Search Results

Search found 44734 results on 1790 pages for 'model based design'.

Page 211/1790 | < Previous Page | 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218  | Next Page >

  • Self-Executing Anonymous Function vs Prototype

    - by Robotsushi
    In Javascript there are a few clearly prominent techniques for create and manage classes/namespaces in javascript. I am curious what situations warrant using one technique vs. the other. I want to pick one and stick with it moving forward. I write enterprise code that is maintained and shared across multiple teams, and I want to know what is the best practice when writing maintainable javascript ? I tend to prefer Self-Executing Anonymous Functions however I am curious what the community vote is on these techniques. Prototype : function obj() { } obj.prototype.test = function() { alert('Hello?'); }; var obj2 = new obj(); obj2.test(); Self-Closing Anonymous Function : //Self-Executing Anonymous Function (function( skillet, $, undefined ) { //Private Property var isHot = true; //Public Property skillet.ingredient = "Bacon Strips"; //Public Method skillet.fry = function() { var oliveOil; addItem( "\t\n Butter \n\t" ); addItem( oliveOil ); console.log( "Frying " + skillet.ingredient ); }; //Private Method function addItem( item ) { if ( item !== undefined ) { console.log( "Adding " + $.trim(item) ); } } }( window.skillet = window.skillet || {}, jQuery )); //Public Properties console.log( skillet.ingredient ); //Bacon Strips //Public Methods skillet.fry(); //Adding Butter & Fraying Bacon Strips //Adding a Public Property skillet.quantity = "12"; console.log( skillet.quantity ); //12 //Adding New Functionality to the Skillet (function( skillet, $, undefined ) { //Private Property var amountOfGrease = "1 Cup"; //Public Method skillet.toString = function() { console.log( skillet.quantity + " " + skillet.ingredient + " & " + amountOfGrease + " of Grease" ); console.log( isHot ? "Hot" : "Cold" ); }; }( window.skillet = window.skillet || {}, jQuery )); //end of skillet definition try { //12 Bacon Strips & 1 Cup of Grease skillet.toString(); //Throws Exception } catch( e ) { console.log( e.message ); //isHot is not defined } I feel that I should mention that the Self-Executing Anonymous Function is the pattern used by the jQuery team. Update When I asked this question I didn't truly see the importance of what I was trying to understand. The real issue at hand is whether or not to use new to create instances of your objects or to use patterns which do not require constructors of the use of the new keyword. I added my own answer, because in my opinion we should make use of patterns which don't use the new keyword. For more information please see my answer.

    Read the article

  • Preferred lambda syntax?

    - by Roger Alsing
    I'm playing around a bit with my own C like DSL grammar and would like some oppinions. I've reserved the use of "(...)" for invocations. eg: foo(1,2); My grammar supports "trailing closures" , pretty much like Ruby's blocks that can be passed as the last argument of an invocation. Currently my grammar support trailing closures like this: foo(1,2) { //parameterless closure passed as the last argument to foo } or foo(1,2) [x] { //closure with one argument (x) passed as the last argument to foo print (x); } The reason why I use [args] instead of (args) is that (args) is ambigious: foo(1,2) (x) { } There is no way in this case to tell if foo expects 3 arguments (int,int,closure(x)) or if foo expects 2 arguments and returns a closure with one argument(int,int) - closure(x) So thats pretty much the reason why I use [] as for now. I could change this to something like: foo(1,2) : (x) { } or foo(1,2) (x) -> { } So the actual question is, what do you think looks best? [...] is somewhat wrist unfriendly. let x = [a,b] { } Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Designing a simple snake A.I

    - by DillPixel
    I've looked at some stuff online regarding this specific topic, and a lot of the info that I read involved graphs and path finding. I really don't want to get involved in something too complex & out of my level, and also I don't need my snake to be that intelligent (it will be a large board with the snake not growing in size on every munch). How could you structure a simpler AI for the snake that gets the job done relatively well? I would be able to get the snake to move towards the food item correctly, but my issue is that I'm not sure how to deal with the snake colliding with itself. Say the snake has a look ahead, and it finds that its tail is in the way, it could change direction, but what happens next? Any ideas on how to tackle this? Should the snake build an instruction set from every square, or should it think on the go?

    Read the article

  • Is acoustic fingerprinting too broad for one audio file only?

    - by IBG
    We were looking for some topics related to audio analysis and found acoustic fingerprinting. As it is, it seems like the most famous application for it is for identification of music. Enter our manager, who requested us to research and possible find an algorithm or existing code that we can use for this very simple approach (like it's easy, source codes don't show up like mushrooms): Always-on app for listening Compare the audio patterns to a single audio file (assume sound is a simple beep) If beep is detected, send notification to server With a flow this simple, do you think acoustic fingerprinting is a broad approach to use? Should we stop and take another approach? Where to best start? We haven't started anything yet (on the development side) on this regard, so I want to get other opinion if this is pursuit is worth it or moot.

    Read the article

  • Triggering Data Changes in N-Tier

    - by Ryan Kinal
    I've been studying n-tier architectures as of late, particularly in VB.NET with Entity Framework and/or LINQ to SQL. I understand the basic concepts, but have been wondering about best practices in regard to triggering CRUD-type operations from user input/action. So, the arcitecture looks something like the following: [presentation layer] - [business layer] - [data layer] - (database) Getting information from the database into the presentation layer is simple and abstracted. It's just a matter of instantiating a new object from the business layer, which in turn uses the data layer to get at the correct information. However, saving (updating and inserting), and deleting seem to require particular APIs on the relevant business objects. I have to assume this is standard practice, unless a business object will save itself on various operations (which seems inefficient), or on disposal (which seems like it just wouldn't work, or may be unwieldy and unreliable). Should my "savable" business objects all implement a particular "ISavable" or "IDatabaseObject" interface? Is this a recognized (anti-)pattern? Are there other, better patterns I should be using that I'm just unaware of? The TLDR question, I suppose, is How does the presentation layer trigger database changes?

    Read the article

  • Cliché monsters to populate a steampunk fantasy setting dwarven dungeon?

    - by Alexander Gladysh
    I'm looking for a list of cliché monsters for a steampunk computer game (assume one kind or another of casual rogue-like RPG), to populate lower levels of ancient dwarven-built dungeons. Dwarves are a technology/science race in the setting I am aiming for. The world is a low-magic one. I'm stuck after listing various mechanical golems, gigantic spiders (every dungeon must have some of them!), and maybe a mechanical barlog as a megaboss. What would player expect? What are the key cultural references for such setting? I know a couple of games with suitable steampunk dwarves, but none are detailed enough in the underworld monsters area. Please point me in the right direction. (If you have a single funny monster suggestion, please mention it in comments, not in answer. ;-) )

    Read the article

  • Player & Level class structure in 2D python console game?

    - by Markus Meskanen
    I'm trying to create a 2D console game, where I have a player who can freely move around in a level (~map, but map is a reserved keyword) and interfere with other objects. Levels construct out of multiple Blocks, such as player(s), rocks, etc. Here's the Block class: class Block(object): def __init__(self, x=0, y=0, char=' ', solid=False): self.x = x self.y = y self.char = char self.solid = solid As you see, each block has a position (x, y) and a character to represent the block when it's printed. Each block also has a solid attribute, defining whether it can overlap with other solids or not. (Two solid blocks cannot overlap) I've now created few subclasses from Block (Rock might be useless for now) class Rock(Block): def __init__(self, x=0, y=0): super(Rock, self).__init__(x, y, 'x', True) class Player(Block): def __init__(self, x=0, y=0): super(Player, self).__init__(x, y, 'i', True) def move_left(self, x=1): ... # How do I make sure Player wont overlap with rocks? self.x -= x And here's the Level class: class Level(object): def __init__(self, name='', blocks=None): self.name = name self.blocks = blocks or [] Only way I can think of is to store a Player instance into Level's attributes (self.player=Player(), or so) and then give Level a method: def player_move_left(self): for block in self.blocks: if block.x == self.player.x - 1 and block.solid: return False But this doesn't really make any sense, why have a Player class if it can't even be moved without Level? Imo. player should be moved by a method inside Player. Am I wrong at something here, if not, how could I implement such behavior?

    Read the article

  • does class reference itself static anti pattern in prism

    - by Michael Riva
    I have an application and my desing approach look like this: class Manager { public int State; static Manager _instance = null; public static Manager Instance { get { return _instance; } set { if (_instance == value) return; _instance = value; } } public Manager() { State = 0; Instance=this; } } class Module1 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module2 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module3 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } Manager class already registered in Bootstrapper like : protected override void ConfigureContainer() { base.ConfigureContainer(); Container.RegisterType<Manager>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager()); } protected override void InitializeModules() { Manager man= Container.Resolve<Manager>(); } Question is do I need to define my manager object as static in its field to be able to reach its state? Or this is anti pattern or bad for performance?

    Read the article

  • Traverse tree with results. Maybe type in Java?

    - by Angelo.Hannes
    I need to check a tree's node state. It can either be OK or NOT_OK. But that state is dependent on its children. So for a node to be OK, every of its children needs to be OK. If one or more of its children is NOT_OK the whole node is NOT_OK. To determine the state of a node I need to aggregate some properties of the node. So I thought of two possible implementations. And they are more or less covered in this question: Why is Option/Maybe considered a good idea and checked exceptions are not? Exception I could pass the properties up the recursion path, and throw an exception if something went wrong. Maybe I implement an Maybe type and let it either hold an error or the aggregated properties. Maybe it is more an Either. I tend towards the last option. And I'm thinking of an enum with two objects. Where I can additionally set those aggregated properties. Am I on the right track? I'm not familiar with the new JDK8 functional stuff. But I'm stuck on JDK7 anyway, so please focus on JDK7.

    Read the article

  • Making a class pseudo-immutable by setting a flag

    - by scott_fakename
    I have a java project that involves building some pretty complex objects. There are quite a lot (dozens) of different ones and some of them have a HUGE number of parameters. They also need to be immutable. So I was thinking the builder pattern would work, but it ends up require a lot of boilerplate. Another potential solution I thought of was to make a mutable class, but give it a "frozen" flag, a-la ruby. Here is a simple example: public class EqualRule extends Rule { private boolean frozen; private int target; public EqualRule() { frozen = false; } public void setTarget(int i) { if (frozen) throw new IllegalStateException( "Can't change frozen rule."); target = i; } public int getTarget() { return target; } public void freeze() { frozen = true; } @Override public boolean checkRule(int i) { return (target == i); } } and "Rule" is just an abstract class that has an abstract "checkRule" method. This cuts way down on the number of objects I need to write, while also giving me an object that becomes immutable for all intents and purposes. This kind of act like the object was its own Builder... But not quite. I'm not too excited, however, about having an immutable being disguised as a bean however. So I had two questions: 1. Before I go too far down this path, are there any huge problems that anyone sees right off the bat? For what it's worth, it is planned that this behavior will be well documented... 2. If so, is there a better solution? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How common are circular references? Would reference-counting GC work just fine?

    - by user9521
    How common are circular references? The less common they are, the fewer hard cases you have if you are writing in a language with only reference counting-GC. Are there any cases where it wouldn't work well to make one of the references a "weak" reference so that reference counting still works? It seems like you should be able to have a language only use reference counting and weak references and have things work just fine most of the time, with the goal of efficiency. You could also have tools to help you detect memory leaks caused by circular references. Thoughts, anyone? It seems that Python uses references counting (I don't know if it uses a tracing collector occasionally or not for sure) and I know that Vala uses reference counting with weak references; I know that it's been done before, but how well would it work?

    Read the article

  • C++: calling non-member functions with the same syntax of member ones

    - by peoro
    One thing I'd like to do in C++ is to call non-member functions with the same syntax you call member functions: class A { }; void f( A & this ) { /* ... */ } // ... A a; a.f(); // this is the same as f(a); Of course this could only work as long as f is not virtual (since it cannot appear in A's virtual table. f doesn't need to access A's non-public members. f doesn't conflict with a function declared in A (A::f). I'd like such a syntax because in my opinion it would be quite comfortable and would push good habits: calling str.strip() on a std::string (where strip is a function defined by the user) would sound a lot better than calling strip( str );. most of the times (always?) classes provide some member functions which don't require to be member (ie: are not virtual and don't use non-public members). This breaks encapsulation, but is the most practical thing to do (due to point 1). My question here is: what do you think of such feature? Do you think it would be something nice, or something that would introduce more issues than the ones it aims to solve? Could it make sense to propose such a feature to the next standard (the one after C++0x)? Of course this is just a brief description of this idea; it is not complete; we'd probably need to explicitly mark a function with a special keyword to let it work like this and many other stuff.

    Read the article

  • How to explain bad software to non-technical people?

    - by mtutty
    In discussing software development with non-technical people (customers, business owners, project sponsors, etc.), I often resort to analogies and metaphors. It's relatively easy and effective to use a "house" or other metaphor for describing the size and complexity of new development. However, we often inherit someone else's code or data, and this approach doesn't seem to hold up as well when trying to explain why we're gutting something that already seems to work. Of course we can point to cycle time and cost to be saved in the future but this generally means nothing to business folks. I know doctors can say "just take this pill," but I'm not sure that software devs have the same authority. Ideas? EDIT: Let me add a bit to the discussion. The specific project I'm talking about has customers that don't realize (or care) about specific aspects of the system we're retiring (i.e., they think it was just fine): The system would save a NEW RECORD every time someone updated a field The system contained tables for reference data. These tables had new records added every day, even though they were duplicates of previous records. And there was no way to tie the reference data used for a particular case at the time it was closed. This is like 99% of the data in the old system. The field NAMES also have spaces, apostrophes and other inappropriate characters in them, making everything harder to work with. In addition to the incredible amount of duplicate data, they have around 1000 XLS files with data they want added to the system. Previously, they would do a spreadsheet for each case in the database, IN ADDITION TO what they typed into the database. Getting rid of this old, unneeded information and piping in the XLS data comprises about 80% of the total project effort, and was not something we could accurately predict. I'm trying to find a concrete way to describe how bad this thing was, mostly so that the customer will understand why the migration process has been so time-consuming. The actual coding was done pretty quickly and the new system works fine, but without the old data they won't be happy. Sorry to get into the weeds, but most of the answers I've seen so far are pretty basic scope/schedule/cost things. I've been doing this for 15 years, so this really is more of a reflective, philosophical question - but without some of the details it can be difficult to really appreciate the awful beauty of this problem.

    Read the article

  • .NET app - Should we use SQL Server and duplicate some reference data from an external Oracle DB? Or use Oracle and have a DB link?

    - by Daventry
    We're looking to migrate some existing Excel/Access processes into a new system which will provide the users with a Silverlight frontend to run and view the reports instead of using MS Access. The initial idea was to have SQL Server 2008 as RDBMS. The problem is that we've got some static data such as country codes, counterparties, etc which live in an existing Oracle DB. Since we do not want to duplicate that data (if possible), we were thinking of having a DB link between SQL Server and Oracle, but our firm does not allow that. So the options are either duplicate the data or use Oracle as RDBMS - surprise, the firm does allow DB links between Oracle databases. The initial idea was also to use WCF RIA Services, Entity Framework, etc which we're not sure they play well with Oracle, that's why it was decided to go with SQL Server in the first place. Would you advise to go for Oracle so that we can just link the static data? Or use SQL Server 2008 and replicate it because it's "safer" to stay within the Microsoft land? To use or not to use Entity Framework and WCF RIA Services at all? Regards. UPDATE: Thanks everyone for your answers. Nothing is set in stone yet. We'll try to import the data instead of linking, as if the other DB goes down, our system can still carry on. We're likely to use SQL Server just because most developers are more experienced with it. Even if we used RIA Services, we can swap out the Data Access Layer and use other frameworks such those mentioned below.

    Read the article

  • Provide an OnChange event for an internal property which is controlled externally?

    - by NGLN
    For fun and by request I am updating this ImageGrid component, a kind of listbox for images that has a FileNames property of type TStrings. For ease of writing, I have been misusing its FileNames.Objects property for bitmap storage. But since the TStrings type suggests that users of the component could or would want to use the Objects property for custom data, e.g. like TListBox.Items, I am rewriting the component to store the bitmaps elsewhere and leave FileNames.Objects untouched for unknown future usage. Now I am wondering whether to provide an OnChange event. And if so, whether to fire it when one or more FileNames.Objects changes. Trying to answer it myself, I dove in Delphi's own VCL and stumbled on: TMemo: has an OnChange event, but ignores Lines.Objects TListBox: has no OnChange event, but is capable of storing Items.Objects TStringGrid: has no OnChange event, but is capable of storing Objects, Rows.Objects, Cols.Objects So now I am somewhat puzzeled, because I cannot imagine Borland's developers didn't add events for several Objects properties out of ease. Sure, when a user changes a FileNames.Object in my component, he knows he does and could implement appropriate interaction himself. But wouldn't it be convenient when the component does automatically? What would you expect from this component in this regard?

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Avoid this and new - further reading? [closed]

    - by Thomas Deutsch
    I do not want this to end in a sort of religious discussion, i want to collect some sources for further reading on this topic. As shown here: Node.js Style and Structure Point 1: Avoid this and new you can find a good example when it could be better to use closures instead of a prototype, and to make every argument explicit. Ok, i agree - could be nice, but i need to know more. Can anyone recommend a good link? Would this make my code 100% object-pattern-free ? (no factory-, repository-, module- pattern?)

    Read the article

  • What are common patterns for handling possible pluralization in message properties?

    - by C. Ross
    Obviously users like to see text properly pluralized, and pluralization schemes vary in the various written languages one may encounter. When internationalizing an app, what pattern(s) are useful for handling messages with possible pluralization? What about messages with multiple possible pluralization? For example: "N review(s):" One pattern would be reviews.title.singular="{0} review:" reviews.title.singular="{0} reviews:" And this may not support all languages. Or a more complicated case: "Found M question(s) with N comment(s)." This would be difficult to support in English?

    Read the article

  • How one could use a live editor

    - by Sathvik
    I was thinking about a live editing environment where code / a source file is synchronized so that, changes made by one user would be carried across to all others editing the file. Something like Google Wave, but for code. Could this kind of an environment be better for the code, as changes are shared instantly? (with revision-control, of course) Has anyone tried (or has had a need for) using a shared environment for code?

    Read the article

  • What are good ways to find collaborators for a coding weekend?

    - by tarrasch
    Not sure if this belongs here, feel free to push it somewhere else if needed. When i was at university we would sometimes come together into a room full of beer and fast food and crank out software in a weekend. Unfortunately the group has kind of split up and its just not possible any more. My question is now: Where can i find like-minded people on the Internet that would like to do something like this? I have an idea what i wanted to do next, but of course other people have ideas too.

    Read the article

  • Options for Application Registry

    - by Matt Felzani
    I work for a small software company (about 200 people building 8-10 applications) and I was hoping to get some advice on products that might be out there to manage the information of which clients are using which versions of our products? The most fundamental relationship would be that a "product" has "versions" and a given "version" is used by a "client." Uses would be: Determine which clients use which products Determine which clients are on which versions of a product Determine which clients are exposed to which vulnerabilities because of the version they use Determine which clients cannot move to a new version because of a vulnerability in the new version that they may hit Determine which clients should be approached for an upgrade Any thoughts or product reviews would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Database structure for various items

    - by XGouchet
    I'm building a sqlite database for an android app which will hold a list of items, each of which have different characteristics. Some of the characteristics are available for all objects, some are only relevant for a subset of objects. For example, all my items have a name, a description, an image. Some items will also have an expiration date, others wont. Some will have a size, some wont. Etc... How should I build my Database, as I don't know how many characteristics may be added in the future, and knowing I should be able to filter the list by any characteristic ?

    Read the article

  • Rails: The Law of Demeter [duplicate]

    - by user2158382
    This question already has an answer here: Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion 4 answers I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

    Read the article

  • Have you worked with a well designed application?

    - by Vilx-
    Inspired by this question, I started wondering - is there or has there ever been such a thing as a "well designed application"? One where the architecture would be perfect and no refactoring would ever be needed; code would be easy to read and understand even for someone new to the project; changes could be done with a 100% certainty that they won't break anything; etc? I must admit that whatever codebases I've worked with, they've all been more or less a mess. Even code that I start myself only stays organized at the start, and then slowly deteriorates as the time passes. I'm even starting to accept this as part of life and can't figure out whether I should be worried about that or not. So... is there such a thing as a "well designed application"? Or is all our code so shitty that there isn't even a point in trying to make it better, because it will never be good anyway?

    Read the article

  • What books/references are recommended on the subject of planning and developing efficient web sites [closed]

    - by Shakil
    Once I visited a site containing videos; a well-known web developer creating a site from scratch via planning(paper, software), management, designing then development. I bookmarked the site but unable to find it now. My question is : How to do web-development effectively? What books or videos are recommended ???(I tried google but unable to find useful books or videos). I want to learn how people does it. Can you share resources(books, videos, links) about this... Thanks in advance.. Note: I created a job site for my university project. It gave me huge pain. Thats why I want to learn efficient way. I know html, css, javascript, jquery, php[learning(mvc and framework not yet completed)], phpmyadmin.

    Read the article

  • What is MVC, really?

    - by NickC
    As a serious programmer, how do you answer the question What is MVC? In my mind, MVC is sort of a nebulous topic — and because of that, if your audience is a learner, then you're free to describe it in general terms that are unlikely to be controversial. However, if you are speaking to a knowledgeable audience, especially an interviewer, I have a hard time thinking of a direction to take that doesn't risk a reaction of "well that's not right!...". We all have different real-world experience, and I haven't truly met the same MVC implementation pattern twice. Specifically, there seem to be disagreements regarding strictness, component definition, separation of parts (what piece fits where), etc. So, how should I explain MVC in a way that is correct, concise, and uncontroversial?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218  | Next Page >