Search Results

Search found 3321 results on 133 pages for 'patterns'.

Page 19/133 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

• Design for a plugin based application

  - by Varun Naik

  I am working on application, details of which I cannot discuss here. We have core framework and the rest is designed as plug in. In the core framework we have a domain object. This domain object is updated by the plugins. I have defined an interface in which I have function as DomainObject doProcessing(DomainObject object) My intention here is I pass the domain object, the plug in will update it and return it. This updated object is then passed again to different plugin to be updated. I am not sure if this is a good approach. I don't like passing the DomainObject to plugin. Is there a better way I can achieve this? Should I just request data from plugin and update the domain object myself?

  Read the article

• Am I missing a pattern?

  - by Ryan Pedersen

  I have a class that is a singleton and off of the singleton are properties that hold the instances of all the performance counters in my application. public interface IPerformanceCounters { IPerformanceCounter AccountServiceCallRate { get; } IPerformanceCounter AccountServiceCallDuration { get; } Above is an incomplete snippet of the interface for the class "PerformanceCounters" that is the singleton. I really don't like the plural part of the name and thought about changing it to "PerformanceCounterCollection" but stopped because it really isn't a collection. I also thought about "PerformanceCounterFactory" but it is really a factory either. After failing with these two names and a couple more that aren't worth mentioning I thought that I might be missing a pattern. Is there a name that make sense or a change that I could make towards a standardized pattern that would help me put some polish on this object and get rid of the plural name? I understand that I might be splitting hairs here but that is why I thought that the "Programmers" exchange was the place for this kind of thing. If it is not... I am sorry and I will not make that mistake again. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Is it a good practice to wrap all primitives and Strings?

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

  According to Jeff Bay's Essay on Object Callisthenics, One of the practices is set to be "Wrap all primitives and Strings" Can anyone elaborate on this ? In languages where we already have wrappers for primitives like C# and Java. and In languages where Collections can have generics where you are sure of what type goes into the collection, do we need to wrap string's inside their own classes ? Does it have any other advantage ?

  Read the article

• Builder Pattern: When to fail?

  - by skiwi

  When implementing the Builder Pattern, I often find myself confused with when to let building fail and I even manage to take different stands on the matter every few days. First some explanation: With failing early I mean that building an object should fail as soon as an invalid parameter is passed in. So inside the SomeObjectBuilder. With failing late I mean that building an object only can fail on the build() call that implicitely calls a constructor of the object to be built. Then some arguments: In favor of failing late: A builder class should be no more than a class that simply holds values. Moreover, it leads to less code duplication. In favor of failing early: A general approach in software programming is that you want to detect issues as early as possible and therefore the most logical place to check would be in the builder class' constructor, 'setters' and ultimately in the build method. What is the general concensus about this?

  Read the article

• Given the presentation model pattern, is the view, presentation model, or model responsible for adding child views to an existing view at runtime?

  - by Ryan Taylor

  I am building a Flex 4 based application using the presentation model design pattern. This application will have several different components to it as shown in the image below. The MainView and DashboardView will always be visible and they each have corresponding presentation models and models as necessary. These views are easily created by declaring their MXML in the application root. <s:HGroup width="100%" height="100%"> <MainView width="75% height="100%"/> <DashboardView width="25%" height="100%"/> </s:HGroup> There will also be many WidgetViewN views that can be added to the DashboardView by the user at runtime through a simple drop down list. This will need to be accomplished via ActionScript. The drop down list should always show what WidgetViewN has already been added to the DashboardView. Therefore some state about which WidgetViewN's have been created needs to be stored. Since the list of available WidgetViewN and which ones are added to the DashboardView also need to be accessible from other components in the system I think this needs to be stored in a Model object. My understanding of the presentation model design pattern is that the view is very lean. It contains as close to zero logic as is practical. The view communicates/binds to the presentation model which contains all the necessary view logic. The presentation model is effectively an abstract representation of the view which supports low coupling and eases testability. The presentation model may have one or more models injected in in order to display the necessary information. The models themselves contain no view logic whatsoever. So I have a several questions around this design. Who should be responsible for creating the WidgetViewN components and adding these to the DashboardView? Is this the responsibility of the DashboardView, DashboardPresentationModel, DashboardModel or something else entirely? It seems like the DashboardPresentationModel would be responsible for creating/adding/removing any child views from it's display but how do you do this without passing in the DashboardView to the DashboardPresentationModel? The list of available and visible WidgetViewN components needs to be accessible to a few other components as well. Is it okay for a reference to a WidgetViewN to be stored/referenced in a model? Are there any good examples of the presentation model pattern online in Flex that also include creating child views at runtime?

  Read the article

• Is the 'C' in MVC really necessary?

  - by Anne Nonimus

  I understand the role of the model and view in the Model-View-Controller pattern, but I have a hard time understanding why a controller is necessary. Let's assume we're creating a chess program using an MVC approach; the game state should be the model, and the GUI should be the view. What exactly is the controller in this case? Is it just a separate class that has all the functions that will be called when you, say, click on a tile? Why not just perform all the logic on the model in the view itself?

  Read the article

• Is sticking to one language a good practice?

  - by Ans

  I'm developing a pipeline for processing text that will go into production. The question I keep asking myself is: should I stick to one language when looking for a tool to do a particular task (e.g. NLTK, PDFMiner, CLD, CRFsuite, etc.)? Or is it OK to mix and match looking for the best tool regardless of what language it's written in (e.g. OpenNLP, ParsCit, poppler, CFR++, etc.) and warp my code around them?

  Read the article

• Developing a feature which sole purpose to be taken out?

  - by adib

  What is the name of the pattern in which individual contributors (programmers/designers) developed an artifact for the sole purpose is to serve as a diversion so that management can remove that feature in the final product? This is a folklore I heard from an ex-colleague who used to work at a large game development company. At that company, it is well known that middle management is pressurized to "give inputs" and "make changes" to the product otherwise they risk being seen as not contributing to the project. This situation have delayed many projects because of these superfluous "management inputs". In one project at the above company, the artists and developers created a supernumerary animated character that appears in every cutscene and sticks out like a sore thumb. They designed it in such a way that it can be easily removed before the game is shipped (this was when games were still sold in physical media and not a downloadable product). Obviously the management then voted to remove the animation. On the positive side, management didn't introduced any unnecessary changes that would have delayed the project because they have shown that they provided constructive inputs to the product. This process pattern has a name among game programmers that work in corporates, but I forgot what was the actual name. I believe it's duck-something. Anybody can help pointing out the name and perhaps some rather credible reference to how the pattern develops?.

  Read the article

• How to avoid big and clumpsy UITableViewController on iOS?

  - by Johan Karlsson

  I have a problem when implementing the MVC-pattern on iOS. I have searched the Internet but seems not to find any nice solution to this problem. Many UITableViewController implementations seems to be rather big. Most example I have seen lets the UITableViewController implement UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. These implementations are a big reason why UITableViewControlleris getting big. One solution would be to create separate classes that implements UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. Of course these classes would have to have a reference to the UITableViewController. Are there any drawbacks using this solution? In general I think you should delegate the functionality to other "Helper" classes or similar, using the delegate pattern. Are there any well established ways of solving this problem? I do not want the model to contain to much functionality, nor the view. A believe that the logic should really be in the controller class, since this is one of the cornerstones of the MVC-pattern. But the big question is; How should you divide the controller of a MVC-implementation into smaller manageable pieces? (Applies to MVC in iOS in this case) There might be a general pattern for solving this, although I am specifically looking for a solution for iOS. Please give an example of a good pattern for solving this issue. Also an argument why this solution is awesome.

  Read the article

• Manager/Container class vs static class methods

  - by Ben

  Suppose I a have a Widget class that is part of a framework used independently by many applications. I create Widget instances in many situations and their lifetimes vary. In addition to Widget's instance specified methods, I would like to be able to perform the follow class wide operations: Find a single Widget instance based on a unique id Iterate over the list of all Widgets Remove a widget from the set of all widgets In order support these operations, I have been considering two approaches: Container class - Create some container or manager class, WidgetContainer, which holds a list of all Widget instances, support iteration and provides methods for Widget addition, removal and lookup. For example in C#: public class WidgetContainer : IEnumerable<Widget { public void AddWidget(Widget); public Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); } Static class methods - Add static class methods to Widget. For example: public class Widget { public Widget(WidgetId id); public static Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public static void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); public static IEnumerable<Widget AllWidgets(); } Using a container class has the added problem of how to access the container class. Make it a singleton?..yuck! Create some World object that provides access to all such container classes? I have seen many frameworks that use the container class approach, so what is the general consensus?

  Read the article

• When modeling a virtual circuit board, what is the best design pattern to check for cycles?

  - by Wallace Brown

  To make it simple assume you have only AND and OR gates. Each has two inputs and one output. The output of two inputs can be used as an input for the next gate For example: A AND B - E C AND D - F E OR F - G Assuming an arbitrary number of gates, we want to check if the circuit ever connects back into itself at an earlier state? For example: E AND F - A This should be illegal since it creates an endless cycle. What design pattern would best be able to check for these cycles?

  Read the article

• Questions re: Eclipse Jobs API

  - by BenCole

  Similar to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8738160/eclipse-jobs-api-for-a-stand-alone-swing-project This question mentions the Jobs API from the Eclipse IDE: ...The disadvantage of the pre-3.0 approach was that the user had to wait until an operation completed before the UI became responsive again. The UI still provided the user the ability to cancel the currently running operation but no other work could be done until the operation completed. Some operations were performed in the background (resource decoration and JDT file indexing are two such examples) but these operations were restricted in the sense that they could not modify the workspace. If a background operation did try to modify the workspace, the UI thread would be blocked if the user explicitly performed an operation that modified the workspace and, even worse, the user would not be able to cancel the operation. A further complication with concurrency was that the interaction between the independent locking mechanisms of different plug-ins often resulted in deadlock situations. Because of the independent nature of the locks, there was no way for Eclipse to recover from the deadlock, which forced users to kill the application... ...The functionality provided by the workspace locking mechanism can be broken down into the following three aspects: Resource locking to ensure multiple operations did not concurrently modify the same resource Resource change batching to ensure UI stability during an operation Identification of an appropriate time to perform incremental building With the introduction of the Jobs API, these areas have been divided into separate mechanisms and a few additional facilities have been added. The following list summarizes the facilities added. Job class: support for performing operations or other work in the background. ISchedulingRule interface: support for determining which jobs can run concurrently. WorkspaceJob and two IWorkspace#run() methods: support for batching of delta change notifications. Background auto-build: running of incremental build at a time when no other running operations are affecting resources. ILock interface: support for deadlock detection and recovery. Job properties for configuring user feedback for jobs run in the background. The rest of this article provides examples of how to use the above-mentioned facilities... In regards to above API, is this an implementation of a particular design pattern? Which one?

  Read the article

• The use of Test-Driven Development in Non-Greenfield Projects?

  - by JHarley1

  So here is a question for you, having read some great answers to questions such as "Test-Driven Development - Convince Me". So my question is: "Can Test-Driven Development be used effectively on non-Greenfield projects?" To specify: I would really like to know if people have had experience in using TDD in projects where there was already non-TDD elements present? And the problems that they then faced.

  Read the article

• How do I overcome paralysis by analysis when coding?

  - by LuxuryMode

  When I start a new project, I often times immediately start thinking about the details of implementation. "Where am I gonna put the DataBaseHandler? How should I use it? Should classes that want to use it extend from some Abstract superclass..? Should I an interface? What level of abstraction am I going to use in my class that contains methods for sending requests and parsing data?" I end up stalling for a long time because I want to code for extensibility and reusability. But I feel it almost impossible to get past thinking about how to implement perfectly. And then, if I try to just say "screw it, just get it done!", I hit a brick wall pretty quickly because my code isn't organized, I mixed levels of abstractions, etc. What are some techniques/methods you have for launching into a new project while also setting up a logical/modular structure that will scale well?

  Read the article

• .NET - refactoring code

  - by w0051977

  I have inherited and now further develop a large application consisting of an ASP.NET application, VB6 and VB.NET application. The software was poorly written. I am trying to refactor the code as I go along. The changes I am making are not live (they are contained in a folder on my development machine). This is proving to be time consuming and I am doing this along side other work which is the prioritiy. My question is: is this a practical approach or is there a better methodology for refactoring code? I don't have any experience with version control software or source control software and I am wandering if this is what I am missing. I am a sole developer.

  Read the article

• Email Content creation | Proper design

  - by Umesh Awasthi

  Working on an E commerce application where we need to send so many email to customer like Registration email Forget Password Order placed There are many other emails that can be sent, I already have emailService in place which is responsible for sending email and It needs an Email object, Everything is working find, but I am struck at one point and not sure how best this can be done. We need to create content so as it can be passed to emailService and not sure how to design this. For example, in Customer registration, I have a customerFacade which is working between Controller and ServiceLayer, I just want to delegate this Email Content creation work away from Facade layer and to make it more flexible. Currently I am creating Registration email content inside customerFacade and some how I am not liking this way, since that means for each email, I need to create content in respective Facade. What is best way to go or current approach is fine enough?

  Read the article

• Looking for some OO design advice

  - by Andrew Stephens

  I'm developing an app that will be used to open and close valves in an industrial environment, and was thinking of something simple like this:- public static void ValveController { public static void OpenValve(string valveName) { // Implementation to open the valve } public static void CloseValve(string valveName) { // Implementation to close the valve } } (The implementation would write a few bytes of data to the serial port to control the valve - an "address" derived from the valve name, and either a "1" or "0" to open or close the valve). Another dev asked whether we should instead create a separate class for each physical valve, of which there are dozens. I agree it would be nicer to write code like PlasmaValve.Open() rather than ValveController.OpenValve("plasma"), but is this overkill? Also, I was wondering how best to tackle the design with a couple of hypothetical future requirements in mind:- We are asked to support a new type of valve requiring different values to open and close it (not 0 and 1). We are asked to support a valve that can be set to any position from 0-100, rather than simply "open" or "closed". Normally I would use inheritance for this kind of thing, but I've recently started to get my head around "composition over inheritance" and wonder if there is a slicker solution to be had using composition?

  Read the article

• What is the rationale behind Apache Jena's *everything is an interface if possible* design philosophy?

  - by David Cowden

  If you are familiar with the Java RDF and OWL engine Jena, then you have run across their philosophy that everything should be specified as an interface when possible. This means that a Resource, Statement, RDFNode, Property, and even the RDF Model, etc., are, contrary to what you might first think, Interfaces instead of concrete classes. This leads to the use of Factories quite often. Since you can't instantiate a Property or Model, you must have something else do it for you --the Factory design pattern. My question, then, is, what is the reasoning behind using this pattern as opposed to a traditional class hierarchy system? It is often perfectly viable to use either one. For example, if I want a memory backed Model instead of a database-backed Model I could just instantiate those classes, I don't need ask a Factory to give me one. As an aside, I'm in the process of writing a library for manipulating Pearltrees data, which is exported from their website in the form of an RDF/XML document. As I write this library, I have many options for defining the relationships present in the Peartrees data. What is nice about the Pearltrees data is that it has a very logical class system: A tree is made up of pearls, which can be either Page, Reference, Alias, or Root pearls. My question comes from trying to figure out if I should adopt the Jena philosophy in my library which uses Jena, or if I should disregard it, pick my own design philosophy, and stick with it.

  Read the article

• How does an Engine like Source process entities?

  - by Júlio Souza

  [background information] On the Source engine (and it's antecessor, goldsrc, quake's) the game objects are divided on two types, world and entities. The world is the map geometry and the entities are players, particles, sounds, scores, etc (for the Source Engine). Every entity has a think function, which do all the logic for that entity. So, if everything that needs to be processed comes from a base class with the think function, the game engine could store everything on a list and, on every frame, loop through it and call that function. On a first look, this idea is reasonable, but it can take too much resources, if the game has a lot of entities.. [end of background information] So, how does a engine like Source take care (process, update, draw, etc) of the game objects?

  Read the article

• Should I add parameters to instance methods that use those instance fields as parameters?

  - by john smith optional

  I have an instance method that uses instance fields in its work. I can leave the method without that parameters as they're available to me, or I can add them to the parameter list, thus making my method more "generic" and not reliable on the class. On the other hand, additional parameters will be in parameters list. Which approach is preferable and why? Edit: at the moment I don't know if my method will be public or private. Edit2: clarification: both method and fields are instance level.

  Read the article

• Is it appropriate for a class to only be a collection of information with no logic?

  - by qegal

  Say I have a class Person that has instance variables age, weight, and height, and another class Fruit that has instance variables sugarContent and texture. The Person class has no methods save setters and getters, while the Fruit class has both setters and getters and logic methods like calculateSweetness. Is the Fruit class the type of class that is better practice than the Person class. What I mean by this is that the Person class seems like it doesn't have much purpose; it exists solely to organize data, while the Fruit class organizes data and actually contains methods for logic.

  Read the article

• Implementing game rules in a tactical battle board game

  - by Setzer22

  I'm trying to create a game similar to what one would find in a typical D&D board game combat. For mor examples you could think of games like Advance Wars, Fire Emblem or Disgaea. I should say that I'm using design by component so far, but I can't find a nice way to fit components into the part I want to ask. I'm struggling right now with the "game rules" logic. That is, the code that displays the menu, allows the player to select units, and command them, then tells the unit game objects what to do given the player input. The best way I could thing of handling this was using a big state machine, so everything that could be done in a "turn" is handled by this state machine, and the update code of this state machine does different things depending on the state. This approach, though, leads to a large amount of code (anything not model-related) to go into a big class. Of course I can subdivide this big class into more classes, but it doesn't feel modular and upgradable enough. I'd like to know of better systems to handle this in order to be able to upgrade the game with new rules without having a monstruous if/else chain (or switch / case, for that matter). So, any ideas? I'd also like to ask that if you recommend me a specific design pattern to also provide some kind of example or further explanation and not stick to "Yeah you should use MVC and it'll work".

  Read the article

• Code maintenance: keeping a bad pattern when extending new code for being consistent or not ?

  - by Guillaume

  I have to extend an existing module of a project. I don't like the way it has been done (lots of anti-pattern involved, like copy/pasted code). I don't want to perform a complete refactor. Should I: create new methods using existing convention, even if I feel it wrong, to avoid confusion for the next maintainer and being consistent with the code base? or try to use what I feel better even if it is introducing another pattern in the code ? Precison edited after first answers: The existing code is not a mess. It is easy to follow and understand. BUT it is introducing lots of boilerplate code that can be avoided with good design (resulting code might become harder to follow then). In my current case it's a good old JDBC (spring template inboard) DAO module, but I have already encounter this dilemma and I'm seeking for other dev feedback. I don't want to refactor because I don't have time. And even with time it will be hard to justify that a whole perfectly working module needs refactoring. Refactoring cost will be heavier than its benefits. Remember: code is not messy or over-complex. I can not extract few methods there and introduce an abstract class here. It is more a flaw in the design (result of extreme 'Keep It Stupid Simple' I think) So the question can also be asked like that: You, as developer, do you prefer to maintain easy stupid boring code OR to have some helpers that will do the stupid boring code at your place ? Downside of the last possibility being that you'll have to learn some stuff and maybe you will have to maintain the easy stupid boring code too until a full refactoring is done)

  Read the article

• Caching strategies for entities and collections

  - by Rob West

  We currently have an application framework in which we automatically cache both entities and collections of entities at the business layer (using .NET cache). So the method GetWidget(int id) checks the cache using a key GetWidget_Id_{0} before hitting the database, and the method GetWidgetsByStatusId(int statusId) checks the cache using GetWidgets_Collections_ByStatusId_{0}. If the objects are not in the cache they are retrieved from the database and added to the cache. This approach is obviously quick for read scenarios, and as a blanket approach is quick for us to implement, but requires large numbers of cache keys to be purged when CRUD operations are carried out on entities. Obviously as additional methods are added this impacts performance and the benefits of caching diminish. I'm interested in alternative approaches to handling caching of collections. I know that NHibernate caches a list of the identifiers in the collection rather than the actual entities. Is this an approach other people have tried - what are the pros and cons? In particular I am looking for options that optimise performance and can be implemented automatically through boilerplate generated code (we have our own code generation tool). I know some people will say that caching needs to be done by hand each time to meet the needs of the specific situation but I am looking for something that will get us most of the way automatically.

  Read the article

• Architecture of interaction modes ("paint tools") for a 3D paint program

  - by Bernhard Kausler

  We are developing a Qt-based application to navigate through and paint on a volume treated as a 3D pixel graphic. The layout of the app consists of three orthogonal slice views on which the user may paint stuff like dots, circles etc. and also erase already painted pixels. Think of a 3D Gimp or MS Paint. How would you design the the architecture for the different interaction modes (i.e. paint tools)? My idea is: use the MVC pattern have a separate controler for every interaction mode install an event filter on all three slice views to collect all incoming user interaction events (mouse, keyboard) redirect the events to the currently active interaction controler I would appreciate critical comments on that idea.

  Read the article

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