Search Results

Search found 41035 results on 1642 pages for 'object oriented design'.

Page 36/1642 | < Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >

• Repository, Service or Domain object - where does logic belong?

  - by betitall

  Take this simple, contrived example: UserRepository.GetAllUsers(); UserRepository.GetUserById(); Inevitably, I will have more complex "queries", such as: //returns users where active=true, deleted=false, and confirmed = true GetActiveUsers(); I'm having trouble determining where the responsibility of the repository ends. GetActiveUsers() represents a simple "query". Does it belong in the repository? How about something that involves a bit of logic, such as: //activate the user, set the activationCode to "used", etc. ActivateUser(string activationCode);

  Read the article

• Connection between Properties of Entities in Data Oriented Design

  - by sharethis

  I want to start with an example illustrating my question. The following way it is done in the most games. class car { vec3 position; vec3 rotation; mesh model; imge texture; void move(); // modify position and rotation void draw(); // use model, texture, ... }; vector<car> cars; for(auto i = cars.begin(); i != cars.end(); ++i) { i->move(); i->draw(); } Data oriented design means to process the same calculation on the hole batch of data at once. This way it takes more advantage out of the processor cache. struct movedata { vec3 position; vec3 rotation; }; struct drawdata { mesh model; imge texture; }; vector<movedata> movedatas; vector<drawdata> drawdatas; for(auto i = movedatas.begin(); i != movedatas.end(); ++i) { // modify position and rotation } for(auto i = drawdatas.begin(); i != drawdatas.end(); ++i) { // use model, texture, ... } But there comes a point where you need to find other properties according to an entity. For example if the car crashes, I do not need the drawdata and the movedata any more. So I need to delete the entries of this entity in all vectors. The entries are not linked by code. So my question is the following. How are properties of the same entity conceptually linked in a data oriented design?

  Read the article

• [Smalltalk] Store List of Instruction

  - by Luciano Lorenti

  Hi all, I have a design Problem. i have a Drawer class wich invokes a serie of methods of a kind-of-brush class and i have a predefined shapes which i want to draw. Each shape uses a list of instance methods from the drawer. I can have more than 1 brush object. I want to add custom shapes on runtime in the drawer instance, especifying the list of methods of the new shape. i've created a class method for every predefined shape that returns a BlockClosure with the instruccions. Obviously i have to give to each BlockClosure the brush object as parameter. I imagine a collection with all the BlockClosures in each instance of the Drawer Class. Maybe i can inherit a SequenceableCollection and make a instruccion collection. Each element of the collection it's a instruction and i give the brush object when i instance this new collection. I really don't know the best way to store these steps. (Maybe a shared variable?)

  Read the article

• is a factory pattern to prevent multuple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

  - by dsollen

  I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquly define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the oens that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methdos, so these objects all act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approch which accepts a Builder object and construct the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquly defines the type of object (this is node A nto node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows it's state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overiding of serlization methods to make it work (ensure when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in it's place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know rather an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to it's own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state taht is different then my memory; to tell my memory when it's own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despit their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect I'm posting).

  Read the article

• Is there a factory pattern to prevent multiple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

  - by dsollen

  I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquely define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the others that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methods, so all these objects act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approach which accepts a Builder object and constructs the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquely defines the type of object (this is node A to node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows its state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overriding of serialization methods to make it work (ensure that when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in its place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know whether an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to its own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state that is different than my memory; to tell my memory when its own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despite their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect that I'm posting).

  Read the article

• C++ design related question

  - by Kotti

  Hi! Here is the question's plot: suppose I have some abstract classes for objects, let's call it Object. It's definition would include 2D position and dimensions. Let it also have some virtual void Render(Backend& backend) const = 0 method used for rendering. Now I specialize my inheritance tree and add Rectangle and Ellipse class. Guess they won't have their own properties, but they will have their own virtual void Render method. Let's say I implemented these methods, so that Render for Rectangle actually draws some rectangle, and the same for ellipse. Now, I add some object called Plane, which is defined as class Plane : public Rectangle and has a private member of std::vector<Object*> plane_objects; Right after that I add a method to add some object to my plane. And here comes the question. If I design this method as void AddObject(Object& object) I would face trouble like I won't be able to call virtual functions, because I would have to do something like plane_objects.push_back(new Object(object)); and this should be push_back(new Rectangle(object)) for rectangles and new Circle(...) for circles. If I implement this method as void AddObject(Object* object), it looks good, but then somewhere else this means making call like plane.AddObject(new Rectangle(params)); and this is generally a mess because then it's not clear which part of my program should free the allocated memory. ["when destroying the plane? why? are we sure that calls to AddObject were only done as AddObject(new something).] I guess the problems caused by using the second approach could be solved using smart pointers, but I am sure there have to be something better. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Merging .net object graph

  - by Tiju John

  Hi guys, has anyone come across any scenario wherein you needed to merge one object with another object of same type, merging the complete object graph. for e.g. If i have a person object and one person object is having first name and other the last name, some way to merge both the objects into a single object. public class Person { public Int32 Id { get; set; } public string FirstName { get; set; } public string LastName { get; set; } } public class MyClass { //both instances refer to the same person, probably coming from different sources Person obj1 = new Person(); obj1.Id=1; obj1.FirstName = "Tiju"; Person obj2 = new Person(); ojb2.Id=1; obj2.LastName = "John"; //some way of merging both the object obj1.MergeObject(obj2); //?? //obj1.Id // = 1 //obj1.FirstName // = "Tiju" //obj1.LastName // = "John" } I had come across such type of requirement and I wrote an extension method to do the same. public static class ExtensionMethods { private const string Key = "Id"; public static IList MergeList(this IList source, IList target) { Dictionary itemData = new Dictionary(); //fill the dictionary for existing list string temp = null; foreach (object item in source) { temp = GetKeyOfRecord(item); if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(temp)) itemData[temp] = item; } //if the same id exists, merge the object, otherwise add to the existing list. foreach (object item in target) { temp = GetKeyOfRecord(item); if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(temp) && itemData.ContainsKey(temp)) itemData[temp].MergeObject(item); else source.Add(item); } return source; } private static string GetKeyOfRecord(object o) { string keyValue = null; Type pointType = o.GetType(); if (pointType != null) foreach (PropertyInfo propertyItem in pointType.GetProperties()) { if (propertyItem.Name == Key) { keyValue = (string)propertyItem.GetValue(o, null); } } return keyValue; } public static object MergeObject(this object source, object target) { if (source != null && target != null) { Type typeSource = source.GetType(); Type typeTarget = target.GetType(); //if both types are same, try to merge if (typeSource != null && typeTarget != null && typeSource.FullName == typeTarget.FullName) if (typeSource.IsClass && !typeSource.Namespace.Equals("System", StringComparison.InvariantCulture)) { PropertyInfo[] propertyList = typeSource.GetProperties(); for (int index = 0; index < propertyList.Length; index++) { Type tempPropertySourceValueType = null; object tempPropertySourceValue = null; Type tempPropertyTargetValueType = null; object tempPropertyTargetValue = null; //get rid of indexers if (propertyList[index].GetIndexParameters().Length == 0) { tempPropertySourceValue = propertyList[index].GetValue(source, null); tempPropertyTargetValue = propertyList[index].GetValue(target, null); } if (tempPropertySourceValue != null) tempPropertySourceValueType = tempPropertySourceValue.GetType(); if (tempPropertyTargetValue != null) tempPropertyTargetValueType = tempPropertyTargetValue.GetType(); //if the property is a list IList ilistSource = tempPropertySourceValue as IList; IList ilistTarget = tempPropertyTargetValue as IList; if (ilistSource != null || ilistTarget != null) { if (ilistSource != null) ilistSource.MergeList(ilistTarget); else propertyList[index].SetValue(source, ilistTarget, null); } //if the property is a Dto else if (tempPropertySourceValue != null || tempPropertyTargetValue != null) { if (tempPropertySourceValue != null) tempPropertySourceValue.MergeObject(tempPropertyTargetValue); else propertyList[index].SetValue(source, tempPropertyTargetValue, null); } } } } return source; } } However, this works when the source property is null, if target has it, it will copy that to source. IT can still be improved to merge when inconsistencies are there e.g. if FirstName="Tiju" and FirstName="John" Any commments appreciated. Thanks TJ

  Read the article

• Is there any guidelines to convert Table design to Div design keeping same cross browser compatible

  - by Brij

  Is there any guidelines to convert Table design to Div design keeping same cross browser compatible layout?

  Read the article

• Correct OOP design without getters?

  - by kane77

  I recently read that getters/setters are evil and I have to say it makes sense, yet when I started learning OOP one of the first things I learned was "Encapsulate your fields" so I learned to create class give it some fields, create getters, setters for them and create constructor where I initialize these fields. And every time some other class needs to manipulate this object (or for instance display it) I pass it the object and it manipulate it using getters/setters. I can see problems with this approach. But how to do it right? For instance displaying/rendering object that is "data" class - let's say Person, that has name and date of birth. Should the class have method for displaying the object where some Renderer would be passed as an argument? Wouldn't that violate principle that class should have only one purpose (in this case store state) so it should not care about presentation of this object. Can you suggest some good resources where best practices in OOP design are presented? I'm planning to start a project in my spare time and I want it to be my learning project in correct OOP design..

  Read the article

• Learning OOP Design

  - by waiwai933

  I've read Head First Java, and I understand how OOP works. Here's my problem: I'm a PHP programmer, and while I've used OOP in PHP, I'm having trouble figuring out what should be an object and what methods to give it. For example, let's say I have a app that allows people to log in and edit a document. Why should the document be an object if there will ever only be one instance? Should I give the deleteDocument() method to the document object or the admin object? The document is the one being deleted, but the admin is the one performing the action. So my real question is, coming from a procedural background, how do I figure out what should be objects and what should have what methods?

  Read the article

• How to avoid injecting dependencies into an object so that it can pass them on?

  - by Pheter

  I am interested in applying dependency injection to my current project, which makes use of the MVC pattern. My controllers will call the models and therefore will need to inject the dependencies into the models. To do this, the controller must have the dependencies (such as a database object) in the first place. The controller doesn't need to make use of some of these dependencies (such as the database object), so I feel that it shouldn't be given this dependency. However, it has to have these dependencies if it is to inject them into the model objects. How can I avoid having dependencies injected into an object just so that it can pass them on? Doing so feels wrong and can result in many dependencies being injected into an object. Edit: I am using PHP.

  Read the article

• Mimic property/list changes on an object on another object

  - by soundslike

  I need to mimic changes (property/list) changes on an object and then apply it to another object to keep the structure/property the same. In essence it's like cloning etc. the biz rules require certain properties to not be applied to the other object, so I can't just clone the object otherwise this would be easy. I've already walked the source object to get INotifyPropertyChanged and IListChanged events, so I have the "source" and the args (Property or List) changed event notifications. Given that I guess I could build a reflection "hierarchy path" starting from the top level of the source object to get to the Property or List changed "source" (which could be several levels deep). Ignoring for the moment that certain object properties should not propagate to the other object, what's a way to build this "path"? Is a brute force top level down to build the "path" (and discard on the way back up if we don't hit the original changed event "source") the only way to do it? Any clever ideas on how to mimic changes from one object to another object?

  Read the article

• Color blindness: Are you aware of it? Do you design for it?

  - by User

  I'm curious whether many of us who do design or take design decisions have ever heard of this problem. I'm aware there are dangerous color combinations, like green + red. This is probably one of the most popular cases of color blindness. If you have green text on a red background and vice versa some people won't see anything. I've also seen in practice that green text on a blue background was not seen by one guy. What other color compositions should be avoided, and how often these cases are to be expected? Let us make some ranging by encounter probability who has the numbers. Addition: I've just remembered one very bad example that causes problems to just about everyone - blue text on a black background. It's unreadable for all intents and purposes. Never could understand what could possibly compel a web master to use this color combination...

  Read the article

• How can I use Object Oriented Javascript to interact with HTML Objects

  - by Steve

  I am very new to object orientated javascript, with experience writing gui's in python and java. I am trying to create html tables that I can place in locations throughout a webpage. Each html table would have two css layouts that control if it is selected or not. I can write all of the interaction if I only have one table. It gets confusing when I have multiple tables. I am wondering how to place these tables throughout a blank webpage and then access the tables individually. I think I am having trouble understanding how inheritance and hierarchy works in javascript/html. NOTE: I am not asking how to make a table. I am trying to dynamically create multiple tables and place them throughout a webpage. Then access their css independently and change it (move them to different locations or change the way the look, independently of the other tables).

  Read the article

• how to design email application in composite design

  - by kedibone

  i need help on designing email application using C++ qt4 composite design

  Read the article

• What is the most underused or underappreciated design pattern?

  - by Rob Packwood

  I have been reading a lot on design patterns lately and some of them can make our lives much easier and some of them seem to just complicate things (at least to me they do). I am curious to know what design patterns everyone sees as underunsed or underappreciated. Some patterns are simple and many people do not even realize they are using a pattern (decorator probably being the most used, without realized). My goal from this is to give us pattern-newbies some appreciation for some of the more complex or unknown patterns and why we should use them.

  Read the article

• In Ruby, why does inspect() print out some kind of object id which is different from what object_id(

  - by Jian Lin

  When the p function is used to print out an object, it may give an ID, and it is different from what object_id() gives. What is the reason for the different numbers? >> a = Point.new => #<Point:0x4684abc> >> a.object_id => 36971870 >> a.__id__ => 36971870 >> "%X" % a.object_id => "234255E"

  Read the article

• Good case for a Null Object Pattern? (Provide some service with a mailservice)

  - by fireeyedboy

  For a website I'm working on, I made an Media Service object that I use in the front end, as well as in the backend (CMS). This Media Service object manipulates media in a local repository (DB); it provides the ability to upload/embed video's and upload images. In other words, website visitors are able to do this in the front end, but administrators of the site are also able to do this in the backend. I'ld like this service to mail the administrators when a visitor has uploaded/embedded a new medium in the frontend, but refrain from mailing them when they upload/embed a medium themself in the backend. So I started wondering whether this is a good case for passing a null object, that mimicks the mail funcionality, to the Media Service in the backend. I thought this might come in handy when they decide the backend needs to have implemented mail functionality as well. In simplified terms I'ld like to do something like this: Frontend: $mediaService = new MediaService( new MediaRepository(), new StandardMailService() ); Backend: $mediaService = new MediaService( new MediaRepository(), new NullMailService() ); How do you feel about this? Does this make sense? Or am I setting myself up for problems down the road?

  Read the article

• TDD and your emerging design

  - by andrewstopford

  I was at DevWeek last week, it was a great week and I got a chance to speak with some of my geek heroes (Jeff Richter is a walking, talking CLR). One of the folks I most enjoyed listening to was ThoughtWorker Neal Ford who gave a session on emergeant design in TDD. Something struck me about the RGR cycle in TDD in that design could either be missed or misplaced if the refactor phase is never carried out and after the inital green phase the design is considered done. In TDD the emergant design that evolves as part of the cycle is key to the approach.  Neal talked about using cyclometric complexity as a measure of your emerging design but other considerations would surely include SOLID and DRY during the cycles. As you refactor to these kinds of design principles your design evolves.

  Read the article

• Oracle Fusion Applications User Experience Design Patterns: Feeling the Love after Launch

  - by mvaughan

  By Misha Vaughan, Oracle Applications User ExperienceIn the first video by the Oracle Applications User Experience team on the Oracle Partner Network, Vice President Jeremy Ashley said that Oracle is looking to expand the ecosystem of support for Oracle’s applications customers as they begin to assess their investment and adoption of Oracle Fusion Applications. Oracle has made a massive investment to maintain the benefits of the Fusion Applications User Experience. This summer, the Applications User Experience team released the Oracle Fusion Applications user experience design patterns.Design patterns help create consistent experiences across devices.The launch has been very well received:Angelo Santagata, Senior Principal Technologist and Fusion Middleware evangelist for Oracle,  wrote this to the system integrator community: “The web site is the result of many years of Oracle R&D into user interface design for Fusion Applications and features a really cool web app which allows you to visualise the UI components in action.”  Grant Ronald, Director of Product Management, Application Development Framework (ADF) said: “It’s a science I don't understand, but now I don't have to ... Now you can learn from the UX experience of Fusion Applications.”Frank Nimphius, Senior Principal Product Manager, Oracle (ADF) wrote about the launch of the design patterns for the ADF Code Corner, and Jürgen Kress, Senior Manager EMEA Alliances & Channels for Fusion MiddleWare and Service Oriented Architecture, (SOA), shared the news with his Partner Community. Oracle Twitter followers also helped spread the message about the design patterns launch: ?@bex – Brian Huff, founder and Chief Software Architect for Bezzotech, and Oracle ACE Director:“Nifty! The Oracle Fusion UX team just released new ADF design patterns.”@maiko_rocha, Maiko Rocha, Oracle Consulting Solutions Architect and Oracle FMW engineer: “Haven't seen any other vendor offer such comprehensive UX Design Patterns catalog for free!”@zirous_chad, Chad Thompson, Senior Solutions Architect for Zirous, Inc. and ADF Developer:Wow - @ultan and company did a great job with the Fusion UX PatternsWhat is a user experience design pattern?A user experience design pattern is a re-usable, usability tested functional blueprint for a particular user experience.  Some examples are guided processes, shopping carts, and search and search results.  Ultan O’Broin discusses the top design patterns every developer should know.The patterns that were just released are based on thousands of hours of end-user field studies, state-of-the-art user interface assessments, and usability testing.  To be clear, these are functional design patterns, not technical design patterns that developers may be used to working with.  Because we know there is a gap, we are putting together some training that will help close that gap.Who should care?This is an offering targeted primarily at Application Development Framework (ADF) developers. If you are faced with the following questions regarding Fusion Applications, you will want to know and learn more:•    How do I build something that looks like Fusion Applications?•    How do I build a next-generation application?•    How do I extend a Fusion Application and maintain the user experience?•    I don’t want to re-invent the wheel on the user interface, so where do I start?•    I need to build something that will eventually co-exist with Fusion Applications. How do I do that?These questions are relevant to partners with an ADF competency, individual practitioners, or small consultancies with an ADF specialization, and customers who are trying to shift their IT staff over to supporting Fusion Applications.Where you can find out more?OnlineOur Fusion User Experience design patterns maven is Ultan O’Broin. The Oracle Partner Network is helping our team bring this first e-seminar to you in order to go into a more detail on what this means and how to take advantage of it:? Webinar: Build a Better User Experience with Oracle: Oracle Fusion Applications Functional Design PatternsSept 20, 2012 , 10:30am-11:30am PacificDial-In:  1. 877-664-9137 / Passcode 102546?International:  706-634-9619  http://www.intercall.com/national/oracleuniversity/gdnam.htmlAccess the Live Event Or Via Webconference Access http://ouweb.webex.com  ?and enter this session number: 598036234At a Usergroup eventThe Fusion User Experience Advocates (FXA) are also going to be getting some deep-dive training on this content and can share it with local user groups.At OpenWorld Ultan O’Broin               Chris MuirIf you will be at OpenWorld this year, our own Ultan O’Broin will be visiting the ADF demopod to say hello, thanks to Shay Shmeltzer, Senior Group Manager for ADF outbound communication and at the OTN lounge: Monday 10-10:45, Tuesday 2:15-2:45, Wednesday 2:15-3:30 ?  Oracle JDeveloper and Oracle ADF,  Moscone South, Right - S-207? “ADF Meet and Greett”, OTN Lounge, Wednesday 4:30 And I cannot talk about OpenWorld and ADF without mentioning Chris Muir’s ADF EMG event: the Year After the Year Of the ADF Developer – Sunday, Sept 30 of OpenWorld. Chris has played host to Ultan and the Applications user experience message for his online community and is now a seasoned UX expert.Expect to see additional announcements about expanded and training on similar topics in the future.

  Read the article

• Delving into design patterns, and what that means for the Oracle user experience

  - by Kathy.Miedema

  By Kathy Miedema, Oracle Applications User Experience George Hackman, Senior Director, Applications User Experiences The Oracle Applications User Experience team has some exciting things happening around Fusion Applications design patterns. Because we’re hoping to have some new offerings soon (stay tuned with VoX to see what’s in the pipeline around Fusion Applications design patterns), now is a good time to talk more about what design patterns can do for the individual user as well as the entire company. George Hackman, Senior Director of Operations User Experience, says the first thing to note is that user experience is not just about the user interface. It’s about understanding how people do things, observing them, and then finding the patterns that emerge. The Applications UX team develops those patterns and then builds them into Oracle applications. What emerges, Hackman says, is a consistent, efficient user experience that promotes a productive workplace. Creating design patterns What is a design pattern in the context of enterprise software? “Every day, people use technology to get things done,” Hackman says. “They navigate a virtual world that reaches from enterprise to consumer apps, and from desktop to mobile. This virtual world is constantly under construction. New areas are being developed and old areas are being redone. As this world is being built and remodeled, efficient pathways and practices emerge. “Oracle's user experience team watches users navigate this world. We measure their productivity and ask them about their satisfaction. We take the most efficient, most productive pathways from the enterprise and consumer world and turn them into Oracle's user experience patterns.” Hackman describes the process as combining all of the best practices from every part of a user’s world. Members of the user experience team observe, analyze, design, prototype, and measure each work task to find the best possible pattern for a particular work flow. As the team builds the patterns, “we make sure they are fully buildable using Oracle technology,” Hackman said. “So customers know they can use these patterns. There’s no need to make something up from scratch, not knowing whether you can even build it.” Hackman says that creating something on a computer is a good example of a user experience pattern. “People are creating things all the time,” he says. “On the consumer side, they are creating documents. On the enterprise side, they are creating expense reports. On a mobile phone, they are creating contacts. They are using different apps like iPhone or Facebook or Gmail or Oracle software, all doing this creation process.” The Applications UX team starts their process by observing how people might create something. “We observe people creating things. We see the patterns, we analyze and document, then we apply them to our products. It might be different from phone to web browser, but we have these design patterns that create a consistent experience across platforms, and across products, too. The result for customers Oracle constantly improves its part of the virtual world, Hackman said. New products are created and existing products are upgraded. Because Oracle builds user experience design patterns, Oracle's virtual world becomes both more powerful and more familiar at the same time. Because of design patterns, users can navigate with ease as they embrace the latest technology – because it behaves the way they expect it to. This means less training and faster adoption for individual users, and more productivity for the business as a whole. Hackman said Oracle gives customers and partners access to design patterns so that they can build in the virtual world using the same best practices. Customers and partners can extend applications with a user experience that is comfortable and familiar to their users. For businesses that are integrating different Oracle applications, design patterns are key. The user experience created in E-Business Suite should be similar to the user experience in Fusion Applications, Hackman said. If a user is transitioning from one application to the other, it shouldn’t be difficult for them to do their work. With design patterns, it isn’t. “Oracle user experience patterns are the building blocks for the virtual world that ensure productivity, consistency and user satisfaction,” Hackman said. “They are built for the enterprise, but incorporate the best practices from across the virtual world. They empower productivity and facilitate social interaction. When you build with patterns, you get all the end-user benefits of less training / retraining from the finished product. You also get faster / cheaper development.” What’s coming? You can already access design patterns to help you build Dashboards with OBIEE here. And we promised you at the beginning that we had something in the pipeline on Fusion Applications design patterns. Look for the announcement about when they are available here on VoX.

  Read the article

• What is Object Oriented Programming ill-suited for?

  - by LeguRi

  In Martin Fowler's book Refactoring, Fowler speaks of how when developers learn something new, they don't consider when it's inappropriate for the job: Ten years ago it was like that with objects. If someone asked me when not to use objects, it was hard to answer. [...] It was just that I didn't know what those limitations were, although I knew what the benefits were. Reading this, it occurred to me I don't know what the limitations or potential disadvantages of Object-Oriented Programming are. What are the limitations of Object Oriented Programming? When should one look at a project and think "OOP is not best suited for this"?

  Read the article

• Any 3D, Isometric, RPG oriented engines?

  - by Don Quixote

  I was wondering if there are any game engines out there that are oriented towards isometric, 3D RPGs such as Diablo 3, Torchlight, Magika, etc.. Most engines I found so far are either oriented towards FPS, such as Cry Engine and UDK, or are far too generic, such as the Irrlicht engine, which will add what I think is unnecessary work on the engine instead of the game. Any chance there are any engines out there that are crafted to be more suitable for RPGs? I would prefer they be in Java, since it's more my forte, but beggars can't be choosers, so C++ is great as well! Thank you.

  Read the article

• Is component-based design an architectural pattern or design pattern?

  - by xEnOn

  When using the component-based paradigm in game development with engines like Unity, is component-based design an architectural pattern, or a design pattern? Can I even say that component-based design is my "main" architectural pattern for my game? I see architectural patterns as being more high-level than design pattern. The component-based design in game development's context (like with Unity engine) seems to fit as an architectural pattern to me. However, on some sites, I read that component-based design is a behavioural pattern, much like other behavioural design patterns, and not so much like an architectural pattern like MVC.

  Read the article

• What is happening in Crockford's object creation technique?

  - by Chris Noe

  There are only 3 lines of code, and yet I'm having trouble fully grasping this: Object.create = function (o) { function F() {} F.prototype = o; return new F(); }; newObject = Object.create(oldObject); (from Prototypal Inheritance) 1) Object.create() starts out by creating an empty function called F. I'm thinking that a function is a kind of object. Where is this F object being stored? Globally I guess. 2) Next our oldObject, passed in as o, becomes the prototype of function F. Function (i.e., object) F now "inherits" from our oldObject, in the sense that name resolution will route through it. Good, but I'm curious what the default prototype is for an object, Object? Is that also true for a function-object? 3) Finally, F is instantiated and returned, becoming our newObject. Is the "new" operation strictly necessary here? Doesn't F already provide what we need, or is there a critical difference between function-objects and non-function-objects? Clearly it won't be possible to have a constructor function using this technique. What happens the next time Object.create() is called? Is global function F overwritten? Surely it is not reused, because that would alter previously configured objects. And what happens if multiple threads call Object.create(), is there any sort of synchronization to prevent race conditions on F?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >