Search Results

Search found 17259 results on 691 pages for 'behaviour driven design'.

Page 20/691 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

• Tools and environments supporting Domain Driven Design (DDD)

  - by anthares

  Hi everyone, I'm doing a kind of research on the topic "Domain Driven Design". My question is what tools (or maybe environments) do you use, that support this paradigm? I know that I can google it, but I wonder which of them actually work and are useful, since I have no experience with neither of them. I'm interesting mainly in the .NET Framework, but any other opinions are also welcome! Thanks !

  Read the article

• Design Question - how do you break the dependency between classes using an interface?

  - by Seth Spearman

  Hello, I apologize in advance but this will be a long question. I'm stuck. I am trying to learn unit testing, C#, and design patterns - all at once. (Maybe that's my problem.) As such I am reading the Art of Unit Testing (Osherove), and Clean Code (Martin), and Head First Design Patterns (O'Reilly). I am just now beginning to understand delegates and events (which you would see if you were to troll my SO questions of recent). I still don't quite get lambdas. To contextualize all of this I have given myself a learning project I am calling goAlarms. I have an Alarm class with members you'd expect (NextAlarmTime, Name, AlarmGroup, Event Trigger etc.) I wanted the "Timer" of the alarm to be extensible so I created an IAlarmScheduler interface as follows... public interface AlarmScheduler { Dictionary<string,Alarm> AlarmList { get; } void Startup(); void Shutdown(); void AddTrigger(string triggerName, string groupName, Alarm alarm); void RemoveTrigger(string triggerName); void PauseTrigger(string triggerName); void ResumeTrigger(string triggerName); void PauseTriggerGroup(string groupName); void ResumeTriggerGroup(string groupName); void SetSnoozeTrigger(string triggerName, int duration); void SetNextOccurrence (string triggerName, DateTime nextOccurrence); } This IAlarmScheduler interface define a component that will RAISE an alarm (Trigger) which will bubble up to my Alarm class and raise the Trigger Event of the alarm itself. It is essentially the "Timer" component. I have found that the Quartz.net component is perfectly suited for this so I have created a QuartzAlarmScheduler class which implements IAlarmScheduler. All that is fine. My problem is that the Alarm class is abstract and I want to create a lot of different KINDS of alarm. For example, I already have a Heartbeat alarm (triggered every (int) interval of minutes), AppointmentAlarm (triggered on set date and time), Daily Alarm (triggered every day at X) and perhaps others. And Quartz.NET is perfectly suited to handle this. My problem is a design problem. I want to be able to instantiate an alarm of any kind without my Alarm class (or any derived classes) knowing anything about Quartz. The problem is that Quartz has awesome factories that return just the right setup for the Triggers that will be needed by my Alarm classes. So, for example, I can get a Quartz trigger by using TriggerUtils.MakeMinutelyTrigger to create a trigger for the heartbeat alarm described above. Or TriggerUtils.MakeDailyTrigger for the daily alarm. I guess I could sum it up this way. Indirectly or directly I want my alarm classes to be able to consume the TriggerUtils.Make* classes without knowing anything about them. I know that is a contradiction, but that is why I am asking the question. I thought about putting a delegate field into the alarm which would be assigned one of these Make method but by doing that I am creating a hard dependency between alarm and Quartz which I want to avoid for both unit testing purposes and design purposes. I thought of using a switch for the type in QuartzAlarmScheduler per here but I know it is bad design and I am trying to learn good design. If I may editorialize a bit. I've decided that coding (predefined) classes is easy. Design is HARD...in fact, really hard and I am really fighting feeling stupid right now. I guess I want to know if you really smart people took a while to really understand and master this stuff or should I feel stupid (as I do) because I haven't grasped it better in the couple of weeks/months I have been studying. You guys are awesome and thanks in advance for your answers. Seth

  Read the article

• DB Design Pattern - Many to many classification / categorised tagging.

  - by Robin Day

  I have an existing database design that stores Job Vacancies. The "Vacancy" table has a number of fixed fields across all clients, such as "Title", "Description", "Salary range". There is an EAV design for "Custom" fields that the Clients can setup themselves, such as, "Manager Name", "Working Hours". The field names are stored in a "ClientText" table and the data stored in a "VacancyClientText" table with VacancyId, ClientTextId and Value. Lastly there is a many to many EAV design for custom tagging / categorising the vacancies with things such as Locations/Offices the vacancy is in, a list of skills required. This is stored as a "ClientCategory" table listing the types of tag, "Locations, Skills", a "ClientCategoryItem" table listing the valid values for each Category, e.g., "London,Paris,New York,Rome", "C#,VB,PHP,Python". Finally there is a "VacancyClientCategoryItem" table with VacancyId and ClientCategoryItemId for each of the selected items for the vacancy. There are no limits to the number of custom fields or custom categories that the client can add. I am now designing a new system that is very similar to the existing system, however, I have the ability to restrict the number of custom fields a Client can have and it's being built from scratch so I have no legacy issues to deal with. For the Custom Fields my solution is simple, I have 5 additional columns on the Vacancy Table called CustomField1-5. This removes one of the EAV designs. It is with the tagging / categorising design that I am struggling. If I limit a client to having 5 categories / types of tag. Should I create 5 tables listing the possible values "CustomCategoryItems1-5" and then an additional 5 many to many tables "VacancyCustomCategoryItem1-5" This would result in 10 tables performing the same storage as the three tables in the existing system. Also, should (heaven forbid) the requirements change in that I need 6 custom categories rather than 5 then this will result in a lot of code change. Therefore, can anyone suggest any DB Design Patterns that would be more suitable to storing such data. I'm happy to stick with the EAV approach, however, the existing system has come across all the usual performance issues and complex queries associated with such a design. Any advice / suggestions are much appreciated. The DBMS system used is SQL Server 2005, however, 2008 is an option if required for any particular pattern.

  Read the article

• Why is good UI design so hard for some Developers?

  - by Chris Ballance

  Some of us just have a hard time with the softer aspects of UI design (myself especially). Are "back-end coders" doomed to only design business logic and data layers? Is there something we can do to retrain our brain to be more effective at designing pleasing and useful presentation layers? Colleagues have recommended a few books me including The Design of Sites, Don't make me think and Why Software sucks , but I am wondering what others have done to remove their deficiencies in this area?

  Read the article

• how good should a developer be in design and animation?

  - by scatman

  how good should a developer (especially web developer) be in design and animation? should he know how to create flash animations? how to use image processing programs like photoshop.... i am asking this question because i am a computer science student, and all my courses are programming related (no courses about design). when i develop a web application i usually use "wizards" for animation coz i suck at design...

  Read the article

• What design patters are the worst or most narrowly defined?

  - by Akku

  For every programming project, Managers with past programming experience try to shine when they recommend some design patterns for your project. I like design patterns when they make sense or if you need a scalbale solution. I've used Proxies, Observers and Command patterns in a positive way for example, and do so every day. But I'm really hesitant to use say a Factory pattern if there's only one way to create an object, as a factory might make it all easier in the future, but complicates the code and is pure overhead. So, my question is in respect to my future career and my answer to manager types throwing random pattern-names around: Which design patterns did you use, that threw you back overall? Which are the worst design patterns, that you shouldn't have a look at if it's not that only single situation where it makes sense (read: which design patterns are very narrowly defined)? (It's like I was looking for the negative reviews of an overall good product of amazon to see what bugged people most in using design patterns). And I'm not talking about Anti-Patterns here, but about Patterns that are usually thought of as "good" patterns.

  Read the article

• What design patterns are the worst or most narrowly defined?

  - by Akku

  For every programming project, Managers with past programming experience try to shine when they recommend some design patterns for your project. I like design patterns when they make sense or if you need a scalbale solution. I've used Proxies, Observers and Command patterns in a positive way for example, and do so every day. But I'm really hesitant to use say a Factory pattern if there's only one way to create an object, as a factory might make it all easier in the future, but complicates the code and is pure overhead. So, my question is in respect to my future career and my answer to manager types throwing random pattern-names around: Which design patterns did you use, that threw you back overall? Which are the worst design patterns, that you shouldn't have a look at if it's not that only single situation where it makes sense (read: which design patterns are very narrowly defined)? (It's like I was looking for the negative reviews of an overall good product of amazon to see what bugged people most in using design patterns). And I'm not talking about Anti-Patterns here, but about Patterns that are usually thought of as "good" patterns. Edit: As some answered, the problem is most often that patterns are not "bad" but "used wrong". If you know patterns, that are often misused or even difficult to use, they would also fit as an answer.

  Read the article

• Has the emerging generation of programmers got the wrong idea about design patterns? [closed]

  - by MattDavey

  Over the years I've noticed a shift in attitude towards design patterns, particularly amongst the emerging generation of developers. There seems to be a notion these days that design patterns are silver bullets that instantly cure any problem, a proliferating idea that advancing as a software engineer simply means learning and applying more and more patterns. When confronted with a problem, developers no longer strive to truly understand the issue and design a solution - instead they simply pick a design pattern which seems to be a close fit, and try to brute-force it. You can see evidence of this by the many, many questions on Stack Overflow that begin with the phrase "what pattern should I use to...". I fall into a slightly more mature category of developers (5-10 years experience) and I have a very different viewpoint on patterns - simply as a communication tool to enhance clarity. I find this perspective of design patterns being lego bricks (collected like pokemon cards) a little disconcerting. Will developers lose this attitude as they gain more experience in software engineering? Or could these notions perhaps steer the direction of our craft in years to come? Did the older generation of developers have any similar concerns about us? (perhaps about OO design or similar...). if so, how did we turn out?

  Read the article

• How do you formulate the Domain Model in Domain Driven Design properly (Bounded Contexts, Domains)?

  - by lko

  Say you have a few applications which deal with a few different Core Domains. The examples are made up and it's hard to put a real example with meaningful data together (concisely). In Domain Driven Design (DDD) when you start looking at Bounded Contexts and Domains/Sub Domains, it says that a Bounded Context is a "phase" in a lifecycle. An example of Context here would be within an ecommerce system. Although you could model this as a single system, it would also warrant splitting into separate Contexts. Each of these areas within the application have their own Ubiquitous Language, their own Model, and a way to talk to other Bounded Contexts to obtain the information they need. The Core, Sub, and Generic Domains are the area of expertise and can be numerous in complex applications. Say there is a long process dealing with an Entity for example a Book in a core domain. Now looking at the Bounded Contexts there can be a number of phases in the books life-cycle. Say outline, creation, correction, publish, sale phases. Now imagine a second core domain, perhaps a store domain. The publisher has its own branch of stores to sell books. The store can have a number of Bounded Contexts (life-cycle phases) for example a "Stock" or "Inventory" context. In the first domain there is probably a Book database table with basically just an ID to track the different book Entities in the different life-cycles. Now suppose you have 10+ supporting domains e.g. Users, Catalogs, Inventory, .. (hard to think of relevant examples). For example a DomainModel for the Book Outline phase, the Creation phase, Correction phase, Publish phase, Sale phase. Then for the Store core domain it probably has a number of life-cycle phases. public class BookId : Entity { public long Id { get; set; } } In the creation phase (Bounded Context) the book could be a simple class. public class Book : BookId { public string Title { get; set; } public List<string> Chapters { get; set; } //... } Whereas in the publish phase (Bounded Context) it would have all the text, release date etc. public class Book : BookId { public DateTime ReleaseDate { get; set; } //... } The immediate benefit I can see in separating by "life-cycle phase" is that it's a great way to separate business logic so there aren't mammoth all-encompassing Entities nor Domain Services. A problem I have is figuring out how to concretely define the rules to the physical layout of the Domain Model. A. Does the Domain Model get "modeled" so there are as many bounded contexts (separate projects etc.) as there are life-cycle phases across the core domains in a complex application? Edit: Answer to A. Yes, according to the answer by Alexey Zimarev there should be an entire "Domain" for each bounded context. B. Is the Domain Model typically arranged by Bounded Contexts (or Domains, or both)? Edit: Answer to B. Each Bounded Context should have its own complete "Domain" (Service/Entities/VO's/Repositories) C. Does it mean there can easily be 10's of "segregated" Domain Models and multiple projects can use it (the Entities/Value Objects)? Edit: Answer to C. There is a complete "Domain" for each Bounded Context and the Domain Model (Entity/VO layer/project) isn't "used" by the other Bounded Contexts directly, only via chosen paths (i.e. via Domain Events). The part that I am trying to figure out is how the Domain Model is actually implemented once you start to figure out your Bounded Contexts and Core/Sub Domains, particularly in complex applications. The goal is to establish the definitions which can help to separate Entities between the Bounded Contexts and Domains.

  Read the article

• Is Inheritance in Struts2 Model-Driven Action possible?

  - by mryan

  Hello, I have a Model-Driven Struts2 action that provides correct JSON response. When I re-structure the action I get an empty JSON response back. Has anyone got inheritance working with Struts2 Model-Driven actions? Ive tried explicitly setting include properties in struts config: <result name="json" type="json"> <param name="includeProperties"> jsonResponse </param> </result> Code for all actions below - not actual code in use - I have edited and stripped down for clarity. Thanks in advance. Action providing correct response: public class Bike extends ActionSupport implements ModelDriven, Preparable { @Autowired private Service bikeService; private JsonResponse jsonResponse; private com.ets.model.Vehicle bike; private int id; public Bike() { jsonResponse = new JsonResponse("Bike"); } @Override public void prepare() throws Exception { if (id == 0) { bike = new com.ets.model.Bike(); } else { bike = bikeService.find(id); } } @Override public Object getModel() { return bike; } public void setId(int id) { this.id = id; } public void setBikeService(@Qualifier("bikeService") Service bikeService) { this.bikeService = bikeService; } public JsonResponse getJsonResponse() { return jsonResponse; } public String delete() { try { bike.setDeleted(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis())); bikeService.updateOrSave(bike); jsonResponse.addActionedId(id); jsonResponse.setAction("delete"); jsonResponse.setValid(true); } catch (Exception exception) { jsonResponse.setMessage(exception.toString()); } return "json"; } } Re-structured Actions providing incorrect response: public abstract class Vehicle extends ActionSupport implements ModelDriven { @Autowired protected Service bikeService; @Autowired protected Service carService; protected JsonResponse jsonResponse; protected com.ets.model.Vehicle vehicle; protected int id; protected abstract Service service(); @Override public Object getModel() { return bike; } public void setId(int id) { this.id = id; } public void setBikeService(@Qualifier("bikeService") Service bikeService) { this.bikeService = bikeService; } public void setCarService(@Qualifier("carService") Service carService) { this.carService = carService; } public JsonResponse getJsonResponse() { return jsonResponse; } public String delete() { try { vehicle.setDeleted(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis())); service().updateOrSave(vehicle); jsonResponse.addActionedId(id); jsonResponse.setAction("delete"); jsonResponse.setValid(true); } catch (Exception exception) { jsonResponse.setMessage(exception.toString()); } return "json"; } } public class Bike extends Vehicle implements Preparable { public Bike() { jsonResponse = new JsonResponse("Bike"); } @Override public void prepare() throws Exception { if (id == 0) { vehicle = new com.ets.model.Bike(); } else { vehicle = bikeService.find(id); } } @Override protected Service service() { return bikeService; } } public class Car extends Vehicle implements Preparable { public Car() { jsonResponse = new JsonResponse("Car"); } @Override public void prepare() throws Exception { if (id == 0) { vehicle = new com.ets.model.Car(); } else { vehicle = carService.find(id); } } @Override protected Service service() { return carService; } }

  Read the article

• Should pathfinder in A* hold closedSet and openedSet or each object should hold its sets?

  - by Patryk

  I am about to implement A* pathfinding algorithm and I wonder how should I implement this - from the point of view of architecture. I have the pathfinder as a class - I think I will instantiate only one object of this class (or maybe make it a Singleton - this is not so important). The hardest part for me is whether the closedSet and openedSet should be attached to objects that can find the path for them or should be stored in pathfinder class ? I am opened to any hints and critique whatsoever. What is the best practice considering pathfinding in terms of design ?

  Read the article

• Customizing configuration with Dependency Injection

  - by mathieu

  I'm designing a small application infrastructure library, aiming to simplify development of ASP.NET MVC based applications. Main goal is to enforce convention over configuration. Hovewer, I still want to make some parts "configurable" by developpers. I'm leaning towards the following design: public interface IConfiguration { SomeType SomeValue; } // this one won't get registered in container protected class DefaultConfiguration : IConfiguration { public SomeType SomeValue { get { return SomeType.Default; } } } // declared inside 3rd party library, will get registered in container protected class CustomConfiguration : IConfiguration { public SomeType SomeValue { get { return SomeType.Custom; } } } And the "service" class : public class Service { private IConfiguration conf = new DefaultConfiguration(); // optional dependency, if found, will be set to CustomConfiguration by DI container public IConfiguration Conf { get { return conf; } set { conf = value; } } public void Configure() { DoSomethingWith( Conf ); } } There, the "configuration" part is clearly a dependency of the service class, but it this an "overuse" of DI ?

  Read the article

• Why is nesting or piggybacking errors within errors bad in general?

  - by dietbuddha

  Why is nesting or piggybacking errors within errors bad in general? To me it seems bad intuitively, but I'm suspicious in that I cannot adequately articulate why it is bad. This may be because it is not in general bad and that it is only bad in specific instances. Why is it detrimental to design error/exception handling in such a way. The specific instance is that of a REST service. There is a desire by some to use http errors (specifically the 500 response) as a way to indicate any problem with specific instances of a resource. An example of an instance resource in this case would be: http://server/ticket/80 # instance http://server/ticket # not an instance So this is the behavior that is being proposed. If ticket 80 does not exist return a http response code of 500. Within the body of the error return the "real" error as an additional error code and description. If the ticket resource doesn't exist return a response code of 404.

  Read the article

• Is it bad practice to pass instances through several layers?

  - by Puckl

  In my program design, I often come to the point where I have to pass object instances through several classes. For example, if I have a controller that loads an audio file, and then passes it to a player, and the player passes it to the playerRunnable, which passes it again somewhere else etc. It looks kind of bad, but I don´t know how to avoid it. Or is it OK to do this? EDIT: Maybe the player example is not the best because I could load the file later, but in other cases that does not work.

  Read the article

• Earliest use of Comments as Semantically Meaningful Things in a Program?

  - by Alan Storm

  In certain corners of the PHP meta-programming world, it's become fashionable to use PHPDoc comments as a mechanism for providing semantically meaningful information to a program. That is, other code will parse the doc blocks and do something significant with the information encoded in those comments. Doctrine's annotations and code generation are an example of this. What's the earliest (or some early) use of this technique? I have vague memories of some early java Design by Contract implementations doing similar things, but I'm not sure of those folks were inventing the technique, or if they got it from somewhere. Mainly asking so I can provide some historical context for PHP developers who haven't come across the technique before, and are distrustful of it because it seems a little crazy pants.

  Read the article

• Subscribe/Publish Model in Web-based Application (c#) - Best Practices for Event Handlers

  - by KingOfHypocrites

  I was recently exposed to a desktop application that uses an publish/subscribe model to handle commands, events, etc. I can't seem to find any good examples of using this in a web application, so I wonder if I am off base in trying to use this for web based development (on the server side)? I'm using asp.net c#. My main question in regards to the design is: When using a publish/subscribe model, is it better to have generic commands/events that pass no parameters and then have the subscribers look at static context objects that contain the data relevant to the event? Or is it better to create custom arguments for every event that contain data related to the event? The whole concept of a global container seems so convenient but at the same time seems to break encapsulation. Any thoughts or best practices from anyone who has implemented this type of model in a web based application? Even suggestions on this model out of the scope of my question are appreciated.

  Read the article

• How to change the state of a singleton in runtime

  - by user34401

  Consider I am going to write a simple file based logger AppLogger to be used in my apps, ideally it should be a singleton so I can call it via public class AppLogger { public static String file = ".."; public void logToFile() { // Write to file } public static log(String s) { AppLogger.getInstance().logToFile(s); } } And to use it AppLogger::log("This is a log statement"); The problem is, what is the best time I should provide the value of file since it is a just a singleton? Or how to refactor the above code (or skip using singleton) so I can customize the log file path? (Assume I don't need to write to multiple at the same time) p.s. I know I can use library e.g. log4j, but consider it is just a design question, how to refactor the code above?

  Read the article

• Event Aggregator.. not getting a response, how to determine completion?

  - by Duncan_m

  I'm rewriting a vehicle tracking application, a google maps based thing.. The users are able to search for a vehicle by typing a few characters of the vehicles "callsign". My application is based around a sort of "event bus" within Backbone.. when a search occurs I send a message on the bus saying something like "does anyone match this?".. If a marker matches the search term it responds with a sort of "yes, I match!".. My challenge arises when no-one matches, I get no response.. it feels a little hacky to "wait a little while" and check if a response has been recieved.. The application is based around Backbone.js and using the Event Aggregator pattern described in the answer to this question on Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7708195/access-function-in-one-view-from-another-in-backbone-js Is there a well defined design pattern that might assist me here? Sending a request for a response and not getting any responses?

  Read the article

• When designing an application around Model-View-Controller (MVC), what is in your toolbox?

  - by ericgorr

  There are a lot of great explanations for what the Model-View-Controller design pattern is, but I am having trouble finding good resources showing how to use it in practice. So, when you are starting a new application (doesn't matter what it is), what is in your toolbox? For example, it was suggested that using UML collaboration diagrams ( http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/umlCollaborationDiagrams.pdf ) can be useful when designing an application around MVC, although, I am not certain exactly how or why this might be the case...? So, what is in your toolbox for MVC?

  Read the article

• Distinguishing between sets of status reports

  - by user1769486

  I am working on an internal database monitoring system and am at a point where I sort of hit the wall in terms of application design. Basically I have an extensible plugin architecture where I shall have an OK, a warning or an error upon running a db verification. My first question whether it is sufficient to have only one status reported with an optional status message or provide the ability to have more than one returned (with attached messages) and then calculate an aggregated overall status. In particular in the latter case my second issue would be how to distinguish between two verification reports with the same status code (as it can come from different triggers). I would need to do this to see whether some change happened between the current and last verification. I could simply have string comparisons of the attached status messages mentioned above but that does not seem very reliable.

  Read the article

• Test Driven Development (TDD) in Visual Studio 2010- Microsoft Mondays

  - by Hosam Kamel

  November 14th , I will be presenting at Microsoft Mondays a session about Test Driven Development (TDD) in Visual Studio 2010 . Microsoft Mondays is program consisting of a series of Webcasts showcasing various Microsoft products and technologies. Each Monday we discuss a particular topic pertaining to development, infrastructure, Office tools, ERP, client/server operating systems etc. The webcast will be broadcast via Lync and can viewed from a web client. The idea behind the “Microsoft Mondays” program is to help you become more proficient in the products and technologies that you use and help you utilize their full potential.   Test Driven Development in Visual Studio 2010 Level – 300 (  Intermediate – Advanced ) Test Driven Development (TDD), also frequently referred to as Test Driven Design, is a development methodology where developers create software by first writing a unit test, then writing the actual system code to make the unit test pass.  The unit test can be viewed as a small specification around how the system should behave; writing it first helps the developer to focus on only writing enough code to make the test pass, thereby helping ensure a tight, lightweight system which is specifically focused meeting on the documented requirements. TDD follows a cadence of “Red, Green, Refactor.” Red refers to the visual display of a failing test – the test you write first will not pass because you have not yet written any code for it. Green refers to the step of writing just enough code in your system to make your unit test pass – your test runner’s UI will now show that test passing with a green icon. Refactor refers to the step of refactoring your code so it is tighter, cleaner, and more flexible. This cycle is repeated constantly throughout a TDD developer’s workday. Date:   November 14, 2011 Time:  10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. (GMT+3)  http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2437620990/efbnen?ebtv=F   See you there! Hosam Kamel Originally posted at

  Read the article

• Problems with data driven testing in MSTest

  - by severj3

  Hello, I am trying to get data driven testing to work in C# with MSTest/Selenium. Here is a sample of some of my code trying to set it up: [TestClass] public class NewTest { private ISelenium selenium; private StringBuilder verificationErrors; [DeploymentItem("GoogleTestData.xls")] [DataSource("System.Data.OleDb", "Provider=Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0;Data Source=GoogleTestData.xls;Persist Security Info=False;Extended Properties='Excel 8.0'", "TestSearches$", DataAccessMethod.Sequential)] [TestMethod] public void GoogleTest() { selenium = new DefaultSelenium("localhost", 4444, "*iehta", http://www.google.com); selenium.Start(); verificationErrors = new StringBuilder(); var searchingTerm = TestContext.DataRow["SearchingString"].ToString(); var expectedResult = TestContext.DataRow["ExpectedTextResults"].ToString(); Here's my error: Error 3 An object reference is required for the non-static field, method, or property 'Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestContext.DataRow.get' E:\Projects\SeleniumProject\SeleniumProject\MaverickTest.cs 32 33 SeleniumProject The error is underlining the "TestContext.DataRow" part of both statements. I've really been struggling with this one, thanks!

  Read the article

• Implementing Domain Driven Design

  - by Steve Dunn

  Is anyone using the techniques from Domain Driven Design? I've recently read the Eric Evans book of the same name (well, most of it!) and would be interested to hear from anyone who's implemented all/some of it in a project (particularly in C#/C++) I've kept this question open ended as I'd like to see as many comments as possible, but I have a few questions in particular: 1 - Should value types be real 'value types' if the language supports it? e.g. a struct in C# 2- Is there any feature in C# that makes clearer the association between the language and the model (for instance, this is an entity, this is an aggregate etc.)

  Read the article

• Wrappers/law of demeter seems to be an anti-pattern...

  - by Robert Fraser

  I've been reading up on this "Law of Demeter" thing, and it (and pure "wrapper" classes in general) seem to generally be anti patterns. Consider an implementation class: class Foo { void doSomething() { /* whatever */ } } Now consider two different implementations of another class: class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething() { _foo.doSomething(); } } And the ways to call said methods: callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(); // Version 2 } At first blush, version 1 seems a bit simpler, and follows the "rule of Demeter", hide Foo's implementation, etc, etc. But this ties any changes in Foo to Bar. For example, if a parameter is added to doSomething, then we have: class Foo { void doSomething(int x) { /* whatever */ } } class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething(int x) { _foo.doSomething(x); } } callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(5); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(5); // Version 2 } In both versions, Foo and callingMethod need to be changed, but in Version 2, Bar also needs to be changed. Can someone explain the advantage of having a wrapper/facade (with the exception of adapters or wrapping an external API or exposing an internal one).

  Read the article

• dynamic behavior of factory class

  - by manu1001

  I have a factory class that serves out a bunch of properties. Now, the properties might come either from a database or from a properties file. This is what I've come up with. public class Factory { private static final INSTANCE = new Factory(source); private Factory(DbSource source) { // read from db, save properties } private Factory(FileSource source) { // read from file, save properties } // getInstance() and getProperties() here } What's a clean way of switching between these behaviors based on the environment. I want to avoid having to recompile the class each time.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >