Search Results

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

Page 361/1264 | < Previous Page | 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368  | Next Page >

  • What Are Basic Tools For A New Project?

    - by Morgan Cheng
    For a long time, I thought that to start a new project we only need 3 basic tools. 1) A Build System (e.g. Maven & CruiseControl) 2) A Version Control System (e.g. CVS & SVN & GIT) 3) A Bug Tracking System (e.g. Bugzilla) Yesterday, a senior guy told me that we need at least one thing more. That is KPI(Key Performance Index). Without KPI, it is impossible to measure whether the project is progressing well or not. KPI is kind of SOFT tool compared to Maven/SVN/Bugzilla. I believe since I missed SOFT tools, there must be some other kind of tools I missed. So, anybody get some ideas what other basic tools necessary for a new project?

    Read the article

  • Architectural decision : QT or Eclipse Platform ?

    - by umanga
    We are in the process of designing a tool to be used with HDEM(High Definition Electron Microscope).We get stacks of 2D images from HDEM and first step is 'detecting borders' on the sections.After detecting edges of 2D slices ,next step is construct the 3D model using these 2D slices. This 'border detecting' algorithm(s) is/are implemented by one of professor and he has used and suggests to use C.(to gain high performance and probably will parallelise in future) We have to develop comprehensive UI ,3D viewer ,2D editor...etc and use this algorithm. Application should support usual features like project save/open.Undo,Redo...etc Our technology decisions are: A) Build entire platform from the scratch using QT. B) Use Eclipse Platform Our concerns are, if we choose A) we can easily integrate the 'border detecting' algorithm(s) because the development environment is C/C++ But we have to implement the basic features from the scratch. If we choose B) we get basic features from the Eclipse platform , but integrating C libraries going to be a tedious task. Any suggestions on this?

    Read the article

  • Using Doctrine to abstract CRUD operations

    - by TomWilsonFL
    This has bothered me for quite a while, but now it is necessity that I find the answer. We are working on quite a large project using CodeIgniter plus Doctrine. Our application has a front end and also an admin area for the company to check/change/delete data. When we designed the front end, we simply consumed most of the Doctrine code right in the controller: //In semi-pseudocode function register() { $data = get_post_data(); if (count($data) && isValid($data)) { $U = new User(); $U->fromArray($data); $U->save(); $C = new Customer(); $C->fromArray($data); $C->user_id = $U->id; $C->save(); redirect_to_next_step(); } } Obviously when we went to do the admin views code duplication began and considering we were in a "get it DONE" mode so it now stinks with code bloat. I have moved a lot of functionality (business logic) into the model using model methods, but the basic CRUD does not fit there. I was going to attempt to place the CRUD into static methods, i.e. Customer::save($array) [would perform both insert and update depending on if prikey is present in array], Customer::delete($id), Customer::getObj($id = false) [if false, get all data]. This is going to become painful though for 32 model objects (and growing). Also, at times models need to interact (as the interaction above between user data and customer data), which can't be done in a static method without breaking encapsulation. I envision adding another layer to this (exposing web services), so knowing there are going to be 3 "controllers" at some point I need to encapsulate this CRUD somewhere (obviously), but are static methods the way to go, or is there another road? Your input is much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Twitter Bootstrap Collapsible Navbar Duplicating

    - by sixeightzero
    I am working on a project using Twitter Bootstrap. One thing that I noticed is that my pages have duplicate navbars when they are defined as collapsible and the page is resized smaller. Here is the duplicate NavBar: Here is the normal width NavBar: Code: <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <!--[if lt IE 7]> <html class="no-js lt-ie9 lt-ie8 lt-ie7"> <![endif]--> <!--[if IE 7]> <html class="no-js lt-ie9 lt-ie8"> <![endif]--> <!--[if IE 8]> <html class="no-js lt-ie9"> <![endif]--> <!--[if gt IE 8]><!--> <html class="no-js"> <!--<![endif]--> <head> <meta charset="utf-8"> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1"> <title></title> <meta name="description" content=""> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/assets/css/bootstrap.css"> <style> body { padding-top: 60px; } </style> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/assets/css/bootstrap-responsive.min.css"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/assets/css/main.css"> <script>window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="/assets/js/vendor/jquery-1.8.1.min.js"><\/script>')</script> <script src="/assets/js/vendor/modernizr-2.6.1-respond-1.1.0.min.js"></script> </head> <body class="dark"> <!--[if lt IE 9]> <p class="chromeframe">You are using an outdated browser. <a href="http://browsehappy.com/">Upgrade your browser today</a> or <a href="http://www.google.com/chromeframe/?redirect=true">install Google Chrome Frame</a> to better experience this site.</p> <![endif]--> <div class="navbar navbar-inverse navbar-fixed-top"> <div class="navbar-inner"> <div class="container"> <a class="btn btn-navbar" data-toggle="collapse" data-target=".nav-collapse"> <span class="icon-bar"></span> <span class="icon-bar"></span> <span class="icon-bar"></span> </a> <a class="brand" href="#">Project name</a> <div class="nav-collapse collapse"> <ul class="nav"> <li class="active"><a href="#">Home</a></li> <li><a href="#about">About</a></li> <li><a href="#contact">Contact</a></li> <li class="dropdown"> <a href="#" class="dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown">Dropdown <b class="caret"></b></a> <ul class="dropdown-menu"> <li><a href="#">Action</a></li> <li><a href="#">Another action</a></li> <li><a href="#">Something else here</a></li> <li class="divider"></li> <li class="nav-header">Nav header</li> <li><a href="#">Separated link</a></li> <li><a href="#">One more separated link</a></li> </ul> </li> </ul> </div><!--/.nav-collapse --> </div> </div> </div> Has anyone else run into this and have some pointers?

    Read the article

  • Natural vs surrogate keys on support tables

    - by Bugeo
    I have read many articles about the battle between natural versus surrogate primary keys. I agree in the use of surrogate keys to identify records of tables whose contents are created by the user. But in the case of supporting tables what should I use? For example, in a hypothetical table "orderStates". If you use a natural key would have the following data: TABLE ORDERSTATES {ID: "NEW", NAME: "New"} {ID: "MANAGEMENT" NAME: "Management"} {ID: "SHIPPED" NAME: "Shipped"} If I use a surrogate key would have the following data: TABLE ORDERSTATES {ID: 1 CODE: "NEW", NAME: "New"} {ID: 2 CODE: "MANAGEMENT" NAME: "Management"} {ID: 3 CODE: "SHIPPED" NAME: "Shipped"} Now let's take an example: a user enters a new order. In the case in which use natural keys, in the code I can write this: newOrder.StateOrderId = "NEW"; With the surrogate keys instead every time I have an additional step. stateOrderId_NEW = .... I retrieve the id corresponding to the recod code "NEW" newOrder.StateOrderId = stateOrderId_NEW; The same will happen every time I have to move the order in a new status. So, in this case, what are the reason to chose one key type vs the other one?

    Read the article

  • Pros and Cons on where to place business logic: app level or DB

    - by Juri
    Hi, I always again encounter discussions about where to place the business logic: inside a business layer in the application code or down in the DB in terms of stored procedures. Personally I'd tend to the 1st approach, but I'd like to hear some opinions from your part first, without influencing you with my personal views. I know there doesn't exist a one-size-fits-all solution and it often depends on many factors, but we can discuss about that. Btw, we are in the context of web applications and our current approach is to have UI layer which accepts UI input and does a first, client-side validation Business layer with a number of service-classes which contains the business logic including validation for user input (server-side) Data Access Layer which calls stored procedures from the DB for doing persistency/read operations Many people however tend to move the business layer stuff (especially regarding the validation) down to the DB in terms of stored procedures. What do you think about it? I'd like to discuss.

    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

  • Game AI: Pattern for implementing Sense-Think-Act components?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm developing a game. Each entity in the game is a GameObject. Each GameObject is composed of a GameObjectController, GameObjectModel, and GameObjectView. (Or inheritants thereof.) For NPCs, the GameObjectController is split into: IThinkNPC: reads current state and makes a decision about what to do IActNPC: updates state based on what needs to be done ISenseNPC: reads current state to answer world queries (eg "am I being in the shadows?") My question: Is this ok for the ISenseNPC interface? public interface ISenseNPC { // ... /// <summary> /// True if `dest` is a safe point to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="dest"></param> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <param name="range"></param> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeToRetreat(Vector2 dest, float angleToThreat, float range); /// <summary> /// Finds a new location to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <returns></returns> Vector2 newRetreatDest(float angleToThreat); /// <summary> /// Returns the closest LightSource that illuminates the NPC. /// Null if the NPC is not illuminated. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> ILightSource ClosestIlluminatingLight(); /// <summary> /// True if the NPC is sufficiently far away from target. /// Assumes that target is the only entity it could ever run from. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeFromTarget(); } None of the methods take any parameters. Instead, the implementation is expected to maintain a reference to the relevant GameObjectController and read that. However, I'm now trying to write unit tests for this. Obviously, it's necessary to use mocking, since I can't pass arguments directly. The way I'm doing it feels really brittle - what if another implementation comes along that uses the world query utilities in a different way? Really, I'm not testing the interface, I'm testing the implementation. Poor. The reason I used this pattern in the first place was to keep IThinkNPC implementation code clean: public BehaviorState RetreatTransition(BehaviorState currentBehavior) { if (sense.IsCollidingWithTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "is colliding with target"); return BehaviorState.ATTACK; } if (sense.IsSafeFromTarget() && sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() == null) { return BehaviorState.WANDER; } if (sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() != null && sense.SeesTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "collides with target"); return BehaviorState.CHASE; } return currentBehavior; } Perhaps the cleanliness isn't worth it, however. So, if ISenseNPC takes all the params it needs every time, I could make it static. Is there any problem with that?

    Read the article

  • Google Calendar like interface

    - by John Virgolino
    I need to write an application that essentially functions like a week-view of a calendar, columns for the days and then rows for appointments. Where the height of the appointment box visually represents time. In my case, I just don't want the time of day as the vertical axis, I just want hours or mins. The Google AJAX approach is very clean and easy to use and would be perfect, I think, but my major knowledge comes in ASP.Net and Windows Forms (.Net). I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but I find my mind is stuck on this problem and that I would have to create an interface from scratch for this. I have checked out the Infragistics product (used it for other projects) and read up a lot on the Google API's including their Ajax toolkit. I haven't done Java, however learning a language is not my issue, it's learning the particulars that will help me reach my goal that I feel will take most of the time. Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Is this really a lot easier than I think? This is starting to sound like a Dear Abby post - I'll stop now. Any advice or insight would be great! Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • What's the standard way to organize the contents of Java packages -- specifically the location of in

    - by RenderIn
    I suppose this could go for many OO languages. I'm building my domain objects and am not sure where the best place is for the interfaces & abstract classes. If I have a pets package with various implementations of the APet abstract class: should it live side-by-side with them or in the parent package? How about interfaces? It seems like they almost have to live above the implementations in the parent package, since there could potentially be other subpackages which implement it, while there seems to be a stronger correlation between one abstract class and a subpackage. e.g. com.foo com.foo.IConsumer (interface) com.foo.APet (abstract) com.foo.pets.Dog extends APet implements IConsumer OR com.foo com.foo.IConsumer (interface) com.foo.pets.APet (abstract) com.foo.pets.Dog extends APet implements IConsumer or something else?

    Read the article

  • Using free function as pseudo-constructors to exploit template parameter deduction

    - by Poita_
    Is it a common pattern/idiom to use free functions as pseudo-constructors to avoid having to explicitly specify template parameters? For example, everyone knows about std::make_pair, which uses its parameters to deduce the pair types: template <class A, class B> std::pair<A, B> make_pair(A a, B b) { return std::pair<A, B>(a, b); } // This allows you to call make_pair(1, 2), // instead of having to type pair<int, int>(1, 2) // as you can't get type deduction from the constructor. I find myself using this quite often, so I was just wondering if many other people use it, and if there is a name for this pattern?

    Read the article

  • is there evidence that offshoring is causing developer salaries to go down? [closed]

    - by jcollum
    I realize this is a controversial and political topic. I'm trying to decide if offshoring is something that is effecting our industry in any substantial way or if it's just some bugaboo. I've read various posts on SO about it, but none addressed the idea of evidence for offshoring. Studies, papers, opinions of people who know about such things etc. I hear a lot about offshoring and its effect on our job market. However it all seems to be hearsay and conjecture. It does seem like some people are genuinely worried about it. This offshoring thing has been going on for quite some time, should be enough time for some real data to come out. If I had to pick a number I'd say it started during the dotcom boom -- a time when the need for developers far outweighed the local talent pool. We're now in a time when the talent pool is expensive and corporate wallets are tight, seems like an ideal time to find a good cheap developer in some other country. But is that actually happening? From reading some posts here on SO, I've concluded that offshoring is a really tough thing to do right. There are a lot of companies who think (or say) they can do it right, but some small percentage of them are actually able to pull it off. Is offshoring affecting the job market in any measurable way? Is offshoring measurable at all? Do we need to stop worrying about this?

    Read the article

  • c# - pull records from database without timeout

    - by BhejaFry
    Hi folks, i have a sql query with multiple joins & it pulls data from a database for processing. This is supposed to be running on some scheduled basis. So day 1, it might pull 500, day 2 say 400. Now, if the service is stopped for some reason & the data not processed, then on day3 there could be as much as 1000 records to process. This is causing timeout on the sql query. How best to handle this situation without causing timeout & gradually reducing workload to process? TIA

    Read the article

  • Domain model: should things like Logging, Audit, Persistence be in it

    - by hom.tanks
    I'm having a hard time convincing our architect that a Domain model should only have the essential elements of the business domain on it. Things like the fact that a class is persistable, that it needs logging and auditing and that it has a RESTful URI should not drive the domain model. They can be added later on, by using interfaces. Ours is a healthcare information management system. At the very coarse level, its a system where users login and access their healthcare information. They can share this information with others and be custodian for others' information (think Roles). But because of a few sound bytes that caught on early like "Everything should be a REST resource" the model now has a top level class called Resource that every other class extends from. I'm trying to make him see that the domain model should have well defined concepts like User Account, HealthDocument, UserRole etc which are distinct entities of the business , with specific associations between them. Clubbing everything under Resource class lets our model be inflexible besides being potentially incorrect. But he wants me to show him why its a bad idea to do it his way. I don't know how to articulate that properly but all my OO instincts tell me that its just not right. Any thoughts?

    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

  • Saving Abstract and Sub classes to database

    - by bretddog
    Hi, I have an abstract class "StrategyBase", and a set of sub classes, StrategyA/B/C etc. The sub classes use some of the properties of the base class, and have some individual properties. My question is how to save this to a database. I'm currently using SqlCE, and Linq-To-Sql by creating entity classes automatically with SqlMetal.exe. I've seen there are three solutions shown in this question, but I'm not able to see how these solutions will work or not with SqlMetal/entity classes. Though it seems to me the "concrete table inheritance" would probably work without any manual modifying. What about the other two, would they be problematic? For "Single Table Inheritance" wouldn't all classes get all variables, even though they don't need them? And for the "Class table inheritance" solution I can't really see at all how that will map into the entity-classes for a useful purpose. I may note that I extend these partial entity classes for making the classes of my business objects. I may also consider moving to EntityFramework instead of SqlMetal/Linq2Sql, so would be nice also to know if that makes any difference to what schema is easy to implement. One likely important thing to note is that I will constantly be develop new strategies, which makes me have to modify the program code, and probably the database shcema; when adding a new strategy. Sorry the question is a bit "all over the place", but hopefully it's some clear advantages/disadvantages here that you may be able to advice. ? Cheers!

    Read the article

  • Class hierarchy problem (with generic's variance!)

    - by devoured elysium
    The problem: class StatesChain : IState, IHasStateList { private TasksChain tasks = new TasksChain(); ... public IList<IState> States { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } } IList<ITask> IHasTasksCollection.Tasks { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } <-- ERROR! You can't do this in C#! I want to return an IList<ITask> from an IList<IStates>. } } Assuming the IList returned will be read-only, I know that what I'm trying to achieve is safe (or is it not?). Is there any way I can accomplish what I'm trying? I wouldn't want to try to implement myself the TasksChain algorithm (again!), as it would be error prone and would lead to code duplication. Maybe I could just define an abstract Chain and then implement both TasksChain and StatesChain from there? Or maybe implementing a Chain<T> class? How would you approach this situation? The Details: I have defined an ITask interface: public interface ITask { bool Run(); ITask FailureTask { get; } } and a IState interface that inherits from ITask: public interface IState : ITask { IState FailureState { get; } } I have also defined an IHasTasksList interface: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> Tasks { get; } } and an IHasStatesList: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> States { get; } } Now, I have defined a TasksChain, that is a class that has some code logic that will manipulate a chain of tasks (beware that TasksChain is itself a kind of ITask!): class TasksChain : ITask, IHasTasksList { IList<ITask> tasks = new List<ITask>(); ... public List<ITask> Tasks { get { return _tasks; } } ... } I am implementing a State the following way: public class State : IState { private readonly TaskChain _taskChain = new TaskChain(); public State(Precondition precondition, Execution execution) { _taskChain.Tasks.Add(precondition); _taskChain.Tasks.Add(execution); } public bool Run() { return _taskChain.Run(); } public IState FailureState { get { return (IState)_taskChain.Tasks[0].FailureTask; } } ITask ITask.FailureTask { get { return FailureState; } } } which, as you can see, makes use of explicit interface implementations to "hide" FailureTask and instead show FailureState property. The problem comes from the fact that I also want to define a StatesChain, that inherits both from IState and IHasStateList (and that also imples ITask and IHasTaskList, implemented as explicit interfaces) and I want it to also hide IHasTaskList's Tasks and only show IHasStateList's States. (What is contained in "The problem" section should really be after this, but I thought puting it first would be way more reader friendly). (pff..long text) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is MVVM killing silverlight development?

    - by DeanMc
    This is a question I have had rattling around in my head for some time. I had a chat with a guy the other night who told me he would not be using the navigational framework because he could not figure out how it works with MVVM. As much as I tried to explain that patterns should be taken with a pinch of salt he would not listen. My point is this, patterns are great when they solve some problem. Sometimes only part of the pattern solves a particular problem while the other parts of it cause different problems. The goal of any developer is to build a solid application using a combination of patterns know how and foresight. I feel MVVM is becoming the one pattern to rule them all. As it is not directly supported by .Net some fancy business is needed to make it work. I feel that people are missing the point of the pattern, which is loosely coupled, testable code and instead jumping through hoops and missing out on great experiences trying to follow MVVM to the letter. MVVM is great but I wish it came with a warning or disclaimer for newbies as my fear is people will shy away from silverlight development for fear of being smacked with the mvvm stick. EDIT: Can I just add as an edit, I use and agree with MVVM as a pattern I know when it is and isn't feasible in my projects. My issue is with the encompassing nature it is taking, as if it HAS to be used as part of development. It is being used as an integral feature and not a pattern, which it is.

    Read the article

  • Am I abusing Policies?

    - by pmr
    I find myself using policies a lot in my code and usually I'm very happy with that. But from time to time I find myself confronted with using that pattern in situations where the Policies are selected and runtime and I have developed habbits to work around such situations. Usually I start with something like that: class DrawArrays { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; class DrawElements { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public Policy { using Policy::sendDraw(); public: void render() const; }; When the policy is picked at runtime I have different choices of working around the situation. Different code paths: if(drawElements) { Vertices<DrawElements> vertices; } else { Vertices<DrawArrays> vertices; } Inheritance and virtual calls: class PureVertices { public: void render()=0; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public PureVertices, public Policy { //.. }; Both solutions feel wrong to me. The first creates an umaintainable mess and the second introduces the overhead of virtual calls that I tried to avoid by using policies in the first place. Am I missing the proper solutions or do I use the wrong pattern to solve the problem?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368  | Next Page >