Search Results

Search found 7182 results on 288 pages for 'factory pattern'.

Page 2/288 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Fetching Strategy example in repository pattern with pure POCO Entity framework

    - by Shawn Mclean
    I'm trying to roll out a strategy pattern with entity framework and the repository pattern using a simple example such as User and Post in which a user has many posts. From this answer here, I have the following domain: public interface IUser { public Guid UserId { get; set; } public string UserName { get; set; } public IEnumerable<Post> Posts { get; set; } } Add interfaces to support the roles in which you will use the user. public interface IAddPostsToUser : IUser { public void AddPost(Post post); } Now my repository looks like this: public interface IUserRepository { User Get<TRole>(Guid userId) where TRole : IUser; } Strategy (Where I'm stuck). What do I do with this code? Can I have an example of how to implement this, where do I put this? public interface IFetchingStrategy<TRole> { TRole Fetch(Guid id, IRepository<TRole> role) } My basic problem was what was asked in this question. I'd like to be able to get Users without posts and users with posts using the strategy pattern.

    Read the article

  • SSIS Design Pattern: Producing a Footer Row

    - by andyleonard
    The following is an excerpt from SSIS Design Patterns (now available in the UK!) Chapter 7, Flat File Source Patterns. The only planned appearance of all five authors presenting on SSIS Design Patterns is the SSIS Design Patterns day-long pre-conference session at the PASS Summit 2012 . Register today . Let’s look at producing a footer row and adding it to the data file. For this pattern, we will leverage project and package parameters. We will also leverage the Parent-Child pattern, which will be...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Observer pattern for unpredictable observation time

    - by JoJo
    I have a situation where objects are created at unpredictable times. Some of these objects are created before an important event, some after. If the event already happened, I make the object execute stuff right away. If the event is forthcoming, I make the object observe the event. When the event triggers, the object is notified and executes the same code. if (subject.eventAlreadyHappened()) { observer.executeStuff(); } else { subject.subscribe(observer); } Is there another design pattern to wrap or even replace this observer pattern? I think it looks a little dirty to me.

    Read the article

  • Implementing a configurable factory

    - by Decko
    I'm having difficulties finding out how to implement a 'configurable' behavior in a factory class in PHP. I've got at class, which takes another class as an argument in its constructor. The argument class could take a number of arguments in its constructor. An instance of my main class could look something like this $instance = new MyClass(new OtherClass(20, true)); $instance2 = new MyClass(new DifferentClass('test')); This is rather clumsy and has a number of problems and therefore I would like to move this into a factory class. The problem is that this factory somehow needs to know how to instantiate the argument class, as this class can have any number of arguments in the constructor. Preferably I would like to be able to do something like this $instance = Factory::build('OtherClass'); $instance2 = Factory::build('DifferentClass'); And let the factory retrieve the arguments from a configuration array or similar. Is there a proper solution to this problem?

    Read the article

  • SSIS Design Pattern: Loading Variable-Length Rows

    - by andyleonard
    Introduction I encounter flat file sources with variable-length rows on occassion. Here, I supply one SSIS Design Pattern for loading them. What's a Variable-Length Row Flat File? Great question - let's start with a definition. A variable-length row flat file is a text source of some flavor - comma-separated values (CSV), tab-delimited file (TDF), or even fixed-length, positional-, or ordinal-based (where the location of the data on the row defines its field). The major difference between a "normal"...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Ocaml Pattern Matching

    - by Atticus
    Hey guys, I'm pretty new to OCaml and pattern matching, so I was having a hard time trying to figure this out. Say that I have a list of tuples. What I want to do is match a parameter with one of the tuples based on the first element in the tuple, and upon doing so, I want to return the second element of the tuple. So for example, I want to do something like this: let list = [ "a", 1; "b", 2"; "c", 3; "d", 4 ] ;; let map_left_to_right e rules = match e with | first -> second | first -> second | first -> second If I use map_left_to_right "b" list, I want to get 2 in return. I therefore want to list out all first elements in the list of rules and match the parameter with one of these elements, but I am not sure how to do so. I was thinking that I need to use either List.iter or List.for_all to do something like this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Question regarding factory pattern

    - by eriks
    I have a factory class to build objects of base class B. The object (D) that uses this factory received a list of strings representing the actual types. What is the correct implementation: the factory receives an Enum (and uses switch inside the Create function) and D is responsible to convert the string to Enum. the factory receives a string and checks for a match to a set of valid strings (using ifs') other implementation i didn't think of.

    Read the article

  • Writing a factory for classes that have required arguments

    - by Kyle Adams
    I understand the concept of factory pattern such that you give it something it spits out something of the same template back so if I gave a factory class apple, I expect to get many apples back with out having to instantiate a new apple ever time. what if that apple has a required argument of seed, or multiple required arguments of seed, step and leaf? how do you use factory pattern here? that is how do I use factory pattern to instantiate this: $apple = new Apple($seed, $stem, $leaf);

    Read the article

  • augment the factory pattern in java

    - by TP
    I am trying to use a factory pattern to create a QuestionTypeFactory where the instantiated classes will be like MultipleChoice, TrueFalseQuestion etc. The factory code looks something like this class QuestionFactory { public enum QuestionType { TrueFalse, MultipleChoice, Essay } public static Question createQuestion(QuestionType quesType) { switch (quesType) { case TrueFalse: return new TrueFalseQuestion(); case MultipleChoice: return new MultipleChoiceQuestion(); case Essay: return new EssayQuestion(); } throw new IllegalArgumentException("Not recognized."); } } This works ok for now. If I want to add another question type I will need to modify the factory class and I do not want to do that. How can I set it up so that each question class registers itself with the Factory so that when I add a new question type, I do not have to change the code for the factory? I am a bit new to java and am not sure how to do this.

    Read the article

  • Is there a design pattern for chained observers?

    - by sharakan
    Several times, I've found myself in a situation where I want to add functionality to an existing Observer-Observable relationship. For example, let's say I have an Observable class called PriceFeed, instances of which are created by a variety of PriceSources. Observers on this are notified whenever the underlying PriceSource updates the PriceFeed with a new price. Now I want to add a feature that allows a (temporary) override to be set on the PriceFeed. The PriceSource should still update prices on the PriceFeed, but for as long as the override is set, whenever a consumer asks PriceFeed for it's current value, it should get the override. The way I did this was to introduce a new OverrideablePriceFeed that is itself both an Observer and an Observable, and that decorates the actual PriceFeed. It's implementation of .getPrice() is straight from Chain of Responsibility, but how about the handling of Observable events? When an override is set or cleared, it should issue it's own event to Observers, as well as forwarding events from the underlying PriceFeed. I think of this as some kind of a chained observer, and was curious if there's a more definitive description of a similar pattern.

    Read the article

  • Factory Reset Asus

    - by Ben
    I have an ASUS All-in-one PC (not sure what model) and I'm trying to perform a Factory Restore but nothing is working yet. I have tried pressing F8, all I had access to was "Restore from an earlier point" - Today was the earliest point; and "Restore from an Image" - which I don't have. I have tried pressing F9, F10, and F11, but all that brought me was options to Start Windows normally, Run a system diagnostic, or try other options (F8 menu). I don't have any other discs to restore from or anything, and I have found a tutorial to try and create a Partition(?) to load the restore from that. Does anyone have any other ideas?

    Read the article

  • Extra arguments for Factory Girl

    - by J. Pablo Fernández
    I need to pass extra arguments to factory girl to be used in a callback. Something like this (but more complex really): Factory.define :blog do |blog| blog.name "Blah" blog.after_create do |blog| blog.posts += sample_posts blog.save! end end and then create it with something like this: Factory.create(:blog, :sample_posts => [post1, post2]) Any ideas how to do it?

    Read the article

  • myth about factory pattern

    - by leiz
    This has bothered me for awhile, and I have no clues if this is a myth. It seems that a factory pattern can ease the pain of adding a dependency for a class. For example, in a book, it has something like this Suppose that you have a class named Order. Initially it did not depend on anything. Therefore you didn't bother using a factory to create Order objects and you just used plain new to instantiate the objects. However, you now have a requirement that Order has to be created in association with a Customer. There are million places you need to change to add this extra parameter. If only you had de?ned a factory for the Order class, you would have met the new requirement without the same pain. How is this not same pain as adding an extra parameter to the constructor? I mean you would still need to provide an extra argument for the factory and that is also used by million places, right?

    Read the article

  • singleton factory connection pdo

    - by Scarface
    Hey guys I am having a lot of trouble trying to understand this and I was just wondering if someone could help me with some questions. I found some code that is supposed to create a connection with pdo. The problem I was having was having my connection defined within functions. Someone suggested globals but then pointed to a 'better' solution http://stackoverflow.com/questions/130878/global-or-singleton-for-database-connection. My questions with this code are. PS I cannot format this code on this page so see the link if you cannot read What is the point of the connection factory? What goes inside new ConnectionFactory(...) When the connection is defined $db = new PDO(...); why is there no try or catch (I use those for error handling)? Does this then mean I have to use try and catch for every subsequent query? class ConnectionFactory { private static $factory; public static function getFactory() { if (!self::$factory) self::$factory = new ConnectionFactory(...); return self::$factory; } private $db; public function getConnection() { if (!$db) $db = new PDO(...); return $db; } } function getSomething() { $conn = ConnectionFactory::getFactory()-getConnection(); . . . }

    Read the article

  • Identity Map Pattern and the Entity Framework

    - by nikolaosk
    This is going to be the seventh post of a series of posts regarding ASP.Net and the Entity Framework and how we can use Entity Framework to access our datastore. You can find the first one here , the second one here and the third one here , the fourth one here , the fifth one here and the sixth one here . I have a post regarding ASP.Net and EntityDataSource. You can read it here .I have 3 more posts on Profiling Entity Framework applications. You can have a look at them here , here and here . In...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Optimal communication pattern to update subscribers

    - by hpc
    What is the optimal way to update the subscriber's local model on changes C on a central model M? ( M + C - M_c) The update can be done by the following methods: Publish the updated model M_c to all subscribers. Drawback: if the model is big in contrast to the change it results in much more data to be communicated. Publish change C to all subscribes. The subscribers will then update their local model in the same way as the server does. Drawback: The client needs to know the business logic to update the model in the same way as the server. It must be assured that the subscribed model stays equal to the central model. Calculate the delta (or patch) of the change (M_c - M = D_c) and transfer the delta. Drawback: This requires that calculating and applying the delta (M + D_c = M_c) is an cheap/easy operation. If a client newly subscribes it must be initialized. This involves sending the current model M. So method 1 is always required. Think of playing chess as a concrete example: Subscribers send moves and want to see the latest chess board state. The server checks validity of the move and applies it to the chess board. The server can then send the updated chessboard (method 1) or just send the move (method 2) or send the delta (method 3): remove piece on field D4, put tower on field D8.

    Read the article

  • Is there a factory pattern to prevent multiple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquely define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the others that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methods, so all these objects act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approach which accepts a Builder object and constructs the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquely defines the type of object (this is node A to node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows its state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overriding of serialization methods to make it work (ensure that when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in its place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know whether an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to its own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state that is different than my memory; to tell my memory when its own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despite their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect that I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • is a factory pattern to prevent multuple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquly define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the oens that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methdos, so these objects all act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approch which accepts a Builder object and construct the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquly defines the type of object (this is node A nto node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows it's state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overiding of serlization methods to make it work (ensure when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in it's place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know rather an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to it's own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state taht is different then my memory; to tell my memory when it's own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despit their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • Does this factory method pattern example violate open-close?

    - by William
    In Head-First Design Patterns, they use a pizza shop example to demonstrate the factory method pattern. public abstract class PizzaStore { public Pizza orderPizza(String type) { Pizza pizza; pizza = createPizza(type); pizza.prepare(); pizza.bake(); pizza.cut(); pizza.box(); return pizza; } abstract Pizza createPizza(String type) } public class NYPizzaStore extends PizzaStore { Pizza createPizza(String item) { if (item.equals("cheese") { return new NYStyleCheesePizza(); } else if (item.equals("veggie")) { return new NYStyleVeggiePizza(); } else if (item.equals("clam")) { return new NYStyleClamPizza(); } else if (item.equals("pepperoni")) { return new NYStylePepperioniPizza(); } else return null; } } I don't understand how this pattern is not violating open-close. What if we require a beef Pizza, then we must edit the if statement in the NYPizzaStore class.

    Read the article

  • Advice on Factory Method

    - by heath
    Using php 5.2, I'm trying to use a factory to return a service to the controller. My request uri would be of the format www.mydomain.com/service/method/param1/param2/etc. My controller would then call a service factory using the token sent in the uri. From what I've seen, there are two main routes I could go with my factory. Single method: class ServiceFactory { public static function getInstance($token) { switch($token) { case 'location': return new StaticPageTemplateService('location'); break; case 'product': return new DynamicPageTemplateService('product'); break; case 'user' return new UserService(); break; default: return new StaticPageTemplateService($token); } } } or multiple methods: class ServiceFactory { public static function getLocationService() { return new StaticPageTemplateService('location'); } public static function getProductService() { return new DynamicPageTemplateService('product'); } public static function getUserService() { return new UserService(); } public static function getDefaultService($token) { return new StaticPageTemplateService($token); } } So, given this, I will have a handful of generic services in which I will pass that token (for example, StaticPageTemplateService and DynamicPageTemplateService) that will probably implement another factory method just like this to grab templates, domain objects, etc. And some that will be specific services (for example, UserService) which will be 1:1 to that token and not reused. So, this seems to be an ok approach (please give suggestions if it is not) for a small amount of services. But what about when, over time and my site grows, I end up with 100s of possibilities. This no longer seems like a good approach. Am I just way off to begin with or is there another design pattern that would be a better fit? Thanks. UPDATE: @JSprang - the token is actually sent in the uri like mydomain.com/location would want a service specific to loction and mydomain.com/news would want a service specific to news. Now, for a lot of these, the service will be generic. For instance, a lot of pages will call a StaticTemplatePageService in which the token is passed in to the service. That service in turn will grab the "location" template or "links" template and just spit it back out. Some will need DynamicTemplatePageService in which the token gets passed in, like "news" and that service will grab a NewsDomainObject, determine how to present it and spit that back out. Others, like "user" will be specific to a UserService in which it will have methods like Login, Logout, etc. So basically, the token will be used to determine which service is needed AND if it is generic service, that token will be passed to that service. Maybe token isn't the correct terminology but I hope you get the purpose. I wanted to use the factory so I can easily swap out which Service I need in case my needs change. I just worry that after the site grows larger (both pages and functionality) that the factory will become rather bloated. But I'm starting to feel like I just can't get away from storing the mappings in an array (like Stephen's solution). That just doesn't feel OOP to me and I was hoping to find something more elegant.

    Read the article

  • Python: Class factory using user input as class names

    - by Sano98
    Hi everyone, I want to add class atttributes to a superclass dynamically. Furthermore, I want to create classes that inherit from this superclass dynamically, and the name of those subclasses should depend on user input. There is a superclass "Unit", to which I can add attributes at runtime. This already works. def add_attr (cls, name, value): setattr(cls, name, value) class Unit(object): pass class Archer(Unit): pass myArcher = Archer() add_attr(Unit, 'strength', 5) print "Strenght ofmyarcher: " + str(myArcher.strength) Archer.strength = 2 print "Strenght ofmyarcher: " + str(myArcher.strength) This leads to the desired output: Strenght ofmyarcher: 5 Strenght ofmyarcher: 2 But now I don't want to predefine the subclass Archer, but I'd rather let the user decide how to call this subclass. I've tried something like this: class Meta(type, subclassname): def __new__(cls, subclassname, bases, dct): return type.__new__(cls, subclassname, Unit, dct) factory = Meta() factory.__new__("Soldier") but no luck. I guess I haven't really understood what new does here. What I want as a result here is class Soldier(Unit): pass being created by the factory. And if I call the factory with the argument "Knight", I'd like a class Knight, subclass of Unit, to be created. Any ideas? Many thanks in advance! Bye -Sano

    Read the article

  • Seam @Factory in abstract base class?

    - by Shadowman
    I've got a series of web actions I'm implementing in Seam to perform create, read, update, etc. operations. For my read/update/delete actions, I'd like to have individual action classes that all extend an abstract base class. I'd like to put the @Factory method in the abstract base class to retrieve the item that is to be acted upon. For example, I have this as the base class: public abstract class BaseAction { @In(required=false)@Out(required=false) private MyItem item=null; public MyItem getItem(){...} public void setItem(...){...} @Factory("item") public void initItem(){...} } My subclasses would extend BaseAction, so that I don't have to repeat the logic to load the item that is to be viewed, deleted, updated, etc. However, when I start my application, Seam throws errors saying I have declared multiple @Factory's for the same object. Is there any way around this? Is there any way to provide the @Factory in the base class without encoutnering these errors?

    Read the article

  • Complicated .NET factory design

    - by Tom W
    Hello SO; I'm planning to ask a fairly elaborate question that is also something of a musing here, so bear with me... I'm trying to design a factory implementation for a simulation application. The simulation will consist of different sorts of entities i.e. it is not a homogenous simulation in any respect. As a result, there will be numerous very different concrete implementations and only the very general properties will be abstracted at the top level. What I'd like to be able to do is create new simulation entities by calling a method on the model with a series of named arguments representing the parameters of the entity, and have the model infer what type of object is being described by the inbound parameters (from the names of the parameters and potentially the sequence they occur in) and call a factory method on the appropriate derived class. For example, if I pass the model a pair of parameters (Param1=5000, Param2="Bacon") I would like it to infer that the names Param1 and Param2 'belong' to the class "Blob1" and call a shared function "getBlob1" with named parameters Param1:=5000, Param2:="Bacon" whereas if I pass the model (Param1=5000, Param3=50) it would call a similar factory method for Blob2; because Param1 and Param3 in that order 'belong' to Blob2. I foresee several issues to resolve: Whether or not I can reflect on the available types with string parameter names and how to do this if it's possible Whether or not there's a neat way of doing the appropriate constructor inference from the combinatoric properties of the argument list or whether I'm going to have to bodge something to do it 'by hand'. If possible I'd like the model class to be able to accept parameters as parameters rather than as some collection of keys and values, which would require the model to expose a large number of parametrised methods at runtime without me having to code them explicitly - presumably one for every factory method available in the relevant namespace. What I'm really asking is how you'd go about implementing such a system, rather than whether or not it's fundamentally possible. I don't have the foresight or experience with .NET reflection to be able to figure out a way by myself. Hopefully this will prove an informative discussion.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >