Search Results

Search found 17921 results on 717 pages for 'cocoa design patterns'.

Page 301/717 | < Previous Page | 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308  | Next Page >

  • Can I use the decorator pattern to wrap a method body?

    - by mgroves
    I have a bunch of methods with varying signatures. These methods interact with a fragile data connection, so we often use a helper class to perform retries/reconnects, etc. Like so: MyHelper.PerformCall( () => { doStuffWithData(parameters...) }); And this works fine, but it can make the code a little cluttery. What I would prefer to do is decorate the methods that interact with the data connection like so: [InteractsWithData] protected string doStuffWithData(parameters...) { // do stuff... } And then essentially, whenever doStuffWithData is called, the body of that method would be passed in as an Action to MyHelper.PerformCall(). How do I do this?

    Read the article

  • Which pattern to use for logging? Dependency Injection or Service Locator?

    - by andlju
    Consider this scenario. I have some business logic that now and then will be required to write to a log. interface ILogger { void Log(string stuff); } interface IDependency { string GetInfo(); } class MyBusinessObject { private IDependency _dependency; public MyBusinessObject(IDependency dependency) { _dependency = dependency; } public string DoSomething(string input) { // Process input var info = _dependency.GetInfo(); var intermediateResult = PerformInterestingStuff(input, info); if (intermediateResult== "SomethingWeNeedToLog") { // How do I get to the ILogger-interface? } var result = PerformSomethingElse(intermediateResult); return result; } } How would you get the ILogger interface? I see two main possibilities; Pass it using Dependency Injection on the constructor. Get it via a singleton Service Locator. Which method would you prefer, and why? Or is there an even better pattern? Update: Note that I don't need to log ALL method calls. I only want to log a few (rare) events that may or may not occur within my method.

    Read the article

  • Repository Pattern Standardization of methods

    - by Nix
    All I am trying to find out the correct definition of the repository pattern. My original understanding was this (extremely dubmed down) Separate your Business Objects from your Data Objects Standardize access methods in data access layer. I have really seen 2 different implementations. Implementation 1 : public Interface IRepository<T>{ List<T> GetAll(); void Create(T p); void Update(T p); } public interface IProductRepository: IRepository<Product> { //Extension methods if needed List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Implementation 2 : public interface IProductRepository { List<Product> GetAllProducts(); void CreateProduct(Product p); void UpdateProduct(Product p); List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Notice the first is generic Get/Update/GetAll, etc, the second is more of what I would define "DAO" like. Both share an extraction from your data entities. Which I like, but i can do the same with a simple DAO. However the second piece standardize access operations I see value in, if you implement this enterprise wide people would easily know the set of access methods for your repository. Am I wrong to assume that the standardization of access to data is an integral piece of this pattern ? Rhino has a good article on implementation 1, and of course MS has a vague definition and an example of implementation 2 is here.

    Read the article

  • Is Domain Anaemia appropriate in a Service Oriented Architecture?

    - by Stimul8d
    I want to be clear on this. When I say domain anaemia, I mean intentional domain anaemia, not accidental. In a world where most of our business logic is hidden away behind a bunch of services, is a full domain model really necessary? This is the question I've had to ask myself recently since working on a project where the "domain" model is in reality a persistence model; none of the domain objects contain any methods and this is a very intentional decision. Initially, I shuddered when I saw a library full of what are essentially type-safe data containers but after some thought it struck me that this particular system doesn't do much but basic CRUD operations, so maybe in this case this is a good choice. My problem I guess is that my experience so far has been very much focussed on a rich domain model so it threw me a little. The remainder of the domain logic is hidden away in a group of helpers, facades and factories which live in a separate assembly. I'm keen to hear what people's thoughts are on this. Obviously, the considerations for reuse of these classes are much simpler but is really that great a benefit?

    Read the article

  • Is Embed Resource a good approach for a read only xml database?

    - by Nasser Hajloo
    I have an open source application (here) This application get a character or a sentence and give some unicode information about it. Iuse Unicode Character Database which provided by Unicode.org this is a XML document (130MB) At first I embed this XML to my DLL but I don't know is it a good approach or no. because DLL size growth just because of this XML document. I can use it like any other resources but usercan see it. What Should I do? What is the best pattern for this? and Why ? TIA

    Read the article

  • Is this a problem typically solved with IOC?

    - by Dirk
    My current application allows users to define custom web forms through a set of admin screens. it's essentially an EAV type application. As such, I can't hard code HTML or ASP.NET markup to render a given page. Instead, the UI requests an instance of a Form object from the service layer, which in turn constructs one using a several RDMBS tables. Form contains the kind of classes you would expect to see in such a context: Form= IEnumerable<FormSections>=IEnumerable<FormFields> Here's what the service layer looks like: public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenForm(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } } Everything works splendidly (for a while). The UI is none the wiser about what sections/fields exist in a given form: It happily renders the Form object it receives into a functional ASP.NET page. A few weeks later, I get a new requirement from the business: When viewing a non-editable (i.e. read-only) versions of a form, certain field values should be merged together and other contrived/calculated fields should are added. No problem I say. Simply amend my service class so that its methods are more explicit: public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenFormForEditing(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } public Form OpenFormForViewing(int formId){ //construct and a concrete implementation of Form //apply additional transformations to the form } } Again everything works great and balance has been restored to the force. The UI continues to be agnostic as to what is in the Form, and our separation of concerns is achieved. Only a few short weeks later, however, the business puts out a new requirement: in certain scenarios, we should apply only some of the form transformations I referenced above. At this point, it feels like the "explicit method" approach has reached a dead end, unless I want to end up with an explosion of methods (OpenFormViewingScenario1, OpenFormViewingScenario2, etc). Instead, I introduce another level of indirection: public interface IFormViewCreator{ void CreateView(Form form); } public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenFormForEditing(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } public Form OpenFormForViewing(int formId, IFormViewCreator formViewCreator){ //construct a concrete implementation of Form //apply transformations to the dynamic field list return formViewCreator.CreateView(form); } } On the surface, this seems like acceptable approach and yet there is a certain smell. Namely, the UI, which had been living in ignorant bliss about the implementation details of OpenFormForViewing, must possess knowledge of and create an instance of IFormViewCreator. My questions are twofold: Is there a better way to achieve the composability I'm after? (perhaps by using an IoC container or a home rolled factory to create the concrete IFormViewCreator)? Did I fundamentally screw up the abstraction here?

    Read the article

  • Is this the correct why of speaking to a "Content Manager" Class?

    - by DeanMc
    I am creating a silverlight site. I am currently breaking out my ideas into pieces of functionality. One of the idea's I have is the concept of a content manager. This is essentially a UI control with 4 regions. Top, Bottom, Right & Left. I also have a collection of objects that are considered "Menu Items". These are controls that function as a way to navigate around, similar to links. The idea I have is to implement an IMenuItem interface. Among the standard pieces of information (Text, PageReference, etc) I was also going to hold a reference to the content manager. My idea behind this thinking is that I can pass the PageReference to a property on the ContentManager and then call a method which knows how to update the content manager accordingly. Is this the best way of implementing this or is their some sort of pattern for it?

    Read the article

  • Singleton & Multithreading in Java

    - by vivek jagtap
    What is the preferred way to work with Singleton class in multithreaded environment? Suppose if I have 3 thread, and all they try to access getInstance() method of singleton class at the same time - What would happen if no synchronization is maintained? Is it good practice to use synchronized getInstance() method or use synchronized block inside getInstance(). Please advise if there is any other way out.

    Read the article

  • Files mapping architecture

    - by user326198
    I need to know How I can achieve this goal by classes : we have two different applications in the company (App1 , App2) Appl can export xml with know items ( ID , Name) we need app2 to import this data but App2 display different items (CarID, CarName) and this items defined like this with the mapping info <CarID> <Mapping name="ID"/> </CarID> <CarNAme> <Mapping name="Name"/> </CarNAme>" How I can achieve this as classes or ARCHITECTURE , i will develop this with c# I need one interface because we may support different type of files not just xml

    Read the article

  • how to implement this observer pattern?

    - by lethal
    Hello. I have 4 classes, that describe state diagram. Node, Edge, ComponentOfNode, ComponentOfEdge. ComponentOfEdge compounds from ComponentsOfNode. Node can have 0..n outgoing edges. Edge can have only 2 nodes. Edge should be able to offer ComponentOfNode, but only from nodes that Edge has, in form ComponentOfEdge. The user can change ComponentsOfNode. I need this change spreads to all Edge. Hw to do it? I expect the observer should be used. Can you give me example in pseudocode please?

    Read the article

  • Is there a case for parameterising using Abstract classes rather than Interfaces?

    - by Chris
    I'm currently developing a component based API that is heavily stateful. The top level components implement around a dozen interfaces each. The stock top-level components therefore sit ontop of a stack of Abstract implementations which in turn contain multiple mixin implementations and implement multiple mixin interfaces. So far, so good (I hope). The problem is that the base functionality is extremely complex to implement (1,000s of lines in 5 layers of base classes) and therefore I do not wish for component writers to implement the interfaces themselves but rather to extend my base classes (where all the boiler plate code is already written). If the API therefore accepts interfaces rather than references to the Abstract implementation that I wish for component writers to extends, then I have a risk that the implementer will not perform the validation that is both required and assumed by other areas of code. Therefore, my question is, is it sometimes valid to paramerise API methods using an abstract implementation reference rather than a reference to the interface(s) that it implements? Do you have an example of a well-designed API that uses this technique or am I trying to talk myself into bad-practice?

    Read the article

  • Wicket: Where to add components? Constructor? Or onBeforeRender?

    - by gmallett
    I'm a Wicket newb. This may just be my ignorance of the Wicket lifecycle so please enlighten me! My understanding is that Wicket WebPage objects are instantiated once and then serialized. This has led to a point of confusion for me, see below. Currently I have a template class which I intend to subclass. I followed the example in the Wicket docs demonstrating how to override the template's behavior in the subclass: protected void onBeforeRender() { add(new Label("title", getTitle())); super.onBeforeRender(); } protected String getTitle() { return "template"; } Subclass: protected String getTitle() { return "Home"; } This works very well. What's not clear to me are the "best practices" for this. It seems like onBeforeRender() is called on every request for the page, no? This seems like there would be substantially more processing done on a page if everything is in onBeforeRender(). I could easily follow the example of the other Wicket examples and add some components in the constructor that I do not want to override, but then I've divided by component logic into two places, something I'm hesitant to do. If I add a component that I intend to be in all subclasses, should I add it to the constructor or onBeforeRender()?

    Read the article

  • Instantiating and referencing models in MVC

    - by fig-gnuton
    In MVC, should each model be a globally accessible singleton accessible to any view/controller? Or should the models be singletons that are dependency injected into any component that requires them? Or should a new model instance be created for each component that needs one, in which case events would be used to propagate changes across model instances of the same class?

    Read the article

  • Ignoring (serious) errors to keep the program alive?

    - by SQuirreL bites
    One of the main things I wanted to achieve in my experimental programming language was: When errors occur (Syntax, Name, Type, etc.) keep the program running, no matter how serious or devastating it is. I know that this is probably very bad, but I just wanted something that doesn't kill itself on every error - I find it interesting what happens when a serious error occurs but the program continues. Does this "paradigm" have a name? I mean expect for How bad is it to do the above? Are there programs in use out there that just follow: "Hey, this is a fatal, unexpected error - but you know what? I don't care!"?

    Read the article

  • Instantiate a javascript module only one time.

    - by Cedric Dugas
    Hey guys, I follow a module pattern where I instantiate components, however, a lot of time a component will only be instantiate one time (example: a comment system for an article). For now I instantiate in the same JS file. but I was wondering if it is the wrong approach? It kind of make no sense to instantiate in the same file and always only once. But at the same time, if this file is in the page I want to have access to my module without instantiate from elsewhere, and IF I need another instance, I just create another from elsewhere... Here is the pattern I follow: ApplicationNamespace.Classname = function() { // constructor function privateFunctionInit() { // private } this.privilegedFunction = function() { // privileged privateFunction(); }; privateFunctionInit() }; ApplicationNamespace.Classname.prototype = { Method: function(){} } var class = new ApplicationNamespace.Classname(); What do you think, wrong approach, or is this good?

    Read the article

  • C# Class Factories

    - by Andy
    I have a class called Foo that has a function that looks like the following List<Bar> LoadData(); Both Foo and Bar are in a library that I want to reuse in other projects. Now I am working on a new project and I want to subclass Bar. Let's call it NewBar. What is a simple and flexible way to get Foo.LoadData to return a list of NewBar? I think that a factory is needed or perhaps just a delegate function. Can anyone provide an example? Thanks, Andy

    Read the article

  • Refactoring one large list of C# properties/fields

    - by dotnetdev
    If you take a look at http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/dhananjaycoder/activedirectoryoperations11132009113015AM/activedirectoryoperations.aspx, there is a huge list of properties for AD in one class. What is a good way to refactor such a large list of (Related) fields? Would making seperate classes be adequate or is there a better way to make this more manageable? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to proxy calls to the instance of an object

    - by mr.b
    Edit: Changed question title from "Does C# allow method overloading, PHP style (__call)?" - figured out it doesn't have much to do with actual question. Also edited question text. What I want to accomplish is to proxy calls to a an instance of an object methods, so I could log calls to any of its methods. Right now, I have code similar to this: class ProxyClass { static logger; public AnotherClass inner { get; private set; } public ProxyClass() { inner = new AnotherClass(); } } class AnotherClass { public void A() {} public void B() {} public void C() {} // ... } // meanwhile, in happyCodeLandia... ProxyClass pc = new ProxyClass(); pc.inner.A(); // need to write log message like "method A called" pc.inner.B(); // need to write log message like "method B called" // ... So, how can I proxy calls to an object instance in extensible way? Method overloading would be most obvious solution (if it was supported in PHP way). By extensible, meaning that I don't have to modify ProxyClass whenever AnotherClass changes. In my case, AnotherClass can have any number of methods, so it wouldn't be appropriate to overload or wrap all methods to add logging. I am aware that this might not be the best approach for this kind of problem, so if anyone has idea what approach to use, shoot. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Writing my own implementation of stl-like Iterator in C++.

    - by Negai
    Good evening everybody, I'm currently trying to understand the intrinsics of iterators in various languages i.e. the way they are implemented. For example, there is the following class exposing the list interface. template<class T> class List { public: virtual void Insert( int beforeIndex, const T item ) throw( ListException ) =0 ; virtual void Append( const T item ) =0; virtual T Get( int position ) const throw( ListException ) =0; virtual int GetLength() const =0; virtual void Remove( int position ) throw( ListException ) =0; virtual ~List() =0 {}; }; According to GoF, the best way to implement an iterator that can support different kinds of traversal is to create the base Iterator class (friend of List) with protected methods that can access List's members. The concrete implementations of Iterator will handle the job in different ways and access List's private and protected data through the base interface. From here forth things are getting confusing. Say, I have class LinkedList and ArrayList, both derived from List, and there are also corresponding iterators, each of the classes returns. How can I implement LinkedListIterator? I'm absolutely out of ideas. And what kind of data can the base iterator class retrieve from the List (which is a mere interface, while the implementations of all the derived classes differ significantly) ? Sorry for so much clutter. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Will my app get rejected because of this ???

    - by A for Alpha
    hi guys... i am developing a ebook reader app for iPad and i am facing a issue related to the design aspects of the bookshelf. I am posting a sample photo of my bookshelf here. I want the book shelf to have a horizontal navigation similar to that of the iBooks. Will this come under violation of Apple's HIG?? Will they consider this design to be a imitation of their iBooks design and reject it?? I'm worried...

    Read the article

  • How to separate model and view with Core Data?

    - by andrewebling
    I have a subclass of UIView which draws itself based on data held in a corresponding model class, which is a subclass of NSManagedObject. The problem is, some fields in the data model (e.g. the position of the view) are already held in the view (i.e. the frame property in this case). I then have a data duplication/synchronization problem to solve. To complicate matters further, the view needs to update in response to changes made to the data model and the data model needs to be updated in responses made to the view (e.g. the user dragging it to a new location). What's the best way to solve this? Using KVO and references in both directions? Or is there a better approach?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308  | Next Page >