Search Results

Search found 60436 results on 2418 pages for 'application design'.

Page 3/2418 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• C# vector class - Interpolation design decision

  - by Benjamin

  Currently I'm working on a vector class in C# and now I'm coming to the point, where I've to figure out, how i want to implement the functions for interpolation between two vectors. At first I came up with implementing the functions directly into the vector class... public class Vector3D { public static Vector3D LinearInterpolate(Vector3D vector1, Vector3D vector2, double factor) { ... } public Vector3D LinearInterpolate(Vector3D other, double factor { ... } } (I always offer both: a static method with two vectors as parameters and one non-static, with only one vector as parameter) ...but then I got the idea to use extension methods (defined in a seperate class called "Interpolation" for example), since interpolation isn't really a thing only available for vectors. So this could be another solution: public class Vector3D { ... } public static class Interpolation { public static Vector3D LinearInterpolate(this Vector3D vector, Vector3D other, double factor) { ... } } So here an example how you'd use the different possibilities: { var vec1 = new Vector3D(5, 3, 1); var vec2 = new Vector3D(4, 2, 0); Vector3D vec3; vec3 = vec1.LinearInterpolate(vec2, 0.5); //1 vec3 = Vector3D.LinearInterpolate(vec1, vec2, 0.5); //2 //or with extension-methods vec3 = vec1.LinearInterpolate(vec2, 0.5); //3 (same as 1) vec3 = Interpolation.LinearInterpolation(vec1, vec2, 0.5); //4 } So I really don't know which design is better. Also I don't know if there's an ultimate rule for things like this or if it's just about what someone personally prefers. But I really would like to hear your opinions, what's better (and if possible why ).

  Read the article

• Relative encapsulation design

  - by taher1992

  Let's say I am doing a 2D application with the following design: There is the Level object that manages the world, and there are world objects which are entities inside the Level object. A world object has a location and velocity, as well as size and a texture. However, a world object only exposes get properties. The set properties are private (or protected) and are only available to inherited classes. But of course, Level is responsible for these world objects, and must somehow be able to manipulate at least some of its private setters. But as of now, Level has no access, meaning world objects must change its private setters to public (violating encapsulation). How to tackle this problem? Should I just make everything public? Currently what I'm doing is having a inner class inside game object that does the set work. So when Level needs to update an objects location it goes something like this: void ChangeObject(GameObject targetObject, int newX, int newY){ // targetObject.SetX and targetObject.SetY cannot be set directly var setter = new GameObject.Setter(targetObject); setter.SetX(newX); setter.SetY(newY); } This code feels like overkill, but it doesn't feel right to have everything public so that anything can change an objects location for example.

  Read the article

• design for supporting entities with images

  - by brainydexter

  I have multiple entities like Hotels, Destination Cities etc which can contain images. The way I have my system setup right now is, I think of all the images belonging to this universal set (a table in the DB contains filePaths to all the images). When I have to add an image to an entity, I see if the entity exists in this universal set of images. If it exists, attach the reference to this image, else create a new image. E.g.: class ImageEntityHibernateDAO { public void addImageToEntity(IContainImage entity, String filePath, String title, String altText) { ImageEntity image = this.getImage(filePath); if (image == null) image = new ImageEntity(filePath, title, altText); getSession().beginTransaction(); entity.getImages().add(image); getSession().getTransaction().commit(); } } My question is: Earlier I had to write this code for each entity (and each entity would have a Set collection). So, instead of re-writing the same code, I created the following interface: public interface IContainImage { Set<ImageEntity> getImages(); } Entities which have image collections also implements IContainImage interface. Now, for any entity that needs to support adding Image functionality, all I have to invoke from the DAO looks something like this: // in DestinationDAO::addImageToDestination { imageDao.addImageToEntity(destination, imageFileName, imageTitle, imageAltText); // in HotelDAO::addImageToHotel { imageDao.addImageToEntity(hotel, imageFileName, imageTitle, imageAltText); It'd be great help if someone can provide me some critique on this design ? Are there any serious flaws that I'm not seeing right away ?

  Read the article

• How to design a scalable notification system?

  - by Trent

  I need to write a notification system manager. Here is my requirements: I need to be able to send a Notification on different platforms, which may be totally different (for exemple, I need to be able to send either an SMS or an E-mail). Sometimes the notification may be the same for all recipients for a given platform, but sometimes it may be a notification per recipients (or several) per platform. Each notification can contain platform specific payload (for exemple an MMS can contains a sound or an image). The system need to be scalable, I need to be able to send a very large amount of notification without crashing either the application or the server. It is a two step process, first a customer may type a message and choose a platform to send to, and the notification(s) should be created to be processed either real-time either later. Then the system needs to send the notification to the platform provider. For now, I end up with some though but I don't know how scalable it will be or if it is a good design. I've though of the following objects (in a pseudo language): a generic Notification object: class Notification { String $message; Payload $payload; Collection<Recipient> $recipients; } The problem with the following objects is what if I've 1.000.000 recipients ? Even if the Recipient object is very small, it'll take too much memory. I could also create one Notification per recipient, but some platform providers requires me to send it in batch, meaning I need to define one Notification with several Recipients. Each created notification could be stored in a persistent storage like a DB or Redis. Would it be a good it to aggregate this later to make sure it is scalable? On the second step, I need to process this notification. But how could I distinguish the notification to the right platform provider? Should I use an object like MMSNotification extending an abstract Notification? or something like Notification.setType('MMS')? To allow to process a lot of notification at the same time, I think a messaging queue system like RabbitMQ may be the right tool. Is it? It would allow me to queue a lot of notification and have several worker to pop notification and process them. But what if I need to batch the recipients as seen above? Then I imagine a NotificationProcessor object for which I could I add NotificationHandler each NotificationHandler would be in charge to connect the platform provider and perform notification. I can also use an EventManager to allow pluggable behavior. Any feedbacks or ideas? Thanks for giving your time. Note: I'm used to work in PHP and it is likely the language of my choice.

  Read the article

• Design for a plugin based application

  - by Varun Naik

  I am working on application, details of which I cannot discuss here. We have core framework and the rest is designed as plug in. In the core framework we have a domain object. This domain object is updated by the plugins. I have defined an interface in which I have function as DomainObject doProcessing(DomainObject object) My intention here is I pass the domain object, the plug in will update it and return it. This updated object is then passed again to different plugin to be updated. I am not sure if this is a good approach. I don't like passing the DomainObject to plugin. Is there a better way I can achieve this? Should I just request data from plugin and update the domain object myself?

  Read the article

• Best Design Pattern for Coupling User Interface Components and Data Structures

  - by szahn

  I have a windows desktop application with a tree view. Due to lack of a sound data-binding solution for a tree view, I've implemented my own layer of abstraction on it to bind nodes to my own data structure. The requirements are as follows: Populate a tree view with nodes that resemble fields in a data structure. When a node is clicked, display the appropriate control to modify the value of that property in the instance of the data structure. The tree view is populated with instances of custom TreeNode classes that inherit from TreeNode. The responsibility of each custom TreeNode class is to (1) format the node text to represent the name and value of the associated field in my data structure, (2) return the control used to modify the property value, (3) get the value of the field in the control (3) set the field's value from the control. My custom TreeNode implementation has a property called "Control" which retrieves the proper custom control in the form of the base control. The control instance is stored in the custom node and instantiated upon first retrieval. So each, custom node has an associated custom control which extends a base abstract control class. Example TreeNode implementation: //The Tree Node Base Class public abstract class TreeViewNodeBase : TreeNode { public abstract CustomControlBase Control { get; } public TreeViewNodeBase(ExtractionField field) { UpdateControl(field); } public virtual void UpdateControl(ExtractionField field) { Control.UpdateControl(field); UpdateCaption(FormatValueForCaption()); } public virtual void SaveChanges(ExtractionField field) { Control.SaveChanges(field); UpdateCaption(FormatValueForCaption()); } public virtual string FormatValueForCaption() { return Control.FormatValueForCaption(); } public virtual void UpdateCaption(string newValue) { this.Text = Caption; this.LongText = newValue; } } //The tree node implementation class public class ExtractionTypeNode : TreeViewNodeBase { private CustomDropDownControl control; public override CustomControlBase Control { get { if (control == null) { control = new CustomDropDownControl(); control.label1.Text = Caption; control.comboBox1.Items.Clear(); control.comboBox1.Items.AddRange( Enum.GetNames( typeof(ExtractionField.ExtractionType))); } return control; } } public ExtractionTypeNode(ExtractionField field) : base(field) { } } //The custom control base class public abstract class CustomControlBase : UserControl { public abstract void UpdateControl(ExtractionField field); public abstract void SaveChanges(ExtractionField field); public abstract string FormatValueForCaption(); } //The custom control generic implementation (view) public partial class CustomDropDownControl : CustomControlBase { public CustomDropDownControl() { InitializeComponent(); } public override void UpdateControl(ExtractionField field) { //Nothing to do here } public override void SaveChanges(ExtractionField field) { //Nothing to do here } public override string FormatValueForCaption() { //Nothing to do here return string.Empty; } } //The custom control specific implementation public class FieldExtractionTypeControl : CustomDropDownControl { public override void UpdateControl(ExtractionField field) { comboBox1.SelectedIndex = comboBox1.FindStringExact(field.Extraction.ToString()); } public override void SaveChanges(ExtractionField field) { field.Extraction = (ExtractionField.ExtractionType) Enum.Parse(typeof(ExtractionField.ExtractionType), comboBox1.SelectedItem.ToString()); } public override string FormatValueForCaption() { return string.Empty; } The problem is that I have "generic" controls which inherit from CustomControlBase. These are just "views" with no logic. Then I have specific controls that inherit from the generic controls. I don't have any functions or business logic in the generic controls because the specific controls should govern how data is associated with the data structure. What is the best design pattern for this?

  Read the article

• Caching factory design

  - by max

  I have a factory class XFactory that creates objects of class X. Instances of X are very large, so the main purpose of the factory is to cache them, as transparently to the client code as possible. Objects of class X are immutable, so the following code seems reasonable: # module xfactory.py import x class XFactory: _registry = {} def get_x(self, arg1, arg2, use_cache = True): if use_cache: hash_id = hash((arg1, arg2)) if hash_id in _registry: return _registry[hash_id] obj = x.X(arg1, arg2) _registry[hash_id] = obj return obj # module x.py class X: # ... Is it a good pattern? (I know it's not the actual Factory Pattern.) Is there anything I should change? Now, I find that sometimes I want to cache X objects to disk. I'll use pickle for that purpose, and store as values in the _registry the filenames of the pickled objects instead of references to the objects. Of course, _registry itself would have to be stored persistently (perhaps in a pickle file of its own, in a text file, in a database, or simply by giving pickle files the filenames that contain hash_id). Except now the validity of the cached object depends not only on the parameters passed to get_x(), but also on the version of the code that created these objects. Strictly speaking, even a memory-cached object could become invalid if someone modifies x.py or any of its dependencies, and reloads it while the program is running. So far I ignored this danger since it seems unlikely for my application. But I certainly cannot ignore it when my objects are cached to persistent storage. What can I do? I suppose I could make the hash_id more robust by calculating hash of a tuple that contains arguments arg1 and arg2, as well as the filename and last modified date for x.py and every module and data file that it (recursively) depends on. To help delete cache files that won't ever be useful again, I'd add to the _registry the unhashed representation of the modified dates for each record. But even this solution isn't 100% safe since theoretically someone might load a module dynamically, and I wouldn't know about it from statically analyzing the source code. If I go all out and assume every file in the project is a dependency, the mechanism will still break if some module grabs data from an external website, etc.). In addition, the frequency of changes in x.py and its dependencies is quite high, leading to heavy cache invalidation. Thus, I figured I might as well give up some safety, and only invalidate the cache only when there is an obvious mismatch. This means that class X would have a class-level cache validation identifier that should be changed whenever the developer believes a change happened that should invalidate the cache. (With multiple developers, a separate invalidation identifier is required for each.) This identifier is hashed along with arg1 and arg2 and becomes part of the hash keys stored in _registry. Since developers may forget to update the validation identifier or not realize that they invalidated existing cache, it would seem better to add another validation mechanism: class X can have a method that returns all the known "traits" of X. For instance, if X is a table, I might add the names of all the columns. The hash calculation will include the traits as well. I can write this code, but I am afraid that I'm missing something important; and I'm also wondering if perhaps there's a framework or package that can do all of this stuff already. Ideally, I'd like to combine in-memory and disk-based caching.

  Read the article

• Oracle Enterprise Manager 11g Application Management Suite for Oracle E-Business Suite Now Available

  - by chung.wu

  Oracle Enterprise Manager 11g Application Management Suite for Oracle E-Business Suite is now available. The management suite combines features that were available in the standalone Application Management Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite and Application Change Management Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite with Oracle's market leading real user monitoring and configuration management capabilities to provide the most complete solution for managing E-Business Suite applications. The features that were available in the standalone management packs are now packaged into Oracle E-Business Suite Plug-in 4.0, which is now fully certified with Oracle Enterprise Manager 11g Grid Control. This latest plug-in extends Grid Control with E-Business Suite specific management capabilities and features enhanced change management support. In addition, this latest release of Application Management Suite for Oracle E-Business Suite also includes numerous real user monitoring improvements. General Enhancements This new release of Application Management Suite for Oracle E-Business Suite offers the following key capabilities: Oracle Enterprise Manager 11g Grid Control Support: All components of the management suite are certified with Oracle Enterprise Manager 11g Grid Control. Built-in Diagnostic Ability: This release has numerous major enhancements that provide the necessary intelligence to determine if the product has been installed and configured correctly. There are diagnostics for Discovery, Cloning, and User Monitoring that will validate if the appropriate patches, privileges, setups, and profile options have been configured. This feature improves the setup and configuration time to be up and operational. Lifecycle Automation Enhancements Application Management Suite for Oracle E-Business Suite provides a centralized view to monitor and orchestrate changes (both functional and technical) across multiple Oracle E-Business Suite systems. In this latest release, it provides even more control and flexibility in managing Oracle E-Business Suite changes.Change Management: Built-in Diagnostic Ability: This latest release has numerous major enhancements that provide the necessary intelligence to determine if the product has been installed and configured correctly. There are diagnostics for Customization Manager, Patch Manager, and Setup Manager that will validate if the appropriate patches, privileges, setups, and profile options have been configured. Enhancing the setup time and configuration time to be up and operational. Customization Manager: Multi-Node Custom Application Registration: This feature automates the process of registering and validating custom products/applications on every node in a multi-node EBS system. Public/Private File Source Mappings and E-Business Suite Mappings: File Source Mappings & E-Business Suite Mappings can be created and marked as public or private. Only the creator/owner can define/edit his/her own mappings. Users can use public mappings, but cannot edit or change settings. Test Checkout Command for Versions: This feature allows you to test/verify checkout commands at the version level within the File Source Mapping page. Prerequisite Patch Validation: You can specify prerequisite patches for Customization packages and for Release 12 Oracle E-Business Suite packages. Destination Path Population: You can now automatically populate the Destination Path for common file types during package construction. OAF File Type Support: Ability to package Oracle Application Framework (OAF) customizations and deploy them across multiple Oracle E-Business Suite instances. Extended PLL Support: Ability to distinguish between different types of PLLs (that is, Report and Forms PLL files). Providing better granularity when managing PLL objects. Enhanced Standard Checker: Provides greater and more comprehensive list of coding standards that are verified during the package build process (for example, File Driver exceptions, Java checks, XML checks, SQL checks, etc.) HTML Package Readme: The package Readme is in HTML format and includes the file listing. Advanced Package Search Capabilities: The ability to utilize more criteria within the advanced search package (that is, Public, Last Updated by, Files Source Mapping, and E-Business Suite Mapping). Enhanced Package Build Notifications: More detailed information on the results of a package build process. Better, more detailed troubleshooting guidance in the event of build failures. Patch Manager:Staged Patches: Ability to run Patch Manager with no external internet access. Customer can download Oracle E-Business Suite patches into a shared location for Patch Manager to access and apply. Supports highly secured production environments that prohibit external internet connections. Support for Superseded Patches: Automatic check for superseded patches. Allows users to easily add superseded patches into the Patch Run. More comprehensive and correct Patch Runs. Removes many manual and laborious tasks, frees up Apps DBAs for higher value-added tasks. Automatic Primary Node Identification: Users can now specify which is the "primary node" (that is, which node hosts the Shared APPL_TOP) during the Patch Run interview process, available for Release 12 only. Setup Manager:Preview Extract Results: Ability to execute an extract in "proof mode", and examine the query results, to determine accuracy. Used in conjunction with the "where" clause in Advanced Filtering. This feature can provide better and more accurate fine tuning of extracts. Use Uploaded Extracts in New Projects: Ability to incorporate uploaded extracts in new projects via new LOV fields in package construction. Leverages the Setup Manager repository to access extracts that have been uploaded. Allows customer to reuse uploaded extracts to provision new instances. Re-use Existing (that is, historical) Extracts in New Projects: Ability to incorporate existing extracts in new projects via new LOV fields in package construction. Leverages the Setup Manager repository to access point-in-time extracts (snapshots) of configuration data. Allows customer to reuse existing extracts to provision new instances. Allows comparative historical reporting of identical APIs, executed at different times. Support for BR100 formats: Setup Manager can now automatically produce reports in the BR100 format. Native support for industry standard formats. Concurrent Manager API Support: General Foundation now provides an API for management of "Concurrent Manager" configuration data. Ability to migrate Concurrent Managers from one instance to another. Complete the setup once and never again; no need to redefine the Concurrent Managers. User Experience Management Enhancements Application Management Suite for Oracle E-Business Suite includes comprehensive capabilities for user experience management, supporting both real user and synthetic transaction based user monitoring techniques. This latest release of the management suite include numerous improvements in real user monitoring support. KPI Reporting: Configurable decimal precision for reporting of KPI and SLA values. By default, this is two decimal places. KPI numerator and denominator information. It is now possible to view KPI numerator and denominator information, and to have it available for export. Content Messages Processing: The application content message facility has been extended to distinguish between notifications and errors. In addition, it is now possible to specify matching rules that can be used to refine a selected content message specification. Note this is only available for XPath-based (not literal) message contents. Data Export: The Enriched data export facility has been significantly enhanced to provide improved performance and accessibility. Data is no longer stored within XML-based files, but is now stored within the Reporter database. However, it is possible to configure an alternative database for its storage. Access to the export data is through SQL. With this enhancement, it is now more easy than ever to use tools such as Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition to analyze correlated data collected from real user monitoring and business data sources. SNMP Traps for System Events: Previously, the SNMP notification facility was only available for KPI alerting. It has now been extended to support the generation of SNMP traps for system events, to provide external health monitoring of the RUEI system processes. Performance Improvements: Enhanced dashboard performance. The dashboard facility has been enhanced to support the parallel loading of items. In the case of dashboards containing large numbers of items, this can result in a significant performance improvement. Initial period selection within Data Browser and reports. The User Preferences facility has been extended to allow you to specify the initial period selection when first entering the Data Browser or reports facility. The default is the last hour. Performance improvement when querying the all sessions group. Technical Prerequisites, Download and Installation Instructions The Linux version of the plug-in is available for immediate download from Oracle Technology Network or Oracle eDelivery. For specific information regarding technical prerequisites, product download and installation, please refer to My Oracle Support note 1224313.1. The following certifications are in progress: * Oracle Solaris on SPARC (64-bit) (9, 10) * HP-UX Itanium (11.23, 11.31) * HP-UX PA-RISC (64-bit) (11.23, 11.31) * IBM AIX on Power Systems (64-bit) (5.3, 6.1)

  Read the article

• Class Design and Structure Online Web Store

  - by Phorce

  I hope I have asked this in the right forum. Basically, we're designing an Online Store and I am designing the class structure for ordering a product and want some clarification on what I have so far: So a customer comes, selects their product, chooses the quantity and selects 'Purchase' (I am using the Facade Pattern - So subsystems execute when this action is performed). My class structure: < Order > < Product > <Customer > There is no inheritance, more Association < Order has < Product , < Customer has < Order . Does this structure look ok? I've noticed that I don't handle the "Quantity" separately, I was just going to add this into the "Product" class, but, do you think it should be a class of it's own? Hope someone can help.

  Read the article

• Design for object with optional and modifiable attributtes?

  - by Ikuzen

  I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

  Read the article

• Learning how to design knowledge and data flow [closed]

  - by max

  In designing software, I spend a lot of time deciding how the knowledge (algorithms / business logic) and data should be allocated between different entities; that is, which object should know what. I am asking for advice about books, articles, presentations, classes, or other resources that would help me learn how to do it better. I code primarily in Python, but my question is not really language-specific; even if some of the insights I learn don't work in Python, that's fine. I'll give a couple examples to clarify what I mean. Example 1 I want to perform some computation. As a user, I will need to provide parameters to do the computation. I can have all those parameters sent to the "main" object, which then uses them to create other objects as needed. Or I can create one "main" object, as well as several additional objects; the additional objects would then be sent to the "main" object as parameters. What factors should I consider to make this choice? Example 2 Let's say I have a few objects of type A that can perform a certain computation. The main computation often involves using an object of type B that performs some interim computation. I can either "teach" A instances what exact parameters to pass to B instances (i.e., make B "dumb"); or I can "teach" B instances to figure out what needs to be done when looking at an A instance (i.e., make B "smart"). What should I think about when I'm making this choice?

  Read the article

• How bad is it to have two methods with the same name but different signatures in two classes?

  - by Super User

  I have a design problem related to a public interface, the names of methods, and the understanding of my API and code. I have two classes like this: class A: ... function collision(self): .... ... class B: .... function _collision(self, another_object, l, r, t, b): .... The first class has one public method named collision, and the second has one private method called _collision. The two methods differs in argument type and number. As an example let's say that _collision checks if the object is colliding with another object with certain conditions l, r, t, b (collide on the left side, right side, etc) and returns true or false. The public collision method, on the other hand, resolves all the collisions of the object with other objects. The two methods have the same name because I think it's better to avoid overloading the design with different names for methods that do almost the same thing, but in distinct contexts and classes. Is this clear enough to the reader or I should change the method's name?

  Read the article

• How bad it's have two methods with the same name but differents signatures in two classes?

  - by Super User

  I have a design problem relationated with the public interface, the names of methods and the understanding of my API and my code. I have two classes like this: class A: ... function collision(self): .... ... class B: .... function _collision(self, another_object, l, r, t, b): .... The first class have one public method named collision and the second have one private method called _collision. The two methods differs in arguments type and number. In the API _m method is private. For the example let's say that the _collision method checks if the object is colliding with another_ object with certain conditions l, r, t, b (for example, collide the left side, the right side, etc) and returns true or false according to the case. The collision method, on the other hand, resolves all the collisions of the object with other objects. The two methods have the same name because I think is better avoid overload the design with different names for methods who do almost the same think, but in distinct contexts and classes. This is clear enough to the reader or I should change the method's name?

  Read the article

• Templates for forms, tabs etc? - Patterntap alternatives

  - by Marco Demaio

  I used to find http://www.patterntap.com quite useful to get design inspiration for forms, tabs, and other web elements etc. Unfortunately after the ZURB acquisition of Patterntap now they enforce you to sign in with your Twitter account in order to simply view larger images of patterns provided by the crowd. So in some way it's not free anymore. Do you know of alternatives to patterntap that are free and you are not obliged to sign in?

  Read the article

• Representing complex object dependencies

  - by max

  I have several classes with a reasonably complex (but acyclic) dependency graph. All the dependencies are of the form: class X instance contains an attribute of class Y. All such attributes are set during initialization and never changed again. Each class' constructor has just a couple parameters, and each object knows the proper parameters to pass to the constructors of the objects it contains. class Outer is at the top of the dependency hierarchy, i.e., no class depends on it. Currently, the UI layer only creates an Outer instance; the parameters for Outer constructor are derived from the user input. Of course, Outer in the process of initialization, creates the objects it needs, which in turn create the objects they need, and so on. The new development is that the a user who knows the dependency graph may want to reach deep into it, and set the values of some of the arguments passed to constructors of the inner classes (essentially overriding the values used currently). How should I change the design to support this? I could keep the current approach where all the inner classes are created by the classes that need them. In this case, the information about "user overrides" would need to be passed to Outer class' constructor in some complex user_overrides structure. Perhaps user_overrides could be the full logical representation of the dependency graph, with the overrides attached to the appropriate edges. Outer class would pass user_overrides to every object it creates, and they would do the same. Each object, before initializing lower level objects, will find its location in that graph and check if the user requested an override to any of the constructor arguments. Alternatively, I could rewrite all the objects' constructors to take as parameters the full objects they require. Thus, the creation of all the inner objects would be moved outside the whole hierarchy, into a new controller layer that lies between Outer and UI layer. The controller layer would essentially traverse the dependency graph from the bottom, creating all the objects as it goes. The controller layer would have to ask the higher-level objects for parameter values for the lower-level objects whenever the relevant parameter isn't provided by the user. Neither approach looks terribly simple. Is there any other approach? Has this problem come up enough in the past to have a pattern that I can read about? I'm using Python, but I don't think it matters much at the design level.

  Read the article

• In database table design, how does "Virtual Goods" affect table design -- should we create an instan

  - by Jian Lin

  When we design a database table for a DVD rental company, we actually have a movie, which is an abstract idea, and a physical DVD, so for each rental, we have a many-to-many table with fields such as: TransactionID UserID DvdID RentedDate RentalDuration AmountPaid but what about with virtual goods? For example, if we let a user rent a movie online for 3 days, we don't actually have a DVD, so we may have a table: TransactionID UserID MovieID RentedDate RentalDuration AmountPaid should we create a record for each instance of "virtual good"? For example, what if this virtual good (the movie) can be authorized to be watched on 3 devices (with 3 device IDs), then should we then create a virtual good record in the VirtualGoods table, each with a VirtualGoodID and then another table that has VirtualGoodID DeviceID to match up the movie with the DeviceIDs? We can also just use the TransactionID as the VirtualGoodID. Are there circumstances where we may want to create a record to record this "virtual good" in a VirtualGoods table?

  Read the article

• What do you do if you reach a design dead-end in evolutionary methods like Agile or XP?

  - by Dipan Mehta

  As I was reading Martin Fowler's famous blog post Is Design Dead?, one of the striking impressions I got is that given the fact that in Agile Methodology and Extreme Programming, the design as well as programming is evolutionary, there are always points where things need to get refactored. It may be possible that when a programmer's level is good, and they understand design implications and don't make critical mistakes, the code continues to evolve. However, in a normal context, what is the ground reality in this context? In a normal day given some significant development goes into product, and when critical change occurs in requirement isn't it a constraint that how much ever we wish, fundamental design aspects cannot be modified? (without throwing away major part of the code). Is it not quite likely that one reaches dead-end on any further possible improvement on design and requirements? I am not advocating any non-Agile practice here, but I want to know from people who practice agile or iterative or evolutionary development methods, as for their real experiences. Have you ever reached such dead-ends? How have you managed to avoid it or escaped it? Or are there measures to ensure that design remains clean and flexible as it evolves?

  Read the article

• Multi-Threaded Application vs. Single Threaded Application

  Why would we use a multi threaded application vs. a single threaded application? First we must define multithreading. Multithreading is a feature of an operating system that allows programs to run subcomponents or threads in parallel. Typically most applications only need to use one thread because they do not perform time consuming tasks. The use of multiple threads allows an application to distribute long running tasks so that they can be executed in parallel. This gives the user the perceived appearance that the application is working faster due to the fact that while one thread is waiting on an IO process the remaining tasks can make use of the available CPU. The allows working threads to execute in tandem so that they can be competed sooner. Multithreading Benefits Improved responsiveness — Users usually report improved responsiveness compared to single thread applications. Faster applications — Multiple threads can lead to improved application performance. Prioritization — Threads can be assigned a priority which would allow higher priority tasks to take precedence over lower priority tasks. Single Threading Benefits Programming and debugging —These activities are easier compared to multithreaded applications due to the reduced complexity Less Overhead — Threads add overhead to an application When developing multi-threaded applications, the following must be considered. Deadlocks occur when two threads hold a monitor that the other one requires. In essence each task is blocking the other and both tasks are waiting for the other monitor to be released. This forces an application to hang or deadlock. Resource allocation is used to prevent deadlocks because the system determines if approving the resource request will render the system in an unsafe state. An unsafe state could result in a deadlock. The system only approves requests that will lead to safe states. Thread Synchronization is used when multiple threads use the same instance of an object. The threads accessing the object can then be locked and then synchronized so that each task can interact with the static object on at a time.

  Read the article

• Subscribe/Publish Model in Web-based Application (c#) - Best Practices for Event Handlers

  - by KingOfHypocrites

  I was recently exposed to a desktop application that uses an publish/subscribe model to handle commands, events, etc. I can't seem to find any good examples of using this in a web application, so I wonder if I am off base in trying to use this for web based development (on the server side)? I'm using asp.net c#. My main question in regards to the design is: When using a publish/subscribe model, is it better to have generic commands/events that pass no parameters and then have the subscribers look at static context objects that contain the data relevant to the event? Or is it better to create custom arguments for every event that contain data related to the event? The whole concept of a global container seems so convenient but at the same time seems to break encapsulation. Any thoughts or best practices from anyone who has implemented this type of model in a web based application? Even suggestions on this model out of the scope of my question are appreciated.

  Read the article

• Object oriented wrapper around a dll

  - by Tom Davies

  So, I'm writing a C# managed wrapper around a native dll. The dll contains several hundred functions. In most cases, the first argument to each function is an opaque handle to a type internal to the dll. So, an obvious starting point for defining some classes in the wrapper would be to define classes corresponding to each of these opaque types, with each instance holding and managing the opaque handle (passed to its constructor) Things are a little awkward when dealing with callbacks from the dll. Naturally, the callback handlers in my wrapper have to be static, but the callbacks arguments invariable contain an opaque handle. In order to get from the static callback back to an object instance, I've created a static dictionary in each class, associating handles with class instances. In the constructor of each class, an entry is put into the dictionary, and this entry is then removed in the Destructors. When I receive a callback, I can then consult the dictionary to retrieve the class instance corresponding to the opaque reference. Are there any obvious flaws to this? Something that seems to be a problem is that the existence static dictionary means that the garbage collector will not act on my class instances that are otherwise unreachable. As they are never garbage collected, they never get removed from the dictionary, so the dictionary grows. It seems I might have to manually dispose of my objects, which is something absolutely would like to avoid. Can anyone suggest a good design that allows me to avoid having to do this?

  Read the article

• How do we keep dependent data structures up to date?

  - by Geo

  Suppose you have a parse tree, an abstract syntax tree, and a control flow graph, each one logically derived from the one before. In principle it is easy to construct each graph given the parse tree, but how can we manage the complexity of updating the graphs when the parse tree is modified? We know exactly how the tree has been modified, but how can the change be propagated to the other trees in a way that doesn't become difficult to manage? Naturally the dependent graph can be updated by simply reconstructing it from scratch every time the first graph changes, but then there would be no way of knowing the details of the changes in the dependent graph. I currently have four ways to attempt to solve this problem, but each one has difficulties. Nodes of the dependent tree each observe the relevant nodes of the original tree, updating themselves and the observer lists of original tree nodes as necessary. The conceptual complexity of this can become daunting. Each node of the original tree has a list of the dependent tree nodes that specifically depend upon it, and when the node changes it sets a flag on the dependent nodes to mark them as dirty, including the parents of the dependent nodes all the way down to the root. After each change we run an algorithm that is much like the algorithm for constructing the dependent graph from scratch, but it skips over any clean node and reconstructs each dirty node, keeping track of whether the reconstructed node is actually different from the dirty node. This can also get tricky. We can represent the logical connection between the original graph and the dependent graph as a data structure, like a list of constraints, perhaps designed using a declarative language. When the original graph changes we need only scan the list to discover which constraints are violated and how the dependent tree needs to change to correct the violation, all encoded as data. We can reconstruct the dependent graph from scratch as though there were no existing dependent graph, and then compare the existing graph and the new graph to discover how it has changed. I'm sure this is the easiest way because I know there are algorithms available for detecting differences, but they are all quite computationally expensive and in principle it seems unnecessary so I'm deliberately avoiding this option. What is the right way to deal with these sorts of problems? Surely there must be a design pattern that makes this whole thing almost easy. It would be nice to have a good solution for every problem of this general description. Does this class of problem have a name?

  Read the article

• DDD: service contains two repository

  - by tikhop

  Does it correct way to have two repository inside one service and will it be an application or domain service? Suppose I have a Passenger object that should contains Passport (government id) object. I am getting Passenger from PassengerRepository. PassengerRepository create request to server and obtain data (json) than parse received data and store inside repository. I have confused because I want to store Passport as Entity and put it to PassportRepository but all information about password contains inside json than i received above. I guess that I should create a PassengerService that will be include PassengerRepository and PassportRepository with several methods like removePassport, addPassport, getAllPassenger and etc. UPDATE: So I guess that the better way is represent Passport as VO and store all passports inside Passenger aggregate. However there is another question: Where I should put the methods (methods calls server api) for management passenger's passport. I think the better place is so within Passenger aggregate.

  Read the article

• Need to re-build an application - how?

  - by Tom

  For our main system, we have a small monitor application that sits outside our network and periodically tries to log in to verify the system still works. We have a problem with the monitor though in that the communications component set (Asta 3 inside Delphi applications) doesn't always connect through. Overall, I'd say it's about 95% reliable, but that other 5% kills the monitor since it will try to log in and hang on the connection attempt (no timeout in the component). This really isn't an issue on the client side of the system since the clients don't disconnect and reconnect repeatedly on the same application instance, but I need a way to make sure the monitor stays up and continues working even when the component fails on a run. I have a few ideas as to which way to have the program run, the main idea being to put the communications inside a threaded data module so that if one thread crashes then another thread can test later and the program keep going. Does this sound like a valid way to go? Any other ideas how to ensure a reliable monitoring application with a less than 100% reliable component? Thanks. P.S. Not sure these tags are the most appropriate. Tried including "system-reliability" as one, but not high enough rep to create.

  Read the article

• How to implement Restricted access to application features

  - by DroidUser

  I'm currently developing a web application, that provides some 'service' to the user. The user will have to select a 'plan' according to which she/he will be allowed to perform application specific actions but up to a limit defined by the plan. A Plan will also limit access to certain features, which will not be available at all for some plans. As an example : say there are 3 plans, 2 actions throughout the application users in plan-1 can perform action-1 3 times, and they can't perform action-2 at all users in plan-2 can perform action-1 10 times, action-2 5 times users in plan-3 can perform action-1 20 times, action-2 10 times So i'm looking for the best way to get this done, and my main concerns besides implementing it, are the following(in no particular order) maintainability/changeability : the number of plans, and type of features/actions will change in the final product industry standard/best practice : for future readiness!! efficiency : ofcourse, i want fast code!! I have never done anything like this before, so i have no clue about how do i go about implementing these functionalities. Any tips/guides/patterns/resources/examples? I did read a little about ACL, RBAC, are they the patterns that i need to follow? Really any sort of feedback will help.

  Read the article

• Looking for reading material on application architecture with web UI

  - by toong

  I'm looking for articles (or other reading material) on the topic of fat client applications with a web UI layer. Open-source projects that use this architecture would be very interesting too. Such an application would embed one (or more) browser-window(s) (chromiumembedded for example). You would need bidirectional communication between your web-UI and your domain model/services. I think this allows quick prototyping the UI, a clean separation between logic and UI and potentially easier portability across platforms (compared to WinForms for example). But that is just my view, I was looking for the view of people who have been on that road. An example of an application using a web-ui layer is Light Table. Unfortunately it is not open source (at this point?).

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >