Search Results

Search found 17041 results on 682 pages for 'architecture design'.

Page 33/682 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

• Event Aggregator.. not getting a response, how to determine completion?

  - by Duncan_m

  I'm rewriting a vehicle tracking application, a google maps based thing.. The users are able to search for a vehicle by typing a few characters of the vehicles "callsign". My application is based around a sort of "event bus" within Backbone.. when a search occurs I send a message on the bus saying something like "does anyone match this?".. If a marker matches the search term it responds with a sort of "yes, I match!".. My challenge arises when no-one matches, I get no response.. it feels a little hacky to "wait a little while" and check if a response has been recieved.. The application is based around Backbone.js and using the Event Aggregator pattern described in the answer to this question on Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7708195/access-function-in-one-view-from-another-in-backbone-js Is there a well defined design pattern that might assist me here? Sending a request for a response and not getting any responses?

  Read the article

• Managing different utility classes between engine and libraries

  - by hayer

  I'm currently in updating some engine code (which does not work, so it is more like creating a engine). I've decided to swap over to SFML (instead of my own crappy renderer, window manager, and audio), Box2D (since I need physics, but have none), and some small utilities I've built myself. The problem is that each of the project mentioned over use different types for things like Vector2, etc. So to the question: is it a good idea to replace Box2D and SFML vectors with my own vector class (which is one of my better implementations)? My idea then was to have a separate .lib with all my classes that should be shared between all the projects in the solution.

  Read the article

• How can I refactor my code to use fewer singletons?

  - by fish

  I started a component based, networked game (so far only working on the server). I know why singletons can be bad, but I can't think of another way to implement the same thing. So far I have: A GameState singleton (for managing the global state of the game, i.e. pre-game, running, exiting). A World singleton, which is the root entity for my entity graph An EntityFactory A ComponentFactory I'm thinking about adding a "MessageDispatcher" so individual components can subscribe to network messages. The factories do not have state, so I suppose they aren't so bad. However, the others do have global state, which is asking for trouble. How can I refactor my code so it uses fewer singletons?

  Read the article

• Should Business Interfaces be part of the Model layer?

  - by Mik378

  In an oriented-services enterprise application, isn't it an antipattern to mix Service APIs (containing interface that external users depends on) with Model objects (entities, custom exceptions objects etc...) ? According to me, Services should only depends on Model layer but never mixed with it. In fact, my colleague told me that it doesn't make sense to separate it since client need both. (model and service interfaces) But I notice that everytime a client asks for some changes, like adding a new method in some interface (means a new service), Model layer has to be also delivered... Thus, client who has not interested by this "addition" is constrained to be concerned by this update of Model... and in a large enterprise application, this kind of delivery is known to be very risked... What is the best practice ? Separate services(only interfaces so) and model objects or mix it ?

  Read the article

• IXRepository and test problems

  - by Ridermansb

  Recently had a doubt about how and where to test repository methods. Let the following situation: I have an interface IRepository like this: public interface IRepository<T> where T: class, IEntity { IQueryable<T> Query(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression); // ... Omitted } And a generic implementation of IRepository public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class, IEntity { public IQueryable<T> Query(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).AsQueryable(); } } This is an implementation base that can be used by any repository. It contains the basic implementation of my ORM. Some repositories have specific filters, in which case we will IEmployeeRepository with a specific filter: public interface IEmployeeRepository : IRepository<Employee> { IQueryable<Employee> GetInactiveEmployees(); } And the implementation of IEmployeeRepository: public class EmployeeRepository : Repository<Employee>, IEmployeeRepository // TODO: I have a dependency with ORM at this point in Repository<Employee>. How to solve? How to test the GetInactiveEmployees method { public IQueryable<Employee> GetInactiveEmployees() { return Query(p => p.Status != StatusEmployeeEnum.Active || p.StartDate < DateTime.Now); } } Questions Is right to inherit Repository<Employee>? The goal is to reuse code once all implementing IRepository already been made. If EmployeeRepository inherit only IEmployeeRepository, I have to literally copy and paste the code of Repository<T>. In our example, in EmployeeRepository : Repository<Employee> our Repository lies in our ORM layer. We have a dependency here with our ORM impossible to perform some unit test. How to create a unit test to ensure that the filter GetInactiveEmployees return all Employees in which the Status != Active and StartDate < DateTime.Now. I can not create a Fake/Mock of IEmployeeRepository because I would be testing? Need to test the actual implementation of GetInactiveEmployees. The complete code can be found on Github

  Read the article

• How is this paradigm/style called?

  - by McMannus

  I have the following situation: I'm developing an add-in for a UML modeling tool. The models that can be created by the user are stored inside the main application and a limited access to the models is given through its API. However, the add-in has a lot of callbacks for events that are triggered by the main application, when changes to the model occur by the user. Since the models are already stored once in the main application, I considered it not practicable to duplicate the models in the add-in, which leads to the fact that I have only behavior in the add-in, rather than having a state. This behavior is mainly expressed by static functions, that are organized in functional cohesive classes. The callbacks for the events have always references to the model elements relevant for the specifc event that ocurred. First, it seemed to me that this is a procedural style in general, but procedural style doesn't consider events/callbacks, so this boils down to the question. How is this programming style called?

  Read the article

• Enterprise Architecture IS (should not be) Arbitrary

  - by pat.shepherd

  I took a look at a blog entry today by Jordan Braunstein where he comments on another blog entry titled “Yes, “Enterprise Architecture is Relative BUT it is not Arbitrary.”  The blog makes some good points such as the following: Lock 10 architects in 10 separate rooms; provide them all an identical copy of the same business, technical, process, and system requirements; have them design an architecture under the same rules and perspectives; and I guarantee your result will be 10 different architectures of varying degrees. SOA Today: Enterprise Architecture IS Arbitrary Agreed, …to a degree….but less so if all 10 truly followed one of the widely accepted EA frameworks. My thinking is that EA frameworks all focus on getting the business goals/vision locked down first as the primary drivers for decisions made lower down the architecture stack.  Many people I talk to, know about frameworks such as TOGAF, FEA, etc. but seldom apply the tenants to the architecture at hand.  We all seem to want to get right into the Visio diagrams and boxes and arrows and connecting protocols and implementation details and lions and tigers and bears (Oh, my!) too early. If done properly the Business, Application and Information architectures are nailed down BEFORE any technological direction (SOA or otherwise) is set.  Those 3 layers and Governance (people and processes), IMHO, are layers that should not vary much as they have everything to do with understanding the business -- from which technological conclusions can later be drawn. I really like what he went on to say later in the post about the fact that architecture attempts to remove the amount of variance between the 10 different architect’s work.  That is the real heart of what EA is about; REMOVING THE ARBRITRARITY.

  Read the article

• Podcast Show Notes: Redefining Information Management Architecture

  - by Bob Rhubart-Oracle

  Nothing in IT stands still, and this is certainly true of business intelligence and information management. Big Data has certainly had an impact, as have Hadoop and other technologies. That evolution was the catalyst for the collaborative effort behind a new Information Management Reference Architecture. The latest OTN ArchBeat series features a conversation with Andrew Bond, Stewart Bryson, and Mark Rittman, key players in that collaboration. These three gentlemen know each other quite well, which comes across in a conversation that is as lively and entertaining as it is informative. But don't take my work for it. Listen for yourself! The Panelists(Listed alphabetically) Andrew Bond, head of Enterprise Architecture at Oracle Oracle ACE Director Stewart Bryson, owner and Co-Founder of Red Pill Analytics Oracle ACE Director Mark Rittman, CIO and Co-Founder of Rittman Mead The Conversation Listen to Part 1: The panel discusses how new thinking and new technologies were the catalyst for a new approach to business intelligence projects. Listen to Part 2: Why taking an "API" approach is important in building an agile data factory. Listen to Part 3: Shadow IT, "sandboxing," and how organizational changes are driving the evolution in information management architecture. Additional Resources The Reference Architecture that is the focus of this conversation is described in detail in these blog posts by Mark Rittman: Introducing the Updated Oracle / Rittman Mead Information Management Reference Architecture Part 1: Information Architecture and the Data Factory Part 2: Delivering the Data Factory Be a Guest Producer for an ArchBeat Podcast Want to be a guest producer for an OTN ArchBeat podcast? Click here to learn how to make it happen.

  Read the article

• Should this code/logic be included in Business Objects class or a separate class?

  - by aspdotnetuser

  I have created a small application which has a three tier architecture and I have business object classes to represent entities such as User, Orders, UserType etc. In these classes I have methods that are executed when the Constuctor method of, for example, User is called. These methods perform calculations and generate details that setup data for attributes that are part of each User object. Here is the structure for the project in Visual Studio: Here is some code from the business object class User.cs: Public Class User { public string Name { get; set; } public int RandomNumber { get; set; } etc public User { Name = GetName(); RandomNumber = GetRandomNumber(); } public string GetName() { .... return name; } public int GetRandomNumber() { ... return randomNumber; } } Should this logic be included in the Business Object classes or should it be included in a Utilities class of some kind? Or in the business rules?

  Read the article

• Wrappers/law of demeter seems to be an anti-pattern...

  - by Robert Fraser

  I've been reading up on this "Law of Demeter" thing, and it (and pure "wrapper" classes in general) seem to generally be anti patterns. Consider an implementation class: class Foo { void doSomething() { /* whatever */ } } Now consider two different implementations of another class: class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething() { _foo.doSomething(); } } And the ways to call said methods: callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(); // Version 2 } At first blush, version 1 seems a bit simpler, and follows the "rule of Demeter", hide Foo's implementation, etc, etc. But this ties any changes in Foo to Bar. For example, if a parameter is added to doSomething, then we have: class Foo { void doSomething(int x) { /* whatever */ } } class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething(int x) { _foo.doSomething(x); } } callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(5); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(5); // Version 2 } In both versions, Foo and callingMethod need to be changed, but in Version 2, Bar also needs to be changed. Can someone explain the advantage of having a wrapper/facade (with the exception of adapters or wrapping an external API or exposing an internal one).

  Read the article

• dynamic behavior of factory class

  - by manu1001

  I have a factory class that serves out a bunch of properties. Now, the properties might come either from a database or from a properties file. This is what I've come up with. public class Factory { private static final INSTANCE = new Factory(source); private Factory(DbSource source) { // read from db, save properties } private Factory(FileSource source) { // read from file, save properties } // getInstance() and getProperties() here } What's a clean way of switching between these behaviors based on the environment. I want to avoid having to recompile the class each time.

  Read the article

• QuestionOrAnswer model?

  - by Mark

  My site has Listings. Users can ask Questions about listings, and the author of the listing can respond with an Answer. However, the Answer might need clarification, so I've made them recursive (you can "answer" an answer). So how do I set up the database? The way I have it now looks like this (in Django-style models): class QuestionOrAnswer(Model): user = ForeignKey(User, related_name='questions') listing = ForeignKey(Listing, related_name='questions') parent = models.ForeignKey('self', null=True, blank=True, related_name='children') message = TextField() But what bugs me is that listing is now an attribute of the answers as well (it doesn't need to be). What happens if the database gets mangled and an answer belongs to a different listing than its parent question? That just doesn't make any sense. We can separate it with polymorphism: QuestionOrAnswer user message created updated Question(QuestionOrAnswer) shipment Answer(QuestionOrAnswer) parent = ForeignKey(QuestionOrAnswer) And that ought to work, but now ever question and answer is split into 2 tables. Is it worth this overhead for clearly defined models?

  Read the article

• Help naming a class that has a single public method called Execute()

  - by devoured elysium

  I have designed the following class that should work kind of like a method (usually the user will just run Execute()): public abstract class ??? { protected bool hasFailed = false; protected bool hasRun = false; public bool HasFailed { get { return hasFailed; } } public bool HasRun { get { return hasRun; } } private void Restart() { hasFailed = false; hasRun = false; } public bool Execute() { ExecuteImplementation(); bool returnValue = hasFailed; Restart(); return returnValue; } protected abstract void ExecuteImplementation(); } My question is: how should I name this class? Runnable? Method(sounds awkward)?

  Read the article

• Minimize useless tweaking of a numeric app

  - by Potatoswatter

  I'm developing a numeric application (nonlinear optimizer), with a zillion knobs to tweak and rising. It's not my first foray into this domain, but this time there are even more variables in the code and I'm on a tight schedule. Don't want to waste time fiddling. Days or even months can potentially be wasted adjusting variables, recompiling, and reprocessing benchmark datasets. The resulting data is viewed and trouble spots are checked. The overall quality of the solution is reported by the program but the meaning of the report could change over time. (Numeric units for the report are one thing I'm trying to nail down.) One main problem is organizing result files to identify each with specific code changes. Note taking can be a pain, is there software to help with this? Are there agreed best practices to making this kind of development cycle reliably move forward? The solver package converges to its optimal solution with mechanical determination, but I'm all too familiar with the way an excess of design decisions can mire development.

  Read the article

• Prioritize compiler functionality/tasks, when designing a new language

  - by Mahdi

  Well, the question should be so hard to ask and I expect couple of down votes, however, I'm really interested to have your ideas and recommendations. :) I've already made a very simple compiler, with a few and limited functionality. Now I'm getting more on it to make it more like a real-world compiler. I definitely need to start over 'cause I've much more experience and ideas in this area rather a few years ago. So, I want to know, right now, from the very first step again, which tasks/features for the new compiler should implement first and which tasks has lower priority rather than others? For example, I'd say, first I'd go to decide about the object-oriented structure for the new language, but you might say, hey, just go for a compiler that could define a variable, when you finished that, then start thinking about OOP designs ... I prefer to hear the pros and cons for your suggestions also. Actually I like to start from Bottom to Top, where I could add simplest tasks first, and later adding more complex ones, but I'm totally open for any new ideas, and really appreciate that. Also please consider that I'm thinking about the design concepts. Actually I expect answers like: Priority from Highest to Lowest: variables, because .... functions, because .... loops, because .... ... Not: define a syntax for your new language, and start parsing your source code ...

  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

• Implementing a ILogger interface to log data

  - by Jon

  I have a need to write data to file in one of my classes. Obviously I will pass an interface into my class to decouple it. I was thinking this interface will be used for testing and also in other projects. This is my interface: //This could be used by filesystem, webservice public interface ILogger { List<string> PreviousLogRecords {get;set;} void Log(string Data); } public interface IFileLogger : ILogger { string FilePath; bool ValidFileName; } public class MyClassUnderTest { public MyClassUnderTest(IFileLogger logger) {....} } [Test] public void TestLogger() { var mock = new Mock<IFileLogger>(); mock.Setup(x => x.Log(Is.Any<string>).AddsDataToList()); //Is this possible?? var myClass = new MyClassUnderTest(mock.Object); myClass.DoSomethingThatWillSplitThisAndLog3Times("1,2,3"); Assert.AreEqual(3,mock.PreviousLogRecords.Count); } This won't work I don't believe as nothing is storing the items so is this possible using Moq and also what do you think of the design of the interface?

  Read the article

• Handling Types for Real and Complex Matrices in a BLAS Wrapper

  - by mga

  I come from a C background and I'm now learning OOP with C++. As an exercise (so please don't just say "this already exists"), I want to implement a wrapper for BLAS that will let the user write matrix algebra in an intuitive way (e.g. similar to MATLAB) e.g.: A = B*C*D.Inverse() + E.Transpose(); My problem is how to go about dealing with real (R) and complex (C) matrices, because of C++'s "curse" of letting you do the same thing in N different ways. I do have a clear idea of what it should look like to the user: s/he should be able to define the two separately, but operations would return a type depending on the types of the operands (R*R = R, C*C = C, R*C = C*R = C). Additionally R can be cast into C and vice versa (just by setting the imaginary parts to 0). I have considered the following options: As a real number is a special case of a complex number, inherit CMatrix from RMatrix. I quickly dismissed this as the two would have to return different types for the same getter function. Inherit RMatrix and CMatrix from Matrix. However, I can't really think of any common code that would go into Matrix (because of the different return types). Templates. Declare Matrix<T> and declare the getter function as T Get(int i, int j), and operator functions as Matrix *(Matrix RHS). Then specialize Matrix<double> and Matrix<complex>, and overload the functions. Then I couldn't really see what I would gain with templates, so why not just define RMatrix and CMatrix separately from each other, and then overload functions as necessary? Although this last option makes sense to me, there's an annoying voice inside my head saying this is not elegant, because the two are clearly related. Perhaps I'm missing an appropriate design pattern? So I guess what I'm looking for is either absolution for doing this, or advice on how to do better.

  Read the article

• Parameterized Django models

  - by mgibsonbr

  In principle, a single Django application can be reused in two or more projects, providing functionality relevent to both. That implies that the same database structure (tables and relations) will be re-created identically in different databases, and most times this is not a problem (assuming the projects/databases are unrelated - for instance when someone downloads a complete app to use in their own projects). Sometimes, however, the models must be "tweaked" a little to better fit the problem needs. This can be accomplished by forking the app, but I wondered if there wouldn't be a better option in cases where the app designer can anticipate the most common customizations. For instance, if I have a model that could relate to another as one-to-one or one-to-many, I could specify the unique property as a parameter, that can be specified in the project's settings: class This(models.Model): other = models.ForeignKey(Other, unique=settings.OTHER_TO_THIS) Or if a model can relate to many others, I could create an intermediate table for each of them (thus enforcing referential integrity) instead of using generic fks: for related in settings.MODELS_RELATED_TO_OTHER: model_name = '%s_Other' % related globals()[model_name] = type(model_name, (models.Model,) { me:models.ForeignKey(find_model_class(related)), other:models.ForeignKey(Other), # Some other properties all intersection tables must have }) Etc. Let me stress out that I'm not proposing to change the models at runtime nor anything like that; once the parameters were defined and syncdb called for the first time, those parameters are not to be changed again (unless you're doing a schema migration). Is this a good design? Are there better ways to accomplish the same thing, or maybe drawbacks I coulnd't anticipate? This technique is meant to be used sparingly (only on apps meant to be reused in wildly different contexts, and only when a specific need of customization can be detected while the app model is being designed).

  Read the article

• Best practice to collect information from child objects

  - by Markus

  I'm regularly seeing the following pattern: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) c.AddRequiredStuff(collection); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection) { Stuff stuff; // ... collection.Add(stuff); } } Where I would use something like this, for better information hiding: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) collection.AddRange(c.RequiredStuff()); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract StuffCollection RequiredStuff(); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override StuffCollection RequiredStuff() { StuffCollection stuffCollection; Stuff stuff; // ... stuffCollection.Add(stuff); return stuffCollection; } } What are pros and cons of each solution? For me, giving the implementation access to parent's information is some how disconcerting. On the other hand, initializing a new list, just to collect the items is a useless overhead ... What is the better design? How would it change, if DoSomethingWithStuff wouldn't be part of BaseItem but a third class? PS: there might be missing semicolons, or typos; sorry for that! The above code is not meant to be executed, but just for illustration.

  Read the article

• Classes as a compilation unit

  - by Yannbane

  If "compilation unit" is unclear, please refer to this. However, what I mean by it will be clear from the context. Edit: my language allows for multiple inheritance, unlike Java. I've started designing+developing my own programming language for educational, recreational, and potentially useful purposes. At first, I've decided to base it off Java. This implied that I would have all the code be written inside classes, and that code compiles to classes, which are loaded by the VM. However, I've excluded features such as interfaces and abstract classes, because I found no need for them. They seemed to be enforcing a paradigm, and I'd like my language not to do that. I wanted to keep the classes as the compilation unit though, because it seemed convenient to implement, familiar, and I just liked the idea. Then I noticed that I'm basically left with a glorified module system, where classes could be used either as "namespaces", providing constants and functions using the static directive, or as templates for objects that need to be instantiated ("actual" purpose of classes in other languages). Now I'm left wondering: what are the benefits of having classes as compilation units? (Also, any general commentary on my design would be much appreciated.)

  Read the article

• DB Object passing between classes singleton, static or other?

  - by Stephen

  So I'm designing a reporting system at work it's my first project written OOP and I'm stuck on the design choice for the DB class. Obviously I only want to create one instance of the DB class per-session/user and then pass it to each of the classes that need it. What I don't know it what's best practice for implementing this. Currently I have code like the following:- class db { private $user = 'USER'; private $pass = 'PASS'; private $tables = array( 'user','report', 'etc...'); function __construct(){ //SET UP CONNECTION AND TABLES } }; class report{ function __construct ($params = array(), $db, $user) { //Error checking/handling trimed //$db is the database object we created $this->db = $db; //$this->user is the user object for the logged in user $this->user = $user; $this->reportCreate(); } public function setPermission($permissionId = 1) { //Note the $this->db is this the best practise solution? $this->db->permission->find($permissionId) //Note the $this->user is this the best practise solution? $this->user->checkPermission(1) $data=array(); $this->db->reportpermission->insert($data) } };//end report I've been reading about using static classes and have just come across Singletons (though these appear to be passé already?) so what's current best practice for doing this?

  Read the article

• Tips for Making this Code Testable [migrated]

  - by Jesse Bunch

  So I'm writing an abstraction layer that wraps a telephony RESTful service for sending text messages and making phone calls. I should build this in such a way that the low-level provider, in this case Twilio, can be easily swapped without having to re-code the higher level interactions. I'm using a package that is pre-built for Twilio and so I'm thinking that I need to create a wrapper interface to standardize the interaction between the Twilio service package and my application. Let us pretend that I cannot modify this pre-built package. Here is what I have so far (in PHP): <?php namespace Telephony; class Provider_Twilio implements Provider_Interface { public function send_sms(Provider_Request_SMS $request) { if (!$request->is_valid()) throw new Provider_Exception_InvalidRequest(); $sms = \Twilio\Twilio::request('SmsMessage'); $response = $sms->create(array( 'To' => $request->to, 'From' => $request->from, 'Body' => $request->body )); if ($this->_did_request_fail($response)) { throw new Provider_Exception_RequestFailed($response->message); } $response = new Provider_Response_SMS(TRUE); return $response; } private function _did_request_fail($api_response) { return isset($api_response->status); } } So the idea is that I can write another file like this for any other telephony service provided that it implements Provider_Interface making them swappable. Here are my questions: First off, do you think this is a good design? How could it be improved? Second, I'm having a hard time testing this because I need to mock out the Twilio package so that I'm not actually depending on Twilio's API for my tests to pass or fail. Do you see any strategy for mocking this out? Thanks in advance for any advice!

  Read the article

• What enterprise architecture tools support DoDAF 2.0?

  - by David Hunt

  What tools best support the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) Version 2.0, including support for transfer of the architecture data in accordance with the DoDAF Meta Model (DM2) Physical Exchange Specification (PES)? My initial research found that MagicDraw and Casewise claim support for version 2.0; and several other tools have support for earlier (or unspecified) DoDAF/MoDAF versions including Sparx Enterprise Architect, Troux, IDS Scheer ARIS, Artisan Studio and Rational System Architect. Experiences with any enterprise architecture tools and DoDAF 2.0 would be appreciated. The immediate need is for Data and Information Viewpoint models (DIV-1, DIV-2/OV-7, DIV-3/SV-11), but models in the other Viewpoints will be developed. Thanks -

  Read the article

• Reasons not to use MVC architecture for web application

  - by jaywon

  In the past I have primarily built all my web applications using an N-tier architecture, implementing the BLL and DAL layers. Recently, I have started doing some RoR development as well as looking into ASP.NET MVC. I understand the differences between the different architectures(as referenced by some other SO posts), but I can't really think of any reasons why I wouldn't choose an MVC model going forward. Is there any reasons/times in your experience when an MVC architecture would not be suitable, or any reasons why you would choose a BLL/DAL architecture instead?

  Read the article

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