Search Results

Search found 3321 results on 133 pages for 'patterns'.

Page 29/133 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

• Why are MVC & TDD not employed more in game architecture?

  - by secoif

  I will preface this by saying I haven't looked a huge amount of game source, nor built much in the way of games. But coming from trying to employ 'enterprise' coding practices in web apps, looking at game source code seriously hurts my head: "What is this view logic doing in with business logic? this needs refactoring... so does this, refactor, refactorrr" This worries me as I'm about to start a game project, and I'm not sure whether trying to mvc/tdd the dev process is going to hinder us or help us, as I don't see many game examples that use this or much push for better architectural practices it in the community. The following is an extract from a great article on prototyping games, though to me it seemed exactly the attitude many game devs seem to use when writing production game code: Mistake #4: Building a system, not a game ...if you ever find yourself working on something that isn’t directly moving your forward, stop right there. As programmers, we have a tendency to try to generalize our code, and make it elegant and be able to handle every situation. We find that an itch terribly hard not scratch, but we need to learn how. It took me many years to realize that it’s not about the code, it’s about the game you ship in the end. Don’t write an elegant game component system, skip the editor completely and hardwire the state in code, avoid the data-driven, self-parsing, XML craziness, and just code the damned thing. ... Just get stuff on the screen as quickly as you can. And don’t ever, ever, use the argument “if we take some extra time and do this the right way, we can reuse it in the game”. EVER. is it because games are (mostly) visually oriented so it makes sense that the code will be weighted heavily in the view, thus any benefits from moving stuff out to models/controllers, is fairly minimal, so why bother? I've heard the argument that MVC introduces a performance overhead, but this seems to me to be a premature optimisation, and that there'd more important performance issues to tackle before you worry about MVC overheads (eg render pipeline, AI algorithms, datastructure traversal, etc). Same thing regarding TDD. It's not often I see games employing test cases, but perhaps this is due to the design issues above (mixed view/business) and the fact that it's difficult to test visual components, or components that rely on probablistic results (eg operate within physics simulations). Perhaps I'm just looking at the wrong source code, but why do we not see more of these 'enterprise' practices employed in game design? Are games really so different in their requirements, or is a people/culture issue (ie game devs come from a different background and thus have different coding habits)?

  Read the article

• How can I design my classes for a calendar based on database events?

  - by Gianluca78

  I'm developing a web calendar in php (using Symfony2) inspired by iCal for a project of mine. At this moment, I have two classes: a class "Calendar" and a class "CalendarCell". Here you are the two classes properties and method declarations. class Calendar { private $month; private $monthName; private $year; private $calendarCellList = array(); private $translator; public function __construct($month, $year, $translator) {} public function getCalendarCells() {} public function getMonth() {} public function getMonthName() {} public function getNextMonth() {} public function getNextYear() {} public function getPreviousMonth() {} public function getPreviousYear() {} public function getYear() {} private function calculateDaysPreviousMonth() {} private function calculateNumericDayOfTheFirstDayOfTheWeek() {} private function isCurrentDay(\DateTime $dateTime) {} private function isDifferentMonth(\DateTime $dateTime) {} } class CalendarCell { private $day; private $month; private $dayNameAbbreviation; private $numericDayOfTheWeek; private $isCurrentDay; private $isDifferentMonth; private $translator; public function __construct(array $parameters) {} public function getDay() {} public function getMonth() {} public function getDayNameAbbreviation() {} public function isCurrentDay() {} public function isDifferentMonth() {} } Each calendar day can includes many events stored in a database. My question is: which is the best way to manage these events in my classes? I think to add a eventList property in CalendarCell and populate it with an array of CalendarEvent objects fetched by the database. This kind of solution doesn't allow other coders to reuse the classes without db (because I should inject at least a repository services also) just to create and visualize a calendar... so maybe it could be better to extend CalendarCell (for instance in CalendarCellEvent) and add the database features? I feel like I'm missing some crucial design pattern! Any suggestion will be very appreciated!

  Read the article

• How would you model an objects representing different phases of an entity life cycle?

  - by Ophir Yoktan

  I believe the scenario is common mostly in business workflows - for example: loan management the process starts with a loan application, then there's the loan offer, the 'live' loan, and maybe also finished loans. all these objects are related, and share many fields all these objects have also many fields that are unique for each entity the variety of objects maybe large, and the transformation between the may not be linear (for example: a single loan application may end up as several loans of different types) How would you model this? some options: an entity for each type, each containing the relevant fields (possibly grouping related fields as sub entities) - leads to duplication of data. an entity for each object, but instead of duplicating data, each object has a reference to it's predecessor (the loan doesn't contain the loaner details, but a reference to the loan application) - this causes coupling between the object structure, and the way it was created. if we change the loan application, it shouldn't effect the structure of the loan entity. one large entity, with fields for the whole life cycle - this can create 'mega objects' with many fields. it also doesn't work well when there's a one to many or many to many relation between the phases.

  Read the article

• How to Avoid a Busy Loop Inside a Function That Returns the Object That's Being Waited For

  - by Carl Smith

  I have a function which has the same interface as Python's input builtin, but it works in a client-server environment. When it's called, the function, which runs in the server, sends a message to the client, asking it to get some input from the user. The user enters some stuff, or dismisses the prompt, and the result is passed back to the server, which passes it to the function. The function then returns the result. The function must work like Python's input [that's the spec], so it must block until it has the result. This is all working, but it uses a busy loop, which, in practice, could easily be spinning for many minutes. Currently, the function tells the client to get the input, passing an id. The client returns the result with the id. The server puts the result in a dictionary, with the id as the key. The function basically waits for that key to exist. def input(): '''simplified example''' key = unique_key() tell_client_to_get_input(key) while key not in dictionary: pass return dictionary.pop(pin) Using a callback would be the normal way to go, but the input function must block until the result is available, so I can't see how that could work. The spec can't change, as Python will be using the new input function for stuff like help and pdb, which provide their own little REPLs. I have a lot of flexibility in terms of how everything works overall, but just can't budge on the function acting exactly like Python's. Is there any way to return the result as soon as it's available, without the busy loop?

  Read the article

• How to change the state of a singleton in runtime

  - by user34401

  Consider I am going to write a simple file based logger AppLogger to be used in my apps, ideally it should be a singleton so I can call it via public class AppLogger { public static String file = ".."; public void logToFile() { // Write to file } public static log(String s) { AppLogger.getInstance().logToFile(s); } } And to use it AppLogger::log("This is a log statement"); The problem is, what is the best time I should provide the value of file since it is a just a singleton? Or how to refactor the above code (or skip using singleton) so I can customize the log file path? (Assume I don't need to write to multiple at the same time) p.s. I know I can use library e.g. log4j, but consider it is just a design question, how to refactor the code above?

  Read the article

• Making a class pseudo-immutable by setting a flag

  - by scott_fakename

  I have a java project that involves building some pretty complex objects. There are quite a lot (dozens) of different ones and some of them have a HUGE number of parameters. They also need to be immutable. So I was thinking the builder pattern would work, but it ends up require a lot of boilerplate. Another potential solution I thought of was to make a mutable class, but give it a "frozen" flag, a-la ruby. Here is a simple example: public class EqualRule extends Rule { private boolean frozen; private int target; public EqualRule() { frozen = false; } public void setTarget(int i) { if (frozen) throw new IllegalStateException( "Can't change frozen rule."); target = i; } public int getTarget() { return target; } public void freeze() { frozen = true; } @Override public boolean checkRule(int i) { return (target == i); } } and "Rule" is just an abstract class that has an abstract "checkRule" method. This cuts way down on the number of objects I need to write, while also giving me an object that becomes immutable for all intents and purposes. This kind of act like the object was its own Builder... But not quite. I'm not too excited, however, about having an immutable being disguised as a bean however. So I had two questions: 1. Before I go too far down this path, are there any huge problems that anyone sees right off the bat? For what it's worth, it is planned that this behavior will be well documented... 2. If so, is there a better solution? Thanks

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern or logical structure I can follow for Event Log Numbers?

  - by makerofthings7

  What are some ideas or structure I can use when assigning EventID to events that will be saved to the Event Log? Some options I've considered Sequential (0... int.Max) Multiple of 10, where the "0" is replaced with how noisy the debugLevel is set. xxx0 may represent exceptions, critical information, start, stop etc. ...? What numbering approach gives you the most insight when a user describes the event in an email or phone? What is the most useful to support staff?

  Read the article

• Implementing Command Pattern in Web Application

  - by KingOfHypocrites

  I'm looking to implement the command pattern in a web application (asp.net c#)... Since the commands come in text format from the client, what is the best way to translate the string to a command object? Should I use reflection? Currently I just assume the command that comes in matches the file name of a user control. This is a bit of a hack. Rather than have a select case statement that says if string = "Dashboard" then call Dashboard.Execute(), is there a pattern for working with commands that originate as strings?

  Read the article

• What to do as a new team lead on a project with maintainability problems?

  - by Mr_E

  I have just been put in charge of a code project with maintainability problems. What things can I do to get the project on a stable footing? I find myself in a place where we are working with a very large multi-tiered .NET system that is missing a lot of the important things such as unit tests, IOC, MEF, too many static classes, pure datasets etc. I'm only 24 but I've been here for almost three years (this app has been in development for 5) and mostly due to time constraints we've been just adding in more crap to fit the other crap. After doing a number of projects in my free time I have begun to understand just how important all those concepts are. Also due to employee shifting I find myself to now be the team lead on this project and I really want to come up with some smart ways to improve this app. Ways where the value can be explained to management. I have ideas of what I would like to do but they all seem so overwhelming without much upfront gain. Any stories of how people have or would have dealt with this would be a very interesting read. Thanks.

  Read the article

• What is a useful pattern to maintaining an object state in a one to many relationship?

  - by ahenderson

  I am looking for a design for my application, here are the players(classes) involved. struct Transform { // Uses a matrix to transform the position. // Also acts acts as the state of a Dialog. Position transform(Position p); //other methods. }; struct Dialog { // There are multiple dialog for the user to transform the output. Transform& t; void ChangeTranformation(){t.rotate(360);} } struct Algorithm { //gives us a position based on an implementation. For example this can return points on a circle or line. Transform& t; Position m_p; Dialog& d; Position GetCurrentPosition(){ return t.transform(m_p);} //other methods. } Properties I need: Each algorithms has one dialog and each dialog can have many algorithms associated with it. When the user selects an algorithm a dialog associated with that algorithm is displayed. If the user selects a different algorithm then re-selects back the state is restored in the dialog. Basically I want a good design pattern to maintain the state of the dialog given that many algorithms use it and they can be switched back and forth. Does anyone have any suggestions? Here is a use case: Dialog1 has a single edit box to control the radius. Algorithm1 generates points on a unit circle. Algorithm2 is the same as Algorithm1. The user has selected Algorithm1 and entered 2 into the edit box. This will generate points on a circle of radius 2. The user then selects Algorithm2 and enters 10 into the edit box of Dialog1. This will generate points on a circle of radius 10. Finally Algorithm1 is selected again. The edit box of Dialog1 should show 2 and points on a circle of radius 2 should be generated.

  Read the article

• How to refactor to cleaner version of maintaing states of the widget

  - by George

  Backstory I inherited a bunch of code that I'd like to refactor. It is a UI application written in javascript. Current state: We have main application which consist of several UI components. And each component has entry fields, textboxes, menus, etc), like "ticket", "customer information", etc. Based on input, where the application was called from, who is the user, we enable/disable, hide, show, change titles. Unfortunately, the app grew to the point where it is really hard to scale, add new features. Main the driver (application code) calls set/unset functions of the respective components. So a lot of the stuff look like this Main app unit function1() { **call_function2()** component1.setX(true); component1.setY(true); component2.setX(false); } call_function2() { // it may repeat some of the code function1 called } and we have a lot of this in the main union. I am cleaning this mess. What is the best way to maintain the state of widgets? Please let me know if you need me to clarify.

  Read the article

• Entity Framework 5, separating business logic from model - Repository?

  - by bnice7

  I am working on my first public-facing web application and I’m using MVC 4 for the presentation layer and EF 5 for the DAL. The database structure is locked, and there are moderate differences between how the user inputs data and how the database itself gets populated. I have done a ton of reading on the repository pattern (which I have never used) but most of my research is pushing me away from using it since it supposedly creates an unnecessary level of abstraction for the latest versions of EF since repositories and unit-of-work are already built-in. My initial approach is to simply create a separate set of classes for my business objects in the BLL that can act as an intermediary between my Controllers and the DAL. Here’s an example class: public class MyBuilding { public int Id { get; private set; } public string Name { get; set; } public string Notes { get; set; } private readonly Entities _context = new Entities(); // Is this thread safe? private static readonly int UserId = WebSecurity.GetCurrentUser().UserId; public IEnumerable<MyBuilding> GetList() { IEnumerable<MyBuilding> buildingList = from p in _context.BuildingInfo where p.Building.UserProfile.UserId == UserId select new MyBuilding {Id = p.BuildingId, Name = p.BuildingName, Notes = p.Building.Notes}; return buildingList; } public void Create() { var b = new Building {UserId = UserId, Notes = this.Notes}; _context.Building.Add(b); _context.SaveChanges(); // Set the building ID this.Id = b.BuildingId; // Seed 1-to-1 tables with reference the new building _context.BuildingInfo.Add(new BuildingInfo {Building = b}); _context.GeneralInfo.Add(new GeneralInfo {Building = b}); _context.LocationInfo.Add(new LocationInfo {Building = b}); _context.SaveChanges(); } public static MyBuilding Find(int id) { using (var context = new Entities()) // Is this OK to do in a static method? { var b = context.Building.FirstOrDefault(p => p.BuildingId == id && p.UserId == UserId); if (b == null) throw new Exception("Error: Building not found or user does not have access."); return new MyBuilding {Id = b.BuildingId, Name = b.BuildingInfo.BuildingName, Notes = b.Notes}; } } } My primary concern: Is the way I am instantiating my DbContext as a private property thread-safe, and is it safe to have a static method that instantiates a separate DbContext? Or am I approaching this all wrong? I am not opposed to learning up on the repository pattern if I am taking the total wrong approach here.

  Read the article

• Can observer pattern be represented by cars and traffic lights?

  - by eeerahul

  I wanted to verify with all of you, if I have a correct Observer Pattern analogy. The scenario is as follows: Consider, at a junction, there is a traffic signal, having red, yellow and green lights respectively. There are vehicles facing the traffic signal post. When it shows red, the vehicles stop, when it shows green, the vehicles move on. In case, it is yellow, the driver must decide whether to go or to stop, depending on whether he/she has crossed the stop line or not. At the same time, there are vehicles that do not care about the signal. They would do as they like. The similarities are that, the Traffic Signal happens to be the subject, notifying its states by glowing the appropriate lights. Those looking at it and following the signal are the ones subscribed to it, and behave according to the state of the subject. Those who do not care about it, are sort-of un-subscribed from the traffic signal. Please tell me, if you think this is a correct analogy or not?

  Read the article

• Create many similar classes, or just one

  - by soandos

  The goal is to create an application that has objects that can represent some operations (add, subtract, etc). All of those objects will have common functions and members, and thus will either implement an interface or inherit from an abstract class (Which would be better practice, this will be in C# if that matters?). As far as I can see, there are two different ways of organizing all of these classes. I could create an addition class, a subtraction class, etc. This has the upside of being highly modular but the difference between classes is so minimal. I could create one class, and have a member that will say what type of operation is being represented. This means lots of switch statements, and losing some modularity, in addition to being harder to maintain. Which is is better practice? Is there a better way of doing that is not listed above? If it matters, the list of functions that should be supported is long.

  Read the article

• 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

• Is this a pattern? Should it be?

  - by Arkadiy

  The following is more of a statement than a question - it describes something that may be a pattern. The question is: is this a known pattern? Or, if it's not, should it be? I've had a situation where I had to iterate over two dissimilar multi-layer data structures and copy information from one to the other. Depending on particular use case, I had around eight different kinds of layers, combined in about eight different combinations: A-B-C B-C A-C D-E A-D-E and so on After a few unsuccessful attempts to factor out the repetition of per-layer iteration code, I realized that the key difficulty in this refactoring was the fact that the bottom level needed access to data gathered at higher levels. To explicitly accommodate this requirement, I introduced IterationContext class with a number of get() and set() methods for accumulating the necessary information. In the end, I had the following class structure: class Iterator { virtual void iterateOver(const Structure &dataStructure1, IterationContext &ctx) const = 0; }; class RecursingIterator : public Iterator { RecursingIterator(const Iterator &below); }; class IterateOverA : public RecursingIterator { virtual void iterateOver(const Structure &dataStructure1, IterationContext &ctx) const { // Iterate over members in dataStructure1 // locate corresponding item in dataStructure2 (passed via context) // and set it in the context // invoke the sub-iterator }; class IterateOverB : public RecursingIterator { virtual void iterateOver(const Structure &dataStructure1, IterationContext &ctx) const { // iterate over members dataStructure2 (form context) // set dataStructure2's item in the context // locate corresponding item in dataStructure2 (passed via context) // invoke the sub-iterator }; void main() { class FinalCopy : public Iterator { virtual void iterateOver(const Structure &dataStructure1, IterationContext &ctx) const { // copy data from structure 1 to structure 2 in the context, // using some data from higher levels as needed } } IterationContext ctx(dateStructure2); IterateOverA(IterateOverB(FinalCopy())).iterate(dataStructure1, ctx); } It so happens that dataStructure1 is a uniform data structure, similar to XML DOM in that respect, while dataStructure2 is a legacy data structure made of various structs and arrays. This allows me to pass dataStructure1 outside of the context for convenience. In general, either side of the iteration or both sides may be passed via context, as convenient. The key situation points are: complicated code that needs to be invoked in "layers", with multiple combinations of layer types possible at the bottom layer, the information from top layers needs to be visible. The key implementation points are: use of context class to access the data from all levels of iteration complicated iteration code encapsulated in implementation of pure virtual function two interfaces - one aware of underlying iterator, one not aware of it. use of const & to simplify the usage syntax.

  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

• 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

• Use decorator and factory together to extend objects?

  - by TheClue

  I'm new to OOP and design pattern. I've a simple app that handles the generation of Tables, Columns (that belong to Table), Rows (that belong to Column) and Values (that belong to Rows). Each of these object can have a collection of Property, which is in turn defined as an enum. They are all interfaces: I used factories to get concrete instances of these products, depending on circumnstances. Now I'm facing the problem of extending these classes. Let's say I need another product called "SpecialTable" which in turn has some special properties or new methods like 'getSomethingSpecial' or an extended set of Property. The only way is to extend/specialize all my elements (ie. build a SpecialTableFactory, a SpecialTable interface and a SpecialTableImpl concrete)? What to do if, let's say, I plan to use standard methods like addRow(Column column, String name) that doesn't need to be specialized? I don't like the idea to inherit factories and interfaces, but since SpecialTable has more methods than Table i guess it cannot share the same factory. Am I wrong? Another question: if I need to define product properties at run time (a Table that is upgraded to SpecialTable at runtime), i guess i should use a decorator. Is it possible (and how) to combine both factory and decorator design? Is it better to use a State or Strategy pattern, instead?

  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

• Must all AI states be able to react to any event?

  - by Prog

  FSMs implemented with the State design pattern are a common way to design AI agents. I am familiar with the State design pattern and know how to implement it. How is this used in games to design AI agents? Consider a simplified class Monster, representing an AI agent: class Monster { State state; // other fields omitted public void update(){ // called every game-loop cycle state.execute(this); } public void setState(State state){ this.state = state; } // irrelevant stuff omitted } There are several State subclasses implementing execute() differently. So far, classic State pattern. AI agents are subject to environmental effects and other objects communicating with them. For example, an AI agent might tell another AI agent to attack (i.e. agent.attack()). Or a fireball might tell an AI agent to fall down. This means that the agent must have methods such as attack() and fallDown(), or commonly some message receiving mechanism to understand such messages. With an FSM, the current State of the agent should be the one taking care of such method calls - i.e. the agent delegates to the current state upon every event. Is this correct? If correct, how is this done? Are all states obligated by their superclass to implement methods such as attack(), fallDown() etc., so the agent can always delegate to them on almost every event? Or is it done in some other way?

  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

• How to choose between using a Domain Event, or letting the application layer orchestrate everything

  - by Mr Happy

  I'm setting my first steps into domain driven design, bought the blue book and all, and I find myself seeing three ways to implement a certain solution. For the record: I'm not using CQRS or Event Sourcing. Let's say a user request comes into the application service layer. The business logic for that request is (for whatever reason) separated into a method on an entity, and a method on a domain service. How should I go about calling those methods? The options I have gathered so far are: Let the application service call both methods Use method injection/double dispatch to inject the domain service into the entity, letting the entity do it's thing and then let it call the method of the domain service (or the other way around, letting the domain service call the method on the entity) Raise a domain event in the entity method, a handler of which calls the domain service. (The kind of domain events I'm talking about are: http://www.udidahan.com/2009/06/14/domain-events-salvation/) I think these are all viable, but I'm unable to choose between them. I've been thinking about this a long time and I've come to a point where I no longer see the semantic differences between the three. Do you know of some guidelines when to use what?

  Read the article

• I know of three ways in which SRP helps reduce coupling. Are there even more? [closed]

  - by user1483278

  I'd like to figure all the possible ways SRP helps us reduce coupling. Thus far I can think of three: 1) If class A has more than one responsibility, these responsibilities become coupled and as such changes to one of these responsibilities may require changes to other of A's responsibilities. 2) Related functionality usually needs to be changed for the same reason and by grouping it togerther in a single class, the changes can be made in as few places as possible ( at best changes only need be made to the class which groups together these functionalities) 3) Assuming class A performs two tasks ( thus may change for two reasons ), then number of classes utilising A will be greater than if A performed just a single task ( reason being that some classes will need A to perform first task, other will need A for second task, and still others will utilise it for both tasks ).This also means that when A breaks, the number of classes ( utilising A ) being impaired will be greater than if A performed just a single task. Can SRP also help reduce coupling in any other way, not described above? Thank you

  Read the article

• How to control messages to the same port from different emitters?

  - by Alex In Paris

  Scene: A company has many factories X, each emits a message to the same receive port in a Biztalk server Y; if all messages are processed without much delay, each will trigger an outgoing message to another system Z. Problem: Sometimes a factory loses its connection for a half-day or more and, when the connection is reestablished, thousands of messages get emitted. Now, the messages still get processed well by Y (Biztalk can easily handle the load) but system Z can't handle the flood and may lock up and severely delay the processing of all other messages from the other X. What is the solution? Creating multiple receive locations that permits us to pause one X or another would lose us information if the factory isn't smart enough to know whether the message was received or not. What is the basic pattern to apply in Biztalk for this problem? Would some throttling parameters help to limit the flow from any one X? Or are their techniques on the end part of Y which I should use instead ? I would prefer this last one since I can be confident that the message box will remember any failures, which could then be resumed.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >