Search Results

Search found 17047 results on 682 pages for 'architecture design patt'.

Page 251/682 | < Previous Page | 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258  | Next Page >

  • Using OpenGL drawing operations in an object-oriented setting?

    - by Lion Kabob
    I've been plowing through basic shaders and whatnot for an application I'm writing, and I've been having trouble figuring out a high-level organization for the drawing calls. I'm thinking of having a singleton class which implements a number of basic drawing operations, taking data from "user" classes and passing that to the appropriate opengl calls. I'm wondering how people do this when writing their own applications, as the internet is chock full of basic "Your first shader" tutorials, but very little on suggested organization of drawing code. My particular environment is targeted at iPad/OpenGL ES 2.0, but I think the question stands for most environments.

    Read the article

  • Building a many-to-many db schema using only an unpredictable number of foreign keys

    - by user1449855
    Good afternoon (at least around here), I have a many-to-many relationship schema that I'm having trouble building. The main problem is that I'm only working with primary and foreign keys (no varchars or enums to simplify things) and the number of many-to-many relationships is not predictable and can increase at any time. I looked around at various questions and couldn't find something that directly addressed this issue. I split the problem in half, so I now have two one-to-many schemas. One is solved but the other is giving me fits. Let's assume table FOO is a standard, boring table that has a simple primary key. It's the one in the one-to-many relationship. Table BAR can relate to multiple keys of FOO. The number of related keys is not known beforehand. An example: From a query FOO returns ids 3, 4, 5. BAR needs a unique key that relates to 3, 4, 5 (though there could be any number of ids returned) The usual join table does not work: Table FOO_BAR primary_key | foo_id | bar_id | Since FOO returns 3 unique keys and here bar_id has a one-to-one relationship with foo_id. Having two join tables does not seem to work either, as it still can't map foo_ids 3, 4, 5 to a single bar_id. Table FOO_TO_BAR primary_key | foo_id | bar_to_foo_id | Table BAR_TO_FOO primary_key | foo_to_bar_id | bar_id | What am I doing wrong? Am I making things more complicated than they are? How should I approach the problem? Thanks a lot for the help.

    Read the article

  • PocketSphinx, file is not of required architecture in iPhone Device but working in simulator?

    - by Jeevan
    Hello all, I'm new to apple development, For my Uni project I try developing an application for iPhone using PocketSphinx to recognise speech commands... I used the "build_for_iphoneos.sh" script available in PocketSphinx SVN and SphinxBase. Program working without any issues when i try it on simulator, today I try to deploy on device and it's giving me this error? can any one help me solve this please? Error: ld: warning: in /Users/me/Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform/Developer/SDKs/iPhoneOS3.1.2.sdk/lib/libpocketsphinx.a, file is not of required architecture ld: warning: in /Users/me/Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform/Developer/SDKs/iPhoneOS3.1.2.sdk/lib/libsphinxbase.a, file is not of required architecture and the rest of the references to functions report undefined error! any help? Thanks. Jeevan

    Read the article

  • Factory Pattern: Determining concrete factory class instantiation?

    - by Chris
    I'm trying to learn patterns and I'm stuck on determining how or where a Factory Pattern determines what class to instanciate. If I have a Application that calls the factory and sends it, say, an xml config file to determine what type of action to take, where does that logic for interpreting the config file happen? THE FACTORY using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace myNamespace { public abstract class SourceFactory { abstract public UploadSource getUploadSource(); } public class TextSourceFactory : SourceFactory { public override UploadSource getUploadSource() { return new TextUploadSource(); } } public class XmlSourceFacotry : SourceFactory { public override UploadSource getUploadSource() { return new XmlUploadSource(); } } public class SqlSourceFactory : SourceFactory { public override UploadSource getUploadSource() { return new SqlUploadSource(); } } } THE CLASSES using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace myNamespace { public abstract class UploadSource { abstract public void Execute(); } public class TextUploadSource : UploadSource { public override void Execute() { Console.WriteLine("You executed a text upload source"); } } public class XmlUploadSource : UploadSource { public override void Execute() { Console.WriteLine("You executed an XML upload source"); } } public class SqlUploadSource : UploadSource { public override void Execute() { Console.WriteLine("You executed a SQL upload source"); } } }

    Read the article

  • best practices - multiple functions vs single function with switch case

    - by Amit
    I have a situation where I need to perform several small (but similar) tasks. I can think of two ways to achieve this. First Approach: function doTask1(); function doTask2(); function doTask3(); function doTask4(); Second Approach: // TASK1, TASK2, ... TASK4 are all constants function doTask(TASK) { switch(TASK) { case TASK1: // do task1 break; case TASK2: // do task2 break; case TASK3: // do task3 break; case TASK4: // do task4 break; } } A few more tasks may be added in future (though the chances are rare. but this cannot be ruled out) Please suggest which of the two approaches (or if any other) is a best practice in such a situation.

    Read the article

  • How to avoid using this in a constructor

    - by Paralife
    I have this situation: interface MessageListener { void onMessageReceipt(Message message); } class MessageReceiver { MessageListener listener; public MessageReceiver(MessageListener listener, other arguments...) { this.listener = listener; } loop() { Message message = nextMessage(); listener.onMessageReceipt(message); } } and I want to avoid the following pattern: (Using the this in the Client constructor) class Client implements MessageListener { MessageReceiver receiver; MessageSender sender; public Client(...) { receiver = new MessageReceiver(this, other arguments...); sender = new Sender(...); } . . . @Override public void onMessageReceipt(Message message) { if(Message.isGood()) sender.send("Congrtulations"); else sender.send("Boooooooo"); } } The reason why i need the above functionality is because i want to call the sender inside the onMessageReceipt() function, for example to send a reply. But I dont want to pass the sender into a listener, so the only way I can think of is containing the sender in a class that implements the listener, hence the above resulting Client implementation. Is there a way to achive this without the use of 'this' in the constructor? It feels bizare and i dont like it, since i am passing myself to an object(MessageReceiver) before I am fully constructed. On the other hand, the MessageReceiver is not passed from outside, it is constructed inside, but does this 'purifies' the bizarre pattern? I am seeking for an alternative or an assurance of some kind that this is safe, or situations on which it might backfire on me.

    Read the article

  • Options for keeping models and the UI in sync (in a desktop application context)

    - by Benju
    In my experience I have only had 2 patterns work for large-scale desktop application development when trying to keep the model and UI in sync. 1-An eventbus approach via a shared eventbus command objects are fired (ie:UserDemographicsUpdatedEvent) and have various parts of the UI update if they are bound to the same user object updated in this event. 2-Attempt to bind the UI directly to the model adding listeners to the model itself as needed. I find this approach rather clunky as it pollutes the domain model. Does anybody have other suggestions? In a web application with something like JSP binding to the model is easy as you ussually only care about the state of the model at the time your request comes in, not so in a desktop type application. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How do i make my text wrap in a <div> with a large border radius

    - by Greg Guida
    in the following code <html> <body> <div style="height:400px; width:400px; -moz-border-radius:100px; -webkit-border-radius:100px; border:3px solid #500; background-color:#a00; overflow:hidden;"> Why is this getting cut at the beginning??? </div> </body> </html> Why isn't the browser wrapping the text around the rounded corners. In webkit browsers(i tested both chrome and safari) the overflow hidden cuts the text outside the border. Firefox just renders text outside the border. I also tried this without overflow:hidden; but again the text just rendered outside the border.

    Read the article

  • Best practice for DAO pattern ?

    - by Tony
    I've seen a lot of codes use a service-dao pattern , I don't know the origin of this pattern . It force the front layer call service , then delegates some of the service task to dao. I want to ask : Does DAO layer do purely data access related task ? What about exception encapsulation ? Is there other pattern can be used to replace this ?

    Read the article

  • Representing game states in Tic Tac Toe

    - by dacman
    The goal of the assignment that I'm currently working on for my Data Structures class is to create a of Quantum Tic Tac Toe with an AI that plays to win. Currently, I'm having a bit of trouble finding the most efficient way to represent states. Overview of current Structure: AbstractGame Has and manages AbstractPlayers (game.nextPlayer() returns next player by int ID) Has and intializes AbstractBoard at the beginning of the game Has a GameTree (Complete if called in initialization, incomplete otherwise) AbstractBoard Has a State, a Dimension, and a Parent Game Is a mediator between Player and State, (Translates States from collections of rows to a Point representation Is a StateConsumer AbstractPlayer Is a State Producer Has a ConcreteEvaluationStrategy to evaluate the current board StateTransveralPool Precomputes possible transversals of "3-states". Stores them in a HashMap, where the Set contains nextStates for a given "3-state" State Contains 3 Sets -- a Set of X-Moves, O-Moves, and the Board Each Integer in the set is a Row. These Integer values can be used to get the next row-state from the StateTransversalPool SO, the principle is Each row can be represented by the binary numbers 000-111, where 0 implies an open space and 1 implies a closed space. So, for an incomplete TTT board: From the Set<Integer> board perspective: X_X R1 might be: 101 OO_ R2 might be: 110 X_X R3 might be: 101, where 1 is an open space, and 0 is a closed space From the Set<Integer> xMoves perspective: X_X R1 might be: 101 OO_ R2 might be: 000 X_X R3 might be: 101, where 1 is an X and 0 is not From the Set<Integer> oMoves perspective: X_X R1 might be: 000 OO_ R2 might be: 110 X_X R3 might be: 000, where 1 is an O and 0 is not Then we see that x{R1,R2,R3} & o{R1,R2,R3} = board{R1,R2,R3} The problem is quickly generating next states for the GameTree. If I have player Max (x) with board{R1,R2,R3}, then getting the next row-states for R1, R2, and R3 is simple.. Set<Integer> R1nextStates = StateTransversalPool.get(R1); The problem is that I have to combine each one of those states with R1 and R2. Is there a better data structure besides Set that I could use? Is there a more efficient approach in general? I've also found Point<-State mediation cumbersome. Is there another approach that I could try there? Thanks! Here is the code for my ConcretePlayer class. It might help explain how players produce new states via moves, using the StateProducer (which might need to become StateFactory or StateBuilder). public class ConcretePlayerGeneric extends AbstractPlayer { @Override public BinaryState makeMove() { // Given a move and the current state, produce a new state Point playerMove = super.strategy.evaluate(this); BinaryState currentState = super.getInGame().getBoard().getState(); return StateProducer.getState(this, playerMove, currentState); } } EDIT: I'm starting with normal TTT and moving to Quantum TTT. Given the framework, it should be as simple as creating several new Concrete classes and tweaking some things.

    Read the article

  • Sequence numbers best practice

    - by Abdullah Jibaly
    What's the best practice or well known methods to implement sequence numbers for business entities such as invoices, purchase orders, job numbers, etc? I want to be able to save the latest value in the database and be able to set it programatically. Is it OK to use a table for this purpose that has a SEQUENCE_NAME, SEQUENCE_NUMBER tuple? I know some databases have a first class sequence type but others (eg, MySQL) do not so it's not something I want to rely on. If a table is used to hold these sequences what is the right way to get and increment them in a synchronized fashion to ensure no data inconsistencies arise?

    Read the article

  • Designer tool integration with TFS?

    - by reallyJim
    Are there good tools for professional designers to use that support source control integration with Team Foundation Server? I'm aware of the Expression tools, but curious to see if there is something else, as proper designer tools really aren't my area of expertise.

    Read the article

  • Business Objects - Containers or functional?

    - by Walter
    Where I work, we've gone back and forth on this subject a number of times and are looking for a sanity check. Here's the question: Should Business Objects be data containers (more like DTOs) or should they also contain logic that can perform some functionality on that object. Example - Take a customer object, it probably contains some common properties (Name, Id, etc), should that customer object also include functions (Save, Calc, etc.)? One line of reasoning says separate the object from the functionality (single responsibility principal) and put the functionality in a Business Logic layer or object. The other line of reasoning says, no, if I have a customer object I just want to call Customer.Save and be done with it. Why do I need to know about how to save a customer if I'm consuming the object? Our last two projects have had the objects separated from the functionality, but the debate has been raised again on a new project. Which makes more sense? EDIT These results are very similar to our debates. One vote to one side or another completely changes the direction. Does anyone else want to add their 2 cents? EDIT Eventhough the answer sampling is small, it appears that the majority believe that functionality in a business object is acceptable as long as it is simple but persistence is best placed in a separate class/layer. We'll give this a try. Thanks for everyone's input...

    Read the article

  • Graph-structured databases and Php

    - by stagas
    I want to use a graph database using php. Can you point out some resources on where to get started? Is there any example code / tutorial out there? Or are there any other methods of storing data that relate to each other in totally random/abstract situations? - Very abstract example of the relations needed: John relates to Mary, both relate to School, John is Tall, Mary is Short, John has Blue Eyes, Mary has Green Eyes, query I want is which people are related to 'Short people that have Green Eyes and go to School' - answer John - Another example: TrackA -> ArtistA -> ArtistB -> AlbumA -----> [ label ] -> AlbumB -----> [ A ] -> TrackA:Remix -> Genre:House -> [ Album ] -----> [ label ] TrackB -> [ C ] [ B ] Example queries: Which Genre is TrackB closer to? answer: House - because it's related to Album C, which is related to TrackA and is related to Genre:House Get all Genre:House related albums of Label A : result: AlbumA, AlbumB - because they both have TrackA which is related to Genre:House - It is possible in MySQL but it would require a fixed set of attributes/columns for each item and a complex non-flexible query, instead I need every attribute to be an item by itself and instead of 'belonging' to something, to be 'related' to something.

    Read the article

  • java Properties - to expose or not to expose?

    - by ring bearer
    This might be an age old problem and I am sure everyone has their own ways. Suppose I have some properties defined such as secret.user.id=user secret.password=password website.url=http://stackoverflow.com Suppose I have 100 different classes and places where I need to use these properties. Which one is good (1) I create a Util class that will load all properties and serve them using a key constant Such as : Util is a singleton that loads all properties and keeps up on getInstance() call. Util myUtil = Util.getInstance(); String user = myUtil.getConfigByKey(Constants.SECRET_USER_ID); String password = myUtil.getConfigByKey(Constants.SECRET_PASSWORD); .. //getConfigByKey() - inturns invokes properties.get(..) doSomething(user, password) So wherever I need these properties, I can do steps above. (2) I create a meaningful Class to represent these properties; say, ApplicationConfig and provide getters to get specific properties. So above code may look like: ApplicationConfig config = ApplicationConfig.getInstance(); doSomething(config.getSecretUserId(), config.getPassword()); //ApplicationConfig would have instance variables that are initialized during // getInstance() after loading from properties file. Note: The properties file as such will have only minor changes in the future. My personal choice is (2) - let me hear some comments?

    Read the article

  • Refactoring a C# derived class with method dependancies

    - by drelihan
    Hi Folks, I want to get your opinion on this. I have a class which is derived from a base class. I don't have control over the code in the base class and it is critical to the system that I derive from it. In my class I inherite two methods that are critical to the system and are used in pretty much every function, many times. I intend to refactor this derived class and extract some classes from it - this won't be a problem. What I'm not sure about is, is it worth extracting class if I have to constantly make call backs to my main class to access the two methods (or public wrappers to the methods)??? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Schemas and tables versus user-ids in a single table using PostgreSQL

    - by gvkv
    I'm developing a web app and I've come to a fork in the road with respect to database structure and I don't know which direction to take. I have a database with user information that I can structure one of two ways. The first is to create a schema and a set of tables for each user (duplicating the structure for each user) and the second is to create a single set of tables and query information based on user-id. Suppose 100000 users. Here are my questions: Considering security, performance, scalability and administration where does each choice lie? Would the answers change for 1000000 or 10000? Is there a set of best practices that lead to one choice or the other? It seems to me that multiple schemas are more secure since it's trivial to restrict user privileges but what about performance and scalability? Administration seems like a wash since dumping (and restoring) lots of schemas isn't any more difficult than dumping a few.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258  | Next Page >