Search Results

Search found 3283 results on 132 pages for 'aspect oriented'.

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 34/132 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >

  • MVC design question for forms

    - by kenny99
    Hi, I'm developing an app which has a large amount of related form data to be handled. I'm using a MVC structure and all of the related data is represented in my models, along with the handling of data validation from form submissions. I'm looking for some advice on a good way to approach laying out my controllers - basically I will have a huge form which will be broken down into manageable categories (similar to a credit card app) where the user progresses through each stage/category filling out the answers. All of these form categories are related to the main relation/object, but not to each other. Does it make more sense to have each subform/category as a method in the main controller class (which will make that one controller fairly massive), or would it be better to break each category into a subclass of the main controller? It may be just for neatness that the second approach is better, but I'm struggling to see much of a difference between either creating a new method for each category (which communicates with the model and outputs errors/success) or creating a new controller to handle the same functionality. Thanks in advance for any guidance!

    Read the article

  • How can I improve this design?

    - by klausbyskov
    Let's assume that our system can perform actions, and that an action requires some parameters to do its work. I have defined the following base class for all actions (simplified for your reading pleasure): public abstract class BaseBusinessAction<TActionParameters> : where TActionParameters : IActionParameters { protected BaseBusinessAction(TActionParameters actionParameters) { if (actionParameters == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("actionParameters"); this.Parameters = actionParameters; if (!ParametersAreValid()) throw new ArgumentException("Valid parameters must be supplied", "actionParameters"); } protected TActionParameters Parameters { get; private set; } protected abstract bool ParametersAreValid(); public void CommonMethod() { ... } } Only a concrete implementation of BaseBusinessAction knows how to validate that the parameters passed to it are valid, and therefore the ParametersAreValid is an abstract function. However, I want the base class constructor to enforce that the parameters passed are always valid, so I've added a call to ParametersAreValid to the constructor and I throw an exception when the function returns false. So far so good, right? Well, no. Code analysis is telling me to "not call overridable methods in constructors" which actually makes a lot of sense because when the base class's constructor is called the child class's constructor has not yet been called, and therefore the ParametersAreValid method may not have access to some critical member variable that the child class's constructor would set. So the question is this: How do I improve this design? Do I add a Func<bool, TActionParameters> parameter to the base class constructor? If I did: public class MyAction<MyParameters> { public MyAction(MyParameters actionParameters, bool something) : base(actionParameters, ValidateIt) { this.something = something; } private bool something; public static bool ValidateIt() { return something; } } This would work because ValidateIt is static, but I don't know... Is there a better way? Comments are very welcome.

    Read the article

  • Can simple javascript inheritance be simplified even further?

    - by Will
    John Resig (of jQuery fame) provides a concise and elegant way to allow simple JavaScript inheritance. It was so short and sweet, in fact, that it inspired me to try and simplify it even further (see code below). I've modified his original function such that it still passes all his tests and has the potential advantage of: readability (50% less code) simplicity (you don't have to be a ninja to understand it) performance (no extra wrappers around super/base method calls) consistency with C#'s base keyword Because this seems almost too good to be true, I want to make sure my logic doesn't have any fundamental flaws/holes/bugs, or if anyone has additional suggestions to improve or refute the code (perhaps even John Resig could chime in here!). Does anyone see anything wrong with my approach (below) vs. John Resig's original approach? if (!window.Class) { window.Class = function() {}; window.Class.extend = function(members) { var prototype = new this(); for (var i in members) prototype[i] = members[i]; prototype.base = this.prototype; function object() { if (object.caller == null && this.initialize) this.initialize.apply(this, arguments); } object.constructor = object; object.prototype = prototype; object.extend = arguments.callee; return object; }; } And the tests (below) are nearly identical to the original ones except for the syntax around base/super method calls (for the reason enumerated above): var Person = Class.extend( { initialize: function(isDancing) { this.dancing = isDancing; }, dance: function() { return this.dancing; } }); var Ninja = Person.extend( { initialize: function() { this.base.initialize(false); }, dance: function() { return this.base.dance(); }, swingSword: function() { return true; } }); var p = new Person(true); alert("true? " + p.dance()); // => true var n = new Ninja(); alert("false? " + n.dance()); // => false alert("true? " + n.swingSword()); // => true alert("true? " + (p instanceof Person && p instanceof Class && n instanceof Ninja && n instanceof Person && n instanceof Class));

    Read the article

  • c# Attribute Question

    - by Petoj
    Well i need some help here i don't know how to solve this problem. the function of the attribute is to determine if the function can be run... So what i need is the following: The consumer of the attribute should be able to determine if it can be executed. The owner of the attribute should be able to tell the consumer that now it can/can't be executed (like a event). It must have a simple syntax. This is what i have so far but it only implements point 1, 3. [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false)] public class ExecuteMethodAttribute : Attribute { private Func<object, bool> canExecute; public Func<object, bool> CanExecute { get { return canExecute; } } public ExecuteMethodAttribute() { } public ExecuteMethodAttribute(Func<object, bool> canExecute) { this.canExecute = canExecute; } }

    Read the article

  • Handling incremental Data Modeling Changes in Functional Programming

    - by Adam Gent
    Most of the problems I have to solve in my job as a developer have to do with data modeling. For example in a OOP Web Application world I often have to change the data properties that are in a object to meet new requirements. If I'm lucky I don't even need to programmatically add new "behavior" code (functions,methods). Instead I can declarative add validation and even UI options by annotating the property (Java). In Functional Programming it seems that adding new data properties requires lots of code changes because of pattern matching and data constructors (Haskell, ML). How do I minimize this problem? This seems to be a recognized problem as Xavier Leroy states nicely on page 24 of "Objects and Classes vs. Modules" - To summarize for those that don't have a PostScript viewer it basically says FP languages are better than OOP languages for adding new behavior over data objects but OOP languages are better for adding new data objects/properties. Are there any design pattern used in FP languages to help mitigate this problem? I have read Phillip Wadler's recommendation of using Monads to help this modularity problem but I'm not sure I understand how?

    Read the article

  • How does this code break the Law of Demeter?

    - by Dave Jarvis
    The following code breaks the Law of Demeter: public class Student extends Person { private Grades grades; public Student() { } /** Must never return null; throw an appropriately named exception, instead. */ private synchronized Grades getGrades() throws GradesException { if( this.grades == null ) { this.grades = createGrades(); } return this.grades; } /** Create a new instance of grades for this student. */ protected Grades createGrades() throws GradesException { // Reads the grades from the database, if needed. // return new Grades(); } /** Answers if this student was graded by a teacher with the given name. */ public boolean isTeacher( int year, String name ) throws GradesException, TeacherException { // The method only knows about Teacher instances. // return getTeacher( year ).nameEquals( name ); } private Grades getGradesForYear( int year ) throws GradesException { // The method only knows about Grades instances. // return getGrades().getForYear( year ); } private Teacher getTeacher( int year ) throws GradesException, TeacherException { // This method knows about Grades and Teacher instances. A mistake? // return getGradesForYear( year ).getTeacher(); } } public class Teacher extends Person { public Teacher() { } /** * This method will take into consideration first name, * last name, middle initial, case sensitivity, and * eventually it could answer true to wild cards and * regular expressions. */ public boolean nameEquals( String name ) { return getName().equalsIgnoreCase( name ); } /** Never returns null. */ private synchronized String getName() { if( this.name == null ) { this.name == ""; } return this.name; } } Questions How is the LoD broken? Where is the code breaking the LoD? How should the code be written to uphold the LoD?

    Read the article

  • Best practices for handling math calculations in a flash project?

    - by VideoDnd
    I'm building a Flash project where it needs to handle some math, like an acceleration formula. My director has recommended a design pattern where I include the calculations directly in the flash object, but that doesn't seem like it's very good OOP. What's the best practice for calculations in Flash? Should it be a separate object, so I can keep the "non-Flash" parts together and out of the way? What are people's experiences with including it inline vs. keeping it separate?

    Read the article

  • Testing chess game

    - by mousey
    There is a software for chess game and we need to test the following method: boolean canMoveTo(int x, int y) x and y are the coordinates of the chess board and it returns true/false whether the piece can move to that position or not. We need to test this method for a pawn piece and you can set up the board any way you like prior to running a test case. Source code is not provided

    Read the article

  • Interface Design Problem: Storing Result of Transactions

    - by jboyd
    Requirements: multiple sources of input (social media content) into a system multiple destinations of output (social media api's) sources and destinations WILL be added some pseudo: IContentProvider contentProvider = context.getBean("contentProvider"); List<Content> toPost = contentProvider.getContent(); for (Content c : toPost) { SocialMediaPresence smPresence = socialMediaService.getSMPresenceBySomeId(c.getDestId()); smPresence.hasTwitter(); smPresence.hasFacebook(); //just to show what this is smPresence.postContent(c); //post content could fail for some SM platforms, but shoulnd't be lost forever } So now I run out of steam, I need to know what content has been successfully posted, and if it hasn't gone too all platforms, or if another platform were added in the future that content needs to go out for it as well (therefore my content provider will need to not only know if content has gone out, but for what platforms). I'm not looking for code, although sample/pseudo is fine... I'm looking for an approach to this problem that I can implement

    Read the article

  • How do I use a modalViewController Identically in Two Controllers?

    - by Theory
    I'm using the Three20 TTMessageController in my app. I've figured out how to use it, adding on a bunch of other stuff (including TTMessageControllerDelegate methods and ABPeoplePickerNavigationControllerDelegate methods). It works great for me, after a bit of a struggle to figure it out. The trouble I'm having now is a design issue: I want to use it identically in two different places, including with the same delegate methods. My current approach is that I've put all the code into a single class inheriting from NSObject, called ComposerProxy, and I'm just having the two controllers that use it use the proxy, like so: ComposerProxy *proxy = [[ComposerProxy alloc] initWithController:this]; [proxy go]; The go method constructs the TTMessageController, configures it, adds it to a UINavigationController, and presents it: [self.controller presentModalViewController: navController animated: YES]; This works great, as I have all my code nicely encapsulated in ComposerProxy and I need only the above two lines anywhere I want to use it. The downside, though, is that I can't dealloc the proxy variable without getting crashes. I can't autorelease it, either: same problem. So I'm wondering if my proxy approach is a poor one. How does one normally encapsulate a bunch of behaviors like this without requiring a lot of duplicate code in the classes that use it? Do I need to add a delegate class to my ComposerProxy and make the controller responsible for dismissing the modal view controller in a hypothetical composerDidFinish method or some such? Many TIA!

    Read the article

  • Converting a pointer for a base class into an inherited class

    - by Shawn B
    Hey, I'm working on a small roguelike game, and for any object/"thing" that is not a part of the map is based off an XEntity class. There are several classes that depend on it, such as XPlayer, XItem, and XMonster. My problem is, that I want to convert a pointer from XEntity to XItem when I know that an object is in item. The sample code I am using to pick up an item is this, it is when a different entity picks up an item it is standing over. void XEntity::PickupItem() { XEntity *Ent = MapList; // Start of a linked list while(true) { if(Ent == NULL) { break; } if(Ent->Flags & ENT_ITEM) { Ent->RemoveEntity(); // Unlink from the map's linked list XItem *Item = Ent // Problem is here, type-safety // Code to link into inventory is here break; } Ent = Ent->MapList; } } My first thought was to create a method in XEntity that returns itself as an XItem pointer, but it creates circular dependencies that are unresolvable. I'm pretty stumped about this one. Any help is greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to apply Single Responsibility Principle to a service class

    - by Shekhar
    Hello Suppose we are designing a UserServiceImpl class which does CRUD(Create, Read, Update, and Delete) operations. In my view Create, Read, Update, and Delete are four reasons for a class to change. Does this class violates Single Responsibility Principle? If it violates, then should we have four classes like CreateUserServiceImpl, ReadUserServiceImpl, UpdateUserServiceImpl, and DeleteUserServiceImpl. Isn't it an overkill to have lots of classes? Thanks Shekhar

    Read the article

  • How to have a policy class implement a virtual function?

    - by dehmann
    I'm trying to design a policy-based class, where a certain interface is implemented by the policy itself, so the class derives from the policy, which itself is a template (I got this kind of thinking from Alexandrescu's book): #include <iostream> #include <vector> class TestInterface { public: virtual void test() = 0; }; class TestImpl1 { public: void test() {std::cerr << "Impl1" << std::endl;} }; template<class TestPolicy> class Foo : public TestInterface, TestPolicy { }; Then, in the main() function, I call test() on (potentially) various different objects that all implement the same interface: int main() { std::vector<TestInterface*> foos; foos.push_back(new Foo<TestImpl1>()); foos[0]->test(); delete foos[0]; return 0; } It doesn't compile, though, because the following virtual functions are pure within ‘Foo<TestImpl1>’: virtual void TestInterface::test() I thought TestInterface::test() is implemented because we derive from TestImpl1?

    Read the article

  • Easiest (simple) explanation of "prototype" in JavaScript?

    - by alexeypro
    Hello, Can somebody give me a resource (or just explanation? :-) of what "prototype" is and how it works in Javascript. May be comparison with something in Java? (not really necessary). But it should be as simple/easy as possible so inexperienced person just learning Javascript would understand (need to explain this to jr designer who is proficient with CSS/HTML, but not with Javascript). Thank you!

    Read the article

  • N-Tiered application design tool

    - by Ben V
    I'm beginning the design of a medium-sized web application. I usually like to design from the top down, i.e., start at the highest level and design my way down. I am planning to have the following layers: Presentation (PHP/Ajax) Business Logic Data Access Database Now I'd like to start sketching out the major objects in each layer and the interaction between layers. Is there a tool more specific to this purpose than just using a graphics/diagramming tool like Visio?

    Read the article

  • Proper way to set object instance variables

    - by ensnare
    I'm writing a class to insert users into a database, and before I get too far in, I just want to make sure that my OO approach is clean: class User(object): def setName(self,name): #Do sanity checks on name self._name = name def setPassword(self,password): #Check password length > 6 characters #Encrypt to md5 self._password = password def commit(self): #Commit to database >>u = User() >>u.setName('Jason Martinez') >>u.setPassword('linebreak') >>u.commit() Is this the right approach? Should I declare class variables up top? Should I use a _ in front of all the class variables to make them private? Thanks for helping out.

    Read the article

  • Pattern for managing reference count and object life

    - by Gopalakrishnan Subramani
    We have a serial port which is connected to hundreds of physical devices on the same wire. We have protocols like Modbus and Hart to handle the request and response between the application and devices. The question is related to managing the reference count of the channel. When no device is using the channel, the channel should be closed. public class SerialPortChannel { int refCount = 0; public void AddReference() { refCount++; } public void ReleaseReference() { refCount--; if (refCount <= 0) this.ReleasePort(); //This close the serial port } } For each device connected, we create a object for the device like device = new Device(); device.Attach(channel); //this calls channel.AddReference() When the device disconnect, device.Detach(channel); //this calls channel.ReleaseReference() I am not convinced by the reference count model. Are there any better way to handle this problem in .NET World?

    Read the article

  • Validating class and superclass on RoR

    - by Luís Guilherme
    In ruby, you have an attribute called "type" which is the class of the object. Rails stores this at the database in a column called type. So, if I have several blog "types", I can do something like this def create @blog = Blog.new(params[:blog]) @blog[:type] = params[:blog][:type] # ... end If I add someone like this, and then load it, and ask its class (for instance, at the console), I have the right class name answered back. However, when I save it afterwards, rails will run only the superclass validators, not the ones I defined in the subclass. How should I make rails run the subclass validators?

    Read the article

  • When should I use Dependency Injection and when utility methods?

    - by Roman
    I have a Java EE project with Spring IoC container. I've just found in Utils class static method sendMail(long list of params). I don't know why but I feel that it would look better if we had separate class (Spring bean with singleton scope) which will be responsible for sending email. But I can't find any arguments which can prove my position. So, are there any pros (or cons) in using DI in this (rather general) situation?

    Read the article

  • Looking for Suggestion on Multi-Consumer Service Development

    - by DaveDev
    How would I model a system that needs to be able to provide content in a format that would be consumable by iphone, Android or web browser (or whatever). All a new consumer would have to do is build a UI with rules on how to handle the data. I'm thinking something RESTful returning JSON or something. I'm really looking for suggestions on the kinds of things I'd need to learn in order to be able to implement a system on this scale. As an ASP.NET MVC developer, would that be the best framework/archetectrue to go with? Thanks

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