Search Results

Search found 40386 results on 1616 pages for 'object design'.

Page 32/1616 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

• What is the best approach to solve a factory method problem which has to be an instance?

  - by Iago

  I have to add new funcionality in a web service legacy project and I'm thinking what is the best approach for a concrete situation. The web service is simple: It receives a XML file, unmarshalling, generates response's objects, marshalling and finally it sends the response as a XML file. For every XML files received, the web service always responds with the same XML structure. What I have to do is to generate a different XML file according to the XML received. So I have a controller class which has all marshalling/unmarshalling operations, but this controller class has to be an instance. Depending on XML received I need some marshalling methods or others. Trying to make few changes on legacy source, what is the best approach? My first approach was to do a factory method pattern with the controller class, but this class has to be an instance. I want to keep, as far as it goes, this structure: classController.doMarshalling(); I think this one is a bit smelly: if(XMLReceived.isTypeOne()) classController.doMarshallingOne(); else if(XMLReceived.isTypeTwo()) classController.doMarshallingTwo(); else if(XMLReceived.isTypeThree()) classController.doMarshallingThree(); else if ... I hope my question is well understood

  Read the article

• Best approach for saving highlighted areas on geographical map.

  - by Mohsen

  I am designing an application that allow users to highlight areas of a geographical map using a tool that is like brush or a pen. The tool basically draw a circle with a single click and continue drawing those circles with move move. Here is an example of drawing made by moving the tool. It is pretty much same as Microsoft Paint. Regardless of programming language what is best approach (most inexpensive approach) for saving this kind of data?

  Read the article

• Modular Database Structures

  - by John D

  I have been examining the code base we use in work and I am worried about the size the packages have grown to. The actual code is modular, procedures have been broken down into small functional (and testable) parts. The issue I see is that we have 100 procedures in a single package - almost an entire domain model. I had thought of breaking these packages down - to create sub domains that are centered around the procedure relationships to other objects. Group a bunch of procedures that have 80% of their relationships to three tables etc. The end result would be a lot more packages, but the packages would be smaller and I feel the entire code base would be more readable - when procedures cross between two domain models it is less of a struggle to figure which package it belongs to. The problem I now have is what the actual benefit of all this would really be. I looked at the general advantages of modularity: 1. Re-usability 2. Asynchronous Development 3. Maintainability Yet when I consider our latest development, the procedures within the packages are already reusable. At this advanced stage we rarely require asynchronous development - and when it is required we simply ladder the stories across iterations. So I guess my question is if people know of reasons why you would break down classes rather than just the methods inside of classes? Right now I do believe there is an issue with these mega packages forming but the only benefit I can really pin down to break them down is readability - something that experience gained from working with them would solve.

  Read the article

• When designing a job queue, what should determine the scope of a job?

  - by Stuart Pegg

  We've got a job queue system that'll cheerfully process any kind of job given to it. We intend to use it to process jobs that each contain 2 tasks: Job (Pass information from one server to another) Fetch task (get the data, slowly) Send task (send the data, comparatively quickly) The difficulty we're having is that we don't know whether to break the tasks into separate jobs, or process the job in one go. Are there any best practices or useful references on this subject? Is there some obvious benefit to a method that we're missing? So far we can see these benefits for each method: Split Job lease length reflects job length: Rather than total of two Finer granularity on recovery: If we lose outgoing connectivity we can tell them all to retry The starting state of the second task is saved to job history: Helps with debugging (although similar logging could be added in single task method) Single Single job to be scheduled: Less processing overhead Data not stale on recovery: If the outgoing downtime is quite long, the pending Send jobs could be outdated

  Read the article

• DDD / Layers and legacy systems

  - by CSM

  I have to refactor a complex C# app (many dialogs, mixed logic and so on). There is a part managing the communication with special hardware equipments (sending commands and receive data via asynchronous c# callbacks). The code is "spaghetti" with mixed UI/Logic/Communication/etc and my task is to split the layers in a DDD sense. So, to which layer belongs a callback driver routine? The callbacks are creating "bubbles" in the system, up to the UI layer and because of this I cannot enforce the essential principle that any element of a layer depends only on other elements in the same layer or on elements of the layers "beneath" it. Thank you in advance.

  Read the article

• Can the following Domain Entity contain logic for creating/deleting other entities?

  - by user702769

  a) As far as I understand it, in most cases Domain Model DM doesn't contain code for creating/deleting domain entities, but instead it is the job of layers ( ie service layer or UI layer ) on top of DM to create/delete domain entities? b) Domain entities are modelled after real world entities. Assuming particular real world entity being abstracted does have the functionality of creating/deleting other real world entities, then I assume the domain entity abstracting this real world entity could also contain logic for creating/deleting other entities? class RobotDestroyerCreator { ... void heavyThinking() { ... if(...) unitOfWork.registerDelete(robot); ... if(...) { var robotNew = new Robot(...); unitOfWork.registerNew(robotNew); { ... } } Thank you

  Read the article

• Callbacks: when to return value, and when to modify parameter?

  - by MarkN

  When writing a callback, when is best to have the callback return a value, and when is it best to have the callback modify a parameter? Is there a difference? For example, if we wanted to grab a list of dependencies, when would you do this: function GetDependencies(){ return [{"Dep1" : 1.1}, {"Dept2": 1.2}, {"Dep3" : 1.3}]; } And when would you do this? function RegisterDependencies(register){ register.add("Dep1", 1.1); register.add("Dep2", 1.2); register.add("Dep3", 1.3); }

  Read the article

• What are the best patterns/designs for stateful API development?

  - by Svante

  I am about to implement a API for my TCP/IP server written in Java. Right now I have a temporary method that takes a String, executes a command based on the String and returns a String basically like the following. public void communicate(BufferedReader in, PrintWriter out) { while(true) { out.println(handleCommand(in.readLine())); } } private String handleCommand(String command) { if (command.equals("command1") { // do stuff return "Command 1 executed"; } else if (command.equals("command2") { // do some other stuff return "Command 2 executed"; } } I really want to do something more extensible, smarter and stateful, so I could handle more complex and stateful commands and without the method/class getting bloated. How would you start? Suggestions, ideas, or links for further reading are very welcome.

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Why implement DB connection pointer object as a reference counting pointer? (C++)

  - by DVK

  At our company one of the core C++ classes (Database connection pointer) is implemented as a reference counting pointer. To be clear, the objects are NOT DB connections themselves, but pointers to a DB connection object. The library is very old, and nobody who designed is around anymore. So far, nether I, nor any C++ experts in the company that I asked have come up with a good reason for why this particular design was chosen. Any ideas? It is introducing some problems (partially due to awful reference pointer implementation used), and I'm trying to understand if this design actually has some deep underlying reasons? The usage pattern these days seems to be that the DB connection pointer object is returned by a DB connection manager class, and it's somewhat unclear whether DB connection pointers were designed to be able to be used independently of DB connection manager.

  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

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