Search Results

Search found 4243 results on 170 pages for 'anti patterns'.

Page 30/170 | < Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >

• How essential is it to make a service layer?

  - by BornToCode

  I started building an app in 3 layers (DAL, BL, UI) [it mainly handles CRM, some sales reports and inventory]. A colleague told me that I must move to service layer pattern, that developers came to service pattern from their experience and it is the better approach to design most applications. He said it would be much easier to maintain the application in the future that way. Personally, I get the feeling that it's just making things more complex and I couldn't see much of a benefit from it that would justify that. This app does have an additional small partial ui that uses some (but only few) of the desktop application functions so I did find myself duplicating some code (but not much). Just because of some code duplication I wouldn't convert it to be service oriented, but he said I should use it anyway because in general it's a very good architecture, why programmers are so in love with services?? I tried to google on it but I'm still confused and can't decide what to do.

  Read the article

• What the best way to wire up Entity Framework database context (model) to ViewModel in MVVM WPF?

  - by hal9k2

  As in the question above: What the best way to wire up Entity Framework database model (context) to viewModel in MVVM (WPF)? I am learning MVVM pattern in WPF, alot of examples shows how to implement model to viewModel, but models in that examples are just simple classes, I want to use MVVM together with entity framework model (base first approach). Whats the best way to wire model to viewModel. Thanks for answers. //ctor of ViewModel public ViewModel() { db = new PackageShipmentDBEntities(); // Entity Framework generated class ListaZBazy = new ObservableCollection<Pack>(db.Packs.Where(w => w.IsSent == false)); } This is my usual ctor of ViewModel, think there is a better way, I was reading about repository pattern, not sure if I can adapt this to WPF MVVM

  Read the article

• would a composite design pattern be useful for group membership?

  - by changokun

  I'm trying to think about the best way to handle group memberships on a website. People sign up and select checkboxes in a list of interests. Every week we send out interest-themed emails to those members that indicated that interest. however i store the information in the database, while i am working with the lists and generating lists of email addresses or manipulating group memberships, the composite design pattern looked interesting. it would be easy to populate the group, then do some aggregating functions that say... generate the list of email addresses based on the interests. but i'm not sure i'm seeing any other advantages. i do need something scalable, and flexible. thoughts?

  Read the article

• Is an event loop just a for/while loop with optimized polling?

  - by Alan

  I'm trying to understand what an event loop is. Often the explanation is that in the event loop, you do something until you're notified that an event occurred. You than handle the event and continue doing what you did before. To map the above definition with an example. I have a server which 'listens' in a event loop, and when a socket connection is detected, the data from it gets read and displayed, after which the server goes to the listening it did before. However, this event happening and us getting notified 'just like that' are to much for me to handle. You can say: "It's not 'just like that' you have to register an event listener". But what's an event listener but a function which for some reason isn't returning. Is it in it's own loop, waiting to be notified when an event happens? Should the event listener also register an event listener? Where does it end? Events are a nice abstraction to work with, however just an abstraction. I believe that in the end, polling is unavoidable. Perhaps we are not doing it in our code, but the lower levels (the programming language implementation or the OS) are doing it for us. It basically comes down to the following pseudo code which is running somewhere low enough so it doesn't result in busy waiting: while(True): do stuff check if event has happened (poll) do other stuff This is my understanding of the whole idea, and i would like to hear if this is correct. I am open in accepting that the whole idea is fundamentally wrong, in which case I would like the correct explanation. Best regards

  Read the article

• Are there any concerns with using a static read-only unit of work so that it behaves like a cache?

  - by Rowan Freeman

  Related question: How do I cache data that rarely changes? I'm making an ASP.NET MVC4 application. On every request the security details about the user will need to be checked with the area/controller/action that they are accessing to see if they are allowed to view it. The security information is stored in the database. For example: User Permission UserPermission Action ActionPermission A "Permission" is a token that is applied to an MVC action to indicate that the token is required in order to access the action. Once a user is given the permission (via the UserPermission table) then they have the token and can therefore access the action. I've been looking in to how to cache this data (since it rarely changes) so that I'm only querying in-memory data and not hitting a database (which is a considerable performance hit at the moment). I've tried storing things in lists, using a caching provider but I either run in to problems or performance doesn't improve. One problem that I constantly run in to is that I'm using lazy loading and dynamic proxies with EntityFramework. This means that even if I ToList() everything and store them somewhere static, the relationships are never populated. For example, User.Permissions is an ICollection but it's always null. I don't want to Include() everything because I'm trying to keep things simple and generic (and easy to modify). One thing I know is that an EntityFramework DbContext is a unit of work that acts with 1st-level caching. That is, for the duration of the unit of work, everything that is accessed is cached in memory. I want to create a read-only DbContext that will exist indefinitely and will only be used to read about permission data. Upon testing this it worked perfectly; my page load times went from 200ms+ to 20ms. I can easily force the data to refresh at certain intervals or simply leave it to refresh when the application pool is recycled. Basically it will behave like a cache. Note that the rest of the application will interact with other contexts that exist per request as normal. Is there any disadvantage to this approach? Could I be doing something different?

  Read the article

• whats the name of this pattern?

  - by Wes

  I see this a lot in frameworks. You have a master class which other classes register with. The master class then decides which of the registered classes to delegate the request to. An example based passed in class may be something this. public interface Processor { public boolean canHandle(Object objectToHandle); public void handle(Object objectToHandle); } public class EvenNumberProcessor extends Processor { public boolean canHandle(Object objectToHandle) { if (!isNumeric(objectToHandle)){ return false } return isEven(objectToHandle); } public void handle(objectToHandle) { //Optionally call canHandleAgain to ensure the calling class is fufilling its contract doSomething(); } } public class OddNumberProcessor extends Processor { public boolean canHandle(Object objectToHandle) { if (!isNumeric(objectToHandle)){ return false } return isOdd(objectToHandle); } public void handle(objectToHandle) { //Optionally call canHandleAgain to ensure the calling class is fufilling its contract doSomething(); } } //Can optionally implement processor interface public class processorDelegator { private List processors; public void addProcessor(Processor processor) { processors.add(processor); } public void process(Object objectToProcess) { //Lookup relevant processor either by keeping a list of what they can process //Or query each one to see if it can process the object. chosenProcessor=chooseProcessor(objectToProcess); chosenProcessor.handle(objectToProcess); } } Note there are a few variations I see on this. In one variation the sub classes provide a list of things they can process which the ProcessorDelegator understands. The other variation which is listed above in fake code is where each is queried in turn. This is similar to chain of command but I don't think its the same as chain of command means that the processor needs to pass to other processors. The other variation is where the ProcessorDelegator itself implements the interface which means you can get trees of ProcessorDelegators which specialise further. In the above example you could have a numeric processor delegator which delegates to an even/odd processor and a string processordelegator which delegates to different strings. My question is does this pattern have a name.

  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

• Do you leverage the benefits of the open-closed principle?

  - by Kaleb Pederson

  The open-closed principle (OCP) states that an object should be open for extension but closed for modification. I believe I understand it and use it in conjunction with SRP to create classes that do only one thing. And, I try to create many small methods that make it possible to extract out all the behavior controls into methods that may be extended or overridden in some subclass. Thus, I end up with classes that have many extension points, be it through: dependency injection and composition, events, delegation, etc. Consider the following a simple, extendable class: class PaycheckCalculator { // ... protected decimal GetOvertimeFactor() { return 2.0M; } } Now say, for example, that the OvertimeFactor changes to 1.5. Since the above class was designed to be extended, I can easily subclass and return a different OvertimeFactor. But... despite the class being designed for extension and adhering to OCP, I'll modify the single method in question, rather than subclassing and overridding the method in question and then re-wiring my objects in my IoC container. As a result I've violated part of what OCP attempts to accomplish. It feels like I'm just being lazy because the above is a bit easier. Am I misunderstanding OCP? Should I really be doing something different? Do you leverage the benefits of OCP differently? Update: based on the answers it looks like this contrived example is a poor one for a number of different reasons. The main intent of the example was to demonstrate that the class was designed to be extended by providing methods that when overridden would alter the behavior of public methods without the need for changing internal or private code. Still, I definitely misunderstood OCP.

  Read the article

• How to prevent duplicate data access methods that retrieve similar data?

  - by Ronald Wildenberg

  In almost every project I work on with a team, the same problem seems to creep in. Someone writes UI code that needs data and writes a data access method: AssetDto GetAssetById(int assetId) A week later someone else is working on another part of the application and also needs an AssetDto but now including 'approvers' and writes the following: AssetDto GetAssetWithApproversById(int assetId) A month later someone needs an asset but now including the 'questions' (or the 'owners' or the 'running requests', etc): AssetDto GetAssetWithQuestionsById(int assetId) AssetDto GetAssetWithOwnersById(int assetId) AssetDto GetAssetWithRunningRequestsById(int assetId) And it gets even worse when methods like GetAssetWithOwnerAndQuestionsById start to appear. You see the pattern that emerges: an object is attached to a large object graph and you need different parts of this graph in different locations. Of course, I'd like to prevent having a large number of methods that do almost the same. Is it simply a matter of team discipline or is there some pattern I can use to prevent this? In some cases it might make sense to have separate methods, i.e. getting an asset with running requests may be expensive so I do not want to include these all the time. How to handle such cases?

  Read the article

• Learning good OOP design & unlearning some bad habits

  - by Nick

  I have been mostly a C programmer so far in my career with knowledge of C++. I rely on C++ mostly for the convenience STL provides and I hardly ever focus on good design practices. As I have started to look for a new job position, this bad habit of mine has come back to haunt me. During the interviews, I have been asked to design a problem (like chess, or some other scenario) using OOP and I doing really badly at that (I came to know this through feedback from one interview). I tried to google stuff and came up with so many opinions and related books that I don't know where to begin. I need a good through introduction to OOP design with which I can learn practical design, not just theory. Can you point me to any book which meets my requirements ? I prefer C++, but any other language is fine as long as I can pick-up good practices. Also, I know that books can only go so far. I would also appreciate any good practice project ideas that helped you learn and improve your OOP concepts. Thanks.

  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

• Building a template engine - starting point

  - by Anirudh

  We're building a Django-based project with a template component. This component will be separate from the project as such and can be Django/Python, Node, Java or whatever works. The template has to be rendered into HTML. The templates will contain references to objects with properties that are defined in the DB, say, a Bus. For eg, it could be something like [object type="vehicle" weight="heavy"] and it would have to pull a random object from the DB fulfilling the criteria : type="vehicle" weight="heavy" (bus/truck/jet) and then substitute that tag with an image, say, of a Bus. Also it would have to be able to handle some processing. Eg: What is [X type="integer" lte="10"] + [Y type="integer" lte="10"] [option X+Y correct_ans="true"] [option X-Y correct_ans="false"] [option X+y+1 correct_ans="false"] The engine would be expected to fill in a random integer value <= 10 for X and Y and show radioboxes for each of the options. Would also have to store the fact that the first option is the correct answer. Does it to make sense to write something from the scratch? Or is it better to use an existing templating system (like Django's own templating system) as a starting point? Any suggestions on how I can approach this?

  Read the article

• Failure Driven Development

  - by DevSolo

  At our shop, we strive to be agile. And I'd say we are making great strides. That said, a few of us have spotted a pattern we have started calling "Failure Driven Development". Failure Driven Development can basically be desribed as an agile release/iteration cycle where the bugs/features are guided not by tasks and stories with acceptance criteria, but with defects entered in the defect tracking software. Our team has a great Project Manager who strives to get the acceptance criteria from the customer(s), but it's not always possible. From my development chair, this is due to the customer either not knowing exactly what they want or (and this is the kicker) two different "camps" at the customer's main office conflict with how a story should be implemented. Camp A will losely dictate that Feature X works like this, then Camp B will fail it due not functioning like that. Hence, the term "FDD". The process is driven by "failures". This leads to my question: Has anyone else encountered this and if so, any tips/suggestions for dealing with it? We have, of course, tried to get Camp A and B to agree prior, but everyone knows this isn't always the case. Thanks

  Read the article

• How to have operations with character/items on binary with concrete operations on C++?

  - by Piperoman

  I have the next problem. A item can have a lot of states: NORMAL = 0000000 DRY = 0000001 HOT = 0000010 BURNING = 0000100 WET = 0001000 COLD = 0010000 FROZEN = 0100000 POISONED= 1000000 A item can have some states at same time but not all of them Is impossible to be dry and wet at same time. If you COLD a WET item, it turns into FROZEN. If you HOT a WET item, it turns into NORMAL A item can be BURNING and POISON Etc. I have tried to set binary flags to states, and use AND to combine different states, checking before if it is possible or not to do it, or change to another status. Does there exist a concrete approach to solve this problem efficiently without having an interminable switch that checks every state with every new state? It is relatively easy to check 2 different states, but if there exists a third state it is not trivial to do.

  Read the article

• Clean MVC design when there is viewer latency

  - by Tony Suffolk 66

  It isn't clear if this question has already been answered, so apologies in advance if this is a duplicate : I am implementing a game and trying to design around a clean MVC pattern - so my Control plane will implement the rules of the game (but not how the game is displayed), and the View plane implements how the game is displayed, and user iteraction - i.e. what game items or controls the user has activated. The challenge that I have is this : In my game the Control Plane can move game items more or less instaneously (The decision about what item to place where - and some of the initial consequences of that placement are reasonably trivial to calculate), but I want to design the Control Plane so that the View plane can display these movements either instaneously or using movement animations. The other complication is that player interaction must be locked out while those game items are moving (similar to chess - you can't attack an opposing piece as it moves past one of your pieces) So do I : Implement all the logic in the Control Plane asynchronously - and separate the descision making from the actions - so the Control plane decides piece 'A' needs to move to a given place - tells the view plane, and but does not implement the move in data until the view plane informs the control plane that the move/animation is complete. A lot of interlock points between the two layers. Implement all the control plane logic in one place - decisions and movement (keeping track of what moved where), and pass all the movements in one go to the View plane to do with what it will. Control Plane is almost fire and forget here. A hybrid of 1 & 2 - The control plane implements all the moves in a temporary data store - but maintains a second store which reflects what is actually visible to the viewer, based on calls and feedback from the View plane. All 3 are relatively easy to implement (target language is python), but having never done a clean MVC pattern with view latency before - I am not sure which design is best

  Read the article

• How to refactor my design, if it seems to require multiple inheritance?

  - by Omega

  Recently I made a question about Java classes implementing methods from two sources (kinda like multiple inheritance). However, it was pointed out that this sort of need may be a sign of a design flaw. Hence, it is probably better to address my current design rather than trying to simulate multiple inheritance. Before tackling the actual problem, some background info about a particular mechanic in this framework: It is a simple game development framework. Several components allocate some memory (like pixel data), and it is necessary to get rid of it as soon as you don't need it. Sprites are an example of this. Anyway, I decided to implement something ala Manual-Reference-Counting from Objective-C. Certain classes, like Sprites, contain an internal counter, which is increased when you call retain(), and decreased on release(). Thus the Resource abstract class was created. Any subclass of this will obtain the retain() and release() implementations for free. When its count hits 0 (nobody is using this class), it will call the destroy() method. The subclass needs only to implement destroy(). This is because I don't want to rely on the Garbage Collector to get rid of unused pixel data. Game objects are all subclasses of the Node class - which is the main construction block, as it provides info such as position, size, rotation, etc. See, two classes are used often in my game. Sprites and Labels. Ah... but wait. Sprites contain pixel data, remember? And as such, they need to extend Resource. But this, of course, can't be done. Sprites ARE nodes, hence they must subclass Node. But heck, they are resources too. Why not making Resource an interface? Because I'd have to re-implement retain() and release(). I am avoiding this in virtue of not writing the same code over and over (remember that there are multiple classes that need this memory-management system). Why not composition? Because I'd still have to implement methods in Sprite (and similar classes) that essentially call the methods of Resource. I'd still be writing the same code over and over! What is your advice in this situation, then?

  Read the article

• In MVC , DAO should be called from Controller or Model

  - by tito

  I have seen various arguments against the DAO being called from the Controller class directly and also the DAO from the Model class.Infact I personally feel that if we are following the MVC pattern , the controller should not coupled with the DAO , but the Model class should invoke the DAO from within and controller should invoke the model class.Why because , we can decouple the model class apart from a webapplication and expose the functionalities for various ways like for a REST service to use our model class. If we write the DAO invocation in the controller , it would not be possible for a REST service to reuse the functionality right ? I have summarized both the approaches below. Approach #1 public class CustomerController extends HttpServlet { proctected void doPost(....) { Customer customer = new Customer("xxxxx","23",1); new CustomerDAO().save(customer); } } Approach #2 public class CustomerController extends HttpServlet { proctected void doPost(....) { Customer customer = new Customer("xxxxx","23",1); customer.save(customer); } } public class Customer { ........... private void save(Customer customer){ new CustomerDAO().save(customer); } } Note- Here is what a definition of Model is : Model: The model manages the behavior and data of the application domain, responds to requests for information about its state (usually from the view), and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the controller). In event-driven systems, the model notifies observers (usually views) when the information changes so that they can react. I would need an expert opinion on this because I find many using #1 or #2 , So which one is it ?

  Read the article

• Should I limit my type name suffix vocabulary when using OOP?

  - by Den

  My co-workers tend to think that it is better to limit non-domain type suffixes to a small fixed set of OOP-pattern inspired words, e.g.: *Service *Repository *Factory *Manager *Provider I believe there is no reason to not extend that set with more names, e.g. (some "translation" to the previous vocabulary is given in brackets): *Distributor (= *DistributionManager or *SendingService) *Generator *Browser (= *ReadonlyRepositoryService) *Processor *Manipulator (= *StateMachineManager) *Enricher (= *EnrichmentService) (*) denotes some domain word, e.g. "Order", "Student", "Item" etc. The domain is probably not complex enough to use specialized approaches such as DDD which could drive the naming.

  Read the article

• Implementing a ILogger interface to log data

  - by Jon

  I have a need to write data to file in one of my classes. Obviously I will pass an interface into my class to decouple it. I was thinking this interface will be used for testing and also in other projects. This is my interface: //This could be used by filesystem, webservice public interface ILogger { List<string> PreviousLogRecords {get;set;} void Log(string Data); } public interface IFileLogger : ILogger { string FilePath; bool ValidFileName; } public class MyClassUnderTest { public MyClassUnderTest(IFileLogger logger) {....} } [Test] public void TestLogger() { var mock = new Mock<IFileLogger>(); mock.Setup(x => x.Log(Is.Any<string>).AddsDataToList()); //Is this possible?? var myClass = new MyClassUnderTest(mock.Object); myClass.DoSomethingThatWillSplitThisAndLog3Times("1,2,3"); Assert.AreEqual(3,mock.PreviousLogRecords.Count); } This won't work I don't believe as nothing is storing the items so is this possible using Moq and also what do you think of the design of the interface?

  Read the article

• how should I design Objects around this business requirement?

  - by brainydexter

  This is the business requirement: " A Holiday Package (e.g. New York NY Holiday Package) can be offered in different ways based on the Origin city: From New Delhi to NY From Bombay to NY NY itself ( Land package ) (Bold implies default selection) a. and b. User can fly from either New Delhi or Bombay to NY. c. NY is a Land package, where a user can reach NY by himself and is a standalone holidayPackage. " Let's say I have a class that represents HolidayPackage, Destination (aka City). public class HolidayPackage{ Destination holidayCity; ArrayList<BaseHolidayPackageVariant> variants; BaseHolidayPackageVariant defaultVariant; } public abstract class BaseHolidayPackageVariant { private Integer variantId; private HolidayPackage holidayPackage; private String holidayPackageType; } public class LandHolidayPackageVariant extends BaseHolidayPackageVariant{ } public class FlightHolidayPackageVariant extends BaseHolidayPackageVariant{ private Destination originCity; } What data structure/objects should I design to support: options a default within those options Sidenote: A HolidayPackage can also be offered in different ways based on Hotel selections. I'd like to follow a design which I can leverage to support that use case in the future. This is the backend design I have in mind.

  Read the article

• What is a good design pattern / lib for iOS 5 to synchronize with a web service?

  - by Junto

  We are developing an iOS application that needs to synchronize with a remote server using web services. The existing web services have an "operations" style rather than REST (implemented in WCF but exposing JSON HTTP endpoints). We are unsure of how to structure the web services to best fit with iOS and would love some advice. We are also interested in how to manage the synchronization process within iOS. Without going into detailed specifics, the application allows the user to estimate repair costs at a remote site. These costs are broken down by room and item. If the user has an internet connection this data can be sent back to the server. Multiple photographs can be taken of each item, but they will be held in a separate queue, which sends when the connection is optimal (ideally wifi). Our backend application controls the unique ids for each room and item. Thus, each time we send these costs to the server, the server echoes the central database ids back, thus, that they can be synchronized in the mobile app. I have simplified this a little, since the operations contract is actually much larger, but I just want to illustrate the basic requirements without complicating matters. Firstly, the web service architecture: We currently have two operations: GetCosts and UpdateCosts. My assumption is that if we used a strict REST architecture we would need to break our single web service operations into multiple smaller services. This would make the services much more chatty and we would also have to guarantee a delivery order from the app. For example, we need to make sure that containing rooms are added before the item. Although this seems much more RESTful, our perception is that these extra calls are expensive connections (security checks, database calls, etc). Does the type of web api (operation over service focus) determine chunky vs chatty? Since this is mobile (3G), are we better handling lots of smaller messages, or a few large ones? Secondly, the iOS side. What is the current advice on how to manage data synchronization within the iOS (5) app itself. We need multiple queues and we need to guarantee delivery order in each queue (and technically, ordering between queues). The server needs to control unique ids and other properties and echo them back to the application. The application then needs to update an internal database and when re-updating, make sure the correct ids are available in the update message (essentially multiple inserts and updates in one call). Our backend has a ton of business logic operating on these cost estimates. We don't want any of this in the app itself. Currently the iOS app sends the cost data, and then the server echoes that data back with populated ids (and other data). The existing cost data is deleted and the echoed response data is added to the client database on the device. This is causing us problems, because any photos might not have been sent, but the original entity tree has been removed and replaced. Obviously updating the costs tree rather than replacing it would remove this problem, but I'm not sure if there are any nice xcode libraries out there to do such things. I welcome any advice you might have.

  Read the article

• What should a domain object's validation cover?

  - by MarcoR88

  I'm trying to figure out how to do validation of domain objects that need external resources, such as data mappers/dao Firstly here's my code class User { const INVALID_ID = 1; const INVALID_NAME = 2; const INVALID_EMAIL = 4; int getID(); void setID(Int i); string getName(); void setName(String s); string getEmail(); void setEmail(String s); int getErrorsForInsert(); // returns a bitmask for INVALID_* constants int getErrorsForUpdate(); } My worries are about the uniqueness of the email, checking it would require the storage layer. Reading others' code seems that two solutions are equally accepted: both perform the unique validation in data mapper but some set an error state to the DO user.addError(User.INVALID_EMAIL) while others prefer to throw a totally different type of exception that covers only persistence, like: UserStorageException { const INVALID_EMAIL = 1; const INVALID_CITY = 2; } What are the pros and cons of these solutions?

  Read the article

• Android From Local DB (DAO) to Server sync (JSON) - Design issue

  - by Taiko

  I sync data between my local DB and a Server. I'm looking for the cleanest way to modelise all of this. I have a com.something.db package That contains a Data Helper and couple of DAO classes that represents objects stored in the db (I didn't write that part) com.something.db --public DataHelper --public Employee @DatabaseField e.g. "name" will be an actual column name in the DB -name @DatabaseField -salary etc... (all in all 50 fields) I have a com.something.sync package That contains all the implementation detail on how to send data to the server. It boils down to a ConnectionManager that is fed by different classes that implements a 'Request' interface com.something.sync --public interface ConnectionManager --package ConnectionManagerImpl --public interface Request --package LoginRequest --package GetEmployeesRequest My issue is, at some point in the sync process, I have to JSONise and de-JSONise my data (E.g. the Employee class). But I really don't feel like having the same Employee class be responsible for both his JSONisation and his actual representation inside the local database. It really doesn't feel right, because I carefully decoupled the rest, I am only stuck on this JSON thing. What should I do ? Should I write 3 Employee classes ? EmployeeDB @DatabaseField e.g. "name" will be an actual column name in the DB -name @DatabaseField -salary -etc... 50 fields EmployeeInterface -getName -getSalary -etc... 50 fields EmployeeJSON -JSON_KEY_NAME = "name" The JSON key happens to be the same as the table name, but it isn't requirement -name -JSON_KEY_SALARY = "salary" -salary -etc... 50 fields It feels like a lot of duplicates. Is there a common pattern I can use there ?

  Read the article

• Are first-class functions a substitute for the Strategy pattern?

  - by Prog

  The Strategy design pattern is often regarded as a substitute for first-class functions in languages that lack them. So for example say you wanted to pass functionality into an object. In Java you'd have to pass in the object another object which encapsulates the desired behavior. In a language such as Ruby, you'd just pass the functionality itself in the form of an annonymous function. However I was thinking about it and decided that maybe Strategy offers more than a plain annonymous function does. This is because an object can hold state that exists independently of the period when it's method runs. However an annonymous function by itself can only hold state that ceases to exist the moment the function finishes execution. So my question is: when using a language that features first-class functions, would you ever use the Strategy pattern (i.e. encapsulate the functionality you want to pass around in an explicit object), or would you always use an annonymous function? When would you decide to use Strategy when you can use a first-class function?

  Read the article

• Name for Osherove's modified singleton pattern?

  - by Kazark

  I'm pretty well sold on the "singletons are evil" line of thought. Nevertheless, there are limited occurrences when you want to limit the creation of an object. Roy Osherove advises, If you're planning to use a singleton in your design, separate the logic of the singleton class and the logic that makes it a singleton (the part that initializes a static variables, for example) into two separate classes. That way, you can keep the single responsibility principle (SRP) and also have a way to override singleton logic. (The Art of Unit Testing 261-262) This pattern still perpetuates the global state. However, it does result in a testable design, so it seems to me to be a good pattern for mitigating the damage of a singleton. However, Osherove does not give a name to this pattern; but naming a pattern, according to the Gang of Four, is important: Naming a pattern immediately increases our design vocabulary. It lets us design at a higher level of abstraction. (3) Is there a standard name for this pattern? It seems different enough from a standard singleton to deserve a separate name. Decoupled Singleton, perhaps?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >