Search Results

Search found 20733 results on 830 pages for 'ui design'.

Page 286/830 | < Previous Page | 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293  | Next Page >

  • Value objects in DDD - Why immutable?

    - by Hobbes
    I don't get why value objects in DDD should be immutable, nor do I see how this is easily done. (I'm focusing on C# and Entity Framework, if that matters.) For example, let's consider the classic Address value object. If you needed to change "123 Main St" to "123 Main Street", why should I need to construct a whole new object instead of saying myCustomer.Address.AddressLine1 = "123 Main Street"? (Even if Entity Framework supported structs, this would still be a problem, wouldn't it?) I understand (I think) the idea that value objects don't have an identity and are part of a domain object, but can someone explain why immutability is a Good Thing? EDIT: My final question here really should be "Can someone explain why immutability is a Good Thing as applied to Value Objects?" Sorry for the confusion! EDIT: To clairfy, I am not asking about CLR value types (vs reference types). I'm asking about the higher level DDD concept of Value Objects. For example, here is a hack-ish way to implement immutable value types for Entity Framework: http://rogeralsing.com/2009/05/21/entity-framework-4-immutable-value-objects. Basically, he just makes all setters private. Why go through the trouble of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Use of (non) qualified names

    - by AProgrammer
    If I want to use the name baz defined in package foo|bar|quz, I've several choices: provide fbq as a short name for foo|bar|quz and use fbq|baz use foo|bar|quz|baz import baz from foo|bar|quz|baz and then use baz (or an alias given in the import process) import all public symbols from foo|bar|quz|baz and then use baz For the languages I know, my perception is that the best practice is to use the first two ways (I'll use one or the other depending on the specific package full name and the number of symbols I need from it). I'd use the third only in a language which doesn't provide the first and hunt for supporting tools to write the import statements. And in my opinion the fourth should be reserved to package designed with than import in mind, for instance if all exported symbols start with a prefix or contains the name of the package. My questions: what is in your opinion the best practice for your favorite languages? what would you suggest in a new language? what would you suggest in an old language adding such a feature?

    Read the article

  • Creating get/set method dynamically in javascript

    - by portoalet
    I am trying to create a UserDon object, and trying to generate the get and set methods programmatically ( based on Pro Javascript book by John Resig page 37 ), and am testing this on Firefox 3.5 The problem is: in function UserDon, "this" refers to the window object instead of the UserDon object. So after calling var userdon = new UserDon(...) I got setname and getname methods created on the window object (also setage and getage). How can I fix this? function UserDon( properties ) { for( var i in properties ) { (function(){ this[ "get" + i ] = function() { return properties[i]; }; this[ "set" + i ] = function(val) { properties[i] = val; }; })(); } } var userdon = new UserDon( { name: "Bob", age: 44 });

    Read the article

  • SEO with image link alt text vs standard text-based link

    - by Infiniti Fizz
    Hi, I'm currently developing a website and the main navigation is made up of image links because the font used for them isn't standard. My client's only worry is will this mess up search engine optimization? Can I just add alt text to the images like "link 1" or use the name attribute of the anchor tag? Or would it be better to just have the navigation as anchor tags with the names of the links in them like: <a href="...">link 1</a>? I'm new to SEO so really don't know which to suggest to him, Thanks for your time, InfinitiFizz

    Read the article

  • Pattern/Matcher in Java?

    - by user1007059
    I have a certain text in Java, and I want to use pattern and matcher to extract something from it. This is my program: public String getItemsByType(String text, String start, String end) { String patternHolder; StringBuffer itemLines = new StringBuffer(); patternHolder = start + ".*" + end; Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile(patternHolder); Matcher matcher = pattern.matcher(text); while (matcher.find()) { itemLines.append(text.substring(matcher.start(), matcher.end()) + "\n"); } return itemLines.toString(); } This code works fully WHEN the searched text is on the same line, for instance: String text = "My name is John and I am 18 years Old"; getItemsByType(text, "My", "John"); immediately grabs the text "My name is John" out of the text. However, when my text looks like this: String text = "My name\nis John\nand I'm\n18 years\nold"; getItemsByType(text, "My", "John"); It doesn't grab anything, since "My" and "John" are on different lines. How do I solve this?

    Read the article

  • How to easily substitute a Base class

    - by JTom
    Hi, I have the following hierarchy of classes class classOne { virtual void abstractMethod() = 0; }; class classTwo : public classOne { }; class classThree : public classTwo { }; All classOne, classTwo and classThree are abstract classes, and I have another class that is defining the pure virtual methods class classNonAbstract : public classThree { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; And right now I need it differently...I need it like class classNonAbstractOne : public classOne { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; class classNonAbstractTwo : public classTwo { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; and class classNonAbstractThree : public classThree { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; But all the nonAbstract classes have the same new methods, with the same code...and I would like to avoid copying all the methods and it's code to every nonAbstract class. How could I accomplish that? Hopefully it's understandable...

    Read the article

  • How to force grails GORM to respect DB scheme ?

    - by fabien-barbier
    I have two domains : class CodeSet { String id String owner String comments String geneRLF String systemAPF static hasMany = [cartridges:Cartridge] static constraints = { id(unique:true,blank:false) } static mapping = { table 'code_set' version false columns { id column:'code_set_id', generator: 'assigned' owner column:'owner' comments column:'comments' geneRLF column:'gene_rlf' systemAPF column:'system_apf' } } and : class Cartridge { String id String code_set_id Date runDate static belongsTo = CodeSet static constraints = { id(unique:true,blank:false) } static mapping = { table 'cartridge' version false columns { id column:'cartridge_id', generator: 'assigned' code_set_id column:'code_set_id' runDate column:'run_date' } } Actually, with those models, I get tables : - code_set, - cartridge, - and table : code_set_cartridge (two fields : code_set_cartridges_id, cartridge_id) I would like to not have code_set_cartridge table, but keep relationship : code_set -- 1:n -- cartridge In other words, how can I keep association between code_set and cartridge without intermediate table ? (using code_set_id as primary key in code_set and code_set_id as foreign key in cartridge). Mapping with GORM can be done without intermediate table?

    Read the article

  • Using DTOs and BOs

    - by ryanzec
    One area of question for me about DTOs/BOs is about when to pass/return the DTOs and when to pass/return the BOs. My gut reaction tells me to always map NHibernate to the DTOs, not BOs, and always pass/return the DTOs. Then whenever I needed to perform business logic, I would convert my DTO into a BO. The way I would do this is that my BO would have a have a constructor that takes a parameter that is the type of my interface (that defines the required fields/properties) that both my DTO and BO implement as the only argument. Then I would be able to create my BO by passing it the DTO in the constructor (since both with implement the same interface, they both with have the same properties) and then be able to perform my business logic with that BO. I would then also have a way to convert a BO to a DTO. However, I have also seen where people seem to only work with BOs and only work with DTOs in the background where to the user, it looks like there are no DTOs. What benefits/downfalls are there with this architecture vs always using BO's? Should I always being passing/returning either DTOs or BOs or mix and match (seems like mixing and matching could get confusing)?

    Read the article

  • Back Orders for ERP: data model references ?

    - by Patrick Honorez
    I have built an ERP using Sql Server as a back-end. These are the different types of Client documents (there are also Supplier Docs): Order -- impact: BO Delivery Note (also used for returns, with negative quantity) --impact: BO, Stock Invoice --impact: accounting only Credit Note --impact: accounting, BO I use a complex system of self joins (at detail level) to find out the quantities in each OrderDetail that still have a backorder (BO). It'd like to simplify this using a [group] field that could be used through all detail line related to an original order. There are many difficult things to trace: a Return of a product may be due to a defect and thus increase the BO, or it can be just a return, joined with a Credit Note, and then has no impact on BO. My question is: do you know of any real good reference (book, web) for this matter ?

    Read the article

  • Can the Singleton be replaced by Factory?

    - by lostiniceland
    Hello Everyone There are already quite some posts about the Singleton-Pattern around, but I would like to start another one on this topic since I would like to know if the Factory-Pattern would be the right approach to remove this "anti-pattern". In the past I used the singleton quite a lot, also did my fellow collegues since it is so easy to use. For example, the Eclipse IDE or better its workbench-model makes heavy usage of singletons as well. It was due to some posts about E4 (the next big Eclipse version) that made me start to rethink the singleton. The bottom line was that due to this singletons the dependecies in Eclipse 3.x are tightly coupled. Lets assume I want to get rid of all singletons completely and instead use factories. My thoughts were as follows: hide complexity less coupling I have control over how many instances are created (just store the reference I a private field of the factory) mock the factory for testing (with Dependency Injection) when it is behind an interface In some cases the factories can make more than one singleton obsolete (depending on business logic/component composition) Does this make sense? If not, please give good reasons for why you think so. An alternative solution is also appreciated. Thanks Marc

    Read the article

  • Dealing with dependencies between WCF services when using Castle Windsor

    - by Georgia Brown
    I have several WCF services which use castle windsor to resolve their dependencies. Now I need some of these services to talk to each other. The typical structure is service -- Business Logic -- DAL The calls to the other services need to occur at Business Logic level. What is the best approach for implementing this? Should I simply inject a service proxy into the business logic? Is this wasteful if for example, only one of two method from my service need to use this proxy? What if the services need to talk to each other? - Will castle windsor get stuck in a loop trying to resolve each services dependencies?

    Read the article

  • Include everything, Separate with "using"

    - by Dave
    I'm developing a C++ library. It got me thinking of the ways Java and C# handle including different components of the libraries. For example, Java uses "import" to allow use of classes from other packages, while C# simply uses "using" to import entire modules. My questions is, would it be a good idea to #include everything in the library in one massive include and then just use the using directive to import specific classes and modules? Or would this just be down right crazy? EDIT: Good responses so far, here are a few mitigating factors which I feel add to this idea: 1) Internal #includes are kept as normal (short and to the point) 2) The file which includes everything is optionally supplied with the library to those who wish to use it3) You could optionally make the big include file part of the pre-compiled header

    Read the article

  • Am I abusing Policies?

    - by pmr
    I find myself using policies a lot in my code and usually I'm very happy with that. But from time to time I find myself confronted with using that pattern in situations where the Policies are selected and runtime and I have developed habbits to work around such situations. Usually I start with something like that: class DrawArrays { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; class DrawElements { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public Policy { using Policy::sendDraw(); public: void render() const; }; When the policy is picked at runtime I have different choices of working around the situation. Different code paths: if(drawElements) { Vertices<DrawElements> vertices; } else { Vertices<DrawArrays> vertices; } Inheritance and virtual calls: class PureVertices { public: void render()=0; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public PureVertices, public Policy { //.. }; Both solutions feel wrong to me. The first creates an umaintainable mess and the second introduces the overhead of virtual calls that I tried to avoid by using policies in the first place. Am I missing the proper solutions or do I use the wrong pattern to solve the problem?

    Read the article

  • Are these jobs for developer or designers or for client itself?

    - by jitendra
    Spell checking grammar checking Descriptive alt text for big chart , graph images, technical images To write Table summary and caption Descriptive Link text Color Contrast checking Deciding in content what should be H2 ,H3, H4... and what should be <strong> or <span class="boldtext"> Meta Description and keywords for each pages Image compression To decide Filenames for images,PDf etc To decide Page's <title> for each page

    Read the article

  • Problem implementing Interceptor pattern

    - by ph0enix
    I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? Update: I came across Spring.NET. I've heard of it before, but never really looked into it. It sounds like it has a lot of great features that would be very useful for what I'm trying to do. Does anyone have any experience with Spring.NET? TIA, Jeremy

    Read the article

  • C# reference collection for storing reference types

    - by ivo s
    I like to implement a collection (something like List<T>) which would hold all my objects that I have created in the entire life span of my application as if its an array of pointers in C++. The idea is that when my process starts I can use a central factory to create all objects and then periodically validate/invalidate their state. Basically I want to make sure that my process only deals with valid instances and I don't re-fetch information I already fetched from the database. So all my objects will basically be in one place - my collection. A cool thing I can do with this is avoid database calls to get data from the database if I already got it (even if I updated it after retrieval its still up-to-date if of course some other process didn't update it but that a different concern). I don't want to be calling new Customer("James Thomas"); again if I initted James Thomas already sometime in the past. Currently I will end up with multiple copies of the same object across the appdomain - some out of sync other in sync and even though I deal with this using timestamp field on the MSSQL server I'd like to keep only one copy per customer in my appdomain (if possible process would be better). I can't use regular collections like List or ArrayList for example because I cannot pass parameters by their real local reference to the their existing Add() methods where I'm creating them using ref so that's not to good I think. So how can this be implemented/can it be implemented at all ? A 'linked list' type of class with all methods working with ref & out params is what I'm thinking now but it may get ugly pretty quickly. Is there another way to implement such collection like RefList<T>.Add(ref T obj)? So bottom line is: I don't want re-create an object if I've already created it before during the entire application life unless I decide to re-create it explicitly (maybe its out-of-date or something so I have to fetch it again from the db). Is there alternatives maybe ?

    Read the article

  • PHP MVC Framework Structure

    - by bigstylee
    I am sorry about the amount of code here. I have tried to show enough for understanding while avoiding confusion (I hope). I have included a second copy of the code at Pastebin. (The code does execute without error/notice/warning.) I am currently creating a Content Management System while trying to implement the idea of Model View Controller. I have only recently come across the concept of MVC (within the last week) and trying to implement this into my current project. One of the features of the CMS is dynamic/customisable menu areas and each feature will be represented by a controller. Therefore there will be multiple versions of the Controller Class, each with specific extended functionality. I have looked at a number of tutorials and read some open source solutions to the MVC Framework. I am now trying to create a lightweight solution for my specific requirements. I am not interested in backwards compatibility, I am using PHP 5.3. An advantage of the Base class is not having to use global and can directly access any loaded class using $this->Obj['ClassName']->property/function();. Hoping to get some feedback using the basic structure outlined (with performance in mind). Specifically; a) Have I understood/implemented the concept of MVC correctly? b) Have I understood/implemented Object Orientated techniques with PHP 5 correctly? c) Should the class propertise of Base be static? d) Improvements? Thank you very much in advance! <?php /* A "Super Class" that creates/stores all object instances */ class Base { public static $Obj = array(); // Not sure this is the correct use of the "static" keyword? public static $var; static public function load_class($directory, $class) { echo count(self::$Obj)."\n"; // This does show the array is getting updated and not creating a new array :) if (!isset(self::$Obj[$class]) && !is_object(self::$Obj[$class])) //dont want to load it twice { /* Locate and include the class file based upon name ($class) */ return self::$Obj[$class] = new $class(); } return TRUE; } } /* Loads general configuration objects into the "Super Class" */ class Libraries extends Base { public function __construct(){ $this->load_class('library', 'Database'); $this->load_class('library', 'Session'); self::$var = 'Hello World!'; //testing visibility /* Other general funciton classes */ } } class Database extends Base { /* Connects to the the database and executes all queries */ public function query(){} } class Session extends Base { /* Implements Sessions in database (read/write) */ } /* General functionality of controllers */ abstract class Controller extends Base { protected function load_model($class, $method) { /* Locate and include the model file */ $this->load_class('model', $class); call_user_func(array(self::$Obj[$class], $method)); } protected function load_view($name) { /* Locate and include the view file */ #include('views/'.$name.'.php'); } } abstract class View extends Base { /* ... */ } abstract class Model extends Base { /* ... */ } class News extends Controller { public function index() { /* Displays the 5 most recent News articles and displays with Content Area */ $this->load_model('NewsModel', 'index'); $this->load_view('news', 'index'); echo $this->var; } public function menu() { /* Displays the News Title of the 5 most recent News articles and displays within the Menu Area */ $this->load_model('news/index'); $this->load_view('news/index'); } } class ChatBox extends Controller { /* ... */ } /* Lots of different features extending the controller/view/model class depending upon request and layout */ class NewsModel extends Model { public function index() { echo $this->var; self::$Obj['Database']->query(/*SELECT 5 most recent news articles*/); } public function menu() { /* ... */ } } $Libraries = new Libraries; $controller = 'News'; // Would be determined from Query String $method = 'index'; // Would be determined from Query String $Content = $Libraries->load_class('controller', $controller); //create the controller for the specific page if (in_array($method, get_class_methods($Content))) { call_user_func(array($Content, $method)); } else { die('Bad Request'. $method); } $Content::$var = 'Goodbye World'; echo $Libraries::$var . ' - ' . $Content::$var; ?> /* Ouput */ 0 1 2 3 Goodbye World! - Goodbye World

    Read the article

  • Is Form validation and Business validation too much?

    - by Robert Cabri
    I've got this question about form validation and business validation. I see a lot of frameworks that use some sort of form validation library. You submit some values and the library validates the values from the form. If not ok it will show some errors on you screen. If all goes to plan the values will be set into domain objects. Here the values will be or, better said, should validated (again). Most likely the same validation in the validation library. I know 2 PHP frameworks having this kind of construction Zend/Kohana. When I look at programming and some principles like Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) and single responsibility principle (SRP) this isn't a good way. As you can see it validates twice. Why not create domain objects that do the actual validation. Example: Form with username and email form is submitted. Values of the username field and the email field will be populated in 2 different Domain objects: Username and Email class Username {} class Email {} These objects validate their data and if not valid throw an exception. Do you agree? What do you think about this aproach? Is there a better way to implement validations? I'm confused about a lot of frameworks/developers handling this stuff. Are they all wrong or am I missing a point? Edit: I know there should also be client side kind of validation. This is a different ballgame in my Opinion. If You have some comments on this and a way to deal with this kind of stuff, please provide.

    Read the article

  • Sequence Diagram return a new constructed Object

    - by user256007
    I am drawing a Sequence Diagram where the scenario is. 1. an Actor calls :Table::query(query:String) :Table::query Calls :Connection::execute(query) :Connection::execute < a new :Row Object :Connection::execute calls :Row::fillData(result) :Connection::execute returns :Row ...... There are More But I am Stuck in Step 5 I cant Understand how to draw that, :Connection::execute returning the newly Constructed Row itself, in a Standard way.

    Read the article

  • Google Calendar like interface

    - by John Virgolino
    I need to write an application that essentially functions like a week-view of a calendar, columns for the days and then rows for appointments. Where the height of the appointment box visually represents time. In my case, I just don't want the time of day as the vertical axis, I just want hours or mins. The Google AJAX approach is very clean and easy to use and would be perfect, I think, but my major knowledge comes in ASP.Net and Windows Forms (.Net). I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but I find my mind is stuck on this problem and that I would have to create an interface from scratch for this. I have checked out the Infragistics product (used it for other projects) and read up a lot on the Google API's including their Ajax toolkit. I haven't done Java, however learning a language is not my issue, it's learning the particulars that will help me reach my goal that I feel will take most of the time. Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Is this really a lot easier than I think? This is starting to sound like a Dear Abby post - I'll stop now. Any advice or insight would be great! Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • How to reference a specific object in an array of objects using jTemplates

    - by Travis
    I am using the excellent jTemplates plugin to generate content. Given a data object like this... var data = { name: 'datatable', table: [ {id: 1, name: 'Anne'}, {id: 2, name: 'Amelie'}, {id: 3, name: 'Polly'}, {id: 4, name: 'Alice'}, {id: 5, name: 'Martha'} ] }; ..I'm wondering if it is possible to directly specify an object in an array of objects using $T. (I'm hoping there is something like $T.table:3 available) Currently the only way I can think of to access a specific object in an array is to do something like this... {#foreach $T.table as record} {#if $T.record$iteration == 3} This is record 3! Name: {$T.record.name} {#/if} {#/for} However that seems clumsy... Any suggestions? Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293  | Next Page >