Search Results

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

Page 34/231 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >

• Representing complex object dependencies

  - by max

  I have several classes with a reasonably complex (but acyclic) dependency graph. All the dependencies are of the form: class X instance contains an attribute of class Y. All such attributes are set during initialization and never changed again. Each class' constructor has just a couple parameters, and each object knows the proper parameters to pass to the constructors of the objects it contains. class Outer is at the top of the dependency hierarchy, i.e., no class depends on it. Currently, the UI layer only creates an Outer instance; the parameters for Outer constructor are derived from the user input. Of course, Outer in the process of initialization, creates the objects it needs, which in turn create the objects they need, and so on. The new development is that the a user who knows the dependency graph may want to reach deep into it, and set the values of some of the arguments passed to constructors of the inner classes (essentially overriding the values used currently). How should I change the design to support this? I could keep the current approach where all the inner classes are created by the classes that need them. In this case, the information about "user overrides" would need to be passed to Outer class' constructor in some complex user_overrides structure. Perhaps user_overrides could be the full logical representation of the dependency graph, with the overrides attached to the appropriate edges. Outer class would pass user_overrides to every object it creates, and they would do the same. Each object, before initializing lower level objects, will find its location in that graph and check if the user requested an override to any of the constructor arguments. Alternatively, I could rewrite all the objects' constructors to take as parameters the full objects they require. Thus, the creation of all the inner objects would be moved outside the whole hierarchy, into a new controller layer that lies between Outer and UI layer. The controller layer would essentially traverse the dependency graph from the bottom, creating all the objects as it goes. The controller layer would have to ask the higher-level objects for parameter values for the lower-level objects whenever the relevant parameter isn't provided by the user. Neither approach looks terribly simple. Is there any other approach? Has this problem come up enough in the past to have a pattern that I can read about? I'm using Python, but I don't think it matters much at the design level.

  Read the article

• Is there a good design pattern for this messaging class?

  - by salonMonsters

  Is there a good design pattern for this? I want to create a messaging class. The class will be passed: the type of message (eg. signup, signup confirmation, password reminder etc) the client's id The class needs to then look up the client's messaging preferences in the db (whether they want communication by email, sms or both) Then depending on the client's preference it will format the message for the medium (short version for sms, long form for email) and send it through our mail or sms provider's API. Because the fact that we want to be able to change out email and sms providers if need be I wondered if the Command Pattern would be a good choice.

  Read the article

• Philosophy behind the memento pattern

  - by TheSilverBullet

  I have been reading up on memento pattern from various sources of the internet. Differing information from different sources has left me in confusion regarding why this pattern is actually needed. The dofactory implementation says that the primary intention of this pattern is to restore the state of the system. Wiki says that the primary intention is to be able to restore the changes on the system. This gives a different impact - saying that it is possible for a system to have memento implementation with no need to restore. And that ability of restore is a feature of this. OODesign says that It is sometimes necessary to capture the internal state of an object at some point and have the ability to restore the object to that state later in time. Such a case is useful in case of error or failure. So, my question is why exactly do we use this one? Is it to save previous states - or to promote encapsulation between the Caretaker and the Memento? Why is this type of encapsulation so important? Edit: For those visiting, check out this Implementation!

  Read the article

• Designing a Business Rule Engine

  - by Nisha_Roy

  I have a requirement where there are 10 Rules to be applied on data in excel. If Rule 1 and Rule 2 fails rest of the rules are not checked. But if Rule 1 and Rule 2 passes the rest of all the Rules should be verified and if any errors found- they should be logged. Is there any design pattern which I can use to keep this Rule Engine flexible for adding these 10 rules and Closed for any additional chains in the Current Rule. I was thinking of something like a Decorator Pattern. Will this help me achieve that?

  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

• What are DRY, KISS, SOLID, etc. classified as?

  - by Morgan Herlocker

  Is something like DRY a design pattern, a methodology, or something in between? They do not have specific implementations that could neccessarily be demonstrated(even if you can easily demonstrate a case NOT using something like KISS... see The Daily WTF for a plethora of examples), nor do they fully explain a development process like a methodology generally would. Where does that leave these types of "rule of thumb"'s?

  Read the article

• Design for object with optional and modifiable attributtes?

  - by Ikuzen

  I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

  Read the article

• Authorization design-pattern / practice?

  - by Lawtonfogle

  On one end, you have users. On the other end, you have activities. I was wondering if there is a best practice to relate the two. The simplest way I can think of is to have every activity have a role, and assign every user every role they need. The problem is that this gets really messy in practice as soon as you go beyond a trivial system. A way I recently designed was to have users who have roles, and roles have privileges, and activities require some combinations of privileges. For the trivial case, this is more complex, but I think it will scale better. But after I implemented it, I felt like it was overkill for the system I had. Another option would be to have users, who have roles, and activities require you to have a certain role to perform with many activities sharing roles. A more complex variant of this would given activities many possible roles, which you only needed one of. And an even more complex variant would be to allow logical statements of role ownership to use an activity (i.e. Must have A and (B exclusive or C) and must not have D). I could continue to list more, but I think this already gives a picture. And many of these have trade offs. But in software design, there are oftentimes solutions, while perhaps not perfect in every possible case, are clearly top of the pack to an extent it isn't even considered opinion based (i.e. how to store passwords, plain text is worse, hashing better, hashing and salt even better, despite the increased complexity of each level) (i.e. 2, Smart UI designs for applications are bad, even if it is subjective as to what the best design is). So, is there a best practice for authorization design that is not purely opinion based/subjective?

  Read the article

• A sample Memento pattern: Is it correct?

  - by TheSilverBullet

  Following this query on memento pattern, I have tried to put my understanding to test. Memento pattern stands for three things: Saving state of the "memento" object for its successful retrieval Saving carefully each valid "state" of the memento Encapsulating the saved states from the change inducer so that each state remains unaltered Have I achieved these three with my design? Problem This is a zero player game where the program is initialized with a particular set up of chess pawns - the knight and queen. Then program then needs to keep adding set of pawns or knights and queens so that each pawn is "safe" for the next one move of every other pawn. The condition is that either both pawns should be placed, or none of them should be placed. The chessboard with the most number of non conflicting knights and queens should be returned. Implementation I have 4 classes for this: protected ChessBoard (the Memento) private int [][] ChessBoard; public void ChessBoard(); protected void SetChessBoard(); protected void GetChessBoard(int); public Pawn This is not related to memento. It holds info about the pawns public enum PawnType: int { Empty = 0, Queen = 1, Knight = 2, } //This returns a value that shown if the pawn can be placed safely public bool IsSafeToAddPawn(PawnType); public CareTaker This corresponds to caretaker of memento This is a double dimentional integer array that keeps a track of all states. The reason for having 2D array is to keep track of how many states are stored and which state is currently active. An example: 0 -2 1 -1 2 0 - This is current state. With second index 0/ 3 1 - This state has been saved, but has been undone private int [][]State; private ChessBoard [] MChessBoard; //This gets the chessboard at the position requested and assigns it to originator public ChessBoard GetChessBoard(int); //This overwrites the chessboard at given position public void SetChessBoard(ChessBoard, int); private int [][]State; public PlayGame (This is the originator) private bool status; private ChessBoard oChessBoard; //This sets the state of chessboard at position specified public SetChessBoard(ChessBoard, int); //This gets the state of chessboard at position specified public ChessBoard GetChessBoard(int); //This function tries to place both the pawns and returns the status of this attempt public bool PlacePawns(Pawn);

  Read the article

• Augmenting functionality of subclasses without code duplication in C++

  - by Rob W

  I have to add common functionality to some classes that share the same superclass, preferably without bloating the superclass. The simplified inheritance chain looks like this: Element -> HTMLElement -> HTMLAnchorElement Element -> SVGElement -> SVGAlement The default doSomething() method on Element is no-op by default, but there are some subclasses that need an actual implementation that requires some extra overridden methods and instance members. I cannot put a full implementation of doSomething() in Element because 1) it is only relevant for some of the subclasses, 2) its implementation has a performance impact and 3) it depends on a method that could be overridden by a class in the inheritance chain between the superclass and a subclass, e.g. SVGElement in my example. Especially because of the third point, I wanted to solve the problem using a template class, as follows (it is a kind of decorator for classes): struct Element { virtual void doSomething() {} }; // T should be an instance of Element template<class T> struct AugmentedElement : public T { // doSomething is expensive and uses T virtual void doSomething() override {} // Used by doSomething virtual bool shouldDoSomething() = 0; }; class SVGElement : public Element { /* ... */ }; class SVGAElement : public AugmentedElement<SVGElement> { // some non-trivial check bool shouldDoSomething() { /* ... */ return true; } }; // Similarly for HTMLAElement and others I looked around (in the existing (huge) codebase and on the internet), but didn't find any similar code snippets, let alone an evaluation of the effectiveness and pitfalls of this approach. Is my design the right way to go, or is there a better way to add common functionality to some subclasses of a given superclass?

  Read the article

• Algorithmic Forecasting and Pattern Recognition

  - by Ryan King

  Say a user could enter project data into my software. Each project has 2 variables "size" and "work" and they're related but the relationship is not known. Is there a way to programmatically determine the relationship between the variables based on previous data and forecast the amount of work provided if only given the size of the project in the future? For Example, say the user had manually entered the following projects. Project 1 - Size:1, Work: 4 Project 2 - Size:2, Work: 7 Project 3 - Size:3, Work: 10 Project 4 - Size:4, Work: x What should I look into to be able to programmatically determine, that Work = Size*3+1 and therefor be able to say that x=13?

  Read the article

• Why is nesting or piggybacking errors within errors bad in general?

  - by dietbuddha

  Why is nesting or piggybacking errors within errors bad in general? To me it seems bad intuitively, but I'm suspicious in that I cannot adequately articulate why it is bad. This may be because it is not in general bad and that it is only bad in specific instances. Why is it detrimental to design error/exception handling in such a way. The specific instance is that of a REST service. There is a desire by some to use http errors (specifically the 500 response) as a way to indicate any problem with specific instances of a resource. An example of an instance resource in this case would be: http://server/ticket/80 # instance http://server/ticket # not an instance So this is the behavior that is being proposed. If ticket 80 does not exist return a http response code of 500. Within the body of the error return the "real" error as an additional error code and description. If the ticket resource doesn't exist return a response code of 404.

  Read the article

• Design pattern to handle queries using multiple models

  - by coderkane

  I am presented with a dilemma while trying to re-designing the class structure for my PHP/MySQL application to make it more elegant and conform it to the SOLID principle. The problem goes like this: Let as assume, there is an abstract class called person which has certain properties to define a generic person, such as name, age, date of birth etc. There are two classes, student, and teacher, that implements this abstract class. They add their own unique properties to it. I have designed all the three classes to include all the operational logic (details of which are not relevant in context of the question). Now, I need to create views/reports/data grids which contain details from multiple classes, for example, say, a list of all students doing projects in Chemistry mentored by a teacher whose name is the parameter to the query. This is just one example of a view, there are many different views in the application, which uses data from 3-4 tables, and each of them have multiple input parameters to generate them. Considering this particular example, I have written the relevant query using JOIN and the results are as expected and proper, now here is the dilemma: Keeping in mind the single responsibility principle, where should I keep this query? It does not belong to either Student class, or Teacher class or any other classes currently present. a) Should I create a new class, say dataView class, and design it as a MVC pattern and keep the query there? What about the other views? how do they fit in this architecture? b) Should I not keep the query in code at all, and make it DB View ? c) Am I completely wrong in the approach? If so what is the right approach? My considerations are as follows: a) should be easy to add new views later on if requirement comes, without having to copy-paste-modify code b) would like to make it as loosely coupled as possible so that if minor db structure changes happen, it does not break I did google searches on report design and OOP report generators, but all the result seem to focus on the visual design of the report rather than fetching the data. I have already taken care of the visual aspect of the report using MVC with html templates. I am sure this is a very fundamental problem with known solution, but I am somehow not able to find it (maybe searching with wrong keyword). Edit1: Modified the title to make it more relevant Edit2: The accepted answer got me thinking in the right direction and identify my design flaws, which eventually led me to find this question and the solution in Stack Overflow which gave me the detailed answer to clear the confusion.

  Read the article

• What is the difference between all-static-methods and applying a singleton pattern?

  - by shahensha

  I am making a database to store information about the users of my website (I am using stuts2 and hence Java EE technology). For the database I'll be making a DBManager. Should I apply singleton pattern here or rather make all it's methods static? I will be using this DBManager for basic things like adding, deleting and updating User profiles. Along with it, I'll use for all other querying purposes, for instance to find out whether a username already exists and to get all users for administrative purposes and stuff like that. My questions What is the benefit of singleton pattern? Which thing is most apt here? All static methods or a singleton pattern? Please compare both of them. regards shahensha P.S. The database is bigger than this. Here I am talking only about the tables which I'll be using for storing User Information.

  Read the article

• Advice on developing a social network [on hold]

  - by Siraj Mansour

  I am doing research on assembling a team, using the right tools, and the cost to develop a highly responsive social network that is capable of dealing with a lot of users. Similar to the Facebook concept but using the basics package for now. Profile, friends, posts, updates, media upload/download, streaming, chat and Inbox messaging are all in the package. We certainly do not expect it to be as popular as Facebook or handle the same number of users and requests, but in its own game it has to be a monster, and expandable for later on. Neglecting the hosting, and servers part, i am looking for technical advise and opinions, on what kind of team i need ? how many developers ? their expertise ? What are the right tools ? languages ? frameworks ? environments ? Any random ideas about the infrastructure ? Quick thoughts on the development process ? Please use references, if you have any to support your ideas. Development cost mere estimation ? NEGLECTING THE COST OF SERVERS I know my question is too broad but my knowledge is very limited and i need detailed help, for any help you can offer i thank you in advance.

  Read the article

• Caching factory design

  - by max

  I have a factory class XFactory that creates objects of class X. Instances of X are very large, so the main purpose of the factory is to cache them, as transparently to the client code as possible. Objects of class X are immutable, so the following code seems reasonable: # module xfactory.py import x class XFactory: _registry = {} def get_x(self, arg1, arg2, use_cache = True): if use_cache: hash_id = hash((arg1, arg2)) if hash_id in _registry: return _registry[hash_id] obj = x.X(arg1, arg2) _registry[hash_id] = obj return obj # module x.py class X: # ... Is it a good pattern? (I know it's not the actual Factory Pattern.) Is there anything I should change? Now, I find that sometimes I want to cache X objects to disk. I'll use pickle for that purpose, and store as values in the _registry the filenames of the pickled objects instead of references to the objects. Of course, _registry itself would have to be stored persistently (perhaps in a pickle file of its own, in a text file, in a database, or simply by giving pickle files the filenames that contain hash_id). Except now the validity of the cached object depends not only on the parameters passed to get_x(), but also on the version of the code that created these objects. Strictly speaking, even a memory-cached object could become invalid if someone modifies x.py or any of its dependencies, and reloads it while the program is running. So far I ignored this danger since it seems unlikely for my application. But I certainly cannot ignore it when my objects are cached to persistent storage. What can I do? I suppose I could make the hash_id more robust by calculating hash of a tuple that contains arguments arg1 and arg2, as well as the filename and last modified date for x.py and every module and data file that it (recursively) depends on. To help delete cache files that won't ever be useful again, I'd add to the _registry the unhashed representation of the modified dates for each record. But even this solution isn't 100% safe since theoretically someone might load a module dynamically, and I wouldn't know about it from statically analyzing the source code. If I go all out and assume every file in the project is a dependency, the mechanism will still break if some module grabs data from an external website, etc.). In addition, the frequency of changes in x.py and its dependencies is quite high, leading to heavy cache invalidation. Thus, I figured I might as well give up some safety, and only invalidate the cache only when there is an obvious mismatch. This means that class X would have a class-level cache validation identifier that should be changed whenever the developer believes a change happened that should invalidate the cache. (With multiple developers, a separate invalidation identifier is required for each.) This identifier is hashed along with arg1 and arg2 and becomes part of the hash keys stored in _registry. Since developers may forget to update the validation identifier or not realize that they invalidated existing cache, it would seem better to add another validation mechanism: class X can have a method that returns all the known "traits" of X. For instance, if X is a table, I might add the names of all the columns. The hash calculation will include the traits as well. I can write this code, but I am afraid that I'm missing something important; and I'm also wondering if perhaps there's a framework or package that can do all of this stuff already. Ideally, I'd like to combine in-memory and disk-based caching.

  Read the article

• Data Transformation Pipeline

  - by davenewza

  I have create some kind of data pipeline to transform coordinate data into more useful information. Here is the shell of pipeline: public class PositionPipeline { protected List<IPipelineComponent> components; public PositionPipeline() { components = new List<IPipelineComponent>(); } public PositionPipelineEntity Process(Position position) { foreach (var component in components) { position = component.Execute(position); } return position; } public PositionPipeline RegisterComponent(IPipelineComponent component) { components.Add(component); return this; } } Every IPipelineComponent accepts and returns the same type - a PositionPipelineEntity. Code: public interface IPipelineComponent { PositionPipelineEntity Execute(PositionPipelineEntity position); } The PositionPipelineEntity needs to have many properties, many which are unused in certain components and required in others. Some properties will also have become redundant at the end of the pipeline. For example, these components could be executed: TransformCoordinatesComponent: Parse the raw coordinate data into a Coordinate type. DetermineCountryComponent: Determine and stores country code. DetermineOnRoadComponent: Determine and store whether coordinate is on a road. Code: pipeline .RegisterComponent(new TransformCoordinatesComponent()) .RegisterComponent(new DetermineCountryComponent()) .RegisterComponent(new DetermineOnRoadComponent()); pipeline.Process(positionPipelineEntity); The PositionPipelineEntity type: public class PositionPipelineEntity { // Only relevant to the TransformCoordinatesComponent public decimal RawCoordinateLatitude { get; set; } // Only relevant to the TransformCoordinatesComponent public decimal RawCoordinateLongitude { get; set; } // Required by all components after TransformCoordinatesComponent public Coordinate CoordinateLatitude { get; set; } // Required by all components after TransformCoordinatesComponent public Coordinate CoordinateLongitude { get; set; } // Set in DetermineCountryComponent, not required anywhere. // Requires CoordinateLatitude and CoordinateLongitude (TransformCoordinatesComponent) public string CountryCode { get; set; } // Set in DetermineOnRoadComponent, not required anywhere. // Requires CoordinateLatitude and CoordinateLongitude (TransformCoordinatesComponent) public bool OnRoad { get; set; } } Problems: I'm very concerned about the dependency that a component has on properties. The way to solve this would be to create specific types for each component. The problem then is that I cannot chain them together like this. The other problem is the order of components in the pipeline matters. There is some dependency. The current structure does not provide any static or runtime checking for such a thing. Any feedback would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Need to re-build an application - how?

  - by Tom

  For our main system, we have a small monitor application that sits outside our network and periodically tries to log in to verify the system still works. We have a problem with the monitor though in that the communications component set (Asta 3 inside Delphi applications) doesn't always connect through. Overall, I'd say it's about 95% reliable, but that other 5% kills the monitor since it will try to log in and hang on the connection attempt (no timeout in the component). This really isn't an issue on the client side of the system since the clients don't disconnect and reconnect repeatedly on the same application instance, but I need a way to make sure the monitor stays up and continues working even when the component fails on a run. I have a few ideas as to which way to have the program run, the main idea being to put the communications inside a threaded data module so that if one thread crashes then another thread can test later and the program keep going. Does this sound like a valid way to go? Any other ideas how to ensure a reliable monitoring application with a less than 100% reliable component? Thanks. P.S. Not sure these tags are the most appropriate. Tried including "system-reliability" as one, but not high enough rep to create.

  Read the article

• How to implment the database for event conditions and item bonuses for a browser based game

  - by Saifis

  I am currently creating a browser based game, and was wondering what was the standard approach in making diverse conditions and status bonuses database wise. Currently considering two cases. Event Conditions Needs min 1000 gold Needs min Lv 10 Needs certain item. Needs fulfillment of another event Status Bonus Reduces damage by 20% +100 attack points Deflects certain type of attack I wish to be able to continually change these parameters during the process of production and operation, so having them hard-coded isn't the best way. All I could come up with are the following two methods. Method 1 Create a table that contains each conditions with needed attributes Have a model named conditions with all the attributes it would need to set them conditions condition_type (level, money_min, money_max item, event_aquired) condition_amount prerequisite_condition_id prerequisite_item_id Method 2 write it in a DSL form that could be interpreted later in the code Perhaps something like yaml, have a text area in the setting form and have the code interpret it. condition_foo: condition_type :level min_level: 10 condition_type :item item_id: 2 At current Method 2 looks to be more practical and flexible for future changes, trade off being that all the flex must be done on the code side. Not to sure how this is supposed to be done, is it supposed to be hard coded? separate config file? Any help would be appreciated. Added For additional info, it will be implemented with Ruby on Rails

  Read the article

• Defining formula through user interface in user form

  - by BriskLabs Pakistan

  I am a student and developing a simple assignment - windows form application in visual studio 2010. The application is suppose to construct formulas as per user requirement. The process: It has to pick data from columns of Microsoft Access database and the user should be able to pick the data by column name like we do in a drop down menu. and create reusable formulas in it ( configure it once and can change it again). followings are column titles from database that can be picked for example. e.g Col -1 : Marks in Maths Col -2 : Total Marks in Maths Col -3 : Marks in science Col -4 : Total marks in science Finally we should be able to construct any formula in the UI like (Col 1 + Col 3 ) / ( col 2 + col 4) = Formula 1 once this is formula is set saved and a name is assigned to it by user. he/she can use the formula and results shall appear in a window below. i.e He would be able to calculate his desired figures (formula) by only manipulating underlying data on the UI layer....choose the data for a period and apply the formula and get the answer Problem: It looks like I have to create an app where rules are set through UI....... this means no stored procedures are required in SQL.... please suggest the right approach.

  Read the article

• Techniques for separating game model from presentation

  - by liortal

  I am creating a simple 2D game using XNA. The elements that make up the game world are what i refer to as the "model". For instance, in a board game, i would have a GameBoard class that stores information about the board. This information could be things such as: Location Size Details about cells on the board (occupied/not occupied) etc This object should either know how to draw itself, or describe how to draw itself to some other entity (renderer) in order to be displayed. I believe that since the board only contains the data+logic for things regarding it or cells on it, it should not provide the logic of how to draw things (separation of concerns). How can i achieve a good partitioning and easily allow some other entity to draw it properly? My motivations for doing so are: Allow multiple "implementations" of presentation for a single game entity Easier porting to other environments where the presentation code is not available (for example - porting my code to Unity or other game technology that does not rely on XNA).

  Read the article

• Methodologies for Managing Users and Access?

  - by MadBurn

  This is something I'm having a hard time getting my head around. I think I might be making it more complicated than it is. What I'm trying to do is develop a method to store users in a database with varying levels of access, throughout different applications. I know this has been done before, but I don't know where to find how they did it. Here is an example of what I need to accomplish: UserA - Access to App1, App3, App4 & can add new users to App3, but not 4 or 1. UserB - Access to App2 only with ReadOnly access. UserC - Access to App1 & App4 and is able to access Admin settings of both apps. In the past I've just used user groups. However, I'm reaching a phase where I need a bit more control over each individual user's access to certain parts of the different applications. I wish this were as cut and dry as being able to give a user a role and let each role inherit from the last. Now, this is what I need to accomplish. But, I don't know any methods of doing this. I could easily just design something that works, but I know this has been done and I know this has been studied and I know this problem has been solved by much better minds than my own. This is for a web application and using sql server 2008. I don't need to store passwords (LDAP) and the information I need to store is actually very limited. Basically just username and access.

  Read the article

• Confused about implementing Single Responsibility Principle

  - by HichemSeeSharp

  Please bear with me if the question looks not well structured. To put you in the context of my issue: I am building an application that invoices vehicles stay duration in a parking. In addition to the stay service there are some other services. Each service has its own calculation logic. Here is an illustration (please correct me if the design is wrong): public abstract class Service { public int Id { get; set; } public bool IsActivated { get; set; } public string Name { get; set } public decimal Price { get; set; } } public class VehicleService : Service { //MTM : many to many public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Vehicles { get; set; } } public class StayService : VehicleService { } public class Vehicle { public int Id { get; set; } public string ChassisNumber { get; set; } public DateTime? EntryDate { get; set; } public DateTime? DeliveryDate { get; set; } //... public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Services{ get; set; } } Now, I am focusing on the stay service as an example: I would like to know at invoicing time which class(es) would be responsible for generating the invoice item for the service and for each vehicle? This should calculate the duration cost knowing that the duration could be invoiced partially so the like is as follows: not yet invoiced stay days * stay price per day. At this moment I have InvoiceItemsGenerator do everything but I am aware that there is a better design.

  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

< Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >