Search Results

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

Page 207/531 | < Previous Page | 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214  | Next Page >

  • Logging *Business* Events - use logging framework?

    - by UpTheCreek
    Hi, Something here doesn't feel right to me here, and so I would like the community's input - perhaps I am approaching this in the wrong way.... Q: Is is appropriate to use traditional infrastructure logging frameworks (like log4net) to log business events? When I say business events, I mean I want a global log like this: xx:xx Customer A purchased widget B. xx:xx Widget B was dispatched from warehouse. xx:xx Customer B payment declined. Most traditional infrastructure logging frameworks have event levels something like this: FATAL ERROR WARN INFO DEBUG An of course these messages don't fit well into that. Best description would be INFO, but of course these are important events, and INFO is of very low importance. I would still like this as a 'log' (e.g. I don't want to have to extract this from my business objects each time I want to see it) Seems to me I have two options: 1) Use a framework like log4net and just define a special logger for this (and live with the fact that it doesn't feel right). 2) Provide a service for performing this that doesn't rely on a traditional logging services. I'm leaning towards 2. What has anyone else done in a similar situations? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Domain model: should things like Logging, Audit, Persistence be in it

    - by hom.tanks
    I'm having a hard time convincing our architect that a Domain model should only have the essential elements of the business domain on it. Things like the fact that a class is persistable, that it needs logging and auditing and that it has a RESTful URI should not drive the domain model. They can be added later on, by using interfaces. Ours is a healthcare information management system. At the very coarse level, its a system where users login and access their healthcare information. They can share this information with others and be custodian for others' information (think Roles). But because of a few sound bytes that caught on early like "Everything should be a REST resource" the model now has a top level class called Resource that every other class extends from. I'm trying to make him see that the domain model should have well defined concepts like User Account, HealthDocument, UserRole etc which are distinct entities of the business , with specific associations between them. Clubbing everything under Resource class lets our model be inflexible besides being potentially incorrect. But he wants me to show him why its a bad idea to do it his way. I don't know how to articulate that properly but all my OO instincts tell me that its just not right. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Where should I put contextual data related to an Object that is not really a property of the object?

    - by RenderIn
    I have a Car class. It has three properties: id, color and model. In a particular query I want to return all the cars and their properties, and I also want to return a true/false field called "searcherKnowsOwner" which is a field I calculate in my database query based on whether or not the individual conducting the search knows the owner. I have a database function that takes the ID of the searcher and the ID of the car and returns a boolean. My car class looks like this (pseudocode): class Car{ int id; Color color; Model model; } I have a screen where I want to display all the cars, but I also want to display a flag next to each car if the person viewing the page knows the owner of that car. Should I add a field to the Car class, a boolean searcherKnowsOwner? It's not a property of the car, but is actually a property of the user conducting the search. But this seems like the most efficient place to put this information.

    Read the article

  • Natural vs surrogate keys on support tables

    - by Bugeo
    I have read many articles about the battle between natural versus surrogate primary keys. I agree in the use of surrogate keys to identify records of tables whose contents are created by the user. But in the case of supporting tables what should I use? For example, in a hypothetical table "orderStates". If you use a natural key would have the following data: TABLE ORDERSTATES {ID: "NEW", NAME: "New"} {ID: "MANAGEMENT" NAME: "Management"} {ID: "SHIPPED" NAME: "Shipped"} If I use a surrogate key would have the following data: TABLE ORDERSTATES {ID: 1 CODE: "NEW", NAME: "New"} {ID: 2 CODE: "MANAGEMENT" NAME: "Management"} {ID: 3 CODE: "SHIPPED" NAME: "Shipped"} Now let's take an example: a user enters a new order. In the case in which use natural keys, in the code I can write this: newOrder.StateOrderId = "NEW"; With the surrogate keys instead every time I have an additional step. stateOrderId_NEW = .... I retrieve the id corresponding to the recod code "NEW" newOrder.StateOrderId = stateOrderId_NEW; The same will happen every time I have to move the order in a new status. So, in this case, what are the reason to chose one key type vs the other one?

    Read the article

  • Need alternative field names for these reserved words

    - by MattSlay
    “type” and “class” are likely reserved or problematic words in C# and/or Ruby, two languages I may use to program against my new database schema in the future. So, in order to avoid potential conflicts with those languages, I’m looking for alternative names for these field names in my tables. In this case, it is from my Machines table, where I have: “class” field (values would be something like “manual” or “computerized”) and “type” field (values would be “lathe” or “mill”) I could call the fields “machineclass” and “machinetype”, but that is inconsistent with naming scheme in the rest of my schema (meaning, I do not re-use the table name in the field… For instance, I use Machine.name, not Machine.machinename) Any thought on this madness?

    Read the article

  • Ouput all the page's media queries in a list

    - by alecrust
    Using JavaScript, what would be the best way to output a list containing all media queries that are being applied to the current page. I assume this would need to filtering to find embedded media queries i.e. <link rel="stylesheet" media="only screen and (min-width: 30em)" href="/css/30em.css"> as well as media queries located in CSS files, i.e. @media only screen and (min-width: 320px) {} An example output of what I'm looking for: <p>There are 3 media queries loaded on this page</p> <ol> <li>30em</li> <li>40em</li> <li>960px</li> </ol>

    Read the article

  • Meaning of Primary Key to Microsoft SQL Server 2008

    - by usr
    What meaning does the concept of a primary key have to the database engine of SQL Server? I don't mean the clustered/nonclustered index created on the "ID" column, i mean the constraint object "primary key". Does it matter if it exists or not? Alternatives: alter table add primary key clustered alter table create clustered index Does it make a difference?

    Read the article

  • Game AI: Pattern for implementing Sense-Think-Act components?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm developing a game. Each entity in the game is a GameObject. Each GameObject is composed of a GameObjectController, GameObjectModel, and GameObjectView. (Or inheritants thereof.) For NPCs, the GameObjectController is split into: IThinkNPC: reads current state and makes a decision about what to do IActNPC: updates state based on what needs to be done ISenseNPC: reads current state to answer world queries (eg "am I being in the shadows?") My question: Is this ok for the ISenseNPC interface? public interface ISenseNPC { // ... /// <summary> /// True if `dest` is a safe point to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="dest"></param> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <param name="range"></param> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeToRetreat(Vector2 dest, float angleToThreat, float range); /// <summary> /// Finds a new location to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <returns></returns> Vector2 newRetreatDest(float angleToThreat); /// <summary> /// Returns the closest LightSource that illuminates the NPC. /// Null if the NPC is not illuminated. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> ILightSource ClosestIlluminatingLight(); /// <summary> /// True if the NPC is sufficiently far away from target. /// Assumes that target is the only entity it could ever run from. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeFromTarget(); } None of the methods take any parameters. Instead, the implementation is expected to maintain a reference to the relevant GameObjectController and read that. However, I'm now trying to write unit tests for this. Obviously, it's necessary to use mocking, since I can't pass arguments directly. The way I'm doing it feels really brittle - what if another implementation comes along that uses the world query utilities in a different way? Really, I'm not testing the interface, I'm testing the implementation. Poor. The reason I used this pattern in the first place was to keep IThinkNPC implementation code clean: public BehaviorState RetreatTransition(BehaviorState currentBehavior) { if (sense.IsCollidingWithTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "is colliding with target"); return BehaviorState.ATTACK; } if (sense.IsSafeFromTarget() && sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() == null) { return BehaviorState.WANDER; } if (sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() != null && sense.SeesTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "collides with target"); return BehaviorState.CHASE; } return currentBehavior; } Perhaps the cleanliness isn't worth it, however. So, if ISenseNPC takes all the params it needs every time, I could make it static. Is there any problem with that?

    Read the article

  • What's an easy way to set up object communication in Obj-C?

    - by seaworthy
    I am trying to send a slider value from a controller object to a method of a model object. The later is implemented in the separate file and I have appropriate headers. I think the problem is that I am not sure how to instantiate the receiver in order to produce a working method for the controller. Here is the controller's method. -(IBAction)setValue:(id)slider {[Model setValue:[slider floatValue]];} @implementation Model -(void)setValue:(float)n{ printf("%f",n); } @end What I get is 'Model' may not respond to '+setValue' warning and no output in my console. Any insight is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Using free function as pseudo-constructors to exploit template parameter deduction

    - by Poita_
    Is it a common pattern/idiom to use free functions as pseudo-constructors to avoid having to explicitly specify template parameters? For example, everyone knows about std::make_pair, which uses its parameters to deduce the pair types: template <class A, class B> std::pair<A, B> make_pair(A a, B b) { return std::pair<A, B>(a, b); } // This allows you to call make_pair(1, 2), // instead of having to type pair<int, int>(1, 2) // as you can't get type deduction from the constructor. I find myself using this quite often, so I was just wondering if many other people use it, and if there is a name for this pattern?

    Read the article

  • wrapping user controls in a transaction

    - by Hans Gruber
    I'm working on heavily dynamic and configurable CMS system. Therefore, many pages are composed of a dynamically loaded set of user controls. To enable loose coupling between containers (pages) and children (user controls), all user controls are responsible for their own persistence. Each User Control is wired up to its data/service layer dependencies via IoC. They also implement an IPersistable interface, which allows the container .aspx page to issue a Save command to its children without knowledge of the number or exact nature of these user controls. Note: what follows is only pseudo-code: public class MyUserControl : IPersistable, IValidatable { public void Save() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public bool IsValid() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public partial class MyPage { public void btnSave_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { foreach (IValidatable control in Controls) { if (!control.IsValid) { throw new Exception("error"); } } foreach (IPersistable control in Controls) { if (!control.Save) { throw new Exception("error"); } } } } I'm thinking of using declarative transactions from the System.EnterpriseService namespace to wrap the btnSave_Click in a transaction in case of an exception, but I'm not sure how this might be achieved or any pitfalls to such an approach.

    Read the article

  • How do I recover from an unchecked exception?

    - by erickson
    Unchecked exceptions are alright if you want to handle every failure the same way, for example by logging it and skipping to the next request, displaying a message to the user and handling the next event, etc. If this is my use case, all I have to do is catch some general exception type at a high level in my system, and handle everything the same way. But I want to recover from specific problems, and I'm not sure the best way to approach it with unchecked exceptions. Here is a concrete example. Suppose I have a web application, built using Struts2 and Hibernate. If an exception bubbles up to my "action", I log it, and display a pretty apology to the user. But one of the functions of my web application is creating new user accounts, that require a unique user name. If a user picks a name that already exists, Hibernate throws an org.hibernate.exception.ConstraintViolationException (an unchecked exception) down in the guts of my system. I'd really like to recover from this particular problem by asking the user to choose another user name, rather than giving them the same "we logged your problem but for now you're hosed" message. Here are a few points to consider: There a lot of people creating accounts simultaneously. I don't want to lock the whole user table between a "SELECT" to see if the name exists and an "INSERT" if it doesn't. In the case of relational databases, there might be some tricks to work around this, but what I'm really interested in is the general case where pre-checking for an exception won't work because of a fundamental race condition. Same thing could apply to looking for a file on the file system, etc. Given my CTO's propensity for drive-by management induced by reading technology columns in "Inc.", I need a layer of indirection around the persistence mechanism so that I can throw out Hibernate and use Kodo, or whatever, without changing anything except the lowest layer of persistence code. As a matter of fact, there are several such layers of abstraction in my system. How can I prevent them from leaking in spite of unchecked exceptions? One of the declaimed weaknesses of checked exceptions is having to "handle" them in every call on the stack—either by declaring that a calling method throws them, or by catching them and handling them. Handling them often means wrapping them in another checked exception of a type appropriate to the level of abstraction. So, for example, in checked-exception land, a file-system–based implementation of my UserRegistry might catch IOException, while a database implementation would catch SQLException, but both would throw a UserNotFoundException that hides the underlying implementation. How do I take advantage of unchecked exceptions, sparing myself of the burden of this wrapping at each layer, without leaking implementation details?

    Read the article

  • Compiler doesn't find methods from base class

    - by Paul
    I am having a problem with my virtual methods in a derived class. Here are my (simplified) C++ classes. class Base virtual method accept( MyVisitor1* v ) { /*implementation is here*/ }; virtual method accept( MyVisitor2* v ) { /*implementation is here*/ }; virtual method accept( MyVisitor3* v ) { /*implementation is here*/ }; class DerivedClass virtual method accept( MyVisitor2* v ) { /*implementation is here*/ }; The following use causes VS 2005 to give: "error C2664: 'DerivedClass::accept' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'Visitor1*' to 'Visitor2 *'". DerivedClass c; MyVisitor1 v1; c.accept(v1); I was expecting the compiler to find and call Base::accept(MyVisitor1) for my DerivedClass as well. Obviously this is not working, but I don't understand why. Any ideas? Thanks, Paul

    Read the article

  • capturing user identity for an online application

    - by Samuel
    We are designing an online application (college admission form) which mandates the user to upload a scanned copy of his photo along with his signature, so that this information can be used to cross verify the applicant when he appears for a exam + personal interview at a later point in time. This entire process requires a scanner for the applicant to scan his photo / signature into an appropriate size. Is there a better way to capture user identity for such purposes as usage of scanner for capturing signature, photo is a painful process.

    Read the article

  • Avoid loading unnecessary data from db into objects (web pages)

    - by GmGr
    Really newbie question coming up. Is there a standard (or good) way to deal with not needing all of the information that a database table contains loaded into every associated object. I'm thinking in the context of web pages where you're only going to use the objects to build a single page rather than an application with longer lived objects. For example, lets say you have an Article table containing id, title, author, date, summary and fullContents fields. You don't need the fullContents to be loaded into the associated objects if you're just showing a page containing a list of articles with their summaries. On the other hand if you're displaying a specific article you might want every field loaded for that one article and maybe just the titles for the other articles (e.g. for display in a recent articles sidebar). Some techniques I can think of: Don't worry about it, just load everything from the database every time. Have several different, possibly inherited, classes for each table and create the appropriate one for the situation (e.g. SummaryArticle, FullArticle). Use one class but set unused properties to null at creation if that field is not needed and be careful. Give the objects access to the database so they can load some fields on demand. Something else? All of the above seem to have fairly major disadvantages. I'm fairly new to programming, very new to OOP and totally new to databases so I might be completely missing the obvious answer here. :)

    Read the article

  • How can I make a family of singletons?

    - by Jay
    I want to create a set of classes that share a lot of common behavior. Of course in OOP when you think that you automatically think "abstract class with subclasses". But among the things I want these classes to do is to each have a static list of instances of the class. The list should function as sort of a singleton within the class. I mean each of the sub-classes has a singleton, not that they share one. "Singleton" to that subclass, not a true singleton. But if it's a static, how can I inherit it? Of course code like this won't work: public abstract A { static List<A> myList; public static List getList() { if (myList==null) myList=new ArrayList<A>(10); return myList; } public static A getSomethingFromList() { List listInstance=getList(); ... do stuff with list ... } public int getSomethingFromA() { ... regular code acting against current instance ... } } public class A1 extends A { ... } public class A2 extends A { ... } A1 somethingfromA1List=(A1) A1.getSomethingFromList(); A2 somethingfromA2List=(A2) A2.getSomethingFromList(); The contents of the list for each subclass would be different, but all the code to work on the lists would be the same. The problem with the above code is that I'd only have one list for all the subclasses, and I want one for each. Yes, I could replicate the code to declare the static list in each of the subclasses, but then I'd also have to replicate all the code that adds to the lists and searches the list, etc, which rather defeats the purpose of subclassing. Any ideas on how to do this without replicating code?

    Read the article

  • where does the professional sheen of a GUI application realistically come from?

    - by JW
    I have been playing around with php-gtk recently and in the past I have experimented with Java to make GUI 'hello world' apps. However both these types of applications have had a bit of a clunky (almost childish) look and feel to them. I cannot deny that they are handy for making apps for in-house use (and I totally respect the amount of community effort that goes into these projects). But I would not necessarily be proud to sell it as a commercial application with a price tag of, say, £450 or £1,000. If I wanted to make an application that had the look and feel of, say, Firefox for Windows, or Adobe xyz, what GUI/language should I use? Is the 'professional sheen' or smart look and feel down to the designer or is it the case that, no matter how good a designer is, picking the right GUI framework is essential to get that look?

    Read the article

  • What division operator symbol would you pick?

    - by Mackenzie
    I am currently designing and implementing a small programming language as an extra-credit project in a class I'm taking. My problem is that the language has three numeric types: Long, Double, and Fraction. Fractions can be written in the language as proper or improper fractions (e.g. "2 1/3" or "1/2"). This fact leads to problems such as "2/3.5" (Long/Double) and "2/3"(Long/Long) not being handled correctly by the lexer.The best solution that I see is to change the division operator. So far, I think "\" is the best solution since "//" starts comments. Would you pick "\", if you were designing the language? Would you pick something else? If so, what? Note: changing the way fractions are written is not possible. Thanks in advance for your help,

    Read the article

  • C#: How to inherit constructors?

    - by Ian Boyd
    Imagine a base class with many constructors and a virtual method public class Foo { ... public Foo() {...} public Foo(int i) {...} ... public virtual void SomethingElse() {...} ... } and now I want to create a descendant class that overrides the virtual method: public class Bar : Foo { public override void SomethingElse() {...} } And another descendant that does some more stuff: public class Bah : Bar { public void DoMoreStuff() {...} } Do I really have to copy all constructors from Foo into Bar and Bah? And then if I change a constructor signature in Foo, do I have to update it in Bar and Bah? Is there no way to inherit constructors? Is there no way to encourage code reuse?

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to use try catch inside finally?

    - by Hiral Lakdavala
    Hi, I am using a buffered writer and my code, closes the writer in the finally block. My code is like this. ........... BufferedWriter theBufferedWriter = null; try{ theBufferedWriter =..... .... ...... ..... } catch (IOException anException) { .... } finally { try { theBufferedWriter.close(); } catch (IOException anException) { anException.printStackTrace(); } } I have to use the try catch inside the clean up code in finally as theBufferedWriter might also throw an IOException. I do not want to throw this exception to the calling methos. Is it a good practice to use a try catch in finally? If not what is the alternative? Please suggest. Regards, Hiral

    Read the article

  • Calling DI Container directly in method code (MVC Actions)

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    I'm playing with DI (using Unity). I've learned how to do Constructor and Property injection. I have a static container exposed through a property in my Global.asax file (MvcApplication class). I have a need for a number of different objects in my Controller. It doesn't seem right to inject these throught the constructor, partly because of the high quantity of them, and partly because they are only needed in some Actions methods. The question is, is there anything wrong with just calling my container directly from within the Action methods? public ActionResult Foo() { IBar bar = (Bar)MvcApplication.Container.Resolve(IBar); // ... Bar uses a default constructor, I'm not actually doing any // injection here, I'm just telling my conatiner to give me Bar // when I ask for IBar so I can hide the existence of the concrete // Bar from my Controller. } This seems the simplest and most efficient way of doing things, but I've never seen an example used in this way. Is there anything wrong with this? Am I missing the concept in some way?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214  | Next Page >