Search Results

Search found 14376 results on 576 pages for 'interaction 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 210/576 | < Previous Page | 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Migration solution for singletons in an OSGI environment

    - by Ido
    I'm working in a JEE Environment in which each application is in a war file of its own. In the WEB-INF/lib of each application war file there is a common jar that is shared by all applications. This common jar contains several Singletons which are accessed from many points in the code. Because of the war-file boundaries each application has its own instances of the Singletons. Which is how we operate today, since we want to configure some of the singletons differently in each application. Now we are moving towards an OSGi environment, where this solution will no longer work since each bundle has its own class loader, so if I try to access MySingleton which resides in bundle "common.jar" from bundle "appA.jar" or from bundle "appB.jar" I will get the same instance. Remember I "want" a different instance of a singleton per bundle. (as ironic as it sounds) Now I realize the ideal solution would be to fix the code to not rely on those singletons, however due to a tight schedule I was wondering if you guys can suggest some sort of a migration solution that would allow me to use bundle-wide singletons so each of them could be configured per bundle.

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