
    I started learning design patterns a while ago (only covered facade and abstract so far, but am enjoying it). I'm looking to apply the Abstract pattern to a problem I have. The problem is: Supporting various Database systems using one abstract class and a set of methods and properties, which then the underlying concrete classes (inheriting from abstract class) would be implementing. I have created a DatabaseWrapper abstract class and have create SqlClientData and MSAccessData concrete class that inherit from the DatabaseWrapper. However, I'm still a bit confused about how the pattern goes as far as implementing these classes on the Client. Would I do the following?: DatabaseWrapper sqlClient = new SqlClientData(connectionString); This is what I saw in an example, but that is not what I'm looking for because I want to encapsulate the concrete classes; I only want the Client to use the abstract class. This is so I can support for more database systems in the future with minimal changes to the Client, and creating a new concrete class for the implementations. I'm still learning, so there might be a lot of things wrong here. Please tell me how I can encapsulate all the concrete classes, and if there is anything wrong with my approach. Many Thanks! PS: I'm very excited to get into software architecture, but still am a beginner, so take it easy on me. :)

    Read the article

  • A better alternative to incompatible implementations for the same interface?

    - by glenatron
    I am working on a piece of code which performs a set task in several parallel environments where the behaviour of the different components in the task are similar but quite different. This means that my implementations are quite different but they are all based on the relationships between the same interfaces, something like this: IDataReader -> ContinuousDataReader -> ChunkedDataReader IDataProcessor -> ContinuousDataProcessor -> ChunkedDataProcessor IDataWriter -> ContinuousDataWriter -> ChunkedDataWriter So that in either environment we have an IDataReader, IDataProcessor and IDataWriter and then we can use Dependency Injection to ensure that we have the correct one of each for the current environment, so if we are working with data in chunks we use the ChunkedDataReader, ChunkedDataProcessor and ChunkedDataWriter and if we have continuous data we have the continuous versions. However the behaviour of these classes is quite different internally and one could certainly not go from a ContinuousDataReader to the ChunkedDataReader even though they are both IDataProcessors. This feels to me as though it is incorrect ( possibly an LSP violation? ) and certainly not a theoretically correct way of working. It is almost as though the "real" interface here is the combination of all three classes. Unfortunately in the project I am working on with the deadlines we are working to, we're pretty much stuck with this design, but if we had a little more elbow room, what would be a better design approach in this kind of scenario?

    Read the article

  • A few questions about how JavaScript works

    - by KayoticSully
    I originally posted on Stack Overflow and was told I might get some better answers here. I have been looking deeply into JavaScript lately to fully understand the language and have a few nagging questions that I can not seem to find answers to (Specifically dealing with Object Oriented programming. I know JavaScript is meant to be used in an OOP manner I just want to understand it for the sake of completeness). Assuming the following code: function TestObject() { this.fA = function() { // do stuff } this.fB = testB; function testB() { // do stuff } } TestObject.prototype = { fC : function { // do stuff } } What is the difference between functions fA and fB? Do they behave exactly the same in scope and potential ability? Is it just convention or is one way technically better or proper? If there is only ever going to be one instance of an object at any given time, would adding a function to the prototype such as fC even be worthwhile? Is there any benefit to doing so? Is the prototype only really useful when dealing with many instances of an object or inheritance? And what is technically the "proper" way to add methods to the prototype the way I have above or calling TestObject.prototype.functionName = function(){} every time? I am looking to keep my JavaScript code as clean and readable as possible but am also very interested in what the proper conventions for Objects are in the language. I come from a Java and PHP background and am trying to not make any assumptions about how JavaScript works since I know it is very different being prototype based. Also are there any definitive JavaScript style guides or documentation about how JavaScript operates at a low level? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How would you model an objects representing different phases of an entity life cycle?

    - by Ophir Yoktan
    I believe the scenario is common mostly in business workflows - for example: loan management the process starts with a loan application, then there's the loan offer, the 'live' loan, and maybe also finished loans. all these objects are related, and share many fields all these objects have also many fields that are unique for each entity the variety of objects maybe large, and the transformation between the may not be linear (for example: a single loan application may end up as several loans of different types) How would you model this? some options: an entity for each type, each containing the relevant fields (possibly grouping related fields as sub entities) - leads to duplication of data. an entity for each object, but instead of duplicating data, each object has a reference to it's predecessor (the loan doesn't contain the loaner details, but a reference to the loan application) - this causes coupling between the object structure, and the way it was created. if we change the loan application, it shouldn't effect the structure of the loan entity. one large entity, with fields for the whole life cycle - this can create 'mega objects' with many fields. it also doesn't work well when there's a one to many or many to many relation between the phases.

    Read the article

  • Software design for non object oriented paradigm

    - by Dean
    I'm currently working on a project where I'm writing the firmware for an electronic system in C, and have been asked to produce documentation on the development/evolution of the software for the embedded devices. Having developed software in the object oriented paradigm I know to use UML to document the software such as class diagrams with objects, however this does not work for documenting the development of my embedded system. So what should I produce to document the development of my firmware?

    Read the article

  • Add properties to stdClass object from another object

    - by Florin
    I would like to be able to do the following: $obj = new stdClass; $obj->status = "success"; $obj2 = new stdClass; $obj2->message = "OK"; How can I extend $obj so that it contains the properties of $obj2, eg: $obj->status //"success" $obj->message // "OK" I know I could use an array, add all properties to the array and then cast that back to object, but is there a more elegant way, something like this: extend($obj, $obj2); //adds all properties from $obj2 to $obj Thanks!

    Read the article

  • how to avoid returning mocks from a mocked object list

    - by koen
    I'm trying out mock/responsibility driven design. I seem to have problems to avoid returning mocks from mocks in the case of finder objects. An example could be an object that checks whether the bills from last month are paid. It needs a service that retrieves a list of bills for that. So I need to mock that service that retrieves the bills. At the same time I need that mock to return mocked Bills (since I don't want my test to rely on the correctness bill implementation). Is my design flawed? Is there a better way to test this? Or is this the way it will need to be when using finder objects (the finding of the bills in this case)?

    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

  • Objective-c design advice for use of different data sources, swapping between test and live

    - by user200341
    I'm in the process of designing an application that is part of a larger piece of work, depending on other people to build an API that the app can make use of to retrieve data. While I was thinking about how to setup this project and design the architecture around it, something occurred to me, and I'm sure many people have been in similar situations. Since my work is depending on other people to complete their tasks, and a test server, this slows work down at my end. So the question is: What's the best practice for creating test repositories and classes, implementing them, and not having to depend on altering several places in the code to swap between the test classes and the actual repositories / proper api calls. Contemplate the following scenario: GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [[GetDataFromApiCommand alloc]init]; getDataCommand.delegate = self; [getDataCommand getData]; Once the data is available via the API, "GetDataFromApiCommand" could use the actual API, but until then a set of mock data could be returned upon the call of [getDataCommand getData] There might be multiple instances of this, in various places in the code, so replacing all of them wherever they are, is a slow and painful process which inevitably leads to one or two being overlooked. In strongly typed languages we could use dependency injection and just alter one place. In objective-c a factory pattern could be implemented, but is that the best route to go for this? GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [GetDataFromApiCommandFactory buildGetDataFromApiCommand]; getDataCommand.delegate = self; [getDataCommand getData]; What is the best practices to achieve this result? Since this would be most useful, even if you have the actual API available, to run tests, or work off-line, the ApiCommands would not necessarily have to be replaced permanently, but the option to select "Do I want to use TestApiCommand or ApiCommand". It is more interesting to have the option to switch between: All commands are test and All command use the live API, rather than selecting them one by one, however that would also be useful to do for testing one or two actual API commands, mixing them with test data. EDIT The way I have chosen to go with this is to use the factory pattern. I set up the factory as follows: @implementation ApiCommandFactory + (ApiCommand *)newApiCommand { // return [[ApiCommand alloc]init]; return [[ApiCommandMock alloc]init]; } @end And anywhere I want to use the ApiCommand class: GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [ApiCommandFactory newApiCommand]; When the actual API call is required, the comments can be removed and the mock can be commented out. Using new in the message name implies that who ever uses the factory to get an object, is responsible for releasing it (since we want to avoid autorelease on the iPhone). If additional parameters are required, the factory needs to take these into consideration i.e: [ApiCommandFactory newSecondApiCommand:@"param1"]; This will work quite well with repositories as well.

    Read the article

  • C# MultiThread Safe Class Design

    - by Robert
    I'm trying to designing a class and I'm having issues with accessing some of the nested fields and I have some concerns with how multithread safe the whole design is. I would like to know if anyone has a better idea of how this should be designed or if any changes that should be made? using System; using System.Collections; namespace SystemClass { public class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { System system = new System(); //Seems like an awkward way to access all the members dynamic deviceInstance = (((DeviceType)((DeviceGroup)system.deviceGroups[0]).deviceTypes[0]).deviceInstances[0]); Boolean checkLocked = deviceInstance.locked; //Seems like this method for accessing fields might have problems with multithreading foreach (DeviceGroup dg in system.deviceGroups) { foreach (DeviceType dt in dg.deviceTypes) { foreach (dynamic di in dt.deviceInstances) { checkLocked = di.locked; } } } } } public class System { public ArrayList deviceGroups = new ArrayList(); public System() { //API called to get names of all the DeviceGroups deviceGroups.Add(new DeviceGroup("Motherboard")); } } public class DeviceGroup { public ArrayList deviceTypes = new ArrayList(); public DeviceGroup() {} public DeviceGroup(string deviceGroupName) { //API called to get names of all the Devicetypes deviceTypes.Add(new DeviceType("Keyboard")); deviceTypes.Add(new DeviceType("Mouse")); } } public class DeviceType { public ArrayList deviceInstances = new ArrayList(); public bool deviceConnected; public DeviceType() {} public DeviceType(string DeviceType) { //API called to get hardwareIDs of all the device instances deviceInstances.Add(new Mouse("0001")); deviceInstances.Add(new Keyboard("0003")); deviceInstances.Add(new Keyboard("0004")); //Start thread CheckConnection that updates deviceConnected periodically } public void CheckConnection() { //API call to check connection and returns true this.deviceConnected = true; } } public class Keyboard { public string hardwareAddress; public bool keypress; public bool deviceConnected; public Keyboard() {} public Keyboard(string hardwareAddress) { this.hardwareAddress = hardwareAddress; //Start thread to update deviceConnected periodically } public void CheckKeyPress() { //if API returns true this.keypress = true; } } public class Mouse { public string hardwareAddress; public bool click; public Mouse() {} public Mouse(string hardwareAddress) { this.hardwareAddress = hardwareAddress; } public void CheckClick() { //if API returns true this.click = true; } } }

    Read the article

  • Sending object C from class A to class B

    - by user278618
    Hi, I can't figure out how to design classes in my system. In classA I create object selenium (it simulates user actions at website). In this ClassA I create another objects like SearchScreen, Payment_Screen and Summary_Screen. # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- from selenium import selenium import unittest, time, re class OurSiteTestCases(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.verificationErrors = [] self.selenium = selenium("localhost", 5555, "*chrome", "http://www.someaddress.com/") time.sleep(5) self.selenium.start() def test_buy_coffee(self): sel = self.selenium sel.open('/') sel.window_maximize() search_screen=SearchScreen(self.selenium) search_screen.choose('lavazza') payment_screen=PaymentScreen(self.selenium) payment_screen.fill_test_data() summary_screen=SummaryScreen(selenium) summary_screen.accept() def tearDown(self): self.selenium.stop() self.assertEqual([], self.verificationErrors) if __name__ == "__main__": unittest.main() It's example SearchScreen module: class SearchScreen: def __init__(self,selenium): self.selenium=selenium def search(self): self.selenium.click('css=button.search') I want to know if there is anything ok with a design of those classes?

    Read the article

  • Using design-patterns to transform web-service model classes into local model classes and vise versa

    - by Daniil Petrov
    There is a web-application built with play framework 1.2.7. It contains less than 10 model classes. The main purpose of the application is a lightweight access to a complex remote application (more than 50 model classes). The remote application has its own SOAP API and we use it for synchronization of data. There is a scheduled job in the web-app which makes requests to the remote app. It gets bunches of objects from the remote model and populates corresponding objects of the local model. Currently, there are two groups of classes - the local model and the remote model (generated from wsdl schema). It is not allowed to make any modifications to the remote model. Transformations are being made in the scheduled job class. When it gets objects from the remote app it creates local objects. Recently, it was decided to add a possibility to modify the remote objects. It requires more transformations on our side. We need to transform from remote to local model when reading objects and from local to remote when changing objects. I wonder if this would be possible to use some design-patterns to reduce a number of transformations?

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for window management in a Java Swing app

    - by Lord Torgamus
    I've just started creating my very first little Java Swing app. When the program opens, it brings up a single, simple window with a label and a couple buttons. Clicking one of those buttons is supposed to wipe out the welcome screen and replace it with a totally different panel. I'm not sure what the best way to create that functionality is. One method would be to pass my JFrame as an argument into... just about every other component, but that feels hacky to me. Or, there's making each panel double as an action listener, but that doesn't seem right, either. Is there a design pattern I should be applying here? "Replace the contents of the main — and only — window" must be a reasonably common operation. A name for the pattern would be enough; I can use Google on my own from there. (I wouldn't say no to a longer explanation, though.)

    Read the article

  • Android threads trouble wrapping my head around design

    - by semajhan
    I am having trouble wrapping my head around game design. On the android platform, I have an activity and set its content view with a custom surface view. The custom surface view acts as my panel and I create instances of all classes and do all the drawing and calculation in there. Question: Should I instead create the instances of other classes in my activity? Now I create a custom thread class that handles the game loop. Question: How do I use this one class in all my activities? Or do I have to create a separate instance of the extended thread class each time? In my previous game, I had multiple levels that had to create an instance of the thread class and in the thread class I had to set constructor methods for each separate level and in the loop use a switch statement to check which level it needs to render and update. Sorry if that sounds confusing. I just want to know if the method I am using is inefficient (which it probably is) and how to go about designing it the correct way. I have read many tutorials out there and I am still having lots of trouble with this particular topic. Maybe a link to a some tutorials that explain this? Thanks.

    Read the article

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