Search Results

Search found 44734 results on 1790 pages for 'model based design'.

Page 380/1790 | < Previous Page | 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387  | Next Page >

  • When is it better to use a method versus a property for a class definition?

    - by ccomet
    Partially related to an earlier question of mine, I have a system in which I have to store complex data as a string. Instead of parsing these strings as all kinds of separate objects, I just created one class that contains all of those objects, and it has some parser logic that will encode all properties into strings, or decode a string to get those objects. That's all fine and good. This question is not about the parser itself, but about where I should house the logic for the parser. Is it a better choice to put it as a property, or as a method? In the case of a property, say public string DataAsString, the get accessor would house the logic to encode all of the data into a string, while the set accessor would decode the input value and set all of the data in the class instance. It seems convenient because the input/output is indeed a string. In the case of a method, one method would be Encode(), which returns the encoded string. Then, either the constructor itself would house the logic for the decoding a string and require the string argument, or I write a Decode(string str) method which is called separately. In either case, it would be using a method instead of a property. So, is there a functional difference between these paths, in terms of the actual running of the code? Or are they basically equivalent and it then boils down to a choice of personal preference or which one looks better? And in that kind of question... which would look cleaner anyway?

    Read the article

  • Should we denormalize database to improve performance?

    - by Groo
    We have a requirement to store 500 measurements per second, coming from several devices. Each measurement consists of a timestamp, a quantity type, and several vector values. Right now there is 8 vector values per measurement, and we may consider this number to be constant for needs of our prototype project. We are using HNibernate. Tests are done in SQLite (disk file db, not in-memory), but production will probably be MsSQL. Our Measurement entity class is the one that holds a single measurement, and looks like this: public class Measurement { public virtual Guid Id { get; private set; } public virtual Device Device { get; private set; } public virtual Timestamp Timestamp { get; private set; } public virtual IList<VectorValue> Vectors { get; private set; } } Vector values are stored in a separate table, so that each of them references its parent measurement through a foreign key. We have done a couple of things to ensure that generated SQL is (reasonably) efficient: we are using Guid.Comb for generating IDs, we are flushing around 500 items in a single transaction, ADO.Net batch size is set to 100 (I think SQLIte does not support batch updates? But it might be useful later). The problem Right now we can insert 150-200 measurements per second (which is not fast enough, although this is SQLite we are talking about). Looking at the generated SQL, we can see that in a single transaction we insert (as expected): 1 timestamp 1 measurement 8 vector values which means that we are actually doing 10x more single table inserts: 1500-2000 per second. If we placed everything (all 8 vector values and the timestamp) into the measurement table (adding 9 dedicated columns), it seems that we could increase our insert speed up to 10 times. Switching to SQL server will improve performance, but we would like to know if there might be a way to avoid unnecessary performance costs related to the way database is organized right now. [Edit] With in-memory SQLite I get around 350 items/sec (3500 single table inserts), which I believe is about as good as it gets with NHibernate (taking this post for reference: http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2009/08/22/nhibernate-perf-tricks.aspx). But I might as well switch to SQL server and stop assuming things, right? I will update my post as soon as I test it.

    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

  • In symfony/doctrine's schema.yml, where should I put onDelete: CASCADE for a many-to-many relationsh

    - by nselikoff
    I have a many-to-many relationship defined in my Symfony (using doctrine) project between Orders and Upgrades (an Order can be associated with zero or more Upgrades, and an Upgrade can apply to zero or more Orders). # schema.yml Order: columns: order_id: {...} relations: Upgrades: class: Upgrade local: order_id foreign: upgrade_id refClass: OrderUpgrade Upgrade: columns: upgrade_id: {...} relations: Orders: class: Order local: upgrade_id foreign: order_id refClass: OrderUpgrade OrderUpgrade: columns: order_id: {...} upgrade_id: {...} I want to set up delete cascade behavior so that if I delete an Order or an Upgrade, all of the related OrderUpgrades are deleted. Where do I put onDelete: CASCADE? Usually I would put it at the end of the relations section, but that would seem to imply in this case that deleting Orders would cascade to delete Upgrades. Is Symfony + Doctrine smart enough to know what I'm wanting if I put onDelete: CASCADE in the above relations sections of schema.yml?

    Read the article

  • Two different tables or just one with bool column?

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

    Read the article

  • SQL efficiency argument, add a column or solvable by query?

    - by theTurk
    I am a recent college graduate and a new hire for software development. Things have been a little slow lately so I was given a db task. My db skills are limited to pet projects with Rails and Django. So, I was a little surprised with my latest task. I have been asked by my manager to subclass Person with a 'Parent' table and add a reference to their custodian in the Person table. This is to facilitate going from Parent to Form when the custodian, not the Parent, is the FormContact. Here is a simplified, mock structure of a sql-db I am working with. I would have drawn the relationship tables if I had access to Visio. We have a table 'Person' and we have a table 'Form'. There is a table, 'FormContact', that relates a Person to a Form, not all Persons are related to a Form. There is a relationship table for Person to Person relationships (Employer, Parent, etc.) I've asked, "Why this couldn't be handled by a query?" Response, Inefficient. (Really!?!) So, I ask, "Why not have a reference to the Form? That would be more efficient since you wouldn't be querying the FormContacts table with the reference from child/custodian." Response, this would essentially make the Parent is a FormContact. (Fair enough.) I went ahead an wrote a query to get from non-FormContact Parent to Form, and tested on the production server. The response time was instantaneous. *SOME_VALUE* is the Parent's fk ID. SELECT FormID FROM FormContact WHERE FormContact.ContactID IN (SELECT SourceContactID FROM ContactRelationship WHERE (ContactRelationship.RelatedContactID = *SOME_VALUE*) AND (ContactRelationship.Relationship = 'Parent')); If I am right, "This is an unnecessary change." What should I do, defend my position or should I concede to the managers request? If I am wrong. What is my error? Is there a better solution than the manager's?

    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

  • How to force grails GORM to respect DB scheme ?

    - by fabien-barbier
    I have two domains : class CodeSet { String id String owner String comments String geneRLF String systemAPF static hasMany = [cartridges:Cartridge] static constraints = { id(unique:true,blank:false) } static mapping = { table 'code_set' version false columns { id column:'code_set_id', generator: 'assigned' owner column:'owner' comments column:'comments' geneRLF column:'gene_rlf' systemAPF column:'system_apf' } } and : class Cartridge { String id String code_set_id Date runDate static belongsTo = CodeSet static constraints = { id(unique:true,blank:false) } static mapping = { table 'cartridge' version false columns { id column:'cartridge_id', generator: 'assigned' code_set_id column:'code_set_id' runDate column:'run_date' } } Actually, with those models, I get tables : - code_set, - cartridge, - and table : code_set_cartridge (two fields : code_set_cartridges_id, cartridge_id) I would like to not have code_set_cartridge table, but keep relationship : code_set -- 1:n -- cartridge In other words, how can I keep association between code_set and cartridge without intermediate table ? (using code_set_id as primary key in code_set and code_set_id as foreign key in cartridge). Mapping with GORM can be done without intermediate table?

    Read the article

  • Java library class to handle scheduled execution of "callbacks"?

    - by Hanno Fietz
    My program has a component - dubbed the Scheduler - that lets other components register points in time at which they want to be called back. This should work much like the Unix cron service, i. e. you tell the Scheduler "notify me at ten minutes past every full hour". I realize there are no real callbacks in Java. Here's my approach, is there a library which already does this stuff? Feel free to suggest improvements, too. Register call to Scheduler passes: a time specification containing hour, minute, second, year month, dom, dow, where each item may be unspecified, meaning "execute it every hour / minute etc." (just like crontabs) an object containing data that will tell the calling object what to do when it is notified by the Scheduler. The Scheduler does not process this data, just stores it and passes it back upon notification. a reference to the calling object Upon startup, or after a new registration request, the Scheduler starts with a Calendar object of the current system time and checks if there are any entries in the database that match this point in time. If there are, they are executed and the process starts over. If there aren't, the time in the Calendar object is incremented by one second and the entreis are rechecked. This repeats until there is one entry or more that match(es). (Discrete Event Simulation) The Scheduler will then remember that timestamp, sleep and wake every second to check if it is already there. If it happens to wake up and the time has already passed, it starts over, likewise if the time has come and the jobs have been executed. Edit: Thanks for pointing me to Quartz. I'm looking for something much smaller, however.

    Read the article

  • Has anyone ever encountered a Monad Transformer in the wild?

    - by martingw
    In my area of business - back office IT for a financial institution - it is very common for a software component to carry a global configuration around, to log it's progress, to have some kind of error handling / computation short circuit... Things that can be modelled nicely by Reader-, Writer-, Maybe-monads and the like in Haskell and composed together with monad transformers. But there seem to some drawbacks: The concept behind monad transformers is quite tricky and hard to understand, monad transformers lead to very complex type signatures, and they inflict some performance penalty. So I'm wondering: Are monad transformers best practice when dealing with those common tasks mentioned above?

    Read the article

  • Disposing underlying object from finalizer in an immutable object

    - by Juan Luis Soldi
    I'm trying to wrap around Awesomium and make it look to the rest of my code as close as possible to NET's WebBrowser since this is for an existing application that already uses the WebBrowser. In this library, there is a class called JSObject which represents a javascript object. You can get one of this, for instance, by calling the ExecuteJavascriptWithResult method of the WebView class. If you'd call it like myWebView.ExecuteJavascriptWithResult("document", string.Empty).ToObject(), then you'd get a JSObject that represents the document. I'm writing an immutable class (it's only field is a readonly JSObject object) called JSObjectWrap that wraps around JSObject which I want to use as base class for other classes that would emulate .NET classes such as HtmlElement and HtmlDocument. Now, these classes don't implement Dispose, but JSObject does. What I first thought was to call the underlying JSObject's Dispose method in my JSObjectWrap's finalizer (instead of having JSObjectWrap implement Dispose) so that the rest of my code can stay the way it is (instead of having to add using's everywhere and make sure every JSObjectWrap is being properly disposed). But I just realized if more than two JSObjectWrap's have the same underlying JSObject and one of them gets finalized this will mess up the other JSObjectWrap. So now I'm thinking maybe I should keep a static Dictionary of JSObjects and keep count of how many of each of them are being referenced by a JSObjectWrap but this sounds messy and I think could cause major performance issues. Since this sounds to me like a common pattern I wonder if anyone else has a better idea.

    Read the article

  • Uses of the Apache commons-proxy library?

    - by Adrian
    I'm looking at the Apache commons-proxy library to implement some Proxy patterns in my current project. The Javadocs are all very well, but I'd really like to see some tutorials or just a project that uses the library so I can get more of a feel for it. Alas, searching for such things just tends to net you a lot of pages about setting up HTTP proxies using Apache. So I'm hoping that people here can help me.

    Read the article

  • What should layers in dotnet application ? Pleas guide me

    - by haansi
    Hi, I am using layered architecture in dotnet (mostly I work on web projects). I am confuse what layers should I use ? I have small idea that there should be the following layers. user interface customer types (custom entities) business logic layer data access layer My purpose is sure quality of work and maximum re-usability of code. some one suggested to add common types layer in it. Please guide me what should be layers ? and in each layer what part should go ? thanks for your precious time and advice. haansi

    Read the article

  • Include everything, Separate with "using"

    - by Dave
    I'm developing a C++ library. It got me thinking of the ways Java and C# handle including different components of the libraries. For example, Java uses "import" to allow use of classes from other packages, while C# simply uses "using" to import entire modules. My questions is, would it be a good idea to #include everything in the library in one massive include and then just use the using directive to import specific classes and modules? Or would this just be down right crazy? EDIT: Good responses so far, here are a few mitigating factors which I feel add to this idea: 1) Internal #includes are kept as normal (short and to the point) 2) The file which includes everything is optionally supplied with the library to those who wish to use it3) You could optionally make the big include file part of the pre-compiled header

    Read the article

  • C# reference collection for storing reference types

    - by ivo s
    I like to implement a collection (something like List<T>) which would hold all my objects that I have created in the entire life span of my application as if its an array of pointers in C++. The idea is that when my process starts I can use a central factory to create all objects and then periodically validate/invalidate their state. Basically I want to make sure that my process only deals with valid instances and I don't re-fetch information I already fetched from the database. So all my objects will basically be in one place - my collection. A cool thing I can do with this is avoid database calls to get data from the database if I already got it (even if I updated it after retrieval its still up-to-date if of course some other process didn't update it but that a different concern). I don't want to be calling new Customer("James Thomas"); again if I initted James Thomas already sometime in the past. Currently I will end up with multiple copies of the same object across the appdomain - some out of sync other in sync and even though I deal with this using timestamp field on the MSSQL server I'd like to keep only one copy per customer in my appdomain (if possible process would be better). I can't use regular collections like List or ArrayList for example because I cannot pass parameters by their real local reference to the their existing Add() methods where I'm creating them using ref so that's not to good I think. So how can this be implemented/can it be implemented at all ? A 'linked list' type of class with all methods working with ref & out params is what I'm thinking now but it may get ugly pretty quickly. Is there another way to implement such collection like RefList<T>.Add(ref T obj)? So bottom line is: I don't want re-create an object if I've already created it before during the entire application life unless I decide to re-create it explicitly (maybe its out-of-date or something so I have to fetch it again from the db). Is there alternatives maybe ?

    Read the article

  • Pattern/Matcher in Java?

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

    Read the article

  • Value objects in DDD - Why immutable?

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

    Read the article

  • Tables as relations in ER diagrams

    - by Richard Mar.
    Assume I have the following tables (**bold** - primary key, *italics* - foreign key): patient(**patient_id**, name) disease(**disease_id**, name) patient_disease(**p_d_id**, *patient_id*, *disease,_id* ) I want to draw the ER diagram for this. My idea is to make two entities, one for patient and one for disease, then make a n-to-n relation between them, with p_d_id as its attribute. Is that how it's supposed to be?

    Read the article

  • Data Modeling of Entity with Attributes

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

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason for an object pool to not be treated as a singleton?

    - by Chris Charabaruk
    I don't necessarily mean implemented using the singleton pattern, but rather, only having and using one instance of a pool. I don't like the idea of having just one pool (or one per pooled type). However, I can't really come up with any concrete situations where there's an advantage to multiple pools for mutable types, at least not any where a single pool can function just as well. What advantages are there to having multiple pools over a singleton pool?

    Read the article

  • Updating multiple tables with LinqToSql in one unit of work

    - by zsharp
    Table 1: int ID-a(pk) Table 2: int ID-a(pk), int ID-b(pk) Table 3: int ID-b(pk), string C I have the data to insert into Table 1. But I do not have the ID-a, which is autogenerated. I have many string C to insert in Table 3. I am trying to insert row into Table 1, get the ID-a to insert in Table 2 along with the ID-b that is auto-Generated in Table 3 when I submit each string C, all in one submission to db. Right now I am calling dc.SubmitChanges twice in same call. Is it efficient to have to submit changes twice on same DataContext or can this be combined further?

    Read the article

  • Using DTOs and BOs

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

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387  | Next Page >