Search Results

Search found 5751 results on 231 pages for 'analysis patterns'.

Page 33/231 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

• Algorithm to Solve Most of a Problem

  - by Mike G

  I need an Algorithm/Design Pattern that allows me to try to get the maximum number of rules followed. So I have a couple teams and I need to pair them with a referee and against each other into a round robin. There a rules on who can compete with who and who can judge who so I need to find the configuration that satisfies the most of these. Some rules are more important than others and are "worth more" when evaluating "what satisfies the most of them" There probably isn't a algorithm for this, but is there a design pattern that could help me maximize my chances of finding this configuration?

  Read the article

• How do I know when should I package my classes in Ruby?

  - by Omega

  In Ruby, I'm creating a small game development framework. Just some personal project - a very small group of friends helping. Now I am in need of handling geometric concepts. Rectangles, Circles, Polygons, Vectors, Lines, etc. So I made a class for each of these. I'm stuck deciding whether I should package such classes in a module, such as Geometry. So I'd access them like Geometry::Rectangle, or just Rectangle if I include the module. Now then, my question isn't about this specific scenario. I'd like to know, when is it suitable to package similar classes into one module in Ruby? What factors should I consider? Amount of classes? Usage frequency? Complexity?

  Read the article

• Is there a Design Pattern for preventing dangling references?

  - by iFreilicht

  I was thinking about a design for custom handles. The thought is to prevent clients from copying around large objects. Now a regular handle class would probably suffice for that, but it doesn't solve the "dangling reference problem"; If a client has multiple handles of the same object and deletes the object via one of them, all the others would be invalid, but not know it, so the client could write or read parts of the memory he shouldn't have access to. Is there a design pattern to prevent this from happening? Two ideas: An observer-like pattern where the destructor of an object would notify all handles. "Handle handles" (does such a thing even exist?). All the handles don't really point to the object, but to another handle. When the object gets destroyed, this "master-handle" invalidates itself and therefore all that point to it.

  Read the article

• Better solution then simple factory method when concrete implementations have different attributes

  - by danip

  abstract class Animal { function eat() {..} function sleep() {..} function isSmart() } class Dog extends Animal { public $blnCanBark; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanBark; } } class Cat extends Animal { public $blnCanJumpHigh; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanJumpHigh; } } .. and so on up to 10-20 animals. Now I created a factory using simple factory method and try to create instances like this: class AnimalFactory { public static function create($strName) { switch($strName) { case 'Dog': return new Dog(); case 'Cat': return new Cat(); default: break; } } } The problem is I can't set the specific attributes like blnCanBark, blnCanJumpHigh in an efficient way. I can send all of them as extra params to create but this will not scale to more then a few classes. Also I can't break the inheritance because a lot of the basic functionality is the same. Is there a better pattern to solve this?

  Read the article

• Can you point me to a nontrivial strategy pattern implementation?

  - by Eugen Martynov

  We are faced implementing a registration workflow with many branches. There are three main flows which in some conditions lead to one another. Each flow has at least four different steps; some steps interact with the server, and every step adds more information to the state. Also the requirement is to have it persistent between sessions, so if the user closes the app (this is a mobile app), it will restore the process from the last completed step with the state from the previous session. I think this could benefit from the use of the strategy pattern, but I've never had to implement it for such a complex case. Does anyone know of any examples in open source or articles from which I could find inspiration? Preferably the examples would be from a live/working/stable application. I'm interested in Java implementation mostly; we are developing for Java mobile phones: android, blackberry and J2ME. We have an SDK which is quite well separated from platform specific implementations, but examples in C++, C#, Objective-C or Python would be acceptable.

  Read the article

• Designing web-based plugin systems correctly so they don't waste as many resources?

  - by Xeoncross

  Many CMS systems which rely on third parties for much of their code often build "plugin" or "hooks" systems to make it easy for developers to modify the codebase's actions without editing the core files. This usually means an Observer or Event design pattern. However, when you look at systems like wordpress you see that on every page they load some kind of bootstrap file from each of the plugin's folders to see if that plugin will need to run that request. Its this poor design that causes systems like wordpress to spend many extra MB's of memory loading and parsing unneeded items each page. Are there alternative ways to do this? I'm looking for ideas in building my own. For example, Is there a way to load all this once and then cache the results so that your system knows how to lazy-load plugins? In other words, the system loads a configuration file that specifies all the events that plugin wishes to tie into and then saves it for future requests? If that also performs poorly, then perhaps there is a special file-structure that could be used to make educated guesses about when certain plugins are unneeded to fullfil the request. Any ideas? If anyone wants an example of the "plugin" concept you can find one here.

  Read the article

• Relative encapsulation design

  - by taher1992

  Let's say I am doing a 2D application with the following design: There is the Level object that manages the world, and there are world objects which are entities inside the Level object. A world object has a location and velocity, as well as size and a texture. However, a world object only exposes get properties. The set properties are private (or protected) and are only available to inherited classes. But of course, Level is responsible for these world objects, and must somehow be able to manipulate at least some of its private setters. But as of now, Level has no access, meaning world objects must change its private setters to public (violating encapsulation). How to tackle this problem? Should I just make everything public? Currently what I'm doing is having a inner class inside game object that does the set work. So when Level needs to update an objects location it goes something like this: void ChangeObject(GameObject targetObject, int newX, int newY){ // targetObject.SetX and targetObject.SetY cannot be set directly var setter = new GameObject.Setter(targetObject); setter.SetX(newX); setter.SetY(newY); } This code feels like overkill, but it doesn't feel right to have everything public so that anything can change an objects location for example.

  Read the article

• Is is common to use the command pattern for property get/sets?

  - by k rey

  Suppose I have a controller class with a bunch of properties. Each time a property is changed, I would like to update the model. Now also suppose that I use the command pattern to perform model updates. Is it common to use command classes within property get and sets of the controller class or is there a better way? Here is an example of what I am currently using: class MyController { private int _myInt; public int MyInt { get { return _myInt; } set { MyCommand cmd = new MyCommand(); cmd.Argument = _myInt; cmd.Execute(); // Command object updates the model } } }

  Read the article

• Relationship DAO, Servlet, JSP and POJO

  - by John Hendrik

  I want to implement a JSP, POJO, DAO and Servlet in my J2EE program. However, I don't fully understand how the relationship between these elements should be. Is the following (MVC) setup the right way to do it? Main class creates servlet(controller) Servlet has a DAO defined in its class DAO has a POJO defined in its class Servlet communicates with the view (JSP page) Please give your feedback.

  Read the article

• Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion

  - by user2158382

  I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Who should control navigation in an MVVM application?

  - by SonOfPirate

  Example #1: I have a view displayed in my MVVM application (let's use Silverlight for the purposes of the discussion) and I click on a button that should take me to a new page. Example #2: That same view has another button that, when clicked, should open up a details view in a child window (dialog). We know that there will be Command objects exposed by our ViewModel bound to the buttons with methods that respond to the user's click. But, what then? How do we complete the action? Even if we use a so-called NavigationService, what are we telling it? To be more specific, in a traditional View-first model (like URL-based navigation schemes such as on the web or the SL built-in navigation framework) the Command objects would have to know what View to display next. That seems to cross the line when it comes to the separation of concerns promoted by the pattern. On the other hand, if the button wasn't wired to a Command object and behaved like a hyperlink, the navigation rules could be defined in the markup. But do we want the Views to control application flow and isn't navigation just another type of business logic? (I can say yes in some cases and no in others.) To me, the utopian implementation of the MVVM pattern (and I've heard others profess this) would be to have the ViewModel wired in such a way that the application can run headless (i.e. no Views). This provides the most surface area for code-based testing and makes the Views a true skin on the application. And my ViewModel shouldn't care if it displayed in the main window, a floating panel or a child window, should it? According to this apprach, it is up to some other mechanism at runtime to 'bind' what View should be displayed for each ViewModel. But what if we want to share a View with multiple ViewModels or vice versa? So given the need to manage the View-ViewModel relationship so we know what to display when along with the need to navigate between views, including displaying child windows / dialogs, how do we truly accomplish this in the MVVM pattern?

  Read the article

• Resources about cross platform application development in ANSI C [closed]

  - by Anindya Chatterjee

  Where can I get good resources for learning cross platform application development in plain ISO/ANSI C? I have cygwin and eclipse cdt with me to start in my win7 pc. I just need a couple of good resources containing all the best practices and techniques to write good and robust and scalable cross platform application. I am totally new to this cross platform business, no prior idea. Want to learn it in a proper way from the very beginning. Please help me out here.

  Read the article

• What are other ideologies to establish relationships between distinct users besides followers/following and friends?

  - by user784637

  Websites like myspace and facebook establish relationships between distinct users using the "friending" ideology, where one user sends a request to be accepted by another user in order for them to have the mutual permission to do stuff like post messages on each others walls. Less restrictive than the "friending" ideology, Twitter and instagram use the followers/following ideology where you can subscribe to the tweets or posts of another user without their permission. Less restrictive than the "followers/following" ideology, email and calling someone on the phone allows you to directly contact anyone. Are there other ideologies that have been successfully implemented either in social networking sites or other real world constructs to establish relations between users?

  Read the article

• Dependency injection and IOC containers in a closed project

  - by Puckl

  Does it make sense to assemble my project with dependency injection containers if I am the only one who will use the code of that project? The question came up when I read this IOC Article http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html The justification for using dependency injection in this article is that friends can reuse a class, and replace depending classes with their own classes because they get injected and not instantiated in the class. I would only use it to inject objects where they are needed instead of passing them through layers to their target. (Which is not so bad I learned here: Is it bad practice to pass instances through several layers?) (Maybe I will reuse parts of the project, who knows, but I don´t know if that is a good justification)

  Read the article

• What is the proper name for this design pattern in Python?

  - by James

  In Python, is the proper name for the PersonXXX class below PersonProxy, PersonInterface, etc? import rest class PersonXXX(object): def __init__(self,db_url): self.resource = rest.Resource(db_url) def create(self,person): self.resource.post(person.data()) def get(self): pass def update(self): pass def delete(self): pass class Person(object): def __init__(self,name, age): self.name = name self.age = age def data(self): return dict(name=self.name,age=self.age)

  Read the article

• Struggling with the Single Responsibility Principle

  - by AngryBird

  Consider this example: I have a website. It allows users to make posts (can be anything) and add tags that describe the post. In the code, I have two classes that represent the post and tags. Lets call these classes Post and Tag. Post takes care of creating posts, deleting posts, updating posts, etc. Tag takes care of creating tags, deleting tags, updating tags, etc. There is one operation that is missing. The linking of tags to posts. I am struggling with who should do this operation. It could fit equally well in either class. On one hand, the Post class could have a function that takes a Tag as a parameter, and then stores it in a list of tags. On the other hand, the Tag class could have a function that takes a Post as a parameter and links the Tag to the Post. The above is just an example of my problem. I am actually running into this with multiple classes that are all similar. It could fit equally well in both. Short of actually putting the functionality in both classes, what conventions or design styles exist to help me solve this problem. I am assuming there has to be something short of just picking one? Maybe putting it in both classes is the correct answer?

  Read the article

• Is loose coupling w/o use cases an anti-pattern?

  - by dsimcha

  Loose coupling is, to some developers, the holy grail of well-engineered software. It's certainly a good thing when it makes code more flexible in the face of changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future, or avoids code duplication. On the other hand, efforts to loosely couple components increase the amount of indirection in a program, thus increasing its complexity, often making it more difficult to understand and often making it less efficient. Do you consider a focus on loose coupling without any use cases for the loose coupling (such as avoiding code duplication or planning for changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future) to be an anti-pattern? Can loose coupling fall under the umbrella of YAGNI?

  Read the article

• Access functions from user control without events?

  - by BornToCode

  I have an application made with usercontrols and a function on main form that removes the previous user controls and shows the desired usercontrol centered and tweaked: public void DisplayControl(UserControl uControl) I find it much easier to make this function static or access this function by reference from the user control, like this: MainForm mainform_functions = (MainForm)Parent; mainform_functions.DisplayControl(uc_a); You probably think it's a sin to access a function in mainform, from the usercontrol, however, raising an event seems much more complex in such case - I'll give a simple example - let's say I raise an event from usercontrol_A to show usercontrol_B on mainform, so I write this: uc_a.show_uc_b+= (s,e) => { usercontrol_B uc_b = new usercontrol_B(); DisplayControl(uc_b); }; Now what if I want usercontrol_B to also have an event to show usercontrol_C? now it would look like this: uc_a.show_uc_b+= (s,e) => { usercontrol_B uc_b = new usercontrol_B(); DisplayControl(uc_b); uc_b.show_uc_c += (s2,e2) => {usercontrol_C uc_c = new usercontrol_C(); DisplayControl(uc_c);} }; THIS LOOKS AWFUL! The code is much simpler and readable when you actually access the function from the usercontrol itself, therefore I came to the conclusion that in such case it's not so terrible if I break the rules and not use events for such general function, I also think that a readable usercontrol that you need to make small adjustments for another app is preferable than a 100% 'generic' one which makes my code look like a pile of mud. What is your opinion? Am I mistaken?

  Read the article

• MVC + 3 tier; where ViewModels come into play?

  - by mikhairu

  I'm designing a 3-tiered application using ASP.NET MVC 4. I used the following resources as a reference. CodeProject: MVC + N-tier + Entity Framework Separating data access in ASP.NET MVC I have the following desingn so far. Presentation Layer (PL) (main MVC project, where M of MVC was moved to Data Access Layer): MyProjectName.Main Views/ Controllers/ ... Business Logic Layer (BLL): MyProjectName.BLL ViewModels/ ProjectServices/ ... Data Access Layer (DAL): MyProjectName.DAL Models/ Repositories.EF/ Repositories.Dapper/ ... Now, PL references BLL and BLL references DAL. This way lower layer does not depend on the one above it. In this design PL invokes a service of the BLL. PL can pass a View Model to BLL and BLL can pass a View Model back to PL. Also, BLL invokes DAL layer and DAL layer can return a Model back to BLL. BLL can in turn build a View Model and return it to PL. Up to now this pattern was working for me. However, I've ran into a problem where some of my ViewModels require joins on several entities. In the plain MVC approach, in the controller I used a LINQ query to do joins and then select new MyViewModel(){ ... }. But now, in the DAL I do not have access to where ViewModels are defined (in the BLL). This means I cannot do joins in DAL and return it to BLL. It seems I have to do separate queries in DAL (instead of joins in one query) and BLL would then use the result of these to build a ViewModel. This is very inconvenient, but I don't think I should be exposing DAL to ViewModels. Any ideas how I can solve this dilemma? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Recommened design pattern to handle multiple compression algorithms for a class hierarchy

  - by sgorozco

  For all you OOD experts. What would be the recommended way to model the following scenario? I have a certain class hierarchy similar to the following one: class Base { ... } class Derived1 : Base { ... } class Derived2 : Base { ... } ... Next, I would like to implement different compression/decompression engines for this hierarchy. (I already have code for several strategies that best handle different cases, like file compression, network stream compression, legacy system compression, etc.) I would like the compression strategy to be pluggable and chosen at runtime, however I'm not sure how to handle the class hierarchy. Currently I have a tighly-coupled design that looks like this: interface ICompressor { byte[] Compress(Base instance); } class Strategy1Compressor : ICompressor { byte[] Compress(Base instance) { // Common compression guts for Base class ... // if( instance is Derived1 ) { // Compression guts for Derived1 class } if( instance is Derived2 ) { // Compression guts for Derived2 class } // Additional compression logic to handle other class derivations ... } } As it is, whenever I add a new derived class inheriting from Base, I would have to modify all compression strategies to take into account this new class. Is there a design pattern that allows me to decouple this, and allow me to easily introduce more classes to the Base hierarchy and/or additional compression strategies?

  Read the article

• Decorator not calling the decorated instance - alternative design needed

  - by Daniel Hilgarth

  Assume I have a simple interface for translating text (sample code in C#): public interface ITranslationService { string GetTranslation(string key, CultureInfo targetLanguage); // some other methods... } A first simple implementation of this interface already exists and simply goes to the database for every method call. Assuming a UI that is being translated at start up this results in one database call per control. To improve this, I want to add the following behavior: As soon as a request for one language comes in, fetch all translations from this language and cache them. All translation requests are served from the cache. I thought about implementing this new behavior as a decorator, because all other methods of that interface implemented by the decorater would simple delegate to the decorated instance. However, the implementation of GetTranslation wouldn't use GetTranslation of the decorated instance at all to get all translations of a certain language. It would fire its own query against the database. This breaks the decorator pattern, because every functionality provided by the decorated instance is simply skipped. This becomes a real problem if there are other decorators involved. My understanding is that a Decorator should be additive. In this case however, the decorator is replacing the behavior of the decorated instance. I can't really think of a nice solution for this - how would you solve it? Everything is allowed, even a complete re-design of ITranslationService itself.

  Read the article

• What is the simplest human readable configuration file format?

  - by Juha

  Current configuration file is as follows: mainwindow.title = 'test' mainwindow.position.x = 100 mainwindow.position.y = 200 mainwindow.button.label = 'apply' mainwindow.button.size.x = 100 mainwindow.button.size.y = 30 logger.datarate = 100 logger.enable = True logger.filename = './test.log' This is read with python to a nested dictionary: { 'mainwindow':{ 'button':{ 'label': {'value':'apply'}, ... }, 'logger':{ datarate: {'value': 100}, enable: {'value': True}, filename: {'value': './test.log'} }, ... } Is there a better way of doing this? The idea is to get XML type of behavior and avoid XML as long as possible. The end user is assumed almost totally computer illiterate and basically uses notepad and copy-paste. Thus the python standard "header + variables" type is considered too difficult. The dummy user edits the config file, able programmers handle the dictionaries. Nested dictionary is chosen for easy splitting (logger does not need or even cannot have/edit mainwindow parameters).

  Read the article

• Is it better to define all routes in the Global.asax than to define separately in the areas?

  - by Matthew Patrick Cashatt

  I am working on a MVC 4 project that will serve as an API layer of a larger application. The developers that came before me set up separate Areas to separate different API requests (i.e Search, Customers, Products, and so forth). I am noticing that each Area has separate Area registration classes that define routes for that area. However, the routes defined are not area-specific (i.e. {controller}/{action}/{id} might be defined redundantly in a couple of areas). My instinct would be to move all of these route definitions to a common place like the Global.asax to avoid redundancy and collisions, but I am not sure if I am correct about that.

  Read the article

• What are cons of usage only non-member functions and POD?

  - by Miro

  I'm creating my own game engine. I've read these articles and this question about DOD and there was written to not use member functions and classes. I also heard some criticism to this idea. I can write it using member functions or non-member functions it would be similar. So what are benefits/cons of that approach or when project grows, does any of these approaches give clearer and better manageable code? With POD & non-member functions I don't have to make struct members public I can still use object id outside of engine like OpenGL does with all it's stuff, so It's not about encapsulation. POD - plain old data DOD - data oriented design

  Read the article

• Pattern for performing game actions

  - by Arkiliknam

  Is there a generally accepted pattern for performing various actions within a game? A way a player can perform actions and also that an AI might perform actions, such as move, attack, self-destruct, etc. I currently have an abstract BaseAction which uses .NET generics to specify the different objects that get returned by the various actions. This is all implemented in a pattern similar to the Command, where each action is responsible for itself and does all that it needs. My reasoning for being abstract is so that I may have a single ActionHandler, and AI can just queue up different action implementing the baseAction. And the reason it is generic is so that the different actions can return result information relevant to the action (as different actions can have totally different outcomes in the game), along with some common beforeAction and afterAction implementations. So... is there a more accepted way of doing this, or does this sound alright?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >