Search Results

Search found 14602 results on 585 pages for 'objected oriented design'.

Page 307/585 | < Previous Page | 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314  | Next Page >

• Abstraction, Politics, and Software Architecture

  Abstraction can be defined as a general concept and/or idea that lack any concrete details. Throughout history this type of thinking has led to an array of new ideas and innovations as well as increased confusion and conspiracy. If one was to look back at our history they will see that abstraction has been used in various forms throughout our past. When I was growing up I do not know how many times I heard politicians say “Leave no child left behind” or “No child left behind” as a major part of their campaign rhetoric in regards to a stance on education. As you can see their slogan is a perfect example of abstraction because it only offers a very general concept about improving our education system but they do not mention how they would like to do it. If they did then they would be adding concrete details to their abstraction thus turning it in to an actual working plan as to how we as a society can help children succeed in school and in life, but then they would not be using abstraction. By now I sure you are thinking what does abstraction have to do with software architecture. You are valid in thinking this way, but abstraction is a wonderful tool used in information technology especially in the world of software architecture. Abstraction is one method of extracting the concepts of an idea so that it can be understood and discussed by others of varying technical abilities and backgrounds. One ways in which I tend to extract my architectural design thoughts is through the use of basic diagrams to convey an idea for a system or a new feature for an existing application. This allows me to generically model an architectural design through the use of views and Unified Markup Language (UML). UML is a standard method for creating a 4+1 Architectural View Models. The 4+1 Architectural View Model consists of 4 views typically created with UML as well as a general description of the concept that is being expressed by a model. The 4+1 Architectural View Model: Logical View: Models a system’s end-user functionality. Development View: Models a system as a collection of components and connectors to illustrate how it is intended to be developed.  Process View: Models the interaction between system components and connectors as to indicate the activities of a system. Physical View: Models the placement of the collection of components and connectors of a system within a physical environment. Recently I had to use the concept of abstraction to express an idea for implementing a new security framework on an existing website. My concept would add session based management in order to properly secure and allow page access based on valid user credentials and last user activity.  I created a basic Process View by using UML diagrams to communicate the basic process flow of my changes in the application so that all of the projects stakeholders would be able to understand my idea. Additionally I created a Logical View on a whiteboard while conveying the process workflow with a few stakeholders to show how end-user will be affected by the new framework and gaining additional input about the design. After my Logical and Process Views were accepted I then started on creating a more detailed Development View in order to map how the system will be built based on the concept of components and connections based on the previously defined interactions. I really did not need to create a Physical view for this idea because we were updating an existing system that was already deployed based on an existing Physical View. What do you think about the use of abstraction in the development of software architecture? Please let me know.

  Read the article

• Big Data – Operational Databases Supporting Big Data – Columnar, Graph and Spatial Database – Day 14 of 21

  - by Pinal Dave

  In yesterday’s blog post we learned the importance of the Key-Value Pair Databases and Document Databases in the Big Data Story. In this article we will understand the role of Columnar, Graph and Spatial Database supporting Big Data Story. Now we will see a few of the examples of the operational databases. Relational Databases (The day before yesterday’s post) NoSQL Databases (The day before yesterday’s post) Key-Value Pair Databases (Yesterday’s post) Document Databases (Yesterday’s post) Columnar Databases (Tomorrow’s post) Graph Databases (Today’s post) Spatial Databases (Today’s post) Columnar Databases  Relational Database is a row store database or a row oriented database. Columnar databases are column oriented or column store databases. As we discussed earlier in Big Data we have different kinds of data and we need to store different kinds of data in the database. When we have columnar database it is very easy to do so as we can just add a new column to the columnar database. HBase is one of the most popular columnar databases. It uses Hadoop file system and MapReduce for its core data storage. However, remember this is not a good solution for every application. This is particularly good for the database where there is high volume incremental data is gathered and processed. Graph Databases For a highly interconnected data it is suitable to use Graph Database. This database has node relationship structure. Nodes and relationships contain a Key Value Pair where data is stored. The major advantage of this database is that it supports faster navigation among various relationships. For example, Facebook uses a graph database to list and demonstrate various relationships between users. Neo4J is one of the most popular open source graph database. One of the major dis-advantage of the Graph Database is that it is not possible to self-reference (self joins in the RDBMS terms) and there might be real world scenarios where this might be required and graph database does not support it. Spatial Databases  We all use Foursquare, Google+ as well Facebook Check-ins for location aware check-ins. All the location aware applications figure out the position of the phone with the help of Global Positioning System (GPS). Think about it, so many different users at different location in the world and checking-in all together. Additionally, the applications now feature reach and users are demanding more and more information from them, for example like movies, coffee shop or places see. They are all running with the help of Spatial Databases. Spatial data are standardize by the Open Geospatial Consortium known as OGC. Spatial data helps answering many interesting questions like “Distance between two locations, area of interesting places etc.” When we think of it, it is very clear that handing spatial data and returning meaningful result is one big task when there are millions of users moving dynamically from one place to another place & requesting various spatial information. PostGIS/OpenGIS suite is very popular spatial database. It runs as a layer implementation on the RDBMS PostgreSQL. This makes it totally unique as it offers best from both the worlds. Courtesy: mushroom network Tomorrow In tomorrow’s blog post we will discuss about very important components of the Big Data Ecosystem – Hive. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: Big Data, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL

  Read the article

• Feynman's inbox

  - by user12607414

  Here is Richard Feynman writing on the ease of criticizing theories, and the difficulty of forming them: The problem is not just to say something might be wrong, but to replace it by something — and that is not so easy. As soon as any really definite idea is substituted it becomes almost immediately apparent that it does not work. The second difficulty is that there is an infinite number of possibilities of these simple types. It is something like this. You are sitting working very hard, you have worked for a long time trying to open a safe. Then some Joe comes along who knows nothing about what you are doing, except that you are trying to open the safe. He says ‘Why don’t you try the combination 10:20:30?’ Because you are busy, you have tried a lot of things, maybe you have already tried 10:20:30. Maybe you know already that the middle number is 32 not 20. Maybe you know as a matter of fact that it is a five digit combination… So please do not send me any letters trying to tell me how the thing is going to work. I read them — I always read them to make sure that I have not already thought of what is suggested — but it takes too long to answer them, because they are usually in the class ‘try 10:20:30’. (“Seeking New Laws”, page 161 in The Character of Physical Law.) As a sometime designer (and longtime critic) of widely used computer systems, I have seen similar difficulties appear when anyone undertakes to publicly design a piece of software that may be used by many thousands of customers. (I have been on both sides of the fence, of course.) The design possibilities are endless, but the deep design problems are usually hidden beneath a mass of superfluous detail. The sheer numbers can be daunting. Even if only one customer out of a thousand feels a need to express a passionately held idea, it can take a long time to read all the mail. And it is a fact of life that many of those strong suggestions are only weakly supported by reason or evidence. Opinions are plentiful, but substantive research is time-consuming, and hence rare. A related phenomenon commonly seen with software is bike-shedding, where interlocutors focus on surface details like naming and syntax… or (come to think of it) like lock combinations. On the other hand, software is easier than quantum physics, and the population of people able to make substantial suggestions about software systems is several orders of magnitude bigger than Feynman’s circle of colleagues. My own work would be poorer without contributions — sometimes unsolicited, sometimes passionately urged on me — from the open source community. If a Nobel prize winner thought it was worthwhile to read his mail on the faint chance of learning a good idea, I am certainly not going to throw mine away. (In case anyone is still reading this, and is wondering what provoked a meditation on the quality of one’s inbox contents, I’ll simply point out that the volume has been very high, for many months, on the Lambda-Dev mailing list, where the next version of the Java language is being discussed. Bravo to those of my colleagues who are surfing that wave.) I started this note thinking there was an odd parallel between the life of the physicist and that of a software designer. On second thought, I’ll bet that is the story for anybody who works in public on something requiring special training. (And that would be pretty much anything worth doing.) In any case, Feynman saw it clearly and said it well.

  Read the article

• WebCenter Customer Spotlight: Hyundai Motor Company

  - by me

  Author: Peter Reiser - Social Business Evangelist, Oracle WebCenter  Solution SummaryHyundai Motor Company is one of the world’s fastest-growing car manufacturers, ranked as the fifth-largest in 2011. The company also operates the world’s largest integrated automobile manufacturing facility in Ulsan, Republic of Korea, which can produce 1.6 million units per year. They  undertook a project to improve business efficiency and reinforce data security by centralizing the company’s sales, financial, and car manufacturing documents into a single repository. Hyundai Motor Company chose Oracle Exalogic, Oracle Exadata, Oracle WebLogic Sever, and Oracle WebCenter Content 11g, as they provided better performance, stability, storage, and scalability than their competitors.  Hyundai Motor Company cut the overall time spent each day on document-related work by around 85%, saved more than US$1 million in paper and printing costs, laid the foundation for a smart work environment, and supported their future growth in the competitive car industry. Company OverviewHyundai Motor Company is one of the world’s fastest-growing car manufacturers, ranked as the fifth-largest in 2011. The company also operates the world’s largest integrated automobile manufacturing facility in Ulsan, Republic of Korea, which can produce 1.6 million units per year. The company strives to enhance its brand image and market recognition by continuously improving the quality and design of its cars. Business Challenges To maximize the company’s growth potential, Hyundai Motor Company undertook a project to improve business efficiency and reinforce data security by centralizing the company’s sales, financial, and car manufacturing documents into a single repository. Specifically, they wanted to: Introduce a smart work environment to improve staff productivity and efficiency, and take advantage of rapid company growth due to new, enhanced car designs Replace a legacy document system managed by individual staff to improve collaboration, the visibility of corporate documents, and sharing of work-related files between employees Improve the security and storage of documents containing corporate intellectual property, and prevent intellectual property loss when staff leaves the company Eliminate delays when downloading files from the central server to a PC Build a large, single document repository to more efficiently manage and share data between 30,000 staff at the company’s headquarters Establish a scalable system that can be extended to Hyundai offices around the world Solution DeployedAfter conducting a large-scale benchmark test, Hyundai Motor Company chose Oracle Exalogic, Oracle Exadata, Oracle WebLogic Sever, and Oracle WebCenter Content 11g, as they provided better performance, stability, storage, and scalability than their competitors. Business Results Lowered the overall time spent each day on all document-related work by approximately 85%—from 4.5 hours to around 42 minutes on an average day Saved more than US$1 million per year in printer, paper, and toner costs, and laid the foundation for a completely paperless environment Reduced staff’s time spent requesting and receiving documents about car sales or designs from supervisors by 50%, by storing and managing all documents across the corporation in a single repository Cut the time required to draft new-car manufacturing, sales, and design documents by 20%, by allowing employees to reference high-quality data, such as marketing strategy and product planning documents already in the system Enhanced staff productivity at company headquarters by 9% by reducing the document-related tasks of 30,000 administrative and research and development staff Ensured the system could scale to hold 3 petabytes of car sales, manufacturing, and design data by 2013 and be deployed at branches worldwide We chose Oracle Exalogic, Oracle Exadata, and Oracle WebCenter Content to support our new document-centralization system over their competitors as Oracle offers stable storage for petabytes of data and high processing speeds. We have cut the overall time spent each day on document-related work by around 85%, saved more than US$1 million in paper and printing costs, laid the foundation for a smart work environment, and supported our future growth in the competitive car industry. Kang Tae-jin, Manager, General Affairs Team, Hyundai Motor Company Additional Information Hyundai Motor Company Customer Snapshot Oracle WebCenter Content

  Read the article

• How can a developer realize the full value of his work [closed]

  - by Jubbat

  I, honestly, don't want to work as a developer in a company anymore after all I have seen. I want to continue developing software, yes, but not in the way I see it all around me. And I'm in London, a city that congregates lots of great developers from the whole world, so it shouldn't be a problem of location. So, what are my concerns? First of all, best case scenario: you are paying managers salary out of yours. You are consistently underpaid by making up for the average manager negative net return plus his whole salary. Typical scenario. I am a reasonably good developer with common sense who cares for readable code with attention to basic principles. I have found way too often, overconfident and arrogant developers with a severe lack of common sense. Personally, I don't want to follow TDD or Agile practices like all the cool kids nowadays. I would read about them, form my own opinion and take what I feel is useful, but don't follow it sheepishly. I want to work with people who understand that you have to design good interfaces, you absolutely have to document your code, that readability is at the top of your priorities. Also people who don't have a cargo cult mentality too. For instance, the same person who asked me about design patterns in a job interview, later told me that something like a List of Map of Vector of Map of Set (in Java) is very readable. Why would someone ask me about design patterns if they can't even grasp encapsulation? These kind of things are the norm. I've seen many examples. I've seen worse than that too, from very well paid senior devs, by the way. Every second that you spend working with people with such lack of common sense and clear thinking, you are effectively losing money by being terribly inefficient with your time. Yet, with all these inefficiencies, the average developer earns a high salary. So I tried working on my own then, although I don't like the idea. I prefer healthy exchange of opinions and ideas and task division. I then did a bit of online freelancing for a while but I think working in a sweatshop might be more enjoyable. Also, I studied computer engineering and you are in an environment in which your client will presume you don't have any formal education because there is no way to prove it. Again, you are undervalued. You could try building a product, yes. But, of course, luck is a big factor. I wonder if there is a way to work in something you can do well, software development, and be valued for the quality of your work and be paid accordingly, and where you and only you get fairly paid for the value you generate. I know that what I have written seems somehow unlikely but I strongly feel this way. Hopefully someone will understand me and has already figured this out. I don't think I'm alone in this kind of feeling.

  Read the article

• MVC Communication Pattern

  - by Kedu

  This is kind of a follow up question to this http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23743285/model-view-controller-and-callbacks, but I wanted to post it separately, because its kind of a different topic. I'm working on a multiplayer cardgame for the Android platform. I split the project into MVC which fits the needs pretty good, but I'm currently stuck because I can't figure out a good way to communicate between the different parts. I have everything setup and working with the controller being a big state machine, which is called over and over from the gameloop, and calls getter methods from the GUI and the android/network part to get the input. The input itself in the GUI and network is set by inputlisteners that set a local variable which I read in the getter method. So far so good, this is working. But my problem is, the controller has to check every input separately,so if I want to add an input I have to check in which states its valid and call the getter method from all these states. This is not good, and lets the code look pretty ugly, makes additions uncomfortable and adds redundance. So what I've got from the question I mentioned above is that some kind of command or event pattern will fit my needs. What I want to do is to create a shared and threadsafe queue in the controller and instead of calling all these getter methods, I just check the queue for new input and proceed it. On the other side, the GUI and network don't have all these getters, but instead create an event or command and send it to the controller through, for example, observer/observable. Now my problem: I can't figure out a way, for these commands/events to fit a common interface (which the queue can store) and still transport different kind of data (button clicks, cards that are played, the player id the command comes from, synchronization data etc.). If I design the communication as command pattern, I have to stick all the information that is needed to execute the command into it when its created, that's impossible because the GUI or network has no knowledge of all the things the controller needs to execute stuff that needs to be done when for example a card is played. I thought about getting this stuff into the command when executing it. But over all the different commands I have, I would need all the information the controller has, and thus give the command a reference to the controller which would make everything in it public, which is real bad design I guess. So, I could try some kind of event pattern. I have to transport data in the event. So, like the command, I would have an interface, which all events have in common, and can be stored in the shared queue. I could create a big enum with all the different events that a are possible, save one of these enums in the actual event, and build a big switch case for the events, to proceed different stuff for different events. The problem here: I have different data for all the events. But I need a common interface, to store the events in a queue. How do I get the specific data, if I can only access the event through the interface? Even if that wouldn't be a problem, I'm creating another big switch case, which looks ugly, and when i want to add a new event, I have to create the event itself, the case, the enum, and the method that's called with the data. I could of course check the event with the enum and cast it to its type, so I can call event type specific methods that give me the data I need, but that looks like bad design too.

  Read the article

• Dependency injection: How to sell it

  - by Mel

  Let it be known that I am a big fan of dependency injection (DI) and automated testing. I could talk all day about it. Background Recently, our team just got this big project that is to built from scratch. It is a strategic application with complex business requirements. Of course, I wanted it to be nice and clean, which for me meant: maintainable and testable. So I wanted to use DI. Resistance The problem was in our team, DI is taboo. It has been brought up a few times, but the gods do not approve. But that did not discourage me. My Move This may sound weird but third-party libraries are usually not approved by our architect team (think: "thou shalt not speak of Unity, Ninject, NHibernate, Moq or NUnit, lest I cut your finger"). So instead of using an established DI container, I wrote an extremely simple container. It basically wired up all your dependencies on startup, injects any dependencies (constructor/property) and disposed any disposable objects at the end of the web request. It was extremely lightweight and just did what we needed. And then I asked them to review it. The Response Well, to make it short. I was met with heavy resistance. The main argument was, "We don't need to add this layer of complexity to an already complex project". Also, "It's not like we will be plugging in different implementations of components". And "We want to keep it simple, if possible just stuff everything into one assembly. DI is an uneeded complexity with no benefit". Finally, My Question How would you handle my situation? I am not good in presenting my ideas, and I would like to know how people would present their argument. Of course, I am assuming that like me, you prefer to use DI. If you don't agree, please do say why so I can see the other side of the coin. It would be really interesting to see the point of view of someone who disagrees. Update Thank you for everyone's answers. It really puts things into perspective. It's nice enough to have another set of eyes to give you feedback, fifteen is really awesome! This are really great answers and helped me see the issue from different sides, but I can only choose one answer, so I will just pick the top voted one. Thanks everyone for taking the time to answer. I have decided that it is probably not the best time to implement DI, and we are not ready for it. Instead, I will concentrate my efforts on making the design testable and attempt to present automated unit testing. I am aware that writing tests is additional overhead and if ever it is decided that the additional overhead is not worth it, personally I would still see it as a win situation since the design is still testable. And if ever testing or DI is a choice in future, the design can easily handle it.

  Read the article

• Oracle Applications Cloud Release 8 Customization: Your User Interface, Your Text

  - by ultan o'broin

  Introducing the User Interface Text Editor In Oracle Applications Cloud Release 8, there’s an addition to the customization tool set, called the User Interface Text Editor  (UITE). When signed in with an application administrator role, users launch this new editing feature from the Navigator's Tools > Customization > User Interface Text menu option. See how the editor is in there with other customization tools? User Interface Text Editor is launched from the Navigator Customization menu Applications customers need a way to make changes to the text that appears in the UI, without having to initiate an IT project. Business users can now easily change labels on fields, for example. Using a composer and activated sandbox, these users can take advantage of the Oracle Metadata Services (MDS), add a key to a text resource bundle, and then type in their preferred label and its description (as a best practice for further work, I’d recommend always completing that description). Changing a simplified UI field label using Oracle Composer In Release 8, the UITE enables business users to easily change UI text on a much wider basis. As with composers, the UITE requires an activated sandbox where users can make their changes safely, before committing them for others to see. The UITE is used for editing UI text that comes from Oracle ADF resource bundles or from the Message Dictionary (or FND_MESSAGE_% tables, if you’re old enough to remember such things). Functionally, the Message Dictionary is used for the text that appears in business rule-type error, warning or information messages, or as a text source when ADF resource bundles cannot be used. In the UITE, these Message Dictionary texts are referred to as Multi-part Validation Messages.   If the text comes from ADF resource bundles, then it’s categorized as User Interface Text in the UITE. This category refers to the text that appears in embedded help in the UI or in simple error, warning, confirmation, or information messages. The embedded help types used in the application are explained in an Oracle Fusion Applications User Experience (UX) design pattern set. The message types have a UX design pattern set too. Using UITE  The UITE enables users to search and replace text in UI strings using case sensitive options, as well as by type. Users select singular and plural options for text changes, should they apply. Searching and replacing text in the UITE The UITE also provides users with a way to preview and manage changes on an exclusion basis, before committing to the final result. There might, for example, be situations where a phrase or word needs to remain different from how it’s generally used in the application, depending on the context. Previewing replacement text changes. Changes can be excluded where required. Multi-Part Messages The Message Dictionary table architecture has been inherited from Oracle E-Business Suite days. However, there are important differences in the Oracle Applications Cloud version, notably the additional message text components, as explained in the UX Design Patterns. Message Dictionary text has a broad range of uses as indicated, and it can also be reserved for internal application use, for use by PL/SQL and C programs, and so on. Message Dictionary text may even concatenate together at run time, where required. The UITE handles the flexibility of such text architecture by enabling users to drill down on each message and see how it’s constructed in total. That way, users can ensure that any text changes being made are consistent throughout the different message parts. Multi-part (Message Dictionary) message components in the UITE Message Dictionary messages may also use supportability-related numbers, the ones that appear appended to the message text in the application’s UI. However, should you have the requirement to remove these numbers from users' view, the UITE is not the tool for the job. Instead, see my blog about using the Manage Messages UI.

  Read the article

• How to handle multi-processing of libraries which already spawn sub-processes?

  - by exhuma

  I am having some trouble coming up with a good solution to limit sub-processes in a script which uses a multi-processed library and the script itself is also multi-processed. Both, the library and script are modifiable by us. I believe the question is more about design than actual code, but for what it's worth, it's written in Python. The goal of the library is to hide implementation details of various internet routers. For that reason, the library has a "Proxy" factory method which takes the IP of a router as parameter. The factory then probes the device using a set of possible proxies. Usually, there is one proxy which immediately knows that is is able to send commands to this device. All others usually take some time to return (given a timeout). One thought was already to simply query the device for an identifier, and then select the proper proxy using that, but in order to do so, you would already need to know how to query the device. Abstracting this knowledge is one of the main purposes of the library, so that becomes a little bit of a "circular-requirement"/deadlock: To connect to a device, you need to know what proxy to use, and to know what proxy to create, you need to connect to a device. So probing the device is - as we can see - the best solution so far, apart from keeping a lookup-table somewhere. The library currently kills all remaining processes once a valid proxy has been found. And yes, there is always only one good proxy per device. Currently there are about 12 proxies. So if one create a proxy instance using the factory, 12 sub-processes are spawned. So far, this has been really useful and worked very well. But recently someone else wanted to use this library to "broadcast" a command to all devices. So he took the library, and wrote his own multi-processed script. This obviously spawned 12 * n processes where n is the number of IPs to which he broadcasted. This has given us two problems: The host on which the command was executed slowed down to a near halt. Aborting the script with CTRL+C ground the system to a total halt. Not even the hardware console responded anymore! This may be due to some Python strangeness which still needs to be investigated. Maybe related to http://bugs.python.org/issue8296 The big underlying question, is how to design a library which does multi-processing, so other applications which use this library and want to be multi-processed themselves do not run into system limitations. My first thought was to require a pool to be passed to the library, and execute all tasks in that pool. In that way, the person using the library has control over the usage of system resources. But my gut tells me that there must be a better solution. Disclaimer: My experience with multiprocessing is fairly limited. I have implemented a few straightforward which did not require access control to resources. So I have not yet any practical experience with semaphores or mutexes. p.s.: In the future, we may have enough information to do this without the probing. But the database which would contain the proper information is not yet operational. Also, the design about multiprocessing a multiprocessed library intrigues me :)

  Read the article

• Entity System with C++ templates

  - by tommaisey

  I've been getting interested in the Entity/Component style of game programming, and I've come up with a design in C++ which I'd like a critique of. I decided to go with a fairly pure Entity system, where entities are simply an ID number. Components are stored in a series of vectors - one for each Component type. However, I didn't want to have to add boilerplate code for every new Component type I added to the game. Nor did I want to use macros to do this, which frankly scare me. So I've come up with a system based on templates and type hinting. But there are some potential issues I'd like to check before I spend ages writing this (I'm a slow coder!) All Components derive from a Component base class. This base class has a protected constructor, that takes a string parameter. When you write a new derived Component class, you must initialise the base with the name of your new class in a string. When you first instantiate a new DerivedComponent, it adds the string to a static hashmap inside Component mapped to a unique integer id. When you subsequently instantiate more Components of the same type, no action is taken. The result (I think) should be a static hashmap with the name of each class derived from Component that you instantiate at least once, mapped to a unique id, which can by obtained with the static method Component::getTypeId ("DerivedComponent"). Phew. The next important part is TypedComponentList<typename PropertyType>. This is basically just a wrapper to an std::vector<typename PropertyType> with some useful methods. It also contains a hashmap of entity ID numbers to slots in the array so we can find Components by their entity owner. Crucially TypedComponentList<> is derived from the non-template class ComponentList. This allows me to maintain a list of pointers to ComponentList in my main ComponentManager, which actually point to TypedComponentLists with different template parameters (sneaky). The Component manager has template functions such as: template <typename ComponentType> void addProperty (ComponentType& component, int componentTypeId, int entityId) and: template <typename ComponentType> TypedComponentList<ComponentType>* getComponentList (int componentTypeId) which deal with casting from ComponentList to the correct TypedComponentList for you. So to get a list of a particular type of Component you call: TypedComponentList<MyComponent>* list = componentManager.getComponentList<MyComponent> (Component::getTypeId("MyComponent")); Which I'll admit looks pretty ugly. Bad points of the design: If a user of the code writes a new Component class but supplies the wrong string to the base constructor, the whole system will fail. Each time a new Component is instantiated, we must check a hashed string to see if that component type has bee instantiated before. Will probably generate a lot of assembly because of the extensive use of templates. I don't know how well the compiler will be able to minimise this. You could consider the whole system a bit complex - perhaps premature optimisation? But I want to use this code again and again, so I want it to be performant. Good points of the design: Components are stored in typed vectors but they can also be found by using their entity owner id as a hash. This means we can iterate them fast, and minimise cache misses, but also skip straight to the component we need if necessary. We can freely add Components of different types to the system without having to add and manage new Component vectors by hand. What do you think? Do the good points outweigh the bad?

  Read the article

• Is there any kind of established architecture for browser based games?

  - by black_puppydog

  I am beginning the development of a broser based game in which players take certain actions at any point in time. Big parts of gameplay will be happening in real life and just have to be entered into the system. I believe a good kind of comparison might be a platform for managing fantasy football, although I have virtually no experience playing that, so please correct me if I am mistaken here. The point is that some events happen in the program (i.e. on the server, out of reach for the players) like pulling new results from some datasource, starting of a new round by a game master and such. Other events happen in real life (two players closing a deal on the transfer of some team member or whatnot - again: have never played fantasy football) and have to be entered into the system. The first part is pretty easy since the game masters will be "staff" and thus can be trusted to a certain degree to not mess with the system. But the second part bothers me quite a lot, especially since the actions may involve multiple steps and interactions with different players, like registering a deal with the system that then has to be approved by the other party or denied and passed on to a game master to decide. I would of course like to separate the game logic as far as possible from the presentation and basic form validation but am unsure how to do this in a clean fashion. Of course I could (and will) put some effort into making my own architectural decisions and prototype different ideas. But I am bound to make some stupid mistakes at some point, so I would like to avoid some of that by getting a little "book smart" beforehand. So the question is: Is there any kind of architectural works that I can read up on? Papers, blogs, maybe design documents or even source code? Writing this down this seems more like a business application with business rules, workflows and such... Any good entry points for that? EDIT: After reading the first answers I am under the impression of having made a mistake when including the "MMO" part into the title. The game will not be all fancy (i.e. 3D or such) on the client side and the logic will completely exist on the server. That is, apart from basic form validation for the user which will also be mirrored on the server side. So the target toolset will be HTML5, JavaScript, probably JQuery(UI). My question is more related to the software architecture/design of a system that enforces certain rules. Separation of ruleset and presentation One problem I am having is that I want to separate the game rules from the presentation. The first step would be to make an own module for the game "engine" that only exposes an interface that allows all actions to be taken in a clean way. If an action fails with regard to some pre/post condition, the engine throws an exception which is then presented to the user like "you cannot sell something you do not own" or "after that you would end up in a situation which is not a valid game state." The problem here is that I would like to be able to not even present invalid action in the first place or grey out the corresponding UI elements. Changing and tweaking the ruleset Another big thing is the ruleset. It will probably evolve over time and most definitely must be tweaked. What's more, it should be possible (to a certain extent) to build a ruleset that fits a specific game round, i.e. choosing different kinds of behaviours in different aspects of the game. This would do something like "we play it with extension A today but we throw out extension B." For me, this screams "Architectural/Design pattern" but I have no idea on who might have published on something like this, not even what to google for.

  Read the article

• Collision in PyGame for spinning rectangular object.touching circles

  - by OverAchiever

  I'm creating a variation of Pong. One of the differences is that I use a rectangular structure as the object which is being bounced around, and I use circles as paddles. So far, all the collision handling I've worked with was using simple math (I wasn't using the collision "feature" in PyGame). The game is contained within a 2-dimensional continuous space. The idea is that the rectangular structure will spin at different speed depending on how far from the center you touch it with the circle. Also, any extremity of the rectangular structure should be able to touch any extremity of the circle. So I need to keep track of where it has been touched on both the circle and the rectangle to figure out the direction it will be bounced to. I intend to have basically 8 possible directions (Up, down, left, right and the half points between each one of those). I can work out the calculation of how the objected will be dislocated once I get the direction it will be dislocated to based on where it has been touch. I also need to keep track of where it has been touched to decide if the rectangular structure will spin clockwise or counter-clockwise after it collided. Before I started coding, I read the resources available at the PyGame website on the collision class they have (And its respective functions). I tried to work out the logic of what I was trying to achieve based on those resources and how the game will function. The only thing I could figure out that I could do was to make each one of these objects as a group of rectangular objects, and depending on which rectangle was touched the other would behave accordingly and give the illusion it is a single object. However, not only I don't know if this will work, but I also don't know if it is gonna look convincing based on how PyGame redraws the objects. Is there a way I can use PyGame to handle these collision detections by still having a single object? Can I figure out the point of collision on both objects using functions within PyGame precisely enough to achieve what I'm looking for? P.s: I hope the question was specific and clear enough. I apologize if there were any grammar mistakes, English is not my native language.

  Read the article

• The Definitive C++ Book Guide and List

  - by grepsedawk

  After more than a few questions about deciding on C++ books I thought we could make a better community wiki version. Providing QUALITY books and an approximate skill level. Maybe we can add a short blurb/description about each book that you have personally read / benefited from. Feel free to debate quality, headings, etc. Note: There is a similar post for C: The Definitive C Book Guide and List Reference Style - All Levels The C++ Programming Language - Bjarne Stroustrup C++ Standard Library Tutorial and Reference - Nicolai Josuttis Beginner Introductory: C++ Primer - Stanley Lippman / Josée Lajoie / Barbara E. Moo Accelerated C++ - Andrew Koenig / Barbara Moo Thinking in C++ - Bruce Eckel (2 volumes, 2nd is more about standard library, but still very good) Best practices: Effective C++ - Scott Meyers Effective STL - Scott Meyers Intermediate More Effective C++ - Scott Meyers Exceptional C++ - Herb Sutter More Exceptional C++ - Herb Sutter C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices - Herb Sutter / Andrei Alexandrescu C++ Templates The Complete Guide - David Vandevoorde / Nicolai M. Josuttis Large Scale C++ Software Design - John Lakos Above Intermediate Modern C++ Design - Andrei Alexandrescu C++ Template Metaprogramming - David Abrahams and Aleksey Gurtovoy Inside the C++ Object Model - Stanley Lippman Classics / Older Note: Some information contained within these books may not be up to date and no longer considered best practice. The Design and Evolution of C++ - Bjarne Stroustrup Ruminations on C++ Andrew Koenig / Barbara Moo Advanced C++ Programming Styles and Idioms - James Coplien

  Read the article

• Unable to regress web application from AJAX Control Toolkit 3.0 back to 1.0

  - by David Neale

  I was recently asked to stop using the Ajax Control Toolkit 3.0 in my application and need to go back to 1.0. Luckily I only have one calendar control which I don't believe will be affected by this. I have removed the reference to the 3.0 .dll and added a reference to the 1.0 .dll. These are the assemblies in web.config: <assemblies> <add assembly="System.Core, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B77A5C561934E089"/> <add assembly="System.Data.DataSetExtensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B77A5C561934E089"/> <add assembly="System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35"/> <add assembly="System.Xml.Linq, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B77A5C561934E089"/> <add assembly="System.Web.Extensions.Design, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35"/> <add assembly="System.Design, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B03F5F7F11D50A3A"/> <add assembly="System.Windows.Forms, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B77A5C561934E089"/></assemblies> and this also also there: <runtime> <assemblyBinding xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1"> <dependentAssembly> <assemblyIdentity name="System.Web.Extensions" publicKeyToken="31bf3856ad364e35"/> <bindingRedirect oldVersion="1.0.0.0-1.1.0.0" newVersion="3.5.0.0"/> </dependentAssembly> <dependentAssembly> <assemblyIdentity name="System.Web.Extensions.Design" publicKeyToken="31bf3856ad364e35"/> <bindingRedirect oldVersion="1.0.0.0-1.1.0.0" newVersion="3.5.0.0"/> </dependentAssembly> </assemblyBinding> </runtime> I get a compile error of: Could not load file or assembly 'AjaxControlToolkit, Version=3.0.30930.28736, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=28f01b0e84b6d53e' or one of its dependencies. The located assembly's manifest definition does not match the assembly reference. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131040)

  Read the article

• Applying Test Driven Development to a tightly coupled architecture

  - by Chris D

  Hi all, I've recently been studying TDD, attended a conference and have dabbled in few tests and already I'm 100% sold, I absolutely love it TDD. As a result I've raised this with my seniors and they are prepared to give it a chance, so they have tasked me with coming up with a way to implement TDD in the development of our enterprise product. The problem is our system has evolved since the days of VB6 to .NET and implements alot of legacy technology and some far from best practice development techniques i.e. alot of business logic in the ASP.NET code behind and client script. The largest problem however is how our classes are tightly coupled with database access; properties, methods, constructors - usually has some database access in some form or another. We use an in-house data access code generator tool that creates sqlDataAdapters that gives us all the database access we could ever want, which helps us develop extremely quickly, however, classes in our business layer are very tightly coupled to this data layer - we aren't even close to implementing some form of repository design. This and the issues above have created me all sorts of problems. I have tried to develop some unit tests for some existing classes I've already written but the tests take ALOT longer to run since db access is required, not to mention since we use the MS Enterprise Caching framework I am forced to fake a httpcontext for my tests to run successfully which isn't practical. Also, I can't see how to use TDD to drive the design of any new classes I write since they have to be soo tightly coupled to the database ... help! Because of the architecture of the system it appears I can't implement TDD without some real hack which in my eyes just defeats the aim of TDD and the huge benefits that come with. Does anyone have any suggestions how I could implement TDD with the constraints I'm bound too? or do I need to push the repository design pattern down my seniors throats and tell them we either change our architecture/development methodology or forget about TDD altogether? :) Thanks

  Read the article

• Webforms MVP Passive View - event handling

  - by ss2k

  Should the view have nothing event specific in its interface and call the presenter plain methods to handle events and not have any official EventHandlers? For instance // ASPX protected void OnSaveButtonClicked(object sender, EventArgs e) { _Presenter.OnSave(); } Or should the view have event EventHandlers defined in its interface and link those up explicitly to control events on the page // View public interface IView { ... event EventHandler Saved; ... } // ASPX Page implementing the view protected override void OnInit(EventArgs e) { base.OnInit(e); SaveButton.Click += delegate { Saved(this, e); }; } // Presenter internal Presenter(IView view,IRepository repository) { _view = view; _repository = repository; view.Saved += Save; } The second seems like a whole lot of plumbing code to add all over. My intention is to understand the benefits of each style and not just a blanket answer of which to use. My main goals is clarity and high value testability. Testability overall is important, but I wouldn't sacrifice design simplicity and clarity to be able to add another type of test that doesn't lead to too much gain over the test cases already possible with a simpler design. If a design choice does off more testability please include an example (pseudo code is fine) of the type of test it can now offer so I can make my decision if I value that type of extra test enough. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Conversion constructor vs. conversion operator: precedence

  - by GRB

  Reading some questions here on SO about conversion operators and constructors got me thinking about the interaction between them, namely when there is an 'ambiguous' call. Consider the following code: class A; class B { public: B(){} B(const A&) //conversion constructor { cout << "called B's conversion constructor" << endl; } }; class A { public: operator B() //conversion operator { cout << "called A's conversion operator" << endl; return B(); } }; int main() { B b = A(); //what should be called here? apparently, A::operator B() return 0; } The above code displays "called A's conversion operator", meaning that the conversion operator is called as opposed to the constructor. If you remove/comment out the operator B() code from A, the compiler will happily switch over to using the constructor instead (with no other changes to the code). My questions are: Since the compiler doesn't consider B b = A(); to be an ambiguous call, there must be some type of precedence at work here. Where exactly is this precedence established? (a reference/quote from the C++ standard would be appreciated) From an object-oriented philosophical standpoint, is this the way the code should behave? Who knows more about how an A object should become a B object, A or B? According to C++, the answer is A -- is there anything in object-oriented practice that suggests this should be the case? To me personally, it would make sense either way, so I'm interested to know how the choice was made. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Disadvantage of OOP?

  - by Bragaadeesh

  Typically i dont want to know the specifics of the cons of OOPs, but it felt kind of weird when I had an argument at an interview I attended recently. The question that was posted to me was to tell me one disadvantage of OOP (Object Oriented Programming). At that time, I felt OOP to be the most matured level of programming after the procedural/functional models. So I replied to him that I dont see any negatives at all. But the interviewer said there are few and I asked him to list one if he does not mind. He gave an example that I cant digest well, he said that OOP pattern does not strictly implement inheritance rules and cited the satellite/rocket example where the body parts will disintegrate periodically to remove weight during rocket launch and said that inheritance does not support this. His example kind of felt very weird to me the reason being the application of inheritance to this example. Then I left the example aside and I had this doubt - Can we unplug class hierarchies in such a manner (I am kind of confident in Java its not possible) in an ideal Object Oriented Design?

  Read the article

• Simple Select Statement on MySQL Database Hanging

  - by AlishahNovin

  I have a very simple sql select statement on a very large table, that is non-normalized. (Not my design at all, I'm just trying to optimize while simultaneously trying to convince the owners of a redesign) Basically, the statement is like this: SELECT FirstName, LastName, FullName, State FROM Activity Where (FirstName=@name OR LastName=@name OR FullName=@name) AND State=@state; Now, FirstName, LastName, FullName and State are all indexed as BTrees, but without prefix - the whole column is indexed. State column is a 2 letter state code. What I'm finding is this: When @name = 'John Smith', and @state = '%' the search is really fast and yields results immediately. When @name = 'John Smith', and @state = 'FL' the search takes 5 minutes (and usually this means the web service times out...) When I remove the FirstName and LastName comparisons, and only use the FullName and State, both cases above work very quickly. When I replace FirstName, LastName, FullName, and State searches, but use LIKE for each search, it works fast for @name='John Smith%' and @state='%', but slow for @name='John Smith%' and @state='FL' When I search against 'John Sm%' and @state='FL' the search finds results immediately When I search against 'John Smi%' and @state='FL' the search takes 5 minutes. Now, just to reiterate - the table is not normalized. The John Smith appears many many times, as do many other users, because there is no reference to some form of users/people table. I'm not sure how many times a single user may appear, but the table itself has 90 Million records. Again, not my design... What I'm wondering is - though there are many many problems with this design, what is causing this specific problem. My guess is that the index trees are just too large that it just takes a very long time traversing the them. (FirstName, LastName, FullName) Anyway, I appreciate anyone's help with this. Like I said, I'm working on convincing them of a redesign, but in the meantime, if I someone could help me figure out what the exact problem is, that'd be fantastic.

  Read the article

• Should a Perl constructor return an undef or a "invalid" object?

  - by DVK

  Question: What is considered to be "Best practice" - and why - of handling errors in a constructor?. "Best Practice" can be a quote from Schwartz, or 50% of CPAN modules use it, etc...; but I'm happy with well reasoned opinion from anyone even if it explains why the common best practice is not really the best approach. As far as my own view of the topic (informed by software development in Perl for many years), I have seen three main approaches to error handling in a perl module (listed from best to worst in my opinion): Construct an object, set an invalid flag (usually "is_valid" method). Often coupled with setting error message via your class's error handling. Pros: Allows for standard (compared to other method calls) error handling as it allows to use $obj->errors() type calls after a bad constructor just like after any other method call. Allows for additional info to be passed (e.g. 1 error, warnings, etc...) Allows for lightweight "redo"/"fixme" functionality, In other words, if the object that is constructed is very heavy, with many complex attributes that are 100% always OK, and the only reason it is not valid is because someone entered an incorrect date, you can simply do "$obj->setDate()" instead of the overhead of re-executing entire constructor again. This pattern is not always needed, but can be enormously useful in the right design. Cons: None that I'm aware of. Return "undef". Cons: Can not achieve any of the Pros of the first solution (per-object error messages outside of global variables and lightweight "fixme" capability for heavy objects). Die inside the constructor. Outside of some very narrow edge cases, I personally consider this an awful choice for too many reasons to list on the margins of this question. UPDATE: Just to be clear, I consider the (otherwise very worthy and a great design) solution of having very simple constructor that can't fail at all and a heavy initializer method where all the error checking occurs to be merely a subset of either case #1 (if initializer sets error flags) or case #3 (if initializer dies) for the purposes of this question. Obviously, choosing such a design, you automatically reject option #2.

  Read the article

• PHP, We have sessions, and cookies....I love cookies, but they are blowing my mind right now.

  - by Matt

  I am not sure how to go about accessing the variable I need to set on a cookie... I was thinking about using the $_POST global but I dont know how based on my design if it will work. I am using a master page type design seperating index.php from my function includes and database information and individual pages (that will be returned to an include in index.php based on a $_GET) Okay so back to my question. What is the most efficient way to set a cookie on a design that has a main page that everything will branch from. How would I pull the value. Is $_POST a good enough way to go about it? Also...by saying it must be the first thing sent...does that mean I cannot run any serverside scripts before that? I could definately utilize a login query I think but I dont want to write code just to be dissapointed based on my lack of time and knowledge. I did search for answers...I know this most likely feels like a generic question that could be answered in a difference place...but I know I will get an accurate and professional answer here...so I dont want to bet on the half answers I found otherwise. Of course I will sanitize everything and not store any sensitive information (passwords,address,phone,or anything really for that matter besides some kind of session ID and the username) If this is confusing I am sorry but I am on a gov computer...and they lock these tighter than ft knox...so getting my code on here will be a chore until I get back to my room. Thanks, Matt

  Read the article

• Designer serialization persistence problem in .NET, Windows Forms

  - by Jules

  ETA: I have a similar, smaller, problem here which, I suspect, is related to this problem. I have a class which has a readonly property that holds a collection of components (* not quite, see below). At design time, it's possible to select from the components on the design surface to add to the collection. (Think imagelist, but instead of selecting one, you can select as many as you want.) As a test, I inherit from button and attach my class to it as a property. The persistence problem occurs when I add a component,to the collection, from the design surface after I have added my button to the form. The best way to demonstrate this is to show you the designer generated code: Private Sub InitializeComponent() Dim Provider1 As WindowsApplication1.Provider = New WindowsApplication1.Provider Me.MyComponent2 = New WindowsApplication1.MyComponent Me.MyComponent1 = New WindowsApplication1.MyComponent Me.MyButton1 = New WindowsApplication1.MyButton Me.MyComponent3 = New WindowsApplication1.MyComponent Me.SuspendLayout() ' 'MyButton1 ' Me.MyButton1.ProviderCollection.Add(Me.MyButton1.InternalProvider) Me.MyButton1.ProviderCollection.Add(Me.MyComponent1.Provider) Me.MyButton1.ProviderCollection.Add(Me.MyComponent2.Provider) Me.MyButton1.ProviderCollection.Add(Provider1) //Wrong should be Me.MyComponent3.Provider ' 'Form1 ' Me.Controls.Add(Me.MyButton1) End Sub Friend WithEvents MyComponent1 As WindowsApplication1.MyComponent Friend WithEvents MyComponent2 As WindowsApplication1.MyComponent Friend WithEvents MyButton1 As WindowsApplication1.MyButton Friend WithEvents MyComponent3 As WindowsApplication1.MyComponent End Class As you can see from the code, the collection is not actually a collection of the components, but a collection of a property, 'Provider', from the components. It looks like the problem is occurring because MyComponent3 is created after MyButton. However, in my opinion, this should not make any difference - by the time the serializer comes to add the provider property of MyComponent3, it's already created. Note: You may wonder, why I'm not using AddRange to persist the collection. The reason for this is that if I do, the behaviour changes and none of the items will persist correctly. The designer will create local fields - like Provider1 - for each item in the collection. However if I add another collection to the class which holds the actual MyComponents and persist this, then, somehow, the AddRange method persists correctly in ProviderCollection! There seems to be some kind of quantum double slit experiment going down in code dom. How can I solve this problem?

  Read the article

• How do I implement repository pattern and unit of work when dealing with multiple data stores?

  - by Jason

  I have a unique situation where I am building a DDD based system that needs to access both Active Directory and a SQL database as persistence. Initially this wasnt a problem because our design was setup where we had a unit of work that looked like this: public interface IUnitOfWork { void BeginTransaction() void Commit() } and our repositories looked like this: public interface IRepository<T> { T GetByID() void Save(T entity) void Delete(T entity) } In this setup our load and save would handle the mapping between both data stores because we wrote it ourselves. The unit of work would handle transactions and would contain the Linq To SQL data context that the repositories would use for persistence. The active directory part was handled by a domain service implemented in infrastructure and consumed by the repositories in each Save() method. Save() was responsible with interacting with the data context to do all the database operations. Now we are trying to adapt it to entity framework and take advantage of POCO. Ideally we would not need the Save() method because the domain objects are being tracked by the object context and we would just need to add a Save() method on the unit of work to have the object context save the changes, and a way to register new objects with the context. The new proposed design looks more like this: public interface IUnitOfWork { void BeginTransaction() void Save() void Commit() } public interface IRepository<T> { T GetByID() void Add(T entity) void Delete(T entity) } This solves the data access problem with entity framework, but does not solve the problem with our active directory integration. Before, it was in the Save() method on the repository, but now it has no home. The unit of work knows nothing other than the entity framework data context. Where should this logic go? I argue this design only works if you only have one data store using entity framework. Any ideas how to best approach this issue? Where should I put this logic?

  Read the article

• Creating a content management system for dedicated use

  - by whitstone86

  I've been trying to create a specialised CMS, as none of the current open-source ones fit my needs for this project. I did my research on Google, tried multiple times but haven't got very far with this project. I'm trying to create a CMS for a TV/episode guide which is similar to this: (for some that don't have the :// just copy-and-paste and add it after http in the URL) http library.digiguide.com/lib/programmenextshowing/Police%2C+Camera%2C+Action!-12578 (one such example) - where records expire and delete from the database after expiration. This is the design I'm trying to emulate: http library.digiguide.com/lib/programme/24-84241/Drama/ - the programme http://library.digiguide.com/lib/episode/Under+Surveillance-714873 - a typical episode, could use .htaccess to remove php from name http library.digiguide.com/lib/programmenextshowing/24-84241 - paginated episode display (using script that I found in search here possibly) I don't have access to cron job as it's on Windows/Apache, so that's out the question for this one. I'm not sure how to go about this successfully, anyone got any advice? (Note:Although the linked site runs in ASP.NET, it's the design and feel of it I'm trying to emulate, except in PHP. I've managed to emulate that site's design, but with my own tweaks to it.)

  Read the article

• NHibernate: Mapping multiple classes from a single table row

  - by Michael Kurtz

  I couldn't find an answer to this specific question. I am trying to keep my domain model object-oriented and re-use objects where possible. I am having an issue determining how to provide a mapping to multiple classes from a single row. Let me explain with an example: I have a single table, call it Customer. A customer has several attributes; but, for brevity, assume it has Id, Name, Address, City, State, ZipCode. I would like to create a Customer and Address class that look like this: public class Customer { public virtual long Id {get;set;} public virtual string Name {get;set;} public virtual Address Address {get;set;} } public class Address { public virtual string Address {get;set;} public virtual string City {get;set;} public virtual string State {get;set;} public virtual string ZipCode {get;set;} } What I am having trouble with is determining what the mapping would be for the Address class within the Customer class. There is no Address table and there isn't a "set" of addresses associated with a Customer. I just want a more object-oriented view of the Customer table in code. There are several other tables that have address information in them and it would be nice to have a reusable Address class to deal with them. Addresses are not shared so breaking all addresses into a separate table with foreign keys seems to be overkill and, actually, more painful since I would need foreign keys to multiple tables. Can someone enlighten me on this type of mapping? Please provide an example if you can. Thanks for any insights! -Mike

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314  | Next Page >