Search Results

Search found 13259 results on 531 pages for 'egghead design'.

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

Page 202/531 | < Previous Page | 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209  | Next Page >

  • Is MVVM killing silverlight development?

    - by DeanMc
    This is a question I have had rattling around in my head for some time. I had a chat with a guy the other night who told me he would not be using the navigational framework because he could not figure out how it works with MVVM. As much as I tried to explain that patterns should be taken with a pinch of salt he would not listen. My point is this, patterns are great when they solve some problem. Sometimes only part of the pattern solves a particular problem while the other parts of it cause different problems. The goal of any developer is to build a solid application using a combination of patterns know how and foresight. I feel MVVM is becoming the one pattern to rule them all. As it is not directly supported by .Net some fancy business is needed to make it work. I feel that people are missing the point of the pattern, which is loosely coupled, testable code and instead jumping through hoops and missing out on great experiences trying to follow MVVM to the letter. MVVM is great but I wish it came with a warning or disclaimer for newbies as my fear is people will shy away from silverlight development for fear of being smacked with the mvvm stick. EDIT: Can I just add as an edit, I use and agree with MVVM as a pattern I know when it is and isn't feasible in my projects. My issue is with the encompassing nature it is taking, as if it HAS to be used as part of development. It is being used as an integral feature and not a pattern, which it is.

    Read the article

  • SEO with image link alt text vs standard text-based link

    - by Infiniti Fizz
    Hi, I'm currently developing a website and the main navigation is made up of image links because the font used for them isn't standard. My client's only worry is will this mess up search engine optimization? Can I just add alt text to the images like "link 1" or use the name attribute of the anchor tag? Or would it be better to just have the navigation as anchor tags with the names of the links in them like: <a href="...">link 1</a>? I'm new to SEO so really don't know which to suggest to him, Thanks for your time, InfinitiFizz

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason for an object pool to not be treated as a singleton?

    - by Chris Charabaruk
    I don't necessarily mean implemented using the singleton pattern, but rather, only having and using one instance of a pool. I don't like the idea of having just one pool (or one per pooled type). However, I can't really come up with any concrete situations where there's an advantage to multiple pools for mutable types, at least not any where a single pool can function just as well. What advantages are there to having multiple pools over a singleton pool?

    Read the article

  • Class hierarchy problem (with generic's variance!)

    - by devoured elysium
    The problem: class StatesChain : IState, IHasStateList { private TasksChain tasks = new TasksChain(); ... public IList<IState> States { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } } IList<ITask> IHasTasksCollection.Tasks { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } <-- ERROR! You can't do this in C#! I want to return an IList<ITask> from an IList<IStates>. } } Assuming the IList returned will be read-only, I know that what I'm trying to achieve is safe (or is it not?). Is there any way I can accomplish what I'm trying? I wouldn't want to try to implement myself the TasksChain algorithm (again!), as it would be error prone and would lead to code duplication. Maybe I could just define an abstract Chain and then implement both TasksChain and StatesChain from there? Or maybe implementing a Chain<T> class? How would you approach this situation? The Details: I have defined an ITask interface: public interface ITask { bool Run(); ITask FailureTask { get; } } and a IState interface that inherits from ITask: public interface IState : ITask { IState FailureState { get; } } I have also defined an IHasTasksList interface: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> Tasks { get; } } and an IHasStatesList: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> States { get; } } Now, I have defined a TasksChain, that is a class that has some code logic that will manipulate a chain of tasks (beware that TasksChain is itself a kind of ITask!): class TasksChain : ITask, IHasTasksList { IList<ITask> tasks = new List<ITask>(); ... public List<ITask> Tasks { get { return _tasks; } } ... } I am implementing a State the following way: public class State : IState { private readonly TaskChain _taskChain = new TaskChain(); public State(Precondition precondition, Execution execution) { _taskChain.Tasks.Add(precondition); _taskChain.Tasks.Add(execution); } public bool Run() { return _taskChain.Run(); } public IState FailureState { get { return (IState)_taskChain.Tasks[0].FailureTask; } } ITask ITask.FailureTask { get { return FailureState; } } } which, as you can see, makes use of explicit interface implementations to "hide" FailureTask and instead show FailureState property. The problem comes from the fact that I also want to define a StatesChain, that inherits both from IState and IHasStateList (and that also imples ITask and IHasTaskList, implemented as explicit interfaces) and I want it to also hide IHasTaskList's Tasks and only show IHasStateList's States. (What is contained in "The problem" section should really be after this, but I thought puting it first would be way more reader friendly). (pff..long text) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Can the Singleton be replaced by Factory?

    - by lostiniceland
    Hello Everyone There are already quite some posts about the Singleton-Pattern around, but I would like to start another one on this topic since I would like to know if the Factory-Pattern would be the right approach to remove this "anti-pattern". In the past I used the singleton quite a lot, also did my fellow collegues since it is so easy to use. For example, the Eclipse IDE or better its workbench-model makes heavy usage of singletons as well. It was due to some posts about E4 (the next big Eclipse version) that made me start to rethink the singleton. The bottom line was that due to this singletons the dependecies in Eclipse 3.x are tightly coupled. Lets assume I want to get rid of all singletons completely and instead use factories. My thoughts were as follows: hide complexity less coupling I have control over how many instances are created (just store the reference I a private field of the factory) mock the factory for testing (with Dependency Injection) when it is behind an interface In some cases the factories can make more than one singleton obsolete (depending on business logic/component composition) Does this make sense? If not, please give good reasons for why you think so. An alternative solution is also appreciated. Thanks Marc

    Read the article

  • Database Modeling - Either/Or in Many-to-Many

    - by EkoostikMartin
    I have an either/or type of situation in a many-to-many relationship I'm trying to model. So I have these tables: Message ---- *MessageID MessageText Employee ---- *EmployeeID EmployeeName Team ---- *TeamID TeamName MessageTarget ---- MessageID EmployeeID (nullable) TeamID (nullable) So, a Message can have either a list of Employees, or a list of Teams as a MessageTarget. Is the MessageTarget table I have above the best way to implement this relationship? What constraints can I place on the MessageTarget effectively? How should I create a primary key on MessageTarget table?

    Read the article

  • Disposing underlying object from finalizer in an immutable object

    - by Juan Luis Soldi
    I'm trying to wrap around Awesomium and make it look to the rest of my code as close as possible to NET's WebBrowser since this is for an existing application that already uses the WebBrowser. In this library, there is a class called JSObject which represents a javascript object. You can get one of this, for instance, by calling the ExecuteJavascriptWithResult method of the WebView class. If you'd call it like myWebView.ExecuteJavascriptWithResult("document", string.Empty).ToObject(), then you'd get a JSObject that represents the document. I'm writing an immutable class (it's only field is a readonly JSObject object) called JSObjectWrap that wraps around JSObject which I want to use as base class for other classes that would emulate .NET classes such as HtmlElement and HtmlDocument. Now, these classes don't implement Dispose, but JSObject does. What I first thought was to call the underlying JSObject's Dispose method in my JSObjectWrap's finalizer (instead of having JSObjectWrap implement Dispose) so that the rest of my code can stay the way it is (instead of having to add using's everywhere and make sure every JSObjectWrap is being properly disposed). But I just realized if more than two JSObjectWrap's have the same underlying JSObject and one of them gets finalized this will mess up the other JSObjectWrap. So now I'm thinking maybe I should keep a static Dictionary of JSObjects and keep count of how many of each of them are being referenced by a JSObjectWrap but this sounds messy and I think could cause major performance issues. Since this sounds to me like a common pattern I wonder if anyone else has a better idea.

    Read the article

  • Start thread with two parameters

    - by Matt
    I've got a method that gets called on an event, which presents me with two variables varA, varB (both strings). This method gets called with new information quite frequently, thus I have created a separate method that takes in the two parameters. I want to run this method in a thread, however have struck the issue that Thread.Start will not accept parameters. I've tried a few supposed methods, but have so far had no luck.. I think my best bet is to create a separate class, and handle it there.. However I have a List which I am inserting data into, and hit a dead end when the separate class tried to access that list, since it was in a different class. Can someone help me out here please?

    Read the article

  • Is there a recommended way to use the Observer pattern in MVP using GWT?

    - by Tomislav Nakic-Alfirevic
    I am thinking about implementing a user interface according to the MVP pattern using GWT, but have doubts about how to proceed. These are (some of) my goals: - the presenter knows nothing about the UI technology (i.e. uses nothing from com.google.*) - the view knows nothing about the model or the presenter - the model knows nothing of the view or the presenter (...obviously) I would place an interface between the view and the presenter and use the Observer pattern to decouple the two: the view generates events and the presenter gets notified. What confuses me is that java.util.Observer and java.util.Observable are not supported in GWT. This suggests that what I'm doing is not the recommended way to do it, as far as GWT is concerned, which leads me to my questions: what is the recommended way to implement MVP using GWT, specifically with the above goals in mind? How would you do it?

    Read the article

  • Some questions regarding Flex

    - by Rachel
    For what real time scenarios/use cases one should go to Flex Technology ? What real time problems you have solved using Flex Technology ? What real time problems have you faced because of using Flex Technology and what was your work around for that use case ?

    Read the article

  • Sequence Diagram return a new constructed Object

    - by user256007
    I am drawing a Sequence Diagram where the scenario is. 1. an Actor calls :Table::query(query:String) :Table::query Calls :Connection::execute(query) :Connection::execute < a new :Row Object :Connection::execute calls :Row::fillData(result) :Connection::execute returns :Row ...... There are More But I am Stuck in Step 5 I cant Understand how to draw that, :Connection::execute returning the newly Constructed Row itself, in a Standard way.

    Read the article

  • Problem implementing Interceptor pattern

    - by ph0enix
    I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? Update: I came across Spring.NET. I've heard of it before, but never really looked into it. It sounds like it has a lot of great features that would be very useful for what I'm trying to do. Does anyone have any experience with Spring.NET? TIA, Jeremy

    Read the article

  • Has anyone ever encountered a Monad Transformer in the wild?

    - by martingw
    In my area of business - back office IT for a financial institution - it is very common for a software component to carry a global configuration around, to log it's progress, to have some kind of error handling / computation short circuit... Things that can be modelled nicely by Reader-, Writer-, Maybe-monads and the like in Haskell and composed together with monad transformers. But there seem to some drawbacks: The concept behind monad transformers is quite tricky and hard to understand, monad transformers lead to very complex type signatures, and they inflict some performance penalty. So I'm wondering: Are monad transformers best practice when dealing with those common tasks mentioned above?

    Read the article

  • Google Calendar like interface

    - by John Virgolino
    I need to write an application that essentially functions like a week-view of a calendar, columns for the days and then rows for appointments. Where the height of the appointment box visually represents time. In my case, I just don't want the time of day as the vertical axis, I just want hours or mins. The Google AJAX approach is very clean and easy to use and would be perfect, I think, but my major knowledge comes in ASP.Net and Windows Forms (.Net). I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but I find my mind is stuck on this problem and that I would have to create an interface from scratch for this. I have checked out the Infragistics product (used it for other projects) and read up a lot on the Google API's including their Ajax toolkit. I haven't done Java, however learning a language is not my issue, it's learning the particulars that will help me reach my goal that I feel will take most of the time. Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Is this really a lot easier than I think? This is starting to sound like a Dear Abby post - I'll stop now. Any advice or insight would be great! Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • Three level database - foreign keys

    - by poke
    I have a three level database with the following structure (simplified to only show the primary keys): Table A: a_id Table B: a_id, b_id Table C: a_id, b_id, c_id So possible values for table C would be something like this: a_id b_id c_id 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 ... I am now unsure, how foreign keys should be set; or if they should be set for the primary keys at all. My idea was to have a foreign key on table B B.a_id -> A.a_id, and two foreign key on C C.a_id -> A.a_id and ( C.a_id, C.b_id ) -> ( B.a_id, B.b_id ). Is that the way I should set up the foreign keys? Is the foreign key from C->A necessary? Or do I even need foreign keys at all given that all those columns are part of the primary keys? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Using DTOs and BOs

    - by ryanzec
    One area of question for me about DTOs/BOs is about when to pass/return the DTOs and when to pass/return the BOs. My gut reaction tells me to always map NHibernate to the DTOs, not BOs, and always pass/return the DTOs. Then whenever I needed to perform business logic, I would convert my DTO into a BO. The way I would do this is that my BO would have a have a constructor that takes a parameter that is the type of my interface (that defines the required fields/properties) that both my DTO and BO implement as the only argument. Then I would be able to create my BO by passing it the DTO in the constructor (since both with implement the same interface, they both with have the same properties) and then be able to perform my business logic with that BO. I would then also have a way to convert a BO to a DTO. However, I have also seen where people seem to only work with BOs and only work with DTOs in the background where to the user, it looks like there are no DTOs. What benefits/downfalls are there with this architecture vs always using BO's? Should I always being passing/returning either DTOs or BOs or mix and match (seems like mixing and matching could get confusing)?

    Read the article

  • Creating get/set method dynamically in javascript

    - by portoalet
    I am trying to create a UserDon object, and trying to generate the get and set methods programmatically ( based on Pro Javascript book by John Resig page 37 ), and am testing this on Firefox 3.5 The problem is: in function UserDon, "this" refers to the window object instead of the UserDon object. So after calling var userdon = new UserDon(...) I got setname and getname methods created on the window object (also setage and getage). How can I fix this? function UserDon( properties ) { for( var i in properties ) { (function(){ this[ "get" + i ] = function() { return properties[i]; }; this[ "set" + i ] = function(val) { properties[i] = val; }; })(); } } var userdon = new UserDon( { name: "Bob", age: 44 });

    Read the article

  • What is an index in MySQL?

    - by Eric
    http://i.imgur.com/JdsUK.jpg I created a table like the picture above. What are the "Indexes"? primary key? unique? It works well without setting indexes.. What do they do? why do I need them? Also, I set all String fields to TEXT because I didn't know how many characters I need. Is this a good idea? I don't see any difference. Thanks!

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209  | Next Page >