Search Results

Search found 16838 results on 674 pages for 'writing patterns dita cms'.

Page 37/674 | < Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >

  • Writing a Book, and Moving my Blog

    - by Ben Nevarez
    I started blogging about SQL Server here at SQLblog back in July, 2009 and it was a lot of fun, I enjoyed it a lot. Then later, after a series of blog posts about the Query Optimizer, I was invited to write an entire book about that same topic. But after a few months I realized that it was going to be hard to continue both blogging and writing chapters for a book, this in addition to my regular day job, so I decided to stop blogging for a little while.   Now that I have finished the last chapter of the book and I am working on the final chapter reviews, I decided to start blogging again. This time I am moving my blog to   http://www.benjaminnevarez.com   Same as my previous posts I plan to write about my topics of interest, like the relational engine, and basically anything related to SQL Server. Hopefully you find my new blog interesting and useful.   Finally, I would like to thank Adam for allowing me to blog here. Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • Writing a Book, and Moving my Blog

    - by Ben Nevarez
    I started blogging about SQL Server here at SQLblog back in July, 2009 and it was a lot of fun, I enjoyed it a lot. Then later, after a series of blog posts about the Query Optimizer, I was invited to write an entire book about that same topic. But after a few months I realized that it was going to be hard to continue both blogging and writing chapters for a book, this in addition to my regular day job, so I decided to stop blogging for a little while.   Now that I have finished the last chapter of the book and I am working on the final chapter reviews, I decided to start blogging again. This time I am moving my blog to   http://www.benjaminnevarez.com   Same as my previous posts I plan to write about my topics of interest, like the relational engine, and basically anything related to SQL Server. Hopefully you find my new blog interesting and useful.   Finally, I would like to thank Adam for allowing me to blog here. Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • Inheritance versus Composition in a business application

    - by ProfK
    I have a training management and tracking system, with a high level structure as follows: We have a Role1, e.g. Manager, Shift-boss, miner, etc. and a Candidate, training for that Role. The role has a list of courses and their subjects the candidate needs to complete to qualify for the role. Candidate has a TrainingHistory attribute, containing the courses and subjects they have completed, their results, and the date completed. Now I see it as a TrainingHistoryCourse is-a Course, extended to add DateCompleted etc. but something is nagging at me to rather use something like a TrainingHistoryRecord that has-a Course. How can I further analyse this to determine which pattern to use? Then, a Role has a list of RoleTask definitions that the Candidate must be observed practising, and a Candidate has a history of RoleTaskObservation objects recording their performance at these tasks. This is very similar to the course/subject requirement and history pattern for the candidate, except for one less hierarchical level, but, a RoleTaskObservation clearly does not have an is-a relationship with RoleTask, unless I block my nose and rather use ObservedRoleTask. I would prefer to use the same pattern for both subject/course and task/observation structures, but I think that would force me to adopt a composition pattern for TrainingHistoryCourse. What is the wisdom here? Always inherit where possible and validated by a solid is-a association, or always favour composition wherever possible? 1 Client specified this to be called JobTitle, but he isn't writing the app, and a JobTitle is only one attribute of a Role. Authorization roles are handled by the DevExpress framework and its customization hooks, so there would be very little little confusion between a business Role in my domain objects and an authorization role in lower level, framework code.

    Read the article

  • Writing files in a sub folder of the web folder (apache security)

    - by Homunculus Reticulli
    I need to save session data for a dynamic web page script by writing to file. I have two questions: Are there any security preferences as to whether to save the data UNDER the web folder, or OUTSIDE the web folder? I attempted to write to the folder an (unsuprisingly), I had a 'file permission refused' type error. Should I set the folder ownership to the apache user (600, 640 or 644?) [[Edit]] core <- 'OUTSIDE' web folder (php script live here) data <- 'OUTSIDE' web folder (session data and other misc data resides here) web <- web root folder js <- any folder below is 'INSIDE' the web folder css html For example, in a php script (i.e. a dynamic PHP page), I can attempt to write to a file using something like fput('../data',data) yet (as I understand it) ../data should not be accessible - for security reasons. Could someone please provide a simple example that shows how to provide access to ../data/ in the example given above?. What are the actual SPECIFIC steps required? BTW, I am running on a LAMP stack.

    Read the article

  • Re-writing URL's with lighttpd

    - by Tim Post
    I'm using Lighttpd to serve a GET based API that I'm working on, and I'm having some difficulty with re-writing requests. My API calls are very simple. An example would be : url:/method/submethod?var1=something&var2=something&key=something This is what I have: url.rewrite-once = ( "^/methodfoo(.*)" => "/index.php$1&method=methodfoo") This works fine if all methods were shallow, but I have methodfoo/submethod to deal with. What I'd like to do is use a rule that can split this up for me, appending a &submethod to the end of the rewritten string. For instance: url://methodfoo/submethod?foo=bar&foobar=foo Would be re-written to: url://index.php?foo=bar&foobar=foo&method=methodfoo&submethod=foo Can I do that without an explicit rule for each submethod? Additional Information: Yes, I know I can use a rule like: "^/methodfoo/(.*)/(.*)" => "/index.php$2&method=methodfoo&submethod=$1" However, That fuglifies (TM) my link structure, as it would have to match: url://methodfoo/submethod/?foo=bar&foobar=foo When I really want: url://methodfoo/submethod?foo=bar&foobar=foo Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

    Read the article

  • What is the rationale behind Apache Jena's *everything is an interface if possible* design philosophy?

    - by David Cowden
    If you are familiar with the Java RDF and OWL engine Jena, then you have run across their philosophy that everything should be specified as an interface when possible. This means that a Resource, Statement, RDFNode, Property, and even the RDF Model, etc., are, contrary to what you might first think, Interfaces instead of concrete classes. This leads to the use of Factories quite often. Since you can't instantiate a Property or Model, you must have something else do it for you --the Factory design pattern. My question, then, is, what is the reasoning behind using this pattern as opposed to a traditional class hierarchy system? It is often perfectly viable to use either one. For example, if I want a memory backed Model instead of a database-backed Model I could just instantiate those classes, I don't need ask a Factory to give me one. As an aside, I'm in the process of writing a library for manipulating Pearltrees data, which is exported from their website in the form of an RDF/XML document. As I write this library, I have many options for defining the relationships present in the Peartrees data. What is nice about the Pearltrees data is that it has a very logical class system: A tree is made up of pearls, which can be either Page, Reference, Alias, or Root pearls. My question comes from trying to figure out if I should adopt the Jena philosophy in my library which uses Jena, or if I should disregard it, pick my own design philosophy, and stick with it.

    Read the article

  • How to expose game data in the game without a singelton?

    - by zardon
    I'm quite new to cocos2d and games programming, and am currently I am writing a game that is currently in Prototype stage. Everything is going okay, but I've realized a potentially big problem and I am not sure how to solve it. I am using a singelton to store a bunch of arrays for everything, a global list of planets, a global list of troops, a global list of products, etc. And only now I'm realizing that all of this will be in memory and this is the wrong way to do it. I am not storing files or anything on the disk just yet, with exception to a save/load state, which is a capture of everything. My game makes use of a map which allows you to select a planet, then it will give you a breakdown of that planets troops and resources, Lets use this scenario: My game has 20 planets. On which you can have 20 troops. Straight away that's an array of 400! This does not add the NPC, which is another 10. So, 20x10 = 200 So, now we have 600 all in arrays inside a Singelton. This is obviously very bad, and very wrong. Especially as the game scales in the amount of data. But I need to expose pretty much everything, especially on the map page, and I am not sure how else to do it. I've been told that I can use a controller for the map page which has the information I need for each planet, and other controllers for other items I require global display for. I've also thought about storing each planet's data in a save file, using initWithCoder however there could be a boatload of files on the user's device? I really don't want to use a database, mainly because I would need to translate NSObjects and non-NSObjects like CGRects and CGPoints and Colors into/from SQL. I am open to other ideas on how to store and read game data to prevent using a singelton to store everything, everywhere. Thanks for your time.

    Read the article

  • Having issues using fdisk and GParted with Lexar 64GB USB, but reading and writing is fine

    - by MetaDark
    I have recently bought a new 64GB Lexar USB with the long model name of LJDV10-64G-000-106, and I am having issues partitioning it. I am able to mount, read and write to the USB without any issues but whenever I try to partition it with GParted it doesn't show up in the dropdown. Also while using the command sudo fdisk -l I receive the error fdisk: unable to seek on /dev/sdc: Invalid argument. This is a brand new USB so I am not sure why I am having these issues, especially since the device is functioning perfectly with read/write. I have tried reformatting it on a windows machine but that does not seem to do anything. For those who want a visual my USB looks almost exactly like But 64GB rather than 8GB Edit: I have just ran GParted from the terminal and I am getting a similar error, but it may give more information on the issue. Could not determine physical sector size for /dev/sdc. Using the logical sector size (512). Invalid argument during seek for read on /dev/sdc Also clearing my USB with /dev/zero fails with the the message $ sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdc bs=1M dd: writing `/dev/sdc': No space left on device 1+0 records in 0+0 records out 0 bytes (0 B) copied, 0.00167254 s, 0.0 kB/s

    Read the article

  • design for supporting entities with images

    - by brainydexter
    I have multiple entities like Hotels, Destination Cities etc which can contain images. The way I have my system setup right now is, I think of all the images belonging to this universal set (a table in the DB contains filePaths to all the images). When I have to add an image to an entity, I see if the entity exists in this universal set of images. If it exists, attach the reference to this image, else create a new image. E.g.: class ImageEntityHibernateDAO { public void addImageToEntity(IContainImage entity, String filePath, String title, String altText) { ImageEntity image = this.getImage(filePath); if (image == null) image = new ImageEntity(filePath, title, altText); getSession().beginTransaction(); entity.getImages().add(image); getSession().getTransaction().commit(); } } My question is: Earlier I had to write this code for each entity (and each entity would have a Set collection). So, instead of re-writing the same code, I created the following interface: public interface IContainImage { Set<ImageEntity> getImages(); } Entities which have image collections also implements IContainImage interface. Now, for any entity that needs to support adding Image functionality, all I have to invoke from the DAO looks something like this: // in DestinationDAO::addImageToDestination { imageDao.addImageToEntity(destination, imageFileName, imageTitle, imageAltText); // in HotelDAO::addImageToHotel { imageDao.addImageToEntity(hotel, imageFileName, imageTitle, imageAltText); It'd be great help if someone can provide me some critique on this design ? Are there any serious flaws that I'm not seeing right away ?

    Read the article

  • Object oriented wrapper around a dll

    - by Tom Davies
    So, I'm writing a C# managed wrapper around a native dll. The dll contains several hundred functions. In most cases, the first argument to each function is an opaque handle to a type internal to the dll. So, an obvious starting point for defining some classes in the wrapper would be to define classes corresponding to each of these opaque types, with each instance holding and managing the opaque handle (passed to its constructor) Things are a little awkward when dealing with callbacks from the dll. Naturally, the callback handlers in my wrapper have to be static, but the callbacks arguments invariable contain an opaque handle. In order to get from the static callback back to an object instance, I've created a static dictionary in each class, associating handles with class instances. In the constructor of each class, an entry is put into the dictionary, and this entry is then removed in the Destructors. When I receive a callback, I can then consult the dictionary to retrieve the class instance corresponding to the opaque reference. Are there any obvious flaws to this? Something that seems to be a problem is that the existence static dictionary means that the garbage collector will not act on my class instances that are otherwise unreachable. As they are never garbage collected, they never get removed from the dictionary, so the dictionary grows. It seems I might have to manually dispose of my objects, which is something absolutely would like to avoid. Can anyone suggest a good design that allows me to avoid having to do this?

    Read the article

  • best way to send messages to all subscribers with multiple subscriptions and multiple providers

    - by coding_idiot
    I'm writing an application in which - Many users can subsribe to posts made by another users. So for a single publisher there can be many subscribers. When a message is posted by an user X, all users who have subscribed to messages of User X will be sent an email. How to achieve this ? I'm thinking of using publish-subscribe pattern. And then I came through JMS. Which is the best JMS implementation to use according to your experience ? Or else what else solution do you propose to the given problem ? Shall I go for a straight-forward solution ?: User x posts a message, I find all users (from database) who subscribe to user x and then for every user, I call the sendEmail() method. [EDIT] My intention here is not to send-emails. I'm really sorry if it wasn't clear. I also have to send kind of system-notifications apart from Email to all subscribers. Right now, I've implemented the email-sending as a threadPool

    Read the article

  • Modular Architecture for Processing Pipeline

    - by anjruu
    I am trying to design the architecture of a system that I will be implementing in C++, and I was wondering if people could think of a good approach, or critique the approach that I have designed so far. First of all, the general problem is an image processing pipeline. It contains several stages, and the goal is to design a highly modular solution, so that any of the stages can be easily swapped out and replaced with a piece of custom code (so that the user can have a speed increase if s/he knows that a certain stage is constrained in a certain way in his or her problem). The current thinking is something like this: struct output; /*Contains the output values from the pipeline.*/ class input_routines{ public: virtual foo stage1(...){...} virtual bar stage2(...){...} virtual qux stage3(...){...} ... } output pipeline(input_routines stages); This would allow people to subclass input_routines and override whichever stage they wanted. That said, I've worked in systems like this before, and I find the subclassing and the default stuff tends to get messy, and can be difficult to use, so I'm not giddy about writing one myself. I was also thinking about a more STLish approach, where the different stages (there are 6 or 7) would be defaulted template parameters. Can anyone offer a critique of the pattern above, thoughts on the template approach, or any other architecture that comes to mind?

    Read the article

  • Tips for Making this Code Testable [migrated]

    - by Jesse Bunch
    So I'm writing an abstraction layer that wraps a telephony RESTful service for sending text messages and making phone calls. I should build this in such a way that the low-level provider, in this case Twilio, can be easily swapped without having to re-code the higher level interactions. I'm using a package that is pre-built for Twilio and so I'm thinking that I need to create a wrapper interface to standardize the interaction between the Twilio service package and my application. Let us pretend that I cannot modify this pre-built package. Here is what I have so far (in PHP): <?php namespace Telephony; class Provider_Twilio implements Provider_Interface { public function send_sms(Provider_Request_SMS $request) { if (!$request->is_valid()) throw new Provider_Exception_InvalidRequest(); $sms = \Twilio\Twilio::request('SmsMessage'); $response = $sms->create(array( 'To' => $request->to, 'From' => $request->from, 'Body' => $request->body )); if ($this->_did_request_fail($response)) { throw new Provider_Exception_RequestFailed($response->message); } $response = new Provider_Response_SMS(TRUE); return $response; } private function _did_request_fail($api_response) { return isset($api_response->status); } } So the idea is that I can write another file like this for any other telephony service provided that it implements Provider_Interface making them swappable. Here are my questions: First off, do you think this is a good design? How could it be improved? Second, I'm having a hard time testing this because I need to mock out the Twilio package so that I'm not actually depending on Twilio's API for my tests to pass or fail. Do you see any strategy for mocking this out? Thanks in advance for any advice!

    Read the article

  • Hide or Show singleton?

    - by Sinker
    Singleton is a common pattern implemented in both native libraries of .NET and Java. You will see it as such: C#: MyClass.Instance Java: MyClass.getInstance() The question is: when writing APIs, is it better to expose the singleton through a property or getter, or should I hide it as much as possible? Here are the alternatives for illustrative purposes: Exposed(C#): private static MyClass instance; public static MyClass Instance { get { if (instance == null) instance = new MyClass(); return instance; } } public void PerformOperation() { ... } Hidden (C#): private static MyClass instance; public static void PerformOperation() { if (instance == null) { instance = new MyClass(); } ... } EDIT: There seems to be a number of detractors of the Singleton design. Great! Please tell me why and what is the better alternative. Here is my scenario: My whole application utilises one logger (log4net/log4j). Whenever, the program has something to log, it utilises the Logger class (e.g. Logger.Instance.Warn(...) or Logger.Instance.Error(...) etc. Should I use Logger.Warn(...) or Logger.Warn(...) instead? If you have an alternative to singletons that addresses my concern, then please write an answer for it. Thank you :)

    Read the article

  • Does my use of the strategy pattern violate the fundamental MVC pattern in iOS?

    - by Goodsquirrel
    I'm about to use the 'strategy' pattern in my iOS app, but feel like my approach violates the somehow fundamental MVC pattern. My app is displaying visual "stories", and a Story consists (i.e. has @properties) of one Photo and one or more VisualEvent objects to represent e.g. animated circles or moving arrows on the photo. Each VisualEvent object therefore has a eventType @property, that might be e.g. kEventTypeCircle or kEventTypeArrow. All events have things in common, like a startTime @property, but differ in the way they are being drawn on the StoryPlayerView. Currently I'm trying to follow the MVC pattern and have a StoryPlayer object (my controller) that knows about both the model objects (like Story and all kinds of visual events) and the view object StoryPlayerView. To chose the right drawing code for each of the different visual event types, my StoryPlayer is using a switch statement. @implementation StoryPlayer // (...) - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { switch (event.eventType) { case kEventTypeCircle: [self showCircleEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; case kEventTypeArrow: [self showArrowDrawingEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; // (...) } But switch statements for type checking are bad design, aren't they? According to Uncle Bob they lead to tight coupling and can and should almost always be replaced by polymorphism. Having read about the "Strategy"-Pattern in Head First Design Patterns, I felt this was a great way to get rid of my switch statement. So I changed the design like this: All specialized visual event types are now subclasses of an abstract VisualEvent class that has a showOnStoryPlayerView: method. @interface VisualEvent : NSObject - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView; // abstract Each and every concrete subclass implements a concrete specialized version of this drawing behavior method. @implementation CircleVisualEvent - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView { [storyPlayerView drawCircleAtPoint:self.position color:self.color lineWidth:self.lineWidth radius:self.radius]; } The StoryPlayer now simply calls the same method on all types of events. @implementation StoryPlayer - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { [event showOnStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; } The result seems to be great: I got rid of the switch statement, and if I ever have to add new types of VisualEvents in the future, I simply create new subclasses of VisualEvent. And I won't have to change anything in StoryPlayer. But of cause this approach violates the MVC pattern since now my model has to know about and depend on my view! Now my controller talks to my model and my model talks to the view calling methods on StoryPlayerView like drawCircleAtPoint:color:lineWidth:radius:. But this kind of calls should be controller code not model code, right?? Seems to me like I made things worse. I'm confused! Am I completely missing the point of the strategy pattern? Is there a better way to get rid of the switch statement without breaking model-view separation?

    Read the article

  • ResourceSerializable: an alternate to ORM and ActiveRecord

    - by Levi Morrison
    A few opinionated reasons I don't like the traditional ORM and ActiveRecord patterns: They work only with a database. Sometimes I'm dealing with objects from an API and other objects from a database. All the implementations I have seen don't allow for that. Feel free to clue me in if I'm wrong on this. They are brittle. Changes in the database will likely break your implemenation. Some implementations can help reduce this, but a few of the ones I've seen don't. Their very design is influenced by the database. If I want to switch to using an API, I'll have to redesign the object to get it to work (likely). It seems to violate the single-responsibility pattern. They know what they are and how they act, but they also know how they are created, destroyed and saved? Seems a bit much. What about an approach that is somewhat more familiar in PHP: implementing an interface? In php 5.4, we'll have the JsonSerializable interface that defines the data to be json_encoded, so users will become accustomed to this type of thing. What if there was a ResourceSerializable interface? This is still an ORM by name, but certainly not by tradition. interface ResourceSerializable { /** * Returns the id that identifies the resource. */ function resourceId(); /** * Returns the 'type' of the resource. */ function resourceType(); /** * Returns the data to be serialized. */ function resourceSerialize(); } Things might be poorly named, I'll take suggestions. Notes: ResourceId will work for API's and databases. As long as your primary key in the database is the same as the resource ID in the API, there is no conflict. All of the API's I've worked with have a unique ID for the resource, so I don't see any issues there. ResourceType is the group or type associated with the resource. You can use this to map the resource to an API call or a database table. If the ResourceType was person, it could map to /api/1/person/{resourceId} and the table persons (or people, if it's smart enough). resourceSerialize() returns the data to be stored. Keys would identify API parameters and database table columns. This also seems easier to test than ActiveRecord / Orm implemenations. I haven't done much automated testing on traditional ActiveRecord/ORM implemenations, so this is merely a guess. But it seems that I being able to create objects independently of the library helps me. I don't have to use load() to get an existing resource, I can simply create one and set all the right properties. This is not so easy in the ActiveRecord / Orm implemenations I've dealt with. Downsides: You need another object to serialize it. This also means you have more code in general as you have to use more objects. You have to map resource types to API calls and database tables. This is even more work, but some ORMs and ActiveRecord implementations require you to map objects to table names anyway. Are there other downsides that you see? Does this seem feasible to you? How would you improve it? Note: I almost asked this on StackOverflow because it might be too vague for their standards, but I'm still not really familiar with programmers.stackexchange.com, so please help me improve my question if it doesn't shape up to standards here.

    Read the article

  • Designing status management for a file processing module

    - by bot
    The background One of the functionality of a product that I am currently working on is to process a set of compressed files ( containing XML files ) that will be made available at a fixed location periodically (local or remote location - doesn't really matter for now) and dump the contents of each XML file in a database. I have taken care of the design for a generic parsing module that should be able to accommodate the parsing of any file type as I have explained in my question linked below. There is no need to take a look at the following link to answer my question but it would definitely provide a better context to the problem Generic file parser design in Java using the Strategy pattern The Goal I want to be able to keep a track of the status of each XML file and the status of each compressed file containing the XML files. I can probably have different statuses defined for the XML files such as NEW, PROCESSING, LOADING, COMPLETE or FAILED. I can derive the status of a compressed file based on the status of the XML files within the compressed file. e.g status of the compressed file is COMPLETE if no XML file inside the compressed file is in a FAILED state or status of the compressed file is FAILED if the status of at-least one XML file inside the compressed file is FAILED. A possible solution The Model I need to maintain the status of each XML file and the compressed file. I will have to define some POJOs for holding the information about an XML file as shown below. Note that there is no need to store the status of a compressed file as the status of a compressed file can be derived from the status of its XML files. public class FileInformation { private String compressedFileName; private String xmlFileName; private long lastModifiedDate; private int status; public FileInformation(final String compressedFileName, final String xmlFileName, final long lastModified, final int status) { this.compressedFileName = compressedFileName; this.xmlFileName = xmlFileName; this.lastModifiedDate = lastModified; this.status = status; } } I can then have a class called StatusManager that aggregates a Map of FileInformation instances and provides me the status of a given file at any given time in the lifetime of the appliciation as shown below : public class StatusManager { private Map<String,FileInformation> processingMap = new HashMap<String,FileInformation>(); public void add(FileInformation fileInformation) { fileInformation.setStatus(0); // 0 will indicates that the file is in NEW state. 1 will indicate that the file is in process and so on.. processingMap.put(fileInformation.getXmlFileName(),fileInformation); } public void update(String filename,int status) { FileInformation fileInformation = processingMap.get(filename); fileInformation.setStatus(status); } } That takes care of the model for the sake of explanation. So whats my question? Edited after comments from Loki and answer from Eric : - I would like to know if there are any existing design patterns that I can refer to while coming up with a design. I would also like to know how I should go about designing the status management classes. I am more interested in understanding how I can model the status management classes. I am not interested in how other components are going to be updated about a change in status at the moment as suggested by Eric.

    Read the article

  • Design Pattern for building a Budget

    - by Scott
    So I've looked at the Builder Pattern, Abstract Interfaces, other design patterns, etc. - and I think I'm over thinking the simplicity behind what I'm trying to do, so I'm asking you guys for some help with either recommending a design pattern I should use, or an architecture style I'm not familiar with that fits my task. So I have one model that represents a Budget in my code. At a high level, it looks like this: public class Budget { public int Id { get; set; } public List<MonthlySummary> Months { get; set; } public float SavingsPriority { get; set; } public float DebtPriority { get; set; } public List<Savings> SavingsCollection { get; set; } public UserProjectionParameters UserProjectionParameters { get; set; } public List<Debt> DebtCollection { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public List<Expense> Expenses { get; set; } public List<Income> IncomeCollection { get; set; } public bool AutoSave { get; set; } public decimal AutoSaveAmount { get; set; } public FundType AutoSaveType { get; set; } public decimal TotalExcess { get; set; } public decimal AccountMinimum { get; set; } } To go into more detail about some of the properties here shouldn't be necessary, but if you have any questions about those I will fill more out for you guys. Now, I'm trying to create code that builds one of these things based on a set of BudgetBuildParameters that the user will create and supply. There are going to be multiple types of these parameters. For example, on the sites homepage, there will be an example section where you can quickly see what your numbers look like, so they would be a much simpler set of SampleBudgetBuildParameters then say after a user registers and wants to create a fully filled out Budget using much more information in the DebtBudgetBuildParameters. Now a lot of these builds are going to be using similar code for certain tasks, but might want to also check the status of a users DebtCollection when formulating a monthly spending report, where as a Budget that only focuses on savings might not want to. I'd like to reduce code duplication (obviously) as much as possible, but in my head, every way I can think to do this would require using a base BudgetBuilderFactory to return the correct builder to the caller, and then creating say a SimpleBudgetBuilder that inherits from a BudgetBuilder, and put all duplicate code in the BudgetBuilder, and let the SimpleBudgetBuilder handle it's own cases. Problem is, a lot of the unique cases are unique to 2/4 builders, so there will be duplicate code somewhere in there obviously if I did that. Can anyone think of a better way to either explain a solution to this that may or may not be similar to mine, or a completely different pattern or way of thinking here? I really appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • Sharing authentication between forum and main CMS in Rails

    - by Newy
    I have a Rails forum product that resides under the subdomains of my customers (i.e. http://forum.customer.com). Their main site has a CMS and an authentication system, and my forum product has a separate authentication system. Is there an elegant way to have "cross-signins" across these systems? I want someone already logged into the main CMS to seamlessly (as possible) transition into my product.

    Read the article

  • Best Creational Pattern for loggers in a multi-threaded system?

    - by Dipan Mehta
    This is a follow up question on my past questions : Concurrency pattern of logger in multithreaded application As suggested by others, I am putting this question separately. As the learning from the last question. In a multi-threaded environment, the logger should be made thread safe and probably asynchronous (where in messages are queued while a background thread does writing releasing the requesting object thread). The logger could be signleton or it can be a per-group logger which is a generalization of the above. Now, the question that arise is how does logger should be assigned to the object? There are two options I can think of: 1. Object requesting for the logger: Should each of the object call some global API such as get_logger()? Such an API returns "the" singleton or the group logger. However, I feel this involves assumption about the Application environment to implement the logger -which I think is some kind of coupling. If the same object needs to be used by other application - this new application also need to implement such a method. 2. Assign logger through some known API The other alternative approach is to create a kind of virtual class which is implemented by application based on App's own structure and assign the object sometime in the constructor. This is more generalized method. Unfortunately, when there are so many objects - and rather a tree of objects passing on the logger objects to each level is quite messy. My question is there a better way to do this? If you need to pick any one of the above, which approach is would you pick and why? Other questions remain open about how to configure them: How do objects' names or ID are assigned so that will be used for printing on the log messages (as the module names) How do these objects find the appropriate properties (such as log levels, and other such parameters) In the first approach, the central API needs to deal with all this varieties. In the second approach - there needs to be additional work. Hence, I want to understand from the real experience of people, as to how to write logger effectively in such an environment.

    Read the article

  • Tuesday at Oracle OpenWorld 2012 - Must See Session: “Oracle Fusion Applications: Best Practices in Integration Design Patterns”

    - by Lionel Dubreuil
    Don’t miss this “CON8685 - Oracle Fusion Applications: Best Practices in Integration Design Patterns “ session: Speakers: Rajesh Raheja - Senior Director, Development, Oracle Ravi Sankaran - Director, Applications Development, Oracle Date: Tuesday, Oct 2 Time: 1:15 PM - 2:15 PM Location: Palace Hotel - Telegraph Oracle Fusion Applications provide various ways to integrate their functional capabilities with other Oracle applications as well as third-party and legacy applications. In this session, you will learn the patterns used when communicating with Oracle Fusion Applications with a SOA approach. It addresses items related to identifying the integration artifacts available, also known as assets, in Oracle Enterprise Repository; how to invoke synchronous and asynchronous Web services; importing and exporting bulk data; and any integration issues to look out for. The patterns will be applicable to on-premises and SaaS/cloud deployment modes and are indicated as such. Objectives for this session are to: Highlight the various ways to integrate with Oracle Fusion Applications Showcase use of Oracle Fusion Middleware technologies for integration Describe best practices and design patterns for integration

    Read the article

  • Tuesday at Oracle OpenWorld 2012 - Must See Session: “Oracle Fusion Applications: Best Practices in Integration Design Patterns”

    - by Lionel Dubreuil
    Don’t miss this “CON8685 - Oracle Fusion Applications: Best Practices in Integration Design Patterns “ session: Speakers: Rajesh Raheja - Senior Director, Development, Oracle Ravi Sankaran - Director, Applications Development, Oracle Date: Tuesday, Oct 2 Time: 1:15 PM - 2:15 PM Location: Palace Hotel - Telegraph Oracle Fusion Applications provide various ways to integrate their functional capabilities with other Oracle applications as well as third-party and legacy applications. In this session, you will learn the patterns used when communicating with Oracle Fusion Applications with a SOA approach. It addresses items related to identifying the integration artifacts available, also known as assets, in Oracle Enterprise Repository; how to invoke synchronous and asynchronous Web services; importing and exporting bulk data; and any integration issues to look out for. The patterns will be applicable to on-premises and SaaS/cloud deployment modes and are indicated as such. Objectives for this session are to: Highlight the various ways to integrate with Oracle Fusion Applications Showcase use of Oracle Fusion Middleware technologies for integration Describe best practices and design patterns for integration

    Read the article

  • Syncing client and server CRUD operations using json and php

    - by Justin
    I'm working on some code to sync the state of models between client (being a javascript application) and server. Often I end up writing redundant code to track the client and server objects so I can map the client supplied data to the server models. Below is some code I am thinking about implementing to help. What I don't like about the below code is that this method won't handle nested relationships very well, I would have to create multiple object trackers. One work around is for each server model after creating or loading, simply do $model->clientId = $clientId; IMO this is a nasty hack and I want to avoid it. Adding a setCientId method to all my model object would be another way to make it less hacky, but this seems like overkill to me. Really clientIds are only good for inserting/updating data in some scenarios. I could go with a decorator pattern but auto generating a proxy class seems a bit involved. I could use a generic proxy class that uses a __call function to allow for original object data to be accessed, but this seems wrong too. Any thoughts or comments? $clientData = '[{name: "Bob", action: "update", id: 1, clientId: 200}, {name:"Susan", action:"create", clientId: 131} ]'; $jsonObjs = json_decode($clientData); $objectTracker = new ObjectTracker(); $objectTracker->trackClientObjs($jsonObjs); $query = $this->em->createQuery("SELECT x FROM Application_Model_User x WHERE x.id IN (:ids)"); $query->setParameters("ids",$objectTracker->getClientSpecifiedServerIds()); $models = $query->getResults(); //Apply client data to server model foreach ($models as $model) { $clientModel = $objectTracker->getClientJsonObj($model->getId()); ... } //Create new models and persist foreach($objectTracker->getNewClientObjs() as $newClientObj) { $model = new Application_Model_User(); .... $em->persist($model); $objectTracker->trackServerObj($model); } $em->flush(); $resourceResponse = $objectTracker->createResourceResponse(); //Id mappings will be an associtave array representing server id resources with client side // id. //This method Dosen't seem to flexible if we want to return additional data with each resource... //Would have to modify the returned data structure, seems like tight coupling... //Ex return value: //[{clientId: 200, id:1} , {clientId: 131, id: 33}];

    Read the article

  • Why are MVC & TDD not employed more in game architecture?

    - by secoif
    I will preface this by saying I haven't looked a huge amount of game source, nor built much in the way of games. But coming from trying to employ 'enterprise' coding practices in web apps, looking at game source code seriously hurts my head: "What is this view logic doing in with business logic? this needs refactoring... so does this, refactor, refactorrr" This worries me as I'm about to start a game project, and I'm not sure whether trying to mvc/tdd the dev process is going to hinder us or help us, as I don't see many game examples that use this or much push for better architectural practices it in the community. The following is an extract from a great article on prototyping games, though to me it seemed exactly the attitude many game devs seem to use when writing production game code: Mistake #4: Building a system, not a game ...if you ever find yourself working on something that isn’t directly moving your forward, stop right there. As programmers, we have a tendency to try to generalize our code, and make it elegant and be able to handle every situation. We find that an itch terribly hard not scratch, but we need to learn how. It took me many years to realize that it’s not about the code, it’s about the game you ship in the end. Don’t write an elegant game component system, skip the editor completely and hardwire the state in code, avoid the data-driven, self-parsing, XML craziness, and just code the damned thing. ... Just get stuff on the screen as quickly as you can. And don’t ever, ever, use the argument “if we take some extra time and do this the right way, we can reuse it in the game”. EVER. is it because games are (mostly) visually oriented so it makes sense that the code will be weighted heavily in the view, thus any benefits from moving stuff out to models/controllers, is fairly minimal, so why bother? I've heard the argument that MVC introduces a performance overhead, but this seems to me to be a premature optimisation, and that there'd more important performance issues to tackle before you worry about MVC overheads (eg render pipeline, AI algorithms, datastructure traversal, etc). Same thing regarding TDD. It's not often I see games employing test cases, but perhaps this is due to the design issues above (mixed view/business) and the fact that it's difficult to test visual components, or components that rely on probablistic results (eg operate within physics simulations). Perhaps I'm just looking at the wrong source code, but why do we not see more of these 'enterprise' practices employed in game design? Are games really so different in their requirements, or is a people/culture issue (ie game devs come from a different background and thus have different coding habits)?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >