Search Results

Search found 31582 results on 1264 pages for 'software design'.

Page 359/1264 | < Previous Page | 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366  | Next Page >

  • Data Modeling of Entity with Attributes

    - by StackOverflowNewbie
    I'm storing some very basic information "data sources" coming into my application. These data sources can be in the form of a document (e.g. PDF, etc.), audio (e.g. MP3, etc.) or video (e.g. AVI, etc.). Say, for example, I am only interested in the filename of the data source. Thus, I have the following table: DataSource Id (PK) Filename For each data source, I also need to store some of its attributes. Example for a PDF would be "numbe of pages." Example for audio would be "bit rate." Example for video would be "duration." Each DataSource will have different requirements for the attributes that need to be stored. So, I have modeled "data source attribute" this way: DataSourceAttribute Id (PK) DataSourceId (FK) Name Value Thus, I would have records like these: DataSource->Id = 1 DataSource->Filename = 'mydoc.pdf' DataSource->Id = 2 DataSource->Filename = 'mysong.mp3' DataSource->Id = 3 DataSource->Filename = 'myvideo.avi' DataSourceAttribute->Id = 1 DataSourceAttribute->DataSourceId = 1 DataSourceAttribute->Name = 'TotalPages' DataSourceAttribute->Value = '10' DataSourceAttribute->Id = 2 DataSourceAttribute->DataSourceId = 2 DataSourceAttribute->Name = 'BitRate' DataSourceAttribute->Value '16' DataSourceAttribute->Id = 3 DataSourceAttribute->DataSourceId = 3 DataSourceAttribute->Name = 'Duration' DataSourceAttribute->Value = '1:32' My problem is that this doesn't seem to scale. For example, say I need to query for all the PDF documents along with thier total number of pages: Filename, TotalPages 'mydoc.pdf', '10' 'myotherdoc.pdf', '23' ... The JOINs needed to produce the above result is just too costly. How should I address this problem?

    Read the article

  • What are the names of network interfaces on the Motorola CLIQ?

    - by RS
    The network interfaces on Android interfaces are listed as directories in the file system in /sys/class/net/. For most Android devices the network interface for gprs traffic is called rmnet0 and for Wi-Fi it's usually eth0 or tiwlan0. I suspect that the cell interface for the Motorola CLIQ is rmnet0, but I would like to have this confirmed + know the name of the Wi-Fi interface. Also it would be good to know the device id for this model. This is the value available as android.os.Build.DEVICE in the Java SDK. (E.g. T-Mobile G1 uses dream, Samsung Galaxy uses GT-I7500, and Motorolda Droid uses sholes.)

    Read the article

  • C#, weird optimization

    - by Snake
    Hi, I'm trying to read my compiled C# code. this is my code: using(OleDbCommand insertCommand = new OleDbCommand("...", connection)) { // do super stuff } But! We all know that a using gets translated to this: { OleDbCommand insertCommand = new OleDbCommand("...", connection) try { //do super stuff } finally { if(insertCommand != null) ((IDisposable)insertCommand).Dispose(); } } (since OleDbCommand is a reference type). But when I decompile my assembly (compiled with .NET 2.0) I get this in Resharper: try { insertCommand = new OleDbCommand("", connection); Label_0017: try { //do super stuff } finally { Label_0111: if ((insertCommand == null) != null) { goto Label_0122; } insertCommand.Dispose(); Label_0122:; } I'm talking about this line: if ((insertCommand == null) != null). True is not null, it never is, nor is false. So how is my object disposed properly? WTF? Thanks! -Kristof

    Read the article

  • How extensible should code actually be?

    - by griegs
    I've just started a new job and one of the things my new boss talked to me about was code longevity. I've always coded to make my code infinently extensible and adaptable. I figured that if someone was going to change my code in the future then it should be easy to do. But I never really had a clear idea on how far into the future that should be. So my new boss told me not to bother coding for anything more that 3 years into the future and his reasoning was that technology changes, programs expire etc. At first I was kinda taken aback and thought he was a whack job but the longer I think about it the more I'm warming to the concept. Does anyone else have an opinion on how far into the future you should code to?

    Read the article

  • Command Pattern : How to pass parameters to a command ?

    - by Romain Verdier
    My question is related to the command pattern, where we have the following abstraction (C# code) : public interface ICommand { Execute(); } Let's take a simple concrete command, which aims to delete an entity from our application. A Person instance, for example. I'll have a DeletePersonCommand, which implements ICommand. This command needs the Person to delete as a parameter, in order to delete it when Execute method is called. What is the best way to manage parametrized commands ? How to pass parameters to commands, before executing them ?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to make a setter return "this"?

    - by Ken Liu
    Is it a good or bad idea to make setters in java return "this"? public Employee setName(String name){ this.name = name; return this; } This pattern can be useful because then you can chain setters like this: list.add(new Employee().setName("Jack Sparrow").setId(1).setFoo("bacon!")); instead of this: Employee e = new Employee(); e.setName("Jack Sparrow"); ...and so on... list.add(e); ...but it sort of goes against standard convention. I suppose it might be worthwhile just because it can make that setter do something else useful. I've seen this pattern used some places (e.g. JMock, JPA), but it seems uncommon, and only generally used for very well defined APIs where this pattern is used everywhere. Update: What I've described is obviously valid, but what I am really looking for is some thoughts on whether this is generally acceptable, and if there are any pitfalls or related best practices. I know about the Builder pattern but it is a little more involved then what I am describing - as Josh Bloch describes it there is an associated static Builder class for object creation.

    Read the article

  • Two different tables or just one with bool column?

    - by Aidas
    We have two tables: OriginalDocument and ProcessedDocument. In the first one we put an original, not processed document. After it's validated and processed (converted to our xml format and parsed), it's put into Document table. Processed document can be valid or invalid. Which makes more sense: have two different tables for valid and invalid documents or just have one with 'Valid' column? Some of the columns (~5-7) are irrelevant for invalid document. Storing both invalid and valid documents would also make Document table filled with 'NULL' columns (if document is invalid, information like document number, receiver can be unknown). What else should we consider and weigh, when making this decision?

    Read the article

  • Using DTOs and BOs

    - by ryanzec
    One area of question for me about DTOs/BOs is about when to pass/return the DTOs and when to pass/return the BOs. My gut reaction tells me to always map NHibernate to the DTOs, not BOs, and always pass/return the DTOs. Then whenever I needed to perform business logic, I would convert my DTO into a BO. The way I would do this is that my BO would have a have a constructor that takes a parameter that is the type of my interface (that defines the required fields/properties) that both my DTO and BO implement as the only argument. Then I would be able to create my BO by passing it the DTO in the constructor (since both with implement the same interface, they both with have the same properties) and then be able to perform my business logic with that BO. I would then also have a way to convert a BO to a DTO. However, I have also seen where people seem to only work with BOs and only work with DTOs in the background where to the user, it looks like there are no DTOs. What benefits/downfalls are there with this architecture vs always using BO's? Should I always being passing/returning either DTOs or BOs or mix and match (seems like mixing and matching could get confusing)?

    Read the article

  • SEO with image link alt text vs standard text-based link

    - by Infiniti Fizz
    Hi, I'm currently developing a website and the main navigation is made up of image links because the font used for them isn't standard. My client's only worry is will this mess up search engine optimization? Can I just add alt text to the images like "link 1" or use the name attribute of the anchor tag? Or would it be better to just have the navigation as anchor tags with the names of the links in them like: <a href="...">link 1</a>? I'm new to SEO so really don't know which to suggest to him, Thanks for your time, InfinitiFizz

    Read the article

  • Android ignoring my setWidth() and setHeight()

    - by popoffka
    So, why does this code: package org.popoffka.apicross; import android.app.Activity; import android.os.Bundle; import android.widget.Button; public class Game extends Activity { @Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); Button testButton = new Button(this); testButton.setBackgroundResource(R.drawable.cell); testButton.setWidth(20); testButton.setHeight(20); setContentView(testButton); } } ...produce this thing: http://i42.tinypic.com/2hgdzme.png even though there's a setWidth(20) and setHeight(20) in the code? (R.drawable.cell is actually a 20x20 PNG image containing a white cell with a silver border)

    Read the article

  • Back Orders for ERP: data model references ?

    - by Patrick Honorez
    I have built an ERP using Sql Server as a back-end. These are the different types of Client documents (there are also Supplier Docs): Order -- impact: BO Delivery Note (also used for returns, with negative quantity) --impact: BO, Stock Invoice --impact: accounting only Credit Note --impact: accounting, BO I use a complex system of self joins (at detail level) to find out the quantities in each OrderDetail that still have a backorder (BO). It'd like to simplify this using a [group] field that could be used through all detail line related to an original order. There are many difficult things to trace: a Return of a product may be due to a defect and thus increase the BO, or it can be just a return, joined with a Credit Note, and then has no impact on BO. My question is: do you know of any real good reference (book, web) for this matter ?

    Read the article

  • How to reference a specific object in an array of objects using jTemplates

    - by Travis
    I am using the excellent jTemplates plugin to generate content. Given a data object like this... var data = { name: 'datatable', table: [ {id: 1, name: 'Anne'}, {id: 2, name: 'Amelie'}, {id: 3, name: 'Polly'}, {id: 4, name: 'Alice'}, {id: 5, name: 'Martha'} ] }; ..I'm wondering if it is possible to directly specify an object in an array of objects using $T. (I'm hoping there is something like $T.table:3 available) Currently the only way I can think of to access a specific object in an array is to do something like this... {#foreach $T.table as record} {#if $T.record$iteration == 3} This is record 3! Name: {$T.record.name} {#/if} {#/for} However that seems clumsy... Any suggestions? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Refactor/rewrite code or continue?

    - by Dan
    I just completed a complex piece of code. It works to spec, it meets performance requirements etc etc but I feel a bit anxious about it and am considering rewriting and/or refactoring it. Should I do this (spending time that could otherwise be spent on features that users will actually notice)? The reasons I feel anxious about the code are: The class hierarchy is complex and not obvious Some classes don't have a well defined purpose (they do a number of unrelated things) Some classes use others internals (they're declared as friend classes) to bypass the layers of abstraction for performance, but I feel they break encapsulation by doing this Some classes leak implementation details (eg, I changed a map to a hash map earlier and found myself having to modify code in other source files to make the change work) My memory management/pooling system is kinda clunky and less-than transparent They look like excellent reasons to refactor and clean code, aiding future maintenance and extension, but could be quite time consuming. Also, I'll never be perfectly happy with any code I write anyway... So, what does stackoverflow think? Clean code or work on features?

    Read the article

  • Pattern/Matcher in Java?

    - by user1007059
    I have a certain text in Java, and I want to use pattern and matcher to extract something from it. This is my program: public String getItemsByType(String text, String start, String end) { String patternHolder; StringBuffer itemLines = new StringBuffer(); patternHolder = start + ".*" + end; Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile(patternHolder); Matcher matcher = pattern.matcher(text); while (matcher.find()) { itemLines.append(text.substring(matcher.start(), matcher.end()) + "\n"); } return itemLines.toString(); } This code works fully WHEN the searched text is on the same line, for instance: String text = "My name is John and I am 18 years Old"; getItemsByType(text, "My", "John"); immediately grabs the text "My name is John" out of the text. However, when my text looks like this: String text = "My name\nis John\nand I'm\n18 years\nold"; getItemsByType(text, "My", "John"); It doesn't grab anything, since "My" and "John" are on different lines. How do I solve this?

    Read the article

  • Do you like Twisted?

    - by Luca
    I use Python Twisted for web development, and I don't like it? I know async programming is a great idea, I know there are may async web servers now, I know it's the only way to solve some problems you'd have with threads but I don't like. The problem is that, you're forced to program in a twisted way. So, the architecture you have in mind, very often have to be modified to fit the way twisted works. The architecture have to follow the technology, I don't think this is good. When we use callback in javascript, we don't have too many difficulties: things are usually simpler, we use a callback in response to an Ajax call. But in a server web app things are, very often, a bit more complex. Writing chain of callbacks don't seem to me a wonderful way of programming. The code is not simple, and so it is difficult to understand and to maintain. Writing twisted code we very often lost the linear intuitive idea of the algorithm we wanted to implement, especially when things grow in complexity. What's your point of view?

    Read the article

  • Practical rules for premature optimization

    - by DougW
    It seems that the phrase "Premature Optimization" is the buzz-word of the day. For some reason, iphone programmers in particular seem to think of avoiding premature optimization as a pro-active goal, rather than the natural result of simply avoiding distraction. The problem is, the term is beginning to be applied more and more to cases that are completely inappropriate. For example, I've seen a growing number of people say not to worry about the complexity of an algorithm, because that's premature optimization (eg http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2190275/help-sorting-an-nsarray-across-two-properties-with-nssortdescriptor/2191720#2191720). Frankly, I think this is just laziness, and appalling to disciplined computer science. But it has occurred to me that maybe considering the complexity and performance of algorithms is going the way of assembly loop unrolling, and other optimization techniques that are now considered unnecessary. What do you think? Are we at the point now where deciding between an O(n^n) and O(n!) complexity algorithm is irrelevant? What about O(n) vs O(n*n)? What do you consider "premature optimization"? What practical rules do you use to consciously or unconsciously avoid it? This is a bit vague, but I'm curious to hear other peoples' opinions on the topic.

    Read the article

  • How to apply coding methodologies and practices to non-coding work?

    - by Dan
    I can talk for hours about best-practice, source control, change management, feature tracking, development cycles and the lot, but most of what I've learnt or read seems to apply to nuts-and-bolts programming of compiled applications. You know, ASCII files that gets turned into 1s and 0s. How does one apply the same discipline and wisdom to working in environments that are point-and-click, config-centric. I'm thinking of CMSs and specifically, my current 9 to 5, SharePoint. Traditional practices of source control, dev-staging-production seem to break down since we're not working with code, and the live environment changes with user input. So to sum up a rather lengthy question, what works in a no-code environment?

    Read the article

  • Many-To-Many dimensional model

    - by Mevdiven
    Folks, I have a dimension table called DIM_FILE which holds information of the files we received from customers. Each file has detail records which constitutes my FACT table, CUST_DETAIL. In the main process, file is gone through several stages and each stage tags a status to it. Long in a short, I have many-to-many relationship. Any ideas around star schema dimensional modeling. A customer record only belong to a single file and a file can have multiple statuses. FACT ---- CustID FileID AmountDue DIM_FILE -------- FileID FileName DateReceived FILE_STATUS ----------- FileID StatusDateTime StatusCode

    Read the article

  • Value objects in DDD - Why immutable?

    - by Hobbes
    I don't get why value objects in DDD should be immutable, nor do I see how this is easily done. (I'm focusing on C# and Entity Framework, if that matters.) For example, let's consider the classic Address value object. If you needed to change "123 Main St" to "123 Main Street", why should I need to construct a whole new object instead of saying myCustomer.Address.AddressLine1 = "123 Main Street"? (Even if Entity Framework supported structs, this would still be a problem, wouldn't it?) I understand (I think) the idea that value objects don't have an identity and are part of a domain object, but can someone explain why immutability is a Good Thing? EDIT: My final question here really should be "Can someone explain why immutability is a Good Thing as applied to Value Objects?" Sorry for the confusion! EDIT: To clairfy, I am not asking about CLR value types (vs reference types). I'm asking about the higher level DDD concept of Value Objects. For example, here is a hack-ish way to implement immutable value types for Entity Framework: http://rogeralsing.com/2009/05/21/entity-framework-4-immutable-value-objects. Basically, he just makes all setters private. Why go through the trouble of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Help required in adding new methods, properties into existing classes dynamically

    - by Bepenfriends
    Hi All, I am not sure whether it is possible to achieve this kind of implementation in Dot Net. Below are the information Currently we are on an application which is done in COM+, ASP, XSL, XML technologies. It is a multi tier architecture application in which COM+ acts as the BAL. The execution steps for any CRUD operation will be defined using a seperate UI which uses XML to store the information. BAL reads the XML and understands the execution steps which are defined and executes corresponding methods in DLL. Much like EDM we have our custom model (using XML) which determines which property of object is searchable, retrievable etc. Based on this information BAL constructs queries and calls procedures to get the data. In the current application both BAL and DAL are heavily customizable without doing any code change. the results will be transmitted to presentation layer in XML format which constructs the UI based on the data recieved. Now I am creating a migration project which deals with employee information. It is also going to follow the N Tier architecture in which the presentation layer communicates with BAL which connects to DAL to return the Data. Here is the problem, In our existing version we are handling every information as XML in its native form (no converstion of object etc), but in the migration project, Team is really interested in utilizing the OOP model of development where every information which is sent from BAL need to be converted to objects of its respective types (example employeeCollection, Address Collection etc). If we have the static number of data returned from BAL we can have a class which contains those nodes as properties and we can access the same. But in our case the data returned from our BAL need to be customized. How can we handle the customization in presentation layer which is converting the result to an Object. Below is an example of the XML returned <employees> <employee> <firstName>Employee 1 First Name</firstName> <lastName>Employee 1 Last Name</lastName> <addresses> <address> <addressType>1</addressType> <StreetName>Street name1</StreetName> <RegionName>Region name</RegionName> <address> <address> <addressType>2</addressType> <StreetName>Street name2</StreetName> <RegionName>Region name</RegionName> <address> <address> <addressType>3</addressType> <StreetName>Street name3</StreetName> <RegionName>Region name</RegionName> <address> <addresses> </employee> <employee> <firstName>Employee 2 First Name</firstName> <lastName>Employee 2 Last Name</lastName> <addresses> <address> <addressType>1</addressType> <StreetName>Street name1</StreetName> <RegionName>Region name</RegionName> <address> <address> <addressType>2</addressType> <StreetName>Street name2</StreetName> <RegionName>Region name</RegionName> <address> <addresses> </employee> </employees> If these are the only columns then i can write a class which is like public class Address{ public int AddressType {get;set;}; public string StreetName {get;set;}; public string RegionName {get;set;}; } public class Employee{ public string FirstName {get; set;} public string LastName {get; set;} public string AddressCollection {get; set;} } public class EmployeeCollection : List<Employee>{ public bool Add (Employee Data){ .... } } public class AddressCollection : List<Address>{ public bool Add (Address Data){ .... } } This class will be provided to customers and consultants as DLLs. We will not provide the source code for the same. Now when the consultants or customers does customization(example adding country to address and adding passport information object with employee object) they must be able to access those properties in these classes, but without source code they will not be able to do those modifications.which makes the application useless. Is there is any way to acomplish this in DotNet. I thought of using Anonymous classes but, the problem with Anonymous classes are we can not have methods in it. I am not sure how can i fit the collection objects (which will be inturn an anonymous class) Not sure about datagrid / user control binding etc. I also thought of using CODEDom to create classes runtime but not sure about the meory, performance issues. also the classes must be created only once and must use the same till there is another change. Kindly help me out in this problem. Any kind of help meterial/ cryptic code/ links will be helpful.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366  | Next Page >