Search Results

Search found 23667 results on 947 pages for 'level design'.

Page 23/947 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

• How to present a stable data model in a public API that allows internal data structures to be changed without breaking the public view of the data?

  - by Max Palmer

  I am in the process of developing an application that allows users to write C# scripts. These scripts allow users to call selected methods and to access and manipulate data in a document. This works well, however, in the development version, scripts access the document's (internal) data structures directly. This means that if we were to change the internal data model/structure, there is a good chance that someone's script will no longer compile. We obviously want to prevent this breaking change from happening, but still want to allow the user to write sensible C# code (whilst not restricting how we develop our internal data model as a result). We therefore need to decouple our scripting API and its data structures from our internal methods and data structures. We've a few ideas as to how we might allow the user to access a what is effectively a stable public version of the document's internal data*, but I wanted to throw the question out there to someone who might have some real experience of this problem. NB our internal document's data structure is quite complex and it could be quite difficult to wrap. We know we want to expose as little as possible in our public API, especially as once it's out there, it's out there for good. Can anyone help? How do scripting languages / APIs decouple their public API and data structures from their internal data structures? Is there no real alternative to having to write a complex interaction layer? If we need to do this, what's a good approach or pattern for wrapping complex data structures that include nested objects, including collections? I've looked at the API facade pattern, which looks like it's trying to address these kinds of issues, but are there alternatives? *One idea is to build a data facade that is kept stable across versions of our application. The facade exposes a set of facade data objects that are used in the script code. These maintain backwards compatibility and wrap access to our internal document's data model.

  Read the article

• Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion

  - by user2158382

  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

• Is loose coupling w/o use cases an anti-pattern?

  - by dsimcha

  Loose coupling is, to some developers, the holy grail of well-engineered software. It's certainly a good thing when it makes code more flexible in the face of changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future, or avoids code duplication. On the other hand, efforts to loosely couple components increase the amount of indirection in a program, thus increasing its complexity, often making it more difficult to understand and often making it less efficient. Do you consider a focus on loose coupling without any use cases for the loose coupling (such as avoiding code duplication or planning for changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future) to be an anti-pattern? Can loose coupling fall under the umbrella of YAGNI?

  Read the article

• What are other ideologies to establish relationships between distinct users besides followers/following and friends?

  - by user784637

  Websites like myspace and facebook establish relationships between distinct users using the "friending" ideology, where one user sends a request to be accepted by another user in order for them to have the mutual permission to do stuff like post messages on each others walls. Less restrictive than the "friending" ideology, Twitter and instagram use the followers/following ideology where you can subscribe to the tweets or posts of another user without their permission. Less restrictive than the "followers/following" ideology, email and calling someone on the phone allows you to directly contact anyone. Are there other ideologies that have been successfully implemented either in social networking sites or other real world constructs to establish relations between users?

  Read the article

• What is the simplest human readable configuration file format?

  - by Juha

  Current configuration file is as follows: mainwindow.title = 'test' mainwindow.position.x = 100 mainwindow.position.y = 200 mainwindow.button.label = 'apply' mainwindow.button.size.x = 100 mainwindow.button.size.y = 30 logger.datarate = 100 logger.enable = True logger.filename = './test.log' This is read with python to a nested dictionary: { 'mainwindow':{ 'button':{ 'label': {'value':'apply'}, ... }, 'logger':{ datarate: {'value': 100}, enable: {'value': True}, filename: {'value': './test.log'} }, ... } Is there a better way of doing this? The idea is to get XML type of behavior and avoid XML as long as possible. The end user is assumed almost totally computer illiterate and basically uses notepad and copy-paste. Thus the python standard "header + variables" type is considered too difficult. The dummy user edits the config file, able programmers handle the dictionaries. Nested dictionary is chosen for easy splitting (logger does not need or even cannot have/edit mainwindow parameters).

  Read the article

• Alternative to "inheritance v composition??"

  - by Frank

  I have colleagues at work who claim that "Inheritance is an anti-pattern" and want to use composition systematically instead, except in (rare, according to them) cases where inheritance is really the best way to go. I want to suggest an alternative where we continue using inheritance, but it is strictly forbidden (enforced by code reviews) to use anything but public members of base classes in derived classes. For a case where we don't need to swap components of a class at runtime (static inheritance), would that be equivalent enough to composition? Or am I forgetting some other important aspect of composition?

  Read the article

• Advice on developing a social network [on hold]

  - by Siraj Mansour

  I am doing research on assembling a team, using the right tools, and the cost to develop a highly responsive social network that is capable of dealing with a lot of users. Similar to the Facebook concept but using the basics package for now. Profile, friends, posts, updates, media upload/download, streaming, chat and Inbox messaging are all in the package. We certainly do not expect it to be as popular as Facebook or handle the same number of users and requests, but in its own game it has to be a monster, and expandable for later on. Neglecting the hosting, and servers part, i am looking for technical advise and opinions, on what kind of team i need ? how many developers ? their expertise ? What are the right tools ? languages ? frameworks ? environments ? Any random ideas about the infrastructure ? Quick thoughts on the development process ? Please use references, if you have any to support your ideas. Development cost mere estimation ? NEGLECTING THE COST OF SERVERS I know my question is too broad but my knowledge is very limited and i need detailed help, for any help you can offer i thank you in advance.

  Read the article

• Data Transformation Pipeline

  - by davenewza

  I have create some kind of data pipeline to transform coordinate data into more useful information. Here is the shell of pipeline: public class PositionPipeline { protected List<IPipelineComponent> components; public PositionPipeline() { components = new List<IPipelineComponent>(); } public PositionPipelineEntity Process(Position position) { foreach (var component in components) { position = component.Execute(position); } return position; } public PositionPipeline RegisterComponent(IPipelineComponent component) { components.Add(component); return this; } } Every IPipelineComponent accepts and returns the same type - a PositionPipelineEntity. Code: public interface IPipelineComponent { PositionPipelineEntity Execute(PositionPipelineEntity position); } The PositionPipelineEntity needs to have many properties, many which are unused in certain components and required in others. Some properties will also have become redundant at the end of the pipeline. For example, these components could be executed: TransformCoordinatesComponent: Parse the raw coordinate data into a Coordinate type. DetermineCountryComponent: Determine and stores country code. DetermineOnRoadComponent: Determine and store whether coordinate is on a road. Code: pipeline .RegisterComponent(new TransformCoordinatesComponent()) .RegisterComponent(new DetermineCountryComponent()) .RegisterComponent(new DetermineOnRoadComponent()); pipeline.Process(positionPipelineEntity); The PositionPipelineEntity type: public class PositionPipelineEntity { // Only relevant to the TransformCoordinatesComponent public decimal RawCoordinateLatitude { get; set; } // Only relevant to the TransformCoordinatesComponent public decimal RawCoordinateLongitude { get; set; } // Required by all components after TransformCoordinatesComponent public Coordinate CoordinateLatitude { get; set; } // Required by all components after TransformCoordinatesComponent public Coordinate CoordinateLongitude { get; set; } // Set in DetermineCountryComponent, not required anywhere. // Requires CoordinateLatitude and CoordinateLongitude (TransformCoordinatesComponent) public string CountryCode { get; set; } // Set in DetermineOnRoadComponent, not required anywhere. // Requires CoordinateLatitude and CoordinateLongitude (TransformCoordinatesComponent) public bool OnRoad { get; set; } } Problems: I'm very concerned about the dependency that a component has on properties. The way to solve this would be to create specific types for each component. The problem then is that I cannot chain them together like this. The other problem is the order of components in the pipeline matters. There is some dependency. The current structure does not provide any static or runtime checking for such a thing. Any feedback would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Need to re-build an application - how?

  - by Tom

  For our main system, we have a small monitor application that sits outside our network and periodically tries to log in to verify the system still works. We have a problem with the monitor though in that the communications component set (Asta 3 inside Delphi applications) doesn't always connect through. Overall, I'd say it's about 95% reliable, but that other 5% kills the monitor since it will try to log in and hang on the connection attempt (no timeout in the component). This really isn't an issue on the client side of the system since the clients don't disconnect and reconnect repeatedly on the same application instance, but I need a way to make sure the monitor stays up and continues working even when the component fails on a run. I have a few ideas as to which way to have the program run, the main idea being to put the communications inside a threaded data module so that if one thread crashes then another thread can test later and the program keep going. Does this sound like a valid way to go? Any other ideas how to ensure a reliable monitoring application with a less than 100% reliable component? Thanks. P.S. Not sure these tags are the most appropriate. Tried including "system-reliability" as one, but not high enough rep to create.

  Read the article

• Defining formula through user interface in user form

  - by BriskLabs Pakistan

  I am a student and developing a simple assignment - windows form application in visual studio 2010. The application is suppose to construct formulas as per user requirement. The process: It has to pick data from columns of Microsoft Access database and the user should be able to pick the data by column name like we do in a drop down menu. and create reusable formulas in it ( configure it once and can change it again). followings are column titles from database that can be picked for example. e.g Col -1 : Marks in Maths Col -2 : Total Marks in Maths Col -3 : Marks in science Col -4 : Total marks in science Finally we should be able to construct any formula in the UI like (Col 1 + Col 3 ) / ( col 2 + col 4) = Formula 1 once this is formula is set saved and a name is assigned to it by user. he/she can use the formula and results shall appear in a window below. i.e He would be able to calculate his desired figures (formula) by only manipulating underlying data on the UI layer....choose the data for a period and apply the formula and get the answer Problem: It looks like I have to create an app where rules are set through UI....... this means no stored procedures are required in SQL.... please suggest the right approach.

  Read the article

• Is it better to define all routes in the Global.asax than to define separately in the areas?

  - by Matthew Patrick Cashatt

  I am working on a MVC 4 project that will serve as an API layer of a larger application. The developers that came before me set up separate Areas to separate different API requests (i.e Search, Customers, Products, and so forth). I am noticing that each Area has separate Area registration classes that define routes for that area. However, the routes defined are not area-specific (i.e. {controller}/{action}/{id} might be defined redundantly in a couple of areas). My instinct would be to move all of these route definitions to a common place like the Global.asax to avoid redundancy and collisions, but I am not sure if I am correct about that.

  Read the article

• Do you leverage the benefits of the open-closed principle?

  - by Kaleb Pederson

  The open-closed principle (OCP) states that an object should be open for extension but closed for modification. I believe I understand it and use it in conjunction with SRP to create classes that do only one thing. And, I try to create many small methods that make it possible to extract out all the behavior controls into methods that may be extended or overridden in some subclass. Thus, I end up with classes that have many extension points, be it through: dependency injection and composition, events, delegation, etc. Consider the following a simple, extendable class: class PaycheckCalculator { // ... protected decimal GetOvertimeFactor() { return 2.0M; } } Now say, for example, that the OvertimeFactor changes to 1.5. Since the above class was designed to be extended, I can easily subclass and return a different OvertimeFactor. But... despite the class being designed for extension and adhering to OCP, I'll modify the single method in question, rather than subclassing and overridding the method in question and then re-wiring my objects in my IoC container. As a result I've violated part of what OCP attempts to accomplish. It feels like I'm just being lazy because the above is a bit easier. Am I misunderstanding OCP? Should I really be doing something different? Do you leverage the benefits of OCP differently? Update: based on the answers it looks like this contrived example is a poor one for a number of different reasons. The main intent of the example was to demonstrate that the class was designed to be extended by providing methods that when overridden would alter the behavior of public methods without the need for changing internal or private code. Still, I definitely misunderstood OCP.

  Read the article

• Is an event loop just a for/while loop with optimized polling?

  - by Alan

  I'm trying to understand what an event loop is. Often the explanation is that in the event loop, you do something until you're notified that an event occurred. You than handle the event and continue doing what you did before. To map the above definition with an example. I have a server which 'listens' in a event loop, and when a socket connection is detected, the data from it gets read and displayed, after which the server goes to the listening it did before. However, this event happening and us getting notified 'just like that' are to much for me to handle. You can say: "It's not 'just like that' you have to register an event listener". But what's an event listener but a function which for some reason isn't returning. Is it in it's own loop, waiting to be notified when an event happens? Should the event listener also register an event listener? Where does it end? Events are a nice abstraction to work with, however just an abstraction. I believe that in the end, polling is unavoidable. Perhaps we are not doing it in our code, but the lower levels (the programming language implementation or the OS) are doing it for us. It basically comes down to the following pseudo code which is running somewhere low enough so it doesn't result in busy waiting: while(True): do stuff check if event has happened (poll) do other stuff This is my understanding of the whole idea, and i would like to hear if this is correct. I am open in accepting that the whole idea is fundamentally wrong, in which case I would like the correct explanation. Best regards

  Read the article

• How to prevent duplicate data access methods that retrieve similar data?

  - by Ronald Wildenberg

  In almost every project I work on with a team, the same problem seems to creep in. Someone writes UI code that needs data and writes a data access method: AssetDto GetAssetById(int assetId) A week later someone else is working on another part of the application and also needs an AssetDto but now including 'approvers' and writes the following: AssetDto GetAssetWithApproversById(int assetId) A month later someone needs an asset but now including the 'questions' (or the 'owners' or the 'running requests', etc): AssetDto GetAssetWithQuestionsById(int assetId) AssetDto GetAssetWithOwnersById(int assetId) AssetDto GetAssetWithRunningRequestsById(int assetId) And it gets even worse when methods like GetAssetWithOwnerAndQuestionsById start to appear. You see the pattern that emerges: an object is attached to a large object graph and you need different parts of this graph in different locations. Of course, I'd like to prevent having a large number of methods that do almost the same. Is it simply a matter of team discipline or is there some pattern I can use to prevent this? In some cases it might make sense to have separate methods, i.e. getting an asset with running requests may be expensive so I do not want to include these all the time. How to handle such cases?

  Read the article

• Strategies for invoking subclass methods on generic objects

  - by Brad Patton

  I've run into this issue in a number of places and have solved it a bunch of different ways but looking for other solutions or opinions on how to address. The scenario is when you have a collection of objects all based off of the same superclass but you want to perform certain actions based only on instances of some of the subclasses. One contrived example of this might be an HTML document made up of elements. You could have a superclass named HTMLELement and subclasses of Headings, Paragraphs, Images, Comments, etc. To invoke a common action across all of the objects you declare a virtual method in the superclass and specific implementations in all of the subclasses. So to render the document you could loop all of the different objects in the document and call a common Render() method on each instance. It's the case where again using the same generic objects in the collection I want to perform different actions for instances of specific subclass (or set of subclasses). For example (an remember this is just an example) when iterating over the collection, elements with external links need to be downloaded (e.g. JS, CSS, images) and some might require additional parsing (JS, CSS). What's the best way to handle those special cases. Some of the strategies I've used or seen used include: Virtual methods in the base class. So in the base class you have a virtual LoadExternalContent() method that does nothing and then override it in the specific subclasses that need to implement it. The benefit being that in the calling code there is no object testing you send the same message to each object and let most of them ignore it. Two downsides that I can think of. First it can make the base class very cluttered with methods that have nothing to do with most of the hierarchy. Second it assumes all of the work can be done in the called method and doesn't handle the case where there might be additional context specific actions in the calling code (i.e. you want to do something in the UI and not the model). Have methods on the class to uniquely identify the objects. This could include methods like ClassName() which return a string with the class name or other return values like enums or booleans (IsImage()). The benefit is that the calling code can use if or switch statements to filter objects to perform class specific actions. The downside is that for every new class you need to implement these methods and can look cluttered. Also performance could be less than some of the other options. Use language features to identify objects. This includes reflection and language operators to identify the objects. For example in C# there is the is operator that returns true if the instance matches the specified class. The benefit is no additional code to implement in your object hierarchy. The only downside seems to be the lack of using something like a switch statement and the fact that your calling code is a little more cluttered. Are there other strategies I am missing? Thoughts on best approaches?

  Read the article

• Liskov substitution principle with abstract parent class

  - by Songo

  Does Liskov substitution principle apply to inheritance hierarchies where the parent is an abstract class the same way if the parent is a concrete class? The Wikipedia page list several conditions that have to be met before a hierarchy is deemed to be correct. However, I have read in a blog post that one way to make things easier to conform to LSP is to use abstract parent instead of a concrete class. How does the choice of the parent type (abstract vs concrete) impacts the LSP? Is it better to have an abstract base class whenever possible?

  Read the article

• Building a template engine - starting point

  - by Anirudh

  We're building a Django-based project with a template component. This component will be separate from the project as such and can be Django/Python, Node, Java or whatever works. The template has to be rendered into HTML. The templates will contain references to objects with properties that are defined in the DB, say, a Bus. For eg, it could be something like [object type="vehicle" weight="heavy"] and it would have to pull a random object from the DB fulfilling the criteria : type="vehicle" weight="heavy" (bus/truck/jet) and then substitute that tag with an image, say, of a Bus. Also it would have to be able to handle some processing. Eg: What is [X type="integer" lte="10"] + [Y type="integer" lte="10"] [option X+Y correct_ans="true"] [option X-Y correct_ans="false"] [option X+y+1 correct_ans="false"] The engine would be expected to fill in a random integer value <= 10 for X and Y and show radioboxes for each of the options. Would also have to store the fact that the first option is the correct answer. Does it to make sense to write something from the scratch? Or is it better to use an existing templating system (like Django's own templating system) as a starting point? Any suggestions on how I can approach this?

  Read the article

• What should a domain object's validation cover?

  - by MarcoR88

  I'm trying to figure out how to do validation of domain objects that need external resources, such as data mappers/dao Firstly here's my code class User { const INVALID_ID = 1; const INVALID_NAME = 2; const INVALID_EMAIL = 4; int getID(); void setID(Int i); string getName(); void setName(String s); string getEmail(); void setEmail(String s); int getErrorsForInsert(); // returns a bitmask for INVALID_* constants int getErrorsForUpdate(); } My worries are about the uniqueness of the email, checking it would require the storage layer. Reading others' code seems that two solutions are equally accepted: both perform the unique validation in data mapper but some set an error state to the DO user.addError(User.INVALID_EMAIL) while others prefer to throw a totally different type of exception that covers only persistence, like: UserStorageException { const INVALID_EMAIL = 1; const INVALID_CITY = 2; } What are the pros and cons of these solutions?

  Read the article

• Which pattern is best for large project

  - by shamim

  I have several years of software development experience, but I am not a keen and adroit programmer, to perform better I need helping hands. Recently I engaged in an ERP project. For this project want a very effective structure, which will be easily maintainable and have no compromise about performance issue. Below structures are now present in my old projects. Entity Layer BusinessLogic Layer. DataLogic Layer UI Layer. Bellow picture describe how they are internally connected. For my new project want to change my project structure, I want to follow below steps: Core Layer(common) BLL DAL Model UI Bellow picture describe how they are internally connected. Though goggling some initial type question’s are obscure to me, they are : For new project want to use Entity framework, is it a good idea? Will it increase my project performance? Will it more maintainable than previous structure? Entity Framework core disadvantages/benefits are? For my project need help to select best structure. Will my new structure be better than the old one?

  Read the article

• Alternative to "inheritance versus composition?" [closed]

  - by Frank

  Possible Duplicate: Where does this concept of “favor composition over inheritance” come from? I have colleagues at work who claim that "Inheritance is an anti-pattern" and want to use composition systematically instead, except in (rare, according to them) cases where inheritance is really the best way to go. I want to suggest an alternative where we continue using inheritance, but it is strictly forbidden (enforced by code reviews) to use anything but public members of base classes in derived classes. For a case where we don't need to swap components of a class at runtime (static inheritance), would that be equivalent enough to composition? Or am I forgetting some other important aspect of composition?

  Read the article

• What is the best approach to solve a factory method problem which has to be an instance?

  - by Iago

  I have to add new funcionality in a web service legacy project and I'm thinking what is the best approach for a concrete situation. The web service is simple: It receives a XML file, unmarshalling, generates response's objects, marshalling and finally it sends the response as a XML file. For every XML files received, the web service always responds with the same XML structure. What I have to do is to generate a different XML file according to the XML received. So I have a controller class which has all marshalling/unmarshalling operations, but this controller class has to be an instance. Depending on XML received I need some marshalling methods or others. Trying to make few changes on legacy source, what is the best approach? My first approach was to do a factory method pattern with the controller class, but this class has to be an instance. I want to keep, as far as it goes, this structure: classController.doMarshalling(); I think this one is a bit smelly: if(XMLReceived.isTypeOne()) classController.doMarshallingOne(); else if(XMLReceived.isTypeTwo()) classController.doMarshallingTwo(); else if(XMLReceived.isTypeThree()) classController.doMarshallingThree(); else if ... I hope my question is well understood

  Read the article

• Best approach for saving highlighted areas on geographical map.

  - by Mohsen

  I am designing an application that allow users to highlight areas of a geographical map using a tool that is like brush or a pen. The tool basically draw a circle with a single click and continue drawing those circles with move move. Here is an example of drawing made by moving the tool. It is pretty much same as Microsoft Paint. Regardless of programming language what is best approach (most inexpensive approach) for saving this kind of data?

  Read the article

• Modular Database Structures

  - by John D

  I have been examining the code base we use in work and I am worried about the size the packages have grown to. The actual code is modular, procedures have been broken down into small functional (and testable) parts. The issue I see is that we have 100 procedures in a single package - almost an entire domain model. I had thought of breaking these packages down - to create sub domains that are centered around the procedure relationships to other objects. Group a bunch of procedures that have 80% of their relationships to three tables etc. The end result would be a lot more packages, but the packages would be smaller and I feel the entire code base would be more readable - when procedures cross between two domain models it is less of a struggle to figure which package it belongs to. The problem I now have is what the actual benefit of all this would really be. I looked at the general advantages of modularity: 1. Re-usability 2. Asynchronous Development 3. Maintainability Yet when I consider our latest development, the procedures within the packages are already reusable. At this advanced stage we rarely require asynchronous development - and when it is required we simply ladder the stories across iterations. So I guess my question is if people know of reasons why you would break down classes rather than just the methods inside of classes? Right now I do believe there is an issue with these mega packages forming but the only benefit I can really pin down to break them down is readability - something that experience gained from working with them would solve.

  Read the article

• When designing a job queue, what should determine the scope of a job?

  - by Stuart Pegg

  We've got a job queue system that'll cheerfully process any kind of job given to it. We intend to use it to process jobs that each contain 2 tasks: Job (Pass information from one server to another) Fetch task (get the data, slowly) Send task (send the data, comparatively quickly) The difficulty we're having is that we don't know whether to break the tasks into separate jobs, or process the job in one go. Are there any best practices or useful references on this subject? Is there some obvious benefit to a method that we're missing? So far we can see these benefits for each method: Split Job lease length reflects job length: Rather than total of two Finer granularity on recovery: If we lose outgoing connectivity we can tell them all to retry The starting state of the second task is saved to job history: Helps with debugging (although similar logging could be added in single task method) Single Single job to be scheduled: Less processing overhead Data not stale on recovery: If the outgoing downtime is quite long, the pending Send jobs could be outdated

  Read the article

• DDD / Layers and legacy systems

  - by CSM

  I have to refactor a complex C# app (many dialogs, mixed logic and so on). There is a part managing the communication with special hardware equipments (sending commands and receive data via asynchronous c# callbacks). The code is "spaghetti" with mixed UI/Logic/Communication/etc and my task is to split the layers in a DDD sense. So, to which layer belongs a callback driver routine? The callbacks are creating "bubbles" in the system, up to the UI layer and because of this I cannot enforce the essential principle that any element of a layer depends only on other elements in the same layer or on elements of the layers "beneath" it. Thank you in advance.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >