Search Results

Search found 14545 results on 582 pages for 'design patterns'.

Page 253/582 | < Previous Page | 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260  | Next Page >

  • C#, Generic Lists and Inheritance

    - by Andy
    I have a class called Foo that defines a list of objects of type A: class Foo { List<A> Items = new List<A>(); } I have a class called Bar that can save and load lists of objects of type B: class Bar { void Save(List<B> ComplexItems); List<B> Load(); } B is a child of A. Foo, Bar, A and B are in a library and the user can create children of any of the classes. What I would like to do is something like the following: Foo MyFoo = new Foo(); Bar MyBar = new Bar(); MyFoo.Items = MyBar.Load(); MyBar.Save(MyFoo.Items); Obviously this won't work. Is there a clever way to do this that avoids creating intermediate lists? thanks, Andy

    Read the article

  • I need to create a contest....

    - by creocare
    I'm working on a contest where users vote for contestants. Each contestant will have a bio. I was wondering what would be the best way to approach this? Should I do this in php or javascript? Should I use a database to collect data? Should I use sqlite3? If I use sqlite3 how do i install that on my mac? I'm very new to all this but I'm a quick learner. Thanks for any advice.

    Read the article

  • C#. Where struct methods code kept in memory?

    - by maxima120
    It is somewhat known where .NET keeps value types in memory (mostly in stack but could be in heap in certain circumstances etc)... My question is - where is the code of the struct? If I have say 16 byte of data fields in the struct and a massive computation method in it - I am presuming that 16 byte will be copied in stack and the method code is stored somewhere else and is shared for all instances of the struct. Are these presumptions correct?

    Read the article

  • C++0x implementation guesstimates?

    - by dsimcha
    The C++0x standard is on its way to being complete. Until now, I've dabbled in C++, but avoided learning it thoroughly because it seems like it's missing a lot of modern features that I've been spoiled by in other languages. However, I'd be very interested in C++0x, which addresses a lot of my complaints. Any guesstimates, after the standard is ratified, as to how long it will take for major compiler vendors to provide reasonably complete, production-quality implementations? Will it happen soon enough to reverse the decline in C++'s popularity, or is it too little, too late? Do you believe that C++0x will become "the C++" within a few years, or do you believe that most people will stick to the earlier standard in practice and C++0x will be somewhat of a bastard stepchild, kind of like C99?

    Read the article

  • When to use basic types (Integer, String), and when to write a new class?

    - by belgarat
    Stackoverflow users: A lot of things can be represented in programs by using the basic types, or we can create a new class for it. Example: A social security number can be a number, string or its own object. (Other common examples: Phone numbers, names, zip codes, user id, order id and other id's.) My question is: When should the basic types be used, and when should we write ourselves a new class? I see that when you need to add behavior, you'll want to create a class (example, social security number parsing, validation, formatting, etc). But is this the only criteria? I have come across cases where many of these things are represented as java Integers and/or Strings. We loose the benefit of type-checking, and I have often seen bugs caused by parameters being mixed in calls to function(Intever, Integer, Integer, Integer). On the other hand, some programmers are opposed to over-designing by creating classes for "eveything". Obviously, the answer is "it depends". But, what do you think, and what do you normally do?

    Read the article

  • What difference between Web Apps & Descktop app shoud one keep in mind to model the system right?

    - by simple
    Sometimes it seems like some architectural techniques are not for the Web application I am building and then I just go and code =(, Though I really want to make a habit to architect system before moving to the code, as when I just code I endup writing some useless components which then I rewrite =(, So can you just point out some differences between web apps and desktop ones ?

    Read the article

  • When designing an event, is it a good idea to prevent listeners from being added twice?

    - by Matt
    I am creating an event-based API where a user can subscribe to an event by adding listener objects (as is common in Java or C#). When the event is raised, all subscribed listeners are invoked with the event information. I initially decided to prevent adding an event listener more than once. If a listener is added that already exists in the listener collection, it is not added again. However, after thinking about it some more, it doesn't seem that most event-based structures actually prevent this. Was my initial instinct wrong? I'm not sure which way to go here. I guess I thought that preventing addition of an existing listener would help to avoid a common programming error. Then again, it could also hide a bug that would lead to code being run multiple times when it shouldn't.

    Read the article

  • Explaining your system to a client

    - by Sir Graystar
    I'm currently developing a small Database Management System for a local company. How would you go about explaining how the system you have designed to a client? If they are non-technical and have no understanding of programming, how would you go about showing what the system will do and how it will do it? I guess some sort of visual representation of the system but this seems very patronising to me.

    Read the article

  • Locking DB w/ Large Reads (Ruby-on-Rails/Heroku)

    - by Splashlin
    Currently I have a Web API running on Heroku that is constantly writing information we're collecting from other data sources (currently theres about half a GB of data and it's growing very quickly). We're looking to add a reporting system on top of the current database that we can use to extract useful information out of the DB. The problem is that when we're running reports we're locking the DB and any other sites communicating with the DB are timing out. Does anyone have any solutions on how to solve this type of issue? Amazon RDS seems to have some interesting stuff with database replication but I don't know if that will solve my problems. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Simple OOP-related question.

    - by M4design
    This question came to my mind quite a few times. Let my explain my question through an example. Say I've got two classes: 1- Grid. 2- Cell. Now the location of the cell 'should' be stored in the grid class, not in the cell class itself. Say that the cell wanted to get its location through a method in the grid. How can it do that? Keep in mind that the cell was created/initialised by the Grid class. What good OO approach to solve this problem? Thank you

    Read the article

  • NHibernate Queries with Values Produced by Business Logic

    - by Lewis
    I have an NH query which returns a Product with a BasePrice. Depending on various other factors, such as Manufacturer price markup, I use a PricingService on the C# side of things to produce a "final" price. The issue is that I now need to query against this final value - i.e., I need to run a query that selects Products within a particular "final" price range. I'm thinking that my approach to this is all wrong, but I really didn't want to put the logic of the final price calculation in a SQL function or something like that, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Should I use a huge composite primary key or just a unique id?

    - by Jack
    I have been trying to do web scraping of a particular site and storing the results in a database. My original assumptions about the data allowed a schema where I could use fairly reasonable composite primary keys (usually containing only 2 or 3 fields) but as time went on, I realized that my original assumptions about the data were wrong and my primary keys were not as unique as I thought they were, so I have slowly been expanding them to contain more and more fields. In fact, I have recently come to believe that their database has no constraints whatsoever. Just today, I have finally expanded my a primary key for one of my tables to contain every field in that table and I thought now would be a good time to ask: is it better to add an auto-incrementing column that is just a unique id or just leave a composite primary key on the entire table?

    Read the article

  • Is passing a struct value to a method by-reference in C# an acceptable optimization?

    - by Arc
    Say I have a struct: struct MyStruct { public int X public int Y } And a method in some class that is iterated over many times elsewhere: public bool MyMethod( MyStruct myStruct ) { return ... } Is changing the MyMethod signature to the following an acceptable optimization? public bool MyMethod( ref MyStruct myStruct ) If so, how much of an advantage would it really be? If not, about how many fields would a struct need for a big enough advantage using ref this way?

    Read the article

  • Is throwing an exception a healthy way to exit?

    - by ramaseshan
    I have a setup that looks like this. class Checker { // member data Results m_results; // see below public: bool Check(); private: bool Check1(); bool Check2(); // .. so on }; Checker is a class that performs lengthy check computations for engineering analysis. Each type of check has a resultant double that the checker stores. (see below) bool Checker::Check() { // initilisations etc. Check1(); Check2(); // ... so on } A typical Check function would look like this: bool Checker::Check1() { double result; // lots of code m_results.SetCheck1Result(result); } And the results class looks something like this: class Results { double m_check1Result; double m_check2Result; // ... public: void SetCheck1Result(double d); double GetOverallResult() { return max(m_check1Result, m_check2Result, ...); } }; Note: all code is oversimplified. The Checker and Result classes were initially written to perform all checks and return an overall double result. There is now a new requirement where I only need to know if any of the results exceeds 1. If it does, subsequent checks need not be carried out(it's an optimisation). To achieve this, I could either: Modify every CheckN function to keep check for result and return. The parent Check function would keep checking m_results. OR In the Results::SetCheckNResults(), throw an exception if the value exceeds 1 and catch it at the end of Checker::Check(). The first is tedious, error prone and sub-optimal because every CheckN function further branches out into sub-checks etc. The second is non-intrusive and quick. One disadvantage is I can think of is that the Checker code may not necessarily be exception-safe(although there is no other exception being thrown anywhere else). Is there anything else that's obvious that I'm overlooking? What about the cost of throwing exceptions and stack unwinding? Is there a better 3rd option?

    Read the article

  • Changes to data inside class not being shown when accessed from outside class.

    - by Hypatia
    I have two classes, Car and Person. Car has as one of its members an instance of Person, driver. I want to move a car, while keeping track of its location, and also move the driver inside the car and get its location. However, while this works from inside the class (I have printed out the values as they are calculated), when I try to access the data from main, there's nothing there. I.e. the array position[] ends up empty. I am wondering if there is something wrong with the way I have set up the classes -- could it be a problem of the scope of the object? I have tried simplifying the code so that I only give what is necessary. Hopefully that covers everything that you would need to see. The constructer Car() fills the offset array of driver with nonzero values. class Car{ public: Container(float=0,float=0,float=0); ~Container(); void move(float); void getPosition(float[]); void getDriverPosition(float[]); private: float position[3]; Person driver; float heading; float velocity; }; class Person{ public: Person(float=0,float=0,float=0); ~Person(); void setOffset(float=0,float=0,float=0); void setPosition(float=0,float=0,float=0); void getOffset(float[]); void getPosition(float[]); private: float position[3]; float offset[3]; }; Some of the functions: void Car::move(float time){ float distance = velocity*time; location[0] += distance*cos(PI/2 - heading); location[1] += distance*sin(PI/2 - heading); float driverLocation [3]; float offset[3]; driver->getOffset(offset); for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++){ driverLocation[i] = offset[i] + location[i]; } } void Car::getDriverPosition(float p[]){ driver.getPosition(p); } void Person::getPosition(float p[]){ for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++){ p[i] = position[i]; } } void Person::getOffset(float o[]){ for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++){ o[i] = offset[i]; } } In Main: Car * car = new Car(); car->move(); float p[3]; car->getDriverPosition(p); When I print driverLocation[] inside the move() function, I have actual nonzero values. When I print p[] inside main, all I get are zeros.

    Read the article

  • Should i use TabContainer for multiple pages?

    - by Tim
    I'm considering if it is a good idea to use an ASP.Net TabContainer-Control in the way that every TabPanel contains content of a different page. For example: Next i want to implement in my application is the masterdata management. Normally i would create one aspx page for every masterdata-table (f.e. Customer - MD_Customer.aspx). Then i would add a link into my Menu to this page. Now i'm thinking of creating one aspx page for all(Masterdata.aspx) with a Tabcontainer and an UpdatePanel for every type of Masterdata. The link it the menu could have an additional MDType as URL-Parameter. My main concerns are related to performance(one "page" for every TabPanel currently means 7 "pages" in one) and maintainability because of increasing complexity. Is it a good approach or a bad idea? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to handle modules that use each other?

    - by Axeman
    What's the best way to handle modules that use each other? Let's say I have a module which has functions for hashes: # Really::Useful::Functions::On::Hash.pm use base qw<Exporter>; use strict; use warnings; use Really::Useful::Functions::On::List qw<transform_list>; our @EXPORT_OK = qw<transform_hash transform_hash_as_list ...>; #... sub transform_hash { ... } #... sub transform_hash_as_list { return transform_list( %{ shift() } ); } #... 1 And another module has been segmented out for lists: # Really::Useful::Functions::On::List.pm use base qw<Exporter>; use strict; use warnings; use Really::Useful::Functions::On::Hash qw<transform_hash>; our @EXPORT_OK = qw<transform_list some_func ...>; #... sub transform_list { ... } #... sub some_func { my %params = transform_hash @_; #... } #... 1 Suppose that enough of these utility functions are handy enough that I'll want to use them in BEGIN statements and import functions to process parameter lists or configuration data. I have been putting sub definitions into BEGIN blocks to make sure they are ready to use whenever somebody includes the module. But I have gotten into hairy race conditions where a definition is not completed in a BEGIN block. I put evolving code idioms into modules so that I can reuse any idiom I find myself coding over and over again. For instance: sub list_if { my $condition = shift; return unless $condition; my $more_args = scalar @_; my $arg_list = @_ > 1 ? \@_ : @_ ? shift : $condition; if (( reftype( $arg_list ) || '' ) eq 'ARRAY' ) { return wantarray ? @$arg_list : $arg_list; } elsif ( $more_args ) { return $arg_list; } return; } captures two idioms that I'm kind of tired of typing: @{ func_I_hope_returns_a_listref() || [] } and ( $condition ? LIST : ()) The more I define functions in BEGIN blocks, the more likely I'll use these idiom bricks to express the logic the more likely that bricks are needed in BEGIN blocks. Do people have standard ways of dealing with this sort of language-idiom-brick model? I've been doing mostly Pure-Perl; will XS alleviate some of this?

    Read the article

  • Tags php improving database speed and user experience

    - by Doodle
    How did stackOverFlow, excuse me if it wasn't the first implementation of this system. Decide what its initial tags where? I want to provide users with the best experience on my site and am implementing a tags system. I don't care about search engines or any of that. I just care about my users. Does any one have any advice about things that have failed or succeeded when they allowed users to tag things? Does any one know some good resources about the methodologies of user tagging? Does any one know some good resources about implementing a tags system from a programming perspective, database structures, theories, etc ? I'll give my check to who ever I feel points me in the best direction on the subject.

    Read the article

  • What is the fastest language? [closed]

    - by Murtez
    I'm looking to make a site with a database, user accounts, and possibly more later on (subscriptions, bidding, payment, any any possible # of upgrades). Website speed is VERY important, what is the fastest secure language / method to make it in?

    Read the article

  • Mocking a namespace in a partial class.

    - by Nix
    I am messing around with Entity Framework 3.5 SP1 and I am trying to find a cleaner way to do the below. Basically I have an EF model and I am adding some Eager Loaded entities and i want to put them in the partial class context Eager namespace. Currently I am using composition but I feel like there is an easier way to do what I want. namespace Entities{ public partial class TestObjectContext { EagerExtensions Eager { get;set;} public TestObjectContext(){ Eager = new EagerExtensions (this); } } public partial class EagerExtensions { TestObjectContext context; public EagerExtensions(TestObjectContext _context){ context = _context; } public IQueryable<TestEntity> TestEntity { get { return context.TestEntity .Include("TestEntityType") .Include("Test.Attached.AttachedType") .AsQueryable(); } } } } public class Tester{ public void ShowHowIWantIt(){ TestObjectContext context= new TestObjectContext(); var query = from a in context.Eager.TestEntity select a; } }

    Read the article

  • How to construct objects based on XML code?

    - by the_drow
    I have XML files that are representation of a portion of HTML code. Those XML files also have widget declarations. Example XML file: <message id="msg"> <p> <Widget name="foo" type="SomeComplexWidget" attribute="value"> inner text here, sets another attribute or inserts another widget to the tree if needed... </Widget> </p> </message> I have a main Widget class that all of my widgets inherit from. The question is how would I create it? Here are my options: Create a compile time tool that will parse the XML file and create the necessary code to bind the widgets to the needed objects. Advantages: No extra run-time overhead induced to the system. It's easy to bind setters. Disadvantages: Adds another step to the build chain. Hard to maintain as every widget in the system should be added to the parser. Use of macros to bind the widgets. Complex code Find a method to register all widgets into a factory automatically. Advantages: All of the binding is done completely automatically. Easier to maintain then option 1 as every new widget will only need to call a WidgetFactory method that registers it. Disadvantages: No idea how to bind setters without introducing a maintainability nightmare. Adds memory and run-time overhead. Complex code What do you think is better? Can you guys suggest a better solution?

    Read the article

  • Why is there "data" and "newtype" in Haskell?

    - by martingw
    To me it seems that a newtype definition is just a data definition that obeys some restrictions (only one constructor and such), and that due to these restrictions the runtime system can handle newtypes more efficiently. Ok, and the handling of pattern matching for undefined values is slightly different. But suppose Haskell would only knew data definitions, no newtypes: Couldn't the compiler find out for himself whether a given data definition obeys these restrictions, and automatically treat it more efficiently? I'm sure I'm missing out on something, these Haskell designers are so clever, there must be some deeper reason for this...

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260  | Next Page >