Search Results

Search found 17047 results on 682 pages for 'architecture design patt'.

Page 297/682 | < Previous Page | 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304  | Next Page >

  • A cross-platform application WPF, ASP.NET, Silverlight, WP7, XAML

    - by J. Lennon
    Considering the fact that all applications will interact with the web project (which will use the cloud or web services).. Is there any way to share my class models between applications? If yes, what is the best way to do it? About sending / receiving data from the Webservice, serialize and deserialize, how can I do this in a simple way without having to manually populate the objects? Any information about this applications would be really helpful!

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to handle modules that use each other?

    - by Axeman
    What's the best way to handle modules that use each other? Let's say I have a module which has functions for hashes: # Really::Useful::Functions::On::Hash.pm use base qw<Exporter>; use strict; use warnings; use Really::Useful::Functions::On::List qw<transform_list>; our @EXPORT_OK = qw<transform_hash transform_hash_as_list ...>; #... sub transform_hash { ... } #... sub transform_hash_as_list { return transform_list( %{ shift() } ); } #... 1 And another module has been segmented out for lists: # Really::Useful::Functions::On::List.pm use base qw<Exporter>; use strict; use warnings; use Really::Useful::Functions::On::Hash qw<transform_hash>; our @EXPORT_OK = qw<transform_list some_func ...>; #... sub transform_list { ... } #... sub some_func { my %params = transform_hash @_; #... } #... 1 Suppose that enough of these utility functions are handy enough that I'll want to use them in BEGIN statements and import functions to process parameter lists or configuration data. I have been putting sub definitions into BEGIN blocks to make sure they are ready to use whenever somebody includes the module. But I have gotten into hairy race conditions where a definition is not completed in a BEGIN block. I put evolving code idioms into modules so that I can reuse any idiom I find myself coding over and over again. For instance: sub list_if { my $condition = shift; return unless $condition; my $more_args = scalar @_; my $arg_list = @_ > 1 ? \@_ : @_ ? shift : $condition; if (( reftype( $arg_list ) || '' ) eq 'ARRAY' ) { return wantarray ? @$arg_list : $arg_list; } elsif ( $more_args ) { return $arg_list; } return; } captures two idioms that I'm kind of tired of typing: @{ func_I_hope_returns_a_listref() || [] } and ( $condition ? LIST : ()) The more I define functions in BEGIN blocks, the more likely I'll use these idiom bricks to express the logic the more likely that bricks are needed in BEGIN blocks. Do people have standard ways of dealing with this sort of language-idiom-brick model? I've been doing mostly Pure-Perl; will XS alleviate some of this?

    Read the article

  • Does database affect classes?

    - by satyanarayana
    I had created one class User and UserDAOImpl class for querying DB using class User. As there is one table to be queried, these two classes are sufficient for me. What if there is a case where new fields are to be added to that one table is to be divided into 3 tables( user_info, user_profile and user_address) to store user? As new fields are added, I need to change classes User and UserDAOImpl, it seems these two are not sufficient. It seems database changes affect my classes. In this case, do I need to divide class User into 3 classes as tables are changes? Can any one suggest me how can I solve this without making too many changes?

    Read the article

  • Publish/Subscribe paradigm: Why must message classes not know about their subscribers?

    - by carleeto
    From Wikipedia: "Publish/subscribe (or pub/sub) is a messaging paradigm where senders (publishers) of messages are not programmed to send their messages to specific receivers (subscribers). Rather, published messages are characterized into classes, without knowledge of what (if any) subscribers there may be" I can understand why a sender must not be programmed to send its message to a specific receiver. But why must published messages be classes that do not have knowledge of their subscribers? It would seem that once the messaging system itself is in place, what typically changes as software evolves is the messages sent, the publishers and the receivers. Keeping the messages separate from the subscribers seems to imply that the subscription model might also change. Is this the reason? Also, does this occur in the real world? I realize this may be a basic question, but I'm trying to understand this paradigm and your replies are very much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Global State and Singletons Dependency injection

    - by Manu
    this is a problem i face lot of times when i am designing a new app i'll use a sample problem to explain this think i am writing simple game.so i want to hold a list of players. i have few options.. 1.use a static field in some class private static ArrayList<Player> players = new ArrayList<Integer>(); public Player getPlayer(int i){ return players.get(i); } but this a global state 2.or i can use a singleton class PlayerList{ private PlayerList instance; private PlayerList(){...} public PlayerList getInstance() { if(instance==null){ ... } return instance; } } but this is bad because it's a singleton 3.Dependency injection class Game { private PlayerList playerList; public Game(PlayerList list) { this.list = list; } public PlayerList getPlayerList() { return playerList; } } this seems good but it's not, if any object outside Game need to look at PlayerList (which is the usual case) i have to use one of the above methods to make the Game class available globally. so I just add another layer to the problem. didn't actually solve anything. what is the optimum solution ? (currently i use Singleton approach)

    Read the article

  • C++ Problem: Class Promotion using derived class

    - by Michael Fitzpatrick
    I have a class for Float32 that is derived from Float32_base class Float32_base { public: // Constructors Float32_base(float x) : value(x) {}; Float32_base(void) : value(0) {}; operator float32(void) {return value;}; Float32_base operator =(float x) {value = x; return *this;}; Float32_base operator +(float x) const { return value + x;}; protected: float value; } class Float32 : public Float32_base { public: float Tad() { return value + .01; } } int main() { Float32 x, y, z; x = 1; y = 2; // WILL NOT COMPILE! z = (x + y).Tad(); // COMPILES OK z = ((Float32)(x + y)).Tad(); } The issue is that the + operator returns a Float32_base and Tad() is not in that class. But 'x' and 'y' are Float32's. Is there a way that I can get the code in the first line to compile without having to resort to a typecast like I did on the next line?

    Read the article

  • How to construct objects based on XML code?

    - by the_drow
    I have XML files that are representation of a portion of HTML code. Those XML files also have widget declarations. Example XML file: <message id="msg"> <p> <Widget name="foo" type="SomeComplexWidget" attribute="value"> inner text here, sets another attribute or inserts another widget to the tree if needed... </Widget> </p> </message> I have a main Widget class that all of my widgets inherit from. The question is how would I create it? Here are my options: Create a compile time tool that will parse the XML file and create the necessary code to bind the widgets to the needed objects. Advantages: No extra run-time overhead induced to the system. It's easy to bind setters. Disadvantages: Adds another step to the build chain. Hard to maintain as every widget in the system should be added to the parser. Use of macros to bind the widgets. Complex code Find a method to register all widgets into a factory automatically. Advantages: All of the binding is done completely automatically. Easier to maintain then option 1 as every new widget will only need to call a WidgetFactory method that registers it. Disadvantages: No idea how to bind setters without introducing a maintainability nightmare. Adds memory and run-time overhead. Complex code What do you think is better? Can you guys suggest a better solution?

    Read the article

  • Interpreted languages: The higher-level the faster?

    - by immersion
    I have designed around 5 experimental languages and interpreters for them so far, for education, as a hobby and for fun. One thing I noticed: The assembly-like language featuring only subroutines and conditional jumps as structures was much slower than the high-level language featuring if, while and so on. I developed them both simultaneously and both were interpreted languages. I wrote the interpreters in C++ and I tried to optimize the code-execution part to be as fast as possible. My hypothesis: In almost all cases, performance of interpreted languages rises with their level (high/low). Am I basically right with this? (If not, why?)

    Read the article

  • Static assembly initialization

    - 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? TIA, Jeremy

    Read the article

  • Alternative to singleton for unique resources

    - by user1320881
    I keep reading over and over again that one should avoid using singletons for various reasons. I'm wondering how to correctly handle a situation where a class represents a unique system resource. For example, a AudioOutput class using SDL. Since SDL_OpenAudio can only be open once at a time it makes no sense having more then one object of this type and it seems to me preventing accidentally making more then one object would actually be good. Just wondering what experienced programmers think about this, am i missing another option ?

    Read the article

  • What is the sense of "Feature Oriented Programming" (FOP) in C++, and would it make sense in Java an

    - by ivan_ivanovich_ivanoff
    Hello! Sadly, I can't remember where I read it, but... ...in C++ you can derive a class from a template parameter. Im pretty sure it was called Feature Oriented Programming (FOP) and meant to be somehow useful. It was something like: template <class T> class my_class : T { // some very useful stuff goes here ;) } My questions about this: What is the sense of such pattern? Since this it not possible in Java / C#, how this pattern is achieved in these languages? Can it be expected to be implemented in Java / C# one day? (Well, first Java would need to get rid of type erasure) EDIT: I'm really not talking about generics in Java / C# (where you can't derive a class from a generic type parameter)

    Read the article

  • Setting the type of a field in a superclass from a subclass (Java)

    - by Ibolit
    Hi. I am writing a project on Google App Engine, within it I have a number of abstract classes that I hope I will be able to use in my future projects, and a number of concrete classes inheriting from them. Among other abstract classes I have an abstract servlet that does user management, and I hava an abstract user. The AbstractUser has all the necessary fields and methods for storing it in the datastore and telling whether the user is registered with my service or not. It does not implement any project specific functionality. The abstract servlet that manages users, refers only to the methods declared in the AbstractUser class, which allows it to generate links for logging in, logging out and registering (for unregistered users). In order to implement the project-specific user functionality I need to subclass the Abstract user. The servlets I use in my project are all indirect descendants from that abstract user management servlet, and the user is a protected field in it, so the descendant servlets can use it as their own field. However, whenever i want to access any project specific method of the concrete user, i need to cast it to that type. i.e. (abstract user managing servlet) ... AbstractUser user = getUser(); ... abstract protected AbstractUser getUser(); (project-specific abstract servlet) @Override protected AbstractUser getUser() { return MyUserFactory.getUser(); } any other project specific servlet: int a = ((ConcreteUser) user).getA(); Well, what i'd like to do is to somehow make the type of “user” in the superclass depend on something in the project-specific abstract class. Is it at all possible? And i don't want to move all the user-management stuff into a project-specific layer, for i would like to have it for my future projects already written :) Thank you for your help.

    Read the article

  • What is the definition of a Service object ?

    - by Maskime
    I've been working a lot with PHP. But recently i was sent on a work wich use Java. In PHP i used to do a lot of Singleton object but this pattern has not the same signification in Java that it has in PHP. So i wanted to go for an utility class (a class with static method) but my chief doesn't like this kind of classes and ask me to go for services object. So my guess was that a service object is just a class with a constructor that implement some public methods... Am i right ?

    Read the article

  • C++ traits question

    - by duli
    I have a templated class template <typename Data> class C { ..... } In most situations, I depend on the compiler to let me substitute types for Data. I call methods foo(), goo() on objects of type Data, so what I substitute needs to provide that. I now need to substitute int and string for my Data type. I do not want to specialize because the class is already too big and would require specializing each method (with only small code change). My options (please tell me if there are more) 1) I can provide wrapper classes around int and string which implement the methods foo(), goo() etc 2) provide a traits class traits that calls foo() or goo() on objects of classes that provide foo(),goo() (these are my present substitutable classes) and specialize these classes for int and string. Questions 1) what are the relative merits of 1 vs 2? 2) My traits classes will have static methods. Can a traits class have non-static methods as well? I see most traits classes define constants in the STL. 3) Do I make the traits classes global or should I pass them in as a template parameter for class C?

    Read the article

  • Suggested improvements?

    - by J Harley
    Hello, I have been coding a site in pure HTML/CSS - using no server-side language. I was wondering if anyone had any feedback - is there anything that you would change etc...? Many Thanks, J View Site

    Read the article

  • HTML columns or rows for form layout?

    - by Valera
    I'm building a bunch of forms that have labels and corresponding fields (input element or more complex elements). Labels go on the left, fields go on the right. Labels in a given form should all be a specific width so that the fields all line up vertically. There are two ways (maybe more?) of achieving this: Rows: Float each label and each field left. Put each label and field in a field-row div/container. Set label width to some specific number. With this approach labels on different forms will have different widths, because they'll depend on the width of the text in the longest label. Columns: Put all labels in one div/container that's floated left, put all fields in another floated left container with padding-left set. This way the labels and even the label container don't need to have their widths set, because the column layout and the padding-left will uniformly take care of vertically lining up all the fields. So approach #2 seems to be easier to implement (because the widths don't need to be set all the time), but I think it's also less object oriented, because a label and a field that goes with that label are not grouped together, as they are in approach #1. Also, if building forms dynamically, approach #2 doesn't work as well with functions like addRow(label, field), since it would have to know about the label and the field containers, instead of just creating/adding one field-row element. Which approach do you think is better? Is there another, better approach than these two?

    Read the article

  • Foreign keys and NULL in mySQL

    - by Industrial
    Hi everyone, Can I have a column in my values table (value) referenced as a foreign key to knownValues table, and let it be NULL whenever needed, like in the example: Table: values product type value freevalue 0 1 NULL 100 1 2 NULL 25 3 3 1 NULL Table: types id name prefix 0 length cm 1 weight kg 2 fruit NULL Table: knownValues id Type name 0 2 banana Note: The types in the table values & knownValues are of course referenced into the types table. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Problem understanding Inheritance

    - by dhruvbird
    I've been racking my brains over inheritance for a while now, but am still not completely able to get around it. For example, the other day I was thinking about relating an Infallible Human and a Fallible Human. Let's first define the two: Infallible Human: A human that can never make a mistake. It's do_task() method will never throw an exception Fallible Human: A human that will occasionally make a mistakes. It's do_task() method may occasionally throw a ErrorProcessingRequest Exception The question was: IS an infallible human A fallible human OR IS a fallible human AN infallible human? The very nice answer I received was in the form of a question (I love these since it gives me rules to answer future questions I may have). "Can you pass an infallible human where a fallible human is expected OR can you pass a fallible human where an infallible human is expected?" It seems apparent that you can pass an infallible human where a fallible human is expected, but not the other way around. I guess that answered my question. However, it still feels funny saying "An infallible human is a fallible human". Does anyone else feel queasy when they say it? It almost feels as if speaking out inheritance trees is like reading out statements from propositional calculus in plain English (the if/then implication connectives don't mean the same as that in spoken English). Does anyone else feel the same?

    Read the article

  • Python: How should I make instance variables available?

    - by swisstony
    Suppose I have: class myclass: def __init__(self): self.foo = "bar" where the value of foo needs to be available to users of myclass. Is it OK to just read the value of foo directly from an instance of myclass? Should I add a get_foo method to myclass or perhaps add a foo property? What's the best practice here?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304  | Next Page >