Search Results

Search found 14376 results on 576 pages for 'interaction design'.

Page 210/576 | < Previous Page | 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217  | Next Page >

• Saving Abstract and Sub classes to database

  - by bretddog

  Hi, I have an abstract class "StrategyBase", and a set of sub classes, StrategyA/B/C etc. The sub classes use some of the properties of the base class, and have some individual properties. My question is how to save this to a database. I'm currently using SqlCE, and Linq-To-Sql by creating entity classes automatically with SqlMetal.exe. I've seen there are three solutions shown in this question, but I'm not able to see how these solutions will work or not with SqlMetal/entity classes. Though it seems to me the "concrete table inheritance" would probably work without any manual modifying. What about the other two, would they be problematic? For "Single Table Inheritance" wouldn't all classes get all variables, even though they don't need them? And for the "Class table inheritance" solution I can't really see at all how that will map into the entity-classes for a useful purpose. I may note that I extend these partial entity classes for making the classes of my business objects. I may also consider moving to EntityFramework instead of SqlMetal/Linq2Sql, so would be nice also to know if that makes any difference to what schema is easy to implement. One likely important thing to note is that I will constantly be develop new strategies, which makes me have to modify the program code, and probably the database shcema; when adding a new strategy. Sorry the question is a bit "all over the place", but hopefully it's some clear advantages/disadvantages here that you may be able to advice. ? Cheers!

  Read the article

• Am I abusing Policies?

  - by pmr

  I find myself using policies a lot in my code and usually I'm very happy with that. But from time to time I find myself confronted with using that pattern in situations where the Policies are selected and runtime and I have developed habbits to work around such situations. Usually I start with something like that: class DrawArrays { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; class DrawElements { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public Policy { using Policy::sendDraw(); public: void render() const; }; When the policy is picked at runtime I have different choices of working around the situation. Different code paths: if(drawElements) { Vertices<DrawElements> vertices; } else { Vertices<DrawArrays> vertices; } Inheritance and virtual calls: class PureVertices { public: void render()=0; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public PureVertices, public Policy { //.. }; Both solutions feel wrong to me. The first creates an umaintainable mess and the second introduces the overhead of virtual calls that I tried to avoid by using policies in the first place. Am I missing the proper solutions or do I use the wrong pattern to solve the problem?

  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

• Android ignoring my setWidth() and setHeight()

  - by popoffka

  So, why does this code: package org.popoffka.apicross; import android.app.Activity; import android.os.Bundle; import android.widget.Button; public class Game extends Activity { @Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); Button testButton = new Button(this); testButton.setBackgroundResource(R.drawable.cell); testButton.setWidth(20); testButton.setHeight(20); setContentView(testButton); } } ...produce this thing: http://i42.tinypic.com/2hgdzme.png even though there's a setWidth(20) and setHeight(20) in the code? (R.drawable.cell is actually a 20x20 PNG image containing a white cell with a silver border)

  Read the article

• Designing a general database interface in PHP

  - by lamas

  I'm creating a small framework for my web projects in PHP so I don't have to do the basic work over and over again for every new website. It is not my goal to create a second CakePHP or Codeigniter and I'm also not planning to build my websites with any of the available frameworks as I prefer to use things I've created myself in general. I have no problems in designing that framework when it comes to parts like the core structure, request handling, and so on but I'm getting stuck with designing the database interface for my modules. I've already thought about using the MVC pattern but thought that it would be a bit of a overkill. So the exact problem I'm facing is how my frameworks modules (viewCustomers could be a module, for example) should interact with the database. Is it a good idea to write SQL directly in PHP (mysql_query( 'SELECT firstname, lastname(.....))? How could I abstract a query like SELECT firstname, lastname FROM customers WHERE id=X Would MySQL helper functions like $this->db->get( array('firstname', 'lastname'), array('id'=>X) ) be a good idea? I suppose not because they actually make everything more complicated by requiring arrays to be created and passed. Is the Model pattern from MVC my only real option?

  Read the article

• Default values for all null columns

  - by Irwin

  Is there any merit in creating a policy that requires developers to specify default values for all null columns?

  Read the article

• django models : How to have variable number of foreign keys in a model ?

  - by Rohit

  For instance, Model Resume contains variable number of Model Project 's, What should be my models and relationships between them to achieve this ? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• What's the standard way to organize the contents of Java packages -- specifically the location of in

  - by RenderIn

  I suppose this could go for many OO languages. I'm building my domain objects and am not sure where the best place is for the interfaces & abstract classes. If I have a pets package with various implementations of the APet abstract class: should it live side-by-side with them or in the parent package? How about interfaces? It seems like they almost have to live above the implementations in the parent package, since there could potentially be other subpackages which implement it, while there seems to be a stronger correlation between one abstract class and a subpackage. e.g. com.foo com.foo.IConsumer (interface) com.foo.APet (abstract) com.foo.pets.Dog extends APet implements IConsumer OR com.foo com.foo.IConsumer (interface) com.foo.pets.APet (abstract) com.foo.pets.Dog extends APet implements IConsumer or something else?

  Read the article

• Many-To-Many dimensional model

  - by Mevdiven

  Folks, I have a dimension table called DIM_FILE which holds information of the files we received from customers. Each file has detail records which constitutes my FACT table, CUST_DETAIL. In the main process, file is gone through several stages and each stage tags a status to it. Long in a short, I have many-to-many relationship. Any ideas around star schema dimensional modeling. A customer record only belong to a single file and a file can have multiple statuses. FACT ---- CustID FileID AmountDue DIM_FILE -------- FileID FileName DateReceived FILE_STATUS ----------- FileID StatusDateTime StatusCode

  Read the article

• Delegates in Action -Help

  - by Amutha

  I am learning delegates.I am very curious to apply delegates to the following chain-of-responsibility pattern. Kindly help me the way to apply delegates to the following piece. Thanks in advance.Thanks for your effort. #region Chain of Responsibility Pattern namespace Chain { public class Player { public string Name { get; set; } public int Score { get; set; } } public abstract class PlayerHandler { protected PlayerHandler _Successor = null; public abstract void HandlePlayer(Player _player); public void SetupHandler(PlayerHandler _handler) { _Successor = _handler; } } public class Employee : PlayerHandler { public override void HandlePlayer(Player _player) { if (_player.Score <= 100) { MessageBox.Show(string.Format("{0} is greeted by Employee", _player.Name)); } else { _Successor.HandlePlayer(_player); } } } public class Supervisor : PlayerHandler { public override void HandlePlayer(Player _player) { if (_player.Score >100 && _player.Score<=200) { MessageBox.Show(string.Format("{0} is greeted by Supervisor", _player.Name)); } else { _Successor.HandlePlayer(_player); } } } public class Manager : PlayerHandler { public override void HandlePlayer(Player _player) { if (_player.Score > 200) { MessageBox.Show(string.Format("{0} is greeted by Manager", _player.Name)); } else { MessageBox.Show(string.Format("{0} got low score", _player.Name)); } } } } #endregion #region Main() void Main() { Chain.Player p1 = new Chain.Player(); p1.Name = "Jon"; p1.Score = 100; Chain.Player p2 = new Chain.Player(); p2.Name = "William"; p2.Score = 170; Chain.Player p3 = new Chain.Player(); p3.Name = "Robert"; p3.Score = 300; Chain.Employee emp = new Chain.Employee(); Chain.Manager mgr = new Chain.Manager(); Chain.Supervisor sup = new Chain.Supervisor(); emp.SetupHandler(sup); sup.SetupHandler(mgr); emp.HandlePlayer(p1); emp.HandlePlayer(p2); emp.HandlePlayer(p3); } #endregion

  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

• 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

• 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

• Recommendations for an in memory database vs thread safe data structures

  - by yx

  TLDR: What are the pros/cons of using an in-memory database vs locks and concurrent data structures? I am currently working on an application that has many (possibly remote) displays that collect live data from multiple data sources and renders them on screen in real time. One of the other developers have suggested the use of an in memory database instead of doing it the standard way our other systems behaves, which is to use concurrent hashmaps, queues, arrays, and other objects to store the graphical objects and handling them safely with locks if necessary. His argument is that the DB will lessen the need to worry about concurrency since it will handle read/write locks automatically, and also the DB will offer an easier way to structure the data into as many tables as we need instead of having create hashmaps of hashmaps of lists, etc and keeping track of it all. I do not have much DB experience myself so I am asking fellow SO users what experiences they have had and what are the pros & cons of inserting the DB into the system?

  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 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

• How to use yahoo UI in my page.

  - by Ayyappan.Anbalagan

  I need to include any dll in my asp.net project?.Is that good to use in web page my page..

  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

• Pros / Cons displaying list of users at login page

  - by Radu094

  We seem to have a lot of clients asking us to change the login screen in this manner: Display a list of all available users (thumbnail picture + name) User selects a username from the list A password prompt appears near the username User enters password then presses enter This sounds remarcably similar to the Windows XP login, which is probably where they got the ideea in the first place. There are only about 4 - 5 different users that can login at any given station, so implementing that list on one screen is feasable. So I was wondering if there are any usability experts with some word on this method of login. As far as I can tell, MS droped this behaviour in Vista/Win7, didn't they?

  Read the article

• Use of (non) qualified names

  - by AProgrammer

  If I want to use the name baz defined in package foo|bar|quz, I've several choices: provide fbq as a short name for foo|bar|quz and use fbq|baz use foo|bar|quz|baz import baz from foo|bar|quz|baz and then use baz (or an alias given in the import process) import all public symbols from foo|bar|quz|baz and then use baz For the languages I know, my perception is that the best practice is to use the first two ways (I'll use one or the other depending on the specific package full name and the number of symbols I need from it). I'd use the third only in a language which doesn't provide the first and hunt for supporting tools to write the import statements. And in my opinion the fourth should be reserved to package designed with than import in mind, for instance if all exported symbols start with a prefix or contains the name of the package. My questions: what is in your opinion the best practice for your favorite languages? what would you suggest in a new language? what would you suggest in an old language adding such a feature?

  Read the article

• [C++]Advantage of using a static member function instead of an equivalent non-static member function

  - by jonathanasdf

  I was wondering whether there's any advantages to using a static member function when there is a non-static equivalent. Will it result in faster execution (because of not having to care about all of the member variables), or maybe less use of memory (because of not being included in all instances)? Basically, the function I'm looking at is an utility function to rotate an integer array representing pixel colours an arbitrary number of degrees around an arbitrary centre point. It is placed in my abstract Bullet base class, since only the bullets will be using it and I didn't want the overhead of calling it in some utility class. It's a bit too long and used in every single derived bullet class, making it probably not a good idea to inline. How would you suggest I define this function? As a static member function of Bullet, of a non-static member function of Bullet, or maybe not as a member of Bullet but defined outside of the class in Bullet.h? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

  Read the article

• Asp.Net MVC best way to update cached table

  - by Eddy Mishiyev

  There are certain tables that get called often but updated rarely. One of these tables is Departments. So to save DB trips, I think it is ok to cache this table taking into consideration that the table has very small size. However, once you cached it an issue of keeping the table data fresh occurs. So what is the best way to determine that the table is dirty and therefore requires a reload and how that code should be invoked. I look for solution that will be scalable. So updating the cache right after inserting will not work. So if one machine inserted the record all other on network should get notified to reload the cache. I was thinking for calling corresponding web service from T-SQL but don't really like the idea of consuming recourses on sql server. So what are the best practices to resolve this type of problems. Thanks in advance Eddy

  Read the article

• Rails Full Engine using a Full Engine

  - by SirLenz0rlot

  I've got this full rails engine Foo with functionality X. I want to make another engine, engine Bar, that is pretty much the same, but override funcitonality x with y. (it basically does the same, but a few controller actions and views are differently implemented). (I might split this later in several mountable engines, but for now, this will be the setup: project Baz, using engine Bar, which uses engine Foo) I would like to know if there are any pitfalls. It doesn't seem like a pattern that is often used? Anybody else using this 'some sort of engine inheritance'?

  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

• Method hiding with interfaces

  - by fearofawhackplanet

  interface IFoo { int MyReadOnlyVar { get; } } class Foo : IFoo { int MyReadOnlyVar { get; set; } } public IFoo GetFoo() { return new Foo { MyReadOnlyVar = 1 }; } Is the above an acceptable way of implementing a readonly/immutable object? The immutability of IFoo can be broken with a temporary cast to Foo. In general (non-critical) cases, is hiding functionality through interfaces a common pattern? Or is it considered lazy coding? Or even an anti-pattern?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217  | Next Page >