Search Results

Search found 25564 results on 1023 pages for 'design studio'.

Page 259/1023 | < Previous Page | 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266  | Next Page >

  • Trying to find a recent - PHP book - that utilizes SOLID principles! [closed]

    - by darga33
    Pulling my hair out! I have heard of Martin Fowler's book PoEAA and the other book Head First OOA OOD but those are not in PHP. I desperately want to read them, but ONLY in PHP utilizing the - SOLID acronym - principles! Does anyone know of the absolute best, most recent PHP book that utilizes the SOLID principles and GRASP, and all the other best practices? I want to learn from the best possible source! Not beginner books! I already understand OOP. This seems like an almost impossible question to find the answer to and so I thought, hey, might as well post on stackexchange!! Surely someone out there must know!!!!!!!!!! Or if noone happens to know, Maybe they know of an open source application that utilizes these principles that is relatively small that is not a framework. Something that I can go through every single class, and spend time understanding the insides and outs of how the program was developed. Thanks so much in advance! I really really really really appreciate it! Well it looks like we aren't supposed to ask about best books, so nevermind this question! Sorry about that!

    Read the article

  • Inheritance vs composition in this example

    - by Gerenuk
    I'm wondering about the differences between inheritance and composition examined with concrete code relevant arguments. In particular my example was Inheritance: class Do: def do(self): self.doA() self.doB() def doA(self): pass def doB(self): pass class MyDo(Do): def doA(self): print("A") def doB(self): print("B") x=MyDo() vs Composition: class Do: def __init__(self, a, b): self.a=a self.b=b def do(self): self.a.do() self.b.do() x=Do(DoA(), DoB()) (Note for composition I'm missing code so it's not actually shorter) Can you name particular advantages of one or the other? I'm think of: composition is useful if you plan to reuse DoA() in another context inheritance seems easier; no additional references/variables/initialization method doA can access internal variable (be it a good or bad thing :) ) inheritance groups logic A and B together; even though you could equally introduce a grouped delegate object inheritance provides a preset class for the users; with composition you'd have to encapsule the initialization in a factory so that the user does have to assemble the logic and the skeleton ... Basically I'd like to examine the implications of inheritance vs composition. I heard often composition is prefered, but I'd like to understand that by example. Of course I can always start with one and refactor later to the other.

    Read the article

  • What makes games responsive to user input?

    - by zaftcoAgeiha
    Many games have been praised for its responsive gameplay, where each user action input correspond to a quick and precise character movement (eg: super meat boy, shank...) What makes those games responsive? and what prevents other games from achieving the same? How much of it is due to the game framework used to queue mouse/keyboard events and render/update the game and how much is attributed to better coding?

    Read the article

  • What should a game have in order to keep humans playing it?

    - by Adam Davis
    In many entertainment professions there suggestions, loose rules, or general frameworks one follows that appeal to humans in one way or another. For instance, many movies and books follow the monomyth. In video games I find many types of games that attract people in different ways. Some are addicted to facebook gem matching games. Others can't get enough of FPS games. Once in awhile, though, you find a game that seems to transcend stereotypes and appeals almost immediately to everyone that plays it. For instance, Plants Versus Zombies seems to have a very, very large demographic of players. There are other games similar in reach. I'm curious what books, blogs, etc there are that explore these game types and styles, and tries to suss out one or more popular frameworks/styles that satisfy people, while keeping them coming back for more.

    Read the article

  • Constructor should generally not call methods

    - by Stefano Borini
    I described to a colleague why a constructor calling a method can be an antipattern. example (in my rusty C++) class C { public : C(int foo); void setFoo(int foo); private: int foo; } C::C(int foo) { setFoo(foo); } void C::setFoo(int foo) { this->foo = foo } I would like to motivate better this fact through your additional contribute. If you have examples, book references, blog pages, or names of principles, they would be very welcome. Edit: I'm talking in general, but we are coding in python.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to make an iterator that is aware of its own end

    - by aaronman
    For some background of why I am asking this question here is an example. In python the method chain chains an arbitrary number of ranges together and makes them into one without making copies. Here is a link in case you don't understand it. I decided I would implement chain in c++ using variadic templates. As far as I can tell the only way to make an iterator for chain that will successfully go to the next container is for each iterator to to know about the end of the container (I thought of a sort of hack in where when != is called against the end it will know to go to the next container, but the first way seemed easier and safer and more versatile). My question is if there is anything inherently wrong with an iterator knowing about its own end, my code is in c++ but this can be language agnostic since many languages have iterators. #ifndef CHAIN_HPP #define CHAIN_HPP #include "iterator_range.hpp" namespace iter { template <typename ... Containers> struct chain_iter; template <typename Container> struct chain_iter<Container> { private: using Iterator = decltype(((Container*)nullptr)->begin()); Iterator begin; const Iterator end;//never really used but kept it for consistency public: chain_iter(Container & container, bool is_end=false) : begin(container.begin()),end(container.end()) { if(is_end) begin = container.end(); } chain_iter & operator++() { ++begin; return *this; } auto operator*()->decltype(*begin) { return *begin; } bool operator!=(const chain_iter & rhs) const{ return this->begin != rhs.begin; } }; template <typename Container, typename ... Containers> struct chain_iter<Container,Containers...> { private: using Iterator = decltype(((Container*)nullptr)->begin()); Iterator begin; const Iterator end; bool end_reached = false; chain_iter<Containers...> next_iter; public: chain_iter(Container & container, Containers& ... rest, bool is_end=false) : begin(container.begin()), end(container.end()), next_iter(rest...,is_end) { if(is_end) begin = container.end(); } chain_iter & operator++() { if (begin == end) { ++next_iter; } else { ++begin; } return *this; } auto operator*()->decltype(*begin) { if (begin == end) { return *next_iter; } else { return *begin; } } bool operator !=(const chain_iter & rhs) const { if (begin == end) { return this->next_iter != rhs.next_iter; } else return this->begin != rhs.begin; } }; template <typename ... Containers> iterator_range<chain_iter<Containers...>> chain(Containers& ... containers) { auto begin = chain_iter<Containers...>(containers...); auto end = chain_iter<Containers...>(containers...,true); return iterator_range<chain_iter<Containers...>>(begin,end); } } #endif //CHAIN_HPP

    Read the article

  • can you have too many dto/bo - mapping method

    - by Fredou
    I have a windows service, 2 web services and a web interface that need to follow the same path (data wise). So I came up with two ways of creating my solution. My concern is the fact that the UI/WS/etc will have their own kind of DTO (let's say the model in ASP.Net MVC) that should be mapped to a DTO so the SL can then map it to a BO then mapping it to the proper EF6 DTO so that I can save it in a database. So I'm thinking of doing it this way to remove one level of mapping. Which one should I take? Or is there a 3rd solution?

    Read the article

  • Code Smell: Inheritance Abuse

    - by dsimcha
    It's been generally accepted in the OO community that one should "favor composition over inheritance". On the other hand, inheritance does provide both polymorphism and a straightforward, terse way of delegating everything to a base class unless explicitly overridden and is therefore extremely convenient and useful. Delegation can often (though not always) be verbose and brittle. The most obvious and IMHO surest sign of inheritance abuse is violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle. What are some other signs that inheritance is The Wrong Tool for the Job even if it seems convenient?

    Read the article

  • Philosophy behind the memento pattern

    - by TheSilverBullet
    I have been reading up on memento pattern from various sources of the internet. Differing information from different sources has left me in confusion regarding why this pattern is actually needed. The dofactory implementation says that the primary intention of this pattern is to restore the state of the system. Wiki says that the primary intention is to be able to restore the changes on the system. This gives a different impact - saying that it is possible for a system to have memento implementation with no need to restore. And that ability of restore is a feature of this. OODesign says that It is sometimes necessary to capture the internal state of an object at some point and have the ability to restore the object to that state later in time. Such a case is useful in case of error or failure. So, my question is why exactly do we use this one? Is it to save previous states - or to promote encapsulation between the Caretaker and the Memento? Why is this type of encapsulation so important? Edit: For those visiting, check out this Implementation!

    Read the article

  • When would you want two references to the same object?

    - by HCBPshenanigans
    In Java specifically, but likely in other languages as well; When would it be useful to have two references to the same object? Example: Dog a = new Dog(); Dob b = a; Is there a situation where this would be useful? Why would this be a preferred solution to using a whenever you want to interact with the object represented by a? Edit: Can I just say that all of your dog related examples are Delightful!

    Read the article

  • Debugging a Broken Stylesheet: CSS Background Disappears when Scroll Off Bottom of Screen

    - by nannette
    I recently worked on an existing project where we decided to add a background to the site. Whether this is a background color or background image, the same problem occured. The problem was that the background loaded fine in the screen. But when the user used the scrollbar to scroll below the bottom edge of the screen, the background immediately turned white. The footer panel was colorized as desired, but the background just disappeared. I'm going to provide my debugging steps so you can learn how...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Architecture Best Practice (MVC): Repository Returns Object & Object Member Accessed Directly or Repository Returns Object Member

    - by coderabbi
    Architecturally speaking, which is the preferable approach (and why)? $validation_date = $users_repository->getUser($user_id)->validation_date; Seems to violate Law of Demeter by accessing member of object returned by method call Seems to violate Encapsulation by accessing object member directly $validation_date = $users_repository->getUserValidationDate($user_id); Seems to violate Single Responsibility Principle as $users_repository no longer just returns User objects

    Read the article

  • Updating an Entity through a Service

    - by GeorgeK
    I'm separating my software into three main layers (maybe tiers would be a better term): Presentation ('Views') Business logic ('Services' and 'Repositories') Data access ('Entities' (e.g. ActiveRecords)) What do I have now? In Presentation, I use read-only access to Entities, returned from Repositories or Services, to display data. $banks = $banksRegistryService->getBanksRepository()->getBanksByCity( $city ); $banksViewModel = new PaginatedList( $banks ); // some way to display banks; // example, not real code I find this approach quite efficient in terms of performance and code maintanability and still safe as long as all write operations (create, update, delete) are preformed through a Service: namespace Service\BankRegistry; use Service\AbstractDatabaseService; use Service\IBankRegistryService; use Model\BankRegistry\Bank; class Service extends AbstractDatabaseService implements IBankRegistryService { /** * Registers a new Bank * * @param string $name Bank's name * @param string $bik Bank's Identification Code * @param string $correspondent_account Bank's correspondent account * * @return Bank */ public function registerBank( $name, $bik, $correspondent_account ) { $bank = new Bank(); $bank -> setName( $name ) -> setBik( $bik ) -> setCorrespondentAccount( $correspondent_account ); if( null === $this->getBanksRepository()->getDefaultBank() ) $this->setDefaultBank( $bank ); $this->getEntityManager()->persist( $bank ); return $bank; } /** * Makes the $bank system's default bank * * @param Bank $bank * @return IBankRegistryService */ public function setDefaultBank( Bank $bank ) { $default_bank = $this->getBanksRepository()->getDefaultBank(); if( null !== $default_bank ) $default_bank->setDefault( false ); $bank->setDefault( true ); return $this; } } Where am I stuck? I'm struggling about how to update certain fields in Bank Entity. Bad solution #1: Making a series of setters in Service for each setter in Bank; - seems to be quite reduntant, increases Service interface complexity and proportionally decreases it's simplicity - something to avoid if you care about code maitainability. I try to follow KISS and DRY principles. Bad solution #2: Modifying Bank directly through it's native setters; - really bad. If you'll ever need to move modification into the Service, it will be pain. Business logic should remain in Business logic layer. Plus, there are plans on logging all of the actions and maybe even involve user permissions (perhaps, through decorators) in future, so all modifications should be made only through the Service. Possible good solution: Creating an updateBank( Bank $bank, $array_of_fields_to_update) method; - makes the interface as simple as possible, but there is a problem: one should not try to manually set isDefault flag on a Bank, this operation should be performed through setDefaultBank method. It gets even worse when you have relations that you don't want to be directly modified. Of course, you can just limit the fields that can be modified by this method, but how do you tell method's user what they can and cannot modify? Exceptions?

    Read the article

  • Looping 3D environment in shmups

    - by kamziro
    So I was watching Ikaruga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj23K8Ri68E And then raystorm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ4V0G5ykAg After looking at their 3D backgrounds for a little bit, it appears that they use a lot of repeated segments. How would one start with the development with such systems? Would there be editors that can be used (or at least help) with creating the environments? Perhaps a 3D map with splines describing the path of the ship, as well as events on the splines?

    Read the article

  • Sitecore Item Web API and Json.Net Test Drive (Part II –Strongly Typed)

    - by jonel
    In the earlier post I did related to this topic, I have talked about using Json.Net to consume the result of Sitecore Item Web API. In that post, I have used the keyword dynamic to express my intention of consuming the returned json of the API. In this article, I will create some useful classes to write our implementation of consuming the API using strongly-typed. We will start of with the Record class which will hold the top most elements the API will present us. Pretty straight forward class. It has 2 properties to hold the statuscode and the result elements. If you intend to use a different property name in your class from the json property, you can do so by passing a string literal of the json property name to the JsonProperty attribute and name your class property differently. If you look at the earlier post, you will notice that the API returns an array of items that contains all of the Sitecore content item or items and stores them under the result->items array element. To be able to map that array of items, we have to write a collection property and decorate that with the JsonProperty attribute. The JsonItem class is a simple class which will map to the corresponding item property contained in the array. If you notice, these properties are just the basic Sitecore fields. And here’s the main portion of this post that will binds them all together. And here’s the output of this code. In closing, the same result can be achieved using the dynamic keyword or defining classes to map the json propery returned by the Sitecore Item Web API. With a little bit more of coding, you can take advantage of power of strongly-typed solution. Have a good week ahead of you.

    Read the article

  • Desktop application, dependency injection

    - by liori
    I am thinking of applying a real dependency injection library to my toy C#/GTK# desktop application. I chose NInject, but I think this is irrelevant to my question. There is a database object, a main window and several utility window classes. It's clear that I can inject the database into every window object, so here DI is useful. But does it make sense to inject utility window classes into other window classes? Example: I have classes such as: class MainWindow {…} class AddItemWindow {…} class AddAttachmentWindow {…} class BrowseItemsWindow {…} class QueryBuilderWindow {…} class QueryBrowserWindow {…} class PreferencesWindow {…} … Each of the utility classes can be opened from MainWindow. Some utility windows can also be opened from other utility windows. Generally, there might be a really complex graph of who can open whom. So each of those classes might need quite a lot of other window classes injected. I'm worried that such usage will go against the suggestion not to inject too many classes at once and become a code smell. Should I use some kind of a service locator object here?

    Read the article

  • Use Case Diagrams - should I create a diagram just for a view business rule?

    - by Periback
    I'm modeling a UCD where I have two actors ( a content producer and a developer).. the content producer is going to create and specify details of a storyboard functionality, and the other actor (developer) will only be able to view this storyboard ( he'll log in the application and read the storyboard to start developing what it says, outside the application..) I'm working on the specification of this storyboard functionality and I'd like to know it would be like a best-practice if I describe something like " actor- developer", "UCD - read scenes of storyboard" . This is the specification of an application I developed for my thesis and they asked me to add some specification...

    Read the article

  • How URL Redirection affects SEO?

    - by Costa
    The following paragraph is from SEO Google Guide Google is good at crawling all types of URL structures, even if they're quite complex, but spending the time to make your URLs as simple as possible for both users and search engines can help. Some webmasters try to achieve this by rewriting their dynamic URLs to static ones; while Google is fine with this, we'd like to note that this is an advanced procedure and if done incorrectly, could cause crawling issues with your site. What makes URL re-writing implementation incorrect for GoogleBot? I am using Asp.net 3.5 framework. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to properly URL/domain forward

    - by NRGdallas
    No clue on a title for this, someone feel free to suggest an edit. I have a client that has a website. He owns around 200 domains, and wants each domain to contain content from the main website. The header, footer, and navigation bars will remain the same for each domain, but the actual page content will vary (obviously duplicate content issues, open to suggestions) He wants each individual page to be its own separate domain, rather than a url within the main domain. (page1.com page2.com etc - NOT site.com/page1.html, however the file is actually hosted at site.com/page1.html - all links will direct to site.com/whatever accordingly) What would be the best place to start reading / learning on how to do this, and what concerns/considerations should be taken into mind?

    Read the article

  • What cars on roads game engines are there?

    - by David Thielen
    What game engines are there that support laying out a map of roads and handle vehicle movement on the roads. Something similar to the basic functionality in Transport Tycoon/Locomotion. I don't care about looks (although prettier is better) and top down or isometric is fine. I just need a simple way to create maps and move cars on it. And preferably the cars do take time to speed up and slow down as they go from stopped to full speed. Prefer in Windows (any API in Windows). I also prefer a free engine as this is just for internal use. I have found CarDriving 2D - does anyone know if it works well?

    Read the article

  • Which is a better practice - helper methods as instance or static?

    - by Ilian Pinzon
    This question is subjective but I was just curious how most programmers approach this. The sample below is in pseudo-C# but this should apply to Java, C++, and other OOP languages as well. Anyway, when writing helper methods in my classes, I tend to declare them as static and just pass the fields if the helper method needs them. For example, given the code below, I prefer to use Method Call #2. class Foo { Bar _bar; public void DoSomethingWithBar() { // Method Call #1. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(); // Method Call #2. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(_bar); } private void DoSomethingWithBarImpl() { _bar.DoSomething(); } private static void DoSomethingWithBarImpl(Bar bar) { bar.DoSomething(); } } My reason for doing this is that it makes it clear (to my eyes at least) that the helper method has a possible side-effect on other objects - even without reading its implementation. I find that I can quickly grok methods that use this practice and thus help me in debugging things. Which do you prefer to do in your own code and what are your reasons for doing so?

    Read the article

  • Service Layer - how broad should it be, and should it be used also on the local application?

    - by BornToCode
    Background: I need to build a main application with some operations (CRUD and more) (-in winforms), I need to make another application which will re-use some of the functions of the main application (-in webforms). I understood that using service layer is the best approach here. If I understood correctly the service should be calling the function on the BL layer (correct me if I'm wrong) The dilemma: In my main winform UI - should I call the functions from the BL, or from the service? (please explain why) Should I create a service for every single function on the BL even if I need some of the functions only in one UI? for example - should I create services for all the CRUD operations, even though I need to re-use only update operation in the webform? YOUR HELP IS MUCH APPRECIATED

    Read the article

  • Go/Obj-C style interfaces with ability to extend compiled objects after initial release

    - by Skrylar
    I have a conceptual model for an object system which involves combining Go/Obj-C interfaces/protocols with being able to add virtual methods from any unit, not just the one which defines a class. The idea of this is to allow Ruby-ish open classes so you can take a minimalist approach to library development, and attach on small pieces of functionality as is actually needed by the whole program. Implementation of this involves a table of methods marked virtual in an RTTI table, which system functions are allowed to add to during module initialization. Upon typecasting an object to an interface, a Go-style lookup is done to create a vtable for that particular mapping and pass it off so you can have comparable performance to C/C++. In this case, methods may be added /afterwards/ which were not previously known and these new methods allow newer interfaces to be satisfied; while I like this idea because it seems like it would be very flexible (disregarding the potential for spaghetti code, which can happen with just about any model you use regardless). By wrapping the system calls for binding methods up in a set of clean C-compatible calls, one would also be able to integrate code with shared libraries and retain a decent amount of performance (Go does not do shared linking, and Objective-C does a dynamic lookup on each call.) Is there a valid use-case for this model that would make it worth the extra background plumbing? As much as this Dylan-style extensibility would be nice to have access to, I can't quite bring myself to a use case that would justify the overhead other than "it could make some kinds of code more extensible in future scenarios."

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between all-static-methods and applying a singleton pattern?

    - by shahensha
    I am making a database to store information about the users of my website (I am using stuts2 and hence Java EE technology). For the database I'll be making a DBManager. Should I apply singleton pattern here or rather make all it's methods static? I will be using this DBManager for basic things like adding, deleting and updating User profiles. Along with it, I'll use for all other querying purposes, for instance to find out whether a username already exists and to get all users for administrative purposes and stuff like that. My questions What is the benefit of singleton pattern? Which thing is most apt here? All static methods or a singleton pattern? Please compare both of them. regards shahensha P.S. The database is bigger than this. Here I am talking only about the tables which I'll be using for storing User Information.

    Read the article

  • Algorithmic Forecasting and Pattern Recognition

    - by Ryan King
    Say a user could enter project data into my software. Each project has 2 variables "size" and "work" and they're related but the relationship is not known. Is there a way to programmatically determine the relationship between the variables based on previous data and forecast the amount of work provided if only given the size of the project in the future? For Example, say the user had manually entered the following projects. Project 1 - Size:1, Work: 4 Project 2 - Size:2, Work: 7 Project 3 - Size:3, Work: 10 Project 4 - Size:4, Work: x What should I look into to be able to programmatically determine, that Work = Size*3+1 and therefor be able to say that x=13?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266  | Next Page >