Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 392/1264 | < Previous Page | 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399  | Next Page >

  • Best Practice for CouchDB Document Versioning

    - by Groundwater
    Following my question here I am exmploring ideas for a generic approach to document versioning in CouchDB. While I imagine there may be no canonical approach, I had the following idea and am looking for feedback. I would like to maintain readable document ids as much as possible, so a document existing at /document1 would contain a pointer document to all existing versions on the system. The actual revision documents would be at something like /document1/308ef032a3801a where 308ef032a3801a is some random number or hash. Example The pointer document { "_id" : "document1", "versions" : [ "document1/308ef032a3801a" ] } The version document { "_id" : "document1/308ef032a3801a", ... actual content }

    Read the article

  • Is Domain Anaemia appropriate in a Service Oriented Architecture?

    - by Stimul8d
    I want to be clear on this. When I say domain anaemia, I mean intentional domain anaemia, not accidental. In a world where most of our business logic is hidden away behind a bunch of services, is a full domain model really necessary? This is the question I've had to ask myself recently since working on a project where the "domain" model is in reality a persistence model; none of the domain objects contain any methods and this is a very intentional decision. Initially, I shuddered when I saw a library full of what are essentially type-safe data containers but after some thought it struck me that this particular system doesn't do much but basic CRUD operations, so maybe in this case this is a good choice. My problem I guess is that my experience so far has been very much focussed on a rich domain model so it threw me a little. The remainder of the domain logic is hidden away in a group of helpers, facades and factories which live in a separate assembly. I'm keen to hear what people's thoughts are on this. Obviously, the considerations for reuse of these classes are much simpler but is really that great a benefit?

    Read the article

  • Re-usable Obj-C classes with custom values: The right way

    - by Prairiedogg
    I'm trying to reuse a group of Obj-C clases between iPhone applications. The values that differ from app to app have been isolated and I'm trying to figure out the best way to apply these custom values to the classes on an app-to-app basis. Should I hold them in code? // I might have 10 customizable values for each class, that's a long signature! CarController *controller = [[CarController alloc] initWithFontName:@"Vroom" engine:@"Diesel" color:@"Red" number:11]; Should I store them in a big settings.plist? // Wasteful! I sometimes only use 2-3 of 50 settings! AllMyAppSettings *settings = [[AllMyAppSettings alloc] initFromDisk:@"settings.plist"]; MyCustomController *controller = [[MyCustomController alloc] initWithSettings:settings]; [settings release]; Should I have little, optional n_settings.plists for each class? // Sometimes I customize CarControllerSettings *carSettings = [[CarControllerSettings alloc] initFromDisk:@"car_settings.plist"]; CarController *controller = [[CarController alloc] initWithSettings:carSettings]; [carSettings release]; // Sometimes I don't, and CarController falls back to internally stored, reasonable defaults. CarController *controller = [[CarController alloc] initWithSettings:nil]; Or is there an OO solution that I'm not thinking of at all that would be better?

    Read the article

  • Java: refactoring static constants

    - by akf
    We are in the process of refactoring some code. There is a feature that we have developed in one project that we would like to now use in other projects. We are extracting the foundation of this feature and making it a full-fledged project which can then be imported by its current project and others. This effort has been relatively straight-forward but we have one headache. When the framework in question was originally developed, we chose to keep a variety of constant values defined as static fields in a single class. Over time this list of static members grew. The class is used in very many places in our code. In our current refactoring, we will be elevating some of the members of this class to our new framework, but leaving others in place. Our headache is in extracting the foundation members of this class to be used in our new project, and more specifically, how we should address those extracted members in our existing code. We know that we can have our existing Constants class subclass this new project's Constants class and it would inherit all of the parent's static members. This would allow us to effect the change without touching the code that uses these members to change the class name on the static reference. However, the tight coupling inherent in this choice doesn't feel right. before: public class ConstantsA { public static final String CONSTANT1 = "constant.1"; public static final String CONSTANT2 = "constant.2"; public static final String CONSTANT3 = "constant.3"; } after: public class ConstantsA extends ConstantsB { public static final String CONSTANT1 = "constant.1"; } public class ConstantsB { public static final String CONSTANT2 = "constant.2"; public static final String CONSTANT3 = "constant.3"; } In our existing code branch, all of the above would be accessible in this manner: ConstantsA.CONSTANT2 I would like to solicit arguments about whether this is 'acceptable' and/or what the best practices are.

    Read the article

  • Repository Pattern Standardization of methods

    - by Nix
    All I am trying to find out the correct definition of the repository pattern. My original understanding was this (extremely dubmed down) Separate your Business Objects from your Data Objects Standardize access methods in data access layer. I have really seen 2 different implementations. Implementation 1 : public Interface IRepository<T>{ List<T> GetAll(); void Create(T p); void Update(T p); } public interface IProductRepository: IRepository<Product> { //Extension methods if needed List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Implementation 2 : public interface IProductRepository { List<Product> GetAllProducts(); void CreateProduct(Product p); void UpdateProduct(Product p); List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Notice the first is generic Get/Update/GetAll, etc, the second is more of what I would define "DAO" like. Both share an extraction from your data entities. Which I like, but i can do the same with a simple DAO. However the second piece standardize access operations I see value in, if you implement this enterprise wide people would easily know the set of access methods for your repository. Am I wrong to assume that the standardization of access to data is an integral piece of this pattern ? Rhino has a good article on implementation 1, and of course MS has a vague definition and an example of implementation 2 is here.

    Read the article

  • Drawbacks of using an integer as a bitfield?

    - by Mark
    I have a bunch of boolean options for things like "accepted payment types" which can include things like cash, credit card, cheque, paypal, etc. Rather than having a half dozen booleans in my DB, I can just use an integer and assign each payment method an integer, like so PAYMENT_METHODS = ( (1<<0, 'Cash'), (1<<1, 'Credit Card'), (1<<2, 'Cheque'), (1<<3, 'Other'), ) and then query the specific bit in python to retrieve the flag. I know this means the database can't index by specific flags, but are there any other drawbacks?

    Read the article

  • Hide or Disable? In this example and in general...

    - by George
    I have the following set of controls. Scenario 1: If you select one of the first 3 radio buttons and click enter, focus will jump to the Passport Number text box. If the user selects "Other", the "Other, Please Specify" textbox is enabled and, for convenience, screen focus (the cursor is moved) to that textbox. Scenario 2: The "specify Other" text box is hidden until the user clicks on the Other Radio button. Upon doing so, the textbox is made visible and the cursor is placed in this textbox. Which scenario do you feel is a better approach? Perhaps you have another variation? Please state your reasoning. I would also appreciate it if you could make a generalized statement as to when hiding is better than disabling or vice versa, but I am also interested in this particular example. Thanks. Afetrthought: Perhaps, in the 2nd example, the "Please Specify" text would only appear after the user has selected the 'Other' radio button.

    Read the article

  • In Java how instance of and type cast(i.e (ClassName)) works on proxy object ?

    - by learner
    Java generates a proxy class for a given interface and provides the instance of the proxy class. But when we type cast the proxy object to our specific Object, how java handles this internally? Is this treated as special scenario? For example I have class 'OriginalClass' and it implements 'OriginalInterface', when I create proxy object by passing 'OriginalInterface' interface java created proxy class 'ProxyClass' using methods in the provided interface and provides object of this class(i.e ProxyClass). If my understanding is correct then can you please answer following queries 1) When I type cast object of ProxyClass to my class OriginalClass this works, but how java is allowing this? Same in case of instace of? 2) As my knowledge java creates a proxy class only with the methods, but what happen when I try to access attributes on this object? 3) Only interface methods are getting implemented in Proxy, but what happens when I try to access a method which not in interface and only mentioned in the class? Thanks, Student

    Read the article

  • Can I use the decorator pattern to wrap a method body?

    - by mgroves
    I have a bunch of methods with varying signatures. These methods interact with a fragile data connection, so we often use a helper class to perform retries/reconnects, etc. Like so: MyHelper.PerformCall( () => { doStuffWithData(parameters...) }); And this works fine, but it can make the code a little cluttery. What I would prefer to do is decorate the methods that interact with the data connection like so: [InteractsWithData] protected string doStuffWithData(parameters...) { // do stuff... } And then essentially, whenever doStuffWithData is called, the body of that method would be passed in as an Action to MyHelper.PerformCall(). How do I do this?

    Read the article

  • How do you determine how coarse or fine-grained a 'responsibility' should be when using the single r

    - by Mark Rogers
    In the SRP, a 'responsibility' is usually described as 'a reason to change', so that each class (or object?) should have only one reason someone should have to go in there and change it. But if you take this to the extreme fine-grain you could say that an object adding two numbers together is a responsibility and a possible reason to change. Therefore the object should contain no other logic, because it would produce another reason for change. I'm curious if there is anyone out there that has any strategies for 'scoping', the single-responsibility principle that's slightly less objective?

    Read the article

  • pass by reference but reference to data and not to variable

    - by dorelal
    This is psesudo code. In what programming language this is possible ? def lab(input) input = ['90'] end x = ['80'] lab(x) puts x #=> value of x has changed from ['80'] to ['90] I have written this in ruby but in ruby I get the final x value of 80 because ruby is pass-by-reference. However what is passed is the reference to the data held by x and not pointer to x itself same is true in JavaScript. So I am wondering if there is any programming language where the following is true.

    Read the article

  • How to make technical training session useful and successful for trainee?

    - by metal-gear-solid
    Are these suggestions good to give for a successful training session? Practice time should be always given immediate after technical training? usually after receiving any technical session about any new thing we do routine work. If we don't do practice just after training, later when we do any work related to that training then we feel we need training again. So if we are getting training today and will not use it for some period of time (15 -30 -60 days) then the training is of no use, as it is at the wrong time. I.e. We will forget many things Any other suggestions which i should give? I'm trainee not trainer. What suggestion should i give to trainer/organizer?

    Read the article

  • help me to choose between two designs

    - by alex
    // stupid title, but I could not think anything smarter I have a code (see below, sorry for long code but it's very-very simple): namespace Option1 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public AuxClass1 AuxClass { get { return _auxClass; } set { _auxClass = value; } } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } namespace Option2 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public string Field1 { get { return _auxClass.Field1; } set { _auxClass.Field1 = value; } } public void Method1() { _auxClass.Method1(); } public void Method2() { _auxClass.Method2(); } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { // Option1 Option1.MainClass mainClass1 = new Option1.MainClass(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Field1 = "string1"; mainClass1.AuxClass.Method1(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Method2(); // Option2 Option2.MainClass mainClass2 = new Option2.MainClass(); mainClass2.Field1 = "string2"; mainClass2.Method1(); mainClass2.Method2(); Console.ReadKey(); } } What option (option1 or option2) do you prefer ? In which cases should I use option1 or option2 ? Is there any special name for option1 or option2 (composition, aggregation) ?

    Read the article

  • How to cancel a deeply nested process

    - by Mystere Man
    I have a class that is a "manager" sort of class. One of it's functions is to signal that the long running process of the class should shut down. It does this by setting a boolean called "IsStopping" in class. public class Foo { bool isStoping void DoWork() { while (!isStopping) { // do work... } } } Now, DoWork() was a gigantic function, and I decided to refactor it out and as part of the process broke some of it into other classes. The problem is, Some of these classes also have long running functions that need to check if isStopping is true. public class Foo { bool isStoping void DoWork() { while (!isStopping) { MoreWork mw = new MoreWork() mw.DoMoreWork() // possibly long running // do work... } } } What are my options here? I have considered passing isStopping by reference, which I don't really like because it requires there to be an outside object. I would prefer to make the additional classes as stand alone and dependancy free as possible. I have also considered making isStopping a property, and then then having it call an event that the inner classes could be subscribed to, but this seems overly complex. Another option was to create a "Process Cancelation Token" class, similar to what .net 4 Tasks use, then that token be passed to those classes. How have you handled this situation? EDIT: Also consider that MoreWork might have a EvenMoreWork object that it instantiates and calls a potentially long running method on... and so on. I guess what i'm looking for is a way to be able to signal an arbitrary number of objects down a call tree to tell them to stop what they're doing and clean up and return.

    Read the article

  • C++ include statement required if defining a map in a headerfile.

    - by Justin
    I was doing a project for computer course on programming concepts. This project was to be completed in C++ using Object Oriented designs we learned throughout the course. Anyhow, I have two files symboltable.h and symboltable.cpp. I want to use a map as the data structure so I define it in the private section of the header file. I #include <map> in the cpp file before I #include "symboltable.h". I get several errors from the compiler (MS VS 2008 Pro) when I go to debug/run the program the first of which is: Error 1 error C2146: syntax error : missing ';' before identifier 'table' c:\users\jsmith\documents\visual studio 2008\projects\project2\project2\symboltable.h 22 Project2 To fix this I had to #include <map> in the header file, which to me seems strange. Here are the relevant code files: // symboltable.h #include <map> class SymbolTable { public: SymbolTable() {} void insert(string variable, double value); double lookUp(string variable); void init(); // Added as part of the spec given in the conference area. private: map<string, double> table; // Our container for variables and their values. }; and // symboltable.cpp #include <map> #include <string> #include <iostream> using namespace std; #include "symboltable.h" void SymbolTable::insert(string variable, double value) { table[variable] = value; // Creates a new map entry, if variable name already exist it overwrites last value. } double SymbolTable::lookUp(string variable) { if(table.find(variable) == table.end()) // Search for the variable, find() returns a position, if thats the end then we didnt find it. throw exception("Error: Uninitialized variable"); else return table[variable]; } void SymbolTable::init() { table.clear(); // Clears the map, removes all elements. }

    Read the article

  • Objective-C Objects Having Each Other as Properties

    - by mwt
    Let's say we have two objects. Furthermore, let's assume that they really have no reason to exist without each other. So we aren't too worried about re-usability. Is there anything wrong with them "knowing about" each other? Meaning, can each one have the other as a property? Is it OK to do something like this in a mythical third class: Foo *f = [[Foo alloc] init]; self.foo = f; [f release]; Bar *b = [[Bar alloc] init]; self.bar = b; [b release]; foo.bar = bar; bar.foo = foo; ...so that they can then call methods on each other? Instead of doing this, I'm usually using messaging, etc., but sometimes this seems like it might be a tidier solution. I hardly ever see it in example code (maybe never), so I've shied away from doing it. Can somebody set me straight on this? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Does this copy the reference or the object?

    - by Water Cooler v2
    Sorry, I am being both thick and lazy, but mostly lazy. Actually, not even that. I am trying to save time so I can do more in less time as there's a lot to be done. Does this copy the reference or the actual object data? public class Foo { private NameValueCollection _nvc = null; public Foo( NameValueCollection nvc) { _nvc = nvc; } } public class Bar { public static void Main() { NameValueCollection toPass = new NameValueCollection(); new Foo( toPass ); // I believe this only copies the reference // so if I ever wanted to compare toPass and // Foo._nvc (assuming I got hold of the private // field using reflection), I would only have to // compare the references and wouldn't have to compare // each string (deep copy compare), right? } I think I know the answer for sure: it only copies the reference. But I am not even sure why I am asking this. I guess my only concern is, if, after instantiating Foo by calling its parameterized ctor with toPass, if I needed to make sure that the NVC I passed as toPass and the NVC private field _nvc had the exact same content, I would just need to compare their references, right?

    Read the article

  • Implementing a 'many-to-many' database

    - by Raven Dreamer
    Greetings, stack*overflow* In my database, I already have one table, 'contacts' that contains records of individual people. I also have several other tables in my database which represent "skill sets" that contain records denoting a particular skill. 1) Am I correct in plotting this as a "many-to-many" relationship? (each contact can have multiple skill sets, and each skill set can belong to multiple contacts) 2) I'm new to databases -- do I want to link the tables? 3) Is there a way to implement this in my program (C# + windows forms) such that for any given record in the 'contacts' table, either the names of all associated 'skill set' tables or all the 'skill' records associated with the 'contact' record could be retrieved? (Database is located on SQL Server Express 2008)

    Read the article

  • Naming of boolean column in database table

    - by Space Cracker
    I have 'Service' table and the following column description as below Is User Verification Required for service ? Is User's Email Activation Required for the service ? Is User's Mobile Activation required for the service ? I Hesitate in naming these columns as below IsVerificationRequired IsEmailActivationRequired IsMobileActivationRequired or RequireVerification RequireEmailActivation RequireMobileActivation I can't determined which way is the best .So, Is one of the above suggested name is the best or is there other better ones ?

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't Java warn about a == "something"?

    - by Marius
    This might sound stupid, but why doesn't the Java compiler warn about the expression in the following if statement: String a = "something"; if(a == "something"){ System.out.println("a is equal to something"); }else{ System.out.println("a is not equal to something"); } I realize why the expression is untrue, but AFAIK, a can never be equal to the String literal "something". The compiler should realize this and at least warn me that I'm an idiot who is coding way to late at night.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399  | Next Page >