Search Results

Search found 13719 results on 549 pages for 'design evolution'.

Page 3/549 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• How to improve the HTML formatting in Evolution mail client

  - by Tom

  I have a question about viewing HTML emails in the Evolution mail client. Basically, I am receiving some emails that look lovely in Thunderbird but not in Evolution because the HTML rendering of Evolution isn't as advanced. Does anyone know how to improve the HTML rendering of Evolution? e.g. a plugin, tip, code patch, etc... The closest I've got is to right-click the email, "Save As...", save as a html file, then open in Firefox. Not exactly streamline! What emails can't it display well? We use the subversion revision control system which is set up to send an email whenever someone commits via svnnotify all nicely coloured via the --handler HTML::ColorDiff -d parameter. When Evolution fails to use the colours, I find it very had to read the raw diff.

  Read the article

• Recommendations for books and training resources covering for Design for Programmers

  - by Jon Hopkins

  Off the back of one of the answers to this question (currently the second highest scoring), it made me think, what's the best way to get developers up to speed on good basic design principals. I'm not talking about making them into graphic designers but some developers almost take pride in ugly UIs, seeing them as unimportant next to the functionality. What primarily interested in are the graphic design elements rather than the usability aspects which is pretty well covered by books such as Don't Make Me Think. Use of white space, emphasis, font selection and a million other things I'm probably not even aware of. I know people are often seen as artistic or not artistic but surely the basics can be taught and someone has written a book covering this?

  Read the article

• Is this proper OO design for C++?

  - by user121917

  I recently took a software processes course and this is my first time attempting OO design on my own. I am trying to follow OO design principles and C++ conventions. I attempted and gave up on MVC for this application, but I am trying to "decouple" my classes such that they can be easily unit-tested and so that I can easily change the GUI library used and/or the target OS. At this time, I have finished designing classes but have not yet started implementing methods. The function of the software is to log all packets sent and received, and display them on the screen (like WireShark, but for one local process only). The software accomplishes this by hooking the send() and recv() functions in winsock32.dll, or some other pair of analogous functions depending on what the intended Target is. The hooks add packets to SendPacketList/RecvPacketList. The GuiLogic class starts a thread which checks for new packets. When new packets are found, it utilizes the PacketFilter class to determine the formatting for the new packet, and then sends it to MainWindow, a native win32 window (with intent to later port to Qt).1 Full size image of UML class diagram Here are my classes in skeleton/header form (this is my actual code): class PacketModel { protected: std::vector<byte> data; int id; public: PacketModel(); PacketModel(byte* data, unsigned int size); PacketModel(int id, byte* data, unsigned int size); int GetLen(); bool IsValid(); //len >= sizeof(opcode_t) opcode_t GetOpcode(); byte* GetData(); //returns &(data[0]) bool GetData(byte* outdata, int maxlen); void SetData(byte* pdata, int len); int GetId(); void SetId(int id); bool ParseData(char* instr); bool StringRepr(char* outstr); byte& operator[] (const int index); }; class SendPacket : public PacketModel { protected: byte* returnAddy; public: byte* GetReturnAddy(); void SetReturnAddy(byte* addy); }; class RecvPacket : public PacketModel { protected: byte* callAddy; public: byte* GetCallAddy(); void SetCallAddy(byte* addy); }; //problem: packets may be added to list at any time by any number of threads //solution: critical section associated with each packet list class Synch { public: void Enter(); void Leave(); }; template<class PacketType> class PacketList { private: static const int MAX_STORED_PACKETS = 1000; public: static const int DEFAULT_SHOWN_PACKETS = 100; private: vector<PacketType> list; Synch synch; //wrapper for critical section public: void AddPacket(PacketType* packet); PacketType* GetPacket(int id); int TotalPackets(); }; class SendPacketList : PacketList<SendPacket> { }; class RecvPacketList : PacketList<RecvPacket> { }; class Target //one socket { bool Send(SendPacket* packet); bool Inject(RecvPacket* packet); bool InitSendHook(SendPacketList* sendList); bool InitRecvHook(RecvPacketList* recvList); }; class FilterModel { private: opcode_t opcode; int colorID; bool bFilter; char name[41]; }; class FilterFile { private: FilterModel filter; public: void Save(); void Load(); FilterModel* GetFilter(opcode_t opcode); }; class PacketFilter { private: FilterFile filters; public: bool IsFiltered(opcode_t opcode); bool GetName(opcode_t opcode, char* namestr); //return false if name does not exist COLORREF GetColor(opcode_t opcode); //return default color if no custom color }; class GuiLogic { private: SendPacketList sendList; RecvPacketList recvList; PacketFilter packetFilter; void GetPacketRepr(PacketModel* packet); void ReadNew(); void AddToWindow(); public: void Refresh(); //called from thread void GetPacketInfo(int id); //called from MainWindow }; I'm looking for a general review of my OO design, use of UML, and use of C++ features. I especially just want to know if I'm doing anything considerably wrong. From what I've read, design review is on-topic for this site (and off-topic for the Code Review site). Any sort of feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading this.

  Read the article

• Design Pattern for Complex Data Modeling

  - by Aaron Hayman

  I'm developing a program that has a SQL database as a backing store. As a very broad description, the program itself allows a user to generate records in any number of user-defined tables and make connections between them. As for specs: Any record generated must be able to be connected to any other record in any other user table (excluding itself...the record, not the table). These "connections" are directional, and the list of connections a record has is user ordered. Moreover, a record must "know" of connections made from it to others as well as connections made to it from others. The connections are kind of the point of this program, so there is a strong possibility that the number of connections made is very high, especially if the user is using the software as intended. A record's field can also include aggregate information from it's connections (like obtaining average, sum, etc) that must be updated on change from another record it's connected to. To conserve memory, only relevant information must be loaded at any one time (can't load the entire database in memory at load and go from there). I cannot assume the backing store is local. Right now it is, but eventually this program will include syncing to a remote db. Neither the user tables, connections or records are known at design time as they are user generated. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to design the backing store and the object model to best fit these specs. In my first design attempt on this, I had one object managing all a table's records and connections. I attempted this first because it kept the memory footprint smaller (records and connections were simple dicts), but maintaining aggregate and link information between tables became....onerous (ie...a huge spaghettified mess). Tracing dependencies using this method almost became impossible. Instead, I've settled on a distributed graph model where each record and connection is 'aware' of what's around it by managing it own data and connections to other records. Doing this increases my memory footprint but also let me create a faulting system so connections/records aren't loaded into memory until they're needed. It's also much easier to code: trace dependencies, eliminate cycling recursive updates, etc. My biggest problem is storing/loading the connections. I'm not happy with any of my current solutions/ideas so I wanted to ask and see if anybody else has any ideas of how this should be structured. Connections are fairly simple. They contain: fromRecordID, fromTableID, fromRecordOrder, toRecordID, toTableID, toRecordOrder. Here's what I've come up with so far: Store all the connections in one big table. If I do this, either I load all connections at once (one big db call) or make a call every time a user table is loaded. The big issue here: the size of the connections table has the potential to be huge, and I'm afraid it would slow things down. Store in separate tables all the outgoing connections for each user table. This is probably the worst idea I've had. Now my connections are 'spread out' over multiple tables (one for each user table), which means I have to make a separate DB called to each table (or make a huge join) just to find all the incoming connections for a particular user table. I've avoided making "one big ass table", but I'm not sure the cost is worth it. Store in separate tables all outgoing AND incoming connections for each user table (using a flag to distinguish between incoming vs outgoing). This is the idea I'm leaning towards, but it will essentially double the total DB storage for all the connections (as each connection will be stored in two tables). It also means I have to make sure connection information is kept in sync in both places. This is obviously not ideal but it does mean that when I load a user table, I only need to load one 'connection' table and have all the information I need. This also presents a separate problem, that of connection object creation. Since each user table has a list of all connections, there are two opportunities for a connection object to be made. However, connections objects (designed to facilitate communication between records) should only be created once. This means I'll have to devise a common caching/factory object to make sure only one connection object is made per connection. Does anybody have any ideas of a better way to do this? Once I've committed to a particular design pattern I'm pretty much stuck with it, so I want to make sure I've come up with the best one possible.

  Read the article

• Moving domain and keeping IMAP email - Linux Evolution, Mac Mail

  - by Douglas Squirrel

  This question is about keeping email during a server move, where the clients are Linux (me) and Mac (my wife) using IMAP. I receive email at [email protected] using a webmail service that my hosting company (1and1) provides. I read it via IMAP in evolution, so I should have copies of all the emails on my local machine. I have just moved mydomain.com from one type of account to another, and the hosting company don't move my existing email on the server when I do this - I assume they move my account to a different mailserver, and don't choose to provide a migration path for the email to move too (yes, this is annoying). Before migrating, I backed up Evolution (File - Backup settings) and did a spot-check in the evolution-backup.tar.gz file to be sure that my mail was in there. After migrating, I restored (File - Restore settings) and had hoped that I would see all my mail again. Unfortunately, Evolution just shows me new mail sent to the account, not the old mail. Is there a way to get the old mail back in the mailserver, or at least displaying in Evolution, as it was before the move? If not, can I read it in some convenient way, e.g. in Evolution offline or in a text file (then I can pick the mails I really want to keep and resend them to myself)? Also, I am about to do a similar move for my wife's domain, [email protected]. She reads her mail on a Mac using IMAP to Apple Mail. Is there anything I can do to make the move smooth for her? (I have backed up [her user]/Library/Mail already, but not sure what to do once the move is done.)

  Read the article

• Design Application to "Actively" Invite Users (pretend they have privileges)

  - by user3086451

  I am designing an application where users message one another privately, and may send messages to any Entity in the database (an Entity may not have a user account yet, it is a professional database). I am not sure how to best design the database and the API to allow messaging unregistered users. The application should remain secure, and data only accessed by those with correct permissions. Messages sent to persons without user accounts serve as an invitation. The invited person should be able to view the message, act on it, and complete the user registration upon receiving an InviteMessage. In simple terms, I have: User misc user fields (email, pw, dateJoined) Entity (large professional dataset): personalDetails... user->User (may be null) UserMessage: sender->User recipient->User dateCreated messageContent, other fields..... InviteMessage: sender->User recipient->Entity expiringUrl inviteeEmail inviteePhone I plan to alert the user when selecting a recipient that is not registered yet, and inform that he may send the message as an invitation by providing email, phone where we can send the invitation. Invitations will have a unique, one-time-use URL, e.g. uuid.uuid4(). When accessed, the invitee will see the InviteMessage and details about completing his/her registration profile. When registration is complete, InviteMessage details to a new instance of UserMessage (to not lose their data), and assign it to the newly created User. The ability to interact with and invite persons who do not yet have accounts is a key feature of the application, and it seems better to separate the invitation from the private, app messages (easier to keep functionality separate, better if data model changes). Is this a reasonable, good design? If not, what would you suggest? Do you have any improvements? Am I correct to choose to create a separate endpoint for creating invitations via the API?

  Read the article

• Recommened design pattern to handle multiple compression algorithms for a class hierarchy

  - by sgorozco

  For all you OOD experts. What would be the recommended way to model the following scenario? I have a certain class hierarchy similar to the following one: class Base { ... } class Derived1 : Base { ... } class Derived2 : Base { ... } ... Next, I would like to implement different compression/decompression engines for this hierarchy. (I already have code for several strategies that best handle different cases, like file compression, network stream compression, legacy system compression, etc.) I would like the compression strategy to be pluggable and chosen at runtime, however I'm not sure how to handle the class hierarchy. Currently I have a tighly-coupled design that looks like this: interface ICompressor { byte[] Compress(Base instance); } class Strategy1Compressor : ICompressor { byte[] Compress(Base instance) { // Common compression guts for Base class ... // if( instance is Derived1 ) { // Compression guts for Derived1 class } if( instance is Derived2 ) { // Compression guts for Derived2 class } // Additional compression logic to handle other class derivations ... } } As it is, whenever I add a new derived class inheriting from Base, I would have to modify all compression strategies to take into account this new class. Is there a design pattern that allows me to decouple this, and allow me to easily introduce more classes to the Base hierarchy and/or additional compression strategies?

  Read the article

• Should universities put more emphasis on teaching their students about design patterns?

  - by gablin

  While I've heard about design patterns being mentioned in a few courses at uni, I know of only a single course which actually teaches design patterns. In almost all other areas (algorithms, parallelism, architecture, dynamic languages, paradigms, etc), there are several, often a basic course and an advanced course. Should universities put more emphasis about teaching their students about design patterns and provide more courses in design patters? Are lack of knowledge about design patterns common in just-graduated junior developers?

  Read the article

• Which design pattern to use when using ORM?

  - by RPK

  I am writing a small ASP.NET Web Forms application. In my solution explorer, I added various class library projects to define layers, viz: Model Repository Presentation WebUI Someone suggested me that this layered approach is not of much sense if I am using ORM tool like PetaPoco, which itself takes care of separation of data access layer. I want to use PetaPoco micro-ORM and want to know which design pattern is suitable with ORM tools. Do I still need several class library projects to separate the concerns?

  Read the article

• Good Video Game User Interface Design Books/Websites?

  - by Tucker Morgan

  I having been programming games for some time, but while my teachers say that my code is good and advanced, my friends say that the interface is hard to understand and not the easiest to navigate. I want to learn how to design good user interfaces so that I can program better games, and people will have a easier time getting around. Does anyone know of any good books or websites about designing video game interfaces?

  Read the article

• Explanation needed, for “Ask, don't tell” approach?

  - by the_naive

  I'm taking a course on design patterns in software engineering and here I'm trying to understand the good and the bad way of design relating to "coupling" and "cohesion". I could not understand the concept described in the following image. The example of code shown in the image is ambiguous to me, so I can't quite clearly get what exactly "Ask, don't tell!" approach mean. Could you please explain?

  Read the article

• Design pattern for isomorphic trees

  - by Peregring-lk

  I want to create a data structure to work with isomorphic tree. I don't search for a "algorithms" or methods to check if two or more trees are isomorphic each other. Just to create various trees with the same structure. Example: 2 - - - - - - - 'a' - - - - - - - 3.5 / \ / \ / \ 3 3 'f' 'y' 1.0 3.1 / \ / \ / \ 4 7 'e' 'f' 2.3 7.7 The first "layer" or tree is the "natural tree" (a tree with natural numbers), the second layer is the "character tree" and the third one is the "float tree". The data structure has a method or iterator to traverse the tree and to make diferent operations with its values. These operations could change the value of nodes, but never its structure (first I create the structure and then I configure the tree with its diferent layers). In case of that I add a new node, this would be applied to each layer. Which known design pattern fits with this description or is related with it?

  Read the article

• Email Content creation | Proper design

  - by Umesh Awasthi

  Working on an E commerce application where we need to send so many email to customer like Registration email Forget Password Order placed There are many other emails that can be sent, I already have emailService in place which is responsible for sending email and It needs an Email object, Everything is working find, but I am struck at one point and not sure how best this can be done. We need to create content so as it can be passed to emailService and not sure how to design this. For example, in Customer registration, I have a customerFacade which is working between Controller and ServiceLayer, I just want to delegate this Email Content creation work away from Facade layer and to make it more flexible. Currently I am creating Registration email content inside customerFacade and some how I am not liking this way, since that means for each email, I need to create content in respective Facade. What is best way to go or current approach is fine enough?

  Read the article

• How to design application for scaling the application?

  - by Muhammad

  I have one application which handles hardware events connected on the same computer's PCIe slots. The maximum number of PCIe slots on motherboard are two. I have utilized both slots. Now for scaling the application I need either more PCIe slots in same computer or I use another computer. So consider I am using another computer with same application and hardware connected on the PCIe Slots. Now my problem is that I want to design application over it which can access both computers hardware devices and does the process on it. The processed data should be send back to the respective PC's hardware. Please refer the attached diagram for expansion.

  Read the article

• Design: How to model / where to store relational data between classes

  - by Walker

  I'm trying to figure out the best design here, and I can see multiple approaches, but none that seems "right." There are three relevant classes here: Base, TradingPost, and Resource. Each Base has a TradingPost which can offer various Resources depending on the Base's tech level. Where is the right place to store the minimum tech level a base must possess to offer any given resource? A database seems like overkill. Putting it in each subclass of Resource seems wrong--that's not an intrinsic property of the Resource. Do I have a mediating class, and if so, how does it work? It's important that I not be duplicating code; that I have one place where I set the required tech level for a given item. Essentially, where does this data belong? P.S. Feel free to change the title; I struggled to come up with one that fits.

  Read the article

• How to design console application with good seperation of UI from Logic

  - by JavaSa

  Is it considered an overkill for console application to be design like MVC , MVP or N tier architecture? If not which is more common and if you can link me to simple example of it. I want to implement a tic tac toe game in console application. I have a solution which hold two projects: TicTacToeBusinessLogic (Class library project) and TicTacToeConsoleApplication (Console application project) to represent the view logic. In the TicTacToeConsoleApplication I've Program.cs class which holds the main entry point (public static void Main). Now I face a problem. I want the game to handle its own game flow so I can: Create new GameManager class (from BL) but this causing the view to directly know the BL part. So I'm a little confused how to write it in an acceptable way. Should I use delegates? Please show me a simple example.

  Read the article

• Looking for some OO design advice

  - by Andrew Stephens

  I'm developing an app that will be used to open and close valves in an industrial environment, and was thinking of something simple like this:- public static void ValveController { public static void OpenValve(string valveName) { // Implementation to open the valve } public static void CloseValve(string valveName) { // Implementation to close the valve } } (The implementation would write a few bytes of data to the serial port to control the valve - an "address" derived from the valve name, and either a "1" or "0" to open or close the valve). Another dev asked whether we should instead create a separate class for each physical valve, of which there are dozens. I agree it would be nicer to write code like PlasmaValve.Open() rather than ValveController.OpenValve("plasma"), but is this overkill? Also, I was wondering how best to tackle the design with a couple of hypothetical future requirements in mind:- We are asked to support a new type of valve requiring different values to open and close it (not 0 and 1). We are asked to support a valve that can be set to any position from 0-100, rather than simply "open" or "closed". Normally I would use inheritance for this kind of thing, but I've recently started to get my head around "composition over inheritance" and wonder if there is a slicker solution to be had using composition?

  Read the article

• How to design a scriptable communication emulator?

  - by Hawk

  Requirement: We need a tool that simulates a hardware device that communicates via RS232 or TCP/IP to allow us to test our main application which will communicate with the device. Current flow: User loads script Parse script into commands User runs script Execute commands Script / commands (simplified for discussion): Connect RS232 = RS232ConnectCommand Connect TCP/IP = TcpIpConnectCommand Send data = SendCommand Receive data = ReceiveCommand Disconnect = DisconnectCommand All commands implement the ICommand interface. The command runner simply executes a sequence of ICommand implementations sequentially thus ICommand must have an Execute exposure, pseudo code: void Execute(ICommunicator context) The Execute method takes a context argument which allows the command implementations to execute what they need to do. For instance SendCommand will call context.Send, etc. The problem RS232ConnectCommand and TcpIpConnectCommand needs to instantiate the context to be used by subsequent commands. How do you handle this elegantly? Solution 1: Change ICommand Execute method to: ICommunicator Execute(ICommunicator context) While it will work it seems like a code smell. All commands now need to return the context which for all commands except the connection ones will be the same context that is passed in. Solution 2: Create an ICommunicatorWrapper (ICommunicationBroker?) which follows the decorator pattern and decorates ICommunicator. It introduces a new exposure: void SetCommunicator(ICommunicator communicator) And ICommand is changed to use the wrapper: void Execute(ICommunicationWrapper context) Seems like a cleaner solution. Question Is this a good design? Am I on the right track?

  Read the article

• 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

• Microsoft exchange/outlook "tasks" in linux/evolution ??

  - by criss

  Hi all Ive tried receiving Microsoft outlook/exchange tasks (like meetings and duties) with "evolution"(evolution) without any success... Have anyone succeed with evolution or other linux program?? This is the only thing stopping me to say good by to microsft windows... Best Regards and thanks for the great Site !!

  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

• 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

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