Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 190/610 | < Previous Page | 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197  | Next Page >

  • Is this physical collection class that contains only static methods an Anti-Pattern?

    - by Tj Kellie
    I'm trying to figure out if I should continue on with a current pattern in an application I'm working in, or refactor this into something else. I have a set of collection classes off a generic base of List. These classes have public constructors but contain only static methods that return collections. They look like this: public class UserObjCollection : BaseCollection<UserObj> { public static UserObjCollection GetAllUserObj() { UserObjCollection obj = new UserObjCollection(); obj.MapObjects(new UserObjDataService().GetAllUserObj()); return obj; } } Is this a Pattern or Anti-Pattern and what are the merits of this over a straight factory pattern?

    Read the article

  • Implementing the procducer-consumer pattern with .NET 4.0

    - by bitbonk
    With alle the new paralell programming features in .NET 4.0, what would be a a simple and fast way to implement the producer-consumer pattern (where at least one thread is producing/enqueuing task items and another thread executes/dequeues these tasks). Can we benfit from all these new APIs? What is your preferred implementation of this pattern?

    Read the article

  • What should go in each MVVM triad?

    - by Harry
    OK, let's say I am creating a program that will list users contacts in a ListBox on the left side of the screen. When a user clicks on the contact, a bunch of messages or whatever appears in the main part of the window. Now my question is: how should the MVVM triads look? I have two models: Contact, and Message. The Contact model contains a list of Message models. Each ViewModel object will contain a single corresponding Model, right? And what about the Views? I have a "MainView" that is the main window, that will have things like the menu, toolbar etc. Do I put the ListBox in the MainView? My confusion is with what to put where; for example, what should the ContactView contain? Just a single instance of a contact? So the DataTemplate, ControlTemplate, context menus, styles etc for that single contact, and then just have a ListBox of them in the MainView...? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Converting ASP.NET MVC to n-Tiered Architecture

    - by Jeff
    I just built an application using ASP.NET MVC. The programmers at my company want to build all future modules using n-Tiered (Presentation Layer, Business Logic Layer, Data Access Layer) architecture. I am not the programmer and need to know why this makes sense? Do I have to completely rewrite the entire code or can it be converted? We are building an HRIS system with Business Intelligence. Somebody please explain why or why not this approach does or does not make sense.

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to write a maintainable web scraping app?

    - by Benj
    I wrote a perl script a while ago which logged into my online banking and emailed me my balance and a mini-statement every day. I found it very useful for keeping track of my finances. The only problem is that I wrote it just using perl and curl and it was quite complicated and hard to maintain. After a few instances of my bank changing their webpage I got fed up of debugging it to keep it up to date. So what's the best way of writing such a program in such a way that it's easy to maintain? I'd like to write a nice well engineered version in either Perl or Java which will be easy to update when the bank inevitably fiddle with their web site.

    Read the article

  • Process a batch of items, return an object to report on status

    - by Naeem Sarfraz
    I'm looking for a pattern (or good practice) for the following scenario: My function List<BatchItemResponse> Process(List<BatchItem> Data) {..} will process a list of data, and return info on where each item in the batch could be processed. struct BatchItemResponse { int BatchItemID; bool Processed; string Description; } Any thoughts? Is what I've proposed as good as it gets?

    Read the article

  • Is the a pattern for iterating over lists held by a class (dynamicly typed OO languages)

    - by Roman A. Taycher
    If I have a class that holds one or several lists is it better to allow other classes to fetch those lists(with a getter) or to implement a doXList/eachXList type method for that list that take a function and call that function on each element of the list contained by that object. I wrote a program that did a ton of this and I hated passing around all these lists sometimes with method in class a calling method in class B to return lists contained in class C, B contains a C or multiple C's (note question is about dynamically typed OO languages languages like ruby or smalltalk) ex. (that came up in my program) on a Person class containing scheduling preferences and a scheduler class needing to access them.

    Read the article

  • .Net - Whats the difference between a Session Facade and Business Delegate?

    - by KP65
    What I understand so far: Business Delegate - In the presentation tier, as an ASP component, provides an interface for ASP views to access business components without exposing their API, therefore reducing coupling between the two. Session Facade - In the business tier, as a com+ component, encapsulates business objects, provides a course grain interface for views to access business components. Reduces coupling, hides complex business component interaction from views. So what is the actual difference? They seem pretty similar to me..

    Read the article

  • anti-if campaign

    - by Andrew Siemer
    I recently ran against a very interesting site that expresses a very interesting idea - the anti-if campaign. You can see this here at www.antiifcampaign.com. I have to agree that complex nested IF statements are an absolute pain in the rear. I am currently on a project that up until very recently had some crazy nested IFs that scrolled to the right for quite a ways. We cured our issues in two ways - we used Windows Workflow Foundation to address routing (or workflow) concerns. And we are in the process of implementing all of our business rules utilizing ILOG Rules for .NET (recently purchased by IBM!!). This for the most part has cured our nested IF pains...but I find myself wondering how many people cure their pains in the manner that the good folks at the AntiIfCampaign suggest (see an example here) by creating numerous amounts of abstract classes to represent a given scenario that was originally covered by the nested IF. I wonder if another way to address the removal of this complexity might also be in using an IoC container such as StructureMap to move in and out of different bits of functionality. Either way... Question: Given a scenario where I have a nested complex IF or SWITCH statement that is used to evaluate a given type of thing (say evaluating an Enum) to determine how I want to handle the processing of that thing by enum type - what are some ways to do the same form of processing without using the IF or SWITCH hierarchical structure? public enum WidgetTypes { Type1, Type2, Type3, Type4 } ... WidgetTypes _myType = WidgetTypes.Type1; ... switch(_myType) { case WidgetTypes.Type1: //do something break; case WidgetTypes.Type2: //do something break; //etc... }

    Read the article

  • Undo/Redo using Memento: Stack, Queue or just LinkedList?

    - by serhio
    What is the best having when implementing Memento pattern (for Undo/Redo) in witch collection to Keep Mementos? Basically, I need this(c = change, u = undo, r = redo): 0 *c -1 0 *c -2 -1 0 *c -3 -2 -1 0 <u -2 -1 0 1 *c -3 -2 -1 0 Variants: LinkedList - possible in principle, maybe not optimized. Queue - not adapted for this task, IMO. Stack - not adapted for undo AND redo; Double Stack - maybe optimal, but can't control the undo maximum size.

    Read the article

  • Regarding the ViewModel

    - by mizipzor
    Im struggling to understand the ViewModel part of the MVVM pattern. My current approach is to have a class, with no logic whatsoever (important), except that it implements INotifyPropertyChanged. The class is just a collection of properties, a struct if you like, describing an as small part of the data as possible. I consider this my Model. Most of the WPF code I write are settings dialogs that configure said Model. The code-behind of the dialog exposes a property which returns an instance of the Model. In the XAML code I bind to subproperties of that property, thereby binding directly to the Model's properties. Which works quite well since it implements the INotifyPropertyChanged. I consider this settings dialog the View. However, I havent really been able to figure out what in all this is the ViewModel. The articles Ive read suggests that the ViewModel should tie the View and the Model together, providing the logic the Model lacks but is still to complex to go directly into the View. Is this correct? Would, in my example, the code-behind of the settings dialog be considered the ViewModel? I just feel a bit lost and would like my peers to debunk some of my assumptions. Am I completely off track here?

    Read the article

  • Using switch and enumerations as substitute for named methods

    - by MatthewMartin
    This pattern pops up a lot. It looks like a very verbose way to move what would otherwise be separate named methods into a single method and then distinguished by a parameter. Is there any good reason to have this pattern over just having two methods Method1() and Method2() ? The real kicker is that this pattern tends to be invoked only with constants at runtime-- i.e. the arguments are all known before compiling is done. public enum Commands { Method1, Method2 } public void ClientCode() { //Always invoked with constants! Never user input. RunCommands(Commands.Method1); RunCommands(Commands.Method2); } public void RunCommands(Commands currentCommand) { switch (currentCommand) { case Commands.Method1: // Stuff happens break; case Commands.Method2: // Other stuff happens break; default: throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("currentCommand"); } }

    Read the article

  • Make a Method of the Business Layer secure. best practice / best pattern [.net/c#]

    - by gsharp
    Hi We are using ASP.NET with a lot of AJAX "Page Method" calls. The WebServices defined in the Page invokes methods from our BusinessLayer. To prevent hackers to call the Page Methods, we want to implement some security in the BusinessLayer. We are struggling with two different issues. First one: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // do stuff } This Method should be called by Authorized Users with the Role "HR". Second one: public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // do sutff } This Method should only be called by the owner of the Order. I know it's easy to implement the security for each method like: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // check if the user is in Role HR } or public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // check if the order.Owner = user } What I'm looking for is some pattern/best practice to implement this kind of security in a generic way (without coding the the if then else every time) I hope you get what i mean :-) Thanks for you help.

    Read the article

  • Make a Method of the Business Layer secure. best practice / best pattern

    - by gsharp
    We are using ASP.NET with a lot of AJAX "Page Method" calls. The WebServices defined in the Page invokes methods from our BusinessLayer. To prevent hackers to call the Page Methods, we want to implement some security in the BusinessLayer. We are struggling with two different issues. First one: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // do stuff } This Method should be called by Authorized Users with the Role "HR". Second one: public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // do sutff } This Method should only be called by the owner of the Order. I know it's easy to implement the security for each method like: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // check if the user is in Role HR } or public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // check if the order.Owner = user } What I'm looking for is some pattern/best practice to implement this kind of security in a generic way (without coding the the if then else every time) I hope you get what i mean :-)

    Read the article

  • When are global variables acceptable?

    - by dsimcha
    Everyone here seems to hate global variables, but I see at least one very reasonable use for them: They are great for holding program parameters that are determined at program initialization and not modified afterwords. Do you agree that this is an exception to the "globals are evil" rule? Is there any other exception that you can think of, besides in quick and dirty throwaway code where basically anything goes? If not, why are globals so fundamentally evil that you do not believe that there are any exceptons?

    Read the article

  • Visitor Pattern can be replaced with Callback functions?

    - by getit
    Is there any significant benefit to using either technique? In case there are variations, the Visitor Pattern I mean is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern And below is an example of using a delegate to achieve the same effect (at least I think it is the same) Say there is a collection of nested elements: Schools contain Departments which contain Students Instead of using the Visitor pattern to perform something on each collection item, why not use a simple callback (Action delegate in C#) Say something like this class Department { List Students; } class School { List Departments; VisitStudents(Action<Student> actionDelegate) { foreach(var dep in this.Departments) { foreach(var stu in dep.Students) { actionDelegate(stu); } } } } School A = new School(); ...//populate collections A.Visit((student)=> { ...Do Something with student... }); *EDIT Example with delegate accepting multiple params Say I wanted to pass both the student and department, I could modify the Action definition like so: Action class School { List Departments; VisitStudents(Action<Student, Department> actionDelegate, Action<Department> d2) { foreach(var dep in this.Departments) { d2(dep); //This performs a different process. //Using Visitor pattern would avoid having to keep adding new delegates. //This looks like the main benefit so far foreach(var stu in dep.Students) { actionDelegate(stu, dep); } } } }

    Read the article

  • Interpreter in C++: Function table storage problem

    - by sub
    In my interpreter I have built-in functions available in the language like print exit input, etc. These functions can obviously be accessed from inside the language. The interpreter then looks for the corresponding function with the right name in a vector and calls it via a pointer stored with its name. So I gather all these functions in files like io.cpp, string.cpp, arithmetic.cpp. But I have to add every function to the function list in the interpreter in order for it to be found. So in these function files I have things like: void print( arg ) { cout << arg.ToString; } I'd add this print function to the interpreter function list with: interpreter.AddFunc( "print", print ); But where should I call the interpreter.AddFunc? I can't just put it there below the print function as it has to be in a function according to the C++ syntax. Where and how should all the functions be added to the list?

    Read the article

  • Improving MVP in Scala

    - by Alexey Romanov
    The classical strongly typed MVP pattern looks like this in Scala: trait IView { } trait Presenter[View <: IView] { // or have it as an abstract type member val view : View } case class View1(...) extends IView { ... } case object Presenter1 extends Presenter[View1] { val view = View1(...) } Now, I wonder if there is any nice way to improve on it which I am missing...

    Read the article

  • Refactoring Singleton Overuse

    - by drharris
    Today I had an epiphany, and it was that I was doing everything wrong. Some history: I inherited a C# application, which was really just a collection of static methods, a completely procedural mess of C# code. I refactored this the best I knew at the time, bringing in lots of post-college OOP knowledge. To make a long story short, many of the entities in code have turned out to be Singletons. Today I realized I needed 3 new classes, which would each follow the same Singleton pattern to match the rest of the software. If I keep tumbling down this slippery slope, eventually every class in my application will be Singleton, which will really be no logically different from the original group of static methods. I need help on rethinking this. I know about Dependency Injection, and that would generally be the strategy to use in breaking the Singleton curse. However, I have a few specific questions related to this refactoring, and all about best practices for doing so. How acceptable is the use of static variables to encapsulate configuration information? I have a brain block on using static, and I think it is due to an early OO class in college where the professor said static was bad. But, should I have to reconfigure the class every time I access it? When accessing hardware, is it ok to leave a static pointer to the addresses and variables needed, or should I continually perform Open() and Close() operations? Right now I have a single method acting as the controller. Specifically, I continually poll several external instruments (via hardware drivers) for data. Should this type of controller be the way to go, or should I spawn separate threads for each instrument at the program's startup? If the latter, how do I make this object oriented? Should I create classes called InstrumentAListener and InstrumentBListener? Or is there some standard way to approach this? Is there a better way to do global configuration? Right now I simply have Configuration.Instance.Foo sprinkled liberally throughout the code. Almost every class uses it, so perhaps keeping it as a Singleton makes sense. Any thoughts? A lot of my classes are things like SerialPortWriter or DataFileWriter, which must sit around waiting for this data to stream in. Since they are active the entire time, how should I arrange these in order to listen for the events generated when data comes in? Any other resources, books, or comments about how to get away from Singletons and other pattern overuse would be helpful.

    Read the article

  • In M-V-VM where does my code go?

    - by Nate Bross
    So, this is a pretty basic question I hope. I have a web service that I've added through Add Service Reference. It has some methods to get list and get detail of a perticular table in my database. What I'm trying to do is setup a UI as follows: App Load Load service proxy Call the GetList(); method display the results in a ListBox control User Double Clicks item in ListBox, display a modal dialog with a "detail" view I'm extremely new to using MVVM, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Additional information: // Service Interface (simplification): interface IService { IEnumerable<MyObject> GetList(); MyObject GetDetail(int id); } // Data object (simplification) class MyObject { public int ID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } I'm thinking I should have something like this: MainWindow MyObjectViewUserControl Displays list Opens modal window on double click Specific Questions: What would my ViewModel class look like? Where does the code to handle the double click go? Inside the UserControl? Sorry for the long details, but I'm very new to the whole thing and I'm not educated enough to ask the right questions. I checked out the MVVM Sample from wpf.codeplex.com and something isn't quite clicking for me yet, because it seems very confusing.

    Read the article

  • Routing redirection decision

    - by programming late night
    I have really no idea why I'm asking this as this a really completely irrelevant question for which I should have figured out an answer within milliseconds, yet I'm doing it. So in my project I have a Router class which splits up the request and selects the right page to be loaded. Fine so far. Now I have a page displayed when the user requests a page that doesn't exist, you know, 404. So theoretically, if the user entered mydomain.com/404 (I use mod_rewrite with a requests collector via index.php?req=*) the 404 error would be shown to him, but in fact there was no error - the 404 page would be displayed as a perfectly normal page. So if someone would try out requesting the 404 page via /404, he would be shown the page but he can't tell if the 404 page he requested doesn't exist and he is actually getting a, you guessed it, 404 error or if he actually found some flaw in the system that makes him able to see an error page when there is no error. I don't know how dumb this whole thing here is but I'm sure some of you have in fact ran into this problem already. Short version: If the user enters mydomain.com/404 the 404 page is shown even though there is no 404 error. I know this is a completely irrelevant question, please don't tell me, but I just spontaneously wanted to hear your thoughts on it. Strange eh? Should I redirect direct access to my 404-page to the home page? Should I do nothing? Should I just go to bed and stop asking irrelevant stuff?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197  | Next Page >