Search Results

Search found 16547 results on 662 pages for 'physical design'.

Page 214/662 | < Previous Page | 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221  | Next Page >

  • What should layers in dotnet application ? Pleas guide me

    - by haansi
    Hi, I am using layered architecture in dotnet (mostly I work on web projects). I am confuse what layers should I use ? I have small idea that there should be the following layers. user interface customer types (custom entities) business logic layer data access layer My purpose is sure quality of work and maximum re-usability of code. some one suggested to add common types layer in it. Please guide me what should be layers ? and in each layer what part should go ? thanks for your precious time and advice. haansi

    Read the article

  • Object Oriented Programming in AS3

    - by Jordan
    I'm building a game in as3 that has balls moving and bouncing off the walls. When the user clicks an explosion appears and any ball that hits that explosion explodes too. Any ball that then hits that explosion explodes and so on. My question is what would be the best class structure for the balls. I have a level system to control levels and such and I've already come up with working ways to code the balls. Here's what I've done. My first attempt was to create a class for Movement, Bounce, Explosion and finally Orb. These all extended each other in the order I just named them. I got it working but having Bounce extend Movement and Explosion extend Bounce, it just doesn't seem very object oriented because what if I wanted to add a box class that didn't move, but did explode? I would need a separate class for that explosion. My second attempt was to create Movement, Bounce and Explosion without extending anything. Instead I passed in a reference to the Orb class to each. Then the class stores that reference and does what it needs to do based on events that are dispatched by the Orb such as update, which was broadcast from Orb every enter frame. This would drive the movement and bounce and also the explosion when the time came. This attempt worked as well but it just doesn't seem right. I've also thought about using Interfaces but because they are more of an outline for classes, I feel like code reuse goes out the window as each class would need its own code for a specific task even if that task is exactly the same. I feel as if I'm searching for some form of multiple inheritance for classes that as3 does not support. Can someone explain to me a better way of doing what I'm attempting to do? Am I being to "Object Oriented" by having classed for Movement, Bounce, Explosion and Orb? Are Interfaces the way to go? Any feedback is appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Make is more OOPey - good structure?

    - by Tom
    Hi, I just want advice on whether I could improve structure around a particular class which handles all disk access functions The structure of my program is that I have a class called Disk which gets data from flatfiles and databases on a, you guessed it, hard disk drive. I have functions like LoadTextFileToStringList, WriteStringToTextFile, DeleteLineInTextFile etc which are kind of "generic methods" In the same class I also have some more specific methods such as GetXFromDisk where X might be a particular field in a database table/query. Should I separate out the generic methods from the specialised. Should I make another class which inherits the generic methods. At the moment my class is static as there is no need to have an internal state of the class. I'm not really OOPing am I? Thanks Thomas

    Read the article

  • Two different tables or just one with bool column?

    - by Aidas
    We have two tables: OriginalDocument and ProcessedDocument. In the first one we put an original, not processed document. After it's validated and processed (converted to our xml format and parsed), it's put into Document table. Processed document can be valid or invalid. Which makes more sense: have two different tables for valid and invalid documents or just have one with 'Valid' column? Some of the columns (~5-7) are irrelevant for invalid document. Storing both invalid and valid documents would also make Document table filled with 'NULL' columns (if document is invalid, information like document number, receiver can be unknown). What else should we consider and weigh, when making this decision?

    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

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

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

    Read the article

  • Is 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

  • When is it better to use a method versus a property for a class definition?

    - by ccomet
    Partially related to an earlier question of mine, I have a system in which I have to store complex data as a string. Instead of parsing these strings as all kinds of separate objects, I just created one class that contains all of those objects, and it has some parser logic that will encode all properties into strings, or decode a string to get those objects. That's all fine and good. This question is not about the parser itself, but about where I should house the logic for the parser. Is it a better choice to put it as a property, or as a method? In the case of a property, say public string DataAsString, the get accessor would house the logic to encode all of the data into a string, while the set accessor would decode the input value and set all of the data in the class instance. It seems convenient because the input/output is indeed a string. In the case of a method, one method would be Encode(), which returns the encoded string. Then, either the constructor itself would house the logic for the decoding a string and require the string argument, or I write a Decode(string str) method which is called separately. In either case, it would be using a method instead of a property. So, is there a functional difference between these paths, in terms of the actual running of the code? Or are they basically equivalent and it then boils down to a choice of personal preference or which one looks better? And in that kind of question... which would look cleaner anyway?

    Read the article

  • Value objects in DDD - Why immutable?

    - by Hobbes
    I don't get why value objects in DDD should be immutable, nor do I see how this is easily done. (I'm focusing on C# and Entity Framework, if that matters.) For example, let's consider the classic Address value object. If you needed to change "123 Main St" to "123 Main Street", why should I need to construct a whole new object instead of saying myCustomer.Address.AddressLine1 = "123 Main Street"? (Even if Entity Framework supported structs, this would still be a problem, wouldn't it?) I understand (I think) the idea that value objects don't have an identity and are part of a domain object, but can someone explain why immutability is a Good Thing? EDIT: My final question here really should be "Can someone explain why immutability is a Good Thing as applied to Value Objects?" Sorry for the confusion! EDIT: To clairfy, I am not asking about CLR value types (vs reference types). I'm asking about the higher level DDD concept of Value Objects. For example, here is a hack-ish way to implement immutable value types for Entity Framework: http://rogeralsing.com/2009/05/21/entity-framework-4-immutable-value-objects. Basically, he just makes all setters private. Why go through the trouble of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Twitter Bootstrap Collapsible Navbar Duplicating

    - by sixeightzero
    I am working on a project using Twitter Bootstrap. One thing that I noticed is that my pages have duplicate navbars when they are defined as collapsible and the page is resized smaller. Here is the duplicate NavBar: Here is the normal width NavBar: Code: <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <!--[if lt IE 7]> <html class="no-js lt-ie9 lt-ie8 lt-ie7"> <![endif]--> <!--[if IE 7]> <html class="no-js lt-ie9 lt-ie8"> <![endif]--> <!--[if IE 8]> <html class="no-js lt-ie9"> <![endif]--> <!--[if gt IE 8]><!--> <html class="no-js"> <!--<![endif]--> <head> <meta charset="utf-8"> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1"> <title></title> <meta name="description" content=""> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/assets/css/bootstrap.css"> <style> body { padding-top: 60px; } </style> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/assets/css/bootstrap-responsive.min.css"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/assets/css/main.css"> <script>window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="/assets/js/vendor/jquery-1.8.1.min.js"><\/script>')</script> <script src="/assets/js/vendor/modernizr-2.6.1-respond-1.1.0.min.js"></script> </head> <body class="dark"> <!--[if lt IE 9]> <p class="chromeframe">You are using an outdated browser. <a href="http://browsehappy.com/">Upgrade your browser today</a> or <a href="http://www.google.com/chromeframe/?redirect=true">install Google Chrome Frame</a> to better experience this site.</p> <![endif]--> <div class="navbar navbar-inverse navbar-fixed-top"> <div class="navbar-inner"> <div class="container"> <a class="btn btn-navbar" data-toggle="collapse" data-target=".nav-collapse"> <span class="icon-bar"></span> <span class="icon-bar"></span> <span class="icon-bar"></span> </a> <a class="brand" href="#">Project name</a> <div class="nav-collapse collapse"> <ul class="nav"> <li class="active"><a href="#">Home</a></li> <li><a href="#about">About</a></li> <li><a href="#contact">Contact</a></li> <li class="dropdown"> <a href="#" class="dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown">Dropdown <b class="caret"></b></a> <ul class="dropdown-menu"> <li><a href="#">Action</a></li> <li><a href="#">Another action</a></li> <li><a href="#">Something else here</a></li> <li class="divider"></li> <li class="nav-header">Nav header</li> <li><a href="#">Separated link</a></li> <li><a href="#">One more separated link</a></li> </ul> </li> </ul> </div><!--/.nav-collapse --> </div> </div> </div> Has anyone else run into this and have some pointers?

    Read the article

  • SQL efficiency argument, add a column or solvable by query?

    - by theTurk
    I am a recent college graduate and a new hire for software development. Things have been a little slow lately so I was given a db task. My db skills are limited to pet projects with Rails and Django. So, I was a little surprised with my latest task. I have been asked by my manager to subclass Person with a 'Parent' table and add a reference to their custodian in the Person table. This is to facilitate going from Parent to Form when the custodian, not the Parent, is the FormContact. Here is a simplified, mock structure of a sql-db I am working with. I would have drawn the relationship tables if I had access to Visio. We have a table 'Person' and we have a table 'Form'. There is a table, 'FormContact', that relates a Person to a Form, not all Persons are related to a Form. There is a relationship table for Person to Person relationships (Employer, Parent, etc.) I've asked, "Why this couldn't be handled by a query?" Response, Inefficient. (Really!?!) So, I ask, "Why not have a reference to the Form? That would be more efficient since you wouldn't be querying the FormContacts table with the reference from child/custodian." Response, this would essentially make the Parent is a FormContact. (Fair enough.) I went ahead an wrote a query to get from non-FormContact Parent to Form, and tested on the production server. The response time was instantaneous. *SOME_VALUE* is the Parent's fk ID. SELECT FormID FROM FormContact WHERE FormContact.ContactID IN (SELECT SourceContactID FROM ContactRelationship WHERE (ContactRelationship.RelatedContactID = *SOME_VALUE*) AND (ContactRelationship.Relationship = 'Parent')); If I am right, "This is an unnecessary change." What should I do, defend my position or should I concede to the managers request? If I am wrong. What is my error? Is there a better solution than the manager's?

    Read the article

  • Tables as relations in ER diagrams

    - by Richard Mar.
    Assume I have the following tables (**bold** - primary key, *italics* - foreign key): patient(**patient_id**, name) disease(**disease_id**, name) patient_disease(**p_d_id**, *patient_id*, *disease,_id* ) I want to draw the ER diagram for this. My idea is to make two entities, one for patient and one for disease, then make a n-to-n relation between them, with p_d_id as its attribute. Is that how it's supposed to be?

    Read the article

  • Practical rules for premature optimization

    - by DougW
    It seems that the phrase "Premature Optimization" is the buzz-word of the day. For some reason, iphone programmers in particular seem to think of avoiding premature optimization as a pro-active goal, rather than the natural result of simply avoiding distraction. The problem is, the term is beginning to be applied more and more to cases that are completely inappropriate. For example, I've seen a growing number of people say not to worry about the complexity of an algorithm, because that's premature optimization (eg http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2190275/help-sorting-an-nsarray-across-two-properties-with-nssortdescriptor/2191720#2191720). Frankly, I think this is just laziness, and appalling to disciplined computer science. But it has occurred to me that maybe considering the complexity and performance of algorithms is going the way of assembly loop unrolling, and other optimization techniques that are now considered unnecessary. What do you think? Are we at the point now where deciding between an O(n^n) and O(n!) complexity algorithm is irrelevant? What about O(n) vs O(n*n)? What do you consider "premature optimization"? What practical rules do you use to consciously or unconsciously avoid it? This is a bit vague, but I'm curious to hear other peoples' opinions on the topic.

    Read the article

  • Database model for saving random boolean expressions

    - by zarko.susnjar
    I have expressions like this: (cat OR cats OR kitten OR kitty) AND (dog OR dogs) NOT (pigeon OR firefly) Anyone having idea how to make tables to save those? Before I got request for usage of brackets, I limited usage of operators to avoid ambiguous situations. So only ANDs and NOTs or only ORs and saved those in this manner: operators id | name 1 | AND 2 | OR 3 | NOT keywords id | keyword 1 | cat 2 | dog 3 | firefly expressions id | operator | keywordId 1 | 0 | 1 1 | 1 | 2 1 | 3 | 3 which was: cat AND dog NOT firefly But now, I'm really puzzled...

    Read the article

  • Disposing underlying object from finalizer in an immutable object

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

    Read the article

  • Sequence Diagram return a new constructed Object

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Clean up upon the kill signal

    - by Begui
    How do you handle clean up when the program receives a kill signal? For instance, there is an application I connect to that wants any third party app (my app) to send a finish command. What is the best say to send that finish command when my app has been destroyed with a kill -9?

    Read the article

  • Using DTOs and BOs

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

    Read the article

  • Include everything, Separate with "using"

    - by Dave
    I'm developing a C++ library. It got me thinking of the ways Java and C# handle including different components of the libraries. For example, Java uses "import" to allow use of classes from other packages, while C# simply uses "using" to import entire modules. My questions is, would it be a good idea to #include everything in the library in one massive include and then just use the using directive to import specific classes and modules? Or would this just be down right crazy? EDIT: Good responses so far, here are a few mitigating factors which I feel add to this idea: 1) Internal #includes are kept as normal (short and to the point) 2) The file which includes everything is optionally supplied with the library to those who wish to use it3) You could optionally make the big include file part of the pre-compiled header

    Read the article

  • Patterns to implement this grammar into C# code

    - by MexicanHacker
    Hey guys, I'm creating this little BNF grammar and I wanted to <template>::= <types><editors> <types>::= <type>+ <type>::= <property>+ <property>::= <name><type> <editors>::= <editor>+ <editor>::= <name><type>(<textfield>|<form>|<list>|<pulldown>)+ <textfield>::= <label><property>[<editable>] <form>::= <label><property><editor> <list>::= <label><property><item-editor> <pulldown>::= <label><property><option>+ <option>::= <value> One possible solution we have in mind is to create POCO's that have annotations of the XMLSerialization namespace, like this, for example: [XMLRoot("template")] public class Template{ [XMLElement("types")] public Types types{ } } However I want to explore more solutions, what do you guys think?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221  | Next Page >