Search Results

Search found 40386 results on 1616 pages for 'object design'.

Page 38/1616 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • Object oriented n-tier design. Am I abstracting too much? Or not enough?

    - by max
    Hi guys, I'm building my first enterprise grade solution (at least I'm attempting to make it enterprise grade). I'm trying to follow best practice design patterns but am starting to worry that I might be going too far with abstraction. I'm trying to build my asp.net webforms (in C#) app as an n-tier application. I've created a Data Access Layer using an XSD strongly-typed dataset that interfaces with a SQL server backend. I access the DAL through some Business Layer Objects that I've created on a 1:1 basis to the datatables in the dataset (eg, a UsersBLL class for the Users datatable in the dataset). I'm doing checks inside the BLL to make sure that data passed to DAL is following the business rules of the application. That's all well and good. Where I'm getting stuck though is the point at which I connect the BLL to the presentation layer. For example, my UsersBLL class deals mostly with whole datatables, as it's interfacing with the DAL. Should I now create a separate "User" (Singular) class that maps out the properties of a single user, rather than multiple users? This way I don't have to do any searching through datatables in the presentation layer, as I could use the properties created in the User class. Or would it be better to somehow try to handle this inside the UsersBLL? Sorry if this sounds a little complicated... Below is the code from the UsersBLL: using System; using System.Data; using PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSetTableAdapters; [System.ComponentModel.DataObject] public class UsersBLL { private UsersTableAdapter _UsersAdapter = null; protected UsersTableAdapter Adapter { get { if (_UsersAdapter == null) _UsersAdapter = new UsersTableAdapter(); return _UsersAdapter; } } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Select, true)] public PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable GetUsers() { return Adapter.GetUsers(); } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Select, false)] public PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable GetUserByUserID(int userID) { return Adapter.GetUserByUserID(userID); } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Select, false)] public PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable GetUsersByTeamID(int teamID) { return Adapter.GetUsersByTeamID(teamID); } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Select, false)] public PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable GetUsersByEmail(string Email) { return Adapter.GetUserByEmail(Email); } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Insert, true)] public bool AddUser(int? teamID, string FirstName, string LastName, string Email, string Role, int LocationID) { // Create a new UsersRow instance PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable Users = new PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable(); PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersRow user = Users.NewUsersRow(); if (UserExists(Users, Email) == true) return false; if (teamID == null) user.SetTeamIDNull(); else user.TeamID = teamID.Value; user.FirstName = FirstName; user.LastName = LastName; user.Email = Email; user.Role = Role; user.LocationID = LocationID; // Add the new user Users.AddUsersRow(user); int rowsAffected = Adapter.Update(Users); // Return true if precisely one row was inserted, // otherwise false return rowsAffected == 1; } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Update, true)] public bool UpdateUser(int userID, int? teamID, string FirstName, string LastName, string Email, string Role, int LocationID) { PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable Users = Adapter.GetUserByUserID(userID); if (Users.Count == 0) // no matching record found, return false return false; PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersRow user = Users[0]; if (teamID == null) user.SetTeamIDNull(); else user.TeamID = teamID.Value; user.FirstName = FirstName; user.LastName = LastName; user.Email = Email; user.Role = Role; user.LocationID = LocationID; // Update the product record int rowsAffected = Adapter.Update(user); // Return true if precisely one row was updated, // otherwise false return rowsAffected == 1; } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Delete, true)] public bool DeleteUser(int userID) { int rowsAffected = Adapter.Delete(userID); // Return true if precisely one row was deleted, // otherwise false return rowsAffected == 1; } private bool UserExists(PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable users, string email) { // Check if user email already exists foreach (PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersRow userRow in users) { if (userRow.Email == email) return true; } return false; } } Some guidance in the right direction would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks all! Max

    Read the article

  • What is the proper name for this design pattern in Python?

    - by James
    In Python, is the proper name for the PersonXXX class below PersonProxy, PersonInterface, etc? import rest class PersonXXX(object): def __init__(self,db_url): self.resource = rest.Resource(db_url) def create(self,person): self.resource.post(person.data()) def get(self): pass def update(self): pass def delete(self): pass class Person(object): def __init__(self,name, age): self.name = name self.age = age def data(self): return dict(name=self.name,age=self.age)

    Read the article

  • Requring static class setter to be called before constructor, bad design?

    - by roverred
    I have a class, say Foo, and every instance of Foo will need and contain the same List object, myList. Since every class instance will share the same List Object, I thought it would be good to make myList static and use a static function to set myList before the constructor is called. I was wondering if this was bad, because this requires the setter to be called before the constructor? If the person doesn't, the program will crash. Alternative way would be passing myList every time.

    Read the article

  • Deriving an HTMLElement Object from jQuery Object

    - by Jasconius
    I'm doing a fairly exhaustive series of DOM manipulations where a few elements (specifically form elements) have some events. I am dynamically creating (actually cloning from a source element) several boxes and assigning a change() event to them. The change event executes, and within the context of the event, "this" is the HTML Element Object. What I need to do at this point however is determine a contact for this HTML Element Object. I have these objects stored already as jQuery entities in assorted arrays, but obviously [HTMLElement Object] != [Object Object] And the trick is that I cannot cast $(this) and make a valid comparison since that would create a new object and the pointer would be different. So... I've been banging my head against this for a while. In the past I've been able to circumvent this problem by doing an innerHTML comparison, but in this case the objects I am comparing are 100% identical, just there's lots of them. Therefore I need a solid comparison. This would be easy if I could somehow derive the HTMLElement object from my originating jQuery object. Thoughts, other ideas? Help. :(

    Read the article

  • Convert JSON flattened for forms back to an object

    - by George Jempty
    I am required (please therefore no nit-picking the requirement, I've already nit-picked it, and this is the req) to convert certain form fields that have "object nesting" embedded in the field names, back to the object(s) themselves. Below are some typical form field names: phones_0_patientPhoneTypeId phones_0_phone phones_1_patientPhoneTypeId phones_1_phone The form fields above were derived from an object such as the one toward the bottom (see "Data"), and that is the format of the object I need to reassemble. It can be assumed that any form field with a name that contains the underscore _ character needs to undergo this conversion. Also that the segment of the form field between underscores, if numeric, signifies a Javascript array, otherwise an object. I found it easy to devise a (somewhat naive) implementation for the "flattening" of the original object for use by the form, but am struggling going in the other direction; below the object/data below I'm pasting my current attempt. One problem (perhaps the only one?) with it is that it does not currently properly account for array indexes, but this might be tricky because the object will subsequently be encoded as JSON, which will not account for sparse arrays. So if "phones_1" exists, but "phones_0" does not, I would nevertheless like to ensure that a slot exists for phones[0] even if that value is null. Implementations that tweak what I have begun, or are entirely different, encouraged. If interested let me know if you'd like to see my code for the "flattening" part that is working. Thanks in advance Data: var obj = { phones: [{ "patientPhoneTypeId": 4, "phone": "8005551212" }, { "patientPhoneTypeId": 2, "phone": "8885551212" }]}; Code to date: var unflattened = {}; for (var prop in values) { if (prop.indexOf('_') > -1) { var lastUnderbarPos = prop.lastIndexOf('_'); var nestedProp = prop.substr(lastUnderbarPos + 1); var nesting = prop.substr(0, lastUnderbarPos).split("_"); var nestedRef, isArray, isObject; for (var i=0, n=nesting.length; i<n; i++) { if (i===0) { nestedRef = unflattened; } if (i < (n-1)) { // not last if (/^\d+$/.test(nesting[i+1])) { isArray = true; isObject = false; } else { isArray = true; isObject = false; } var currProp = nesting[i]; if (!nestedRef[currProp]) { if (isArray) { nestedRef[currProp] = []; } else if (isObject) { nestedRef[currProp] = {}; } } nestedRef = nestedRef[currProp]; } else { nestedRef[nestedProp] = values[prop]; } } }

    Read the article

  • Using an object in an if statement... (Android)

    - by James Rattray
    I have an object variable Object test = Spinner.getSelectedItem(); -It gets the selected item from the Spinner (called spinner) and names the item 'test' I want to do an if statement related to that object e.g: 'if (test = "hello") { //do something }' But it appears not to work.... Can someone give me some help? -Do I have to use a different if? or convert the object to string etc.? Thanks alot... James

    Read the article

  • Scala passing type parameters to object

    - by Shahzad Mian
    In Scala v 2.7.7 I have a file with class Something[T] extends Other { } object Something extends OtherConstructor[Something] { } This throws the error: class Something takes type parameters object Something extends OtherConstructor[Something] { However, I can't do this object Something[T] extends OtherConstructor[Something[T]] { } It throws an error: error: ';' expected but '[' found. Is it possible to send type parameters to object? Or should I change and simply use Otherconstructor

    Read the article

  • Check if an object is defined in html

    - by Manikanta
    In HTML, I have an object tag as follows: <OBJECT ID="objectid" CLASSID="some-class-id" CODEBASE="some-codebase"> I have written a function in JavaScript to access this object. I checked the null value as follows: if(objectid==null){-----} i want to check if the object is undefined or is empty. Do we have any functions to check so?

    Read the article

  • Considerations Before Hiring Logo Design Services

    These days, hiring a logo design service is not easy. Just enter a keyword "logo design" in a search engine and you will see thousands of result pages full of online logo design services. Certainly, ... [Author: Gisselle Gloria - Web Design and Development - October 05, 2009]

    Read the article

  • So what *did* Alan Kay really mean by the term "object-oriented"?

    - by Charlie Flowers
    Reportedly, Alan Kay is the inventor of the term "object oriented". And he is often quoted as having said that what we call OO today is not what he meant. For example, I just found this on Google: I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I didn't have C++ in mind -- Alan Kay, OOPSLA '97 I vaguely remember hearing something pretty insightful about what he did mean. Something along the lines of "message passing". Do you know what he meant? Can you fill in more details of what he meant and how it differs from today's common OO? Please share some references if you have any. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Who are the outspoken critics of Object-Oriented design?

    - by Xepoch
    Sure, object-oriented techniques are great and have stuck around for a while. I know only less than a handful of critics of the OO principles. It seems as though most non-OO designs and architectures are shunned, yet we continue to write a lot of good software in C and solve a lot of data changes via awk/sed and countless other examples. Correct tool for the correct job, yes? I'm having a hard time finding articles, presentations, or published criticisms of OO (even Fred Brooks has blessed information hiding). Are there any well-known, published and/or outspoken critics of OO?

    Read the article

  • SQL Rally Relational Database Design Pre-Con Preview

    - by drsql
    On May 9, 2012, I will be presenting a pre-con session at the SQL Rally in Dallas, TX on relational database design. The fact is, database design is a topic that demands more than a simple one hour session to really do it right. So in my Relational Database Design Workshop, we will have seven times the amount of time in the typical session, giving us time to cover our topics in a bit more detail, look at a lot more designs/code, and even get some time to do some design as a group. Our topics will...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Cross-Cultural Design (great video from HFI) - #usableapps #UX #L10n

    - by ultan o'broin
    Great video from HFI Animate, featuring user-centered design for emerging markets called Cross Cultural Design: Getting It Right the First Time. Cross Cultural Design: Getting It Right the First Time Apala Lahiri Chavan talks about the issues involved in designing solutions for Africa, India, China and more markets! Design for the local customer's ecosystem - and their feelings! Timely reminder of the important of global and local research in UX!

    Read the article

  • Should I pass an object into a constructor, or instantiate in class?

    - by Prisoner
    Consider these two examples: Passing an object to a constructor class ExampleA { private $config; public function __construct($config) { $this->config = $config; } } $config = new Config; $exampleA = new ExampleA($config); Instantiating a class class ExampleB { private $config; public function __construct() { $this->config = new Config; } } $exampleA = new ExampleA(); Which is the correct way to handle adding an object as a property? When should I use one over the other? Does unit testing affect what I should use?

    Read the article

  • .net design pattern question

    - by user359562
    Hi. I am trying to understand design pattern problems. I am trying to modify the code like this in winforms and trying to see if any design pattern suits my requirement. Please suggest which is the best design pattern in this scenario. This is very basic code containing 2 tab pages which might have different controls can be added dynamically and read out different files on click of particular tab. To elaborate more... I have written this code to learn and understand design pattern. This is just a scenario where user click on a particular tab which will show dynamic controls generated. public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); } private void tabControl1_SelectedIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (tabControl1.SelectedTab.Name.Equals("tabPage1")) { GeneratedynamicControlsForTab1(); } else if (tabControl1.SelectedTab.Name.Equals("tabPage2")) { GeneratedynamicControlsForTab2(); } } private void GeneratedynamicControlsForTab1() { Label label1 = new Label(); label1.Text = "Label1"; tabPage1.Controls.Add(label1); ReadCSVFile(); } private void GeneratedynamicControlsForTab2() { tabPage1.Controls.Clear(); Label label2 = new Label(); label2.Text = "Label2"; tabPage2.Controls.Add(label2); ReadTextFile(); } private void ReadCSVFile() { } private void ReadTextFile() { } }

    Read the article

  • JPA - Entity design problem

    - by Yatendra Goel
    I am developing a Java Desktop Application and using JPA for persistence. I have a problem mentioned below: I have two entities: Country City Country has the following attribute: CountryName (PK) City has the following attribute: CityName Now as there can be two cities with same name in two different countries, the primaryKey for City table in the datbase is a composite primary key composed of CityName and CountryName. Now my question is How to implement the primary key of the City as an Entity in Java @Entity public class Country implements Serializable { private String countryName; @Id public String getCountryName() { return this.countryName; } } @Entity public class City implements Serializable { private CityPK cityPK; private Country country; @EmbeddedId public CityPK getCityPK() { return this.cityPK; } } @Embeddable public class CityPK implements Serializable { public String cityName; public String countryName; } Now as we know that the relationship from Country to City is OneToMany and to show this relationship in the above code, I have added a country variable in City class. But then we have duplicate data(countryName) stored in two places in the City class: one in the country object and other in the cityPK object. But on the other hand, both are necessary: countryName in cityPK object is necessary because we implement composite primary keys in this way. countryName in country object is necessary because it is the standard way of showing relashionship between objects. How to get around this problem?

    Read the article

  • Are Java's public fields just a tragic historical design flaw at this point?

    - by Avi Flax
    It seems to be Java orthodoxy at this point that one should basically never use public fields for object state. (I don't necessarily agree, but that's not relevant to my question.) Given that, would it be right to say that from where we are today, it's clear that Java's public fields were a mistake/flaw of the language design? Or is there a rational argument that they're a useful and important part of the language, even today? Thanks! Update: I know about the more elegant approaches, such as in C#, Python, Groovy, etc. I'm not directly looking for those examples. I'm really just wondering if there's still someone deep in a bunker, muttering about how wonderful public fields really are, and how the masses are all just sheep, etc. Update 2: Clearly static final public fields are the standard way to create public constants. I was referring more to using public fields for object state (even immutable state). I'm thinking that it does seem like a design flaw that one should use public fields for constants, but not for state… a language's rules should be enforced naturally, by syntax, not by guidelines.

    Read the article

  • Interface (contract), Generics (universality), and extension methods (ease of use). Is it a right design?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I'm trying to design a simple conversion framework based on these requirements: All developers should follow a predefined set of rules to convert from the source entity to the target entity Some overall policies should be able to be applied in a central place, without interference with developers' code Both the creation of converters and usage of converter classes should be easy To solve these problems in C# language, A thought came to my mind. I'm writing it here, though it doesn't compile at all. But let's assume that C# compiles this code: I'll create a generic interface called IConverter public interface IConverter<TSource, TTarget> where TSource : class, new() where TTarget : class, new() { TTarget Convert(TSource source); List<TTarget> Convert(List<TSource> sourceItems); } Developers would implement this interface to create converters. For example: public class PhoneToCommunicationChannelConverter : IConverter<Phone, CommunicationChannle> { public CommunicationChannel Convert(Phone phone) { // conversion logic } public List<CommunicationChannel> Convert(List<Phone> phones) { // conversion logic } } And to make the usage of this conversion class easier, imagine that we add static and this keywords to methods to turn them into Extension Methods, and use them this way: List<Phone> phones = GetPhones(); List<CommunicationChannel> channels = phones.Convert(); However, this doesn't even compile. With those requirements, I can think of some other designs, but they each lack an aspect. Either the implementation would become more difficult or chaotic and out of control, or the usage would become truly hard. Is this design right at all? What alternatives I might have to achieve those requirements?

    Read the article

  • Abstracting functionality

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/08/22/abstracting-functionality.aspxWhat is more important than data? Functionality. Yes, I strongly believe we should switch to a functionality over data mindset in programming. Or actually switch back to it. Focus on functionality Functionality once was at the core of software development. Back when algorithms were the first thing you heard about in CS classes. Sure, data structures, too, were important - but always from the point of view of algorithms. (Niklaus Wirth gave one of his books the title “Algorithms + Data Structures” instead of “Data Structures + Algorithms” for a reason.) The reason for the focus on functionality? Firstly, because software was and is about doing stuff. Secondly because sufficient performance was hard to achieve, and only thirdly memory efficiency. But then hardware became more powerful. That gave rise to a new mindset: object orientation. And with it functionality was devalued. Data took over its place as the most important aspect. Now discussions revolved around structures motivated by data relationships. (John Beidler gave his book the title “Data Structures and Algorithms: An Object Oriented Approach” instead of the other way around for a reason.) Sure, this data could be embellished with functionality. But nevertheless functionality was second. When you look at (domain) object models what you mostly find is (domain) data object models. The common object oriented approach is: data aka structure over functionality. This is true even for the most modern modeling approaches like Domain Driven Design. Look at the literature and what you find is recommendations on how to get data structures right: aggregates, entities, value objects. I´m not saying this is what object orientation was invented for. But I´m saying that´s what I happen to see across many teams now some 25 years after object orientation became mainstream through C++, Delphi, and Java. But why should we switch back? Because software development cannot become truly agile with a data focus. The reason for that lies in what customers need first: functionality, behavior, operations. To be clear, that´s not why software is built. The purpose of software is to be more efficient than the alternative. Money mainly is spent to get a certain level of quality (e.g. performance, scalability, security etc.). But without functionality being present, there is nothing to work on the quality of. What customers want is functionality of a certain quality. ASAP. And tomorrow new functionality needs to be added, existing functionality needs to be changed, and quality needs to be increased. No customer ever wanted data or structures. Of course data should be processed. Data is there, data gets generated, transformed, stored. But how the data is structured for this to happen efficiently is of no concern to the customer. Ask a customer (or user) whether she likes the data structured this way or that way. She´ll say, “I don´t care.” But ask a customer (or user) whether he likes the functionality and its quality this way or that way. He´ll say, “I like it” (or “I don´t like it”). Build software incrementally From this very natural focus of customers and users on functionality and its quality follows we should develop software incrementally. That´s what Agility is about. Deliver small increments quickly and often to get frequent feedback. That way less waste is produced, and learning can take place much easier (on the side of the customer as well as on the side of developers). An increment is some added functionality or quality of functionality.[1] So as it turns out, Agility is about functionality over whatever. But software developers’ thinking is still stuck in the object oriented mindset of whatever over functionality. Bummer. I guess that (at least partly) explains why Agility always hits a glass ceiling in projects. It´s a clash of mindsets, of cultures. Driving software development by demanding small increases in functionality runs against thinking about software as growing (data) structures sprinkled with functionality. (Excuse me, if this sounds a bit broad-brush. But you get my point.) The need for abstraction In the end there need to be data structures. Of course. Small and large ones. The phrase functionality over data does not deny that. It´s not functionality instead of data or something. It´s just over, i.e. functionality should be thought of first. It´s a tad more important. It´s what the customer wants. That´s why we need a way to design functionality. Small and large. We need to be able to think about functionality before implementing it. We need to be able to reason about it among team members. We need to be able to communicate our mental models of functionality not just by speaking about them, but also on paper. Otherwise reasoning about it does not scale. We learned thinking about functionality in the small using flow charts, Nassi-Shneiderman diagrams, pseudo code, or UML sequence diagrams. That´s nice and well. But it does not scale. You can use these tools to describe manageable algorithms. But it does not work for the functionality triggered by pressing the “1-Click Order” on an amazon product page for example. There are several reasons for that, I´d say. Firstly, the level of abstraction over code is negligible. It´s essentially non-existent. Drawing a flow chart or writing pseudo code or writing actual code is very, very much alike. All these tools are about control flow like code is.[2] In addition all tools are computationally complete. They are about logic which is expressions and especially control statements. Whatever you code in Java you can fully (!) describe using a flow chart. And then there is no data. They are about control flow and leave out the data altogether. Thus data mostly is assumed to be global. That´s shooting yourself in the foot, as I hope you agree. Even if it´s functionality over data that does not mean “don´t think about data”. Right to the contrary! Functionality only makes sense with regard to data. So data needs to be in the picture right from the start - but it must not dominate the thinking. The above tools fail on this. Bottom line: So far we´re unable to reason in a scalable and abstract manner about functionality. That´s why programmers are so driven to start coding once they are presented with a problem. Programming languages are the only tool they´ve learned to use to reason about functional solutions. Or, well, there might be exceptions. Mathematical notation and SQL may have come to your mind already. Indeed they are tools on a higher level of abstraction than flow charts etc. That´s because they are declarative and not computationally complete. They leave out details - in order to deliver higher efficiency in devising overall solutions. We can easily reason about functionality using mathematics and SQL. That´s great. Except for that they are domain specific languages. They are not general purpose. (And they don´t scale either, I´d say.) Bummer. So to be more precise we need a scalable general purpose tool on a higher than code level of abstraction not neglecting data. Enter: Flow Design. Abstracting functionality using data flows I believe the solution to the problem of abstracting functionality lies in switching from control flow to data flow. Data flow very naturally is not about logic details anymore. There are no expressions and no control statements anymore. There are not even statements anymore. Data flow is declarative by nature. With data flow we get rid of all the limiting traits of former approaches to modeling functionality. In addition, nomen est omen, data flows include data in the functionality picture. With data flows, data is visibly flowing from processing step to processing step. Control is not flowing. Control is wherever it´s needed to process data coming in. That´s a crucial difference and needs some rewiring in your head to be fully appreciated.[2] Since data flows are declarative they are not the right tool to describe algorithms, though, I´d say. With them you don´t design functionality on a low level. During design data flow processing steps are black boxes. They get fleshed out during coding. Data flow design thus is more coarse grained than flow chart design. It starts on a higher level of abstraction - but then is not limited. By nesting data flows indefinitely you can design functionality of any size, without losing sight of your data. Data flows scale very well during design. They can be used on any level of granularity. And they can easily be depicted. Communicating designs using data flows is easy and scales well, too. The result of functional design using data flows is not algorithms (too low level), but processes. Think of data flows as descriptions of industrial production lines. Data as material runs through a number of processing steps to be analyzed, enhances, transformed. On the top level of a data flow design might be just one processing step, e.g. “execute 1-click order”. But below that are arbitrary levels of flows with smaller and smaller steps. That´s not layering as in “layered architecture”, though. Rather it´s a stratified design à la Abelson/Sussman. Refining data flows is not your grandpa´s functional decomposition. That was rooted in control flows. Refining data flows does not suffer from the limits of functional decomposition against which object orientation was supposed to be an antidote. Summary I´ve been working exclusively with data flows for functional design for the past 4 years. It has changed my life as a programmer. What once was difficult is now easy. And, no, I´m not using Clojure or F#. And I´m not a async/parallel execution buff. Designing the functionality of increments using data flows works great with teams. It produces design documentation which can easily be translated into code - in which then the smallest data flow processing steps have to be fleshed out - which is comparatively easy. Using a systematic translation approach code can mirror the data flow design. That way later on the design can easily be reproduced from the code if need be. And finally, data flow designs play well with object orientation. They are a great starting point for class design. But that´s a story for another day. To me data flow design simply is one of the missing links of systematic lightweight software design. There are also other artifacts software development can produce to get feedback, e.g. process descriptions, test cases. But customers can be delighted more easily with code based increments in functionality. ? No, I´m not talking about the endless possibilities this opens for parallel processing. Data flows are useful independently of multi-core processors and Actor-based designs. That´s my whole point here. Data flows are good for reasoning and evolvability. So forget about any special frameworks you might need to reap benefits from data flows. None are necessary. Translating data flow designs even into plain of Java is possible. ?

    Read the article

  • Design for a machine learning artificial intelligence framework

    - by Lirik
    This is a community wiki which aims to provide a good design for a machine learning/artificial intelligence framework (ML/AI framework). Please contribute to the design of a language-agnostic framework which would allow multiple ML/AI algorithms to be plugged into a single framework which: runs the algorithms with a user-specified data set. facilitates learning, qualification, and classification. allows users to easily plug in new algorithms. can aggregate or create an ensemble of the existing algorithms. can save/load the progress of the algorithm (i.e. save the network and weights of a neural network, save the tree of a decision tree, etc.). What is a good design for this sort of ML/AI framework?

    Read the article

  • Design for a machine learning artificial intelligence framework (community wiki)

    - by Lirik
    This is a community wiki which aims to provide a good design for a machine learning/artificial intelligence framework (ML/AI framework). Please contribute to the design of a language-agnostic framework which would allow multiple ML/AI algorithms to be plugged into a single framework which: runs the algorithms with a user-specified data set. facilitates learning, qualification, and classification. allows users to easily plug in new algorithms. can aggregate or create an ensemble of the existing algorithms. can save/load the progress of the algorithm (i.e. save the network and weights of a neural network, save the tree of a decision tree, etc.). What is a good design for this sort of ML/AI framework?

    Read the article

  • Object Oriented Design Questions

    - by Robert
    Hello there. I am going to develop a Tic-Tac-Toe game using Java(or maybe other OO Languages).Now I have a picture in my mind about the general design. Interface: Player ,then I will be able to implement a couple of Player classes,based on how I want the opponent to be,for example,random player,intelligent player. Classes: Board class,with a two-dimensional array of integers,0 indicates open,1 indicates me,-1 indicates opponent.The evaluation function will be in here as well,to return the next best move based on the current board arrangement and whose turn it is. Refree class,which will create instance of the Board and two player instances,then get the game begin. This is a rough idea of my OO design,could anybody give me any critiques please,I find this is really beneficial,thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • Nested function inside literal Object...

    - by Andrea
    Hello guys, if in a literal object i try to reference a function using "this" inside a nested property/function, this don't work. Why? A nested property have it's own scope? For example, i want to call f1 from inside d.f2: var object = { a: "Var a", b: "Var b", c: "Var c", f1: function() { alert("This is f1"); }, d: { f2: function() { this.f1(); } }, e: { f3: function() { alert("This is f3"); } } } object.f1(); // Work object.d.f2(); // Don't Work. object.e.f3(); // Work Thanks, Andrea.

    Read the article

  • Implementation of a general-purpose object structure (property bag)

    - by Thomas Wanner
    We need to implement some general-purpose object structure, much like an object in dynamic languages, that would give us a possibility of creating the whole object graph on-the-fly. This class has to be serializable and somehow user friendly. So far we have made some experiments with class derived from Dictionary<string, object> using the dot notation path to store properties and collections in the object tree. We have also find an article that implements something similar, but it doesn't seem to fit completely into our picture either. Do you know about some good implementations / libraries that deal with a similar problem or do you have any (non-trivial) ideas that could help us with our own implementation ? Also, I probably have to say that we are using .NET 3.5, so we can't take advantage of the new features in .NET 4.0 like dynamic type etc. (as far as I know it's also not possible to use any subset of it in .NET 3.5 solution).

    Read the article

  • stringtemplate .net dynamic object

    - by Mark Milford
    Hi I am using string template to render some content, but the content may be variable so not sure how to pass it in (using .net / c#) Basic idea is I have a List which need to end up as parameters, e.g. List<KeyValuePair<string, object>> ret = new List<KeyValuePair<string, object>>(); ret.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, object>("elem1", true)); ret.Add(new KeyValuePair(string, object>("elem2", false)); Now I want these to show up in string template as: $item.elem1$ $item.elem2$ I can get them to be $elem1$ or $elem2$ but i need them inside of a structure. So I in effect need to convince the string template setAttribute that I'm passing in an object with properties elem1 and elem2 when in fact I have a List of KeyValuePairs. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >