Search Results

Search found 17259 results on 691 pages for 'behaviour driven design'.

Page 233/691 | < Previous Page | 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240  | Next Page >

  • InnoDB or MyISAM - Why not both?

    - by Skoder
    Hey. I'm new to databases, and I've read various threads about which is better between InnoDB and MyISAM. It seems that the debates are to use or the other. Is it not possible to use both, depending on the table? What would be the disadvantages in doing this? As far as I can tell, the engine can be set during the CREATE TABLE command. Therefore, certain tables which are often read can be set to MyISAM, but tables that need transaction support can use InnoDB. I'm sure there must be a problem, otherwise this would be the ultimate answer :).

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: I don't get where to start!

    - by Andy
    I have several articles about Dependency Injection, and I can see the benefits, especially when it comes to unit testing. The units can me loosely coupled, and mocking of dependencies can be made. The trouble is - I just don't get where to start. Consider this snippet below of (much edited for the purpose of this post) code that I have. I am instantiating a Plc object from the main form, and passing in a communications mode via the Connect method. In it's present form it becomes hard to test, because I can't isolate the Plc from the CommsChannel to unit test it. (Can I?) The class depends on using a CommsChannel object, but I am only passing in a mode that is used to create this channel within the Plc itself. To use dependancy injection, I should really pass in an already created CommsChannel (via an 'ICommsChannel' interface perhaps) to the Connect method, or maybe via the Plc constructor. Is that right? But then that would mean creating the CommsChannel in my main form first, and this doesn't seem right either, because it feels like everything will come back to the base layer of the main form, where everything begins. Somehow it feels like I am missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. Where do you start? You have to create an instance of something somewhere, but I'm struggling to understand where that should be. public class Plc() { public bool Connect(CommsMode commsMode) { bool success = false; // Create new comms channel. this._commsChannel = this.GetCommsChannel(commsMode); // Attempt connection success = this._commsChannel.Connect(); return this._connected; } private CommsChannel GetCommsChannel(CommsMode mode) { CommsChannel channel; switch (mode) { case CommsMode.RS232: channel = new SerialCommsChannel( SerialCommsSettings.Default.ComPort, SerialCommsSettings.Default.BaudRate, SerialCommsSettings.Default.DataBits, SerialCommsSettings.Default.Parity, SerialCommsSettings.Default.StopBits); break; case CommsMode.Tcp: channel = new TcpCommsChannel( TCPCommsSettings.Default.IP_Address, TCPCommsSettings.Default.Port); break; default: // Throw unknown comms channel exception. } return channel; } }

    Read the article

  • Small methods - Small sprocs

    - by Berlioz
    Uncle Bob recommends having small methods. Do stored procedures have an ideal size? Or can they run on for 100's and 100's of lines long? Also does anyone have anything to say about where to place business logic. If located in stored procedures, the database is being used as data processing tier. If you read Adam Machanic, his bias is toward the database, does that imply long stored procedures that only the author of the sproc understands, leaving maintainers to deal with the mess? I guess there is two inter-related questions, somehow. Thanks in advance for responding to a fuzzy question(s).

    Read the article

  • Why do Pascal control structures appear to be inconsistent?

    - by 70Mike
    Most Pascal control structures make sense to me, like: for ... do {statement}; if (condition) then {statement}; while (condition) do {statement}; where the {statement} is either a single statement, or a begin ... end block. I have a problem with: repeat {statement-list} until (expression); try {statement-list} except {statement-list} end; Wouldn't it be better that repeat and try have the same general structure, accepting only a single statement or a begin ... end block, instead of having a statement-list that's not formally blocked with a begin and an end?

    Read the article

  • strategy for observer pattern?

    - by fayer
    I want to use observer pattern for a logging system. We have got logObservers and logObservables. The class that will have to log something will implement iLogObservable and include these methods: private $logObservers = array(); public function addLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function removeLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function write($type, $message) { foreach($this->logObservers as $logObserver) { $logObserver->log($level, $message); ; } } Then I noticed, that a lot of classes that will use logging will have these methods and I have to copy paste. So isn't it better to have these methods in a class I call LogObservable or just Log and then use strategy (instantiate this class inside all classes that will have to log). When I change the methods in Log, all logObservables will be affected. However, I have not seen anyone use observer pattern with strategy pattern yet, but it seems to be very efficient and remove the duplications. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Modular enterprise architecture using MVC and Orchard CMS

    - by MrJD
    I'm making a large scale MVC application using Orchard. And I'm going to be separating my logic into modules. I'm also trying to heavily decouple the application for maximum extensibility and testability. I have a rudimentary understanding of IoC, Repository Pattern, Unit of Work pattern and Service Layer pattern. I've made myself a diagram. I'm wondering if it is correct and if there is anything I have missed regarding an extensible application. Note that each module is a separate project.

    Read the article

  • Linq to sql Repository pattern , Some doubts

    - by MindlessProgrammer
    I am using repository pattern with linq to sql, I am using a repository class per table. I want to know , am i doing at good/standard way, ContactRepository Contact GetByID() Contact GetAll() COntactTagRepository List<ContactTag> Get(long contactID) List<ContactTag> GetAll() List<ContactTagDetail> GetAllDetails() class ContactTagDetail { public Contact Contact {get;set;} public ContactTag COntactTag {get;set;} } When i need a contact i call method in contactrepository, same for contacttag but when i need contact and tags together i call GetDetais() in ContactTag repository its not returning the COntactTag entity generated by the orm insted its returning ContactTagDetail entity conatining both COntact and COntactTag generated by the orm, i know i can simple call GetAll in COntactTag repository and can access Contact.ContactTag but as its linq to sql it will there is no option to Deferred Load in query level, so whenever i need a entity with a related entity i create a projection class Another doubt is where i really need to right the method i can do it in both contact & ContactTag repostitory like In contact repository GetALlWithTags() or something but i am doing it in in COntactTag repository Whats your suggestions ?

    Read the article

  • Service Layer Patter - Could we avoid the service layer on a specific case?

    - by lidermin
    Hi, we are trying to implement an application using the Service Layer Pattern cause our application needs to connect to other multiple applications too, and googling on the web, we found this link of a demostrative graphic for the "right" way of apply the pattern: martinfowler.com - Service Layer Pattern But now we have a question: what if our system needs to implement some business logic, only for our application (like some maintenance data for the system itself) that we don't need to share with other systems. Based on this graphic: As it seems, it will be unnecesary to implement a service layer just for that; it will be more practical to avoid the service layer, and just go from User Interface to the Business Layer (for example). What should be the right way in this case to implement the Service Layer Pattern? What do you suggest us for a scenario like the one I told you? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Service Layer Patter - Could we avoid the service layer on a specific case?

    - by lidermin
    Hi, we are trying to implement an application using the Service Layer Pattern cause our application needs to connect to other multiple applications too, and googling on the web, we found this link of a demostrative graphic for the "right" way of apply the pattern: martinfowler.com - Service Layer Pattern But now we have a question: what if our system needs to implement some business logic, only for our application (like some maintenance data for the system itself) that we don't need to share with other systems. Based on this graphic: As it seems, it will be unnecesary to implement a service layer just for that; it will be more practical to avoid the service layer, and just go from User Interface to the Business Layer (for example). What should be the right way in this case to implement the Service Layer Pattern? What do you suggest us for a scenario like the one I told you? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • wrapping user controls in a transaction

    - by Hans Gruber
    I'm working on heavily dynamic and configurable CMS system. Therefore, many pages are composed of a dynamically loaded set of user controls. To enable loose coupling between containers (pages) and children (user controls), all user controls are responsible for their own persistence. Each User Control is wired up to its data/service layer dependencies via IoC. They also implement an IPersistable interface, which allows the container .aspx page to issue a Save command to its children without knowledge of the number or exact nature of these user controls. Note: what follows is only pseudo-code: public class MyUserControl : IPersistable, IValidatable { public void Save() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public bool IsValid() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public partial class MyPage { public void btnSave_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { foreach (IValidatable control in Controls) { if (!control.IsValid) { throw new Exception("error"); } } foreach (IPersistable control in Controls) { if (!control.Save) { throw new Exception("error"); } } } } I'm thinking of using declarative transactions from the System.EnterpriseService namespace to wrap the btnSave_Click in a transaction in case of an exception, but I'm not sure how this might be achieved or any pitfalls to such an approach.

    Read the article

  • java question: Is it a method?

    - by Stefan
    Hello, I'm no Java guy, so I ask myself what this means: public Button(Light light) { this.light = light; } Is Button a method? I ask myself, because it takes an input parameter light. But if it was a method, why would it begin with a capital letter and has no return data type? Here comes the full example: public class Button { private Light light; public Button(Light light) { this.light = light; } public void press() { light.turnOn(); } } I know, this question is really trivial. However, I have nothing to do with Java and haven't found a description for the Button thing above. I'm just interested.

    Read the article

  • Upgrade .NET 1.1 WinForm/Service to what?

    - by Conor
    Hi Folks, We have a current WinForm/Windows Service running in .NET 1.1 out on various customer sites that is getting data from internal systems, transforming it and then calling a Web Service synchronously. This client app will no longer work in Vista or Windows 7 etc.. and its time to update!! I was looking for ideas on what I could do here, I didn't write the App and I have the Business team telling me they want the world but I need to be realistic :) Things the service must be able to do: - Handle multiple formats from internal system and transform to a schema SAP, ERP etc.. - Run silently and just work on customer sites (it does currently albeit .NET 1.1) - The Customers are unable to call our web service from their sites as they are not technical enough. - Upgrade it's self when updates occur (currently don't have this capability) Is there anything I can do here other than upgrade the service to run in .NET and add a few more transformation capabilities e..g they want the customer to be able to give us a flat file, an xml file, a csv and the service transforms it and calls the Web Service? I was hoping in this day and age we could use the Web, but automating this 100% rules it out in my eyes? I could be totally wrong!! Any help would be gratefully appreciated! Cheers. Conor

    Read the article

  • Break a class in twain, or impose an interface for restricted access?

    - by bedwyr
    What's the best way of partitioning a class when its functionality needs to be externally accessed in different ways by different classes? Hopefully the following example will make the question clear :) I have a Java class which accesses a single location in a directory allowing external classes to perform read/write operations to it. Read operations return usage stats on the directory (e.g. available disk space, number of writes, etc.); write operations, obviously, allow external classes to write data to the disk. These methods always work on the same location, and receive their configuration (e.g. which directory to use, min disk space, etc.) from an external source (passed to the constructor). This class looks something like this: public class DiskHandler { public DiskHandler(String dir, int minSpace) { ... } public void writeToDisk(String contents, String filename) { int space = getAvailableSpace(); ... } public void getAvailableSpace() { ... } } There's quite a bit more going on, but this will do to suffice. This class needs to be accessed differently by two external classes. One class needs access to the read operations; the other needs access to both read and write operations. public class DiskWriter { DiskHandler diskHandler; public DiskWriter() { diskHandler = new DiskHandler(...); } public void doSomething() { diskHandler.writeToDisk(...); } } public class DiskReader { DiskHandler diskHandler; public DiskReader() { diskHandler = new DiskHandler(...); } public void doSomething() { int space = diskHandler.getAvailableSpace(...); } } At this point, both classes share the same class, but the class which should only read has access to the write methods. Solution 1 I could break this class into two. One class would handle read operations, and the other would handle writes: // NEW "UTILITY" CLASSES public class WriterUtil { private ReaderUtil diskReader; public WriterUtil(String dir, int minSpace) { ... diskReader = new ReaderUtil(dir, minSpace); } public void writeToDisk(String contents, String filename) { int = diskReader.getAvailableSpace(); ... } } public class ReaderUtil { public ReaderUtil(String dir, int minSpace) { ... } public void getAvailableSpace() { ... } } // MODIFIED EXTERNALLY-ACCESSING CLASSES public class DiskWriter { WriterUtil diskWriter; public DiskWriter() { diskWriter = new WriterUtil(...); } public void doSomething() { diskWriter.writeToDisk(...); } } public class DiskReader { ReaderUtil diskReader; public DiskReader() { diskReader = new ReaderUtil(...); } public void doSomething() { int space = diskReader.getAvailableSpace(...); } } This solution prevents classes from having access to methods they should not, but it also breaks encapsulation. The original DiskHandler class was completely self-contained and only needed config parameters via a single constructor. By breaking apart the functionality into read/write classes, they both are concerned with the directory and both need to be instantiated with their respective values. In essence, I don't really care to duplicate the concerns. Solution 2 I could implement an interface which only provisions read operations, and use this when a class only needs access to those methods. The interface might look something like this: public interface Readable { int getAvailableSpace(); } The Reader class would instantiate the object like this: Readable diskReader; public DiskReader() { diskReader = new DiskHandler(...); } This solution seems brittle, and prone to confusion in the future. It doesn't guarantee developers will use the correct interface in the future. Any changes to the implementation of the DiskHandler could also need to update the interface as well as the accessing classes. I like it better than the previous solution, but not by much. Frankly, neither of these solutions seems perfect, but I'm not sure if one should be preferred over the other. I really don't want to break the original class up, but I also don't know if the interface buys me much in the long run. Are there other solutions I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Java interface and abstract class issue

    - by George2
    Hello everyone, I am reading the book -- Hadoop: The Definitive Guide, http://www.amazon.com/Hadoop-Definitive-Guide-Tom-White/dp/0596521979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273932107&sr=8-1 In chapter 2 (Page 25), it is mentioned "The new API favors abstract class over interfaces, since these are easier to evolve. For example, you can add a method (with a default implementation) to an abstract class without breaking old implementations of the class". What does it mean (especially what means "breaking old implementations of the class")? Appreciate if anyone could show me a sample why from this perspective abstract class is better than interface? thanks in advance, George

    Read the article

  • Planning a database app

    - by ChrisC
    I am in the planning stages of a database app for personal use. I have a good bit of the database structure planned, but as I think about how I'm going to write the program, it made me wonder if I'm doing this in the right order. Which should I be planning first, the db structure or the classes?

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to store site configuration data?

    - by DaveDev
    I have a question about storing site configuration data. We have a platform for web applications. The idea is that different clients can have their data hosted and displayed on their own site which sits on top of this platform. Each site has a configuration which determines which panels relevant to the client appear on which pages. The system was originally designed to keep all the configuration data for each site in a database. When the site is loaded all the configuration data is loaded into a SiteConfiguration object, and the clients panels are generated based on the content of this object. This works, but I find it very difficult to work with to apply change requests or add new sites because there is so much data to sift through and it's difficult maintain a mental model of the site and its configuration. Recently I've been tasked with developing a subset of some of the sites to be generated as PDF documents for printing. I decided to take a different approach to how I would define the configuration in that instead of storing configuration data in the database, I wrote XML files to contain the data. I find it much easier to work with because instead of reading meaningless rows of data which are related to other meaningless rows of data, I have meaningful documents with semantic, readable information with the relationships defined by visually understandable element nesting. So now with these 2 approaches to storing site configuration data, I'd like to get the opinions of people more experienced in dealing with this issue on dealing with these two approaches. What is the best way of storing site configuration data? Is there a better way than the two ways I outlined here? note: StackOverflow is telling me the question appears to be subjective and is likely to be closed. I'm not trying to be subjective. I'd like to know how best to approach this issue next time and if people with industry experience on this could provide some input.

    Read the article

  • Why do some languages not use semicolons and braces?

    - by Incognito
    It is interesting that some languages do not use semicolons and braces, even though their predecessors had them. Personally, it makes me nervous to write code in Python because of this. Semicolons are also missing from Google's GO language, although the lexer uses a rule to insert semicolons automatically as it scans. Why do some languages not use semicolons and braces?

    Read the article

  • Database Table Schema and Aggregate Roots

    - by bretddog
    Hi, Applicaiton is single user, 1-tier(1 pc), database SqlCE. DataService layer will be (I think) : Repository returning domain objects and quering database with LinqToSql (dbml). There are obviously a lot more columns, this is simplified view. http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/3612/ss20110115171817w.png This is my first attempt of creating a 2 tables database. I think the table schema makes sense, but I need some reassurance or critics. Because the table relations looks quite scary to be honest. I'm hoping you could; Look at the table schema and respond if there are clear signs of troubles or errors that you spot right away.. And if you have time, Look at Program Summary/Questions, and see if the table layout makes makes sense to those points. Please be brutal, I will try to defend :) Program summary: a) A set of categories, each having a set of strategies (1:m) b) Each day a number of items will be produced. And each strategy MAY reference it. (So there can be 50 items, and a strategy may reference 23 of them) c) An item can be referenced by more than one strategy. So I think it's an m:m relation. d) Status values will be logged at fixed time-fractions through the day, for: - .... each Strategy.....each StrategyItem....each item e) An action on an item may be executed by a strategy that reference it. - This is logged as ItemAction (Could have called it StrategyItemAction) User Requsts b) - e) described the main activity mode of the program. To work with only today's DayLog , for each category. 2nd priority activity is retrieval of history, which typically will be From all categories, from day x to day y; Get all StrategyDailyLog. Questions First, does the overall layout look sound? I'm worried to see that there are so many relationships in all directions, connecting everything. Is this normal, or does it look like trouble? StrategyItem is made to represent an m:m relationship. Is it correct as I noted 1:m / 1:1 (marked red) ? StrategyItemTimeLog and ItemTimeLog; Logs values that both need to be retrieved together, when retreiving a StrategyItem. Reason I separated is that the first one is strategy-specific, and several strategies can reference same item. So I thought not to duplicate those values that are not dependent no strategy, but only on the item. Hence I also dragged out the LogTime, as it seems to be the only parameter to unite the logs. But this all looks quite disturbing with those 3 tables. Does it make sense at all? Or you have suggestion? Pink circles shows my vague attempt of Aggregate Root Paths. I've been thinking in terms of "what entity is responsible for delete". Though I'm unsure about the actual root. I think it's Category. Does it make sense related to User Requests described above?

    Read the article

  • Question about best practices and Macros from the book 'C++ Coding Standards'

    - by Victor T.
    From Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu's 'C++ Coding Standards', Item 16: Avoid Macros under Exceptions for this guideline they wrote: For conditional compilation (e.g., system-dependent parts), avoid littering your code with #ifdefs. Instead, prefer to organize code such that the use of macros drives alternative implementations of one common interface, and then use the interface throughout. I'm having trouble understanding exactly what they mean by this. How can you drive alternate implementations without the use of #ifdef conditional compile macro directives? Can someone provide an example to help illustrate what's being proposed by the above paragraph? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Strategy in storing ad-hoc numbers/constants?

    - by Jiho Han
    I have a need to store a number of ad-hoc figures and constants for calculation. These numbers change periodically but they are different type of values. One might be a balance, a money amount, another might be an interest rate, and yet another might be a ratio of some kind. These numbers are then used in a calculation that involve other more structured figures. I'm not certain what the best way to store these in a relational DB is - that's the choice of storage for the app. One way, I've done before, is to create a very generic table that stores the values as text. I might store the data type along with it but the consumer knows what type it is so, in situations I didn't even need to store the data type. This kind of works fine but I am not very fond of the solution. Should I break down each of the numbers into specific categories and create tables that way? For example, create Rates table, and Balances table, etc.?

    Read the article

  • Naming remote proxy classes

    - by Tobbe
    What are some good names for the client and server side classes that communicate over the network when implementing a remote proxy? The classes are often called stub and skelleton but I don't find those names very "intention revealing". Are there any other (better) alternatives?

    Read the article

  • Cleanly handling events

    - by nkr1pt
    I have code similar to this in all my observer classes that handle events fired by an event bus class. As you can see there are a lot of instanceof checks to choose the path of action needed to appropriately handle events, and I was wondering if this could be done more cleanly, eliminating the instanceof tests? @Override public void handleEvent(Event event) { if (event instanceof DownloadStartedEvent) { DownloadStartedEvent dsEvent = (DownloadStartedEvent)event; dsEvent.getDownloadCandidateItem().setState(new BusyDownloadingState()); } else if (event instanceof DownloadCompletedEvent) { DownloadCompletedEvent dcEvent = (DownloadCompletedEvent)event; dcEvent.getDownloadCandidateItem().setState(new FinishedDownloadingState()); DownloadCandidate downloadCandidate = dcEvent.getDownloadCandidateItem(). getDownloadCandidate(); if (downloadCandidate.isComplete()) { // start extracting } } else if (event instanceof DownloadFailedEvent) { DownloadFailedEvent dfEvent = (DownloadFailedEvent)event; dfEvent.getDownloadCandidateItem().setState(new FailedDownloadingState()); } }

    Read the article

  • Is the set of data always normalized in one form or the other in Databases

    - by manugupt1
    Suppose I have a set of data, given the data and the relation schemas can I assume that the set of data is normalized in one form or the other. In my opinion raw data given, has to be normalized into some form. However a discussion with a friend has led to ask me this question here. To expound more on the question, I would say given a set of functional dependencies for a relation or table, is it guaranteed that the table would atleast be in 1NF if not others

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240  | Next Page >