Search Results

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

Page 25/133 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

• 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

• design for supporting entities with images

  - by brainydexter

  I have multiple entities like Hotels, Destination Cities etc which can contain images. The way I have my system setup right now is, I think of all the images belonging to this universal set (a table in the DB contains filePaths to all the images). When I have to add an image to an entity, I see if the entity exists in this universal set of images. If it exists, attach the reference to this image, else create a new image. E.g.: class ImageEntityHibernateDAO { public void addImageToEntity(IContainImage entity, String filePath, String title, String altText) { ImageEntity image = this.getImage(filePath); if (image == null) image = new ImageEntity(filePath, title, altText); getSession().beginTransaction(); entity.getImages().add(image); getSession().getTransaction().commit(); } } My question is: Earlier I had to write this code for each entity (and each entity would have a Set collection). So, instead of re-writing the same code, I created the following interface: public interface IContainImage { Set<ImageEntity> getImages(); } Entities which have image collections also implements IContainImage interface. Now, for any entity that needs to support adding Image functionality, all I have to invoke from the DAO looks something like this: // in DestinationDAO::addImageToDestination { imageDao.addImageToEntity(destination, imageFileName, imageTitle, imageAltText); // in HotelDAO::addImageToHotel { imageDao.addImageToEntity(hotel, imageFileName, imageTitle, imageAltText); It'd be great help if someone can provide me some critique on this design ? Are there any serious flaws that I'm not seeing right away ?

  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

• 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

• how should I design Objects around this business requirement?

  - by brainydexter

  This is the business requirement: " A Holiday Package (e.g. New York NY Holiday Package) can be offered in different ways based on the Origin city: From New Delhi to NY From Bombay to NY NY itself ( Land package ) (Bold implies default selection) a. and b. User can fly from either New Delhi or Bombay to NY. c. NY is a Land package, where a user can reach NY by himself and is a standalone holidayPackage. " Let's say I have a class that represents HolidayPackage, Destination (aka City). public class HolidayPackage{ Destination holidayCity; ArrayList<BaseHolidayPackageVariant> variants; BaseHolidayPackageVariant defaultVariant; } public abstract class BaseHolidayPackageVariant { private Integer variantId; private HolidayPackage holidayPackage; private String holidayPackageType; } public class LandHolidayPackageVariant extends BaseHolidayPackageVariant{ } public class FlightHolidayPackageVariant extends BaseHolidayPackageVariant{ private Destination originCity; } What data structure/objects should I design to support: options a default within those options Sidenote: A HolidayPackage can also be offered in different ways based on Hotel selections. I'd like to follow a design which I can leverage to support that use case in the future. This is the backend design I have in mind.

  Read the article

• Object oriented wrapper around a dll

  - by Tom Davies

  So, I'm writing a C# managed wrapper around a native dll. The dll contains several hundred functions. In most cases, the first argument to each function is an opaque handle to a type internal to the dll. So, an obvious starting point for defining some classes in the wrapper would be to define classes corresponding to each of these opaque types, with each instance holding and managing the opaque handle (passed to its constructor) Things are a little awkward when dealing with callbacks from the dll. Naturally, the callback handlers in my wrapper have to be static, but the callbacks arguments invariable contain an opaque handle. In order to get from the static callback back to an object instance, I've created a static dictionary in each class, associating handles with class instances. In the constructor of each class, an entry is put into the dictionary, and this entry is then removed in the Destructors. When I receive a callback, I can then consult the dictionary to retrieve the class instance corresponding to the opaque reference. Are there any obvious flaws to this? Something that seems to be a problem is that the existence static dictionary means that the garbage collector will not act on my class instances that are otherwise unreachable. As they are never garbage collected, they never get removed from the dictionary, so the dictionary grows. It seems I might have to manually dispose of my objects, which is something absolutely would like to avoid. Can anyone suggest a good design that allows me to avoid having to do this?

  Read the article

• Name for Osherove's modified singleton pattern?

  - by Kazark

  I'm pretty well sold on the "singletons are evil" line of thought. Nevertheless, there are limited occurrences when you want to limit the creation of an object. Roy Osherove advises, If you're planning to use a singleton in your design, separate the logic of the singleton class and the logic that makes it a singleton (the part that initializes a static variables, for example) into two separate classes. That way, you can keep the single responsibility principle (SRP) and also have a way to override singleton logic. (The Art of Unit Testing 261-262) This pattern still perpetuates the global state. However, it does result in a testable design, so it seems to me to be a good pattern for mitigating the damage of a singleton. However, Osherove does not give a name to this pattern; but naming a pattern, according to the Gang of Four, is important: Naming a pattern immediately increases our design vocabulary. It lets us design at a higher level of abstraction. (3) Is there a standard name for this pattern? It seems different enough from a standard singleton to deserve a separate name. Decoupled Singleton, perhaps?

  Read the article

• How bad it's have two methods with the same name but differents signatures in two classes?

  - by Super User

  I have a design problem relationated with the public interface, the names of methods and the understanding of my API and my code. I have two classes like this: class A: ... function collision(self): .... ... class B: .... function _collision(self, another_object, l, r, t, b): .... The first class have one public method named collision and the second have one private method called _collision. The two methods differs in arguments type and number. In the API _m method is private. For the example let's say that the _collision method checks if the object is colliding with another_ object with certain conditions l, r, t, b (for example, collide the left side, the right side, etc) and returns true or false according to the case. The collision method, on the other hand, resolves all the collisions of the object with other objects. The two methods have the same name because I think is better avoid overload the design with different names for methods who do almost the same think, but in distinct contexts and classes. This is clear enough to the reader or I should change the method's name?

  Read the article

• How to refactor my design, if it seems to require multiple inheritance?

  - by Omega

  Recently I made a question about Java classes implementing methods from two sources (kinda like multiple inheritance). However, it was pointed out that this sort of need may be a sign of a design flaw. Hence, it is probably better to address my current design rather than trying to simulate multiple inheritance. Before tackling the actual problem, some background info about a particular mechanic in this framework: It is a simple game development framework. Several components allocate some memory (like pixel data), and it is necessary to get rid of it as soon as you don't need it. Sprites are an example of this. Anyway, I decided to implement something ala Manual-Reference-Counting from Objective-C. Certain classes, like Sprites, contain an internal counter, which is increased when you call retain(), and decreased on release(). Thus the Resource abstract class was created. Any subclass of this will obtain the retain() and release() implementations for free. When its count hits 0 (nobody is using this class), it will call the destroy() method. The subclass needs only to implement destroy(). This is because I don't want to rely on the Garbage Collector to get rid of unused pixel data. Game objects are all subclasses of the Node class - which is the main construction block, as it provides info such as position, size, rotation, etc. See, two classes are used often in my game. Sprites and Labels. Ah... but wait. Sprites contain pixel data, remember? And as such, they need to extend Resource. But this, of course, can't be done. Sprites ARE nodes, hence they must subclass Node. But heck, they are resources too. Why not making Resource an interface? Because I'd have to re-implement retain() and release(). I am avoiding this in virtue of not writing the same code over and over (remember that there are multiple classes that need this memory-management system). Why not composition? Because I'd still have to implement methods in Sprite (and similar classes) that essentially call the methods of Resource. I'd still be writing the same code over and over! What is your advice in this situation, then?

  Read the article

• How to have operations with character/items on binary with concrete operations on C++?

  - by Piperoman

  I have the next problem. A item can have a lot of states: NORMAL = 0000000 DRY = 0000001 HOT = 0000010 BURNING = 0000100 WET = 0001000 COLD = 0010000 FROZEN = 0100000 POISONED= 1000000 A item can have some states at same time but not all of them Is impossible to be dry and wet at same time. If you COLD a WET item, it turns into FROZEN. If you HOT a WET item, it turns into NORMAL A item can be BURNING and POISON Etc. I have tried to set binary flags to states, and use AND to combine different states, checking before if it is possible or not to do it, or change to another status. Does there exist a concrete approach to solve this problem efficiently without having an interminable switch that checks every state with every new state? It is relatively easy to check 2 different states, but if there exists a third state it is not trivial to do.

  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

• Are first-class functions a substitute for the Strategy pattern?

  - by Prog

  The Strategy design pattern is often regarded as a substitute for first-class functions in languages that lack them. So for example say you wanted to pass functionality into an object. In Java you'd have to pass in the object another object which encapsulates the desired behavior. In a language such as Ruby, you'd just pass the functionality itself in the form of an annonymous function. However I was thinking about it and decided that maybe Strategy offers more than a plain annonymous function does. This is because an object can hold state that exists independently of the period when it's method runs. However an annonymous function by itself can only hold state that ceases to exist the moment the function finishes execution. So my question is: when using a language that features first-class functions, would you ever use the Strategy pattern (i.e. encapsulate the functionality you want to pass around in an explicit object), or would you always use an annonymous function? When would you decide to use Strategy when you can use a first-class function?

  Read the article

• Should I limit my type name suffix vocabulary when using OOP?

  - by Den

  My co-workers tend to think that it is better to limit non-domain type suffixes to a small fixed set of OOP-pattern inspired words, e.g.: *Service *Repository *Factory *Manager *Provider I believe there is no reason to not extend that set with more names, e.g. (some "translation" to the previous vocabulary is given in brackets): *Distributor (= *DistributionManager or *SendingService) *Generator *Browser (= *ReadonlyRepositoryService) *Processor *Manipulator (= *StateMachineManager) *Enricher (= *EnrichmentService) (*) denotes some domain word, e.g. "Order", "Student", "Item" etc. The domain is probably not complex enough to use specialized approaches such as DDD which could drive the naming.

  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

• Failure Driven Development

  - by DevSolo

  At our shop, we strive to be agile. And I'd say we are making great strides. That said, a few of us have spotted a pattern we have started calling "Failure Driven Development". Failure Driven Development can basically be desribed as an agile release/iteration cycle where the bugs/features are guided not by tasks and stories with acceptance criteria, but with defects entered in the defect tracking software. Our team has a great Project Manager who strives to get the acceptance criteria from the customer(s), but it's not always possible. From my development chair, this is due to the customer either not knowing exactly what they want or (and this is the kicker) two different "camps" at the customer's main office conflict with how a story should be implemented. Camp A will losely dictate that Feature X works like this, then Camp B will fail it due not functioning like that. Hence, the term "FDD". The process is driven by "failures". This leads to my question: Has anyone else encountered this and if so, any tips/suggestions for dealing with it? We have, of course, tried to get Camp A and B to agree prior, but everyone knows this isn't always the case. Thanks

  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

• Implementing a ILogger interface to log data

  - by Jon

  I have a need to write data to file in one of my classes. Obviously I will pass an interface into my class to decouple it. I was thinking this interface will be used for testing and also in other projects. This is my interface: //This could be used by filesystem, webservice public interface ILogger { List<string> PreviousLogRecords {get;set;} void Log(string Data); } public interface IFileLogger : ILogger { string FilePath; bool ValidFileName; } public class MyClassUnderTest { public MyClassUnderTest(IFileLogger logger) {....} } [Test] public void TestLogger() { var mock = new Mock<IFileLogger>(); mock.Setup(x => x.Log(Is.Any<string>).AddsDataToList()); //Is this possible?? var myClass = new MyClassUnderTest(mock.Object); myClass.DoSomethingThatWillSplitThisAndLog3Times("1,2,3"); Assert.AreEqual(3,mock.PreviousLogRecords.Count); } This won't work I don't believe as nothing is storing the items so is this possible using Moq and also what do you think of the design of the interface?

  Read the article

• How to store prices that have effective dates?

  - by lal00

  I have a list of products. Each of them is offered by N providers. Each providers quotes us a price for a specific date. That price is effective until that provider decides to set a new price. In that case, the provider will give the new price with a new date. The MySQL table header currently looks like: provider_id, product_id, price, date_price_effective Every other day, we compile a list of products/prices that are effective for the current day. For each product, the list contains a sorted list of the providers that have that particular product. In that way, we can order certain products from whoever happens to offer the best price. To get the effective prices, I have a SQL statement that returns all rows that have date_price_effective >= NOW(). That result set is processed with a ruby script that does the sorting and filtering necessary to obtain a file that looks like this: product_id_1,provider_1,provider_3,provider8,provider_10... product_id_2,provider_3,provider_2,provider1,provider_10... This works fine for our purposes, but I still have an itch that a SQL table is probably not the best way to store this kind of information. I have that feeling that this kind of problema has been solved previously in other more creative ways. Is there a better way to store this information other than in SQL? or, if using SQL, is there a better approach than the one I'm using?

  Read the article

• Query something and return the reason if nothing has been found

  - by Daniel Hilgarth

  Assume I have a Query - as in CQS that is supposed to return a single value. Let's assume that the case that no value is found is not exceptional, so no exception will be thrown in this case. Instead, null is returned. However, if no value has been found, I need to act according to the reason why no value has been found. Assuming that the Query knows the reason, how would I communicate it to the caller of the Query? A simple solution would be not return the value directly but a container object that contains the value and the reason: public class QueryResult { public TValue Value { get; private set; } public TReason ReasonForNoValue { get; private set; } } But that feels clumsy, because if a value is found, ReasonForNoValue makes no sense and if no value has been found, Value makes no sense. What other options do I have to communicate the reason? What do you think of one event per reason? For reference: This is going to be implemented in C#.

  Read the article

• Concurrency pattern of logger in multithreaded application

  - by Dipan Mehta

  The context: We are working on a multi-threaded (Linux-C) application that follows a pipeline model. Each module has a private thread and encapsulated objects which do processing of data; and each stage has a standard form of exchanging data with next unit. The application is free from memory leak and is threadsafe using locks at the point where they exchange data. Total number of threads is about 15- and each thread can have from 1 to 4 objects. Making about 25 - 30 odd objects which all have some critical logging to do. Most discussion I have seen about different levels as in Log4J and it's other translations. The real big questions is about how the overall logging should really happen? One approach is all local logging does fprintf to stderr. The stderr is redirected to some file. This approach is very bad when logs become too big. If all object instantiate their individual loggers - (about 30-40 of them) there will be too many files. And unlike above, one won't have the idea of true order of events. Timestamping is one possibility - but it is still a mess to collate. If there is a single global logger (singleton) pattern - it indirectly blocks so many threads while one is busy putting up logs. This is unacceptable when processing of the threads are heavy. So what should be the ideal way to structure the logging objects? What are some of the best practices in actual large scale applications? I would also love to learn from some of the real designs of large scale applications to get inspirations from!

  Read the article

• Syncing client and server CRUD operations using json and php

  - by Justin

  I'm working on some code to sync the state of models between client (being a javascript application) and server. Often I end up writing redundant code to track the client and server objects so I can map the client supplied data to the server models. Below is some code I am thinking about implementing to help. What I don't like about the below code is that this method won't handle nested relationships very well, I would have to create multiple object trackers. One work around is for each server model after creating or loading, simply do $model->clientId = $clientId; IMO this is a nasty hack and I want to avoid it. Adding a setCientId method to all my model object would be another way to make it less hacky, but this seems like overkill to me. Really clientIds are only good for inserting/updating data in some scenarios. I could go with a decorator pattern but auto generating a proxy class seems a bit involved. I could use a generic proxy class that uses a __call function to allow for original object data to be accessed, but this seems wrong too. Any thoughts or comments? $clientData = '[{name: "Bob", action: "update", id: 1, clientId: 200}, {name:"Susan", action:"create", clientId: 131} ]'; $jsonObjs = json_decode($clientData); $objectTracker = new ObjectTracker(); $objectTracker->trackClientObjs($jsonObjs); $query = $this->em->createQuery("SELECT x FROM Application_Model_User x WHERE x.id IN (:ids)"); $query->setParameters("ids",$objectTracker->getClientSpecifiedServerIds()); $models = $query->getResults(); //Apply client data to server model foreach ($models as $model) { $clientModel = $objectTracker->getClientJsonObj($model->getId()); ... } //Create new models and persist foreach($objectTracker->getNewClientObjs() as $newClientObj) { $model = new Application_Model_User(); .... $em->persist($model); $objectTracker->trackServerObj($model); } $em->flush(); $resourceResponse = $objectTracker->createResourceResponse(); //Id mappings will be an associtave array representing server id resources with client side // id. //This method Dosen't seem to flexible if we want to return additional data with each resource... //Would have to modify the returned data structure, seems like tight coupling... //Ex return value: //[{clientId: 200, id:1} , {clientId: 131, id: 33}];

  Read the article

• Best Method of function parameter validation

  - by Aglystas

  I've been dabbling with the idea of creating my own CMS for the experience and because it would be fun to run my website off my own code base. One of the decisions I keep coming back to is how best to validate incoming parameters for functions. This is mostly in reference to simple data types since object validation would be quite a bit more complex. At first I debated creating a naming convention that would contain information about what the parameters should be, (int, string, bool, etc) then I also figured I could create options to validate against. But then in every function I still need to run some sort of parameter validation that parses the parameter name to determine what the value can be then validate against it, granted this would be handled by passing the list of parameters to function but that still needs to happen and one of my goals is to remove the parameter validation from the function itself so that you can only have the actual function code that accomplishes the intended task without the additional code for validation. Is there any good way of handling this, or is it so low level that typically parameter validation is just done at the start of the function call anyway, so I should stick with doing that.

  Read the article

• Android From Local DB (DAO) to Server sync (JSON) - Design issue

  - by Taiko

  I sync data between my local DB and a Server. I'm looking for the cleanest way to modelise all of this. I have a com.something.db package That contains a Data Helper and couple of DAO classes that represents objects stored in the db (I didn't write that part) com.something.db --public DataHelper --public Employee @DatabaseField e.g. "name" will be an actual column name in the DB -name @DatabaseField -salary etc... (all in all 50 fields) I have a com.something.sync package That contains all the implementation detail on how to send data to the server. It boils down to a ConnectionManager that is fed by different classes that implements a 'Request' interface com.something.sync --public interface ConnectionManager --package ConnectionManagerImpl --public interface Request --package LoginRequest --package GetEmployeesRequest My issue is, at some point in the sync process, I have to JSONise and de-JSONise my data (E.g. the Employee class). But I really don't feel like having the same Employee class be responsible for both his JSONisation and his actual representation inside the local database. It really doesn't feel right, because I carefully decoupled the rest, I am only stuck on this JSON thing. What should I do ? Should I write 3 Employee classes ? EmployeeDB @DatabaseField e.g. "name" will be an actual column name in the DB -name @DatabaseField -salary -etc... 50 fields EmployeeInterface -getName -getSalary -etc... 50 fields EmployeeJSON -JSON_KEY_NAME = "name" The JSON key happens to be the same as the table name, but it isn't requirement -name -JSON_KEY_SALARY = "salary" -salary -etc... 50 fields It feels like a lot of duplicates. Is there a common pattern I can use there ?

  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

• Who can change the View in MVC?

  - by Luke

  I'm working on a thick client graph displaying and manipulation application. I'm trying to apply the MVC pattern to our 3D visualization component. Here is what I have for the Model, View, and Controller: Model - The graph and it's metadata. This includes vertices, edges, and the attributes of each. It does not contain position information, icons, colors, or anything display related. View - This would commonly be called a scene graph. It includes the 3D display information, texture information, color information, and anything else that is related specifically to the visualization of the model. Controller - The controller takes the view and displays it in a Window using OpenGL (but it could potentially be any 3D graphics package). The application has various "layouts" that change the position of the vertices in the display. For instance, one layout may arrange the vertices in a circle. Is it common for these layouts to access and change the view directly? Should they go through the Controller to access the View? If they go through the Controller, should they just ask for direct access to the View or should each change go through the controller? I realize this is a bit different from the standard MVC example where there a finite number of Views. In this case, the View can change in an infinite number of ways. Perhaps I'm shattering some basic principle of MVC here. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >