Search Results

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

Page 31/585 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

• Updating query results

  - by Francisco Garcia

  Within a DDD and CQRS context, a query result is displayed as table rows. Whenever new rows are inserted or deleted, their positions must be calculated by comparing the previous query result with the most recent one. This is needed to visualize with an animation new or deleted rows. The model of my view contains an array of the displayed query results. But I need a place to compare its contents against the latest query. Right now I consider my model view part of my application layer, but the comparison of two query result sets seems something that must be done within the domain layer. Which component should cache a query result and which one compare them? Are view models (and their cached contents) supposed to be in the application layer?

  Read the article

• Seperation of drawing and logic in games

  - by BFree

  I'm a developer that's just now starting to mess around with game development. I'm a .Net guy, so I've messed with XNA and am now playing around with Cocos2d for the iPhone. My question really is more general though. Let's say I'm building a simple Pong game. I'd have a Ball class and a Paddle class. Coming from the business world development, my first instinct is to not have any drawing or input handling code in either of these classes. //pseudo code class Ball { Vector2D position; Vector2D velocity; Color color; void Move(){} } Nothing in the ball class handles input, or deals with drawing. I'd then have another class, my Game class, or my Scene.m (in Cocos2D) which would new up the Ball, and during the game loop, it would manipulate the ball as needed. The thing is though, in many tutorials for both XNA and Cocos2D, I see a pattern like this: //pseudo code class Ball : SomeUpdatableComponent { Vector2D position; Vector2D velocity; Color color; void Update(){} void Draw(){} void HandleInput(){} } My question is, is this right? Is this the pattern that people use in game development? It somehow goes against everything I'm used to, to have my Ball class do everything. Furthermore, in this second example, where my Ball knows how to move around, how would I handle collision detection with the Paddle? Would the Ball need to have knowledge of the Paddle? In my first example, the Game class would have references to both the Ball and the Paddle, and then ship both of those off to some CollisionDetection manager or something, but how do I deal with the complexity of various components, if each individual component does everything themselves? (I hope I'm making sense.....)

  Read the article

• How to implement Restricted access to application features

  - by DroidUser

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

  Read the article

• Create many similar classes, or just one

  - by soandos

  The goal is to create an application that has objects that can represent some operations (add, subtract, etc). All of those objects will have common functions and members, and thus will either implement an interface or inherit from an abstract class (Which would be better practice, this will be in C# if that matters?). As far as I can see, there are two different ways of organizing all of these classes. I could create an addition class, a subtraction class, etc. This has the upside of being highly modular but the difference between classes is so minimal. I could create one class, and have a member that will say what type of operation is being represented. This means lots of switch statements, and losing some modularity, in addition to being harder to maintain. Which is is better practice? Is there a better way of doing that is not listed above? If it matters, the list of functions that should be supported is long.

  Read the article

• How to refactor to cleaner version of maintaing states of the widget

  - by George

  Backstory I inherited a bunch of code that I'd like to refactor. It is a UI application written in javascript. Current state: We have main application which consist of several UI components. And each component has entry fields, textboxes, menus, etc), like "ticket", "customer information", etc. Based on input, where the application was called from, who is the user, we enable/disable, hide, show, change titles. Unfortunately, the app grew to the point where it is really hard to scale, add new features. Main the driver (application code) calls set/unset functions of the respective components. So a lot of the stuff look like this Main app unit function1() { **call_function2()** component1.setX(true); component1.setY(true); component2.setX(false); } call_function2() { // it may repeat some of the code function1 called } and we have a lot of this in the main union. I am cleaning this mess. What is the best way to maintain the state of widgets? Please let me know if you need me to clarify.

  Read the article

• Where we should put validation for domain model

  - by adisembiring

  I still looking best practice for domain model validation. Is that good to put the validation in constructor of domain model ? my domain model validation example as follows: public class Order { private readonly List<OrderLine> _lineItems; public virtual Customer Customer { get; private set; } public virtual DateTime OrderDate { get; private set; } public virtual decimal OrderTotal { get; private set; } public Order (Customer customer) { if (customer == null) throw new ArgumentException("Customer name must be defined"); Customer = customer; OrderDate = DateTime.Now; _lineItems = new List<LineItem>(); } public void AddOderLine //.... public IEnumerable<OrderLine> AddOderLine { get {return _lineItems;} } } public class OrderLine { public virtual Order Order { get; set; } public virtual Product Product { get; set; } public virtual int Quantity { get; set; } public virtual decimal UnitPrice { get; set; } public OrderLine(Order order, int quantity, Product product) { if (order == null) throw new ArgumentException("Order name must be defined"); if (quantity <= 0) throw new ArgumentException("Quantity must be greater than zero"); if (product == null) throw new ArgumentException("Product name must be defined"); Order = order; Quantity = quantity; Product = product; } } Thanks for all of your suggestion.

  Read the article

• When is a glue or management class doing too much?

  - by jprete

  I'm prone to building centralized classes that manage the other classes in my designs. It doesn't store everything itself, but most data requests would go to the "manager" first. While looking at an answer to this question I noticed the term "God Object". Wikipedia lists it as an antipattern, understandably. Where is the line between a legitimate glue class, or module, that passes data and messages from place to place, and a class that is doing too much?

  Read the article

• Where ORMs blur the lines between code and data, how do you decide what logic should be a stored procedure, and what should be coded?

  - by PhonicUK

  Take the following pseudocode: CreateInvoiceAndCalculate(ItemsAndQuantities, DispatchAddress, User); And say CreateInvoice does the following: Create a new entry in an Invoices table belonging to the specified User to be sent to the given DispatchAddress. Create a new entry in an InvoiceItems table for each of the items in ItemsAndQuantities, storing the Item, the Quantity, and the cost of the item as of now (by looking it up from an Items table) Calculate the total amount of the invoice (ex shipping and taxes) and store it in the new Invoice row. At a glace you wouldn't be able to tell if this was a method in my applications code, or a stored procedure in the database that is being exposed as a function by the ORM. And to some extent it doesn't really matter. Now technically none of this is business logic. You're not making any decisions - just performing a calculation and creating records. However some may argue that because you are performing a calculation that affects the business (the total amount to be invoiced) that this isn't something that should be done in a stored procedure and instead should be in code. So for this specific example - why would it be more appropriate to do one or the other? And where do you draw the line? Or does it even particular matter as long as it's sufficiently well documented?

  Read the article

• How to layer if statements when order of logic is irrelevant?

  - by jimmyjimmy

  Basically I have a series of logic in my website that can lead to 5 total outcomes. Basically two different if tests and then a catch all else statement. For example: if cond1: if mod1: #do things elif mod2: #do things elif cond2: if mod1: #do things elif mod2 #do things else: #do things I was thinking about rewriting it like this: if cond1 and mod1: #do things elif cond1 and mod2: #do things elif cond2 and mod1: #do things elif cond2 and mod2: #do things else: #do things Is there any real difference in these two coding options/a better choice for this kind of logic testing?

  Read the article

• Visitor-pattern vs inheritance for rendering

  - by akaltar

  I have a game engine that currently uses inheritance to provide a generic interface to do rendering: class renderable { public: void render(); }; Each class calls the gl_* functions itself, this makes the code hard to optimize and hard to implement something like setting the quality of rendering: class sphere : public renderable { public: void render() { glDrawElements(...); } }; I was thinking about implementing a system where I would create a Renderer class that would render my objects: class sphere { void render( renderer* r ) { r->renderme( *this ); } }; class renderer { renderme( sphere& sphere ) { // magically get render resources here // magically render a sphere here } }; My main problem is where should I store the VBOs and where should I Create them when using this method? Should I even use this approach or stick to the current one, perhaps something else? PS: I already asked this question on SO but got no proper answers.

  Read the article

• Should this code/logic be included in Business Objects class or a separate class?

  - by aspdotnetuser

  I have created a small application which has a three tier architecture and I have business object classes to represent entities such as User, Orders, UserType etc. In these classes I have methods that are executed when the Constuctor method of, for example, User is called. These methods perform calculations and generate details that setup data for attributes that are part of each User object. Here is the structure for the project in Visual Studio: Here is some code from the business object class User.cs: Public Class User { public string Name { get; set; } public int RandomNumber { get; set; } etc public User { Name = GetName(); RandomNumber = GetRandomNumber(); } public string GetName() { .... return name; } public int GetRandomNumber() { ... return randomNumber; } } Should this logic be included in the Business Object classes or should it be included in a Utilities class of some kind? Or in the business rules?

  Read the article

• Developing web sites that imitate desktop apps. How to fight that paradigm? [closed]

  - by user1598390

  Supposse there's a company where web sites/apps are designed to resemble desktop apps. They struggle to add: Splash screens Drop-down menus Tab-pages Pages that don't grow downward with content, context is inside scrollable area so page is of a fixed size, as if resembling the one-screen limitation of desktop apps. Modal windows, pop-ups, etc. Tree views Absolutely no access to content unless you login-first, even with non-sensitive content. After splash screen desapears, you are presented with a login screen. No links - just simulated buttons. Fixed page-size. Cannot open a linked in other tab Print button that prints directly ( not showing printable page so the user can't print via the browser's print command ) Progress bars for loading content even when the browser indicates it with its own animation Fonts and color amulate a desktop app made with Visual Basic, PowerBuilder etc. Every app seems almost as if were made in Visual Basic. They reject this elements: Breadcrumbs Good old underlined links Generated/dynamic navigation, usage-based suggestions Ability to open links in multiple tabs Pagination Printable pages Ability to produce a URL you can save or share that links to an item, like when you send someone the link to an especific StackExchange question. The only URL is the main one. Back button To achieve this, tons of javascript code is needed. Lots and lots of Javascript and Ajax code for things not related with the business but with the necessity to hide/show that button, refresh this listbox, grey-out that label, etc. The coplexity generated by forcing one paradigm into another means most lines of code are dedicated to maintain the illusion of a desktop app. What is the best way to change this mindset, and make them embrace the web, and start producing modern, web apps instead of desktop imitations ? EDIT: These sites are intranet sites. Users hate these apps. They constantly whine about them, but they have to use them to do their daily work. These sites are in-house solutions, the end-users have no choice but to use them. They are a "captive audience". Also, substitution will not happen because of high costs. But at least if that mindset is changed, new developments would be more web-like.

  Read the article

• Create Levels using blender

  - by notrodash

  I am creating a game and I have a custom level format for levels in my game. I wanted to know if it is possible to create levels for that kinda format in Blender. My format is XML based and just declares the positions of certain objects. Online I have seen many people use Blender to create levels in their own custom format that blender can understand. How do i get blender to understand my format and use blender to create levels for my game?

  Read the article

• Domain Model and Querying

  - by Tyrsius

  I am new to DDD, having worked only in Transaction-Script apps with an anemic model, or just Big Balls of Mud, so please forgive any terminology I abuse. I am trying to understand the proper separation between the domain model and the repository. What is the proper way to construct a domain object that is coming from a database, assuming the (incredibly simplified) need to query for objects by status (returns enumerable), or by ID. Should a factory be building the objects, exposing methods for GetByStatus() and GetByID(), using a DIed repository? Should a repository be called directly, knowing how to build a domain model from the DTO? Should the domain model have a constructor for get by ID, using a DIed repoistory to load the initial state, using some other (?) method for the list? I am not really sure what the best way would be, and this question has an answer advocating each one (these are certainly mutuallu exclusive).

  Read the article

• Random generation of interesting puzzle levels?

  - by monsterfarm

  I'm making a Sokoban-like game i.e. there's a grid that has some crates on it you can push and you have to get the crates on crosses to win the level (although I'm going to add some extra elements to it). Are there any general algorithms or reading material I can look at for how I could go about generating interesting (as in, not trivial to solve) levels for this style of game? I'm aware that random level generators exist for Sokoban but I'm having trouble finding the algorithm descriptions. I'm interested in making a game where the machine can generate lots of levels for me, sorted by difficulty. I'm even willing to constrain the rules of the game to make the level generation easier (e.g. I'll probably limit the grid size to about 7x7). I suspect there are some general ways to do level generation here as I've seen e.g. Traffic Jam-like games (where you have to move blocks around the free some block) with 1000s of levels where each one has a unique solution. One idea I had was to generate a random map in its final state (i.e. where all crates are on top of their crosses) and then the computer would pull (instead of push) these crates around to create a level. The nice property here is that we know the level is solvable. However, I'd need some heuristics to ensure the level was interesting.

  Read the article

• Best approach for tracking dependent state

  - by Pace

  Let's pretend I work on a project tracking application. The application is a database backed, server hosted, web application. In this application there are Projects which have many Activities which have many Tasks. A Task has two date fields an originalDueDate and a projectedDueDate. In addition, there are dynamic fields on the Activities and the Projects which indicate whether the Activity or Project is behind schedule based on the projected due dates of the child tasks and various other variables such as remaining buffer time, etc. There are a number of things that can cause the projectedDueDate to change. For example, an employee working on the project may (via a server request) enter in a shipping delay. Alternatively, a site may (via a server request) enter in an unexpected closure. When any of these things occur I need to not only update the projectedDueDate of the Task but also trigger the corresponding Project and Activity to update as well. What is the best way to do this? I've thought of the observer pattern but I don't keep a single copy of all these objects in memory. When a request comes in, I query the Task in from the database, at that point there is no associated Activity in memory that would be a listener. I could remove the ability to query for Tasks and force the application to query first by Project, then by Activity (in context of Project), then by task (in context of Activity) adding the observer relationships at each step but I'm not sure if that is the best way. I could setup a database event listening system so when a Task modified event is dispatched I have a handler which queries for the Activity at that point. I could simply setup a two-way relationship between Task and Activity so that the Task knows about the parent Activity and when the Task updates his state the Task grabs his parent and updates state. Right now I'm stuck considering all the options and am wondering if any single approach (doesn't have to be a listed approach) is jumping out at others as the best approach.

  Read the article

• Does C++ support subtyping?

  - by the_naive

  I know it might be a silly question to ask, but I didn't quite get an a absolute clear answer on this matter, so I thought I'd put it here. Does c++ support the subtyping in the sense that it fulfills Liskov's principle fully? I understand how parametric polymorphism, inclusion polymorphism(subclassing and overriding) work in c++ but I'm not entirely sure or understand if subtyping exists in the context of C++. Could you please explain?

  Read the article

• User Control as container at design time

  - by Luca

  I'm designing a simple expander control. I've derived from UserControl, drawn inner controls, built, run; all ok. Since an inner Control is a Panel, I'd like to use it as container at design time. Indeed I've used the attributes: [Designer(typeof(ExpanderControlDesigner))] [Designer("System.Windows.Forms.Design.ParentControlDesigner, System.Design", typeof(IDesigner))] Great I say. But it isn't... The result is that I can use it as container at design time but: The added controls go back the inner controls already embedded in the user control Even if I push to top a control added at design time, at runtime it is back again on controls embedded to the user control I cannot restrict the container area at design time into a Panel area What am I missing? Here is the code for completeness... why this snippet of code is not working? [Designer(typeof(ExpanderControlDesigner))] [Designer("System.Windows.Forms.Design.ParentControlDesigner, System.Design", typeof(IDesigner))] public partial class ExpanderControl : UserControl { public ExpanderControl() { InitializeComponent(); .... [System.Security.Permissions.PermissionSet(System.Security.Permissions.SecurityAction.Demand, Name = "FullTrust")] internal class ExpanderControlDesigner : ControlDesigner { private ExpanderControl MyControl; public override void Initialize(IComponent component) { base.Initialize(component); MyControl = (ExpanderControl)component; // Hook up events ISelectionService s = (ISelectionService)GetService(typeof(ISelectionService)); IComponentChangeService c = (IComponentChangeService)GetService(typeof(IComponentChangeService)); s.SelectionChanged += new EventHandler(OnSelectionChanged); c.ComponentRemoving += new ComponentEventHandler(OnComponentRemoving); } private void OnSelectionChanged(object sender, System.EventArgs e) { } private void OnComponentRemoving(object sender, ComponentEventArgs e) { } protected override void Dispose(bool disposing) { ISelectionService s = (ISelectionService)GetService(typeof(ISelectionService)); IComponentChangeService c = (IComponentChangeService)GetService(typeof(IComponentChangeService)); // Unhook events s.SelectionChanged -= new EventHandler(OnSelectionChanged); c.ComponentRemoving -= new ComponentEventHandler(OnComponentRemoving); base.Dispose(disposing); } public override System.ComponentModel.Design.DesignerVerbCollection Verbs { get { DesignerVerbCollection v = new DesignerVerbCollection(); v.Add(new DesignerVerb("&asd", new EventHandler(null))); return v; } } } I've found many resources (Interaction, designed, limited area), but nothing was usefull for being operative... Actually there is a trick, since System.Windows.Forms classes can be designed (as usual) and have a correct behavior at runtime (TabControl, for example).

  Read the article

• Design and Implementation with Prototyping Methodology

  - by Shahin

  I'm developing a game for my dissertation, and I'm using the spiral method approach. I'm having a bit of difficulty structuring my dissertation, specifically the design and implementation section. My solution was designed as much as possible initially, and then after each prototype implementation, the design was refined and extended and prototyped again (this was repeated a few times). My problem is how to structure this in my dissertation, my current idea is: Design Chapter Prototype 1 (Initial) Design Prototype 2 Design Prototype 3 Design Implementation Chapter Prototype 1 (Initial) Implementation Prototype 2 Implementation Prototype 3 Implementation Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• Connection between Properties of Entities in Data Oriented Design

  - by sharethis

  I want to start with an example illustrating my question. The following way it is done in the most games. class car { vec3 position; vec3 rotation; mesh model; imge texture; void move(); // modify position and rotation void draw(); // use model, texture, ... }; vector<car> cars; for(auto i = cars.begin(); i != cars.end(); ++i) { i->move(); i->draw(); } Data oriented design means to process the same calculation on the hole batch of data at once. This way it takes more advantage out of the processor cache. struct movedata { vec3 position; vec3 rotation; }; struct drawdata { mesh model; imge texture; }; vector<movedata> movedatas; vector<drawdata> drawdatas; for(auto i = movedatas.begin(); i != movedatas.end(); ++i) { // modify position and rotation } for(auto i = drawdatas.begin(); i != drawdatas.end(); ++i) { // use model, texture, ... } But there comes a point where you need to find other properties according to an entity. For example if the car crashes, I do not need the drawdata and the movedata any more. So I need to delete the entries of this entity in all vectors. The entries are not linked by code. So my question is the following. How are properties of the same entity conceptually linked in a data oriented design?

  Read the article

• Is there any guidelines to convert Table design to Div design keeping same cross browser compatible

  - by Brij

  Is there any guidelines to convert Table design to Div design keeping same cross browser compatible layout?

  Read the article

• Design to distribute work when generating task oriented input for legacy dos application?

  - by TheDeeno

  I'm attempting to automate a really old dos application. I've decided the best way to do this is via input redirection. The legacy app (menu driven) has many tasks within tasks with branching logic. In order to easily understand and reuse the input for these tasks, I'd like to break them into bit size pieces. Since I'll need to start a fresh app on each run, repeating a context to consume a bit might be messy. I'd like to create an object model that: allows me to concentrate on the task at hand allows me to reuse common tasks from different start points prevents me from calling a task from the wrong start point To be more explicit, given I have the following task hierarchy: START A A1 A1a A1b A2 A2a B B1 B1a I'd like an object model that lets me generate an input file for task "A1b" buy using building blocks like: START -> do_A, do_A1, do_A1b but prevents me from: START -> do_A1 // because I'm assuming a different call chain from above This will help me write "do_A1b" because I can always assume the same starting context and will simplify writing "do_A1a" because it has THE SAME starting context. What patterns will help me out here? I'm using ruby at the moment so if dynamic language features can help, I'm game.

  Read the article

• Color blindness: Are you aware of it? Do you design for it?

  - by User

  I'm curious whether many of us who do design or take design decisions have ever heard of this problem. I'm aware there are dangerous color combinations, like green + red. This is probably one of the most popular cases of color blindness. If you have green text on a red background and vice versa some people won't see anything. I've also seen in practice that green text on a blue background was not seen by one guy. What other color compositions should be avoided, and how often these cases are to be expected? Let us make some ranging by encounter probability who has the numbers. Addition: I've just remembered one very bad example that causes problems to just about everyone - blue text on a black background. It's unreadable for all intents and purposes. Never could understand what could possibly compel a web master to use this color combination...

  Read the article

• how to design email application in composite design

  - by kedibone

  i need help on designing email application using C++ qt4 composite design

  Read the article

• What is the most underused or underappreciated design pattern?

  - by Rob Packwood

  I have been reading a lot on design patterns lately and some of them can make our lives much easier and some of them seem to just complicate things (at least to me they do). I am curious to know what design patterns everyone sees as underunsed or underappreciated. Some patterns are simple and many people do not even realize they are using a pattern (decorator probably being the most used, without realized). My goal from this is to give us pattern-newbies some appreciation for some of the more complex or unknown patterns and why we should use them.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >