Search Results

Search found 3321 results on 133 pages for 'patterns'.

Page 23/133 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

• What is the proper name for this design pattern in Python?

  - by James

  In Python, is the proper name for the PersonXXX class below PersonProxy, PersonInterface, etc? import rest class PersonXXX(object): def __init__(self,db_url): self.resource = rest.Resource(db_url) def create(self,person): self.resource.post(person.data()) def get(self): pass def update(self): pass def delete(self): pass class Person(object): def __init__(self,name, age): self.name = name self.age = age def data(self): return dict(name=self.name,age=self.age)

  Read the article

• Can you point me to a nontrivial strategy pattern implementation?

  - by Eugen Martynov

  We are faced implementing a registration workflow with many branches. There are three main flows which in some conditions lead to one another. Each flow has at least four different steps; some steps interact with the server, and every step adds more information to the state. Also the requirement is to have it persistent between sessions, so if the user closes the app (this is a mobile app), it will restore the process from the last completed step with the state from the previous session. I think this could benefit from the use of the strategy pattern, but I've never had to implement it for such a complex case. Does anyone know of any examples in open source or articles from which I could find inspiration? Preferably the examples would be from a live/working/stable application. I'm interested in Java implementation mostly; we are developing for Java mobile phones: android, blackberry and J2ME. We have an SDK which is quite well separated from platform specific implementations, but examples in C++, C#, Objective-C or Python would be acceptable.

  Read the article

• Struggling with the Single Responsibility Principle

  - by AngryBird

  Consider this example: I have a website. It allows users to make posts (can be anything) and add tags that describe the post. In the code, I have two classes that represent the post and tags. Lets call these classes Post and Tag. Post takes care of creating posts, deleting posts, updating posts, etc. Tag takes care of creating tags, deleting tags, updating tags, etc. There is one operation that is missing. The linking of tags to posts. I am struggling with who should do this operation. It could fit equally well in either class. On one hand, the Post class could have a function that takes a Tag as a parameter, and then stores it in a list of tags. On the other hand, the Tag class could have a function that takes a Post as a parameter and links the Tag to the Post. The above is just an example of my problem. I am actually running into this with multiple classes that are all similar. It could fit equally well in both. Short of actually putting the functionality in both classes, what conventions or design styles exist to help me solve this problem. I am assuming there has to be something short of just picking one? Maybe putting it in both classes is the correct answer?

  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

• Resources about cross platform application development in ANSI C [closed]

  - by Anindya Chatterjee

  Where can I get good resources for learning cross platform application development in plain ISO/ANSI C? I have cygwin and eclipse cdt with me to start in my win7 pc. I just need a couple of good resources containing all the best practices and techniques to write good and robust and scalable cross platform application. I am totally new to this cross platform business, no prior idea. Want to learn it in a proper way from the very beginning. Please help me out here.

  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

• 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

• Design for object with optional and modifiable attributtes?

  - by Ikuzen

  I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

  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

• whats the name of this pattern?

  - by Wes

  I see this a lot in frameworks. You have a master class which other classes register with. The master class then decides which of the registered classes to delegate the request to. An example based passed in class may be something this. public interface Processor { public boolean canHandle(Object objectToHandle); public void handle(Object objectToHandle); } public class EvenNumberProcessor extends Processor { public boolean canHandle(Object objectToHandle) { if (!isNumeric(objectToHandle)){ return false } return isEven(objectToHandle); } public void handle(objectToHandle) { //Optionally call canHandleAgain to ensure the calling class is fufilling its contract doSomething(); } } public class OddNumberProcessor extends Processor { public boolean canHandle(Object objectToHandle) { if (!isNumeric(objectToHandle)){ return false } return isOdd(objectToHandle); } public void handle(objectToHandle) { //Optionally call canHandleAgain to ensure the calling class is fufilling its contract doSomething(); } } //Can optionally implement processor interface public class processorDelegator { private List processors; public void addProcessor(Processor processor) { processors.add(processor); } public void process(Object objectToProcess) { //Lookup relevant processor either by keeping a list of what they can process //Or query each one to see if it can process the object. chosenProcessor=chooseProcessor(objectToProcess); chosenProcessor.handle(objectToProcess); } } Note there are a few variations I see on this. In one variation the sub classes provide a list of things they can process which the ProcessorDelegator understands. The other variation which is listed above in fake code is where each is queried in turn. This is similar to chain of command but I don't think its the same as chain of command means that the processor needs to pass to other processors. The other variation is where the ProcessorDelegator itself implements the interface which means you can get trees of ProcessorDelegators which specialise further. In the above example you could have a numeric processor delegator which delegates to an even/odd processor and a string processordelegator which delegates to different strings. My question is does this pattern have a name.

  Read the article

• What is the difference between all-static-methods and applying a singleton pattern?

  - by shahensha

  I am making a database to store information about the users of my website (I am using stuts2 and hence Java EE technology). For the database I'll be making a DBManager. Should I apply singleton pattern here or rather make all it's methods static? I will be using this DBManager for basic things like adding, deleting and updating User profiles. Along with it, I'll use for all other querying purposes, for instance to find out whether a username already exists and to get all users for administrative purposes and stuff like that. My questions What is the benefit of singleton pattern? Which thing is most apt here? All static methods or a singleton pattern? Please compare both of them. regards shahensha P.S. The database is bigger than this. Here I am talking only about the tables which I'll be using for storing User Information.

  Read the article

• Why is nesting or piggybacking errors within errors bad in general?

  - by dietbuddha

  Why is nesting or piggybacking errors within errors bad in general? To me it seems bad intuitively, but I'm suspicious in that I cannot adequately articulate why it is bad. This may be because it is not in general bad and that it is only bad in specific instances. Why is it detrimental to design error/exception handling in such a way. The specific instance is that of a REST service. There is a desire by some to use http errors (specifically the 500 response) as a way to indicate any problem with specific instances of a resource. An example of an instance resource in this case would be: http://server/ticket/80 # instance http://server/ticket # not an instance So this is the behavior that is being proposed. If ticket 80 does not exist return a http response code of 500. Within the body of the error return the "real" error as an additional error code and description. If the ticket resource doesn't exist return a response code of 404.

  Read the article

• What are cons of usage only non-member functions and POD?

  - by Miro

  I'm creating my own game engine. I've read these articles and this question about DOD and there was written to not use member functions and classes. I also heard some criticism to this idea. I can write it using member functions or non-member functions it would be similar. So what are benefits/cons of that approach or when project grows, does any of these approaches give clearer and better manageable code? With POD & non-member functions I don't have to make struct members public I can still use object id outside of engine like OpenGL does with all it's stuff, so It's not about encapsulation. POD - plain old data DOD - data oriented design

  Read the article

• Methodologies for Managing Users and Access?

  - by MadBurn

  This is something I'm having a hard time getting my head around. I think I might be making it more complicated than it is. What I'm trying to do is develop a method to store users in a database with varying levels of access, throughout different applications. I know this has been done before, but I don't know where to find how they did it. Here is an example of what I need to accomplish: UserA - Access to App1, App3, App4 & can add new users to App3, but not 4 or 1. UserB - Access to App2 only with ReadOnly access. UserC - Access to App1 & App4 and is able to access Admin settings of both apps. In the past I've just used user groups. However, I'm reaching a phase where I need a bit more control over each individual user's access to certain parts of the different applications. I wish this were as cut and dry as being able to give a user a role and let each role inherit from the last. Now, this is what I need to accomplish. But, I don't know any methods of doing this. I could easily just design something that works, but I know this has been done and I know this has been studied and I know this problem has been solved by much better minds than my own. This is for a web application and using sql server 2008. I don't need to store passwords (LDAP) and the information I need to store is actually very limited. Basically just username and access.

  Read the article

• A sample Memento pattern: Is it correct?

  - by TheSilverBullet

  Following this query on memento pattern, I have tried to put my understanding to test. Memento pattern stands for three things: Saving state of the "memento" object for its successful retrieval Saving carefully each valid "state" of the memento Encapsulating the saved states from the change inducer so that each state remains unaltered Have I achieved these three with my design? Problem This is a zero player game where the program is initialized with a particular set up of chess pawns - the knight and queen. Then program then needs to keep adding set of pawns or knights and queens so that each pawn is "safe" for the next one move of every other pawn. The condition is that either both pawns should be placed, or none of them should be placed. The chessboard with the most number of non conflicting knights and queens should be returned. Implementation I have 4 classes for this: protected ChessBoard (the Memento) private int [][] ChessBoard; public void ChessBoard(); protected void SetChessBoard(); protected void GetChessBoard(int); public Pawn This is not related to memento. It holds info about the pawns public enum PawnType: int { Empty = 0, Queen = 1, Knight = 2, } //This returns a value that shown if the pawn can be placed safely public bool IsSafeToAddPawn(PawnType); public CareTaker This corresponds to caretaker of memento This is a double dimentional integer array that keeps a track of all states. The reason for having 2D array is to keep track of how many states are stored and which state is currently active. An example: 0 -2 1 -1 2 0 - This is current state. With second index 0/ 3 1 - This state has been saved, but has been undone private int [][]State; private ChessBoard [] MChessBoard; //This gets the chessboard at the position requested and assigns it to originator public ChessBoard GetChessBoard(int); //This overwrites the chessboard at given position public void SetChessBoard(ChessBoard, int); private int [][]State; public PlayGame (This is the originator) private bool status; private ChessBoard oChessBoard; //This sets the state of chessboard at position specified public SetChessBoard(ChessBoard, int); //This gets the state of chessboard at position specified public ChessBoard GetChessBoard(int); //This function tries to place both the pawns and returns the status of this attempt public bool PlacePawns(Pawn);

  Read the article

• Authorization design-pattern / practice?

  - by Lawtonfogle

  On one end, you have users. On the other end, you have activities. I was wondering if there is a best practice to relate the two. The simplest way I can think of is to have every activity have a role, and assign every user every role they need. The problem is that this gets really messy in practice as soon as you go beyond a trivial system. A way I recently designed was to have users who have roles, and roles have privileges, and activities require some combinations of privileges. For the trivial case, this is more complex, but I think it will scale better. But after I implemented it, I felt like it was overkill for the system I had. Another option would be to have users, who have roles, and activities require you to have a certain role to perform with many activities sharing roles. A more complex variant of this would given activities many possible roles, which you only needed one of. And an even more complex variant would be to allow logical statements of role ownership to use an activity (i.e. Must have A and (B exclusive or C) and must not have D). I could continue to list more, but I think this already gives a picture. And many of these have trade offs. But in software design, there are oftentimes solutions, while perhaps not perfect in every possible case, are clearly top of the pack to an extent it isn't even considered opinion based (i.e. how to store passwords, plain text is worse, hashing better, hashing and salt even better, despite the increased complexity of each level) (i.e. 2, Smart UI designs for applications are bad, even if it is subjective as to what the best design is). So, is there a best practice for authorization design that is not purely opinion based/subjective?

  Read the article

• Augmenting functionality of subclasses without code duplication in C++

  - by Rob W

  I have to add common functionality to some classes that share the same superclass, preferably without bloating the superclass. The simplified inheritance chain looks like this: Element -> HTMLElement -> HTMLAnchorElement Element -> SVGElement -> SVGAlement The default doSomething() method on Element is no-op by default, but there are some subclasses that need an actual implementation that requires some extra overridden methods and instance members. I cannot put a full implementation of doSomething() in Element because 1) it is only relevant for some of the subclasses, 2) its implementation has a performance impact and 3) it depends on a method that could be overridden by a class in the inheritance chain between the superclass and a subclass, e.g. SVGElement in my example. Especially because of the third point, I wanted to solve the problem using a template class, as follows (it is a kind of decorator for classes): struct Element { virtual void doSomething() {} }; // T should be an instance of Element template<class T> struct AugmentedElement : public T { // doSomething is expensive and uses T virtual void doSomething() override {} // Used by doSomething virtual bool shouldDoSomething() = 0; }; class SVGElement : public Element { /* ... */ }; class SVGAElement : public AugmentedElement<SVGElement> { // some non-trivial check bool shouldDoSomething() { /* ... */ return true; } }; // Similarly for HTMLAElement and others I looked around (in the existing (huge) codebase and on the internet), but didn't find any similar code snippets, let alone an evaluation of the effectiveness and pitfalls of this approach. Is my design the right way to go, or is there a better way to add common functionality to some subclasses of a given superclass?

  Read the article

• Making Modular, Reusable and Loosely Coupled MVC Components

  - by Dusan

  I am building MVC3 application and need some general guidelines on how to manage complex client side interaction between my components. Here is my definition of one component in general way: Component which has it's own controller, model and view. All of the component's logic is placed inside these three parts and component is sort of "standalone", it contains it's own form, data needed for interaction, updates itself with Ajax and so on. Beside this internal logic and behavior of the component, it needs to be able to "Talk" to the outside world. By this I mean it should provide data and events (sort of) so when this component gets embedded in pages can notify other components which then can update based on the current state and data. I have an idea to use client ViewModel (in java-script) which would hookup all relevant components on page and control interaction between them. This would make components reusable, modular - independent of the context in which they are used. How would you do this, I am a bit stuck as I do not know if this is a good approach and there is a technical possibility to achieve this using java-script/jquery. The confusing part is about update via Ajax, how to ensure that component is properly linked to ViewModel when component is Ajax updated (or even worse removed or dynamically added). Also, how should this ViewModel be constructed and which technicalities to use here and in components to work as synergy??? On the web, I have found the various examples of the similar approach, but they are oversimplified (even for dummies) or over specific and do not provide valuable resource or general solution for this kind of implementation. If you have some serious examples it would be, also, very helpful. Note: My aim is to make interactions between many components on the same page simpler and more robust and elegant.

  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

• Confused about implementing Single Responsibility Principle

  - by HichemSeeSharp

  Please bear with me if the question looks not well structured. To put you in the context of my issue: I am building an application that invoices vehicles stay duration in a parking. In addition to the stay service there are some other services. Each service has its own calculation logic. Here is an illustration (please correct me if the design is wrong): public abstract class Service { public int Id { get; set; } public bool IsActivated { get; set; } public string Name { get; set } public decimal Price { get; set; } } public class VehicleService : Service { //MTM : many to many public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Vehicles { get; set; } } public class StayService : VehicleService { } public class Vehicle { public int Id { get; set; } public string ChassisNumber { get; set; } public DateTime? EntryDate { get; set; } public DateTime? DeliveryDate { get; set; } //... public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Services{ get; set; } } Now, I am focusing on the stay service as an example: I would like to know at invoicing time which class(es) would be responsible for generating the invoice item for the service and for each vehicle? This should calculate the duration cost knowing that the duration could be invoiced partially so the like is as follows: not yet invoiced stay days * stay price per day. At this moment I have InvoiceItemsGenerator do everything but I am aware that there is a better design.

  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

• Clean MVC design when there is viewer latency

  - by Tony Suffolk 66

  It isn't clear if this question has already been answered, so apologies in advance if this is a duplicate : I am implementing a game and trying to design around a clean MVC pattern - so my Control plane will implement the rules of the game (but not how the game is displayed), and the View plane implements how the game is displayed, and user iteraction - i.e. what game items or controls the user has activated. The challenge that I have is this : In my game the Control Plane can move game items more or less instaneously (The decision about what item to place where - and some of the initial consequences of that placement are reasonably trivial to calculate), but I want to design the Control Plane so that the View plane can display these movements either instaneously or using movement animations. The other complication is that player interaction must be locked out while those game items are moving (similar to chess - you can't attack an opposing piece as it moves past one of your pieces) So do I : Implement all the logic in the Control Plane asynchronously - and separate the descision making from the actions - so the Control plane decides piece 'A' needs to move to a given place - tells the view plane, and but does not implement the move in data until the view plane informs the control plane that the move/animation is complete. A lot of interlock points between the two layers. Implement all the control plane logic in one place - decisions and movement (keeping track of what moved where), and pass all the movements in one go to the View plane to do with what it will. Control Plane is almost fire and forget here. A hybrid of 1 & 2 - The control plane implements all the moves in a temporary data store - but maintains a second store which reflects what is actually visible to the viewer, based on calls and feedback from the View plane. All 3 are relatively easy to implement (target language is python), but having never done a clean MVC pattern with view latency before - I am not sure which design is best

  Read the article

• C# WebForms and Ninject

  - by ipohfly

  I'm re-working on the design of an existing application which is build using WebForms. Currently the plan is to work it into a MVP pattern application while using Ninject as the IoC container. The reason for Ninject to be there is that the boss had wanted a certain flexibility within the system so that we can build in different flavor of business logic in the model and let the programmer to choose which to use based on the client request, either via XML configuration or database setting. I know that Ninject have no need for XML configuration, however I'm confused on how it can help to dynamically inject the dependency into the system? Imagine I have a interface IMember and I need to bind this interface to the class decided by a xml or database configuration at the launch of the application, how can I achieve that?

  Read the article

• Absolute Top Programming Tips [closed]

  - by Eric

  I'm very intersted in the stuff that REALLY makes a critical difference to career in programming, other than intrinsic stuff like how smart your are, where you were born, etc... Some ideas: 1) Best approach to managing small, medium, and large teams. 2) Most important books to read. 3) Most important skills to know. 4) Correct balance of learning theory vs. just writing code. 5) A good approach to estimating time and cost of a project. 6) Etc... Please limit your answers. If you see somebody has already written your idea, please just vote for their response. I'd like to see what the community thinks are the true indicators of a successful career in our field.

  Read the article

• Pattern for performing game actions

  - by Arkiliknam

  Is there a generally accepted pattern for performing various actions within a game? A way a player can perform actions and also that an AI might perform actions, such as move, attack, self-destruct, etc. I currently have an abstract BaseAction which uses .NET generics to specify the different objects that get returned by the various actions. This is all implemented in a pattern similar to the Command, where each action is responsible for itself and does all that it needs. My reasoning for being abstract is so that I may have a single ActionHandler, and AI can just queue up different action implementing the baseAction. And the reason it is generic is so that the different actions can return result information relevant to the action (as different actions can have totally different outcomes in the game), along with some common beforeAction and afterAction implementations. So... is there a more accepted way of doing this, or does this sound alright?

  Read the article

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