Search Results

Search found 24037 results on 962 pages for 'game design'.

Page 35/962 | < Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >

  • Separation of domain and ui layer in a composite

    - by hansmaad
    Hi all, i'm wondering if there is a pattern how to separate the domain logic of a class from the ui responsibilities of the objects in the domain layer. Example: // Domain classes interface MachinePart { CalculateX(in, out) // Where do we put these: // Draw(Screen) ?? // ShowProperties(View) ?? // ... } class Assembly : MachinePart { CalculateX(in, out) subParts } class Pipe : MachinePart { CalculateX(in, out) length, diamater... } There is an application that calculates the value X for machines assembled from many machine parts. The assembly is loaded from a file representation and is designed as a composite. Each concrete part class stores some data to implement the CalculateX(in,out) method to simulate behaviour of the whole assembly. The application runs well but without GUI. To increase the usability a GUi should be developed on top of the existing implementation (changes to the existing code are allowed). The GUI should show a schematic graphical representation of the assembly and provide part specific dialogs to edit several parameters. To achieve these goals the application needs new functionality for each machine part to draw a schematic representation on the screen, show a property dialog and other things not related to the domain of machine simulation. I can think of some different solutions to implement a Draw(Screen) functionality for each part but i am not happy with each of them. First i could add a Draw(Screen) method to the MachinePart interface but this would mix-up domain code with ui code and i had to add a lot of functionality to each machine part class what makes my domain model hard to read and hard to understand. Another "simple" solution is to make all parts visitable and implement ui code in visitors but Visitor does not belong to my favorite patterns. I could derive UI variants from each machine part class to add the UI implementation there but i had to check if each part class is suited for inheritance and had to be careful on changes to the base classes. My currently favorite design is to create a parallel composite hierarchy where each component stores data to define a machine part, has implementation for UI methods and a factory method which creates instances of the corresponding domain classes, so that i can "convert" a UI assembly to a domain assembly. But there are problems to go back from the created domain hierarchy to the UI hierarchy for showing calculation results in the drawing for example (imagine some parts store some values during the calculation i want to show in the schematic representation after the simluation). Maybe there are some proven patterns for such problems?

    Read the article

  • What should you do differently when designing websites for an embedded web server

    - by Roger Attrill
    When designing a website to be accessed from an embedded webserver such as KLone, what do you need to do differently compared to a 'standard' web server. I'm talking about considerations at the front end design stage, before the actual building and coding up. For example, typically in such situations, memory size is a premium, so I guess larger images are out, and maybe more attention should be focused on achieving a good look and feel using CSS/Javascript rather than bitmap images.

    Read the article

  • What is the greatest design flaw you have faced in any programming language?

    - by Anto
    All programming languages are having their design flaws simply because not a single language can be perfect, just as with most (all?) other things. That aside, which design fault in a programming language has annoyed you the most through your history as a programmer? Note that if a language is "bad" just because it isn't designed for a specific thing isn't a design flaw, but a feature of design, so don't list such annoyances of languages. If a language is illsuited for what it is designed for, that is of course a flaw in the design. Implementation specific things and under the hood things do not count either.

    Read the article

  • Development: SDK for Social Net

    - by loldop
    I have a task: development sdk for social networking service like facebook, twitter and etc. At now i'm developing facebook-extension-sdk which based on facebook-ios-sdk 3.0. But not all social networking services have good sdks. And all time i improved my facebook-extension-sdk, when i see ugly code :( Please, advise me good techniques to development these sdks (like design-patterns or your own experience or good books/sites). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How do I write code that doesn't suck? [closed]

    - by Afnan
    My friends and I would like to write a C# desktop application, and would like some guidance on how to make sure the code base is professional and well-kept. Should we use classes or interfaces for our inheritance patterns (which is better)? What are the best practices for professional applications? How do we know what sloppy code looks like, and how do we avoid creating sloppy code? Are there any best practices regarding the design of Winforms applications?

    Read the article

  • Efficient existing rating system for multiplayer?

    - by Nikolay Kuznetsov
    I would like to add a rating for online version of a board game. In this game there are many game rooms each normally having 3-4 people. So I expect that player's rating adjustments (RA) should depends on Rating of opponents in the game room Number of players in game room and final place of a player Person gets rating increase if he plays more games and more frequently If a person leaves a game room (disconnect) before the game ends he should get punished with a high rating decrease I have found two related questions in here Developing an ELO like point system for a multiplayer gaming site Simplest most effective way to rank and measure player skill in a multi-player environment? Please, let me know what would be the most appropriate existing rating model to refer.

    Read the article

  • Can I get enough experience to get an industry job just by reading books?

    - by MahanGM
    I've been recently working with DirectX and getting familiar with game engines, sub-systems and have done game development for the last 5 years. I have a real question for those whom have worked in larger game making companies before. How is it possible to get to into these big game creators such as Ubisoft, Infinity Ward or EA. I'm not a beginner in my field and I'm going to produce a real nice 2D platform with my team this year, which is the result of 5 years 2D game creation experience. I'm working with prepared engines such as Unity3D or Game Maker software and using .Net with C# to write many tools for our production and proceeding in my way but never had a real engine programming experience 'till now. I'm now reading good books around this topic but I wanted to know: Is it possible to become an employee in big game company by just reading books? I mean beside having an active mind and new ideas and being a solution solver.

    Read the article

  • What is a useful pattern to maintaining an object state in a one to many relationship?

    - by ahenderson
    I am looking for a design for my application, here are the players(classes) involved. struct Transform { // Uses a matrix to transform the position. // Also acts acts as the state of a Dialog. Position transform(Position p); //other methods. }; struct Dialog { // There are multiple dialog for the user to transform the output. Transform& t; void ChangeTranformation(){t.rotate(360);} } struct Algorithm { //gives us a position based on an implementation. For example this can return points on a circle or line. Transform& t; Position m_p; Dialog& d; Position GetCurrentPosition(){ return t.transform(m_p);} //other methods. } Properties I need: Each algorithms has one dialog and each dialog can have many algorithms associated with it. When the user selects an algorithm a dialog associated with that algorithm is displayed. If the user selects a different algorithm then re-selects back the state is restored in the dialog. Basically I want a good design pattern to maintain the state of the dialog given that many algorithms use it and they can be switched back and forth. Does anyone have any suggestions? Here is a use case: Dialog1 has a single edit box to control the radius. Algorithm1 generates points on a unit circle. Algorithm2 is the same as Algorithm1. The user has selected Algorithm1 and entered 2 into the edit box. This will generate points on a circle of radius 2. The user then selects Algorithm2 and enters 10 into the edit box of Dialog1. This will generate points on a circle of radius 10. Finally Algorithm1 is selected again. The edit box of Dialog1 should show 2 and points on a circle of radius 2 should be generated.

    Read the article

  • How can you tell whether to use Composite Pattern or a Tree Structure, or a third implementation?

    - by Aske B.
    I have two client types, an "Observer"-type and a "Subject"-type. They're both associated with a hierarchy of groups. The Observer will receive (calendar) data from the groups it is associated with throughout the different hierarchies. This data is calculated by combining data from 'parent' groups of the group trying to collect data (each group can have only one parent). The Subject will be able to create the data (that the Observers will receive) in the groups they're associated with. When data is created in a group, all 'children' of the group will have the data as well, and they will be able to make their own version of a specific area of the data, but still linked to the original data created (in my specific implementation, the original data will contain time-period(s) and headline, while the subgroups specify the rest of the data for the receivers directly linked to their respective groups). However, when the Subject creates data, it has to check if all affected Observers have any data that conflicts with this, which means a huge recursive function, as far as I can understand. So I think this can be summed up to the fact that I need to be able to have a hierarchy that you can go up and down in, and some places be able to treat them as a whole (recursion, basically). Also, I'm not just aiming at a solution that works. I'm hoping to find a solution that is relatively easy to understand (architecture-wise at least) and also flexible enough to be able to easily receive additional functionality in the future. Is there a design pattern, or a good practice to go by, to solve this problem or similar hierarchy problems? EDIT: Here's the design I have: The "Phoenix"-class is named that way because I didn't think of an appropriate name yet. But besides this I need to be able to hide specific activities for specific observers, even though they are attached to them through the groups. A little Off-topic: Personally, I feel that I should be able to chop this problem down to smaller problems, but it escapes me how. I think it's because it involves multiple recursive functionalities that aren't associated with each other and different client types that needs to get information in different ways. I can't really wrap my head around it. If anyone can guide me in a direction of how to become better at encapsulating hierarchy problems, I'd be very glad to receive that as well.

    Read the article

  • Are scheduled job servers the right choice for a time sensitive game engine?

    - by maple_shaft
    I am currently architecting and designing an exciting new web application that will be entering into some areas that I have very little experience in, game development. The application is not necessarily a game, but there are some very time sensitive tasks and scheduled jobs that a server will need to run to perform game related activities (Eg. New match up starts at noon every day for a 12 day tournament, updating scoreboards at 5pm every day, etc...) In the past I have typically used cron jobs with the Quartz Scheduler running within a web application server, but I know that this isn't likely a scalable solution for the truly massive userbase that management is telling me to expect (Granted they are management and are probably highly optimistic about this) and also for how important the role of these tasks are in this web application. The other important thing I want to consider is that I want to avoid SPOF (Single Point Of Failure). If the primary job server goes down, another job server should be able to successfully run the job in its place. I suppose this can be done appropriately record locking and database transactions. My question is if scheduled jobs like CRON running on a web application server are a wise design choice given the time sensitive game tasks of this application, or is there something more appropriate for running a scalable game engine parallel to the web application servers?

    Read the article

  • Flags with deferred use

    - by Trenton Maki
    Let's say I have a system. In this system I have a number of operations I can do but all of these operations have to happen as a batch at a certain time, while calls to activate and deactivate these operations can come in at any time. To implement this, I could use flags like doOperation1 and doOperation2 but this seems like it would become difficult to maintain. Is there a design pattern, or something similar, that addresses this situation?

    Read the article

  • Find optimal strategy and AI for the game 'Proximity'?

    - by smci
    'Proximity' is a strategy game of territorial domination similar to Othello, Go and Risk. Two players, uses a 10x12 hex grid. Game invented by Brian Cable in 2007. Seems to be a worthy game for discussing a) optimal algorithm then b) how to build an AI. Strategies are going to be probabilistic or heuristic-based, due to the randomness factor, and the insane branching factor (20^120). So it will be kind of hard to compare objectively. A compute time limit of 5s per turn seems reasonable. Game: Flash version here and many copies elsewhere on the web Rules: here Object: to have control of the most armies after all tiles have been placed. Each turn you received a randomly numbered tile (value between 1 and 20 armies) to place on any vacant board space. If this tile is adjacent to any ally tiles, it will strengthen each tile's defenses +1 (up to a max value of 20). If it is adjacent to any enemy tiles, it will take control over them if its number is higher than the number on the enemy tile. Thoughts on strategy: Here are some initial thoughts; setting the computer AI to Expert will probably teach a lot: minimizing your perimeter seems to be a good strategy, to prevent flips and minimize worst-case damage like in Go, leaving holes inside your formation is lethal, only more so with the hex grid because you can lose armies on up to 6 squares in one move low-numbered tiles are a liability, so place them away from your main territory, near the board edges and scattered. You can also use low-numbered tiles to plug holes in your formation, or make small gains along the perimeter which the opponent will not tend to bother attacking. a triangle formation of three pieces is strong since they mutually reinforce, and also reduce the perimeter Each tile can be flipped at most 6 times, i.e. when its neighbor tiles are occupied. Control of a formation can flow back and forth. Sometimes you lose part of a formation and plug any holes to render that part of the board 'dead' and lock in your territory/ prevent further losses. Low-numbered tiles are obvious-but-low-valued liabilities, but high-numbered tiles can be bigger liabilities if they get flipped (which is harder). One lucky play with a 20-army tile can cause a swing of 200 (from +100 to -100 armies). So tile placement will have both offensive and defensive considerations. Comment 1,2,4 seem to resemble a minimax strategy where we minimize the maximum expected possible loss (modified by some probabilistic consideration of the value ß the opponent can get from 1..20 i.e. a structure which can only be flipped by a ß=20 tile is 'nearly impregnable'.) I'm not clear what the implications of comments 3,5,6 are for optimal strategy. Interested in comments from Go, Chess or Othello players. (The sequel ProximityHD for XBox Live, allows 4-player -cooperative or -competitive local multiplayer increases the branching factor since you now have 5 tiles in your hand at any given time, of which you can only play one. Reinforcement of ally tiles is increased to +2 per ally.)

    Read the article

  • Find optimal/good-enough strategy and AI for the game 'Proximity'?

    - by smci
    'Proximity' is a strategy game of territorial domination similar to Othello, Go and Risk. Two players, uses a 10x12 hex grid. Game invented by Brian Cable in 2007. Seems to be a worthy game for discussing a) optimal algorithm then b) how to build an AI. Strategies are going to be probabilistic or heuristic-based, due to the randomness factor, and the insane branching factor (20^120). So it will be kind of hard to compare objectively. A compute time limit of 5s per turn seems reasonable. Game: Flash version here and many copies elsewhere on the web Rules: here Object: to have control of the most armies after all tiles have been placed. Each turn you received a randomly numbered tile (value between 1 and 20 armies) to place on any vacant board space. If this tile is adjacent to any ally tiles, it will strengthen each tile's defenses +1 (up to a max value of 20). If it is adjacent to any enemy tiles, it will take control over them if its number is higher than the number on the enemy tile. Thoughts on strategy: Here are some initial thoughts; setting the computer AI to Expert will probably teach a lot: minimizing your perimeter seems to be a good strategy, to prevent flips and minimize worst-case damage like in Go, leaving holes inside your formation is lethal, only more so with the hex grid because you can lose armies on up to 6 squares in one move low-numbered tiles are a liability, so place them away from your main territory, near the board edges and scattered. You can also use low-numbered tiles to plug holes in your formation, or make small gains along the perimeter which the opponent will not tend to bother attacking. a triangle formation of three pieces is strong since they mutually reinforce, and also reduce the perimeter Each tile can be flipped at most 6 times, i.e. when its neighbor tiles are occupied. Control of a formation can flow back and forth. Sometimes you lose part of a formation and plug any holes to render that part of the board 'dead' and lock in your territory/ prevent further losses. Low-numbered tiles are obvious-but-low-valued liabilities, but high-numbered tiles can be bigger liabilities if they get flipped (which is harder). One lucky play with a 20-army tile can cause a swing of 200 (from +100 to -100 armies). So tile placement will have both offensive and defensive considerations. Comment 1,2,4 seem to resemble a minimax strategy where we minimize the maximum expected possible loss (modified by some probabilistic consideration of the value ß the opponent can get from 1..20 i.e. a structure which can only be flipped by a ß=20 tile is 'nearly impregnable'.) I'm not clear what the implications of comments 3,5,6 are for optimal strategy. Interested in comments from Go, Chess or Othello players. (The sequel ProximityHD for XBox Live, allows 4-player -cooperative or -competitive local multiplayer increases the branching factor since you now have 5 tiles in your hand at any given time, of which you can only play one. Reinforcement of ally tiles is increased to +2 per ally.)

    Read the article

  • Associating an Object with other Objects and Properties of those Objects

    - by alzoid
    I am looking for some help with designing some functionality in my application. I already have something similar designed but this problem is a little different. Background: In my application we have different Modules. Data in each module can be associated to other modules. Each Module is represented by an Object in our application. Module 1 can be associated with Module 2 and Module 3. Currently I use a factory to provide the proper DAO for getting and saving this data. It looks something like this: class Module1Factory { public static Module1BridgeDAO createModule1BridgeDAO(int moduleid) { switch (moduleId) { case Module.Module2Id: return new Module1_Module2DAO(); case Module.Module3Id: return new Module1_Module3DAO(); default: return null; } } } Module1_Module2 and Module1_Module3 implement the same BridgeModule interface. In the database I have a Table for every module (Module1, Module2, Module3). I also have a bridge table for each module (they are many to many) Module1_Module2, Module1_Module3 etc. The DAO basically handles all code needed to manage the association and retrieve its own instance data for the calling module. Now when we add new modules that associate with Module1 we simply implement the ModuleBridge interface and provide the common functionality. New Development We are adding a new module that will have the ability to be associated with other Modules as well as specific properties of that module. The module is basically providing the user the ability to add their custom forms to our other modules. That way they can collect additional information along with what we provide. I want to start associating my Form module with other modules and their properties. Ie if Module1 has a property Category, I want to associate an instance From data with that property. There are many Forms. If a users creates an instance of Module2, they may always want to also have certain form(s) attached to that Module2 instance. If they create an instance of Module2 and select Category 1, then I may want additional Form(s) created. I prototyped something like this: Form FormLayout (contains the labels and gui controls) FormModule (associates a form with all instances of a module) Form Instance (create an instance of a form to be filled out) As I thought about it I was thinking about making a new FormModule table/class/dao for each Module and Property that I add. So I might have: FormModule1 FormModule1Property1 FormModule1Property2 FormModule1Property3 FormModule1Property4 FormModule2 FormModule3 FormModule3Property1 Then as I did previously, I would use a factory to get the proper DAO for dealing with all of these. I would hand it an array of ids representing different modules and properties and it would return all of the DAOs that I need to call getForms(). Which in turn would return all of the forms for that particular bridge. Some points This will be for a new module so I dont need to expand on the factory code I provided. I just wanted to show an example of what I have done in the past. The new module can be associated with: Other Modules (ie globally for any instance of that module data), Other module properties (ie only if the Module instance has a certian value in one of its properties) I want to make it easy for developers to add associations with other modules and properties easily Can any one suggest any design patterns or strategy's for achieving this? If anything is unclear please let me know. Thank you, Al

    Read the article

  • What's the proper way to calculate probability for a card game?

    - by Milan Babuškov
    I'm creating AI for a card game, and I run into problem calculating the probability of passing/failing the hand when AI needs to start the hand. Cards are A, K, Q, J, 10, 9, 8, 7 (with A being the strongest) and AI needs to play to not take the hand. Assuming there are 4 cards of the suit left in the game and one is in AI's hand, I need to calculate probability that one of the other players would take the hand. Here's an example: AI player has: J Other 2 players have: A, K, 7 If a single opponent has AK7 then AI would lose. However, if one of the players has A or K without 7, AI would survive. Now, looking at possible distribution, I have: P1 P2 AI --- --- --- AK7 loses AK 7 survives A7 K survives K7 A survives A 7K survives K 7A survives 7 KA survives AK7 loses Looking at this, it seems that there is 75% chance of survival. However, I skipped the permutations that mirror the ones from above. It should be the same, but somehow when I write them all down, it seems that chance is only 50%: P1 P2 AI --- --- --- AK7 loses A7K loses K7A loses KA7 loses 7AK loses 7KA loses AK 7 survives A7 K survives K7 A survives KA 7 survives 7A K survives 7K A survives A K7 survives A 7K survives K 7A survives K A7 survives 7 AK survives 7 KA survives AK7 loses A7K loses K7A loses KA7 loses 7AK loses 7KA loses 12 loses, 12 survivals = 50% chance. Obviously, it should be the same (shouldn't it?) and I'm missing something in one of the ways to calculate. Which one is correct?

    Read the article

  • How to implement "bullet time" in a multiplayer game?

    - by Tom
    I have never seen such a feature before, but it should provide an interesting gameplay opportunity. So yes, in a multiplayer/real-time environment (imagine FPS), how could I implement a slow motion/bullet time effect? Something like an illusion for the player that's currently slo-mo'ed. So everybody sees him "real-time", but he sees everything slowed down. Update A sidenote: keep in mind that a FPS game has to be balanced in order for it to be fun. So yes, this bullet time feature has to be solid, giving a small advantage to the "player", while not taking away from other players. Plus, there is a possibility that two players could activate their bullet time at the same time. Furthermore: I'm going to implement this in the future no matter what it takes. And, the idea is to build a whole new game engine for all this. If that gives new options, I'm more then interested in hearing the ideas. Meanwhile, here with my team we're thinking about this too, when our theory will be crafted, I'm going to share it here. Is this even possible? So, the question on "is this even possible" has been answered, now it's time to find the best solution. I'm keeping the "answer" until something exceptionally good comes up, like a prototype theory with something close to working pseudo code.

    Read the article

  • Design Question - how do you break the dependency between classes using an interface?

    - by Seth Spearman
    Hello, I apologize in advance but this will be a long question. I'm stuck. I am trying to learn unit testing, C#, and design patterns - all at once. (Maybe that's my problem.) As such I am reading the Art of Unit Testing (Osherove), and Clean Code (Martin), and Head First Design Patterns (O'Reilly). I am just now beginning to understand delegates and events (which you would see if you were to troll my SO questions of recent). I still don't quite get lambdas. To contextualize all of this I have given myself a learning project I am calling goAlarms. I have an Alarm class with members you'd expect (NextAlarmTime, Name, AlarmGroup, Event Trigger etc.) I wanted the "Timer" of the alarm to be extensible so I created an IAlarmScheduler interface as follows... public interface AlarmScheduler { Dictionary<string,Alarm> AlarmList { get; } void Startup(); void Shutdown(); void AddTrigger(string triggerName, string groupName, Alarm alarm); void RemoveTrigger(string triggerName); void PauseTrigger(string triggerName); void ResumeTrigger(string triggerName); void PauseTriggerGroup(string groupName); void ResumeTriggerGroup(string groupName); void SetSnoozeTrigger(string triggerName, int duration); void SetNextOccurrence (string triggerName, DateTime nextOccurrence); } This IAlarmScheduler interface define a component that will RAISE an alarm (Trigger) which will bubble up to my Alarm class and raise the Trigger Event of the alarm itself. It is essentially the "Timer" component. I have found that the Quartz.net component is perfectly suited for this so I have created a QuartzAlarmScheduler class which implements IAlarmScheduler. All that is fine. My problem is that the Alarm class is abstract and I want to create a lot of different KINDS of alarm. For example, I already have a Heartbeat alarm (triggered every (int) interval of minutes), AppointmentAlarm (triggered on set date and time), Daily Alarm (triggered every day at X) and perhaps others. And Quartz.NET is perfectly suited to handle this. My problem is a design problem. I want to be able to instantiate an alarm of any kind without my Alarm class (or any derived classes) knowing anything about Quartz. The problem is that Quartz has awesome factories that return just the right setup for the Triggers that will be needed by my Alarm classes. So, for example, I can get a Quartz trigger by using TriggerUtils.MakeMinutelyTrigger to create a trigger for the heartbeat alarm described above. Or TriggerUtils.MakeDailyTrigger for the daily alarm. I guess I could sum it up this way. Indirectly or directly I want my alarm classes to be able to consume the TriggerUtils.Make* classes without knowing anything about them. I know that is a contradiction, but that is why I am asking the question. I thought about putting a delegate field into the alarm which would be assigned one of these Make method but by doing that I am creating a hard dependency between alarm and Quartz which I want to avoid for both unit testing purposes and design purposes. I thought of using a switch for the type in QuartzAlarmScheduler per here but I know it is bad design and I am trying to learn good design. If I may editorialize a bit. I've decided that coding (predefined) classes is easy. Design is HARD...in fact, really hard and I am really fighting feeling stupid right now. I guess I want to know if you really smart people took a while to really understand and master this stuff or should I feel stupid (as I do) because I haven't grasped it better in the couple of weeks/months I have been studying. You guys are awesome and thanks in advance for your answers. Seth

    Read the article

  • DB Design Pattern - Many to many classification / categorised tagging.

    - by Robin Day
    I have an existing database design that stores Job Vacancies. The "Vacancy" table has a number of fixed fields across all clients, such as "Title", "Description", "Salary range". There is an EAV design for "Custom" fields that the Clients can setup themselves, such as, "Manager Name", "Working Hours". The field names are stored in a "ClientText" table and the data stored in a "VacancyClientText" table with VacancyId, ClientTextId and Value. Lastly there is a many to many EAV design for custom tagging / categorising the vacancies with things such as Locations/Offices the vacancy is in, a list of skills required. This is stored as a "ClientCategory" table listing the types of tag, "Locations, Skills", a "ClientCategoryItem" table listing the valid values for each Category, e.g., "London,Paris,New York,Rome", "C#,VB,PHP,Python". Finally there is a "VacancyClientCategoryItem" table with VacancyId and ClientCategoryItemId for each of the selected items for the vacancy. There are no limits to the number of custom fields or custom categories that the client can add. I am now designing a new system that is very similar to the existing system, however, I have the ability to restrict the number of custom fields a Client can have and it's being built from scratch so I have no legacy issues to deal with. For the Custom Fields my solution is simple, I have 5 additional columns on the Vacancy Table called CustomField1-5. This removes one of the EAV designs. It is with the tagging / categorising design that I am struggling. If I limit a client to having 5 categories / types of tag. Should I create 5 tables listing the possible values "CustomCategoryItems1-5" and then an additional 5 many to many tables "VacancyCustomCategoryItem1-5" This would result in 10 tables performing the same storage as the three tables in the existing system. Also, should (heaven forbid) the requirements change in that I need 6 custom categories rather than 5 then this will result in a lot of code change. Therefore, can anyone suggest any DB Design Patterns that would be more suitable to storing such data. I'm happy to stick with the EAV approach, however, the existing system has come across all the usual performance issues and complex queries associated with such a design. Any advice / suggestions are much appreciated. The DBMS system used is SQL Server 2005, however, 2008 is an option if required for any particular pattern.

    Read the article

  • Why is good UI design so hard for some Developers?

    - by Chris Ballance
    Some of us just have a hard time with the softer aspects of UI design (myself especially). Are "back-end coders" doomed to only design business logic and data layers? Is there something we can do to retrain our brain to be more effective at designing pleasing and useful presentation layers? Colleagues have recommended a few books me including The Design of Sites, Don't make me think and Why Software sucks , but I am wondering what others have done to remove their deficiencies in this area?

    Read the article

  • how good should a developer be in design and animation?

    - by scatman
    how good should a developer (especially web developer) be in design and animation? should he know how to create flash animations? how to use image processing programs like photoshop.... i am asking this question because i am a computer science student, and all my courses are programming related (no courses about design). when i develop a web application i usually use "wizards" for animation coz i suck at design...

    Read the article

  • What's wrong with the architecture of a game object drawing and updating itself?

    - by Ricket
    What are the reasons for and against a game object drawing and updating itself? For example, if you have a game where the player has a position on screen, why not have an all-encompassing class: public class Player { private int x, y, xVelocity, yVelocity; private Sprite s; //... public Player() { // load the sprite here, somehow? } public void draw(CustomGraphicsClass g) { g.draw(s, x, y); } public void update(long timeElapsed) { x += (xVelocity * timeElapsed); y += (yVelocity * timeElapsed); } } What is wrong with this design? What are the downfalls or concerns? How would you better write something like this, or better architect this type of thing in a game? Also, somewhat connected, how would you implement loading that Sprite image? And furthermore, how would you then implement collision between two Players? (I should probably separate these extra two questions into new questions, huh?)

    Read the article

  • Is it acceptable to design my GLSurfaceView as a main control class?

    - by Omega
    I'm trying to structure a game I'm making in Android so that I have a sound, flexible design. Right now I'm looking at where I can tie my games rules engine and graphics engine together and what should be in between them. At a glance, I've been eying my implementation of GLSurfaceView, where various screen events are captured. My rationale would be to create an instance of my game engine and graphics engine here and receive events and state changes to trigger updates of either where applicable. Further to this, in the future, the GLSurfaceView implementation could also store stubs for players during a network game and implementations of computer opponents and dispatch them appropriately. Does this seem like a sensible design? Are there any kinds of improvements I can make? Thanks for any input!

    Read the article

  • What design patters are the worst or most narrowly defined?

    - by Akku
    For every programming project, Managers with past programming experience try to shine when they recommend some design patterns for your project. I like design patterns when they make sense or if you need a scalbale solution. I've used Proxies, Observers and Command patterns in a positive way for example, and do so every day. But I'm really hesitant to use say a Factory pattern if there's only one way to create an object, as a factory might make it all easier in the future, but complicates the code and is pure overhead. So, my question is in respect to my future career and my answer to manager types throwing random pattern-names around: Which design patterns did you use, that threw you back overall? Which are the worst design patterns, that you shouldn't have a look at if it's not that only single situation where it makes sense (read: which design patterns are very narrowly defined)? (It's like I was looking for the negative reviews of an overall good product of amazon to see what bugged people most in using design patterns). And I'm not talking about Anti-Patterns here, but about Patterns that are usually thought of as "good" patterns.

    Read the article

  • What design patterns are the worst or most narrowly defined?

    - by Akku
    For every programming project, Managers with past programming experience try to shine when they recommend some design patterns for your project. I like design patterns when they make sense or if you need a scalbale solution. I've used Proxies, Observers and Command patterns in a positive way for example, and do so every day. But I'm really hesitant to use say a Factory pattern if there's only one way to create an object, as a factory might make it all easier in the future, but complicates the code and is pure overhead. So, my question is in respect to my future career and my answer to manager types throwing random pattern-names around: Which design patterns did you use, that threw you back overall? Which are the worst design patterns, that you shouldn't have a look at if it's not that only single situation where it makes sense (read: which design patterns are very narrowly defined)? (It's like I was looking for the negative reviews of an overall good product of amazon to see what bugged people most in using design patterns). And I'm not talking about Anti-Patterns here, but about Patterns that are usually thought of as "good" patterns. Edit: As some answered, the problem is most often that patterns are not "bad" but "used wrong". If you know patterns, that are often misused or even difficult to use, they would also fit as an answer.

    Read the article

  • Has the emerging generation of programmers got the wrong idea about design patterns? [closed]

    - by MattDavey
    Over the years I've noticed a shift in attitude towards design patterns, particularly amongst the emerging generation of developers. There seems to be a notion these days that design patterns are silver bullets that instantly cure any problem, a proliferating idea that advancing as a software engineer simply means learning and applying more and more patterns. When confronted with a problem, developers no longer strive to truly understand the issue and design a solution - instead they simply pick a design pattern which seems to be a close fit, and try to brute-force it. You can see evidence of this by the many, many questions on Stack Overflow that begin with the phrase "what pattern should I use to...". I fall into a slightly more mature category of developers (5-10 years experience) and I have a very different viewpoint on patterns - simply as a communication tool to enhance clarity. I find this perspective of design patterns being lego bricks (collected like pokemon cards) a little disconcerting. Will developers lose this attitude as they gain more experience in software engineering? Or could these notions perhaps steer the direction of our craft in years to come? Did the older generation of developers have any similar concerns about us? (perhaps about OO design or similar...). if so, how did we turn out?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >