Search Results

Search found 26869 results on 1075 pages for 'library design'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 33/1075 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

  • Real-time Java graph / chart library?

    - by Joonas Pulakka
    There was an earlier thread on Java graph or chart library, where JFreeChart was found to be quite good, but, as stated in its FAQ, it's not meant for real-time rendering. Can anyone recommend a comparable library that supports real-time rendering? Just some basic xy-rendering - for instance, getting a voltage signal from data acquisition system and plotting it as it comes (time on x-axis, voltage on y-axis).

    Read the article

  • Library to write javascript code

    - by Melursus
    Is there a c# library that can help to write and indent Javascript code. It's because I'm writing some c# code that generated some Javascript code. Something like this : js += "<script type=\"text/javascript\">\n"; js += " function()...\n"; And I find that generated a lot of ugly code. So, I thought that maybe a existing library can help me doing that ?

    Read the article

  • Logging in a C# library

    - by koumides
    All, I wonder what is the best practise regarding logging inside a library. I am creating a C# library to be used by users and at some points I want to log an error or a warning. Is it a good practice to use log4net and log in a file? Thanks, M

    Read the article

  • Making shared library from exist o-files

    - by Ockonal
    Hi guys, I have a project. I need in shared library of it to use in extensions. I don't want to make copy of this project but with shared-library settings. Are there any way to build it using *.o-files from building project? As I understand, I can write makefile for this.

    Read the article

  • Library to parse C/C++ source code

    - by John
    Which library should I use to parse C/C++ source code file? I need to parse source file, calculate how much useful strings inside, how much 'for' blocks, 'if' blocks, how much comments inside. I also may need to insert a comment or small piece of code after each 'for' block. Is there any libraries? May be any library included in Microsoft Visual Studio?

    Read the article

  • Best open source C# library?

    - by Alon
    There are great .NET libraries and components. What is, for your opinion the most useful, effective, well wrriten open source C# library you've ever seen? Mines, is the great Html Agility Pack. Please post one library per answer.

    Read the article

  • [C#] Library for working with web pages

    - by kitchen
    I'm in search for a library that will let me work with web pages using C# without having to display anything graphically. The library should handle web sites that use JavaScript / AJAX and it should return the correct HTML as if I were viewing the source from within Firefox/Chrome. If there is any information I left out, let me know.

    Read the article

  • Considerations Before Hiring Logo Design Services

    These days, hiring a logo design service is not easy. Just enter a keyword "logo design" in a search engine and you will see thousands of result pages full of online logo design services. Certainly, ... [Author: Gisselle Gloria - Web Design and Development - October 05, 2009]

    Read the article

  • SQL Rally Relational Database Design Pre-Con Preview

    - by drsql
    On May 9, 2012, I will be presenting a pre-con session at the SQL Rally in Dallas, TX on relational database design. The fact is, database design is a topic that demands more than a simple one hour session to really do it right. So in my Relational Database Design Workshop, we will have seven times the amount of time in the typical session, giving us time to cover our topics in a bit more detail, look at a lot more designs/code, and even get some time to do some design as a group. Our topics will...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Cross-Cultural Design (great video from HFI) - #usableapps #UX #L10n

    - by ultan o'broin
    Great video from HFI Animate, featuring user-centered design for emerging markets called Cross Cultural Design: Getting It Right the First Time. Cross Cultural Design: Getting It Right the First Time Apala Lahiri Chavan talks about the issues involved in designing solutions for Africa, India, China and more markets! Design for the local customer's ecosystem - and their feelings! Timely reminder of the important of global and local research in UX!

    Read the article

  • .net design pattern question

    - by user359562
    Hi. I am trying to understand design pattern problems. I am trying to modify the code like this in winforms and trying to see if any design pattern suits my requirement. Please suggest which is the best design pattern in this scenario. This is very basic code containing 2 tab pages which might have different controls can be added dynamically and read out different files on click of particular tab. To elaborate more... I have written this code to learn and understand design pattern. This is just a scenario where user click on a particular tab which will show dynamic controls generated. public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); } private void tabControl1_SelectedIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (tabControl1.SelectedTab.Name.Equals("tabPage1")) { GeneratedynamicControlsForTab1(); } else if (tabControl1.SelectedTab.Name.Equals("tabPage2")) { GeneratedynamicControlsForTab2(); } } private void GeneratedynamicControlsForTab1() { Label label1 = new Label(); label1.Text = "Label1"; tabPage1.Controls.Add(label1); ReadCSVFile(); } private void GeneratedynamicControlsForTab2() { tabPage1.Controls.Clear(); Label label2 = new Label(); label2.Text = "Label2"; tabPage2.Controls.Add(label2); ReadTextFile(); } private void ReadCSVFile() { } private void ReadTextFile() { } }

    Read the article

  • Are there design patterns or generalised approaches for particle simulations?

    - by romeovs
    I'm working on a project (for college) in C++. The goal is to write a program that can more or less simulate a beam of particles flying trough the LHC synchrotron. Not wanting to rush into things, me and my team are thinking about how to implement this and I was wondering if there are general design patterns that are used to solve this kind of problem. The general approach we came up with so far is the following: there is a World that holds all objects you can add objects to this world such as Particle, Dipole and Quadrupole time is cut up into discrete steps, and at each point in time, for each Particle the magnetic and electric forces that each object in the World generates are calculated and summed up (luckily electro-magnetism is linear). each Particle moves accordingly (using a simple estimation approach to solve the differential movement equations) save the Particle positions repeat This seems a good approach but, for instance, it is hard to take into account symmetries that might be present (such as the magnetic field of each Quadrupole) and is this thus suboptimal. To take into account such symmetries as that of the Quadrupole field, it would be much easier to (also) make space discrete and somehow store form of the Quadrupole field somewhere. (Since 2532 or so Quadrupoles are stored this should lead to a massive gain of performance, not having to recalculate each Quadrupole field) So, are there any design patterns? Is the World-approach feasible or is it old-fashioned, bad programming? What about symmetry, how is that generally taken into acount?

    Read the article

  • Are Java's public fields just a tragic historical design flaw at this point?

    - by Avi Flax
    It seems to be Java orthodoxy at this point that one should basically never use public fields for object state. (I don't necessarily agree, but that's not relevant to my question.) Given that, would it be right to say that from where we are today, it's clear that Java's public fields were a mistake/flaw of the language design? Or is there a rational argument that they're a useful and important part of the language, even today? Thanks! Update: I know about the more elegant approaches, such as in C#, Python, Groovy, etc. I'm not directly looking for those examples. I'm really just wondering if there's still someone deep in a bunker, muttering about how wonderful public fields really are, and how the masses are all just sheep, etc. Update 2: Clearly static final public fields are the standard way to create public constants. I was referring more to using public fields for object state (even immutable state). I'm thinking that it does seem like a design flaw that one should use public fields for constants, but not for state… a language's rules should be enforced naturally, by syntax, not by guidelines.

    Read the article

  • Interface (contract), Generics (universality), and extension methods (ease of use). Is it a right design?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I'm trying to design a simple conversion framework based on these requirements: All developers should follow a predefined set of rules to convert from the source entity to the target entity Some overall policies should be able to be applied in a central place, without interference with developers' code Both the creation of converters and usage of converter classes should be easy To solve these problems in C# language, A thought came to my mind. I'm writing it here, though it doesn't compile at all. But let's assume that C# compiles this code: I'll create a generic interface called IConverter public interface IConverter<TSource, TTarget> where TSource : class, new() where TTarget : class, new() { TTarget Convert(TSource source); List<TTarget> Convert(List<TSource> sourceItems); } Developers would implement this interface to create converters. For example: public class PhoneToCommunicationChannelConverter : IConverter<Phone, CommunicationChannle> { public CommunicationChannel Convert(Phone phone) { // conversion logic } public List<CommunicationChannel> Convert(List<Phone> phones) { // conversion logic } } And to make the usage of this conversion class easier, imagine that we add static and this keywords to methods to turn them into Extension Methods, and use them this way: List<Phone> phones = GetPhones(); List<CommunicationChannel> channels = phones.Convert(); However, this doesn't even compile. With those requirements, I can think of some other designs, but they each lack an aspect. Either the implementation would become more difficult or chaotic and out of control, or the usage would become truly hard. Is this design right at all? What alternatives I might have to achieve those requirements?

    Read the article

  • Abstracting functionality

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/08/22/abstracting-functionality.aspxWhat is more important than data? Functionality. Yes, I strongly believe we should switch to a functionality over data mindset in programming. Or actually switch back to it. Focus on functionality Functionality once was at the core of software development. Back when algorithms were the first thing you heard about in CS classes. Sure, data structures, too, were important - but always from the point of view of algorithms. (Niklaus Wirth gave one of his books the title “Algorithms + Data Structures” instead of “Data Structures + Algorithms” for a reason.) The reason for the focus on functionality? Firstly, because software was and is about doing stuff. Secondly because sufficient performance was hard to achieve, and only thirdly memory efficiency. But then hardware became more powerful. That gave rise to a new mindset: object orientation. And with it functionality was devalued. Data took over its place as the most important aspect. Now discussions revolved around structures motivated by data relationships. (John Beidler gave his book the title “Data Structures and Algorithms: An Object Oriented Approach” instead of the other way around for a reason.) Sure, this data could be embellished with functionality. But nevertheless functionality was second. When you look at (domain) object models what you mostly find is (domain) data object models. The common object oriented approach is: data aka structure over functionality. This is true even for the most modern modeling approaches like Domain Driven Design. Look at the literature and what you find is recommendations on how to get data structures right: aggregates, entities, value objects. I´m not saying this is what object orientation was invented for. But I´m saying that´s what I happen to see across many teams now some 25 years after object orientation became mainstream through C++, Delphi, and Java. But why should we switch back? Because software development cannot become truly agile with a data focus. The reason for that lies in what customers need first: functionality, behavior, operations. To be clear, that´s not why software is built. The purpose of software is to be more efficient than the alternative. Money mainly is spent to get a certain level of quality (e.g. performance, scalability, security etc.). But without functionality being present, there is nothing to work on the quality of. What customers want is functionality of a certain quality. ASAP. And tomorrow new functionality needs to be added, existing functionality needs to be changed, and quality needs to be increased. No customer ever wanted data or structures. Of course data should be processed. Data is there, data gets generated, transformed, stored. But how the data is structured for this to happen efficiently is of no concern to the customer. Ask a customer (or user) whether she likes the data structured this way or that way. She´ll say, “I don´t care.” But ask a customer (or user) whether he likes the functionality and its quality this way or that way. He´ll say, “I like it” (or “I don´t like it”). Build software incrementally From this very natural focus of customers and users on functionality and its quality follows we should develop software incrementally. That´s what Agility is about. Deliver small increments quickly and often to get frequent feedback. That way less waste is produced, and learning can take place much easier (on the side of the customer as well as on the side of developers). An increment is some added functionality or quality of functionality.[1] So as it turns out, Agility is about functionality over whatever. But software developers’ thinking is still stuck in the object oriented mindset of whatever over functionality. Bummer. I guess that (at least partly) explains why Agility always hits a glass ceiling in projects. It´s a clash of mindsets, of cultures. Driving software development by demanding small increases in functionality runs against thinking about software as growing (data) structures sprinkled with functionality. (Excuse me, if this sounds a bit broad-brush. But you get my point.) The need for abstraction In the end there need to be data structures. Of course. Small and large ones. The phrase functionality over data does not deny that. It´s not functionality instead of data or something. It´s just over, i.e. functionality should be thought of first. It´s a tad more important. It´s what the customer wants. That´s why we need a way to design functionality. Small and large. We need to be able to think about functionality before implementing it. We need to be able to reason about it among team members. We need to be able to communicate our mental models of functionality not just by speaking about them, but also on paper. Otherwise reasoning about it does not scale. We learned thinking about functionality in the small using flow charts, Nassi-Shneiderman diagrams, pseudo code, or UML sequence diagrams. That´s nice and well. But it does not scale. You can use these tools to describe manageable algorithms. But it does not work for the functionality triggered by pressing the “1-Click Order” on an amazon product page for example. There are several reasons for that, I´d say. Firstly, the level of abstraction over code is negligible. It´s essentially non-existent. Drawing a flow chart or writing pseudo code or writing actual code is very, very much alike. All these tools are about control flow like code is.[2] In addition all tools are computationally complete. They are about logic which is expressions and especially control statements. Whatever you code in Java you can fully (!) describe using a flow chart. And then there is no data. They are about control flow and leave out the data altogether. Thus data mostly is assumed to be global. That´s shooting yourself in the foot, as I hope you agree. Even if it´s functionality over data that does not mean “don´t think about data”. Right to the contrary! Functionality only makes sense with regard to data. So data needs to be in the picture right from the start - but it must not dominate the thinking. The above tools fail on this. Bottom line: So far we´re unable to reason in a scalable and abstract manner about functionality. That´s why programmers are so driven to start coding once they are presented with a problem. Programming languages are the only tool they´ve learned to use to reason about functional solutions. Or, well, there might be exceptions. Mathematical notation and SQL may have come to your mind already. Indeed they are tools on a higher level of abstraction than flow charts etc. That´s because they are declarative and not computationally complete. They leave out details - in order to deliver higher efficiency in devising overall solutions. We can easily reason about functionality using mathematics and SQL. That´s great. Except for that they are domain specific languages. They are not general purpose. (And they don´t scale either, I´d say.) Bummer. So to be more precise we need a scalable general purpose tool on a higher than code level of abstraction not neglecting data. Enter: Flow Design. Abstracting functionality using data flows I believe the solution to the problem of abstracting functionality lies in switching from control flow to data flow. Data flow very naturally is not about logic details anymore. There are no expressions and no control statements anymore. There are not even statements anymore. Data flow is declarative by nature. With data flow we get rid of all the limiting traits of former approaches to modeling functionality. In addition, nomen est omen, data flows include data in the functionality picture. With data flows, data is visibly flowing from processing step to processing step. Control is not flowing. Control is wherever it´s needed to process data coming in. That´s a crucial difference and needs some rewiring in your head to be fully appreciated.[2] Since data flows are declarative they are not the right tool to describe algorithms, though, I´d say. With them you don´t design functionality on a low level. During design data flow processing steps are black boxes. They get fleshed out during coding. Data flow design thus is more coarse grained than flow chart design. It starts on a higher level of abstraction - but then is not limited. By nesting data flows indefinitely you can design functionality of any size, without losing sight of your data. Data flows scale very well during design. They can be used on any level of granularity. And they can easily be depicted. Communicating designs using data flows is easy and scales well, too. The result of functional design using data flows is not algorithms (too low level), but processes. Think of data flows as descriptions of industrial production lines. Data as material runs through a number of processing steps to be analyzed, enhances, transformed. On the top level of a data flow design might be just one processing step, e.g. “execute 1-click order”. But below that are arbitrary levels of flows with smaller and smaller steps. That´s not layering as in “layered architecture”, though. Rather it´s a stratified design à la Abelson/Sussman. Refining data flows is not your grandpa´s functional decomposition. That was rooted in control flows. Refining data flows does not suffer from the limits of functional decomposition against which object orientation was supposed to be an antidote. Summary I´ve been working exclusively with data flows for functional design for the past 4 years. It has changed my life as a programmer. What once was difficult is now easy. And, no, I´m not using Clojure or F#. And I´m not a async/parallel execution buff. Designing the functionality of increments using data flows works great with teams. It produces design documentation which can easily be translated into code - in which then the smallest data flow processing steps have to be fleshed out - which is comparatively easy. Using a systematic translation approach code can mirror the data flow design. That way later on the design can easily be reproduced from the code if need be. And finally, data flow designs play well with object orientation. They are a great starting point for class design. But that´s a story for another day. To me data flow design simply is one of the missing links of systematic lightweight software design. There are also other artifacts software development can produce to get feedback, e.g. process descriptions, test cases. But customers can be delighted more easily with code based increments in functionality. ? No, I´m not talking about the endless possibilities this opens for parallel processing. Data flows are useful independently of multi-core processors and Actor-based designs. That´s my whole point here. Data flows are good for reasoning and evolvability. So forget about any special frameworks you might need to reap benefits from data flows. None are necessary. Translating data flow designs even into plain of Java is possible. ?

    Read the article

  • Windows Sharepoint Services - FullTextSqlQuery Document library Unable to find items created by SYST

    - by Ashok
    We have created an ASP.NET web app that upload files to WSS Doc Libary. The files get added under 'SYSTEM ACCOUNT' in the library. The FullTextSqlQuery class is used to search the document libary items. But it only searches files that has been uploaded by a windows user account like 'Administrator' and ignores the ones uploaded by 'SYSTEM ACCOUNT'. As a result the search results are empty even though we have the necessary data in the document library. What could be the reason for this? The code is given below: public static List GetListItemsFromFTSQuery(string searchText) { string docLibUrl = "http://localhost:6666/Articles%20Library/Forms/AllItems.aspx"; List items = new List(); DataTable retResults = new DataTable(); SPSecurity.RunWithElevatedPrivileges(delegate { using (SPSite site = new SPSite(docLibUrl)) { SPWeb CRsite = site.OpenWeb(); SPList ContRep = CRsite.GetListFromUrl(docLibUrl); FullTextSqlQuery fts = new FullTextSqlQuery(site); fts.QueryText = "SELECT Title,ContentType,Path FROM portal..scope() WHERE freetext('" + searchText + "') AND (CONTAINS(Path,'\"" + ContRep.RootFolder.ServerRelativeUrl + "\"'))"; fts.ResultTypes = ResultType.RelevantResults; fts.RowLimit = 300; if (SPSecurity.AuthenticationMode != System.Web.Configuration.AuthenticationMode.Windows) fts.AuthenticationType = QueryAuthenticationType.PluggableAuthenticatedQuery; else fts.AuthenticationType = QueryAuthenticationType.NtAuthenticatedQuery; ResultTableCollection rtc = fts.Execute(); if (rtc.Count > 0) { using ( ResultTable relevantResults = rtc[ResultType.RelevantResults]) retResults.Load(relevantResults, LoadOption.OverwriteChanges); foreach (DataRow row in retResults.Rows) { if (!row["Path"].ToString().EndsWith(".aspx")) //if (row["ContentType"].ToString() == "Item") { using ( SPSite lookupSite = new SPSite(row["Path"].ToString())) { using (SPWeb web = lookupSite.OpenWeb()) { SPFile file = web.GetFile(row["Path"].ToString()); items.Add(file.Item); } } } } } } //using ends here }); return items; }

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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