Search Results

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

Page 215/1790 | < Previous Page | 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222  | Next Page >

  • Should one use a separate database for application data and user data?

    - by trycatch
    I’ve been working on a project for a little while and I’m unsure which is the better architecture. I’m interested in the consensus. The answer to me seems fairly obvious but something about it is digging at me and I can't pick out what. The TL;DR is: how do you handle a program with application data and user data in the same DB which needs to be able to receive updates to the application data periodically? One database for user data and one for application, or both in one? The detailed version is.. if an application has a database which needs to maintain application data AND user data, and the user data all references application data, it feels more natural to me to store them in the same database. But if there exists a need to be able to update the application data within this database periodically, should this be stripped into two databases so that one can simply download the updated application data database file as an update and replace the old one? Or should they remain as one database, and the application data be updated via a script which inserts the new data into the existing database? The second sounds clearly preferable to me... but for some reason just doesn’t feel right, and I can't pick out quite why.

    Read the article

  • Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented by definition?

    - by tieTYT
    Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented, by definition? It seems more procedural or functional to me. My opinion is that it doesn't prevent you from implementing it in an OO language, but it would not be idiomatic to do so in a staunchly OO way. It seems like ECS separates data (E & C) from behavior (S). As evidence: The idea is to have no game methods embedded in the entity. And: The component consists of a minimal set of data needed for a specific purpose Systems are single purpose functions that take a set of entities which have a specific component I think this is not object oriented because a big part of being object oriented is combining your data and behavior together. As evidence: In contrast, the object-oriented approach encourages the programmer to place data where it is not directly accessible by the rest of the program. Instead, the data is accessed by calling specially written functions, commonly called methods, which are bundled in with the data. ECS, on the other hand, seems to be all about separating your data from your behavior.

    Read the article

  • Preferred way for dealing with customer-defined data in enterprise application

    - by Axarydax
    Let's say that we have a small enterprise web (intranet) application for managing data for car dealers. It has screens for managing customers, inventory, orders, warranties and workshops. This application is installed at 10 customer sites for different car dealers. First version of this application was created without any way to provide for customer-specific data. For example, if dealer A wanted to be able to attach a photo to a customer, dealer B wanted to add e-mail contact to each workshop, and dealer C wanted to attach multiple PDF reports to a warranty, each and every feature like this was added to the application, so all of the customers received everything on new update. However, this will inevitably lead to conflicts as the number of customers grow as their usage patterns are unique, and if, for instance, a specific dealer requested to have an ability to attach (for some reason) a color of inventory item (and be able to search by this color) as a required item, others really wouldn't need this feature, and definitely will not want it to be a required item. Or, one dealer would like to manage e-mail contacts for their employees on a separate screen of the application. I imagine that a solution for this is to use a kind of plugin system, where we would have a core of the application that provides for standard features like customers, inventory, etc, and all of the customer's installed plugins. There would be different kinds of plugins - standalone screens like e-mail contacts for employees, with their own logic, and customer plugin which would extend or decorate inventory items (like photo or color). Inventory (customer,order,...) plugins would require to have installation procedure, hooks for plugging into the item editor, item displayer, item filtering for searching, backup hook and such. Is this the right way to solve this problem?

    Read the article

  • Why is x=x++ undefined?

    - by ugoren
    It's undefined because the it modifies x twice between sequence points. The standard says it's undefined, therefore it's undefined. That much I know. But why? My understanding is that forbidding this allows compilers to optimize better. This could have made sense when C was invented, but now seems like a weak argument. If we were to reinvent C today, would we do it this way, or can it be done better? Or maybe there's a deeper problem, that makes it hard to define consistent rules for such expressions, so it's best to forbid them? So suppose we were to reinvent C today. I'd like to suggest simple rules for expressions such as x=x++, which seem to me to work better than the existing rules. I'd like to get your opinion on the suggested rules compared to the existing ones, or other suggestions. Suggested Rules: Between sequence points, order of evaluation is unspecified. Side effects take place immediately. There's no undefined behavior involved. Expressions evaluate to this value or that, but surely won't format your hard disk (strangely, I've never seen an implementation where x=x++ formats the hard disk). Example Expressions x=x++ - Well defined, doesn't change x. First, x is incremented (immediately when x++ is evaluated), then it's old value is stored in x. x++ + ++x - Increments x twice, evaluates to 2*x+2. Though either side may be evaluated first, the result is either x + (x+2) (left side first) or (x+1) + (x+1) (right side first). x = x + (x=3) - Unspecified, x set to either x+3 or 6. If the right side is evaluated first, it's x+3. It's also possible that x=3 is evaluated first, so it's 3+3. In either case, the x=3 assignment happens immediately when x=3 is evaluated, so the value stored is overwritten by the other assignment. x+=(x=3) - Well defined, sets x to 6. You could argue that this is just shorthand for the expression above. But I'd say that += must be executed after x=3, and not in two parts (read x, evaluate x=3, add and store new value). What's the Advantage? Some comments raised this good point. It's not that I'm after the pleasure of using x=x++ in my code. It's a strange and misleading expression. What I want is to be able to understand complicated expressions. Normally, a complicated expression is no more than the sum of its parts. If you understand the parts and the operators combining them, you can understand the whole. C's current behavior seems to deviate from this principle. One assignment plus another assignment suddenly doesn't make two assignments. Today, when I look at x=x++, I can't say what it does. With my suggested rules, I can, by simply examining its components and their relations.

    Read the article

  • How do you prevent inflation in a virtual economy?

    - by Tetrad
    With your typical MMORPG, players can usually farm the world for raw materials essentially forever. Monsters/mineral veins/etc are usually on some sort of respawn timer, so other than time there really isn't a good way to limit the amount of new currency entering the system. That really only leaves money sinks to try to take money out of the system. What are some strategies to prevent inflation of the in-game currency?

    Read the article

  • Advice on reconciling discordant data

    - by Justin
    Let me support my question with a quick scenario. We're writing an app for family meal planning. We'll produce daily plans with a target calorie goal and meals to achieve it for our nuclear family. Our calorie goal will be calculated for each person from their attributes (gender, age, weight, activity level). The weight attribute is the simplest example here. When Dad (the fascist nerd who is inflicting this on his family) first uses the application he throws approximate values into it for Daughter. He thinks she is 5'2" (157 cm) and 125 lbs (56kg). The next day Mom sits down to generate the menu and looks back over what the bumbling Dad did, quietly fumes that he can never recall anything about the family, and says the value is really 118 lbs! This is the first introduction of the discord. It seems, in this scenario, Mom is probably more correct that Dad. Though both are only an approximation of the actual value. The next day the dear Daughter decides to use the program and sees her weight listed. With the vanity only a teenager could muster she changes the weight to 110 lbs. Later that day the Mom returns home from a doctor's visit the Daughter needed and decides that it would be a good idea to update her Daughter's weight in the program. Hooray, another value, this time 117 lbs. Now how do you reconcile these data points? Measurement error, confidence in parties, bias, and more all confound the data. In some idealized world we'd have a weight authority of some nature providing the one and only truth. How about in our world though? And the icing on the cake is that this single data point changes over time. How have you guys solved or managed this conflict?

    Read the article

  • How to control messages to the same port from different emitters?

    - by Alex In Paris
    Scene: A company has many factories X, each emits a message to the same receive port in a Biztalk server Y; if all messages are processed without much delay, each will trigger an outgoing message to another system Z. Problem: Sometimes a factory loses its connection for a half-day or more and, when the connection is reestablished, thousands of messages get emitted. Now, the messages still get processed well by Y (Biztalk can easily handle the load) but system Z can't handle the flood and may lock up and severely delay the processing of all other messages from the other X. What is the solution? Creating multiple receive locations that permits us to pause one X or another would lose us information if the factory isn't smart enough to know whether the message was received or not. What is the basic pattern to apply in Biztalk for this problem? Would some throttling parameters help to limit the flow from any one X? Or are their techniques on the end part of Y which I should use instead ? I would prefer this last one since I can be confident that the message box will remember any failures, which could then be resumed.

    Read the article

  • Is this a pattern? Should it be?

    - by Arkadiy
    The following is more of a statement than a question - it describes something that may be a pattern. The question is: is this a known pattern? Or, if it's not, should it be? I've had a situation where I had to iterate over two dissimilar multi-layer data structures and copy information from one to the other. Depending on particular use case, I had around eight different kinds of layers, combined in about eight different combinations: A-B-C B-C A-C D-E A-D-E and so on After a few unsuccessful attempts to factor out the repetition of per-layer iteration code, I realized that the key difficulty in this refactoring was the fact that the bottom level needed access to data gathered at higher levels. To explicitly accommodate this requirement, I introduced IterationContext class with a number of get() and set() methods for accumulating the necessary information. In the end, I had the following class structure: class Iterator { virtual void iterateOver(const Structure &dataStructure1, IterationContext &ctx) const = 0; }; class RecursingIterator : public Iterator { RecursingIterator(const Iterator &below); }; class IterateOverA : public RecursingIterator { virtual void iterateOver(const Structure &dataStructure1, IterationContext &ctx) const { // Iterate over members in dataStructure1 // locate corresponding item in dataStructure2 (passed via context) // and set it in the context // invoke the sub-iterator }; class IterateOverB : public RecursingIterator { virtual void iterateOver(const Structure &dataStructure1, IterationContext &ctx) const { // iterate over members dataStructure2 (form context) // set dataStructure2's item in the context // locate corresponding item in dataStructure2 (passed via context) // invoke the sub-iterator }; void main() { class FinalCopy : public Iterator { virtual void iterateOver(const Structure &dataStructure1, IterationContext &ctx) const { // copy data from structure 1 to structure 2 in the context, // using some data from higher levels as needed } } IterationContext ctx(dateStructure2); IterateOverA(IterateOverB(FinalCopy())).iterate(dataStructure1, ctx); } It so happens that dataStructure1 is a uniform data structure, similar to XML DOM in that respect, while dataStructure2 is a legacy data structure made of various structs and arrays. This allows me to pass dataStructure1 outside of the context for convenience. In general, either side of the iteration or both sides may be passed via context, as convenient. The key situation points are: complicated code that needs to be invoked in "layers", with multiple combinations of layer types possible at the bottom layer, the information from top layers needs to be visible. The key implementation points are: use of context class to access the data from all levels of iteration complicated iteration code encapsulated in implementation of pure virtual function two interfaces - one aware of underlying iterator, one not aware of it. use of const & to simplify the usage syntax.

    Read the article

  • Checking timeouts made more readable

    - by Markus
    I have several situations where I need to control timeouts in a technical application. Either in a loop or as a simple check. Of course – handling this is really easy, but none of these is looking cute. To clarify, here is some C# (Pseudo) code: private DateTime girlWentIntoBathroom; girlWentIntoBathroom = DateTime.Now; do { // do something } while (girlWentIntoBathroom.AddSeconds(10) > DateTime.Now); or if (girlWentIntoBathroom.AddSeconds(10) > DateTime.Now) MessageBox.Show("Wait a little longer"); else MessageBox.Show("Knock louder"); Now I was inspired by something a saw in Ruby on StackOverflow: Now I’m wondering if this construct can be made more readable using extension methods. My goal is something that can be read like “If girlWentIntoBathroom is more than 10 seconds ago” 1st attempt if (girlWentIntoBathroom > (10).Seconds().Ago()) MessageBox.Show("Wait a little longer"); else MessageBox.Show("Knock louder"); So I wrote an extension for integer that converts the integer into a TimeSpan public static TimeSpan Seconds(this int amount) { return new TimeSpan(0, 0, amount); } After that, I wrote an extension for TimeSpan like this: public static DateTime Ago(this TimeSpan diff) { return DateTime.Now.Add(-diff); } This works fine so far, but has a great disadvantage. The logic is inverted! Since girlWentIntoBathroom is a timestamp in the past, the right side of the equation needs to count backwards: impossible. Just inverting the equation is no solution, because it will invert the read sentence as well. 2nd attempt So I tried something new: if (girlWentIntoBathroom.IsMoreThan(10).SecondsAgo()) MessageBox.Show("Knock louder"); else MessageBox.Show("Wait a little longer"); IsMoreThan() needs to transport the past timestamp as well as the span for the extension SecondsAgo(). It could be: public static DateWithIntegerSpan IsMoreThan(this DateTime baseTime, int span) { return new DateWithIntegerSpan() { Date = baseTime, Span = span }; } Where DateWithIntegerSpan is simply: public class DateWithIntegerSpan { public DateTime Date {get; set;} public int Span { get; set; } } And SecondsAgo() is public static bool SecondsAgo(this DateWithIntegerSpan dateAndSpan) { return dateAndSpan.Date.Add(new TimeSpan(0, 0, dateAndSpan.Span)) < DateTime.Now; } Using this approach, the English sentence matches the expected behavior. But the disadvantage is, that I need a helping class (DateWithIntegerSpan). Has anyone an idea to make checking timeouts look more cute and closer to a readable sentence? Am I a little too insane thinking about something minor like this?

    Read the article

  • Should I force users to update an application?

    - by Brian Green
    I'm writing an application for a medium sized company that will be used by about 90% of our employees and our clients. In planning for the future we decided to add functionality that will verify that the version of the program that is running is a version that we still support. Currently the application will forcequit if the version is not among our supported versions. Here is my concern. Hypothetically, in version 2.0.0.1 method "A" crashes and burns in glorious fashion and method "B" works just fine. We release 2.0.0.2 to fix method A and deprecate version 0.1. Now if someone is running 0.1 to use method B they will be forced to update to fix something that isn't an issue for them right now. My question is, will the time saved not troubleshooting old, unsupported versions outweigh the cost in usability?

    Read the article

  • Include in service layer all the application's functions or only the reusable ones?

    - by BornToCode
    Background: I need to build a main application with some operations (CRUD and more) (-in winforms), I need to make another application which will re-use some of the functions of the main application (-in webforms). I understood that using service layer is the best approach here. If I understood correctly the service should be calling the function on the BL layer (correct me if I'm wrong) The dilemma: In my main winform UI - should I call the functions from the BL, or from the service? (please explain why) Should I create a service for every single function on the BL even if I need some of the functions only in one UI? for example - should I create services for all the CRUD operations, even though I need to re-use only update operation in the webform? YOUR HELP IS MUCH APPRECIATED

    Read the article

  • Summary of usage policies for website integration of various social media networks?

    - by Dallas
    To cut to the chase... I look at Twitter's usage policy and see limitations on what can and can't be done with their logo. I also see examples of websites that use icons that have been integrated with the look and feel of their own site. Given Twitter's policy, for example, it would appear that legal conversations/agreements would need to take place to do this, especially on a commercial site. I believe it is perfectly acceptable to have a plain text button that simply has the word "Tweet" on it, that has the same functionality. My question is if anyone can provide online (or other) references that attempt to summarize what can and can't be done when integrating various social networks into your own work? The answer I will mark as the correct one will be the one which provides the best resource(s) giving the best summaries of what can and can't be done with specific logos/icons, with a secondary factor being that a variety of social networking sites are addressed in your answer. Before people point to specific questions, I am looking for a well-rounded approach that considers a breadth of networks and considerations. Background: I would like to incorporate social media icons and functionality, but would like to consider what type of modifications can be done without needing to involve lawyers. For example, can I bring in a standard Facebook logo, but incorporate my site color into the logo? Would the answer differ if I maintained their color, but add in a few pixels of another color to transition? I am not saying I want to do this, but rather using it as an example.

    Read the article

  • What kind of graphics would you like better? [ pictures ] [closed]

    - by Roger Travis
    I am looking forward to make an android game, something angrybirds style. I've already made my own engine and now have to decide what kind of graphics should I make. It could be either realistic, like that or a doodle-style like this Right now the first one looks more appealing to me... on the other hand, doodle-graphics are very easy to draw and their transparency doesn't seem to slow down the engine much. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Are null references really a bad thing?

    - by Tim Goodman
    I've heard it said that the inclusion of null references in programming languages is the "billion dollar mistake". But why? Sure, they can cause NullReferenceExceptions, but so what? Any element of the language can be a source of errors if used improperly. And what's the alternative? I suppose instead of saying this: Customer c = Customer.GetByLastName("Goodman"); // returns null if not found if (c != null) { Console.WriteLine(c.FirstName + " " + c.LastName + " is awesome!"); } else { Console.WriteLine("There was no customer named Goodman. How lame!"); } You could say this: if (Customer.ExistsWithLastName("Goodman")) { Customer c = Customer.GetByLastName("Goodman") // throws error if not found Console.WriteLine(c.FirstName + " " + c.LastName + " is awesome!"); } else { Console.WriteLine("There was no customer named Goodman. How lame!"); } But how is that better? Either way, if you forget to check that the customer exists, you get an exception. I suppose that a CustomerNotFoundException is a bit easier to debug than a NullReferenceException by virtue of being more descriptive. Is that all there is to it?

    Read the article

  • Implementing Command Pattern in Web Application

    - by KingOfHypocrites
    I'm looking to implement the command pattern in a web application (asp.net c#)... Since the commands come in text format from the client, what is the best way to translate the string to a command object? Should I use reflection? Currently I just assume the command that comes in matches the file name of a user control. This is a bit of a hack. Rather than have a select case statement that says if string = "Dashboard" then call Dashboard.Execute(), is there a pattern for working with commands that originate as strings?

    Read the article

  • When decomposing a large function, how can I avoid the complexity from the extra subfunctions?

    - by missingno
    Say I have a large function like the following: function do_lots_of_stuff(){ { //subpart 1 ... } ... { //subpart N ... } } a common pattern is to decompose it into subfunctions function do_lots_of_stuff(){ subpart_1(...) subpart_2(...) ... subpart_N(...) } I usually find that decomposition has two main advantages: The decomposed function becomes much smaller. This can help people read it without getting lost in the details. Parameters have to be explicitly passed to the underlying subfunctions, instead of being implicitly available by just being in scope. This can help readability and modularity in some situations. However, I also find that decomposition has some disadvantages: There are no guarantees that the subfunctions "belong" to do_lots_of_stuff so there is nothing stopping someone from accidentally calling them from a wrong place. A module's complexity grows quadratically with the number of functions we add to it. (There are more possible ways for things to call each other) Therefore: Are there useful convention or coding styles that help me balance the pros and cons of function decomposition or should I just use an editor with code folding and call it a day? EDIT: This problem also applies to functional code (although in a less pressing manner). For example, in a functional setting we would have the subparts be returning values that are combined in the end and the decomposition problem of having lots of subfunctions being able to use each other is still present. We can't always assume that the problem domain will be able to be modeled on just some small simple types with just a few highly orthogonal functions. There will always be complicated algorithms or long lists of business rules that we still want to correctly be able to deal with. function do_lots_of_stuff(){ p1 = subpart_1() p2 = subpart_2() pN = subpart_N() return assembleStuff(p1, p2, ..., pN) }

    Read the article

  • 3D mobile game development [on hold]

    - by SCM
    I am not a developer or programmer and, I am planning an educative project that will involve having students to develop a cross-platform, 3D mobile game, similar to the SimCity concept. I need to write a project requirement and I'd like to pick someone's brain to understand what's involved in developing such a project: -Is it realistic to have one or two students to do it? and along their other modules at uni? - How much time can it take to develop from scratch? - what are the different skills required? Thank you All SCM

    Read the article

  • Too complex/too many objects?

    - by Mike Fairhurst
    I know that this will be a difficult question to answer without context, but hopefully there are at least some good guidelines to share on this. The questions are at the bottom if you want to skip the details. Most are about OOP in general. Begin context. I am a jr dev on a PHP application, and in general the devs I work with consider themselves to use many more OO concepts than most PHP devs. Still, in my research on clean code I have read about so many ways of using OO features to make code flexible, powerful, expressive, testable, etc. that is just plain not in use here. The current strongly OO API that I've proposed is being called too complex, even though it is trivial to implement. The problem I'm solving is that our permission checks are done via a message object (my API, they wanted to use arrays of constants) and the message object does not hold the validation object accountable for checking all provided data. Metaphorically, if your perm containing 'allowable' and 'rare but disallowed' is sent into a validator, the validator may not know to look for 'rare but disallowed', but approve 'allowable', which will actually approve the whole perm check. We have like 11 validators, too many to easily track at such minute detail. So I proposed an AtomicPermission class. To fix the previous example, the perm would instead contain two atomic permissions, one wrapping 'allowable' and the other wrapping 'rare but disallowed'. Where previously the validator would say 'the check is OK because it contains allowable,' now it would instead say '"allowable" is ok', at which point the check ends...and the check fails, because 'rare but disallowed' was not specifically okay-ed. The implementation is just 4 trivial objects, and rewriting a 10 line function into a 15 line function. abstract class PermissionAtom { public function allow(); // maybe deny() as well public function wasAllowed(); } class PermissionField extends PermissionAtom { public function getName(); public function getValue(); } class PermissionIdentifier extends PermissionAtom { public function getIdentifier(); } class PermissionAction extends PermissionAtom { public function getType(); } They say that this is 'not going to get us anything important' and it is 'too complex' and 'will be difficult for new developers to pick up.' I respectfully disagree, and there I end my context to begin the broader questions. So the question is about my OOP, are there any guidelines I should know: is this too complicated/too much OOP? Not that I expect to get more than 'it depends, I'd have to see if...' when is OO abstraction too much? when is OO abstraction too little? how can I determine when I am overthinking a problem vs fixing one? how can I determine when I am adding bad code to a bad project? how can I pitch these APIs? I feel the other devs would just rather say 'its too complicated' than ask 'can you explain it?' whenever I suggest a new class.

    Read the article

  • Implenting ActiveRecord with inheritance?

    - by King
    I recently converted an old application that was using XML files as the data store to use SQL instead. To avoid a lot of changes I basically created ActiveRecord style classes that inherited from the original business objects. For example SomeClassRecord :SomeClass //ID Property //Save method I then used this new class in place of the other one, because of polymorphism I didn't need to change any methods that took SomeClass as a parameter. Would this be considered 'Bad'? What would be a better alternative?

    Read the article

  • Image slider not working when website is hosted on remote server [on hold]

    - by Tushar Khatiwada
    I'm having a different problem. I made a html website and it contains Nivo Slider in the index page. The site is working perfectly when viewed locally. I uploaded the site to remote server but the slider is not being displayed and the photo from the gallery is not working as expected ( popups on the local pc). The url of the site is: http://d138444.u24.elitehostingwizard.com/ The screenshot from the local pc: http://postimg.org/image/lxiqzx7br/ Thanks

    Read the article

  • Should i continue my self-taught coding practice or learn how to do coding professionally?

    - by G1i1ch
    Lately I've been getting professional work, hanging out with other programmers, and making friends in the industry. The only thing is I'm 100% self-taught. It's caused my style to extremely deviate from the style of those that are properly trained. It's the techniques and organization of my code that's different. It's a mixture of several things I do. I tend to blend several programming paradigms together. Like Functional and OO. I lean to the Functional side more than OO, but I see the use of OO when something would make more sense as an abstract entity. Like a game object. Next I also go the simple route when doing something. When in contrast, it seems like sometimes the code I see from professional programmers is complicated for the sake of it! I use lots of closures. And lastly, I'm not the best commenter. I find it easier just to read through my code than reading the comment. And most cases I just end up reading the code even if there are comments. Plus I've been told that, because of how simply I write my code, it's very easy to read it. I hear professionally trained programmers go on and on about things like unit tests. Something I've never used before so I haven't even the faintest idea of what they are or how they work. Lots and lots of underscores "_", which aren't really my taste. Most of the techniques I use are straight from me, or a few books I've read. Don't know anything about MVC, I've heard a lot about it though with things like backbone.js. I think it's a way to organize an application. It just confuses me though because by now I've made my own organizational structures. It's a bit of a pain. I can't use template applications at all when learning something new like with Ubuntu's Quickly. I have trouble understanding code that I can tell is from someone trained. Complete OO programming really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, yet that seems to be what EVERYONE else is strictly using. It's left me not that confident in the look of my code, or wondering whether I'll cause sparks when joining a company or maybe contributing to open source projects. In fact I'm rather scared of the fact that people will eventually be checking out my code. Is this just something normal any programmer goes through or should I really look to change up my techniques?

    Read the article

  • Informing GUI objects about screen size - Designing

    - by Mosquito
    I have a problem with designing classes for my game which I create. In my app, there is: class CGame which contains all the information about game itself, e.g. screen width, screen height, etc. In the main() function I create a pointer to CGame instance. class CGUIObject which includes fields specifying it's position and draw() method, which should know how to draw an object according to screen size. class CGUIManager which is a singleton and it includes a list of CGUIObject's. For each object in a list it just calls draw() method. For clarity's sake, I'll put some simple code: class CGame { int screenWidth; int screenHeight; }; class CGUIObject { CPoint position; void draw(); // this one needs to know what is a screen's width and height }; class CGUIManager // it's a singleton { vector<CGUIObject*> guiObjects; void drawObjects(); }; And the main.cpp: CGame* g; int main() { g = new CGame(); while(1) { CGUIManager::Instance().drawObjects(); } return 0; } Now the problem is, that each CGUIObject needs to know the screen size which is held by CGame, but I find it very dumb to include pointer to CGame instance in every object. Could anyone, please, tell me what would be the best approach to achieve this?

    Read the article

  • How do I break down and plan a personal programming project?

    - by Pureferret
    I've just started a programming job where I'm applying my 'How to code' knowledge to what I'm being taught of 'How to Program' (They are different!). As part of this, I've been taught how to capture requirements from clients before starting a new project. But... How do I do this for a nebulous personal project? I say nebulous, as I often find halfway through programming something, I want to expand what my program will do, or alter the result. Eventually, I'm tangled in code and have to restart. This can be frustrating and off-putting. Conversely, when given a fixed task and fixed requirements, it's much easier to dig in and get it done. At work I might be told "Today/This week you need to add XYZ to program 1" That is easy to do. At home (for fun) I want to make, say, a program that creates arbitrary lists. It's a very generic task. How do I start with that? I don't need it to do anything, but I want it to do something. So how do I plan a personal programming project? Related: What to plan before starting development on a project?

    Read the article

  • What most games would benefit from having

    - by Phil
    I think I've seen "questions" like this on stackoverflow but sorry if I'm overstepping any bounds. Inspired by my recent question and all the nice answers (Checklist for finished game?) I think every gamedev out there has something he/she thinks that almost every game should have. That knowledge is welcome here! So this is probably going to be an inspirational subjective list of some sorts and the point is that anyone reading this question will see a point or two that they've overlooked in their own development and might benefit from adding. I think a good example might be: "some sort of manual or help section. Of course it should be proportional to how advanced the game is. Some users won't need it and won't go looking for it but the other ones that do will become very frustrated if they can't remember how to do something specific that should be in the manual". A bad example might be "good gameplay". Of course every game benefits from this but the answer is not very helpful.

    Read the article

  • How can I designed multi-threaded application for larger user base

    - by rokonoid
    Here's my scenario, I need to develop a scalable application. My user base may be over 100K, every user has 10 or more small tasks. Tasks check every minute with a third party application through web services, retrieving data which is written in the database, then the data is forwarded to it's original destination. So here's the processing of a small task: while(true){ Boolean isNewInformationAvailable = checkWhetherInformationIsAvailableOrNot(); If(isNewInformationAvailable ==true){ fetchTheData(); writeToDatabase(); findTheDestination(); deliverTheData(); isAvailable =false; } } Here is the question: as the application is large, how should I approach designing this. I'm going to use Java to write it. Should I use concurrency, and how would you manage the concurrency?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222  | Next Page >