Search Results

Search found 33758 results on 1351 pages for 'primary key 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 295/1351 | < Previous Page | 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302  | Next Page >

  • How to avoid using this in a constructor

    - by Paralife
    I have this situation: interface MessageListener { void onMessageReceipt(Message message); } class MessageReceiver { MessageListener listener; public MessageReceiver(MessageListener listener, other arguments...) { this.listener = listener; } loop() { Message message = nextMessage(); listener.onMessageReceipt(message); } } and I want to avoid the following pattern: (Using the this in the Client constructor) class Client implements MessageListener { MessageReceiver receiver; MessageSender sender; public Client(...) { receiver = new MessageReceiver(this, other arguments...); sender = new Sender(...); } . . . @Override public void onMessageReceipt(Message message) { if(Message.isGood()) sender.send("Congrtulations"); else sender.send("Boooooooo"); } } The reason why i need the above functionality is because i want to call the sender inside the onMessageReceipt() function, for example to send a reply. But I dont want to pass the sender into a listener, so the only way I can think of is containing the sender in a class that implements the listener, hence the above resulting Client implementation. Is there a way to achive this without the use of 'this' in the constructor? It feels bizare and i dont like it, since i am passing myself to an object(MessageReceiver) before I am fully constructed. On the other hand, the MessageReceiver is not passed from outside, it is constructed inside, but does this 'purifies' the bizarre pattern? I am seeking for an alternative or an assurance of some kind that this is safe, or situations on which it might backfire on me.

    Read the article

  • Schemas and tables versus user-ids in a single table using PostgreSQL

    - by gvkv
    I'm developing a web app and I've come to a fork in the road with respect to database structure and I don't know which direction to take. I have a database with user information that I can structure one of two ways. The first is to create a schema and a set of tables for each user (duplicating the structure for each user) and the second is to create a single set of tables and query information based on user-id. Suppose 100000 users. Here are my questions: Considering security, performance, scalability and administration where does each choice lie? Would the answers change for 1000000 or 10000? Is there a set of best practices that lead to one choice or the other? It seems to me that multiple schemas are more secure since it's trivial to restrict user privileges but what about performance and scalability? Administration seems like a wash since dumping (and restoring) lots of schemas isn't any more difficult than dumping a few.

    Read the article

  • Options for keeping models and the UI in sync (in a desktop application context)

    - by Benju
    In my experience I have only had 2 patterns work for large-scale desktop application development when trying to keep the model and UI in sync. 1-An eventbus approach via a shared eventbus command objects are fired (ie:UserDemographicsUpdatedEvent) and have various parts of the UI update if they are bound to the same user object updated in this event. 2-Attempt to bind the UI directly to the model adding listeners to the model itself as needed. I find this approach rather clunky as it pollutes the domain model. Does anybody have other suggestions? In a web application with something like JSP binding to the model is easy as you ussually only care about the state of the model at the time your request comes in, not so in a desktop type application. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Using implicit conversion as a substitute for multiple inheritance in .NET

    - by Daniel Plaisted
    I have a situation where I would like to have objects of a certain type be able to be used as two different types. If one of the "base" types was an interface this wouldn't be an issue, but in my case it is preferable that they both be concrete types. I am considering adding copies of the methods and properties of one of the base types to the derived type, and adding an implicit conversion from the derived type to that base type. Then users will be able treat the derived type as the base type by using the duplicated methods directly, by assigning it to a variable of the base type, or by passing it to a method that takes the base type. It seems like this solution will fit my needs well, but am I missing anything? Is there a situation where this won't work, or where it is likely to add confusion instead of simplicity when using the API?

    Read the article

  • Business Objects - Containers or functional?

    - by Walter
    Where I work, we've gone back and forth on this subject a number of times and are looking for a sanity check. Here's the question: Should Business Objects be data containers (more like DTOs) or should they also contain logic that can perform some functionality on that object. Example - Take a customer object, it probably contains some common properties (Name, Id, etc), should that customer object also include functions (Save, Calc, etc.)? One line of reasoning says separate the object from the functionality (single responsibility principal) and put the functionality in a Business Logic layer or object. The other line of reasoning says, no, if I have a customer object I just want to call Customer.Save and be done with it. Why do I need to know about how to save a customer if I'm consuming the object? Our last two projects have had the objects separated from the functionality, but the debate has been raised again on a new project. Which makes more sense? EDIT These results are very similar to our debates. One vote to one side or another completely changes the direction. Does anyone else want to add their 2 cents? EDIT Eventhough the answer sampling is small, it appears that the majority believe that functionality in a business object is acceptable as long as it is simple but persistence is best placed in a separate class/layer. We'll give this a try. Thanks for everyone's input...

    Read the article

  • Graph-structured databases and Php

    - by stagas
    I want to use a graph database using php. Can you point out some resources on where to get started? Is there any example code / tutorial out there? Or are there any other methods of storing data that relate to each other in totally random/abstract situations? - Very abstract example of the relations needed: John relates to Mary, both relate to School, John is Tall, Mary is Short, John has Blue Eyes, Mary has Green Eyes, query I want is which people are related to 'Short people that have Green Eyes and go to School' - answer John - Another example: TrackA -> ArtistA -> ArtistB -> AlbumA -----> [ label ] -> AlbumB -----> [ A ] -> TrackA:Remix -> Genre:House -> [ Album ] -----> [ label ] TrackB -> [ C ] [ B ] Example queries: Which Genre is TrackB closer to? answer: House - because it's related to Album C, which is related to TrackA and is related to Genre:House Get all Genre:House related albums of Label A : result: AlbumA, AlbumB - because they both have TrackA which is related to Genre:House - It is possible in MySQL but it would require a fixed set of attributes/columns for each item and a complex non-flexible query, instead I need every attribute to be an item by itself and instead of 'belonging' to something, to be 'related' to something.

    Read the article

  • Performance Tricks for C# Logging

    - by Charles
    I am looking into C# logging and I do not want my log messages to spend any time processing if the message is below the logging threshold. The best I can see log4net does is a threshold check AFTER evaluating the log parameters. Example: _logger.Debug( "My complicated log message " + thisFunctionTakesALongTime() + " will take a long time" ) Even if the threshold is above Debug, thisFunctionTakesALongTime will still be evaluated. In log4net you are supposed to use _logger.isDebugEnabled so you end up with if( _logger.isDebugEnabled ) _logger.Debug( "Much faster" ) I want to know if there is a better solution for .net logging that does not involve a check each time I want to log. In C++ I am allowed to do LOG_DEBUG( "My complicated log message " + thisFunctionTakesALongTime() + " will take no time" ) since my LOG_DEBUG macro does the log level check itself. This frees me to have a 1 line log message throughout my app which I greatly prefer. Anyone know of a way to replicate this behavior in C#?

    Read the article

  • Sequence numbers best practice

    - by Abdullah Jibaly
    What's the best practice or well known methods to implement sequence numbers for business entities such as invoices, purchase orders, job numbers, etc? I want to be able to save the latest value in the database and be able to set it programatically. Is it OK to use a table for this purpose that has a SEQUENCE_NAME, SEQUENCE_NUMBER tuple? I know some databases have a first class sequence type but others (eg, MySQL) do not so it's not something I want to rely on. If a table is used to hold these sequences what is the right way to get and increment them in a synchronized fashion to ensure no data inconsistencies arise?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for DAO pattern ?

    - by Tony
    I've seen a lot of codes use a service-dao pattern , I don't know the origin of this pattern . It force the front layer call service , then delegates some of the service task to dao. I want to ask : Does DAO layer do purely data access related task ? What about exception encapsulation ? Is there other pattern can be used to replace this ?

    Read the article

  • Representing game states in Tic Tac Toe

    - by dacman
    The goal of the assignment that I'm currently working on for my Data Structures class is to create a of Quantum Tic Tac Toe with an AI that plays to win. Currently, I'm having a bit of trouble finding the most efficient way to represent states. Overview of current Structure: AbstractGame Has and manages AbstractPlayers (game.nextPlayer() returns next player by int ID) Has and intializes AbstractBoard at the beginning of the game Has a GameTree (Complete if called in initialization, incomplete otherwise) AbstractBoard Has a State, a Dimension, and a Parent Game Is a mediator between Player and State, (Translates States from collections of rows to a Point representation Is a StateConsumer AbstractPlayer Is a State Producer Has a ConcreteEvaluationStrategy to evaluate the current board StateTransveralPool Precomputes possible transversals of "3-states". Stores them in a HashMap, where the Set contains nextStates for a given "3-state" State Contains 3 Sets -- a Set of X-Moves, O-Moves, and the Board Each Integer in the set is a Row. These Integer values can be used to get the next row-state from the StateTransversalPool SO, the principle is Each row can be represented by the binary numbers 000-111, where 0 implies an open space and 1 implies a closed space. So, for an incomplete TTT board: From the Set<Integer> board perspective: X_X R1 might be: 101 OO_ R2 might be: 110 X_X R3 might be: 101, where 1 is an open space, and 0 is a closed space From the Set<Integer> xMoves perspective: X_X R1 might be: 101 OO_ R2 might be: 000 X_X R3 might be: 101, where 1 is an X and 0 is not From the Set<Integer> oMoves perspective: X_X R1 might be: 000 OO_ R2 might be: 110 X_X R3 might be: 000, where 1 is an O and 0 is not Then we see that x{R1,R2,R3} & o{R1,R2,R3} = board{R1,R2,R3} The problem is quickly generating next states for the GameTree. If I have player Max (x) with board{R1,R2,R3}, then getting the next row-states for R1, R2, and R3 is simple.. Set<Integer> R1nextStates = StateTransversalPool.get(R1); The problem is that I have to combine each one of those states with R1 and R2. Is there a better data structure besides Set that I could use? Is there a more efficient approach in general? I've also found Point<-State mediation cumbersome. Is there another approach that I could try there? Thanks! Here is the code for my ConcretePlayer class. It might help explain how players produce new states via moves, using the StateProducer (which might need to become StateFactory or StateBuilder). public class ConcretePlayerGeneric extends AbstractPlayer { @Override public BinaryState makeMove() { // Given a move and the current state, produce a new state Point playerMove = super.strategy.evaluate(this); BinaryState currentState = super.getInGame().getBoard().getState(); return StateProducer.getState(this, playerMove, currentState); } } EDIT: I'm starting with normal TTT and moving to Quantum TTT. Given the framework, it should be as simple as creating several new Concrete classes and tweaking some things.

    Read the article

  • What is the length of time to send a list of 200,000 integers from a client's browser to an internet

    - by indiehacker
    Over the connections that most people in the USA have in their homes, what is the approximate length of time to send a list of 200,000 integers from a client's browser to an internet sever (say Google app engine)? Does it change much if the data is sent from an iPhone? How does the length of time increase as the size of the integer list increases (say with a list of a million integers) ? Context: I wasn't sure if I should write code to do some simple computations and sorting of such lists for the browser in javascript or for the server in python, so I wanted to explore this issue of how long it takes to send the output data from a browser to a server over the web in order to help me decide where (client's browser or app engine server) is the best place for such computations to be processed.

    Read the article

  • Designer tool integration with TFS?

    - by reallyJim
    Are there good tools for professional designers to use that support source control integration with Team Foundation Server? I'm aware of the Expression tools, but curious to see if there is something else, as proper designer tools really aren't my area of expertise.

    Read the article

  • Is it immoral to write crappy code even if readability and correctness is not a requirement?

    - by mafutrct
    There are cases when crappy (i.e. unreadable and buggy) code is not much of a problem. For instance, imagine you need to generate a big text file that mostly follows a simple pattern with a few very complex exceptions. What do you do? You quickly write a simple algorithm and insert the exceptional bits in the output manually to save 4 hours. The code is unreadable, and the output is flawed, but it's still the correct way since it is way faster. But let's get this straight: I hate bad code. I've had to read and work with code that caused my stomach to hurt. I care a lot about good code. And actually, I caught myself thinking that it is immoral to write bad code even though the dirty approach is sometimes superior. I was surprised by myself and found my idea to be very irrational. Did you ever experience this? Should I just get rid of this stupid idea and use the most efficient approach to coding?

    Read the article

  • why is java.lang.Throwable a class?

    - by mdma
    In java adjectives ending in -able are interfaces Serializable, Comparable etc... So why is Throwable a class? Wouldn't exception handling be easier if Throwable were an interface? Obviously, changing it now is out the question. But could it be made abstract? Wouldn't that avoid the bad practice of throw new Throwable();

    Read the article

  • Validation with State Pattern for Multi-Page Forms in ASP.NET

    - by philrabin
    I'm trying to implement the state pattern for a multi-page registration form. The data on each page will be accumulated and stored in a session object. Should validation (including service layer calls to the DB) occur on the page level or inside each state class? In other words, should the concrete implementation of IState be concerned with the validation or should it be given a fully populated and valid object? See "EmptyFormState" class below: namespace Example { public class Registrar { private readonly IState formEmptyState; private readonly IState baseInformationComplete; public RegistrarSessionData RegistrarSessionData { get; set;} public Registrar() { RegistrarSessionData = new RegistrarSessionData(); formEmptyState = new EmptyFormState(this); baseInformationComplete = new BasicInfoCompleteState(this); State = formEmptyState; } public IState State { get; set; } public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data) { State.SubmitData(data); } public void ProceedToNextStep() { State.ProceedToNextStep(); } } //actual data stored in the session //to be populated by page public class RegistrarSessionData { public string FirstName { get; set; } public string LastName { get; set; } //will include values of all 4 forms } //State Interface public interface IState { void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data); void ProceedToNextStep(); } //Concrete implementation of IState //Beginning state - no data public class EmptyFormState : IState { private readonly Registrar registrar; public EmptyFormState(Registrar registrar) { this.registrar = registrar; } public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data) { //Should Validation occur here? //Should each state object contain a validation class? (IValidator ?) //Should this throw an exception? } public void ProceedToNextStep() { registrar.State = new BasicInfoCompleteState(registrar); } } //Next step, will have 4 in total public class BasicInfoCompleteState : IState { private readonly Registrar registrar; public BasicInfoCompleteState(Registrar registrar) { this.registrar = registrar; } public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data) { //etc } public void ProceedToNextStep() { //etc } } }

    Read the article

  • Refactoring a C# derived class with method dependancies

    - by drelihan
    Hi Folks, I want to get your opinion on this. I have a class which is derived from a base class. I don't have control over the code in the base class and it is critical to the system that I derive from it. In my class I inherite two methods that are critical to the system and are used in pretty much every function, many times. I intend to refactor this derived class and extract some classes from it - this won't be a problem. What I'm not sure about is, is it worth extracting class if I have to constantly make call backs to my main class to access the two methods (or public wrappers to the methods)??? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is there a Delphi dropdown notification component?

    - by Mason Wheeler
    You know how in Firefox, if something happens that requires your attention but isn't immediately urgent enough to require a modal dialog, it will drop down a little strip at the top of the tab with a question on it? I'd like to be able to put functionality like that in a Delphi app, but I don't know if there's a component for that. Does anyone know of one?

    Read the article

  • What situations does a Monostate pattern model?

    - by devoured elysium
    I know what both a Singleton or a Monostate are and how to implement them. Although I can see many uses for a Singleton, I can't imagine a situation where I would want to let the user create as many instances of my class although in reality only one really exists behind the scenes. Can anybody help me here? I know that for several reasons one should stay away from both patterns, but in theory, what kind of problems does the Monostate model? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Are there old versions of Windows UX guidelines somewhere?

    - by Camilo Martin
    Since I've read Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines (there's a PDF download avaliable) I've found it to be admirably self-deprecating, humbly pointing out their own horrible UI practices long scolded by Joel Spolsky. I'd like to know, however, what they had in mind while they made those mistakes. Is this (terrific) UX Guidelines document something new, or were there previous issues of such? If so, where can I find them? My prayers to Google yielded no leniency.

    Read the article

  • Factory Method Implementation

    - by cedar715
    I was going through the 'Factory method' pages in SO and had come across this link. And this comment. The example looked as a variant and thought to implement in its original way: to defer instantiation to subclasses... Here is my attempt. Does the following code implements the Factory pattern of the example specified in the link? Please validate and suggest if this has to undergo any re-factoring. public class ScheduleTypeFactoryImpl implements ScheduleTypeFactory { @Override public IScheduleItem createLinearScheduleItem() { return new LinearScheduleItem(); } @Override public IScheduleItem createVODScheduleItem() { return new VODScheduleItem(); } } public class UseScheduleTypeFactory { public enum ScheduleTypeEnum { CableOnDemandScheduleTypeID, BroadbandScheduleTypeID, LinearCableScheduleTypeID, MobileLinearScheduleTypeID } public static IScheduleItem getScheduleItem(ScheduleTypeEnum scheduleType) { IScheduleItem scheduleItem = null; ScheduleTypeFactory scheduleTypeFactory = new ScheduleTypeFactoryImpl(); switch (scheduleType) { case CableOnDemandScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createVODScheduleItem(); break; case BroadbandScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createVODScheduleItem(); break; case LinearCableScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createLinearScheduleItem(); break; case MobileLinearScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createLinearScheduleItem(); break; default: break; } return scheduleItem; } }

    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 | 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302  | Next Page >