Search Results

Search found 13321 results on 533 pages for 'schweb design llc'.

Page 20/533 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

• Multiplayer / Networking options for a 2D game with physics

  - by lahmas

  Summary: My 50% finished 2D sidescroller with Box2D as physics engine should have multiplayer support in the final version. However, the current code is just a singleplayer game. What should I do now? And more important, how should I implement multiplayer and combine it with singleplayer? Is it a bad idea to code the singleplayer mode separated from multiplayer mode (like Notch did it with Minecraft)? The performance in singleplayer should be as good as possible (Simulating physics with using a loopback server to implement singleplayer mode would be a problem there) Full background / questions: I'm working on a relatively large 2D game project in C++, with physics as a core element of it. (I use Box2D for that) The finished game should have full multiplayer support, however I made the mistake that I didn't plan the networking part properly and basically worked on a singleplayer game until now. I thought that multiplayer support could be added to the almost finished singleplayer game in a relatively easy and clear way, but apparently, from what I have read this is wrong. I even read that a multiplayer game should be programmed as one from the beginning, with the singleplayer mode actually just consisting of hosting an invisible local server and connecting to it via loopback. (I found out that most FPS game engines do it that way, an example would be Source) So here I am, with my half finished 2D sidescroller game, and I don't really know how to go on. Simply continueing to work on the singleplayer / client seems useless to me now, as I'd have to recode and refactor even more later. First, a general question to anybody who possibly found himself in a situation like this: How should I proceed? Then, the more specific one - I have been trying to find out how I can approach the networking part for my game: (Possible solutions:) Invisible / loopback server for singleplayer This would have the advantage that there basically is no difference between singleplayer and multiplayer mode. Not much additional code would be needed. A big disadvantage: Performance and other limitations in singleplayer. There would be two physics simulations running. One for the client and one for the loopback server. Even if you work around by providing a direct path for the data from the loopback server, through direct communcation by the threads for example, the singleplayer would be limited. This is a problem because people should be allowed to play around with masses of objects at once. Separated singleplayer / Multiplayer mode There would be no server involved in singleplayer mode. I'm not really sure how this would work. But at least I think that there would be a lot of additional work, because all of the singleplayer features would have to be re-implemented or glued to multiplayer mode. Multiplayer mode as a module for singleplayer This is merely a quick thought I had. Multiplayer could consist of a singleplayer game, with an additional networking module loaded and connected to a server, which sends and receives data and updates the singleplayer world. In the retrospective, I regret not having planned the multiplayer mode earlier. I'm really stuck at this point and I hope that somebody here is able to help me!

  Read the article

• Do I suffer from encapsulation overuse?

  - by Florenc

  I have noticed something in my code in various projects that seems like code smell to me and something bad to do, but I can't deal with it. While trying to write "clean code" I tend to over-use private methods in order to make my code easier to read. The problem is that the code is indeed cleaner but it's also more difficult to test (yeah I know I can test private methods...) and in general it seems a bad habit to me. Here's an example of a class that reads some data from a .csv file and returns a group of customers (another object with various fields and attributes). public class GroupOfCustomersImporter { //... Call fields .... public GroupOfCustomersImporter(String filePath) { this.filePath = filePath; customers = new HashSet<Customer>(); createCSVReader(); read(); constructTTRP_Instance(); } private void createCSVReader() { //.... } private void read() { //.... Reades the file and initializes the class attributes } private void readFirstLine(String[] inputLine) { //.... Method used by the read() method } private void readSecondLine(String[] inputLine) { //.... Method used by the read() method } private void readCustomerLine(String[] inputLine) { //.... Method used by the read() method } private void constructGroupOfCustomers() { //this.groupOfCustomers = new GroupOfCustomers(**attributes of the class**); } public GroupOfCustomers getConstructedGroupOfCustomers() { return this.GroupOfCustomers; } } As you can see the class has only a constructor which calls some private methods to get the job done, I know that's not a good practice not a good practice in general but I prefer to encapsulate all the functionality in the class instead of making the methods public in which case a client should work this way: GroupOfCustomersImporter importer = new GroupOfCustomersImporter(filepath) importer.createCSVReader(); read(); GroupOfCustomer group = constructGoupOfCustomerInstance(); I prefer this because I don't want to put useless lines of code in the client's side code bothering the client class with implementation details. So, Is this actually a bad habit? If yes, how can I avoid it? Please note that the above is just a simple example. Imagine the same situation happening in something a little bit more complex.

  Read the article

• Sessions I Submitted to the PASS Summit 2010

  - by andyleonard

  Introduction I'm borrowing an idea and blog post title from Brent Ozar ( Blog - @BrentO ). I am honored the PASS Summit 2010 (Seattle, 8 - 11 Nov 2010) would consider allowing me to present. It's a truly awesome event. If you have an opportunity to attend and read this blog, please find me and introduce yourself. If you've built a cool solution to a business or technical problem; or written a script - or a bunch of scripts - to automate part of your daily / weekly / monthly routine; or have some...(read more)

  Read the article

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

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

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

  Read the article

• Designing application flow

  - by Umesh Awasthi

  I am creating a web application in java where I need to mock the following flow. When user trigger a certain process (add product to cart), I need to pass through following steps Need to see in HTTP Session if user is logged in. Check HTTP Session if shopping cart is there If user exist in HTTP Session and his/her cart do not exist in HTTP Session Get user cart from the database. add item to cart and save it to HTTP session and update cart in DB. If cart does not exist in DB, create new cart and and save in it HTTP Session. Though I missed a lot of use cases here (do not want question length to increase a lot), but most of the flow will be same as I described in above steps. My flow will start from the Controller and will go towards Service Layer and than ends up in the DAO layer. Since there will be a lot of use cases where I need to check HTTP session and based on that need to call Service layer, I was planning to add a Facade layer which should be responsible to do this for me like checking Session and interacting with Service layer. Please suggest if this is a valid approach or any other best approach can be implemented here? One more point where I am confused is how to handle HTTP session in facade layer? do I need to pass HTTP session object each time I call my Facade or any other approach can be used here?

  Read the article

• Should database-models (conceptual or physical) be reviewed by DBAs?

  - by user61852

  Where I work, new applications that are being developed that will use their own relational database, must have their database-models (conceptual, then physical ) reviewed and aproved by DBAs. Things looked after are normalization, antipatterns, table and column naming standards, etc. Is this really a DBA's responsability to do this ? or should it be, in a greater extend, the responsability of app designers and architects ?

  Read the article

• Best practice to propagate preferences of application

  - by Shebuka

  What is your approach with propagation to all classes/windows of preferences/settings of your application? Do you share the preference_manager class to all classes/windows who need it or you make variables in each classes/windows and update them manually each time setting are changed? Currently I have a PreferencesInterface class that hold all preferences and is responsible to default all values with a dedicated method called on create and when needed, all values are public, so non getters/setters, also it have virtual SavePreferences/LoadPreferences methods. Then I have PreferencesManager that extends from PreferencesInterface and is responsible for actually implementation of SavePreferences/LoadPreferences. I've made this basically for cross-platform so that every platform can have a different implementation of actual storage (registry, ini, plist, xml, whatever).

  Read the article

• How do you think about an Application Generator? [closed]

  - by Mehdi Sheyda

  I'm designing an application-generating application. It is an application that takes the requirements of customer as inputs , analyzes the requirements, creates classes and produces program files in C#. I am at the beginning of this project and have a long way to go with this application. Do you have an experience with designing similar kinds of projects? What risks might I encounter with this project?

  Read the article

• Please help me give this principle a name

  - by Brent Arias

  As a designer, I like providing interfaces that cater to a power/simplicity balance. For example, I think the LINQ designers followed that principle because they offered both dot-notation and query-notation. The first is more powerful, but the second is easier to read and follow. If you disagree with my assessment of LINQ, please try to see my point anyway; LINQ was just an example, my post is not about LINQ. I call this principle "dial-able power". But I'd like to know what other people call it. Certainly some will say "KISS" is the common term. But I see KISS as a superset, or a "consumerism" practice. Using LINQ as my example again, in my view, a team of programmers who always try to use query notation over dot-notation are practicing KISS. Thus the LINQ designers practiced "dial-able power", whereas the LINQ consumers practice KISS. The two make beautiful music together. I'll give another example. Imagine a C# logging tool that has two signatures allowing two uses: void Write(string message); void Write(Func<string> messageCallback); The purpose of the two signatures is to fulfill these needs: //Every-day "simple" usage, nothing special. myLogger.Write("Something Happened" + error.ToString() ); //This is performance critical, do not call ToString() if logging is //disabled. myLogger.Write( () => { "Something Happened" + error.ToString() }); Having these overloads represents "dial-able power," because the consumer has the choice of a simple interface or a powerful interface. A KISS-loving consumer will use the simpler signature most of the time, and will allow the "busy" looking signature when the power is needed. This also helps self-documentation, because usage of the powerful signature tells the reader that the code is performance critical. If the logger had only the powerful signature, then there would be no "dial-able power." So this comes full-circle. I'm happy to keep my own "dial-able power" coinage if none yet exists, but I can't help think I'm missing an obvious designation for this practice. p.s. Another example that is related, but is not the same as "dial-able power", is Scott Meyer's principle "make interfaces easy to use correctly, and hard to use incorrectly."

  Read the article

• DDD: Service or Repository

  - by tikhop

  I am developing an app in DDD manner. And I have a little problem with it. I have a Fare (airline fare) and FareRepository objects. And at some point I should load additional fare information and set this information to existing Fare. I guess that I need to create an Application Service (FareAdditionalInformationService) that will deal with obtaining data from the server and than update existing Fare. However, some people said me that it is necessary to use FareRepository for this problem. I don't know wich place is better for my problem Service or Repository.

  Read the article

• Should each app have its own database, or should small apps be merged into one?

  - by King

  We have a bunch of small to medium sized apps, each of which has its own database (MSSQL Server). There was a suggestion that we consoldate the 'related' databases into a smaller set amount of larger databases. They don't particularly share a lot of data, they would just be under a similar business group. For example, using a 'Finance' DB to hold the tables and procedures for finance apps. Would it be appropriate to use a different schema for each app? E.g. App1.SomeTable App1.SomeOtherTable AppTwo.SomeTable What are the pros and cons of this approach? What should I watch out for? Thanks

  Read the article

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

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

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

  Read the article

• Manager/Container class vs static class methods

  - by Ben

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

  Read the article

• Single database, multiple system dependency

  - by davenewza

  Consider an environment where we have a single, core database, with many separate systems using this one database. This leads to all of these systems have a common dependency, which ultimately introduces coupling between them. This means that we cannot always evolve systems independently of each other. Structural changes to the database (even if only intended for one, particular system), requires a full sweep test of ALL systems, and may require that other systems be 'patched' and subsequently released. This is especially tricky when you want to have separate teams working on different projects. What is a good 'pattern' to help in avoiding such coupling? I would imagine that a database should be exclusively depended on by one system. If other systems require data for whatever reason, they should request such from an API service of some kind. A drawback of this approach which comes to mind is performance: routing data between high-throughput systems through service calls is much slower than through a database connection.

  Read the article

• How to create a fountain in UDK

  - by user36425

  I'm trying to make a fountain in my level in UDK, I made the base of the fountain by using a Cylinder build and now I'm trying to put water in it. I went to use the fluidSurfaceActor but I notice that this is square but my fountain is a cylinder. Is there a way that I can change the shape of the fluidSurfaceActor to fit the builder brush shape or is there another way to do this? Or is it hopeless and I have to make my fountain into a cube? Here is a link/picture to the screenprint of what I'm talking about:

  Read the article

• My boss has a different idea of a website's UX [migrated]

  - by NicoJuicy

  Let me explain the situation. I started transforming a "old (.Net 2.0)" Application into a webapplication. Problem here is, that no-one here is really acquainted with the UX of a website (Simple, efficient). Eventhough, i still have to regard that the website can be tailored to a customer needs through parameters (yeah, i know :s ) For example: I wanted to have a layout similar to invoicemachine (= as simple as possible). -- He wants a Ribbon toolbar. Going to a supplier gives the list of supplier -- He wants to display the "Create Supplier" screen where you can use the wildcards in a certain textbox, to search for a specific Supplier and then give the list of the suppliers. Also, i need 4 search/filter mechanisms: people can search per field with wildmarks can filter the suppliers search a keyword through all the data of a supplier filter the "list Suppliers" page by the first letter of the name. LIST Suppliers | A | D | Z Adam Wrincle ADD |EDIT |Delete Damzel InDistress ADD |EDIT |Delete Zorro ADD |EDIT |Delete I can't seem to get through to him, that the UX of a website needs to be differently than a Windows Application. If he wants to bring all the logic of the windows app into a website, why letting me build a website then? Stick to the old solution. Am i mistaking so hard or how could i convince / show him that an online-solution is something different than the offline solution. He already "saw" online solutions of other applications to get an idea, but if i suggest something he won't listen (if it's GUI / UX related, that is).

  Read the article

• Patterns for Handling Changing Property Sets in C++

  - by Bhargav Bhat

  I have a bunch "Property Sets" (which are simple structs containing POD members). I'd like to modify these property sets (eg: add a new member) at run time so that the definition of the property sets can be externalized and the code itself can be re-used with multiple versions/types of property sets with minimal/no changes. For example, a property set could look like this: struct PropSetA { bool activeFlag; int processingCount; /* snip few other such fields*/ }; But instead of setting its definition in stone at compile time, I'd like to create it dynamically at run time. Something like: class PropSet propSetA; propSetA("activeFlag",true); //overloading the function call operator propSetA("processingCount",0); And the code dependent on the property sets (possibly in some other library) will use the data like so: bool actvFlag = propSet["activeFlag"]; if(actvFlag == true) { //Do Stuff } The current implementation behind all of this is as follows: class PropValue { public: // Variant like class for holding multiple data-types // overloaded Conversion operator. Eg: operator bool() { return (baseType == BOOLEAN) ? this->ToBoolean() : false; } // And a method to create PropValues various base datatypes static FromBool(bool baseValue); }; class PropSet { public: // overloaded[] operator for adding properties void operator()(std::string propName, bool propVal) { propMap.insert(std::make_pair(propName, PropVal::FromBool(propVal))); } protected: // the property map std::map<std::string, PropValue> propMap; }; This problem at hand is similar to this question on SO and the current approach (described above) is based on this answer. But as noted over at SO this is more of a hack than a proper solution. The fundamental issues that I have with this approach are as follows: Extending this for supporting new types will require significant code change. At the bare minimum overloaded operators need to be extended to support the new type. Supporting complex properties (eg: struct containing struct) is tricky. Supporting a reference mechanism (needed for an optimization of not duplicating identical property sets) is tricky. This also applies to supporting pointers and multi-dimensional arrays in general. Are there any known patterns for dealing with this scenario? Essentially, I'm looking for the equivalent of the visitor pattern, but for extending class properties rather than methods. Edit: Modified problem statement for clarity and added some more code from current implementation.

  Read the article

• How do I choose the scaling factor of a 3D game world?

  - by concept3d

  I am making a 3D tank game prototype with some physics simulation, am using C++. One of the decisions I need to make is the scale of the game world in relation to reality. For example, I could consider 1 in-game unit of measurement to correspond to 1 meter in reality. This feels intuitive, but I feel like I might be missing something. I can think of the following as potential problems: 3D modelling program compatibility. (?) Numerical accuracy. (Does this matter?) Especially at large scales, how games like Battlefield have huge maps: How don't they lose numerical accuracy if they use 1:1 mapping with real world scale, since floating point representation tend to lose more precision with larger numbers (e.g. with ray casting, physics simulation)? Gameplay. I don't want the movement of units to feel slow or fast while using almost real world values like -9.8 m/s^2 for gravity. (This might be subjective.) Is it ok to scale up/down imported assets or it's best fit with a world with its original scale? Rendering performance. Are large meshes with the same vertex count slower to render? I'm wondering if I should split this into multiple questions...

  Read the article

• How can one manage thousands of IF...THEN...ELSE rules?

  - by David

  I am considering building an application, which, at its core, would consist of thousands of if...then...else statements. The purpose of the application is to be able to predict how cows move around in any landscape. They are affected by things like the sun, wind, food source, sudden events etc. How can such an application be managed? I imagine that after a few hundred IF-statements, it would be as good as unpredictable how the program would react and debugging what lead to a certain reaction would mean that one would have to traverse the whole IF-statement tree every time. I have read a bit about rules engines, but I do not see how they would get around this complexity.

  Read the article

• Understanding Visitor Pattern

  - by Nezreli

  I have a hierarchy of classes that represents GUI controls. Something like this: Control-ContainerControl-Form I have to implement a series of algoritms that work with objects doing various stuff and I'm thinking that Visitor pattern would be the cleanest solution. Let take for example an algorithm which creates a Xml representaion of a hierarchy of objects. Using 'classic' approach I would do this: public abstract class Control { public virtual XmlElement ToXML(XmlDocument document) { XmlElement xml = document.CreateElement(this.GetType().Name); // Create element, fill it with attributes declared with control return xml; } } public abstract class ContainerControl : Control { public override XmlElement ToXML(XmlDocument document) { XmlElement xml = base.ToXML(document); // Use forech to fill XmlElement with child XmlElements return xml; } } public class Form : ContainerControl { public override XmlElement ToXML(XmlDocument document) { XmlElement xml = base.ToXML(document); // Fill remaining elements declared in Form class return xml; } } But I'm not sure how to do this with visitor pattern. This is the basic implementation: public class ToXmlVisitor : IVisitor { public void Visit(Form form) { } } Since even the abstract classes help with implementation I'm not sure how to do that properly in ToXmlVisitor. Perhaps there is a better solution to this problem. The reason that I'm considering Visitor pattern is that some algorithms will need references not available in project where the classes are implemented and there is a number of different algorithms so I'm avoiding large classes. Any thoughts are welcome.

  Read the article

• Resources for popular domain models

  - by Songo

  I have come across many situations where I had to build a system for a library or a clinic or other popular domains. The thing is a domain model for a library was probably done 1000 times already with different level of details of course. Here is an example. Is there a popular website or community where one can find ready made domain models for popular systems? The whole purpose I'm trying to achieve is to quickly get a grasp of the domain I'm modeling and customize it to my needs. Re-inventing the wheel seems really absurd when the same system might have been modeled properly previously. Note I know Google might sound like the perfect source, but there is a repository out there that people can post there models, so that others can share them.

  Read the article

• DDD and filtering

  - by tikhop

  I am developing an app in ddd maner. So I have a complex domain model. Suppose I have a Fare object and Airline. Each Airline should contain several or much more Fares. My UI should represent Model (only small part of complex model) as a list of Airline, when the user select the Airline, I must show the list of Fares. User can filtering the Fares (by travel time, cost, etc.). What is the appropriate place for filtering Fares and Airlines? I am assuming that I should do it in ViewModel. Like: My domain model has wrapped with Service Layer - UI works with ViewModel - ViewModel obtain data from Service Layer filtering it and create DTO objects for UI. Or I'm wrong?

  Read the article

• Domain Models (PHP)

  - by Calum Bulmer

  I have been programming in PHP for several years and have, in the past, adopted methods of my own to handle data within my applications. I have built my own MVC, in the past, and have a reasonable understanding of OOP within php but I know my implementation needs some serious work. In the past I have used an is-a relationship between a model and a database table. I now know after doing some research that this is not really the best way forward. As far as I understand it I should create models that don't really care about the underlying database (or whatever storage mechanism is to be used) but only care about their actions and their data. From this I have established that I can create models of lets say for example a Person an this person object could have some Children (human children) that are also Person objects held in an array (with addPerson and removePerson methods, accepting a Person object). I could then create a PersonMapper that I could use to get a Person with a specific 'id', or to save a Person. This could then lookup the relationship data in a lookup table and create the associated child objects for the Person that has been requested (if there are any) and likewise save the data in the lookup table on the save command. This is now pushing the limits to my knowledge..... What if I wanted to model a building with different levels and different rooms within those levels? What if I wanted to place some items in those rooms? Would I create a class for building, level, room and item with the following structure. building can have 1 or many level objects held in an array level can have 1 or many room objects held in an array room can have 1 or many item objects held in an array and mappers for each class with higher level mappers using the child mappers to populate the arrays (either on request of the top level object or lazy load on request) This seems to tightly couple the different objects albeit in one direction (ie. a floor does not need to be in a building but a building can have levels) Is this the correct way to go about things? Within the view I am wanting to show a building with an option to select a level and then show the level with an option to select a room etc.. but I may also want to show a tree like structure of items in the building and what level and room they are in. I hope this makes sense. I am just struggling with the concept of nesting objects within each other when the general concept of oop seems to be to separate things. If someone can help it would be really useful. Many thanks

  Read the article

• Liskov substitution and abstract classes / strategy pattern

  - by Kolyunya

  I'm trying to follow LSP in practical programming. And I wonder if different constructors of subclasses violate it. It would be great to hear an explanation instead of just yes/no. Thanks much! P.S. If the answer is no, how do I make different strategies with different input without violating LSP? class IStrategy { public: virtual void use() = 0; }; class FooStrategy : public IStrategy { public: FooStrategy(A a, B b) { c = /* some operations with a, b */ } virtual void use() { std::cout << c; } private: C c; }; class BarStrategy : public IStrategy { public: BarStrategy(D d, E e) { f = /* some operations with d, e */ } virtual void use() { std::cout << f; } private: F f; };

  Read the article

• How to use DI and DI containers

  - by Pinetree

  I am building a small PHP mvc framework (yes, yet another one), mostly for learning purposes, and I am trying to do it the right way, so I'd like to use a DI container, but I am not asking which one to use but rather how to use one. Without going into too much detail, the mvc is divided into modules which have controllers which render views for actions. This is how a request is processed: a Main object instantiates a Request object, and a Router, and injects the Request into the Router to figure out which module was called. then it instantiates the Module object and sends the Request to that the Module creates a ModuleRouter and sends the Request to figure out the controller and action it then creates the Controller and the ViewRenderer, and injects the ViewRenderer into the Controller (so that the controller can send data to the view) the ViewRenderer needs to know which module, controller and action were called to figure out the path to the view scripts, so the Module has to figure out this and inject it to the ViewRenderer the Module then calls the action method on the controller and calls the render method on the ViewRenderer For now, I do not have any DI container set up, but what I do have are a bunch of initX() methods that create the required component if it is not already there. For instance, the Module has the initViewRenderer() method. These init methods get called right before that component is needed, not before, and if the component was already set it will not initialize it. This allows for the components to be switched, but it does not require manually setting them if they are not there. Now, I'd like to do this by implementing a DI container, but still keep the manual configuration to a bare minimum, so if the directory structure and naming convention is followed, everything should work, without even touching the config. If I use the DI container, do I then inject it into everything (the container would inject itself when creating a component), so that other components can use it? When do I register components with the DI? Can a component register other components with the DI during run-time? Do I create a 'common' config and use that? How do I then figure out on the fly which components I need and how they need to be set up? If Main uses Router which uses Request, Main then needs to use the container to get Module (or does the module need to be found and set beforehand? How?) Module uses Router but needs to figure out the settings for the ViewRenderer and the Controller on the fly, not in advance, so my DI container can't be setting those on the Module before the module figures out the controller and action... What if the controller needs some other service? Do I inject the container into every controller? If I start doing that, I might just inject it into everything... Basically I am looking for the best practices when dealing with stuff like this. I know what DI is and what DI containers do, but I am looking for guidance to using them in real life, and not some isolated examples on the net. Sorry for the lengthy post and many thanks in advance.

  Read the article

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