Search Results

Search found 13344 results on 534 pages for 'anonymous inner classes'.

Page 326/534 | < Previous Page | 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333  | Next Page >

• Organization standards for large programs

  - by Chronicide

  I'm the only software developer at the company where I work. I was hired straight out of college, and I've been working here for several years. When I started, eveeryone was managing their own data as they saw fit (lots of filing cabinets). Until recently, I've only been tasked with small standalone projects to help with simple workflows. In the beginning of the year I was asked to make a replacement for their HR software. I used SQL Server, Entity Framework, WPF, along with MVVM and Repository/Unit of work patterns. It was a huge hit. I was very happy with how it went, and it was a very solid program. As such, my employer asked me to expand this program into a corporate dashboard that tracks all of their various corporate data domains (People, Salary, Vehicles/Assets, Statistics, etc.) I use integrated authentication, and due to the initial HR build, I can map users to people in positions, so I know who is who when they open the program, and I can show each person a customized dashboard given their work functions. My concern is that I've never worked on such a large project. I'm planning, meeting with end users, developing, documenting, testing and deploying it on my own. I'm part way through the second addition, and I'm seeing that my code is getting disorganized. It's still programmed well, I'm just struggling with the organization of namespaces, classes and the database model. Are there any good guidelines to follow that will help me keep everything straight? As I have it now, I have folders for Data, Repositories/Unit of Work, Views, View Models, XAML Resources and Miscellaneous Utilities. Should I make parent folders for each data domain? Should I make separate EF models per domain instead of the one I have for the entire database? Are there any standards out there for organizing large programs that span multiple data domains? I would appreciate any suggestions.

  Read the article

• "Programming error" exceptions - Is my approach sound?

  - by Medo42

  I am currently trying to improve my use of exceptions, and found the important distinction between exceptions that signify programming errors (e.g. someone passed null as argument, or called a method on an object after it was disposed) and those that signify a failure in the operation that is not the caller's fault (e.g. an I/O exception). As far as I understand, it makes little sense for an immediate caller to actually handle programming error exceptions, he should instead assure that the preconditions are met. Only "outer" exception handlers at task boundaries should catch them, so they can keep the system running if a task fails. In order to ensure that client code can cleanly catch "failure" exceptions without catching error exceptions by mistake, I create my own exception classes for all failure exceptions now, and document them in the methods that throw them. I would make them checked exceptions in Java. Now I have a few questions: Before, I tried to document all exceptions that a method could throw, but that sometimes creates an unwiedly list that needs to be documented in every method up the call chain until you can show that the error won't happen. Instead, I document the preconditions in the summary / parameter descriptions and don't even mention what happens if they are not met. The idea is that people should not try to catch these exceptions explicitly anyway, so there is no need to document their types. Would you agree that this is enough? Going further, do you think all preconditions even need to be documented for every method? For example, calling methods in IDisposable objects after calling Dispose is an error, but since IDisposable is such a widely used interface, can I just assume a programmer will know this? A similar case is with reference type parameters where passing null makes no conceivable sense: Should I document "non-null" anyway? IMO, documentation should only cover things that are not obvious, but I am not sure where "obvious" ends.

  Read the article

• What level of detail to use in an interface members descriptions?

  - by famousgarkin

  I am extracting interfaces from some classes in .NET, and I am not completely sure about what level of detail of description to use for some of the interface members (properties, methods). An example: interface ISomeInterface { /// <summary> /// Checks if the object is checked out. /// </summary> /// <returns> /// Returns true if the object is checked out, or if the object locking is not enabled, /// otherwise returns false. /// </returns> bool IsObjectCheckedOut(); } class SomeImplementation : ISomeInterface { public bool IsObjectCheckedOut() { // An implementation of the method that returns true if the object is checked out, // or if the object locking is not enabled } } The part in question is the <returns>...</returns> section of the IsObjectCheckedOut description in the interface. Is it ok to include such a detail about return value in the interface itself, as the code that will work with the interface should know exactly what that method will do? All the current implementations of the method will do just that. But is it ok to limit the possible other/future implementations by description this way? Or should this not be included in the interface description, as there is no way to actually ensure that other/future implementations will do exactly this? Is it better to be as general as possible regarding the interface in such circumstances? I am currently inclined to the latter option.

  Read the article

• Why is the use of abstractions (such as LINQ) so taboo?

  - by Matthew Patrick Cashatt

  I am an independent contractor and, as such, I interview 3-4 times a year for new gigs. I am in the midst of that cycle now and got turned down for an opportunity even though I felt like the interview went well. The same thing has happened to me a couple of times this year. Now, I am not a perfect guy and I don't expect to be a good fit for every organization. That said, my batting average is lower than usual so I politely asked my last interviewer for some constructive feedback, and he delivered! The main thing, according to the interviewer, was that I seemed to lean too much towards the use of abstractions (such as LINQ) rather than towards lower-level, organically grown algorithms. On the surface, this makes sense--in fact, it made the other rejections make sense too because I blabbed about LINQ in those interviews as well and it didn't seem that the interviewers knew much about LINQ (even though they were .NET guys). So now I am left with this question: If we are supposed to be "standing on the shoulders of giants" and using abstractions that are available to us (like LINQ), then why do some folks consider it so taboo? Doesn't it make sense to pull code "off the shelf" if it accomplishes the same goals without extra cost? It would seem to me that LINQ, even if it is an abstraction, is simply an abstraction of all the same algorithms one would write to accomplish exactly the same end. Only a performance test could tell you if your custom approach was better, but if something like LINQ met the requirements, why bother writing your own classes in the first place? I don't mean to focus on LINQ here. I am sure that the JAVA world has something comparable, I just would like to know why some folks get so uncomfortable with the idea of using an abstraction that they themselves did not write. UPDATE As Euphoric pointed out, there isn't anything comparable to LINQ in the Java world. So, if you are developing on the .NET stack, why not always try and make use of it? Is it possible that people just don't fully understand what it does?

  Read the article

• What should I "forget" when going to Javascript?

  - by ElGringoGrande

  I went from C=64 Basic and assembler to FORTRAN and C to C++ and Java. Professionally I started in Visual Basic for applications then to Visual Basic 4, 5, 6. After that VB.NET AND C# with some Java here and there. I have played with Ruby and Python and found both fun. During each step I never felt like I had to forget what I had learned before. I always felt like I was just learning better and/or slightly different ways of doing things but the difference was not major. The difference was like the difference between American, Australian and British English. (Maybe assembler was Latin and FORTRAN was Spanish.) But now I am using JavaScript to do real, actual work. (Before used it as a "Scripting" language pure a simple.) And I just feel like I have to forget some things to become proficient in it. It feels like some old Egyptian language. What should I forget? Is it just that code organization is different (no real classes so no one class one file)? Or is it something more basic?

  Read the article

• Entity framework separating entities for product and customer specific implementation

  - by Codecat

  I am designing an application with intention into making it a product line. I would like to extend the functionality across all layers and first struggle is with domain models. For example, core functionality would have entity named Invoice with few standard fields and then customer requirements will add some new fields to it, but I don't want to add to core Invoice class. For every customer I could use customer specific DbContext and injected correct context with dependency injection. Also every customer will get they own deployment public class Product.Domain.Invoice { public int InvoiceId { get; set; } // Other fields } How to approach this problem? Solution 1 does not work since Entity Framework does not allow same simple name classes. public class CustomerA.Domain.Invoice : Product.Domain.Invoice { public User ReviewedBy { get; set; } public DateTime? ReviewedOn { get; set; } } Solution 2 Create separate table and link it to core domain table. Reusing services and controllers could be harder. public class CustomerA.Domain.CustomerAInvoice { public Product.Domain.Invoice Invoice { get; set; } public User ReviewedBy { get; set; } public DateTime? ReviewedOn { get; set; } }

  Read the article

• How should I create a mutable, varied jtree with arbitrary/generic category nodes?

  - by Pureferret

  Please note: I don't want coding help here, I'm on Programmers for a reason. I want to improve my program planning/writing skills not (just) my understanding of Java. I'm trying to figure out how to make a tree which has an arbitrary category system, based on the skills listed for this LARP game here. My previous attempt had a bool for whether a skill was also a category. Trying to code around that was messy. Drawing out my tree I noticed that only my 'leaves' were skills and I'd labeled the others as categories. Explanation of tree: The Tree is 'born' with a set of hard coded highest level categories (Weapons, Physical and Mental, Medical etc.). Fro mthis the user needs to be able to add a skill. Ultimately they want to add 'One-handed Sword Specialisation' for instance. To do so you'd ideally click 'add' with Weapons selected and then select One-handed from a combobox, then click add again and enter a name in a text field. Then click add again to add a 'level' or 'tier' first proficiency, then specialisation. Of course if you want to buy a different skill it's completely different, which is what I'm having trouble getting my head around let alone programming in. What is a good system for describing this sort of tree in code? All the other JTree examples I've seen have some predictable pattern, and I don't want to have to code this all in 'literals'. Should I be using abstract classes? Interfaces? How can I make this sort of cluster of objects extensible when I add in other skills not listed above that behave differently? If there is not a good system to use, if there a good process for working out how to do this sort of thing?

  Read the article

• With the outcome of the Oracle vs Google trial, does that mean Mono is now safe from Microsoft [closed]

  - by Evan Plaice

  According to the an article on ArsTechnica the judge of the case ruled that APIs are not patent-able. He referred to the structure of modules/methods/classes/functions as being like libraries/books/chapters. To patent an API would be putting a patent on thought itself. It's the internal implementations that really matter. With that in mind, Mono (C# clone for Linux/Mac) has always been viewed tentatively because, even though C# and the CLI are ECMA standards, Microsoft holds a patent on the technology. Microsoft holds a covenant not to sue open source developers based on their patents but has maintained the ability to pull the plug on the Mono development team if they felt the project was a threat. With the recent ruling, is Mono finally out of the woods. A firm precedent has been established that patents can't be applied to APIs. From what I understand, none of the Mono implementation is copied verbatim, only the API structure and functionality. It's a topic I have been personally interested in for years now as I have spent a lot of time developing cross-platform C# libraries in MonoDevelop. I acknowledge that this is a controversial topic, if you have opinions that's what commenting is for. Try to keep the answers factual and based on established sources.

  Read the article

• Why is CS never a topic of conversation of the layman? [closed]

  - by hydroparadise

  Granted, every profession has it's technicalities. If you are an MD, you better know the anatomy of the human body, and if you are astronomer, you better know your calculus. Yet, you don't have to know these more advance topics to know that smoking might give you lung cancer because of carcinogens or the moon revolves around the earth because of gravity (thank you Discovery Channel). There's sort of a common knowledge (at least in more developed countries) of these more advanced topics. With that said, why are things like recursive descent parsing, BNF, or Turing machines hardly ever mentioned outsided 3000 or 4000 level classes in a university setting or between colleagues? Even back in my days before college in my pursuit of knowledge on how computers work, these very important topics (IMHO) never seem to get the light of day. Many different sources and sites go into "What is a processor?" or "What is RAM?", or "What is an OS?". You might get lucky and discover something about programming languages and how they play a role in how applications are created, but nothing about the tools for creating the language itself. To extend this idea, Dennis Ritchie died shortly after Steve Jobs, yet Dennis Ritchie got very little press compared to Steve Jobs. So, the heart of my question: Does the public in general not care to hear about computer science topics that make the technology in their lives work, or does the computer science community not lend itself to the general public to close the knowledge gap? Am I wrong to think the general public has the same thirst for knowledge on how things work as I do? Please consider the question carefully before answering or vote closing please.

  Read the article

• Grails project structure

  - by Martin Janicek

  Good news everyone! I've changed the structure of the Grails project as requested in the issue 160028 and it should be much more user friendly than before. There are actually two things I've fixed/implemented. First of all the source folders are finally represented in the same way as for the Java projects (which means instead of the folder based structure it uses package based structure). The difference can be seen on pictures bellow:    Folder based structure:                                                 Package based structure: Second, minor and quite related change could be seen on those pictures too. There are different icons for different structures. For example Views and Layouts items are folder based, Domain Classes are package based and so on.

  Read the article

• Implementing new required feature after software release

  - by TiagoBrenck

  Fake Scenario There is a software that was released 1 year ago. The software is to map and register all kind of animals on our planet. When the software was released, the client only needed to know the scientific name of the animal, a flag if it is in risk of extinction and a scale of dangerous(that is a fake software and specification, I don't want to discuss this here). There are already 100.000 animals records saved on DB. New Feature One year later, the client wants a new feature. It is really important to him to know the animals classes, and this is a required field. So he asks me to put a field to input the animal class, and this field is required. Or maybe where this animal was discovered. Problem I have already 100.000 recorded animals without a class or where it was discovered, but I need to insert a new column to storage this information and this column can't be null. I don't have a default value for this situation (there isn't a default animal class or where it was discovered). I don't want to keep the requirement rule only on my software, my DB must have this requirement too(I like to keep business rules on DB too). What are the alternatives to solve this situation? I am on a situation that this new feature cannot be previewed or reviewed for the existing records. The time already passed and I can't go back on time to get it

  Read the article

• Should all public methods in an abstract class be marked virtual?

  - by Justin Pihony

  I recently had to update an abstract base class on some OSS that I was using so that it was more testable by making them virtual (I could not use an interface as it combined two). This got me thinking whether I should mark all of the methods that I needed virtual, or if I should mark every public method/property virtual. I generally agree with Roy Osherove that every method should be made virtual, but I came across this article that got me thinking about whether this was necessary or not. I am going to limit this down to abstract classes for simplicity, however (whether all concrete public methods should be virtual is especially debatable, I am sure). I could see where you might want to allow a sub-class to use a method, but not want it overriding the implementation. However, as long as you trust that Liskov's Substitution Principle will be followed, then why would you not allow it to be overriden? By marking it abstract, you are forcing a certain override anyway, so, it seems to me that all public methods inside of an abstract class should indeed be marked virtual. However, I wanted to ask in case there was something I might not be thinking. Should all public methods within an abstract class be made virtual?

  Read the article

• I have an MIS degree. How do I sell myself as a programmer?

  - by hydroparadise

  So, I graduated with a BSBA in Management Information Systems with honors almost 2 years ago which is more of a business degree. As of right now, I do have a job title of "Programmer", but it's more of a report writing position in an arbitrary, proprietary language called PowerOn with the occasional interesting project using more mainstream technologies like .Net and Java. I am also somewhat isoloated being the only programmer in the workplace, which I beleive is a detriment to my career path. The only people I have to bounce ideas against are those on the various SE sites. I don't regret going MIS, but over the past couple of years I have discovered my passion for coding, even though I have been doing some form of coding profesionally and as an enthusiast for years. I do want to persue my Masters in CS (at a later time), but I am not sure if I necessarily need a CS degree to get in with a team of programmers. In addition, I do have a number classes I have taken for different laguanges on the way (C++, Java, SQL, and VB.Net) I beleive my strength is in problem solving where code is just a tool to tackling to problem if needed. My question: How do I best sell myself as a programmer? Should I continue pounding out reports and wait till I have my masters in CS? Or am I viable to be a programmer as I stand?

  Read the article

• Should I make a seperate unit test for a method, if it only modifies the parent state?

  - by Dante

  Should classes, that modify the state of the parent class, but not itself, be unit tested separately? And by separately, I mean putting the test in the corresponding unit test class, that tests that specific class. I'm developing a library based on chained methods, that return a new instance of a new type in most cases, where a chained method is called. The returned instances only modify the root parent state, but not itself. Overly simplified example, to get the point across: public class BoxedRabbits { private readonly Box _box; public BoxedRabbits(Box box) { _box = box; } public void SetCount(int count) { _box.Items += count; } } public class Box { public int Items { get; set; } public BoxedRabbits AddRabbits() { return new BoxedRabbits(this); } } var box = new Box(); box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14); Say, if I write a unit test under the Box class unit tests: box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14) I could effectively say, that I've already tested the BoxedRabbits class as well. Is this the wrong way of approaching this, even though it's far simpler to first write a test for the above call, then to first write a unit test for the BoxedRabbits separately?

  Read the article

• Questioning one of the arguments for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

  - by oberlies

  Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So there may be other arguments for dependency injection (which are out of scope for this question!), but easy creation of testable object graphs is not one of them, is it?

  Read the article

• How to make a text search template?

  - by Flipper

  I am not really sure what to call this, but I am looking for a way to have a "template" for my code to go by when searching for text. I am working on a project where a summary for a piece of text is supplied to the user. I want to allow the user to select a piece of text on the page so that the next time they come across a similar page I can find the text. For instance, lets say somebody goes to foxnews.com and selects the article like in the image below. Then whenever they go to any other foxnews.com article I would be able to identify the text for the article and summarize it for them. But an issue I see with this is for a site like Stack Exchange where you have multiple comments to be selected (like below) which means that I would have to be able to recursively search for all separate pieces of text. Requirements Be able to keep pieces of text separate from each other. Possible Issues DIV's may not contain ids, classes, or names. A piece of text may span across multiple DIVs How to recognize where an old piece of text ends and a new begins. How to store this information for later searching?

  Read the article

• What Pattern will solve this - fetching dependent record from database

  - by tunmise fasipe

  I have these classes class Match { int MatchID, int TeamID, //used to reference Team ... other fields } Note: Match actually have 2 teams which means 2 TeamID class Team { int TeamID, string TeamName } In my view I need to display List<Match> showing the TeamName. So I added another field class Match { int MatchID, int TeamID, //used to reference Team ... other fields string TeamName; } I can now do Match m = getMatch(id); m.TeamName = getTeamName(m.TeamId); //get name from database But for a List<Match>, getTeamName(TeamId) will go to the database to fetch TeamName for each TeamID. For a page of 10 Matches per page, that could be (10x2Teams)=20 trip to database. To avoid this, I had the idea of loading everything once, store it in memory and only lookup the TeamName in memory. This made me have a rethink that what if the records are 5000 or more. What pattern is used to solve this and how?

  Read the article

• C++: calling non-member functions with the same syntax of member ones

  - by peoro

  One thing I'd like to do in C++ is to call non-member functions with the same syntax you call member functions: class A { }; void f( A & this ) { /* ... */ } // ... A a; a.f(); // this is the same as f(a); Of course this could only work as long as f is not virtual (since it cannot appear in A's virtual table. f doesn't need to access A's non-public members. f doesn't conflict with a function declared in A (A::f). I'd like such a syntax because in my opinion it would be quite comfortable and would push good habits: calling str.strip() on a std::string (where strip is a function defined by the user) would sound a lot better than calling strip( str );. most of the times (always?) classes provide some member functions which don't require to be member (ie: are not virtual and don't use non-public members). This breaks encapsulation, but is the most practical thing to do (due to point 1). My question here is: what do you think of such feature? Do you think it would be something nice, or something that would introduce more issues than the ones it aims to solve? Could it make sense to propose such a feature to the next standard (the one after C++0x)? Of course this is just a brief description of this idea; it is not complete; we'd probably need to explicitly mark a function with a special keyword to let it work like this and many other stuff.

  Read the article

• Designing a system with different business rules for different customers

  - by user1595846

  My company is rewriting our proprietary business application. The current architecture is poorly done and inflexible. It is coded more procedural oriented as opposed to object oriented. It has become difficult to maintain. Our system is a web application written in .Net Webforms. I am considering ASP.Net MVC for the rewrite. We intend to rewrite it with a good, solid architecture with the goal of maintainability and reusable classes for some of our other systems and services. We would also like the system to be customizable for different customers in the event that we market the system. I am considering redesigning the system based on the layered architecture (Presentation, Business, Data Access layers) described in the Microsoft Patterns and Practices Application Architecture Guide. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff650706.aspx Hopefully this isn't too open ended, but how would you recommend allowing for different business logic/rules for different customers? I'm aware of Windows Workflow Foundation, but from what I've read about it, it seems many business rules could be too complicated to handle there. Also, Can anyone point me to where I can download an example of a .net solution that is based on the Application Architecture Guide? I have already downloaded the Layered Architecture Solution Guidance and the Expense Sample on codeplex. I was looking for something a bit larger and more robust that I could step through the code and see how it works. If you feel there are better architectures to base our redesign on please feel free to share. I appreciate your help!

  Read the article

• Serializing network messages

  - by mtsvetkov

  I am writing a network wrapper around boost::asio and was wondering what is a good and simple way to serialize my messages. I have a message factory which can take care of dispatching the data to the correct builder, but I want to know if there are any established solutions for getting the binary data on the sender side and consequently passing the data for deserialization on the receiver end. Some options I've explored are: passing a pointer to a char[] to the serialize/deserialize functions (for serialize to write to, and deserialize to read from), but it's difficult to enforce buffer size this way; building on that, I decided to have the serialize function return a boost::asio::mutable_buffer, however ownership of the memory gets blurred between multiple classes, as the network wrapper needs to clean up the memory allocated by the message builder. I have also seen solutions involving streambuf's and stringstream's, but manipulating binary data in terms of its string representation is something I want to avoid. Is there some sort of binary stream I can use instead? What I am looking for is a solution (preferrably using boost libs) that lets the message builder dictate the amount of memory allocated during serialization and what that would look like in terms of passing the data around between the wrapper and message factory/message builders. PS. Messages contain almost exclusively built-in types and PODs and form a shallow but wide hierarchy for the sake of going through a factory. Note: a link to examples of using boost::serialization for something like this would be appreciated as I'm having difficulties figuring out the relation between it and buffers.

  Read the article

• Including Microsoft.XNA.Framework.Input.Touch in a project?

  - by steven_desu

  So after running through tutorials by both Microsoft and www.xnadevelopment.com I feel very confident in my ability to get to work on my first game using the XNA Framework. I've manipulated sprites, added audio, changed game states, and even went a step further to apply the knowledge I had and figure out how to make animations and basic 2-dimensional physics (including impulses, force, acceleration, and speed calculations) But then shortly into the project I hit a curious bump that I've been unable to figure out. In wanting to implement menus, pause screens, and several different aspects of play (a "pre-level" prep screen, the level itself, and a screen after the level to review how well you did) I took a look at Microsoft's Game State Management sample. I understood the concept, although it was admittedly quite a lot to take in. Not wanting to recreate the entire concept by scratch (after all- what purpose would that serve?) I tried copying and pasting the sample code into my own ScreenManager class (as well as InputState and GameScreen classes) to try and borrow their ingenuity. When I did this, however, my project stopped compiling. I was getting the following error: The type or namespace name 'Touch' does not exist in the namespace 'Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Input' (are you missing an assembly reference?) Having read through their sample code already, I realized that this namespace and every function and class within it could be safely ripped from the code without losing functionality. It's a namespace simply for integrating with touchscreen devices (presumably Windows Phone 7, but maybe also tablets). But then I began to wonder- how come Microsoft's sample compiled but mine didn't? I copied their code exactly so there must be a setting somewhere that I need to change in Visual Studio in order to correct this. I tried creating a new project as a Windows Phone 7 game rather than a Windows game, however that only forced it to compile to a Windows Phone emulator and denied me the ability to change the resolution and other features which I clearly had the power to do in the sample code. So my question is simple - how do I properly use the namespace Microsoft.XNA.Framework.Input.Touch?

  Read the article

• How to make the members of my Data Access Layer object aware of their siblings

  - by Graham

  My team currently has a project with a data access object composed like so: public abstract class DataProvider { public CustomerRepository CustomerRepo { get; private set; } public InvoiceRepository InvoiceRepo { get; private set; } public InventoryRepository InventoryRepo { get; private set; } // couple more like the above } We have non-abstract classes that inherit from DataProvider, and the type of "CustomerRepo" that gets instantiated is controlled by that child class. public class FloridaDataProvider { public FloridaDataProvider() { CustomerRepo = new FloridaCustomerRepo(); // derived from base CustomerRepository InvoiceRepo = new InvoiceRespository(); InventoryRepo = new InventoryRepository(); } } Our problem is that some of the methods inside a given repo really would benefit from having access to the other repo's. Like, a method inside InventoryRepository needs to get to Customer data to do some determinations, so I need to pass in a reference to a CustomerRepository object. Whats the best way for these "sibling" repos to be aware of each other and have the ability to call each other's methods as-needed? Virtually all the other repos would benefit from having the CustomerRepo, for example, because it is where names/phones/etc are selected from, and these data elements need to be added to the various objects that are returned out of the other repos. I can't just new-up a plain "CustomerRepository" object inside a method within a different repo, because it might not be the base CustomerRepository that actually needs to run.

  Read the article

• What's wrong with circular references?

  - by dash-tom-bang

  I was involved in a programming discussion today where I made some statements that basically assumed axiomatically that circular references (between modules, classes, whatever) are generally bad. Once I got through with my pitch, my coworker asked, "what's wrong with circular references?" I've got strong feelings on this, but it's hard for me to verbalize concisely and concretely. Any explanation that I may come up with tends to rely on other items that I too consider axioms ("can't use in isolation, so can't test", "unknown/undefined behavior as state mutates in the participating objects", etc.), but I'd love to hear a concise reason for why circular references are bad that don't take the kinds of leaps of faith that my own brain does, having spent many hours over the years untangling them to understand, fix, and extend various bits of code. Edit: I am not asking about homogenous circular references, like those in a doubly-linked list or pointer-to-parent. This question is really asking about "larger scope" circular references, like libA calling libB which calls back to libA. Substitute 'module' for 'lib' if you like. Thanks for all of the answers so far!

  Read the article

• EE vs Computer Science: Effect on Developers' Approaches, Styles?

  - by DarenW

  Are there any systematic differences between software developers (sw engineers, architect, whatever job title) with an electronics or other engineering background, compared to those who entered the profession through computer science? By electronics background, I mean an EE degree, or a self-taught electronics tinkerer, other types of engineers and experimental physicists. I'm wondering if coming into the software-making professions from a strong knowledge of flip flops, tristate buffers, clock edge rise times and so forth, usually leads to a distinct approach to problems, mindsets, or superior skills at certain specialties and lack of skills at others, when compared to the computer science types who are full of concepts like abstract data types, object orientation, database normalization, who speak of "closures" in programming languages - things that make little sense to the soldering iron crowd until they learn enough programming. The real world, I'm sure, offers a wild range of individual exceptions, but for the most part, can you say there are overall differences? Would these have hiring implications e.g. (to make up something) "never hire an electron wrangler to do database design"? Could knowing about any differences help job seekers find something appropriate more effectively? Or provide enlightenment or some practical advice for those who find themselves misfits in a particular job role? (Btw, I've never taken any computer science classes; my impression of exactly what they cover is fuzzy. I'm an electronics/physics/art type, myself.)

  Read the article

• Assuming "clean code/architecture" is there a difference in "effort" between PHP or Java/J2EE web application development?

  - by PhD

  A client asked us to estimate effort when selecting PHP as the implementation language for his next web-based application. We spent about a week exploring PHP, prototyping, testing etc., We are quite new to this language - may have hacked around it in the past but, let's go with PHP-noobs but application development experts (for the lack of a better, less flattering word :) It seems, that if we write, clean maintainable code, follow separation of concerns, enterprise architecture patters (DAOs etc.) the 'effort' in creating an object-oriented PHP based web-application seems to be the same for a Java based one. Here's our equation for estimating the effort (development/delivery time): ConstructionEffort = f(analysis, design, coding, testing, review, deployment) We were specifically comparing effort estimates in creating an enterprise application with the following: PHP + CakePHP/CodeIgniter (should we have considered others?) Java + Spring + Restlet It's an end-to-end application: Client: Javascript/jQuery + HTML/CSS Middle tier/Business Logic - (Still evaluating PHP/Java) Database: MySQL The effort estimates of the 1st and 3rd tier are constant and relatively independent of the middle tier's technology. At a high level with an initial breakdown into user stories of the requested features as well as a high-level SWAG on the sheer number of classes/SLOC that would be required for PHP doesn't seem to differ by much from what is required of the same in Java. Is this correct? We are basing our initial estimates on the initial prototyping/coding we've done with PHP - we are currently disregarding fluency with the language as a factor, since that'll be an initial hurdle and not a long term impediment IMHO (we also have sufficient time to become quite fluent with PHP). I'm interested in knowing the programmers' perspective with respect to effort when creating similar applications with either of the languages to justify choosing one over the other. Are we missing something here? It seems we are going against popular belief of PHP being quicker to market (or we being very fluent with Java have our vision clouded). It doesn't seem to have any coding/programming effort saving from what we/ve played around with.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333  | Next Page >