Search Results

Search found 26869 results on 1075 pages for 'library design'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 292/1075 | < Previous Page | 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • Is there a recommended way to use the Observer pattern in MVP using GWT?

    - by Tomislav Nakic-Alfirevic
    I am thinking about implementing a user interface according to the MVP pattern using GWT, but have doubts about how to proceed. These are (some of) my goals: - the presenter knows nothing about the UI technology (i.e. uses nothing from com.google.*) - the view knows nothing about the model or the presenter - the model knows nothing of the view or the presenter (...obviously) I would place an interface between the view and the presenter and use the Observer pattern to decouple the two: the view generates events and the presenter gets notified. What confuses me is that java.util.Observer and java.util.Observable are not supported in GWT. This suggests that what I'm doing is not the recommended way to do it, as far as GWT is concerned, which leads me to my questions: what is the recommended way to implement MVP using GWT, specifically with the above goals in mind? How would you do it?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Updating multiple tables with LinqToSql in one unit of work

    - by zsharp
    Table 1: int ID-a(pk) Table 2: int ID-a(pk), int ID-b(pk) Table 3: int ID-b(pk), string C I have the data to insert into Table 1. But I do not have the ID-a, which is autogenerated. I have many string C to insert in Table 3. I am trying to insert row into Table 1, get the ID-a to insert in Table 2 along with the ID-b that is auto-Generated in Table 3 when I submit each string C, all in one submission to db. Right now I am calling dc.SubmitChanges twice in same call. Is it efficient to have to submit changes twice on same DataContext or can this be combined further?

    Read the article

  • Migration solution for singletons in an OSGI environment

    - by Ido
    I'm working in a JEE Environment in which each application is in a war file of its own. In the WEB-INF/lib of each application war file there is a common jar that is shared by all applications. This common jar contains several Singletons which are accessed from many points in the code. Because of the war-file boundaries each application has its own instances of the Singletons. Which is how we operate today, since we want to configure some of the singletons differently in each application. Now we are moving towards an OSGi environment, where this solution will no longer work since each bundle has its own class loader, so if I try to access MySingleton which resides in bundle "common.jar" from bundle "appA.jar" or from bundle "appB.jar" I will get the same instance. Remember I "want" a different instance of a singleton per bundle. (as ironic as it sounds) Now I realize the ideal solution would be to fix the code to not rely on those singletons, however due to a tight schedule I was wondering if you guys can suggest some sort of a migration solution that would allow me to use bundle-wide singletons so each of them could be configured per bundle.

    Read the article

  • should I ever put a major version number into a C#/Java namespace?

    - by Andrew Patterson
    I am designing a set of 'service' layer objects (data objects and interface definitions) for a WCF web service (that will be consumed by third party clients i.e. not in-house, so outside my direct control). I know that I am not going to get the interface definition exactly right - and am wanting to prepare for the time when I know that I will have to introduce a breaking set of new data objects. However, the reality of the world I am in is that I will also need to run my first version simultaneously for quite a while. The first version of my service will have URL of http://host/app/v1service.svc and when the times comes by new version will live at http://host/app/v2service.svc However, when it comes to the data objects and interfaces, I am toying with putting the 'major' version of the interface number into the actual namespace of the classes. namespace Company.Product.V1 { [DataContract(Namespace = "company-product-v1")] public class Widget { [DataMember] string widgetName; } public interface IFunction { Widget GetWidgetData(int code); } } When the time comes for a fundamental change to the service, I will introduce some classes like namespace Company.Product.V2 { [DataContract(Namespace = "company-product-v2")] public class Widget { [DataMember] int widgetCode; [DataMember] int widgetExpiry; } public interface IFunction { Widget GetWidgetData(int code); } } The advantages as I see it are that I will be able to have a single set of code serving both interface versions, sharing functionality where possible. This is because I will be able to reference both interface versions as a distinct set of C# objects. Similarly, clients may use both interface versions simultaneously, perhaps using V1.Widget in some legacy code whilst new bits move on to V2.Widget. Can anyone tell why this is a stupid idea? I have a nagging feeling that this is a bit smelly.. notes: I am obviously not proposing every single new version of the service would be in a new namespace. Presumably I will do as many non-breaking interface changes as possible, but I know that I will hit a point where all the data modelling will probably need a significant rewrite. I understand assembly versioning etc but I think this question is tangential to that type of versioning. But I could be wrong.

    Read the article

  • Some questions regarding Flex

    - by Rachel
    For what real time scenarios/use cases one should go to Flex Technology ? What real time problems you have solved using Flex Technology ? What real time problems have you faced because of using Flex Technology and what was your work around for that use case ?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299  | Next Page >