Search Results

Search found 13353 results on 535 pages for 'structural design'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 25/535 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

  • Design of Business Layer

    - by Adil Mughal
    Hi, We are currently revamping our architecture and design of application. We have just completed design of Data Access Layer which is generic in the sense that it works using XML and reflection to persist data. Any ways now we are in the phase of designing business layer. We have read some books related to Enterprise Architecture and Design so we have found that there are few patterns that can be applied on business layer. Table Pattern and Domain Model are example of such patterns. Also we have found Domain Driven Design as well. Earlier we decided to build Entities against table objects. But we found that there is difference in Entities and Value Objects when it comes to DDD. For those of you who have gone through such design. Please guide me related to pattern, practice and sample. Thank you in advance! Also please feel free to discuss if you didn't get any point of mine.

    Read the article

  • What design pattern do you use the most?

    - by spoon16
    I'm interested in understanding what design patterns people find themselves using often. Hopefully this list will help other recognize common scenarios and the associated design pattern that can be used to solve them. Please describe a common problem you find yourself solving and the design pattern(s) you use to solve it. Links to blogs or documentation describing the pattern are also appreciated. Edit: Please expand on your answers a bit, I would like this to be a useful reference for someone who wants to learn more about design patterns and is curious on what situations a specific design pattern might be used. Nobody has linked to any "more learning" resources.

    Read the article

  • Documenting a policy based design

    - by academicRobot
    I'm re-working some prototype code into a policy based design in C++, and I'm wondering what the best practice is for documenting the design. My current plan is to document: Policy hierarchy Overview of each policy Description of each type/value/function in each policy I was thinking of putting this into a doxygen module, but this looks like it will be a bit awkward since formatting will have to be done by hand without code to base the doc on (that is, documenting the policies rather than the implementation of the policies). So my questions are: Are there other aspects of the design that should be documented? Are there any tricks to doing this efficiently in doxygen? Is there a tool other than doxygen thats better suited to this? What are some examples of well documented policy based design? This is my first serious attempt at policy based design. I think I have a working grasp of the principles, but whatever naivety I expose in this question is fair game for an answer too.

    Read the article

  • Analysis and Design for Functional Programming

    - by edalorzo
    How do you deal with analysis and design phases when you plan to develop a system using a functional programming language like Haskell? My background is in imperative/object-oriented programming languages, and therefore, I am used to use case analysis and the use of UML to document the design of program. But the thing is that UML is inherently related to the object-oriented way of doing software. And I am intrigued about what would be the best way to develop documentation and define software designs for a system that is going to be developed using functional programming. Would you still use use case analysis or perhaps structured analysis and design instead? How do software architects define the high-level design of the system so that developers follow it? What do you show to you clients or to new developers when you are supposed to present a design of the solution? How do you document a picture of the whole thing without having first to write it all? Is there anything comparable to UML in the functional world?

    Read the article

  • Flow-Design Cheat Sheet &ndash; Part I, Notation

    - by Ralf Westphal
    You want to avoid the pitfalls of object oriented design? Then this is the right place to start. Use Flow-Oriented Analysis (FOA) and –Design (FOD or just FD for Flow-Design) to understand a problem domain and design a software solution. Flow-Orientation as described here is related to Flow-Based Programming, Event-Based Programming, Business Process Modelling, and even Event-Driven Architectures. But even though “thinking in flows” is not new, I found it helpful to deviate from those precursors for several reasons. Some aim at too big systems for the average programmer, some are concerned with only asynchronous processing, some are even not very much concerned with programming at all. What I was looking for was a design method to help in software projects of any size, be they large or tiny, involing synchronous or asynchronous processing, being local or distributed, running on the web or on the desktop or on a smartphone. That´s why I took ideas from all of the above sources and some additional and came up with Event-Based Components which later got repositioned and renamed to Flow-Design. In the meantime this has generated some discussion (in the German developer community) and several teams have started to work with Flow-Design. Also I´ve conducted quite some trainings using Flow-Orientation for design. The results are very promising. Developers find it much easier to design software using Flow-Orientation than OOAD-based object orientation. Since Flow-Orientation is moving fast and is not covered completely by a single source like a book, demand has increased for at least an overview of the current state of its notation. This page is trying to answer this demand by briefly introducing/describing every notational element as well as their translation into C# source code. Take this as a cheat sheet to put next to your whiteboard when designing software. However, please do not expect any explanation as to the reasons behind Flow-Design elements. Details on why Flow-Design at all and why in this specific way you´ll find in the literature covering the topic. Here´s a resource page on Flow-Design/Event-Based Components, if you´re able to read German. Notation Connected Functional Units The basic element of any FOD are functional units (FU): Think of FUs as some kind of software code block processing data. For the moment forget about classes, methods, “components”, assemblies or whatever. See a FU as an abstract piece of code. Software then consists of just collaborating FUs. I´m using circles/ellipses to draw FUs. But if you like, use rectangles. Whatever suites your whiteboard needs best.   The purpose of FUs is to process input and produce output. FUs are transformational. However, FUs are not called and do not call other FUs. There is no dependency between FUs. Data just flows into a FU (input) and out of it (output). From where and where to is of no concern to a FU.   This way FUs can be concatenated in arbitrary ways:   Each FU can accept input from many sources and produce output for many sinks:   Flows Connected FUs form a flow with a start and an end. Data is entering a flow at a source, and it´s leaving it through a sink. Think of sources and sinks as special FUs which conntect wires to the environment of a network of FUs.   Wiring Details Data is flowing into/out of FUs through wires. This is to allude to electrical engineering which since long has been working with composable parts. Wires are attached to FUs usings pins. They are the entry/exit points for the data flowing along the wires. Input-/output pins currently need not be drawn explicitly. This is to keep designing on a whiteboard simple and quick.   Data flowing is of some type, so wires have a type attached to them. And pins have names. If there is only one input pin and output pin on a FU, though, you don´t need to mention them. The default is Process for a single input pin, and Result for a single output pin. But you´re free to give even single pins different names.   There is a shortcut in use to address a certain pin on a destination FU:   The type of the wire is put in parantheses for two reasons. 1. This way a “no-type” wire can be easily denoted, 2. this is a natural way to describe tuples of data.   To describe how much data is flowing, a star can be put next to the wire type:   Nesting – Boards and Parts If more than 5 to 10 FUs need to be put in a flow a FD starts to become hard to understand. To keep diagrams clutter free they can be nested. You can turn any FU into a flow: This leads to Flow-Designs with different levels of abstraction. A in the above illustration is a high level functional unit, A.1 and A.2 are lower level functional units. One of the purposes of Flow-Design is to be able to describe systems on different levels of abstraction and thus make it easier to understand them. Humans use abstraction/decomposition to get a grip on complexity. Flow-Design strives to support this and make levels of abstraction first class citizens for programming. You can read the above illustration like this: Functional units A.1 and A.2 detail what A is supposed to do. The whole of A´s responsibility is decomposed into smaller responsibilities A.1 and A.2. FU A thus does not do anything itself anymore! All A is responsible for is actually accomplished by the collaboration between A.1 and A.2. Since A now is not doing anything anymore except containing A.1 and A.2 functional units are devided into two categories: boards and parts. Boards are just containing other functional units; their sole responsibility is to wire them up. A is a board. Boards thus depend on the functional units nested within them. This dependency is not of a functional nature, though. Boards are not dependent on services provided by nested functional units. They are just concerned with their interface to be able to plug them together. Parts are the workhorses of flows. They contain the real domain logic. They actually transform input into output. However, they do not depend on other functional units. Please note the usage of source and sink in boards. They correspond to input-pins and output-pins of the board.   Implicit Dependencies Nesting functional units leads to a dependency tree. Boards depend on nested functional units, they are the inner nodes of the tree. Parts are independent, they are the leafs: Even though dependencies are the bane of software development, Flow-Design does not usually draw these dependencies. They are implicitly created by visually nesting functional units. And they are harmless. Boards are so simple in their functionality, they are little affected by changes in functional units they are depending on. But functional units are implicitly dependent on more than nested functional units. They are also dependent on the data types of the wires attached to them: This is also natural and thus does not need to be made explicit. And it pertains mainly to parts being dependent. Since boards don´t do anything with regard to a problem domain, they don´t care much about data types. Their infrastructural purpose just needs types of input/output-pins to match.   Explicit Dependencies You could say, Flow-Orientation is about tackling complexity at its root cause: that´s dependencies. “Natural” dependencies are depicted naturally, i.e. implicitly. And whereever possible dependencies are not even created. Functional units don´t know their collaborators within a flow. This is core to Flow-Orientation. That makes for high composability of functional units. A part is as independent of other functional units as a motor is from the rest of the car. And a board is as dependend on nested functional units as a motor is on a spark plug or a crank shaft. With Flow-Design software development moves closer to how hardware is constructed. Implicit dependencies are not enough, though. Sometimes explicit dependencies make designs easier – as counterintuitive this might sound. So FD notation needs a ways to denote explicit dependencies: Data flows along wires. But data does not flow along dependency relations. Instead dependency relations represent service calls. Functional unit C is depending on/calling services on functional unit S. If you want to be more specific, name the services next to the dependency relation: Although you should try to stay clear of explicit dependencies, they are fundamentally ok. See them as a way to add another dimension to a flow. Usually the functionality of the independent FU (“Customer repository” above) is orthogonal to the domain of the flow it is referenced by. If you like emphasize this by using different shapes for dependent and independent FUs like above. Such dependencies can be used to link in resources like databases or shared in-memory state. FUs can not only produce output but also can have side effects. A common pattern for using such explizit dependencies is to hook a GUI into a flow as the source and/or the sink of data: Which can be shortened to: Treat FUs others depend on as boards (with a special non-FD API the dependent part is connected to), but do not embed them in a flow in the diagram they are depended upon.   Attributes of Functional Units Creation and usage of functional units can be modified with attributes. So far the following have shown to be helpful: Singleton: FUs are by default multitons. FUs in the same of different flows with the same name refer to the same functionality, but to different instances. Think of functional units as objects that get instanciated anew whereever they appear in a design. Sometimes though it´s helpful to reuse the same instance of a functional unit; this is always due to valuable state it holds. Signify this by annotating the FU with a “(S)”. Multiton: FUs on which others depend are singletons by default. This is, because they usually are introduced where shared state comes into play. If you want to change them to be a singletons mark them with a “(M)”. Configurable: Some parts need to be configured before the can do they work in a flow. Annotate them with a “(C)” to have them initialized before any data items to be processed by them arrive. Do not assume any order in which FUs are configured. How such configuration is happening is an implementation detail. Entry point: In each design there needs to be a single part where “it all starts”. That´s the entry point for all processing. It´s like Program.Main() in C# programs. Mark the entry point part with an “(E)”. Quite often this will be the GUI part. How the entry point is started is an implementation detail. Just consider it the first FU to start do its job.   Patterns / Standard Parts If more than a single wire is attached to an output-pin that´s called a split (or fork). The same data is flowing on all of the wires. Remember: Flow-Designs are synchronous by default. So a split does not mean data is processed in parallel afterwards. Processing still happens synchronously and thus one branch after another. Do not assume any specific order of the processing on the different branches after the split.   It is common to do a split and let only parts of the original data flow on through the branches. This effectively means a map is needed after a split. This map can be implicit or explicit.   Although FUs can have multiple input-pins it is preferrable in most cases to combine input data from different branches using an explicit join: The default output of a join is a tuple of its input values. The default behavior of a join is to output a value whenever a new input is received. However, to produce its first output a join needs an input for all its input-pins. Other join behaviors can be: reset all inputs after an output only produce output if data arrives on certain input-pins

    Read the article

  • Oracle Launches Mobile Applications User Experience Design Patterns

    - by ultan o'broin
    OK, you heard Joe Huang (@JoeHuang_Oracle) Product Manager for Oracle Application Development Framework (ADF) Mobile. If you're an ADF developer, or a Java (yeah, Java in iOS) developer, well now you're a mobile developer as well. And, using the newly launched Applications User Experience (UX) team's Mobile UX Design Patterns, you're a UX developer rockstar too, offering users so much more than just cool functionality. Mobile Design Pattern for Inline Actions Mobile design requires a different way of thinking. Use Oracle’s mobile design patterns to design iPhone, Android, or browser-based smartphone apps. Oracle's sharing these cutting edge mobile design patterns and their baked-in, scientifically proven usability to enable Oracle customers and partners to build mobile apps quickly. The design patterns are common solutions that developers can easily apply across all application suites. Crafted by the UX team's insight into Oracle Fusion Middleware, the patterns are designed to work with the mobile technology provided by the Oracle Application Development Framework. Other great UX-related information on using ADF Mobile to design task flows and the development experience on offer are on the ADF EMG podcast series. Check out FXAer Brian 'Bex' Huff (@bex of Bezzotech talking about ADF Mobile in podcast number 6 and also number 8 which has great tips about getting going with Android and iOS mobile app development too.

    Read the article

  • What modern design pattern / software engineering books for Java SE 6 do you recommend ?

    - by Scott Davies
    Hi, I am very familiar with Java 6 SE language features and am now looking for modern books that cover design patterns in Java for beginners as well as software engineering books that discuss architectures, algorithms and best practices in Java coding (sort of like the Effective C# books). I am aware of the classic GoF design patterns book, however, I'd like a more modern reference that takes advantage of the features of Java 6 SE. What books would you recommend ? Thanks, Scott

    Read the article

  • Are UML class diagrams adequated to design javascript systems?

    - by Vandell
    Given that UML is oriented towards a more classic approach to object orientation, is it still usable in a reliable way to design javascript systems? One specific problem that I can see is that class diagrams are, in fact, a structural view of the system, and javascript is more behaviour driven, how can you deal with it? Please, keep in mind that I'm not talking abot the real world domain here, It's a model for the solution that I'm trying to achieve.

    Read the article

  • Are UML class diagrams adequate to design javascript systems?

    - by Vandell
    Given that UML is oriented towards a more classic approach to object orientation, is it still usable in a reliable way to design javascript systems? One specific problem that I can see is that class diagrams are, in fact, a structural view of the system, and javascript is more behaviour driven, how can you deal with it? Please, keep in mind that I'm not talking abot the real world domain here, It's a model for the solution that I'm trying to achieve.

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture verses Software Design

    Recently, I was asked what the differences between software architecture and software design are. At a very superficial level both architecture and design seem to mean relatively the same thing. However, if we examine both of these terms further we will find that they are in fact very different due to the level of details they encompass. Software Architecture can be defined as the essence of an application because it deals with high level concepts that do not include any details as to how they will be implemented. To me this gives stakeholders a view of a system or application as if someone was viewing the earth from outer space. At this distance only very basic elements of the earth can be detected like land, weather and water. As the viewer comes closer to earth the details in this view start to become more defined. Details about the earth’s surface will start to actually take form as well as mane made structures will be detected. The process of transitioning a view from outer space to inside our earth’s atmosphere is similar to how an architectural concept is transformed to an architectural design. From this vantage point stakeholders can start to see buildings and other structures as if they were looking out of a small plane window. This distance is still high enough to see a large area of the earth’s surface while still being able to see some details about the surface. This viewing point is very similar to the actual design process of an application in that it takes the very high level architectural concept or concepts and applies concrete design details to form a software design that encompasses the actual implementation details in the form of responsibilities and functions. Examples of these details include: interfaces, components, data, and connections. In review, software architecture deals with high level concepts without regard to any implementation details. Software design on the other hand takes high level concepts and applies concrete details so that software can be implemented. As part of the transition between software architecture to the creation of software design an evaluation on the architecture is recommended. There are several benefits to including this step as part of the transition process. It allows for projects to ensure that they are on the correct path as to meeting the stakeholder’s requirement goals, identifies possible cost savings and can be used to find missing or nonspecific requirements that cause ambiguity in a design. In the book “Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies”, they define key benefits to adding an architectural review process to ensure that an architecture is ready to move on to the design phase. Benefits to evaluating software architecture: Gathers all stakeholders to communicate about the project Goals are clearly defined in regards to the creation or validation of specific requirements Goals are prioritized so that when conflicts occur decisions will be made based on goal priority Defines a clear expectation of the architecture so that all stakeholders have a keen understanding of the project Ensures high quality documentation of the architecture Enables discoveries of architectural reuse  Increases the quality of architecture practices. I can remember a few projects that I worked on that could have really used an architectural review prior to being passed on to developers. This project was to create some new advertising space on the company’s website in order to sell space based on the location and some other criteria. I was one of the developer selected to lead this project and I was given a high level design concept and a long list of ever changing requirements due to the fact that sales department had no clear direction as to what exactly the project was going to do or how they were going to bill the clients once they actually agreed to purchase the Ad space. In my personal opinion IT should have pushed back to have the requirements further articulated instead of forcing programmers to code blindly attempting to build such an ambiguous project.  Unfortunately, we had to suffer with this project for about 4 months when it should have only taken 1.5 to complete due to the constantly changing and unclear requirements. References  Clements, P., Kazman, R., & Klein, M. (2002). Evaluating Software Architectures. Westford, Massachusetts: Courier Westford. 

    Read the article

  • What design pattern shall I use in this question?

    - by iyad al aqel
    To be frank, this is a homework question, so I'll tell you my opinion. Can you let me know my mistakes rather than giving me the solution? This is the question : Assume a restaurant that only offers the following two types of meals: (a) a full meal and (b)an economic meal. The full meal consists of the following food items and is served in the following order: 1. Appetizer 2. Drink 3. Main dish 4. Dessert Meanwhile the economic meal consists of the following food items and is served in the following order: 1. Drink 2. Main dish Identify the most appropriate design pattern that can be used to allow a customer to only order using one of the two types of meals provided and that the meal components must be served in the given order. I'm confused between the Factory and the Iterator and using them both together. Using the factory Pattern we can create the two meals full and economic and provide the user with with a base object class that will decide upon. But how can we enforce the ordering of the elements, I thought of using the iterator along that will iterate through the the composite of the two created factories sort of speak. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Quick and Good: ( Requirement -> Validation -> Design ) for self use?

    - by Yugal Jindle
    How to casually do the required Software Engineering and designing? I am an inexperienced developer and face the following problem: My company is a start up and has no fix Software engineering systems. I am assigned tasks with not very clear and conflicting requirements. I don't have to follow any designs or verify requirements officially. Problem: I code all day and finally get stuck where requirement conflicts and I have to start over again. I can-not spend a lot of time doing proper SRS or SDD. How should I: List out Requirements for myself. (Not an official document) How to verify and validate the requirements? How to visualize them? How to design them with minimum effort? (As its going to be with me only) I don't want to waste my time coding something that's gonna collapse according to requirement conflict or something! I don't want to compromise with quality but don't want to re-write everything on some change that I didn't expected. I imagine making a diagram for my thought process that will show me conflict in the diagram itself, then finally correcting the diagram - I decide my design and structure my code in terms of interfaces or something. And then finally start implementing my design. I am able to sense the lack of systematic approach, but don't know how to proceed! Update: Please suggest me some tools that can ask me the questions and help me aggregate important details. How can I have diagram that I talked about for requirement verification?

    Read the article

  • Windows Phone 7 Design using Expression Blend - Resources

    - by Nikita Polyakov
    I’ve been doing a series of talks across Florida regarding Windows Phone 7 Design using Microsoft Expression Blend 4. I discuss the WP7 phone and application experience; show how to use Expression Blend toolset to effectively design such apps. Next presentation is on 5/4/2010 at 6:30PM EST will be a webcast format over LiveMeeting at Ft. Lauderdale Online group. Registration and the LiveMeeting link are both here: http://www.fladotnet.com/Reg.aspx?EventID=459 [I will post a link if it’s recorded]   Here are the resources from my presentations: The Biggest source is the Windows Phone UI and Design Language video from MIX10 Windows Phone 7 Design Guide as it’s found on the WP7 Dev Home Page Study The Silverlight Mobile Tutorials on official Silverlight website I will be blogging a separate entry for a new demo app that will showcase the elements I presented. I suggest you actually watch all of the MIX videos about SL and Design as great primer to get you thinking the WP7 way.   A lot happening with WP7Dev and it’s just the beginning! So watch these Twitter accounts and blogs: @Ckindel - Charlie Kindel - WP7 Dev Head http://blogs.msdn.com/ckindel @WP7Dev - Official Dev Twitter @WP7 - Official WP7 Twitter Peter Torr - http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr Mike Harsh - http://blogs.msdn.com/mharsh Shawn Oster - http://www.shawnoster.com   Other worthwhile mention my local friends speaking and blogging about Windows Phone 7: Bill Reiss is doing great presentations on Building games with XNA for Windows Phone 7. Be on the lookout for those around Florida. Bill is a Silverlight MVP and has a legacy of XNA and Silverlight games, see his site. Kevin Wolf aka ByteMaster he is a Device Application Developer MVP with tremendous experience building mobile applications. He has developed WinMo-GF a multi-platform gaming framework. Get these tools and get creating! You will need the following components installed in this order: Expression Blend 4 Beta Windows Phone Developer Tools Microsoft Expression Blend Add-in Preview for Windows Phone Microsoft Expression Blend SDK Preview for Windows Phone Want more training? Don’t forget that Channel 9 has complete walkthroughs of their WP7 Training Kit posted online. PS: To continue with all this design talk check out Microsoft .toolbox “Learn to create Silverlight applications using Expression Studio and to apply fundamental design principles.” A great website with a lot of design tutorials set up as a wonderful full course on design all for free, including a great forum community and neat little avatars you can build yourself.

    Read the article

  • Design a T-shirt for .NET Reflector Pro

    - by Laila
    Win a .NET Reflector Pro license, a box of Red Gate goodies, and a t-shirt printed with your design! Red Gate likes t-shirts. Each of our teams has one. In fact, each individual person has one, numbered according to when they joined the company: Red Gate's 1st, 2nd, and so on right up to Red Gate's 170th, with the slogan "More than just a number". Those t-shirts are important, chiefly because they remind the people wearing them that they are important. But that isn't enough. What really makes us great are the people who choose to use our tools. So we'd like to extend our tradition of t-shirts to include you and put the design of our next shirt entirely in your hands. We'd like you to come up with a witty slogan or create an inventive or simply beautiful t-shirt design for .NET Reflector Pro, our add-in for Visual Studio, which allows you to step into decompiled assemblies whilst debugging in Visual Studio. When you're done, post your masterpiece to Twitter with the hash tag #reflectortees, and @redgate will take a look! We'll pick the best design, and the winner will get a licensed copy of .NET Reflector Pro and a box of Red Gate goodies - not to mention a copy of their t-shirt. The winning design will go into production and be worn and given out at tradeshows, conferences, and user group events across the world, proudly bearing the name of their designer. We'll also pick three runners-up who will receive licenses for .NET Reflector Pro. Red Gate goodie box Interested? If you're up for the challenge, then we've got some resources to get you started. Inside the .zip file you'll find high-quality versions of the following: T-shirt templates: don't forget to design the front and the back! Different versions of the .NET Reflector Pro logo and Red Gate logo. Colour sheets to give you an easy reference to the Red Gate colours, including hex and RGB values. You can create and send us as many designs as you like, and each of them will be considered for the prize. To submit your designs, simply tweet including the competition hash tag, #reflectortees, and a link to somewhere we can see your design: either an image hosting site such as Twitpic, Flickr or Picasa, or a personal blog. You will need to create a Twitter account (which is free), if you don't already have one. You only have three limits: The background colour of the t-shirt should be one of our brand colours (red, light/dark grey or black), though you're welcome to use other colours in the rest of the design. You need to make use of either the .NET Reflector Pro logo OR the Red Gate logo (please keep them as they are) If you include any text or slogan, stick with just one or two colors for it. Apart from that, go wild. Go and do whatever it is you do when you get creative: whether you walk barefoot on the grass with a pencil and paper, sit cross-legged on a pile of cushions with a laptop, or simply close your eyes and float through a mist of ideas, now is your chance. Make sure you enjoy it. We're looking forward to seeing your creations. Terms and conditions 1. The closing date for entries is June 11th, 2010 (4 p.m. UK time). Red Gate Software Ltd reserves the right to extend the competition deadline at its discretion. If there is a revision, the revised date will be published on this blog and the date for announcing the results will be postponed accordingly. 2. The winning designer will be notified on June 14th, 2010 through Twitter. The winner must claim his/her prize by sending us a high-resolution image of their design via email (i.e. Illustrator EPS files or appropriate format, ideally at 300dpi). If the winner does not come forward within 3 days of the announcement, they will forfeit their prize and another winner will be selected from the runners-up. The names of the winner and runners-up will be posted on this blog by June 18th.  3. Entry is completed on the designer posting a link to their entry in a tweet with the correct hash tag, #reflectortees. 4. Red Gate Software needs to hold the rights to using the winning design in order to put the t-shirt into production. We will make sure that this is fine with the winner before we do so, but if you do not want us holding the rights to your design, please do not submit your designs. We reserve the right to slightly alter or adjust any artwork we decide to use (mainly to make it easier to print), but we will make sure we contact the winner for approval first. The winner will also need to allow us the use of his/her name for purposes of promoting your design. 5. Entries must be entirely your own original work and must not breach any copyright or third party rights. Red Gate Software Ltd will not be made partially or fully liable for any non-original work submitted by you. 6. This competition is free: you do not need to buy anything or be an existing customer to enter. 7. This competition is not open to employees of Red Gate Software Ltd, their families, or any other company directly connected with the administration of this promotion.

    Read the article

  • Is MVC a Design Pattern or Architectural pattern

    - by JCasso
    According to Sun and Msdn it is a design pattern. According to Wikipedia it is an architectural pattern In comparison to design patterns, architectural patterns are larger in scale. (Wikipedia - Architectural pattern) Or it is an architectural pattern that also has a design pattern ? Which one is true ?

    Read the article

  • Are ORM's counterproductive to OO design?

    - by Jeremiah
    In OOD, design of an object is said to be characterized by its identity and behavior. Having used OR/M's in the past, the primary purpose, in my opinion, revolves around the ability to store/retrieve data. That is to say, OR/M objects are not design by behavior, but rather data (i.e. database tables). Case and point: Many OR/M tools come with a point-to-a-database-table-and-click-object-generator. If objects are no longer characterized by behavior this will, in my opinion, muddy the identity and responsibility of the objects. Subsequently, if objects are not defined by a responsibility this could lend a hand to having tightly coupled classes and overall poor design. Furthermore, I would think that in an application setting, you would be heading towards scalability issues. So, my question is, do you think that ORM's are counterproductive to OO design? Perhaps the underlying question would be whether or not they are counterproductive to application development.

    Read the article

  • database design suggestion needed

    - by JMSA
    I need to design a table for daily sales of pharmaceutical products. There are hundreds of types of products available {Name, code}. Thousands of sales-persons are employed to sell those products{name, code}. They collect products from different depots{name, code}. They work in different Areas - Zones - Markets - Outlets, etc. {All have names and codes} Each product has various types of prices {Production Price, Trade Price, Business Price, Discount Price, etc.}. And, sales-persons are free to choose from those combination to estimate the sales price. The problem is, daily sales requires huge amount of data-entry. Within couple of years there may be gigabytes of data (if not terabytes). If I need to show daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and yearly sales reports there will be various types of sql queries I shall need. This is my initial design: Product {ID, Code, Name, IsActive} ProductXYZPriceHistory {ID, ProductID, Date, EffectDate, Price, IsCurrent} SalesPerson {ID, Code, Name, JoinDate, and so on..., IsActive} SalesPersonSalesAraeaHistory {ID, SalesPersonID, SalesAreaID, IsCurrent} Depot {ID, Code, Name, IsActive} Outlet {ID, Code, Name, AreaID, IsActive} AreaHierarchy {ID, Code, Name, PrentID, AreaLevel, IsActive} DailySales {ID, ProductID, SalesPersonID, OutletID, Date, PriceID, SalesPrice, Discount, etc...} Now, apart from indexing, how can I normalize my DailySales table to have a fine grained design that I shall not need to change for years to come? Please show me a sample design of only the DailySales data-entry table (from which all types of reports would be queried) on the basis of above information. I don't need a detailed design advice. I just need an advice regarding only the DailySales table. Is there any way to break this particular table to achieve granularity?

    Read the article

  • Design Help! How can design Extended properties for Entity with simple and complex data in extended

    - by mmtemporary
    I have design question. I have entity such as "Person". Person has properties such as: FirstName, LastName, Gender, BirthDate, .... End user when create a person in application may be need to define another property that is not defined in database table schema (or class person). for example: end user nead to define "property1" that its a string property. or nead define "proerty2" that its a image, or need define "property3" that its complex type. please separate your design solution in tow level: 1-database table design 2-class design thank u.

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for adding / removing elements

    - by de3
    Wikipedia's definition for Iterator pattern design: the Iterator pattern is a design pattern in which iterators are used to access the elements of an aggregate object sequentially without exposing its underlying implementation. Iterator interface in java provides the following methods hasNext() next() remove() Is there a pattern design, or a java interface for inserting / deleting elements, and getting length of the aggregate object, in addition to iterating them? I know remove() is an optional method that can be used once per call to next(), but I am implementing a circular FIFO array and need a method delete() independent of iterator's next().

    Read the article

  • Design Pattern for "Context Sensitive" Right Click Menu

    - by MadSeb
    Hi, What is a design pattern I can use for generating "context-sensitive" right click menus ? I have in mind a "Windows Explorer"-like application where a user can right click on a folder and get a list of menu items but right click on a drive and get a totally different list. What design pattern should I use ? Would the factory design pattern be appropiate for handling such a menu ? Regards, Seb

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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