Search Results

Search found 17326 results on 694 pages for 'design pattern'.

Page 32/694 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

  • Design of Business Layer

    - by Adil Mughal
    Hi, We are currently revamping our architecture and design of application. We have just completed design of Data Access Layer which is generic in the sense that it works using XML and reflection to persist data. Any ways now we are in the phase of designing business layer. We have read some books related to Enterprise Architecture and Design so we have found that there are few patterns that can be applied on business layer. Table Pattern and Domain Model are example of such patterns. Also we have found Domain Driven Design as well. Earlier we decided to build Entities against table objects. But we found that there is difference in Entities and Value Objects when it comes to DDD. For those of you who have gone through such design. Please guide me related to pattern, practice and sample. Thank you in advance! Also please feel free to discuss if you didn't get any point of mine.

    Read the article

  • How to perform a literal match with regex using wildcard

    - by kashif4u
    I am trying to perform literal match with regular expression using wildcard. string utterance = "Show me customer id 19"; string pattern 1 = "*tom*"; string patter 2 = "*customer id [0-9]*"; Desired results: if (Regex.IsMatch(utterance, pattern 1 )) { MATCH NOT FOUND } if (Regex.IsMatch(utterance, pattern 2 )) { MATCH FOUND } I have tried looking for literal match solution/syntax in wildcard but having difficulty. Could you also enlighten me with with an example on possible Pattern Matching Strength algorithm i.e. if code match 90 select? Note: I have table with 100000 records to perform literal matches from user utterances. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Documenting a policy based design

    - by academicRobot
    I'm re-working some prototype code into a policy based design in C++, and I'm wondering what the best practice is for documenting the design. My current plan is to document: Policy hierarchy Overview of each policy Description of each type/value/function in each policy I was thinking of putting this into a doxygen module, but this looks like it will be a bit awkward since formatting will have to be done by hand without code to base the doc on (that is, documenting the policies rather than the implementation of the policies). So my questions are: Are there other aspects of the design that should be documented? Are there any tricks to doing this efficiently in doxygen? Is there a tool other than doxygen thats better suited to this? What are some examples of well documented policy based design? This is my first serious attempt at policy based design. I think I have a working grasp of the principles, but whatever naivety I expose in this question is fair game for an answer too.

    Read the article

  • Analysis and Design for Functional Programming

    - by edalorzo
    How do you deal with analysis and design phases when you plan to develop a system using a functional programming language like Haskell? My background is in imperative/object-oriented programming languages, and therefore, I am used to use case analysis and the use of UML to document the design of program. But the thing is that UML is inherently related to the object-oriented way of doing software. And I am intrigued about what would be the best way to develop documentation and define software designs for a system that is going to be developed using functional programming. Would you still use use case analysis or perhaps structured analysis and design instead? How do software architects define the high-level design of the system so that developers follow it? What do you show to you clients or to new developers when you are supposed to present a design of the solution? How do you document a picture of the whole thing without having first to write it all? Is there anything comparable to UML in the functional world?

    Read the article

  • Flow-Design Cheat Sheet &ndash; Part I, Notation

    - by Ralf Westphal
    You want to avoid the pitfalls of object oriented design? Then this is the right place to start. Use Flow-Oriented Analysis (FOA) and –Design (FOD or just FD for Flow-Design) to understand a problem domain and design a software solution. Flow-Orientation as described here is related to Flow-Based Programming, Event-Based Programming, Business Process Modelling, and even Event-Driven Architectures. But even though “thinking in flows” is not new, I found it helpful to deviate from those precursors for several reasons. Some aim at too big systems for the average programmer, some are concerned with only asynchronous processing, some are even not very much concerned with programming at all. What I was looking for was a design method to help in software projects of any size, be they large or tiny, involing synchronous or asynchronous processing, being local or distributed, running on the web or on the desktop or on a smartphone. That´s why I took ideas from all of the above sources and some additional and came up with Event-Based Components which later got repositioned and renamed to Flow-Design. In the meantime this has generated some discussion (in the German developer community) and several teams have started to work with Flow-Design. Also I´ve conducted quite some trainings using Flow-Orientation for design. The results are very promising. Developers find it much easier to design software using Flow-Orientation than OOAD-based object orientation. Since Flow-Orientation is moving fast and is not covered completely by a single source like a book, demand has increased for at least an overview of the current state of its notation. This page is trying to answer this demand by briefly introducing/describing every notational element as well as their translation into C# source code. Take this as a cheat sheet to put next to your whiteboard when designing software. However, please do not expect any explanation as to the reasons behind Flow-Design elements. Details on why Flow-Design at all and why in this specific way you´ll find in the literature covering the topic. Here´s a resource page on Flow-Design/Event-Based Components, if you´re able to read German. Notation Connected Functional Units The basic element of any FOD are functional units (FU): Think of FUs as some kind of software code block processing data. For the moment forget about classes, methods, “components”, assemblies or whatever. See a FU as an abstract piece of code. Software then consists of just collaborating FUs. I´m using circles/ellipses to draw FUs. But if you like, use rectangles. Whatever suites your whiteboard needs best.   The purpose of FUs is to process input and produce output. FUs are transformational. However, FUs are not called and do not call other FUs. There is no dependency between FUs. Data just flows into a FU (input) and out of it (output). From where and where to is of no concern to a FU.   This way FUs can be concatenated in arbitrary ways:   Each FU can accept input from many sources and produce output for many sinks:   Flows Connected FUs form a flow with a start and an end. Data is entering a flow at a source, and it´s leaving it through a sink. Think of sources and sinks as special FUs which conntect wires to the environment of a network of FUs.   Wiring Details Data is flowing into/out of FUs through wires. This is to allude to electrical engineering which since long has been working with composable parts. Wires are attached to FUs usings pins. They are the entry/exit points for the data flowing along the wires. Input-/output pins currently need not be drawn explicitly. This is to keep designing on a whiteboard simple and quick.   Data flowing is of some type, so wires have a type attached to them. And pins have names. If there is only one input pin and output pin on a FU, though, you don´t need to mention them. The default is Process for a single input pin, and Result for a single output pin. But you´re free to give even single pins different names.   There is a shortcut in use to address a certain pin on a destination FU:   The type of the wire is put in parantheses for two reasons. 1. This way a “no-type” wire can be easily denoted, 2. this is a natural way to describe tuples of data.   To describe how much data is flowing, a star can be put next to the wire type:   Nesting – Boards and Parts If more than 5 to 10 FUs need to be put in a flow a FD starts to become hard to understand. To keep diagrams clutter free they can be nested. You can turn any FU into a flow: This leads to Flow-Designs with different levels of abstraction. A in the above illustration is a high level functional unit, A.1 and A.2 are lower level functional units. One of the purposes of Flow-Design is to be able to describe systems on different levels of abstraction and thus make it easier to understand them. Humans use abstraction/decomposition to get a grip on complexity. Flow-Design strives to support this and make levels of abstraction first class citizens for programming. You can read the above illustration like this: Functional units A.1 and A.2 detail what A is supposed to do. The whole of A´s responsibility is decomposed into smaller responsibilities A.1 and A.2. FU A thus does not do anything itself anymore! All A is responsible for is actually accomplished by the collaboration between A.1 and A.2. Since A now is not doing anything anymore except containing A.1 and A.2 functional units are devided into two categories: boards and parts. Boards are just containing other functional units; their sole responsibility is to wire them up. A is a board. Boards thus depend on the functional units nested within them. This dependency is not of a functional nature, though. Boards are not dependent on services provided by nested functional units. They are just concerned with their interface to be able to plug them together. Parts are the workhorses of flows. They contain the real domain logic. They actually transform input into output. However, they do not depend on other functional units. Please note the usage of source and sink in boards. They correspond to input-pins and output-pins of the board.   Implicit Dependencies Nesting functional units leads to a dependency tree. Boards depend on nested functional units, they are the inner nodes of the tree. Parts are independent, they are the leafs: Even though dependencies are the bane of software development, Flow-Design does not usually draw these dependencies. They are implicitly created by visually nesting functional units. And they are harmless. Boards are so simple in their functionality, they are little affected by changes in functional units they are depending on. But functional units are implicitly dependent on more than nested functional units. They are also dependent on the data types of the wires attached to them: This is also natural and thus does not need to be made explicit. And it pertains mainly to parts being dependent. Since boards don´t do anything with regard to a problem domain, they don´t care much about data types. Their infrastructural purpose just needs types of input/output-pins to match.   Explicit Dependencies You could say, Flow-Orientation is about tackling complexity at its root cause: that´s dependencies. “Natural” dependencies are depicted naturally, i.e. implicitly. And whereever possible dependencies are not even created. Functional units don´t know their collaborators within a flow. This is core to Flow-Orientation. That makes for high composability of functional units. A part is as independent of other functional units as a motor is from the rest of the car. And a board is as dependend on nested functional units as a motor is on a spark plug or a crank shaft. With Flow-Design software development moves closer to how hardware is constructed. Implicit dependencies are not enough, though. Sometimes explicit dependencies make designs easier – as counterintuitive this might sound. So FD notation needs a ways to denote explicit dependencies: Data flows along wires. But data does not flow along dependency relations. Instead dependency relations represent service calls. Functional unit C is depending on/calling services on functional unit S. If you want to be more specific, name the services next to the dependency relation: Although you should try to stay clear of explicit dependencies, they are fundamentally ok. See them as a way to add another dimension to a flow. Usually the functionality of the independent FU (“Customer repository” above) is orthogonal to the domain of the flow it is referenced by. If you like emphasize this by using different shapes for dependent and independent FUs like above. Such dependencies can be used to link in resources like databases or shared in-memory state. FUs can not only produce output but also can have side effects. A common pattern for using such explizit dependencies is to hook a GUI into a flow as the source and/or the sink of data: Which can be shortened to: Treat FUs others depend on as boards (with a special non-FD API the dependent part is connected to), but do not embed them in a flow in the diagram they are depended upon.   Attributes of Functional Units Creation and usage of functional units can be modified with attributes. So far the following have shown to be helpful: Singleton: FUs are by default multitons. FUs in the same of different flows with the same name refer to the same functionality, but to different instances. Think of functional units as objects that get instanciated anew whereever they appear in a design. Sometimes though it´s helpful to reuse the same instance of a functional unit; this is always due to valuable state it holds. Signify this by annotating the FU with a “(S)”. Multiton: FUs on which others depend are singletons by default. This is, because they usually are introduced where shared state comes into play. If you want to change them to be a singletons mark them with a “(M)”. Configurable: Some parts need to be configured before the can do they work in a flow. Annotate them with a “(C)” to have them initialized before any data items to be processed by them arrive. Do not assume any order in which FUs are configured. How such configuration is happening is an implementation detail. Entry point: In each design there needs to be a single part where “it all starts”. That´s the entry point for all processing. It´s like Program.Main() in C# programs. Mark the entry point part with an “(E)”. Quite often this will be the GUI part. How the entry point is started is an implementation detail. Just consider it the first FU to start do its job.   Patterns / Standard Parts If more than a single wire is attached to an output-pin that´s called a split (or fork). The same data is flowing on all of the wires. Remember: Flow-Designs are synchronous by default. So a split does not mean data is processed in parallel afterwards. Processing still happens synchronously and thus one branch after another. Do not assume any specific order of the processing on the different branches after the split.   It is common to do a split and let only parts of the original data flow on through the branches. This effectively means a map is needed after a split. This map can be implicit or explicit.   Although FUs can have multiple input-pins it is preferrable in most cases to combine input data from different branches using an explicit join: The default output of a join is a tuple of its input values. The default behavior of a join is to output a value whenever a new input is received. However, to produce its first output a join needs an input for all its input-pins. Other join behaviors can be: reset all inputs after an output only produce output if data arrives on certain input-pins

    Read the article

  • Creating Entity Framework objects with Unity for Unit of Work/Repository pattern

    - by TobyEvans
    Hi there, I'm trying to implement the Unit of Work/Repository pattern, as described here: http://blogs.msdn.com/adonet/archive/2009/06/16/using-repository-and-unit-of-work-patterns-with-entity-framework-4-0.aspx This requires each Repository to accept an IUnitOfWork implementation, eg an EF datacontext extended with a partial class to add an IUnitOfWork interface. I'm actually using .net 3.5, not 4.0. My basic Data Access constructor looks like this: public DataAccessLayer(IUnitOfWork unitOfWork, IRealtimeRepository realTimeRepository) { this.unitOfWork = unitOfWork; this.realTimeRepository = realTimeRepository; } So far, so good. What I'm trying to do is add Dependency Injection using the Unity Framework. Getting the EF data context to be created with Unity was an adventure, as it had trouble resolving the constructor - what I did in the end was to create another constructor in my partial class with a new overloaded constructor, and marked that with [InjectionConstructor] [InjectionConstructor] public communergyEntities(string connectionString, string containerName) :this() { (I know I need to pass the connection string to the base object, that can wait until once I've got all the objects initialising correctly) So, using this technique, I can happily resolve my entity framework object as an IUnitOfWork instance thus: using (IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer()) { container.RegisterType<IUnitOfWork, communergyEntities>(); container.Configure<InjectedMembers>() .ConfigureInjectionFor<communergyEntities>( new InjectionConstructor("a", "b")) DataAccessLayer target = container.Resolve<DataAccessLayer>(); Great. What I need to do now is create the reference to the repository object for the DataAccessLayer - the DAL only needs to know the interface, so I'm guessing that I need to instantiate it as part of the Unity Resolve statement, passing it the appropriate IUnitOfWork interface. In the past, I would have just passed the Repository constructor the db connection string, and it would have gone away, created a local Entity Framework object and used that just for the lifetime of the Repository method. This is different, in that I create an Entity Framework instance as an IUnitOfWork implementation during the Unity Resolve statement, and it's that instance I need to pass into the constructor of the Repository - is that possible, and if so, how? I'm wondering if I could make the Repository a property and mark it as a Dependency, but that still wouldn't solve the problem of how to create the Repository with the IUnitOfWork object that the DAL is being Resolved with I'm not sure if I've understood this pattern correctly, and will happily take advice on the best way to implement it - Entity Framework is staying, but Unity can be swapped out if not the best approach. If I've got the whole thing upside down, please tell me thanks

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC ViewModel Pattern

    - by Omu
    EDIT: I made something much better to fill and read data from a view using ViewModels, called it ValueInjecter. http://valueinjecter.codeplex.com/documentation using the ViewModel to store the mapping logic was not such a good idea because there was repetition and SRP violation, but now with the ValueInjecter I have clean ViewModels and dry mapping code I made a ViewModel pattern for editing stuff in asp.net mvc this pattern is usefull when you have to make a form for editing an entity and you have to put on the form some dropdowns for the user to choose some values public class OrganisationViewModel { //paramterless constructor required, cuz we are gonna get an OrganisationViewModel object from the form in the post save method public OrganisationViewModel() : this(new Organisation()) {} public OrganisationViewModel(Organisation o) { Organisation = o; Country = new SelectList(LookupFacade.Country.GetAll(), "ID", "Description", CountryKey); } //that's the Type for whom i create the viewmodel public Organisation Organisation { get; set; } #region DropDowns //for each dropdown i have a int? Key that stores the selected value public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> Country { get; set; } public int? CountryKey { get { if (Organisation.Country != null) { return Organisation.Country.ID; } return null; } set { if (value.HasValue) { Organisation.Country = LookupFacade.Country.Get(value.Value); } } } #endregion } and that's how i use it public ViewResult Edit(int id) { var model = new OrganisationViewModel(organisationRepository.Get(id)); return View(model); } [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult Edit(OrganisationViewModel model) { organisationRepository.SaveOrUpdate(model.Organisation); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } and the markup <p> <label for="Name"> Name:</label> <%= Html.Hidden("Organisation.ID", Model.Organisation.ID)%> <%= Html.TextBox("Organisation.Name", Model.Organisation.Name)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessage("Organisation.Name", "*")%> </p> <p> ... <label for="CountryKey"> Country:</label> <%= Html.DropDownList("CountryKey", Model.Country, "please select") %> <%= Html.ValidationMessage("CountryKey", "*") %> </p> so tell me what you think about it

    Read the article

  • Refactor Regex Pattern - Java

    - by UK
    Hello All, I have the following aaaa_bb_cc string to match and written a regex pattern like \\w{4}+\\_\\w{2}\\_\\w{2} and it works. Is there any simple regex which can do this same ?

    Read the article

  • Pattern Matching with XSLT

    - by genesis11
    I'm trying to match a pattern into a string in XSLT/XPath using the matches function, as follows: <xsl:when test="matches('awesome','awe')"> ... </xsl:when> However, in both Firefox 3.5.9 and IE8, it doesn't show up. IE8 tells me that "'matches' is not a valid XSLT or XPath function." Is this due to XSLT 2.0 not being supported, and is there a way around this?

    Read the article

  • java filenames filter pattern

    - by Sergey
    Hello, I need to implement File[] files = getFiles( String folderName, String ptrn ); Where ptrn is a command prompt style pattern like "*2010*.txt" I'm familar with FilenameFilter class, but can't implement public boolean accept(File dir, String filename) because String.matches() doesn't accept such patterns. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Java - is this an idiom or pattern, behavior classes with no state

    - by Berlin Brown
    I am trying to incorporate more functional programming idioms into my java development. One pattern that I like the most and avoids side effects is building classes that have behavior but they don't necessarily have any state. The behavior is locked into the methods but they only act on the parameters passed in. The code below is code I am trying to avoid: public class BadObject { private Map<String, String> data = new HashMap<String, String>(); public BadObject() { data.put("data", "data"); } /** * Act on the data class. But this is bad because we can't * rely on the integrity of the object's state. */ public void execute() { data.get("data").toString(); } } The code below is nothing special but I am acting on the parameters and state is contained within that class. We still may run into issues with this class but that is an issue with the method and the state of the data, we can address issues in the routine as opposed to not trusting the entire object. Is this some form of idiom? Is this similar to any pattern that you use? public class SemiStatefulOOP { /** * Private class implies that I can access the members of the <code>Data</code> class * within the <code>SemiStatefulOOP</code> class and I can also access * the getData method from some other class. * * @see Test1 * */ class Data { protected int counter = 0; public int getData() { return counter; } public String toString() { return Integer.toString(counter); } } /** * Act on the data class. */ public void execute(final Data data) { data.counter++; } /** * Act on the data class. */ public void updateStateWithCallToService(final Data data) { data.counter++; } /** * Similar to CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) make instance. */ public Data makeInstance() { return new Data(); } } // End of Class // Issues with the code above: I wanted to declare the Data class private, but then I can't really reference it outside of the class: I can't override the SemiStateful class and access the private members. Usage: final SemiStatefulOOP someObject = new SemiStatefulOOP(); final SemiStatefulOOP.Data data = someObject.makeInstance(); someObject.execute(data); someObject.updateStateWithCallToService(data);

    Read the article

  • Is scala's cake pattern possible with parametrized components?

    - by Nicolas
    Parametrized components work well with the cake pattern as long as you are only interested in a unique component for each typed component's, example: trait AComponent[T] { val a:A[T] class A[T](implicit mf:Manifest[T]) { println(mf) } } class App extends AComponent[Int] { val a = new A[Int]() } new App Now my application requires me to inject an A[Int] and an A[String], obviously scala's type system doesn't allow me to extends AComponent twice. What is the common practice in this situation ?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC: post-redirect-get pattern, with only two overloaded action methods

    - by Rafi
    Is it possible to implement post-redirect-get pattern, with two overloaded action methods(One for GET action and the other for POST action) in ASP.NET MVC. In all of the MVC post-redirect-get pattern samples, I have seen three different action methods for the post-redirect-get process, each having different names. Is this really required? For Eg:(Does the code shown below, follows Post-Redirect-Get pattern?) public class SalaryTransferController : Controller { // // GET: /SalaryTransfer/ [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index(int id) { SalaryTransferIndexViewModel vm = new SalaryTransferIndexViewModel(id) { SelectedDivision = DivisionEnum.Contracting }; //Do some processing here return View(vm); } // // POST: /SalaryTransfer/ [HttpPost] public ActionResult Index(SalaryTransferIndexViewModel vm) { bool validationsuccess = false; //validate if (validationsuccess) return RedirectToAction("Index", new {id=1234 }); else return View(vm); } } Thank you for your responses.

    Read the article

  • strategy for observer pattern?

    - by fayer
    I want to use observer pattern for a logging system. We have got logObservers and logObservables. The class that will have to log something will implement iLogObservable and include these methods: private $logObservers = array(); public function addLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function removeLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function write($type, $message) { foreach($this->logObservers as $logObserver) { $logObserver->log($level, $message); ; } } Then I noticed, that a lot of classes that will use logging will have these methods and I have to copy paste. So isn't it better to have these methods in a class I call LogObservable or just Log and then use strategy (instantiate this class inside all classes that will have to log). When I change the methods in Log, all logObservables will be affected. However, I have not seen anyone use observer pattern with strategy pattern yet, but it seems to be very efficient and remove the duplications. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Is this class + constructor definition pattern overly redundant?

    - by Protector one
    I often come across a pattern similar to this: class Person { public string firstName, lastName; public Person(string firstName, string lastName) { this.firstName = firstName; this.lastName = lastName; } } This feels overly redundant (I imagine typing "firstName" once, instead of thrice could be enough…), but I can't think of a proper alternative. Any ideas? Maybe I just don't know about a certain design pattern I should be using here? Edit - I think I need to elaborate a little. I'm not asking how to make the example code "better", but rather, "shorter". In its current state, all member names appear 3 times (declaration, initialization, constructor arguments), and it feels rather redundant. So I'm wondering if there is a pattern (or semantic sugar) to get (roughly) the same behavior, but with less bloat. I apologize for being unclear initially.

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection & Singleton Design pattern

    - by SysAdmin
    How do we identify when to use dependency injection or singleton pattern. I have read in lot of websites where they say "Use Dependency injection over singleton pattern". But I am not sure if I totally agree with them. For my small or medium scale projects I definitely see the use of singleton pattern straightforward. For example Logger. I could use Logger.GetInstance().Log(...) But, instead of this, why do I need to inject every class I create, with the logger's instance?.

    Read the article

  • Session State Anti-Pattern

    - by Curiosity
    I know the SOLID principles and other design patterns fairly well and have been programming for some time now - seeing many a bit of code throughout the years. Having said that, I'm having trouble coming up with a name to give the pattern, or lack thereof, to bits of code I've been dealing with at a current engagement. The application is an ASP.NET C# WebForms application, backed by a SQL Server/Mainframe backend (more mainframe than backend) and it's riddled with Session State properties being accessed/mutated from multiple pages/classes. Accessing/mutating global variables/application state was usually shunned upon while I was in school. Apparently the creators of this magnificent application didn't think it was such a bad idea. Question: Is there a name for such a pattern/anti-pattern that relies so heavily on Session State? I'd like to call the pig by its name ...

    Read the article

  • Oracle Launches Mobile Applications User Experience Design Patterns

    - by ultan o'broin
    OK, you heard Joe Huang (@JoeHuang_Oracle) Product Manager for Oracle Application Development Framework (ADF) Mobile. If you're an ADF developer, or a Java (yeah, Java in iOS) developer, well now you're a mobile developer as well. And, using the newly launched Applications User Experience (UX) team's Mobile UX Design Patterns, you're a UX developer rockstar too, offering users so much more than just cool functionality. Mobile Design Pattern for Inline Actions Mobile design requires a different way of thinking. Use Oracle’s mobile design patterns to design iPhone, Android, or browser-based smartphone apps. Oracle's sharing these cutting edge mobile design patterns and their baked-in, scientifically proven usability to enable Oracle customers and partners to build mobile apps quickly. The design patterns are common solutions that developers can easily apply across all application suites. Crafted by the UX team's insight into Oracle Fusion Middleware, the patterns are designed to work with the mobile technology provided by the Oracle Application Development Framework. Other great UX-related information on using ADF Mobile to design task flows and the development experience on offer are on the ADF EMG podcast series. Check out FXAer Brian 'Bex' Huff (@bex of Bezzotech talking about ADF Mobile in podcast number 6 and also number 8 which has great tips about getting going with Android and iOS mobile app development too.

    Read the article

  • Design patterns to avoid

    - by Brian Rasmussen
    A lot of people seem to agree, that the Singleton pattern has a number of drawbacks and some even suggest to avoid the pattern all together. There's an excellent discussion here. Please direct any comments about the Singleton pattern to that question. Are there other design patterns, that should be avoided or used with great care?

    Read the article

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