Search Results

Search found 60436 results on 2418 pages for 'application design'.

Page 27/2418 | < Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >

• Why avoid Java Inheritance "Extends"

  - by newbie

  Good day! Jame Gosling said “You should avoid implementation inheritance whenever possible.” and instead, use interface inheritance. But why? How can we avoid inheriting the structure of an object using the keyword "extends", and at the same time make our code Object Oriented? Could someone please give an Object Oriented example illustrating this concept in a scenario like "ordering a book in a bookstore?" Thank you in advance.

  Read the article

• Where we should put validation for domain model

  - by adisembiring

  I still looking best practice for domain model validation. Is that good to put the validation in constructor of domain model ? my domain model validation example as follows: public class Order { private readonly List<OrderLine> _lineItems; public virtual Customer Customer { get; private set; } public virtual DateTime OrderDate { get; private set; } public virtual decimal OrderTotal { get; private set; } public Order (Customer customer) { if (customer == null) throw new ArgumentException("Customer name must be defined"); Customer = customer; OrderDate = DateTime.Now; _lineItems = new List<LineItem>(); } public void AddOderLine //.... public IEnumerable<OrderLine> AddOderLine { get {return _lineItems;} } } public class OrderLine { public virtual Order Order { get; set; } public virtual Product Product { get; set; } public virtual int Quantity { get; set; } public virtual decimal UnitPrice { get; set; } public OrderLine(Order order, int quantity, Product product) { if (order == null) throw new ArgumentException("Order name must be defined"); if (quantity <= 0) throw new ArgumentException("Quantity must be greater than zero"); if (product == null) throw new ArgumentException("Product name must be defined"); Order = order; Quantity = quantity; Product = product; } } Thanks for all of your suggestion.

  Read the article

• Where ORMs blur the lines between code and data, how do you decide what logic should be a stored procedure, and what should be coded?

  - by PhonicUK

  Take the following pseudocode: CreateInvoiceAndCalculate(ItemsAndQuantities, DispatchAddress, User); And say CreateInvoice does the following: Create a new entry in an Invoices table belonging to the specified User to be sent to the given DispatchAddress. Create a new entry in an InvoiceItems table for each of the items in ItemsAndQuantities, storing the Item, the Quantity, and the cost of the item as of now (by looking it up from an Items table) Calculate the total amount of the invoice (ex shipping and taxes) and store it in the new Invoice row. At a glace you wouldn't be able to tell if this was a method in my applications code, or a stored procedure in the database that is being exposed as a function by the ORM. And to some extent it doesn't really matter. Now technically none of this is business logic. You're not making any decisions - just performing a calculation and creating records. However some may argue that because you are performing a calculation that affects the business (the total amount to be invoiced) that this isn't something that should be done in a stored procedure and instead should be in code. So for this specific example - why would it be more appropriate to do one or the other? And where do you draw the line? Or does it even particular matter as long as it's sufficiently well documented?

  Read the article

• When is a glue or management class doing too much?

  - by jprete

  I'm prone to building centralized classes that manage the other classes in my designs. It doesn't store everything itself, but most data requests would go to the "manager" first. While looking at an answer to this question I noticed the term "God Object". Wikipedia lists it as an antipattern, understandably. Where is the line between a legitimate glue class, or module, that passes data and messages from place to place, and a class that is doing too much?

  Read the article

• Interfaces on an abstract class

  - by insta

  My coworker and I have different opinions on the relationship between base classes and interfaces. I'm of the belief that a class should not implement an interface unless that class can be used when an implementation of the interface is required. In other words, I like to see code like this: interface IFooWorker { void Work(); } abstract class BaseWorker { ... base class behaviors ... public abstract void Work() { } protected string CleanData(string data) { ... } } class DbWorker : BaseWorker, IFooWorker { public void Work() { Repository.AddCleanData(base.CleanData(UI.GetDirtyData())); } } The DbWorker is what gets the IFooWorker interface, because it is an instantiatable implementation of the interface. It completely fulfills the contract. My coworker prefers the nearly identical: interface IFooWorker { void Work(); } abstract class BaseWorker : IFooWorker { ... base class behaviors ... public abstract void Work() { } protected string CleanData(string data) { ... } } class DbWorker : BaseWorker { public void Work() { Repository.AddCleanData(base.CleanData(UI.GetDirtyData())); } } Where the base class gets the interface, and by virtue of this all inheritors of the base class are of that interface as well. This bugs me but I can't come up with concrete reasons why, outside of "the base class cannot stand on its own as an implementation of the interface". What are the pros & cons of his method vs. mine, and why should one be used over another?

  Read the article

• How to layer if statements when order of logic is irrelevant?

  - by jimmyjimmy

  Basically I have a series of logic in my website that can lead to 5 total outcomes. Basically two different if tests and then a catch all else statement. For example: if cond1: if mod1: #do things elif mod2: #do things elif cond2: if mod1: #do things elif mod2 #do things else: #do things I was thinking about rewriting it like this: if cond1 and mod1: #do things elif cond1 and mod2: #do things elif cond2 and mod1: #do things elif cond2 and mod2: #do things else: #do things Is there any real difference in these two coding options/a better choice for this kind of logic testing?

  Read the article

• Visitor-pattern vs inheritance for rendering

  - by akaltar

  I have a game engine that currently uses inheritance to provide a generic interface to do rendering: class renderable { public: void render(); }; Each class calls the gl_* functions itself, this makes the code hard to optimize and hard to implement something like setting the quality of rendering: class sphere : public renderable { public: void render() { glDrawElements(...); } }; I was thinking about implementing a system where I would create a Renderer class that would render my objects: class sphere { void render( renderer* r ) { r->renderme( *this ); } }; class renderer { renderme( sphere& sphere ) { // magically get render resources here // magically render a sphere here } }; My main problem is where should I store the VBOs and where should I Create them when using this method? Should I even use this approach or stick to the current one, perhaps something else? PS: I already asked this question on SO but got no proper answers.

  Read the article

• Developing web sites that imitate desktop apps. How to fight that paradigm? [closed]

  - by user1598390

  Supposse there's a company where web sites/apps are designed to resemble desktop apps. They struggle to add: Splash screens Drop-down menus Tab-pages Pages that don't grow downward with content, context is inside scrollable area so page is of a fixed size, as if resembling the one-screen limitation of desktop apps. Modal windows, pop-ups, etc. Tree views Absolutely no access to content unless you login-first, even with non-sensitive content. After splash screen desapears, you are presented with a login screen. No links - just simulated buttons. Fixed page-size. Cannot open a linked in other tab Print button that prints directly ( not showing printable page so the user can't print via the browser's print command ) Progress bars for loading content even when the browser indicates it with its own animation Fonts and color amulate a desktop app made with Visual Basic, PowerBuilder etc. Every app seems almost as if were made in Visual Basic. They reject this elements: Breadcrumbs Good old underlined links Generated/dynamic navigation, usage-based suggestions Ability to open links in multiple tabs Pagination Printable pages Ability to produce a URL you can save or share that links to an item, like when you send someone the link to an especific StackExchange question. The only URL is the main one. Back button To achieve this, tons of javascript code is needed. Lots and lots of Javascript and Ajax code for things not related with the business but with the necessity to hide/show that button, refresh this listbox, grey-out that label, etc. The coplexity generated by forcing one paradigm into another means most lines of code are dedicated to maintain the illusion of a desktop app. What is the best way to change this mindset, and make them embrace the web, and start producing modern, web apps instead of desktop imitations ? EDIT: These sites are intranet sites. Users hate these apps. They constantly whine about them, but they have to use them to do their daily work. These sites are in-house solutions, the end-users have no choice but to use them. They are a "captive audience". Also, substitution will not happen because of high costs. But at least if that mindset is changed, new developments would be more web-like.

  Read the article

• How to model an address type in DDD?

  - by Songo

  I have an User entity that has a Set of Address where Address is a value object: class User{ ... private Set<Address> addresses; ... public setAddresses(Set<Address> addresses){ //set all addresses as a batch } ... } A User can have a home address and a work address, so I should have something that acts as a look up in the database: tbl_address_type ------------------------------------------------ | address_type_id | address_type | ------------------------------------------------ | 1 | work | ------------------------------------------------ | 2 | home | ------------------------------------------------ and correspondingly tbl_address ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | address_id | address_description |address_type_id| user_id | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 1 | 123 main street | 1 | 100 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 2 | 456 another street | 1 | 100 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 3 | 789 long street | 2 | 200 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 4 | 023 short street | 2 | 200 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should the address type be modeled as an Entity or Value type? and Why? Is it OK for the Address Value object to hold a reference to the Entity AdressType (in case it was modeled as an entity)? Is this something feasible using Hibernate/NHibernate? If a user can change his home address, should I expose a User.updateHomeAddress(Address homeAddress) function on the User entity itself? How can I enforce that the client passes a Home address and not a work address in this case? (a sample implementation is most welcomed) If I want to get the User's home address via User.getHomeAddress() function, must I load the whole addresses array then loop it and check each for its type till I found the correct type then return it? Is there a more efficient way than this?

  Read the article

• Should interface only be used for behavior and not to show logical data grouped together?

  - by jags

  Should an interface only be used to specify certain behavior? Would it be wrong to use interface to group logically related data? To me it looks like we should not use interface to group logically related data as structure seems a better fit. A class may be used but class name should indicate something like DTO so that user gets the impression that class does not have any behavior. Please let me know if my assumption is correct. Also, are there any exceptions where interface can be used to group logically related data?

  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

• Avoiding bloated Domain Objects

  - by djcredo

  We're trying to move data from our bloated Service layer into our Domain layer using a DDD approach. We currently have a lot of business logic in our services, which is spread out all over the place and doesn't benefit from inheritance. We have a central Domain class which is the focus of most of our work - a Trade. The Trade object will know how to price itself, how to estimate risk, validate itself, etc. We can then replace conditionals with polymorphism. Eg: SimpleTrade will price itself one way, but ComplexTrade will price itself another. However, we are worried that this will bloat the Trade class(s). It really should be in charge of its own processing but the class size is going to increase exponentially as more features are added. So we have choices: Put processing logic in Trade class. Processing logic is now polymorphic based on the type of the trade, but Trade class is now has multiple responsibilites (pricing, risk, etc) and is large Put processing logic into other class such as TradePricingService. No longer polymorphic with the Trade inheritance tree, but classes are smaller and easier to test. What would be the suggested approach?

  Read the article

• Domain Model and Querying

  - by Tyrsius

  I am new to DDD, having worked only in Transaction-Script apps with an anemic model, or just Big Balls of Mud, so please forgive any terminology I abuse. I am trying to understand the proper separation between the domain model and the repository. What is the proper way to construct a domain object that is coming from a database, assuming the (incredibly simplified) need to query for objects by status (returns enumerable), or by ID. Should a factory be building the objects, exposing methods for GetByStatus() and GetByID(), using a DIed repository? Should a repository be called directly, knowing how to build a domain model from the DTO? Should the domain model have a constructor for get by ID, using a DIed repoistory to load the initial state, using some other (?) method for the list? I am not really sure what the best way would be, and this question has an answer advocating each one (these are certainly mutuallu exclusive).

  Read the article

• How to decide to which class does a method belong

  - by Eleeist

  I have TopicBusiness.class and PostBusiness.class. I have no problem with deciding into which class methods such as addPostToDatabase() or getAllPostsFromDatabase() should go. But what about getAllPostsFromTopic(TopicEntity topic) or getNumberOfPostsInTopic(TopicEntity topic)? Should the parameter be the deciding factor? So when the method takes TopicEntity as parameter it should belong to TopicBusiness.class? I am quite puzzled by this.

  Read the article

• Is this a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle?

  - by Paul T Davies

  Say we have a list of Task entities, and a ProjectTask sub type. Tasks can be closed at any time, except ProjectTasks which cannot be closed once they have a status of Started. The UI should ensure the option to close a started ProjectTask is never available, but some safeguards are present in the domain: public class Task { public Status Status { get; set; } public virtual void Close() { Status = Status.Closed; } } public ProjectTask : Task { public override void Close() { if (Status == Status.Started) throw new Exception("Cannot close a started Project Task"); base.Close(); } } Now when calling Close() on a Task, there is a chance the call will fail if it is a ProjectTask with the started status, when it wouldn't if it was a base Task. But this is the business requirements. It should fail. Can this be regarded as a violation?

  Read the article

• Random generation of interesting puzzle levels?

  - by monsterfarm

  I'm making a Sokoban-like game i.e. there's a grid that has some crates on it you can push and you have to get the crates on crosses to win the level (although I'm going to add some extra elements to it). Are there any general algorithms or reading material I can look at for how I could go about generating interesting (as in, not trivial to solve) levels for this style of game? I'm aware that random level generators exist for Sokoban but I'm having trouble finding the algorithm descriptions. I'm interested in making a game where the machine can generate lots of levels for me, sorted by difficulty. I'm even willing to constrain the rules of the game to make the level generation easier (e.g. I'll probably limit the grid size to about 7x7). I suspect there are some general ways to do level generation here as I've seen e.g. Traffic Jam-like games (where you have to move blocks around the free some block) with 1000s of levels where each one has a unique solution. One idea I had was to generate a random map in its final state (i.e. where all crates are on top of their crosses) and then the computer would pull (instead of push) these crates around to create a level. The nice property here is that we know the level is solvable. However, I'd need some heuristics to ensure the level was interesting.

  Read the article

• How should I define my Java Objects?

  - by HonorGod

  I have a data grid where I sort of show the following information - All Guests Total Adults = 22 Total Children = 27 Confirmed Total Adults = 9 Total Children = 13 Country = Germany Total Adults = 5 Total Childres = 6 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 2 Relatives Adults = 3 Children = 4 Country = USA Total Adults = 4 Total Childres = 7 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 5 Relatives Adults = 2 Children = 2 Tentative Total Adults = 13 Total Children - 14 Country = Australia Total Adults = 7 Total Childres = 8 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 3 Relatives Adults = 5 Children = 5 Country = China Total Adults = 6 Total Childres = 6 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 4 Relatives Adults = 4 Children = 2 And in the database what I have is data at the lowest level which is Friends / Relatives and the corresponding countries set as a look-up value which in indirectly connected to another look-up that can tell me if they fall under confirmed or tentative. I guess my question is how do I layout my Java Object and perform the aggregations and give it back to the client. I am not sure if I am clear with my question, but feel free to comment so I can update the question accordingly.

  Read the article

• How to separate and maintain customer specific code

  - by WYSIWYG

  I am implementing customer specific code and currently following simple approach like if (cusomterId == 23) do it. I want to separate out all the customer related code in separate place. But I have following problems. In code is in 1. Stored procs 2. Plain old classes. 3. Controllers 4. Views I came up with two solutions. First is to create table CustomerFunctionlity with columns CustomerId, FunctionalityName, method/Proc, inputs/outputs With this table I can simply check if exists, execute given function. Another way is creating a factory which returns customer related object for an interface. I am writting small end to end customer specific functionalities. How can I write maintenable code. Thanks

  Read the article

• Is it better to return NULL or empty values from functions/methods where the return value is not present?

  - by P B

  I am looking for a recommendation here. I am struggling with whether it is better to return NULL or an empty value from a method when the return value is not present or cannot be determined. Take the following two methods as an examples: string ReverseString(string stringToReverse) // takes a string and reverses it. Person FindPerson(int personID) // finds a Person with a matching personID. In ReverseString(), I would say return an empty string because the return type is string, so the caller is expecting that. Also, this way, the caller would not have to check to see if a NULL was returned. In FindPerson(), returning NULL seems like a better fit. Regardless of whether or not NULL or an empty Person Object (new Person()) is returned the caller is going to have to check to see if the Person Object is NULL or empty before doing anything to it (like calling UpdateName()). So why not just return NULL here and then the caller only has to check for NULL. Does anyone else struggle with this? Any help or insight is appreciated.

  Read the article

• Does C++ support subtyping?

  - by the_naive

  I know it might be a silly question to ask, but I didn't quite get an a absolute clear answer on this matter, so I thought I'd put it here. Does c++ support the subtyping in the sense that it fulfills Liskov's principle fully? I understand how parametric polymorphism, inclusion polymorphism(subclassing and overriding) work in c++ but I'm not entirely sure or understand if subtyping exists in the context of C++. Could you please explain?

  Read the article

• is it valid that a state machine can have more than one possible state for some transition?

  - by shankbond

  I have a requirement for a workflow which I am trying to model as a state machine, I see that there is more than one outcome of a given transition(or activity). Is it valid for a state machine to have more than one possible states, but only one state will be true at a given time? Note: This is my first attempt to model a state machine. Eg. might be: s1-t1-s2 s1-t1-s3 s1-t1-s4 where s1, s2, s3, s4 are states and t1 is transition/activity. A fictitious real world example might be: For a human, there can be two states: hungry, not hungry A basket can have only one item from: apple, orange. So, to model it we will have: hungry-pick from basket-apple found hungry-pick from basket-orange found apple found-eat-not hungry orange found-take juice out of it and then drink- not hungry

  Read the article

• iPad application - Using Dock within an application

  - by sagar

  Hello ! Every one. I am interested in development of iPad applications. I have seen iPad Demo from Apple site. There is one new functionality - which is dock in iPad. My Question is "Can we use our own Dock control ( as we have - Tab bar in iPhone ) in iPad application? " If Answer is yes - Then my other question is How? Thanks in advance for sharing your knowledge. Sagar

  Read the article

• User Control as container at design time

  - by Luca

  I'm designing a simple expander control. I've derived from UserControl, drawn inner controls, built, run; all ok. Since an inner Control is a Panel, I'd like to use it as container at design time. Indeed I've used the attributes: [Designer(typeof(ExpanderControlDesigner))] [Designer("System.Windows.Forms.Design.ParentControlDesigner, System.Design", typeof(IDesigner))] Great I say. But it isn't... The result is that I can use it as container at design time but: The added controls go back the inner controls already embedded in the user control Even if I push to top a control added at design time, at runtime it is back again on controls embedded to the user control I cannot restrict the container area at design time into a Panel area What am I missing? Here is the code for completeness... why this snippet of code is not working? [Designer(typeof(ExpanderControlDesigner))] [Designer("System.Windows.Forms.Design.ParentControlDesigner, System.Design", typeof(IDesigner))] public partial class ExpanderControl : UserControl { public ExpanderControl() { InitializeComponent(); .... [System.Security.Permissions.PermissionSet(System.Security.Permissions.SecurityAction.Demand, Name = "FullTrust")] internal class ExpanderControlDesigner : ControlDesigner { private ExpanderControl MyControl; public override void Initialize(IComponent component) { base.Initialize(component); MyControl = (ExpanderControl)component; // Hook up events ISelectionService s = (ISelectionService)GetService(typeof(ISelectionService)); IComponentChangeService c = (IComponentChangeService)GetService(typeof(IComponentChangeService)); s.SelectionChanged += new EventHandler(OnSelectionChanged); c.ComponentRemoving += new ComponentEventHandler(OnComponentRemoving); } private void OnSelectionChanged(object sender, System.EventArgs e) { } private void OnComponentRemoving(object sender, ComponentEventArgs e) { } protected override void Dispose(bool disposing) { ISelectionService s = (ISelectionService)GetService(typeof(ISelectionService)); IComponentChangeService c = (IComponentChangeService)GetService(typeof(IComponentChangeService)); // Unhook events s.SelectionChanged -= new EventHandler(OnSelectionChanged); c.ComponentRemoving -= new ComponentEventHandler(OnComponentRemoving); base.Dispose(disposing); } public override System.ComponentModel.Design.DesignerVerbCollection Verbs { get { DesignerVerbCollection v = new DesignerVerbCollection(); v.Add(new DesignerVerb("&asd", new EventHandler(null))); return v; } } } I've found many resources (Interaction, designed, limited area), but nothing was usefull for being operative... Actually there is a trick, since System.Windows.Forms classes can be designed (as usual) and have a correct behavior at runtime (TabControl, for example).

  Read the article

• Design and Implementation with Prototyping Methodology

  - by Shahin

  I'm developing a game for my dissertation, and I'm using the spiral method approach. I'm having a bit of difficulty structuring my dissertation, specifically the design and implementation section. My solution was designed as much as possible initially, and then after each prototype implementation, the design was refined and extended and prototyped again (this was repeated a few times). My problem is how to structure this in my dissertation, my current idea is: Design Chapter Prototype 1 (Initial) Design Prototype 2 Design Prototype 3 Design Implementation Chapter Prototype 1 (Initial) Implementation Prototype 2 Implementation Prototype 3 Implementation Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• Notifying a separate application of an event

  - by TomDestry

  I have an application that runs through various tasks as an automated process. My client would like me to create a file in a given folder for each task as a way to flag when each task completes. They prefer this to a database flag because they can be notified by the file system rather than continually polling a database table. I can do this but creating and deleting files as flags feels clunky. Is there a more elegant approach to notifying a third-party of an event?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >