Search Results

Search found 12287 results on 492 pages for 'column oriented'.

Page 32/492 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

• How to learn to deliver quality software designs when working on a tight deadline?

  - by chester89

  I read many books about how to design great software, but I kind of struggle to come up with a good design decisions when it comes to business apps, especially when the timeframe is tough. In the company I currently work for, the following situation happen all the time: my teamlead tells me that there's a task to do, I call some guy or a girl from business who tells me exactly what is it they want, and then I start coding. The task always fits in some existing application (we do only web apps or web services), usually it's purpose is to pull data from one datasource and put into the other one, with some business logic attached in the process. I start coding and then, after spending some time on a problem, my code didn't work as expected - either because of technical mistake or my lack of knowledge of the domain. The business is ringing me 2-3 times a day to hurry me up. I ask my team lead to help, he comes up, sees my code and goes like 'What's this?'. Then he throws away about half of my code, including all the design decisions I made, writes 2-3 methods that does the job (each of them usually 200-300 lines long or more, by the way), and task is complete, code works as it should have. The guy is smarter than me, obviously, and I'm aware of that. My goal is to be better software developer, that means write better code, not finish the job quicker with some crappy code. And the thing is, when I have enough time to tackle a problem, I can come up with a design that is good (in my opinion, of course), but I fall short to do so when I'm on a tight deadline. What should I do? I am fully aware that it's rather vague explanation, but please bear with me

  Read the article

• Should an image be able to resize itself in OOP?

  - by ChocoDeveloper

  I'm writing an app that will have an Image entity, and I'm already having trouble deciding whose responsibility each task should be. First I have the Image class. It has a path, width, and other attributes. Then I created an ImageRepository class, for retrieving images with a single and tested method, eg: findAllImagesWithoutThumbnail(). But now I also need to be able to createThumbnail(). Who should deal with that? I was thinking about having an ImageManager class, which would be an app-specific class (there would also be a third party image manipulation reusable component of choice, I'm not reinventing the wheel). Or maybe it would be 0K to let the Image resize itself? Or let the ImageRepository and ImageManager be the same class? What do you think?

  Read the article

• How to insert images using labels in NetBeans IDE, Java? [migrated]

  - by Vaishnavi Kanduri

  I'm making a virtual mall using NetBeans IDE 7.3.1 I inserted images using the following steps: Drag and drop label onto frame Go to label properties Click on ellipsis of 'icon' option Import to project, select desired image Resize or reposition it accordingly. Then, I saved the project, copied the project folder into a pendrive, tried to 'Open Project' in mate's laptop, using the same Java Netbeans IDE version. When I tried to open the frames, they displayed empty labels, without images. What went wrong?

  Read the article

• DDD: service contains two repository

  - by tikhop

  Does it correct way to have two repository inside one service and will it be an application or domain service? Suppose I have a Passenger object that should contains Passport (government id) object. I am getting Passenger from PassengerRepository. PassengerRepository create request to server and obtain data (json) than parse received data and store inside repository. I have confused because I want to store Passport as Entity and put it to PassportRepository but all information about password contains inside json than i received above. I guess that I should create a PassengerService that will be include PassengerRepository and PassportRepository with several methods like removePassport, addPassport, getAllPassenger and etc. UPDATE: So I guess that the better way is represent Passport as VO and store all passports inside Passenger aggregate. However there is another question: Where I should put the methods (methods calls server api) for management passenger's passport. I think the better place is so within Passenger aggregate.

  Read the article

• Use constructor or setter method?

  - by user633600

  I am working on a UI code where I have an Action class, something like this - public class MyAction extends Action { public MyAction() { setText("My Action Text"); setToolTip("My Action Tool tip"); setImage("Some Image"); } } When this Action class was created it was pretty much assumed that the Action class wont be customizable (in a sense- its text, tooltip or image will be not be changed anywhere in the code). Of late, now we are in need of changing the action text at some location in code. So I suggested my co-worker to remove the hardcoded action text from the constructor and accept it as an argument, so that everybody is forced to pass the action text. Something like this code below - public class MyAction extends Action { public MyAction(String actionText) { setText(actionText); setTooltip("My Action tool tip); setImage("My Image"); } } He however thinks that since setText() method belongs to base class. It can be flexibly used to pass the action text wherever action instance is created. That way, there is no need to change the existing MyAction class. So his code would look something like this. MyAction action = new MyAction(); //this creates action instance with the hardcoded text action.setText("User required new action text"); //overwrite the exisitng text. I am not sure if that is a correct way to deal with problem. I think in above mentioned case user is anyway going to change the text, so why not force him while constructing the action. The only benefit I see with the original code is that user can create Action class without much thinking about setting text.

  Read the article

• Why is it good to split a program into multiple classes?

  - by user1276078

  I'm still a student in high school (entering 10th grade), and I have yet to take an actual computer course in school. Everything I've done so far is through books. Those books have taught me concepts such as inheritance, but how does splitting a program into multiple classes help? The books never told me. I'm asking this mainly because of a recent project. It's an arcade video game, sort of like a flash game as some people have said (although I have no idea what a flash game is). The thing is, it's only one class. It works perfectly fine (a little occasional lag however) with just one class. So, I'm just asking how splitting it into multiple classes would help it. This project was in JAVA and I am the only person working on it, for the record.

  Read the article

• Why am I seeing so many instantiable classes without state?

  - by futlib

  I'm seeing a lot of instantiable classes in the C++ and Java world that don't have any state. I really can't figure out why people do that, they could just use a namespace with free functions in C++, or a class with a private constructor and only static methods in Java. The only benefit I can think of is that you don't have to change most of your code if you later decide that you want a different implementation in certain situations. But isn't that a case of premature design? It could be turned into a class later, when/if it becomes appropriate. Am I getting this wrong? Is it not OOP if I don't put everything into objects (i.e. instantiated classes)? Then why are there so many utility namespaces and classes in the standard libraries of C++ and Java? Update: I've certainly seen a lot examples of this in my previous jobs, but I'm struggling to find open source examples, so maybe it's not that common after all. Still, I'm wondering why people do it, and how common it is.

  Read the article

• Sort rectangles in a grid based on a comparison of the center point of each

  - by Mrwolfy

  If I have a grid of rectangles and I move one of the rectangles, say above and to the left of another rectangle, how would I resort the rectangles? Note the rectangles are in an array, so each rectangle has an index and a matching tag. All I really need to do is set the proper index based on the rectangles new center point position within the rectangle, as compared with the center point position of the other rectangles in the grid. Here is what I am doing now in pseudo code (works somewhat, but not accurate): -(void)sortViews:myView { int newIndex; // myView is the view that was moved. [viewsArray removeObject:myView]; [viewsArray enumerate:obj*view]{ if (myView.center.x > view.center.x) { if (myView.center.y > view.center.y) { newIndex = view.tag -1; *stop = YES; } else { newIndex = view.tag +1; *stop = YES; } } else if (myView.center.x < view.center.x) { if (myView.center.y > view.center.y) { newIndex = view.tag -1; *stop = YES; } else { newIndex = view.tag +1; *stop = YES; } } }]; if (newIndex < 0) { newIndex = 0; } else if (newIndex > 5) { newIndex = 5; } [viewsArray insertObject:myView atIndex:newIndex]; [self arrangeGrid]; }

  Read the article

• How to store multiple requirements with OR and AND?

  - by Cano

  Well I'm working on a personal project that needs to check if a user has met certain requirements, and they come in a form of Requirement: [c1 OR c2] AND [d1 OR d2] Requirement: [c1 AND c2] OR [d1 AND d2] Requirement: c1 AND any dn(n can be any integer) I'm just not sure how to store these sorts of requirements, I'm thinking of using another object to hold c1,c2,d1,d2....dn and OR, but that seems like a roundabout way of doing things. Is there a better method?

  Read the article

• What OO Design to use ( is there a Design Pattern )?

  - by Blundell

  I have two objects that represent a 'Bar/Club' ( a place where you drink/socialise). In one scenario I need the bar name, address, distance, slogon In another scenario I need the bar name, address, website url, logo So I've got two objects representing the same thing but with different fields. I like to use immutable objects, so all the fields are set from the constructor. One option is to have two constructors and null the other fields i.e: class Bar { private final String name; private final Distance distance; private final Url url; public Bar(String name, Distance distance){ this.name = name; this.distance = distance; this.url = null; } public Bar(String name, Url url){ this.name = name; this.distance = null; this.url = url; } // getters } I don't like this as you would have to null check when you use the getters In my real example the first scenario has 3 fields and the second scenario has about 10, so it would be a real pain having two constructors, the amount of fields I would have to declare null and then when the object are in use you wouldn't know which Bar you where using and so what fields would be null and what wouldn't. What other options do I have? Two classes called BarPreview and Bar? Some type of inheritance / interface? Something else that is awesome?

  Read the article

• Have I mistakenly assumed that my routines are loosely coupled?

  - by Tarun

  My Selenium test structures goes as - Data Object class - public class RegistrationData { String firstName = "test first name"; String lastName = "test last name"; // Getter Setter Here } Page Object class which carries out operations on a Web Page - public class RegistrationPage { private RegistrationData regData; public void setRegistrationData(RegistrationData regData) { this.regData = regData(); public NewAccountPage fillRegForm() { enterFirstName("FirstNameTextBoxLocator", regData.getFirstName); enterLastName("LastNameTextBoxLocator", regData.getLastName); // Some more fields are filled here return NewAccountPage(); } } And test class uses them as - public class TestRegistration extends SelTestCase { @Test public void testRegNewUser() { RegistrationData regData = new RegistrationData(); RegistrationPage regPage = New RegistrationPage(); regPage.setRegistrationData(regData) regPage.fillRegForm(); // Some assertion here } } Now since fillRegForm method does not take any argument, Can I assume that it is an example of loose coupling despite I need to set RegistrationData in RegistrationPage before being able to use fillRegForm method.

  Read the article

• Sharing object between 2 classes

  - by Justin

  I am struggling to wrap my head around being able to share an object between two classes. I want to be able to create only one instance of the object, commonlib in my main class and then have the classes, foo1 and foo2, to be able to mutually share the properties of the commonlib. commonlib is a 3rd party class which has a property Queries that will be added to in each child class of bar. This is why it is vital that only one instance is created. I create two separate queries in foo1 and foo2. This is my setup: abstract class bar{ //common methods } class foo1 extends bar{ //add query to commonlib } class foo2 extends bar{ //add query to commonlib } class main { public $commonlib = new commonlib(); public function start(){ //goal is to share one instance of $this->commonlib between foo1 and foo2 //so that they can both add to the properites of $this->commonlib (global //between the two) //now execute all of the queries after foo1 and foo2 add their query $this->commonlib->RunQueries(); } }

  Read the article

• Is my class structure good enough?

  - by Rivten

  So I wanted to try out this challenge on reddit which is mostly about how you structure your data the best you can. I decided to challenge my C++ skills. Here's how I planned this. First, there's the Game class. It deals with time and is the only class main has access to. A game has a Forest. For now, this class does not have a lot of things, only a size and a Factory. Will be put in better use when it will come to SDL-stuff I guess A Factory is the thing that deals with the Game Objects (a.k.a. Trees, Lumberjack and Bears). It has a vector of all GameObjects and a queue of Events which will be managed at the end of one month. A GameObject is an abstract class which can be updated and which can notify the Event Listener The EventListener is a class which handles all the Events of a simulation. It can recieve events from a Game Object and notify the Factory if needed, the latter will manage correctly the event. So, the Tree, Lumberjack and Bear classes all inherits from GameObject. And Sapling and Elder Tree inherits from Tree. Finally, an Event is defined by an event_type enumeration (LUMBERJACK_MAWED, SAPPLING_EVOLUTION, ...) and an event_protagonists union (a GameObject or a pair of GameObject (who killed who ?)). I was quite happy at first with this because it seems quite logic and flexible. But I ended up questionning this structure. Here's why : I dislike the fact that a GameObject need to know about the Factory. Indeed, when a Bear moves somewhere, it needs to know if there's a Lumberjack ! Or it is the Factory which handles places and objects. It would be great if a GameObject could only interact with the EventListener... or maybe it's not that much of a big deal. Wouldn't it be better if I separate the Factory in three vectors ? One for each kind of GameObject. The idea would be to optimize research. If I'm looking do delete a dead lumberjack, I would only have to look in one shorter vector rather than a very long vector. Another problem arises when I want to know if there is any particular object in a given case because I have to look for all the gameObjects and see if they are at the given case. I would tend to think that the other idea would be to use a matrix but then the issue would be that I would have empty cases (and therefore unused space). I don't really know if Sapling and Elder Tree should inherit from Tree. Indeed, a Sapling is a Tree but what about its evolution ? Should I just delete the sapling and say to the factory to create a new Tree at the exact same place ? It doesn't seem natural to me to do so. How could I improve this ? Is the design of an Event quite good ? I've never used unions before in C++ but I didn't have any other ideas about what to use. Well, I hope I have been clear enough. Thank you for taking the time to help me !

  Read the article

• Do functional generics exist and what is the correct name for them if they do?

  - by voroninp

  Consider the following generic class: public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map: public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question: how can this be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the shortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<>: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structure should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exists in any programming language?

  Read the article

• Interface hierarchy design for separate domains

  - by jerzi

  There are businesses and people. People could be liked and businesses could be commented on: class Like class Comment class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget Likes and comments are performed by a user(person) so they are authored: class Like implements iAuthored class Comment implements iAuthored People's like could also be used in their history: class history class Like implements iAuthored, iHistoryTarget Now, a smart developer comes and says each history is attached to a user so history should be authored: interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored so it could be removed from class Like: class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget class Like implements iHistoryTarget class Comment implements iAuthored class history interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored Here, another smart guy comes with a question: How could I capture the Authored fact in Like and Comment classes? He may knows nothing about history concept in the project. By scalling these kind of functionallities, interfaces may goes to their encapsulated types which cause more type strength, on the other hand explicitness suffered and also code end users will face much pain to process. So here is the question: Should I encapsulate those dependant types to their parent types (interface hierarchies) or not or explicitly repeat each type for every single level of my type system or ...?

  Read the article

• "Default approach" when creating a class from scratch: getters for everything, or limited access?

  - by Prog

  Until recently I always had getters (and sometimes setters but not always) for all the fields in my class. It was my 'default': very automatic and I never doubted it. However recently some discussions on this site made me realize maybe it's not the best approach. When you create a class, you often don't know exactly how it's going to be used in the future by other classes. So in that sense, it's good to have getters and setter for all of the fields in the class. So other classes could use it in the future any way they want. Allowing this flexibility doesn't require you to over engineer anything, only to provide getters. However some would say it's better to limit the access to a class, and only allow access to certain fields, while other fields stay completely private. What is your 'default' approach when building a class from scratch? Do you make getters for all the fields? Or do you always choose selectively which fields to expose through a getter and which to keep completely private?

  Read the article

• Is this a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle?

  - by Paul T Davies

  Say we have a list of Task entities, and a ProjectTask sub type. Tasks can be closed at any time, except ProjectTasks which cannot be closed once they have a status of Started. The UI should ensure the option to close a started ProjectTask is never available, but some safeguards are present in the domain: public class Task { public Status Status { get; set; } public virtual void Close() { Status = Status.Closed; } } public ProjectTask : Task { public override void Close() { if (Status == Status.Started) throw new Exception("Cannot close a started Project Task"); base.Close(); } } Now when calling Close() on a Task, there is a chance the call will fail if it is a ProjectTask with the started status, when it wouldn't if it was a base Task. But this is the business requirements. It should fail. Can this be regarded as a violation?

  Read the article

• Designing a single look up entity

  - by altsyset

  In almost every application you have this look up entity that provides a dynamic references. This are things like type, category, etc. These entities will always have id, name, desc So at first I designed different entities for each look up. Like education_type, education_level, degree_type.... But on a second thought I decided to have on entity for each of these kinds of entities. But when I am done with the design and check the relation this entity will be referenced by almost all entities in the system and I don't believe that is appropriate. So What is your take on this? Can you give me some clear pros and cons?

  Read the article

• How to create computed column in SQL Server 2008 R2 [closed]

  - by Smartboy

  I have a SQL Server 2008 R2 database. This database has two tables called Pictures and PictureUse. Picture table has the following columns: Id (int) PictureName (nvarchar(max)) CreateDate (datetime ) PictureUse table has the following columns : Id (int) Pictureid (int) CreateDate (datetime ) How to create a computed column in the Picture table which tells me that how many times this picture has been clicked?

  Read the article

• using static methods and classes

  - by vedant1811

  I know that static methods/variables are associated with the class and not the objects of the class and are useful in situations when we need to keep count of, say the number of objects of the class that were created. Non-static members on the other hand may need to work on the specific object (i.e. to use the variables initialized by the constructor) My question what should we do when we need neither of the functionalities? Say I just need a utility function that accepts value(s) and returns a value besed solely on the values passed. I want to know whether such methods should be static or not. How is programming efficiency affected and which is a better coding practice/convention and why. PS: I don't want to spark off a debate, I just want a subjective answer and/or references.

  Read the article

• Do functional generics exist or what is the correct name for them if they do?

  - by voroninp

  Consider the following generic class public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question how this can be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the sortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structrue should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exist in any programming language?

  Read the article

• How to access functions in extended classes efficiently?

  - by nischayn22

  In PHP I have classes as below class Animal { //some vars public function printname(){ echo $this->name; } } class AnimalMySql extends Animal { static public function getTableFields(){ return array(); } } class AnimalPostgreSql extends Animal { static public function getTableFields(){ return array(); } } Now I have an object $lion = new Animal(); and I want to do if($store == mysql) //getTableFields from class AnimalMySql else //getTableFields form class AnimalPostgreSql I am new to OOP and not sure what is the best way to call the method from the specific class P.S. Please leave a note with the answer to explain the efficiency of the approach

  Read the article

• Is this JS code a good way for defining class with private methods?

  - by tigrou

  I was recently browsing a open source JavaScript project. The project is a straight port from another project in C language. It mostly use static methods, packed together in classes. Most classes are implemented using this pattern : Foo = (function () { var privateField = "bar"; var publicField = "bar";     function publicMethod() { console.log('this is public');     } function privateMethod() { console.log('this is private'); } return {   publicMethod : publicMethod, publicField : publicField }; })(); This was the first time I saw private methods implemented that way. I perfectly understand how it works, using a anonymous method. Here is my question : is this pattern a good practice ? What are the actual limitations or caveats ? Usually i declare my JavaScript classes like that : Foo = new function () { var privateField = "test"; this.publicField = "test";     this.publicMethod = function()     { console.log('this method is public'); privateMethod();     } function privateMethod() { console.log('this method is private'); } }; Other than syntax, is there any difference with the pattern show above ?

  Read the article

• Is there a better way to handle data abstraction in this example?

  - by sigil

  I'm building an application that retrieves Sharepoint list data via a web service SPlists.Lists. To create an instance of the web service, I have the following class: class SharepointServiceCreator { public SPlists.Lists createService() { listsService.Url = "http://wss/sites/SPLists/_vti_bin/lists.asmx"; listsService.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; SPlists.Lists listsService=new SPlists.Lists(); } } I'm concerned that this isn't good OOP abstraction, though, because in order to create this service elsewhere in my application, I would need the following code: class someClass { public void someMethod() { SharepointServiceCreator s=new SharepointServiceCreator() SPlists.Lists listService=s.createService() } } Having to use declare the instance of listService in someMethod as type SPlists.Lists seems wrong, because it means that someClass needs to know about how SharepointServiceCreator is implemented. Or is this ok?

  Read the article

• Should I pass an object into a constructor, or instantiate in class?

  - by Prisoner

  Consider these two examples: Passing an object to a constructor class ExampleA { private $config; public function __construct($config) { $this->config = $config; } } $config = new Config; $exampleA = new ExampleA($config); Instantiating a class class ExampleB { private $config; public function __construct() { $this->config = new Config; } } $exampleA = new ExampleA(); Which is the correct way to handle adding an object as a property? When should I use one over the other? Does unit testing affect what I should use?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >