Search Results

Search found 44734 results on 1790 pages for 'model based design'.

Page 26/1790 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • How can you tell whether to use Composite Pattern or a Tree Structure, or a third implementation?

    - by Aske B.
    I have two client types, an "Observer"-type and a "Subject"-type. They're both associated with a hierarchy of groups. The Observer will receive (calendar) data from the groups it is associated with throughout the different hierarchies. This data is calculated by combining data from 'parent' groups of the group trying to collect data (each group can have only one parent). The Subject will be able to create the data (that the Observers will receive) in the groups they're associated with. When data is created in a group, all 'children' of the group will have the data as well, and they will be able to make their own version of a specific area of the data, but still linked to the original data created (in my specific implementation, the original data will contain time-period(s) and headline, while the subgroups specify the rest of the data for the receivers directly linked to their respective groups). However, when the Subject creates data, it has to check if all affected Observers have any data that conflicts with this, which means a huge recursive function, as far as I can understand. So I think this can be summed up to the fact that I need to be able to have a hierarchy that you can go up and down in, and some places be able to treat them as a whole (recursion, basically). Also, I'm not just aiming at a solution that works. I'm hoping to find a solution that is relatively easy to understand (architecture-wise at least) and also flexible enough to be able to easily receive additional functionality in the future. Is there a design pattern, or a good practice to go by, to solve this problem or similar hierarchy problems? EDIT: Here's the design I have: The "Phoenix"-class is named that way because I didn't think of an appropriate name yet. But besides this I need to be able to hide specific activities for specific observers, even though they are attached to them through the groups. A little Off-topic: Personally, I feel that I should be able to chop this problem down to smaller problems, but it escapes me how. I think it's because it involves multiple recursive functionalities that aren't associated with each other and different client types that needs to get information in different ways. I can't really wrap my head around it. If anyone can guide me in a direction of how to become better at encapsulating hierarchy problems, I'd be very glad to receive that as well.

    Read the article

  • Flags with deferred use

    - by Trenton Maki
    Let's say I have a system. In this system I have a number of operations I can do but all of these operations have to happen as a batch at a certain time, while calls to activate and deactivate these operations can come in at any time. To implement this, I could use flags like doOperation1 and doOperation2 but this seems like it would become difficult to maintain. Is there a design pattern, or something similar, that addresses this situation?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET. MVC2. Entity Framework. Cannot pass primary key value back from view to [HttpPost]

    - by Paul Connolly
    I pass a ViewModel (which contains a "Person" object) from the "EditPerson" controller action into the view. When posted back from the view, the ActionResult receives all of the Person properties except the ID (which it says is zero instead of say its real integer) Can anyone tell me why? The controllers look like this: public ActionResult EditPerson(int personID) { var personToEdit = repository.GetPerson(personID); FormationViewModel vm = new FormationViewModel(); vm.Person = personToEdit; return View(vm); } [HttpPost] public ActionResult EditPerson(FormationViewModel model) <<Passes in all properties except ID { // Persistence code } The View looks like this: <%@ Page Title="" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<Afp.Models.Formation.FormationViewModel>" %> <% using (Html.BeginForm()) {% <%= Html.ValidationSummary(true) % <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Title) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Title) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Title) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Forename)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Forename)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Forename)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Surname)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Surname)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Surname)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.DOB) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.DOB, String.Format("{0:g}", Model.DOB)) <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.DOB) %> </div>--%> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Nationality)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Nationality)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Nationality)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Occupation)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Occupation)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Occupation)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.CountryOfResidence)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.CountryOfResidence)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.CountryOfResidence)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.PreviousNameForename)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.PreviousNameForename)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.PreviousNameForename)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.PreviousSurname)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.PreviousSurname)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.PreviousSurname)%> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Person.Email)%> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Person.Email)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Person.Email)%> </div> <p> <input type="submit" value="Save" /> </p> </fieldset> <% } % And the Person class looks like: [MetadataType(typeof(Person_Validation))] public partial class Person { public Person() { } } [Bind(Exclude = "ID")] public class Person_Validation { public int ID { get; private set; } public string Title { get; set; } public string Forename { get; set; } public string Surname { get; set; } public System.DateTime DOB { get; set; } public string Nationality { get; set; } public string Occupation { get; set; } public string CountryOfResidence { get; set; } public string PreviousNameForename { get; set; } public string PreviousSurname { get; set; } public string Email { get; set; } } And ViewModel: public class FormationViewModel { public Company Company { get; set; } public Address RegisteredAddress { get; set; } public Person Person { get; set; } public PersonType PersonType { get; set; } public int CurrentStep { get; set; } } }

    Read the article

  • Associating an Object with other Objects and Properties of those Objects

    - by alzoid
    I am looking for some help with designing some functionality in my application. I already have something similar designed but this problem is a little different. Background: In my application we have different Modules. Data in each module can be associated to other modules. Each Module is represented by an Object in our application. Module 1 can be associated with Module 2 and Module 3. Currently I use a factory to provide the proper DAO for getting and saving this data. It looks something like this: class Module1Factory { public static Module1BridgeDAO createModule1BridgeDAO(int moduleid) { switch (moduleId) { case Module.Module2Id: return new Module1_Module2DAO(); case Module.Module3Id: return new Module1_Module3DAO(); default: return null; } } } Module1_Module2 and Module1_Module3 implement the same BridgeModule interface. In the database I have a Table for every module (Module1, Module2, Module3). I also have a bridge table for each module (they are many to many) Module1_Module2, Module1_Module3 etc. The DAO basically handles all code needed to manage the association and retrieve its own instance data for the calling module. Now when we add new modules that associate with Module1 we simply implement the ModuleBridge interface and provide the common functionality. New Development We are adding a new module that will have the ability to be associated with other Modules as well as specific properties of that module. The module is basically providing the user the ability to add their custom forms to our other modules. That way they can collect additional information along with what we provide. I want to start associating my Form module with other modules and their properties. Ie if Module1 has a property Category, I want to associate an instance From data with that property. There are many Forms. If a users creates an instance of Module2, they may always want to also have certain form(s) attached to that Module2 instance. If they create an instance of Module2 and select Category 1, then I may want additional Form(s) created. I prototyped something like this: Form FormLayout (contains the labels and gui controls) FormModule (associates a form with all instances of a module) Form Instance (create an instance of a form to be filled out) As I thought about it I was thinking about making a new FormModule table/class/dao for each Module and Property that I add. So I might have: FormModule1 FormModule1Property1 FormModule1Property2 FormModule1Property3 FormModule1Property4 FormModule2 FormModule3 FormModule3Property1 Then as I did previously, I would use a factory to get the proper DAO for dealing with all of these. I would hand it an array of ids representing different modules and properties and it would return all of the DAOs that I need to call getForms(). Which in turn would return all of the forms for that particular bridge. Some points This will be for a new module so I dont need to expand on the factory code I provided. I just wanted to show an example of what I have done in the past. The new module can be associated with: Other Modules (ie globally for any instance of that module data), Other module properties (ie only if the Module instance has a certian value in one of its properties) I want to make it easy for developers to add associations with other modules and properties easily Can any one suggest any design patterns or strategy's for achieving this? If anything is unclear please let me know. Thank you, Al

    Read the article

  • PC only boots from Linux-based media and won't boot from DOS-based media

    - by xolstice
    I have this problem where the PC only seems to boot from a floppy disk or CD if it was created as a Linux-based bootable media. If it was created as a DOS-based bootable media the system just freezes at the starting point of the boot process. I originally asked this under question 139515 for CD booting only, and based on the given answers, I was under the impression the problem was with the CD-ROM drive; however, I have since installed a newly purchased CD-ROM drive and the same freezing occurs. This then made me try the DOS bootable floppy disk approach and I was quite surprised that it exhibited the same freezing problem. I then tried try a Linux bootable floppy and everything booted from it without any issues. As I mentioned in my original question, the PC was booting just fine from the DOS-based bootable CD, and then it suddenly decides to pull this freezing stunt. I can't remember if I changed anything in the BIOS settings that may I have caused the problem, but I am wondering if that could be the case - it is currently using the Award Module BIOS v4.60PGMA. Can anyone help?

    Read the article

  • PC only boots from Linux-based media and won't boot from DOS-based media

    - by Xolstice
    I have this problem where the PC only seems to boot from a floppy disk or CD if it was created as a Linux-based bootable media. If it was created as a DOS-based bootable media the system just freezes at the starting point of the boot process. I originally asked this under question 139515 for CD booting only, and based on the given answers, I was under the impression the problem was with the CD-ROM drive; however, I have since installed a newly purchased CD-ROM drive and the same freezing occurs. This then made me try the DOS bootable floppy disk approach and I was quite surprised that it exhibited the same freezing problem. I then tried try a Linux bootable floppy and everything booted from it without any issues. As I mentioned in my original question, the PC was booting just fine from the DOS-based bootable CD, and then it suddenly decides to pull this freezing stunt. I can't remember if I changed anything in the BIOS settings that may I have caused the problem, but I am wondering if that could be the case - it is currently using the Award Module BIOS v4.60PGMA. Can anyone help?

    Read the article

  • Design Question - how do you break the dependency between classes using an interface?

    - by Seth Spearman
    Hello, I apologize in advance but this will be a long question. I'm stuck. I am trying to learn unit testing, C#, and design patterns - all at once. (Maybe that's my problem.) As such I am reading the Art of Unit Testing (Osherove), and Clean Code (Martin), and Head First Design Patterns (O'Reilly). I am just now beginning to understand delegates and events (which you would see if you were to troll my SO questions of recent). I still don't quite get lambdas. To contextualize all of this I have given myself a learning project I am calling goAlarms. I have an Alarm class with members you'd expect (NextAlarmTime, Name, AlarmGroup, Event Trigger etc.) I wanted the "Timer" of the alarm to be extensible so I created an IAlarmScheduler interface as follows... public interface AlarmScheduler { Dictionary<string,Alarm> AlarmList { get; } void Startup(); void Shutdown(); void AddTrigger(string triggerName, string groupName, Alarm alarm); void RemoveTrigger(string triggerName); void PauseTrigger(string triggerName); void ResumeTrigger(string triggerName); void PauseTriggerGroup(string groupName); void ResumeTriggerGroup(string groupName); void SetSnoozeTrigger(string triggerName, int duration); void SetNextOccurrence (string triggerName, DateTime nextOccurrence); } This IAlarmScheduler interface define a component that will RAISE an alarm (Trigger) which will bubble up to my Alarm class and raise the Trigger Event of the alarm itself. It is essentially the "Timer" component. I have found that the Quartz.net component is perfectly suited for this so I have created a QuartzAlarmScheduler class which implements IAlarmScheduler. All that is fine. My problem is that the Alarm class is abstract and I want to create a lot of different KINDS of alarm. For example, I already have a Heartbeat alarm (triggered every (int) interval of minutes), AppointmentAlarm (triggered on set date and time), Daily Alarm (triggered every day at X) and perhaps others. And Quartz.NET is perfectly suited to handle this. My problem is a design problem. I want to be able to instantiate an alarm of any kind without my Alarm class (or any derived classes) knowing anything about Quartz. The problem is that Quartz has awesome factories that return just the right setup for the Triggers that will be needed by my Alarm classes. So, for example, I can get a Quartz trigger by using TriggerUtils.MakeMinutelyTrigger to create a trigger for the heartbeat alarm described above. Or TriggerUtils.MakeDailyTrigger for the daily alarm. I guess I could sum it up this way. Indirectly or directly I want my alarm classes to be able to consume the TriggerUtils.Make* classes without knowing anything about them. I know that is a contradiction, but that is why I am asking the question. I thought about putting a delegate field into the alarm which would be assigned one of these Make method but by doing that I am creating a hard dependency between alarm and Quartz which I want to avoid for both unit testing purposes and design purposes. I thought of using a switch for the type in QuartzAlarmScheduler per here but I know it is bad design and I am trying to learn good design. If I may editorialize a bit. I've decided that coding (predefined) classes is easy. Design is HARD...in fact, really hard and I am really fighting feeling stupid right now. I guess I want to know if you really smart people took a while to really understand and master this stuff or should I feel stupid (as I do) because I haven't grasped it better in the couple of weeks/months I have been studying. You guys are awesome and thanks in advance for your answers. Seth

    Read the article

  • Doctrine: Relating a model to itself using a link table, like "This event is related to to the following other events"

    - by mattalexx
    So in English, the relationship would sound like "This event is related to to the following other events". My first instinct is to create an EventEvent model, with a first_event_id field and a second_event_id field. Then I would define the following two relationships in the Event model: $this->hasMany('Event as FirstRelatedEvents', array('local' => 'first_event_id', 'foreign' => 'second_event_id', 'refClass' => 'EventEvent')); $this->hasMany('Event as SecondRelatedEvents', array('local' => 'second_event_id', 'foreign' => 'first_event_id', 'refClass' => 'EventEvent')); But I would rather not have to use two relationships on the Event model. Is there a better way to do this?

    Read the article

  • DB Design Pattern - Many to many classification / categorised tagging.

    - by Robin Day
    I have an existing database design that stores Job Vacancies. The "Vacancy" table has a number of fixed fields across all clients, such as "Title", "Description", "Salary range". There is an EAV design for "Custom" fields that the Clients can setup themselves, such as, "Manager Name", "Working Hours". The field names are stored in a "ClientText" table and the data stored in a "VacancyClientText" table with VacancyId, ClientTextId and Value. Lastly there is a many to many EAV design for custom tagging / categorising the vacancies with things such as Locations/Offices the vacancy is in, a list of skills required. This is stored as a "ClientCategory" table listing the types of tag, "Locations, Skills", a "ClientCategoryItem" table listing the valid values for each Category, e.g., "London,Paris,New York,Rome", "C#,VB,PHP,Python". Finally there is a "VacancyClientCategoryItem" table with VacancyId and ClientCategoryItemId for each of the selected items for the vacancy. There are no limits to the number of custom fields or custom categories that the client can add. I am now designing a new system that is very similar to the existing system, however, I have the ability to restrict the number of custom fields a Client can have and it's being built from scratch so I have no legacy issues to deal with. For the Custom Fields my solution is simple, I have 5 additional columns on the Vacancy Table called CustomField1-5. This removes one of the EAV designs. It is with the tagging / categorising design that I am struggling. If I limit a client to having 5 categories / types of tag. Should I create 5 tables listing the possible values "CustomCategoryItems1-5" and then an additional 5 many to many tables "VacancyCustomCategoryItem1-5" This would result in 10 tables performing the same storage as the three tables in the existing system. Also, should (heaven forbid) the requirements change in that I need 6 custom categories rather than 5 then this will result in a lot of code change. Therefore, can anyone suggest any DB Design Patterns that would be more suitable to storing such data. I'm happy to stick with the EAV approach, however, the existing system has come across all the usual performance issues and complex queries associated with such a design. Any advice / suggestions are much appreciated. The DBMS system used is SQL Server 2005, however, 2008 is an option if required for any particular pattern.

    Read the article

  • Why is good UI design so hard for some Developers?

    - by Chris Ballance
    Some of us just have a hard time with the softer aspects of UI design (myself especially). Are "back-end coders" doomed to only design business logic and data layers? Is there something we can do to retrain our brain to be more effective at designing pleasing and useful presentation layers? Colleagues have recommended a few books me including The Design of Sites, Don't make me think and Why Software sucks , but I am wondering what others have done to remove their deficiencies in this area?

    Read the article

  • how good should a developer be in design and animation?

    - by scatman
    how good should a developer (especially web developer) be in design and animation? should he know how to create flash animations? how to use image processing programs like photoshop.... i am asking this question because i am a computer science student, and all my courses are programming related (no courses about design). when i develop a web application i usually use "wizards" for animation coz i suck at design...

    Read the article

  • What design patters are the worst or most narrowly defined?

    - by Akku
    For every programming project, Managers with past programming experience try to shine when they recommend some design patterns for your project. I like design patterns when they make sense or if you need a scalbale solution. I've used Proxies, Observers and Command patterns in a positive way for example, and do so every day. But I'm really hesitant to use say a Factory pattern if there's only one way to create an object, as a factory might make it all easier in the future, but complicates the code and is pure overhead. So, my question is in respect to my future career and my answer to manager types throwing random pattern-names around: Which design patterns did you use, that threw you back overall? Which are the worst design patterns, that you shouldn't have a look at if it's not that only single situation where it makes sense (read: which design patterns are very narrowly defined)? (It's like I was looking for the negative reviews of an overall good product of amazon to see what bugged people most in using design patterns). And I'm not talking about Anti-Patterns here, but about Patterns that are usually thought of as "good" patterns.

    Read the article

  • What design patterns are the worst or most narrowly defined?

    - by Akku
    For every programming project, Managers with past programming experience try to shine when they recommend some design patterns for your project. I like design patterns when they make sense or if you need a scalbale solution. I've used Proxies, Observers and Command patterns in a positive way for example, and do so every day. But I'm really hesitant to use say a Factory pattern if there's only one way to create an object, as a factory might make it all easier in the future, but complicates the code and is pure overhead. So, my question is in respect to my future career and my answer to manager types throwing random pattern-names around: Which design patterns did you use, that threw you back overall? Which are the worst design patterns, that you shouldn't have a look at if it's not that only single situation where it makes sense (read: which design patterns are very narrowly defined)? (It's like I was looking for the negative reviews of an overall good product of amazon to see what bugged people most in using design patterns). And I'm not talking about Anti-Patterns here, but about Patterns that are usually thought of as "good" patterns. Edit: As some answered, the problem is most often that patterns are not "bad" but "used wrong". If you know patterns, that are often misused or even difficult to use, they would also fit as an answer.

    Read the article

  • Has the emerging generation of programmers got the wrong idea about design patterns? [closed]

    - by MattDavey
    Over the years I've noticed a shift in attitude towards design patterns, particularly amongst the emerging generation of developers. There seems to be a notion these days that design patterns are silver bullets that instantly cure any problem, a proliferating idea that advancing as a software engineer simply means learning and applying more and more patterns. When confronted with a problem, developers no longer strive to truly understand the issue and design a solution - instead they simply pick a design pattern which seems to be a close fit, and try to brute-force it. You can see evidence of this by the many, many questions on Stack Overflow that begin with the phrase "what pattern should I use to...". I fall into a slightly more mature category of developers (5-10 years experience) and I have a very different viewpoint on patterns - simply as a communication tool to enhance clarity. I find this perspective of design patterns being lego bricks (collected like pokemon cards) a little disconcerting. Will developers lose this attitude as they gain more experience in software engineering? Or could these notions perhaps steer the direction of our craft in years to come? Did the older generation of developers have any similar concerns about us? (perhaps about OO design or similar...). if so, how did we turn out?

    Read the article

  • LLBLGen Pro feature highlights: grouping model elements

    - by FransBouma
    (This post is part of a series of posts about features of the LLBLGen Pro system) When working with an entity model which has more than a few entities, it's often convenient to be able to group entities together if they belong to a semantic sub-model. For example, if your entity model has several entities which are about 'security', it would be practical to group them together under the 'security' moniker. This way, you could easily find them back, yet they can be left inside the complete entity model altogether so their relationships with entities outside the group are kept. In other situations your domain consists of semi-separate entity models which all target tables/views which are located in the same database. It then might be convenient to have a single project to manage the complete target database, yet have the entity models separate of each other and have them result in separate code bases. LLBLGen Pro can do both for you. This blog post will illustrate both situations. The feature is called group usage and is controllable through the project settings. This setting is supported on all supported O/R mapper frameworks. Situation one: grouping entities in a single model. This situation is common for entity models which are dense, so many relationships exist between all sub-models: you can't split them up easily into separate models (nor do you likely want to), however it's convenient to have them grouped together into groups inside the entity model at the project level. A typical example for this is the AdventureWorks example database for SQL Server. This database, which is a single catalog, has for each sub-group a schema, however most of these schemas are tightly connected with each other: adding all schemas together will give a model with entities which indirectly are related to all other entities. LLBLGen Pro's default setting for group usage is AsVisualGroupingMechanism which is what this situation is all about: we group the elements for visual purposes, it has no real meaning for the model nor the code generated. Let's reverse engineer AdventureWorks to an entity model. By default, LLBLGen Pro uses the target schema an element is in which is being reverse engineered, as the group it will be in. This is convenient if you already have categorized tables/views in schemas, like which is the case in AdventureWorks. Of course this can be switched off, or corrected on the fly. When reverse engineering, we'll walk through a wizard which will guide us with the selection of the elements which relational model data should be retrieved, which we can later on use to reverse engineer to an entity model. The first step after specifying which database server connect to is to select these elements. below we can see the AdventureWorks catalog as well as the different schemas it contains. We'll include all of them. After the wizard completes, we have all relational model data nicely in our catalog data, with schemas. So let's reverse engineer entities from the tables in these schemas. We select in the catalog explorer the schemas 'HumanResources', 'Person', 'Production', 'Purchasing' and 'Sales', then right-click one of them and from the context menu, we select Reverse engineer Tables to Entity Definitions.... This will bring up the dialog below. We check all checkboxes in one go by checking the checkbox at the top to mark them all to be added to the project. As you can see LLBLGen Pro has already filled in the group name based on the schema name, as this is the default and we didn't change the setting. If you want, you can select multiple rows at once and set the group name to something else using the controls on the dialog. We're fine with the group names chosen so we'll simply click Add to Project. This gives the following result:   (I collapsed the other groups to keep the picture small ;)). As you can see, the entities are now grouped. Just to see how dense this model is, I've expanded the relationships of Employee: As you can see, it has relationships with entities from three other groups than HumanResources. It's not doable to cut up this project into sub-models without duplicating the Employee entity in all those groups, so this model is better suited to be used as a single model resulting in a single code base, however it benefits greatly from having its entities grouped into separate groups at the project level, to make work done on the model easier. Now let's look at another situation, namely where we work with a single database while we want to have multiple models and for each model a separate code base. Situation two: grouping entities in separate models within the same project. To get rid of the entities to see the second situation in action, simply undo the reverse engineering action in the project. We still have the AdventureWorks relational model data in the catalog. To switch LLBLGen Pro to see each group in the project as a separate project, open the Project Settings, navigate to General and set Group usage to AsSeparateProjects. In the catalog explorer, select Person and Production, right-click them and select again Reverse engineer Tables to Entities.... Again check the checkbox at the top to mark all entities to be added and click Add to Project. We get two groups, as expected, however this time the groups are seen as separate projects. This means that the validation logic inside LLBLGen Pro will see it as an error if there's e.g. a relationship or an inheritance edge linking two groups together, as that would lead to a cyclic reference in the code bases. To see this variant of the grouping feature, seeing the groups as separate projects, in action, we'll generate code from the project with the two groups we just created: select from the main menu: Project -> Generate Source-code... (or press F7 ;)). In the dialog popping up, select the target .NET framework you want to use, the template preset, fill in a destination folder and click Start Generator (normal). This will start the code generator process. As expected the code generator has simply generated two code bases, one for Person and one for Production: The group name is used inside the namespace for the different elements. This allows you to add both code bases to a single solution and use them together in a different project without problems. Below is a snippet from the code file of a generated entity class. //... using System.Xml.Serialization; using AdventureWorks.Person; using AdventureWorks.Person.HelperClasses; using AdventureWorks.Person.FactoryClasses; using AdventureWorks.Person.RelationClasses; using SD.LLBLGen.Pro.ORMSupportClasses; namespace AdventureWorks.Person.EntityClasses { //... /// <summary>Entity class which represents the entity 'Address'.<br/><br/></summary> [Serializable] public partial class AddressEntity : CommonEntityBase //... The advantage of this is that you can have two code bases and work with them separately, yet have a single target database and maintain everything in a single location. If you decide to move to a single code base, you can do so with a change of one setting. It's also useful if you want to keep the groups as separate models (and code bases) yet want to add relationships to elements from another group using a copy of the entity: you can simply reverse engineer the target table to a new entity into a different group, effectively making a copy of the entity. As there's a single target database, changes made to that database are reflected in both models which makes maintenance easier than when you'd have a separate project for each group, with its own relational model data. Conclusion LLBLGen Pro offers a flexible way to work with entities in sub-models and control how the sub-models end up in the generated code.

    Read the article

  • Create Levels using blender

    - by notrodash
    I am creating a game and I have a custom level format for levels in my game. I wanted to know if it is possible to create levels for that kinda format in Blender. My format is XML based and just declares the positions of certain objects. Online I have seen many people use Blender to create levels in their own custom format that blender can understand. How do i get blender to understand my format and use blender to create levels for my game?

    Read the article

  • Should pathfinder in A* hold closedSet and openedSet or each object should hold its sets?

    - by Patryk
    I am about to implement A* pathfinding algorithm and I wonder how should I implement this - from the point of view of architecture. I have the pathfinder as a class - I think I will instantiate only one object of this class (or maybe make it a Singleton - this is not so important). The hardest part for me is whether the closedSet and openedSet should be attached to objects that can find the path for them or should be stored in pathfinder class ? I am opened to any hints and critique whatsoever. What is the best practice considering pathfinding in terms of design ?

    Read the article

  • When should we use weak entities when modelling a database?

    - by Songo
    This is basically a question about what are weak entities? When should we use them? How should they be modeled? What is the main difference between normal entities and weak entities? Does weak entities correspond to value objects when doing Domain Driven Design? To help keep the question on topic here is an example taken from Wikipedia that people can use to answer these question: In this example OrderItem was modeled as a weak entity, but I can't understand why it can't be modeled as a normal entity. Another question is what if I want to track the order history (i.e. the changes in it status) would that be a normal or weak entity?

    Read the article

  • What is a best practice tier structure of a Java EE 6/7 application?

    - by James Drinkard
    I was attempting to find a best practice for modeling the tiers in a Java EE application yesterday and couldn't come up with anything current. In the past, say java 1.4, it was four tiers: Presentation Tier Web Tier Business Logic Tier DAL (Data Access Layer ) which I always considered a tier and not a layer. After working with Web Services and SOA I thought to add in a services tier, but that may fall under 3. the business logic tier. I did searches for quite a while and reading articles. It seems like Domain Driven Design is becoming more popular, but I couldn't find a diagram on it's tier structure. Anyone have ideas or diagrams on what the proper tier structure is for newer Java EE applications or is it really the same, but more items are ranked under the four I've mentioned?

    Read the article

  • Accessing Repositories from Domain

    - by Paul T Davies
    Say we have a task logging system, when a task is logged, the user specifies a category and the task defaults to a status of 'Outstanding'. Assume in this instance that Category and Status have to be implemented as entities. Normally I would do this: Application Layer: public class TaskService { //... public void Add(Guid categoryId, string description) { var category = _categoryRepository.GetById(categoryId); var status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId); var task = Task.Create(category, status, description); _taskRepository.Save(task); } } Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, Status status, string description) { return new Task { Category = category, Status = status, Description = descrtiption }; } } I do it like this because I am consistently told that entities should not access the repositories, but it would make much more sense to me if I did this: Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, string description) { return new Task { Category = category, Status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId), Description = descrtiption }; } } The status repository is dependecy injected anyway, so there is no real dependency, and this feels more to me thike it is the domain that is making thedecision that a task defaults to outstanding. The previous version feels like it is the application layeer making that decision. Any why are repository contracts often in the domain if this should not be a posibility? Here is a more extreme example, here the domain decides urgency: Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, string description) { var task = new Task { Category = category, Status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId), Description = descrtiption }; if(someCondition) { if(someValue > anotherValue) { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.UrgentId); } else { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.SemiUrgentId); } } else { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.NotId); } return task; } } There is no way you would want to pass in all possible versions of Urgency, and no way you would want to calculate this business logic in the application layer, so surely this would be the most appropriate way? So is this a valid reason to access repositories from the domain?

    Read the article

  • Customizing configuration with Dependency Injection

    - by mathieu
    I'm designing a small application infrastructure library, aiming to simplify development of ASP.NET MVC based applications. Main goal is to enforce convention over configuration. Hovewer, I still want to make some parts "configurable" by developpers. I'm leaning towards the following design: public interface IConfiguration { SomeType SomeValue; } // this one won't get registered in container protected class DefaultConfiguration : IConfiguration { public SomeType SomeValue { get { return SomeType.Default; } } } // declared inside 3rd party library, will get registered in container protected class CustomConfiguration : IConfiguration { public SomeType SomeValue { get { return SomeType.Custom; } } } And the "service" class : public class Service { private IConfiguration conf = new DefaultConfiguration(); // optional dependency, if found, will be set to CustomConfiguration by DI container public IConfiguration Conf { get { return conf; } set { conf = value; } } public void Configure() { DoSomethingWith( Conf ); } } There, the "configuration" part is clearly a dependency of the service class, but it this an "overuse" of DI ?

    Read the article

  • How does a search functionality fit in DDD with CQRS?

    - by Songo
    In Vaughn Vernon's book Implementing domain driven design and the accompanying sample application I found that he implemented a CQRS approach to the iddd_collaboration bounded context. He presents the following classes in the application service layer: CalendarApplicationService.java CalendarEntryApplicationService.java CalendarEntryQueryService.java CalendarQueryService.java I'm interested to know if an application will have a search page that feature numerous drop downs and check boxes with a smart text box to match different search patterns; How will you structure all that search logic? In a command service or a query service? Taking a look at the CalendarQueryService.java I can see that it has 2 methods for a huge query, but no logic at all to mix and match any search filters for example. I've heard that the application layer shouldn't have any business logic, so where will I construct my dynamic query? or maybe just clutter everything in the Query service?

    Read the article

  • Why is nesting or piggybacking errors within errors bad in general?

    - by dietbuddha
    Why is nesting or piggybacking errors within errors bad in general? To me it seems bad intuitively, but I'm suspicious in that I cannot adequately articulate why it is bad. This may be because it is not in general bad and that it is only bad in specific instances. Why is it detrimental to design error/exception handling in such a way. The specific instance is that of a REST service. There is a desire by some to use http errors (specifically the 500 response) as a way to indicate any problem with specific instances of a resource. An example of an instance resource in this case would be: http://server/ticket/80 # instance http://server/ticket # not an instance So this is the behavior that is being proposed. If ticket 80 does not exist return a http response code of 500. Within the body of the error return the "real" error as an additional error code and description. If the ticket resource doesn't exist return a response code of 404.

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to simplify an character -driven game engine to the point it's unnecessary to learn scripting/programming ?

    - by jokoon
    I remember, and I still think, that one cannot even make a prototyped 3D game to test just simple behaviors without using gigantic tools like unity or knowing extensive C++ programming, design pattern, a decent or basic 3D engine, etc. Now I'm wondering, since I know programming, that I'm still more lucky that the ones who need to learn programming prior to know how to make something: even scripted engines such as unity are not for kids, and to my sense they tend to dictate their ways of doing things, which is not the case with engine like ogre or irrlicht. I remember toying a little with the blender game engine, it was possible to link states or something I don't remember very well. Now I'm thinking that character driven games occupies a big part of the game market. Do you think it is a good idea to make a character-controlled oriented game engine which allows only to build AI instead of anything else ?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to pass instances through several layers?

    - by Puckl
    In my program design, I often come to the point where I have to pass object instances through several classes. For example, if I have a controller that loads an audio file, and then passes it to a player, and the player passes it to the playerRunnable, which passes it again somewhere else etc. It looks kind of bad, but I don´t know how to avoid it. Or is it OK to do this? EDIT: Maybe the player example is not the best because I could load the file later, but in other cases that does not work.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >