Search Results

Search found 1004 results on 41 pages for 'layers'.

Page 2/41 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How can let Qt Graphics View Framework support custom layers

    - by jnblue
    Qt's graphics view frameworks is very powerful, but I have not found a way to support custom layers. In Qt, there is a QGraphicsScene::ItemLayer,but QGraphicsScene renders all items are in this layer. I want manage the items with several layers, Just like Illustrator and CorelDraw. all the item only in the current layer will receive the event, be selected or get the key focus etc.. Other layers(not current layer) will not receive all scene event. The most reasons of using layers is I could catalogue a large number of items more clearly.And without needing transfer events to all the layers' items ,I think the graphics frameworks will be more efficient. The last question, does QGraphicsView support rendering server stacked graphics scenes at the same time? If support, I think the "custom layers" can be solved in this way. Thanks very much!

    Read the article

  • Handling Indirection and keeping layers of method calls, objects, and even xml files straight

    - by Cervo
    How do you keep everything straight as you trace deeply into a piece of software through multiple method calls, object constructors, object factories, and even spring wiring. I find that 4 or 5 method calls are easy to keep in my head, but once you are going to 8 or 9 calls deep it gets hard to keep track of everything. Are there strategies for keeping everything straight? In particular, I might be looking for how to do task x, but then as I trace down (or up) I lose track of that goal, or I find multiple layers need changes, but then I lose track of which changes as I trace all the way down. Or I have tentative plans that I find out are not valid but then during the tracing I forget that the plan is invalid and try to consider the same plan all over again killing time.... Is there software that might be able to help out? grep and even eclipse can help me to do the actual tracing from a call to the definition but I'm more worried about keeping track of everything including the de-facto plan for what has to change (which might vary as you go down/up and realize the prior plan was poor). In the past I have dealt with a few big methods that you trace and pretty much can figure out what is going on within a few calls. But now there are dozens of really tiny methods, many just a single call to another method/constructor and it is hard to keep track of them all.

    Read the article

  • Layers - Logical seperation vs physical

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    Some programmers recommend logical seperation of layers over physical. For example, given a DL, this means we create a DL namespace not a DL assembly. Benefits include: faster compilation time simpler deployment Faster startup time for your program Less assemblies to reference Im on a small team of 5 devs. We have over 50 assemblies to maintain. IMO this ratio is far from ideal. I prefer an extreme programming approach. Where if 100 assemblies are easier to maintain than 10,000...then 1 assembly must be easier than 100. Given technical limits, we should strive for < 5 assemblies. New assemblies are created out of technical need not layer requirements. Developers are worried for a few reasons. A. People like to work in their own environment so they dont step on eachothers toes. B. Microsoft tends to create new assemblies. E.G. Asp.net has its own DLL, so does winforms. Etc. C. Devs view this drive for a common assembly as a threat. Some team members Have a tendency to change the common layer without regard for how it will impact dependencies. My personal view: I view A. as silos, aka cowboy programming and suggest we implement branching to create isolation. C. First, that is a human problem and we shouldnt create technical work arounds for human behavior. Second, my goal is not to put everything in common. Rather, I want partitions to be made in namespaces not assemblies. Having a shared assembly doesnt make everything common. I want the community to chime in and tell me if Ive gone off my rocker. Is a drive for a single assembly or my viewpoint illogical or otherwise a bad idea?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to add layers to .tiff images with .NET?

    - by Voyta
    Are there any .NET libraries etc. which allow adding layers (with text) to .tiff images? Something like annotations, so that it would be possible to separate them from image afterwards. I tried DotImage - it allows to add annotations, save them as embedded into image and load them afterwards, but no one other image viewer seems to recognize that they are there.

    Read the article

  • Is the design notion of layers contrived?

    - by Bruce
    Hi all I'm reading through Eric Evans' awesome work, Domain-Driven Design. However, I can't help feeling that the 'layers' model is contrived. To expand on that statement, it seems as if it tries to shoe-horn various concepts into a specific, neat model, that of layers talking to each other. It seems to me that the layers model is too simplified to actually capture the way that (good) software works. To expand further: Evans says: "Partition a complex program into layers. Develop a design within each layer that is cohesive and that depends only on the layers below. Follow standard architectural patterns to provide loose coupling to the layers above." Maybe I'm misunderstanding what 'depends' means, but as far as I can see, it can either mean a) Class X (in the UI for example) has a reference to a concrete class Y (in the main application) or b) Class X has a reference to a class Y-ish object providing class Y-ish services (ie a reference held as an interface). If it means (a), then this is clearly a bad thing, since it defeats re-using the UI as a front-end to some other application that provides Y-ish functionality. But if it means (b), then how is the UI any more dependent on the application, than the application is dependent on the UI? Both are decoupled from each other as much as they can be while still talking to each other. Evans' layer model of dependencies going one way seems too neat. First, isn't it more accurate to say that each area of the design provides a module that is pretty much an island to itself, and that ideally all communication is through interfaces, in a contract-driven/responsibility-driven paradigm? (ie, the 'dependency only on lower layers' is contrived). Likewise with the domain layer talking to the database - the domain layer is as decoupled (through DAO etc) from the database as the database is from the domain layer. Neither is dependent on the other, both can be swapped out. Second, the idea of a conceptual straight line (as in from one layer to the next) is artificial - isn't there more a network of intercommunicating but separate modules, including external services, utility services and so on, branching off at different angles? Thanks all - hoping that your responses can clarify my understanding on this..

    Read the article

  • Algorithmically generating neon layers on pixel grid

    - by user190929
    In an attempt at a screensaver I am making, I am a fan of neo-like graphics, which, of course, look great against a black background. As I understand it, neon, graphically speaking, is essentially a gradient of a color, brightest in the center, and gets darker proceeding outward. Although, more accurate is similar, but separating it into tubes and glow. The tubes are mostly white, while the glow is where most of the color is seen. Well... the tubes could also be a light variant of the color, you could say. The glow is darker. Anyhow, my question is, how could you generate such things given an initial pattern of pixels that would be the tubes? For example, let's say I want to make a neon 'H'. I, via the libraries, can attain the rectangles of pixels which represent it, but I want to make it look neonized. How could I algorithmically achieve such an effect given a base tube shape and base color? EDIT: ok, I mistated that. Got a bit distracted. My purpose for this was similar to a neon effect, but not. Sorry about that. What I am looking for is something like this: Start with a pattern of pixels: [!][!][!][!][!][!][!][!] [!][!][O][!][!][!][!][!] [!][!][O][O][!][!][!][!] [!][!][!][!][O][!][!][!] [!][!][!][!][!][!][!][!] How to I find the U pixels? [!][E][E][E][!][!][!][!] [!][E][O][E][E][!][!][!] [!][E][O][O][E][E][!][!] [!][E][E][E][O][E][!][!] [!][!][!][E][E][E][!][!] Sorry if that looks bad.

    Read the article

  • Render an image with separate layers for shadows/reflections in 3D Studio Max?

    - by Bernd Plontsch
    I have a scene with a simple object standing on a ground in the center. Caused by lights and the ground material there is some shadow and reflection on the ground surrounding the object. How can I render an image containing 3 separate layers for the object the ground the reflection / shadow on the ground Which format to use for this (it should include all 3 layers + I should be able to enable/disable them in Photoshop)? How do I define or prepare those layers for being rendering as image layers?

    Read the article

  • Render an image with layers for shadows /reflections, object and ground in 3D Studio Max?

    - by Bernd Plontsch
    I have a scene with a simple object standing on the ground in the center. This object has shadows and reflections on the ground. How can I render an image containing 3 separate layers for The object The ground The reflection / shadow on the ground Which format do I use for this? (It should include all 3 layers + I should be able to enable/disable them in Photoshop) How do I define or prepare those layers for being rendering as image layers?

    Read the article

  • Operations on multiple overlapping layers not working

    - by Arun
    Hi I am developing a game in android just like Farmville by Zinga. In that game we have to place elements in the diamond shaped field so the don't overlap each other. Now I did coding for placing the field inside the farm field but I cannot stop the problem of overlapping of the farm field. I Am attaching the code that I have down for all this someone please help me.... try{ if(bm1.getPixel((int)initX,(int)initY)!=0){ if(bm1.getPixel((int)initX,(int)initY+20)!=0){ if(bm1.getPixel((int)initX-20,(int)initY)!=0){ if(bm1.getPixel((int)initX+20,(int)initY)!=0){ if(bm1.getPixel((int)initX,(int)initY-20)!=0){ c.drawBitmap(bm,initX-30,initY-20, paint); } } } } } }catch(Exception e) { Toast.makeText(getContext(), e.toString(), Toast.LENGTH_SHORT); }

    Read the article

  • Using NSpec at various architectural layers

    - by nono
    Having read the quick start at nspec.org, I realized that NSpec might be a useful tool in a scenario which was becoming a bit cumbersome with NUnit alone. I'm adding an OAuth (or, DotNetOpenAuth) to a website and quickly made a mess of writing test methods such as [Test] public void UserIsLoggedInLocallyPriorToInvokingExternalLoginAndExternalLoginSucceedsAndExternalProviderIdIsNotAlreadyAssociatedWithUserAccount() { ... } ... and I wound up with maybe a dozen permutations of this theme, for the user already being logged in locally and not locally, the external login succeeding or failing, etc. Not only were the method names unwieldy, but every test needed a setup that contained parts in common with a different set of other tests. I realized that NSpec's incremental setup capabilities would work great for this, and for a while I was trucking a long wonderfully, with code like act = () => { actionResult = controller.ExternalLoginCallback(returnUrl); }; context["The user is already logged in"] = () => { before = () => identity.Setup(x => x.IsAuthenticated).Returns(true); context["The external login succeeds"] = () => { before = () => oauth.Setup(x => x.VerifyAuthentication(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(new AuthenticationResult(true, providerName, "provideruserid", "username", new Dictionary<string, string>())); context["External login already exists for current user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Should add 'login sucessful' alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("Login successful"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Success); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; context["External login already exists for another user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForAnyOtherUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Adds an error alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("The external login you requested is already associated with a different user account"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Error); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; This approach seemed to work magnificently until I prepared to write test code for my ApplicationServices layer, to which I delegate viewmodel manipulation from my MVC controllers, and which coordinates the operations of the lower data repository layer: public void CreateUserAccountFromExternalLogin(RegisterExternalLoginModel model) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void AssociateExternalLoginWithUser(string userName, string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public string GetLocalUserName(string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } I have no idea what in the world to name the test class, the test methods, or even if I should perhaps include the testing for this layer into the test class from my large code snippet above, so that a single feature or user action could be tested without regard to architectural layering. I can't find any tutorials or blog posts which cover more than simple examples, so I would appreciate any recommendations or pointing in the right direction. I would even welcome "your question is invalid"-type answers as long as some explanation is provided.

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework and layer separation

    - by Thomas
    I'm trying to work a bit with Entity Framework and I got a question regarding the separation of layers. I usually use the UI - BLL - DAL approach and I'm wondering how to use EF here. My DAL would usually be something like GetPerson(id) { // some sql return new Person(...) } BLL: GetPerson(id) { Return personDL.GetPerson(id) } UI: Person p = personBL.GetPerson(id) My question now is: since EF creates my model and DAL, is it a good idea to wrap EF inside my own DAL or is it just a waste of time? If I don't need to wrap EF would I still place my Model.esmx inside its own class library or would it be fine to just place it inside my BLL and work some there? I can't really see the reason to wrap EF inside my own DAL but I want to know what other people are doing. So instead of having the above, I would leave out the DAL and just do: BLL: GetPerson(id) { using (TestEntities context = new TestEntities()) { var result = from p in context.Persons.Where(p => p.Id = id) select p; } } What to do?

    Read the article

  • Validation and authorization in layered architecture

    - by SonOfPirate
    I know you are thinking (or maybe yelling), "not another question asking where validation belongs in a layered architecture?!?" Well, yes, but hopefully this will be a little bit of a different take on the subject. I am a firm believer that validation takes many forms, is context-based and varies at each level of the architecture. That is the basis for the post - helping to identify what type of validation should be performed in each layer. In addition, a question that often comes up is where authorization checks belong. The example scenario comes from an application for a catering business. Periodically during the day, a driver may turn in to the office any excess cash they've accumulated while taking the truck from site to site. The application allows a user to record the 'cash drop' by collecting the driver's ID, and the amount. Here's some skeleton code to illustrate the layers involved: public class CashDropApi // This is in the Service Facade Layer { [WebInvoke(Method = "POST")] public void AddCashDrop(NewCashDropContract contract) { // 1 Service.AddCashDrop(contract.Amount, contract.DriverId); } } public class CashDropService // This is the Application Service in the Domain Layer { public void AddCashDrop(Decimal amount, Int32 driverId) { // 2 CommandBus.Send(new AddCashDropCommand(amount, driverId)); } } internal class AddCashDropCommand // This is a command object in Domain Layer { public AddCashDropCommand(Decimal amount, Int32 driverId) { // 3 Amount = amount; DriverId = driverId; } public Decimal Amount { get; private set; } public Int32 DriverId { get; private set; } } internal class AddCashDropCommandHandler : IHandle<AddCashDropCommand> { internal ICashDropFactory Factory { get; set; } // Set by IoC container internal ICashDropRepository CashDrops { get; set; } // Set by IoC container internal IEmployeeRepository Employees { get; set; } // Set by IoC container public void Handle(AddCashDropCommand command) { // 4 var driver = Employees.GetById(command.DriverId); // 5 var authorizedBy = CurrentUser as Employee; // 6 var cashDrop = Factory.CreateCashDrop(command.Amount, driver, authorizedBy); // 7 CashDrops.Add(cashDrop); } } public class CashDropFactory { public CashDrop CreateCashDrop(Decimal amount, Employee driver, Employee authorizedBy) { // 8 return new CashDrop(amount, driver, authorizedBy, DateTime.Now); } } public class CashDrop // The domain object (entity) { public CashDrop(Decimal amount, Employee driver, Employee authorizedBy, DateTime at) { // 9 ... } } public class CashDropRepository // The implementation is in the Data Access Layer { public void Add(CashDrop item) { // 10 ... } } I've indicated 10 locations where I've seen validation checks placed in code. My question is what checks you would, if any, be performing at each given the following business rules (along with standard checks for length, range, format, type, etc): The amount of the cash drop must be greater than zero. The cash drop must have a valid Driver. The current user must be authorized to add cash drops (current user is not the driver). Please share your thoughts, how you have or would approach this scenario and the reasons for your choices.

    Read the article

  • How accurate is "Business logic should be in a service, not in a model"?

    - by Jeroen Vannevel
    Situation Earlier this evening I gave an answer to a question on StackOverflow. The question: Editing of an existing object should be done in repository layer or in service? For example if I have a User that has debt. I want to change his debt. Should I do it in UserRepository or in service for example BuyingService by getting an object, editing it and saving it ? My answer: You should leave the responsibility of mutating an object to that same object and use the repository to retrieve this object. Example situation: class User { private int debt; // debt in cents private string name; // getters public void makePayment(int cents){ debt -= cents; } } class UserRepository { public User GetUserByName(string name){ // Get appropriate user from database } } A comment I received: Business logic should really be in a service. Not in a model. What does the internet say? So, this got me searching since I've never really (consciously) used a service layer. I started reading up on the Service Layer pattern and the Unit Of Work pattern but so far I can't say I'm convinced a service layer has to be used. Take for example this article by Martin Fowler on the anti-pattern of an Anemic Domain Model: There are objects, many named after the nouns in the domain space, and these objects are connected with the rich relationships and structure that true domain models have. The catch comes when you look at the behavior, and you realize that there is hardly any behavior on these objects, making them little more than bags of getters and setters. Indeed often these models come with design rules that say that you are not to put any domain logic in the the domain objects. Instead there are a set of service objects which capture all the domain logic. These services live on top of the domain model and use the domain model for data. (...) The logic that should be in a domain object is domain logic - validations, calculations, business rules - whatever you like to call it. To me, this seemed exactly what the situation was about: I advocated the manipulation of an object's data by introducing methods inside that class that do just that. However I realize that this should be a given either way, and it probably has more to do with how these methods are invoked (using a repository). I also had the feeling that in that article (see below), a Service Layer is more considered as a façade that delegates work to the underlying model, than an actual work-intensive layer. Application Layer [his name for Service Layer]: Defines the jobs the software is supposed to do and directs the expressive domain objects to work out problems. The tasks this layer is responsible for are meaningful to the business or necessary for interaction with the application layers of other systems. This layer is kept thin. It does not contain business rules or knowledge, but only coordinates tasks and delegates work to collaborations of domain objects in the next layer down. It does not have state reflecting the business situation, but it can have state that reflects the progress of a task for the user or the program. Which is reinforced here: Service interfaces. Services expose a service interface to which all inbound messages are sent. You can think of a service interface as a façade that exposes the business logic implemented in the application (typically, logic in the business layer) to potential consumers. And here: The service layer should be devoid of any application or business logic and should focus primarily on a few concerns. It should wrap Business Layer calls, translate your Domain in a common language that your clients can understand, and handle the communication medium between server and requesting client. This is a serious contrast to other resources that talk about the Service Layer: The service layer should consist of classes with methods that are units of work with actions that belong in the same transaction. Or the second answer to a question I've already linked: At some point, your application will want some business logic. Also, you might want to validate the input to make sure that there isn't something evil or nonperforming being requested. This logic belongs in your service layer. "Solution"? Following the guidelines in this answer, I came up with the following approach that uses a Service Layer: class UserController : Controller { private UserService _userService; public UserController(UserService userService){ _userService = userService; } public ActionResult MakeHimPay(string username, int amount) { _userService.MakeHimPay(username, amount); return RedirectToAction("ShowUserOverview"); } public ActionResult ShowUserOverview() { return View(); } } class UserService { private IUserRepository _userRepository; public UserService(IUserRepository userRepository) { _userRepository = userRepository; } public void MakeHimPay(username, amount) { _userRepository.GetUserByName(username).makePayment(amount); } } class UserRepository { public User GetUserByName(string name){ // Get appropriate user from database } } class User { private int debt; // debt in cents private string name; // getters public void makePayment(int cents){ debt -= cents; } } Conclusion All together not much has changed here: code from the controller has moved to the service layer (which is a good thing, so there is an upside to this approach). However this doesn't look like it had anything to do with my original answer. I realize design patterns are guidelines, not rules set in stone to be implemented whenever possible. Yet I have not found a definitive explanation of the service layer and how it should be regarded. Is it a means to simply extract logic from the controller and put it inside a service instead? Is it supposed to form a contract between the controller and the domain? Should there be a layer between the domain and the service layer? And, last but not least: following the original comment Business logic should really be in a service. Not in a model. Is this correct? How would I introduce my business logic in a service instead of the model?

    Read the article

  • What should layers in dotnet application ?

    - by haansi
    I am using layered architecture in dotnet (mostly I work on web projects). I am confuse what layers should I use ? I have small idea that there should be the following layers. user interface customer types (custom entities) business logic layer data access layer My purpose is sure quality of work and maximum re-usability of code. some one suggested to add common types layer in it. Please guide me what should be layers ? and in each layer what part should go ?

    Read the article

  • Does it make sense to use ORM in Android development?

    - by Heinzi
    Does it make sense to use an ORM in Android development or is the framework optimized for a tighter coupling between the UI and the DB layer? Background: I've just started with Android development, and my first instinct (coming from a .net background) was to look for a small object-relational mapper and other tools that help reduce boilerplate clode (e.g. POJOs + OrmLite + Lombok). However, while developing my first toy application I stumbled upon a UI class that explicitly requires a database cursor: AlphabetIndexer. That made me wonder if maybe the Android library is not suited for a strict decoupling of UI and DB layer and that I will miss out on a lot of useful, time-saving features if I try to use POJOs everywhere (instead of direct database access). Clarification: I'm quite aware of the advantages of using ORM in general, I'm specifically interested in how well the Android class library plays along with it.

    Read the article

  • How to document/verify consistent layering?

    - by Morten
    I have recently moved to the dark side: I am now a CUSTOMER of software development -- mainly websites. With this new role comes new concerns. As a programmer i know how solid an application becomes when it is properly layered, and I want to use this knowledge in my new job. I don't want business logic in my presentation layer, and certainly not presentation stuff in my data layer. Thus, I want to be able to demand from my supllier that they document the level of layering, and how neat and consistent the layering is. The big question is: How is the level of layering documented to me as a customer, and is that a reasonable demmand for me to have, so I don't have to look in the code (I'm not supposed to do that anymore)?

    Read the article

  • Quartz 2D Layers

    - by coure06
    I want to create 2 separate layers using quartz 2D. Can i handle there redraw methods separately? so that i can redraw 1 layer without redrawing the whole screen or other layers. Is it possible? any code sample?

    Read the article

  • When do domain concepts become application constructs?

    - by Noren
    I recently posted a question regarding recovering a DDD architecture that became an anemic domain model into a multitier architecture and this question is a follow-on of sorts. My question is when do domain concepts become application constructs. My application is a local client C# 4/WPF with the following architecture: Presentation Layer Views ViewModels Business Layer ??? Domain Layer Classes that take the POCOs with primitive types and create domain concepts (e.g. image, layer, etc) Sanity checks values (e.g. image width 0) Interfaces for DTOs Interface for a repository that abstracts the filesystem Data Access Layer Classes that parse the proprietary binary files into POCOs with primitive types by explicit knowledge of the file format Implementation of domain DTOs Implementation of domain repository class Local Filesystem Proprietary binary files When does the MyImageType domain class with Int32 width, height, and Int32[] pixels become a System.Windows.Media.ImageDrawing? If I put it in the domain layer, it seems like implemenation details are being leaked (what if I didn't want to use WPF?). If I put it in the presentation layer, it seems like it's doing too much. If I create a business layer, it seems like it would be doing too little since there are few "rules" given the CRUD nature of the application. I think all of my reading has lead to analysis paralysis, so I thought fresh eyes might lend some perspective.

    Read the article

  • Animate a GIF using Core Animation layers?

    - by Cliff
    I'm trying to animate a GIF and I hit a roadblock. I have an example of what I'm trying to do that uses the individual frames of the GIF and setting the animationImages property of a UIView. However in my project, the thing I want to animate is drawn using Layers. I'm looking for a quick and easy way to animate the frames without introducing too much complexity. Is there any animationImages equivalent with Layers? Does anybody have any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Can it be useful to build an application starting with the GUI?

    - by Grant Palin
    The trend in application design and development seems to be starting with the "guts": the domain, then data access, then infrastructure, etc. The GUI seems to usually come later in the process. I wonder if it could ever be useful to build the GUI first... My rationale is that by building at least a prototype GUI, you gain a better idea of what needs to happen behind the scenes, and so are in a better position to start work on the domain and supporting code. I can see an issue with this practice in that if the supporting code is not yet written, there won't be much for the GUI layer to actually do. Perhaps building mock objects or throwaway classes (somewhat like is done in unit testing) would provide just enough of a foundation to build the GUI on initially. Might this be a feasible idea for a real project? Maybe we could add GDD (GUI Driven Development) to the acronym stable...

    Read the article

  • Can Layer Masks Achieve This Effect

    - by Julian
    If you look at the image below you will see the player surrounded by a dotted yellow box. The dotted yellow box is also part of the player and represented a portion of the player being masked from both rendering and affected by physics. My question is if layer masks in Unity can achieve the following effect. -In Area 1, the red box/animations of the player are visible and the rigidbody of this shape is affected by all Physics. -Any portion of the player that enters Area 2 makes the larger yellow box within the area become visible (and affected by physics) and vice versa for any portion of the smaller red box that enters. -This can persist when both entering and leaving either area from any direction. Thank you for any help!

    Read the article

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