Search Results

Search found 25405 results on 1017 pages for 'document oriented db'.

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 40/1017 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

  • Subscribe/Publish Model in Web-based Application (c#) - Best Practices for Event Handlers

    - by KingOfHypocrites
    I was recently exposed to a desktop application that uses an publish/subscribe model to handle commands, events, etc. I can't seem to find any good examples of using this in a web application, so I wonder if I am off base in trying to use this for web based development (on the server side)? I'm using asp.net c#. My main question in regards to the design is: When using a publish/subscribe model, is it better to have generic commands/events that pass no parameters and then have the subscribers look at static context objects that contain the data relevant to the event? Or is it better to create custom arguments for every event that contain data related to the event? The whole concept of a global container seems so convenient but at the same time seems to break encapsulation. Any thoughts or best practices from anyone who has implemented this type of model in a web based application? Even suggestions on this model out of the scope of my question are appreciated.

    Read the article

  • best practice for initializing class members in php

    - by rgvcorley
    I have lots of code like this in my constructors:- function __construct($params) { $this->property = isset($params['property']) ? $params['property'] : default_val; } Is it better to do this rather than specify the default value in the property definition? i.e. public $property = default_val? Sometimes there is logic for the default value, and some default values are taken from other properties, which was why I was doing this in the constructor. Should I be using setters so all the logic for default values is separated?

    Read the article

  • Clarify the Single Responsibility Principle.

    - by dsimcha
    The Single Responsibility Principle states that a class should do one and only one thing. Some cases are pretty clear cut. Others, though, are difficult because what looks like "one thing" when viewed at a given level of abstraction may be multiple things when viewed at a lower level. I also fear that if the Single Responsibility Principle is honored at the lower levels, excessively decoupled, verbose ravioli code, where more lines are spent creating tiny classes for everything and plumbing information around than actually solving the problem at hand, can result. How would you describe what "one thing" means? What are some concrete signs that a class really does more than "one thing"?

    Read the article

  • c# display DB table structure

    - by user3529643
    I have a question. My code is the following : public partial class Form1 : Form { public OleDbConnection datCon; public string MyDataFile; public ArrayList tblArray; public ArrayList fldArray; public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); lvData.Clear(); lvData.View = View.Details; lvData.LabelEdit = false; lvData.FullRowSelect = true; lvData.GridLines = true; } private void DataConnection() { MyDataFile = Application.StartupPath + @"\studenti.mdb"; string MyCon = @"provider=microsoft.jet.oledb.4.0;data source=" + MyDataFile; try { datCon = new OleDbConnection(MyCon); } catch (Exception ex) { MessageBox.Show(ex.Message); } FillTreeView(); } private void GetTables(OleDbConnection cnn) { try { cnn.Open(); DataTable schTable = cnn.GetOleDbSchemaTable(OleDbSchemaGuid.Tables, new Object[] { null, null, null, "TABLE" }); tblArray = new ArrayList(); foreach (DataRow datrow in schTable.Rows) { tblArray.Add(datrow["TABLE_NAME"].ToString()); } cnn.Close(); } catch (Exception ex) { MessageBox.Show(ex.Message); } } private void GetFields(OleDbConnection cnn, string tabNode) { string tabName; try { tabName = tabNode; cnn.Open(); DataTable schTable = cnn.GetOleDbSchemaTable(OleDbSchemaGuid.Columns, new Object[] { null, null, tabName }); fldArray = new ArrayList(); foreach (DataRow datRow in schTable.Rows) { fldArray.Add(datRow["COLUMN_NAME"].ToString()); } cnn.Close(); } catch (Exception ex) { MessageBox.Show(ex.Message); } } private void FillTreeView() { tvData.Nodes.Clear(); tvData.Nodes.Add("Database"); tvData.Nodes[0].Tag = "RootDB"; GetTables(datCon); // add table node for (int i = 0; i < tblArray.Count; i++) { tvData.Nodes[0].Nodes.Add(tblArray[i].ToString()); tvData.Nodes[0].Nodes[i].Tag = "Tables"; } // add field node for (int i = 0; i < tblArray.Count; i++) { GetFields(datCon, tblArray[i].ToString()); for (int j = 0; j < fldArray.Count; j++) { tvData.Nodes[0].Nodes[i].Nodes.Add(fldArray[j].ToString()); tvData.Nodes[0].Nodes[i].Nodes[j].Tag = "Fields"; } } this.tvData.ContextMenuStrip = contextMenuStrip1; contextMenuStrip1.ItemClicked +=contextMenuStrip1_ItemClicked; } public void FillListView(OleDbConnection cnn, string tabName) { OleDbCommand cmdRead; OleDbDataReader datReader; string strField; lblTableName.Text = tabName; strField = "SELECT * FROM [" + tabName + "]"; // Initi cmdRead obiect cmdRead = new OleDbCommand(strField, cnn); cnn.Open(); datReader = cmdRead.ExecuteReader(); // fill ListView while (datReader.Read()) { ListViewItem objListItem = new ListViewItem(datReader.GetValue(0).ToString()); for (int c = 1; c < datReader.FieldCount; c++) { objListItem.SubItems.Add(datReader.GetValue(c).ToString()); } lvData.Items.Add(objListItem); } datReader.Close(); cnn.Close(); } private void ViewToolStripMenuItem_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { DataConnection(); } public void tvData_AfterExpand(object sender, System.Windows.Forms.TreeViewEventArgs e) { string tabName; int fldCount; if (e.Node.Tag.ToString() == "Tables") { fldCount = e.Node.GetNodeCount(false); //column headers. int n = lvData.Width; double wid = n / fldCount; // width columnn for (int c = 0; c < fldCount; c++) { lvData.Columns.Add(e.Node.Nodes[c].Text, (int)wid, HorizontalAlignment.Left); } // gett table name tabName = e.Node.Text; FillListView(datCon, tabName); } } public void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { //TO DO?? } } I have a treeview populated with tables (nodes) from my database, and a listview which is populated with the data from my tables when I click on a table. As you can see I have a button1 on my form. When I click it I want it to display to me the structure of the table I selected in my treeview (a treeview node). Not too many details, just the name of the columns in my table, type of columns, primary keys. I've tried to follow many tutorials but I can t seem to manage it.

    Read the article

  • PHP - Internal APIs/Libraries - What makes sense?

    - by Mark Locker
    I've been having a discussion lately with some colleagues about the best way to approach a new project, and thought it'd be interesting to get some external thoughts thrown into the mix. Basically, we're redeveloping a fairly large site (written in PHP) and have differing opinions on how the platform should be setup. Requirements: The platform will need to support multiple internal websites, as well as external (non-PHP) projects which at the moment consist of a mobile app and a toolbar. We have no plans/need in the foreseeable future to open up an API externally (for use in products other than our own). My opinion: We should have a library of well documented native model classes which can be shared between projects. These models will represent everything in our database and can take advantage of object orientated features such as inheritance, traits, magic methods, etc. etc. As well as employing ORM. We can then add an API layer on top of these models which can basically accept requests and route them to the appropriate methods, translating the response so that it can be used platform independently. This routing for each method can be setup as and when it's required. Their opinion: We should have a single HTTP API which is used by all projects (internal PHP ones or otherwise). My thoughts: To me, there are a number of issues with using the sole HTTP API approach: It will be very expensive performance wise. One page request will result in several additional http requests (which although local, are still ones that Apache will need to handle). You'll lose all of the best features PHP has for OO development. From simple inheritance, to employing the likes of ORM which can save you writing a lot of code. For internal projects, the actual process makes me cringe. To get a users name, for example, a request would go out of our box, over the LAN, back in, then run through a script which calls a method, JSON encodes the output and feeds that back. That would then need to be JSON decoded, and be presented as an array ready to use. Working with arrays, as appose to objects, makes me sad in a modern PHP framework. Their thoughts (and my responses): Having one method of doing thing keeps things simple. - You'd only do things differently if you were using a different language anyway. It will become robust. - Seeing as the API will run off the library of models, I think my option would be just as robust. What do you think? I'd be really interested to hear the thoughts of others on this, especially as opinions on both sides are not founded on any past experience.

    Read the article

  • should singleton be life-time available or should it be destroyable?

    - by Manoj R
    Should the singleton be designed so that it can be created and destroyed at any time in program or should it be created so that it is available in life-time of program. Which one is best practice? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both? EDIT :- As per the link shared by Mat, the singleton should be static. But then what are the disadvantages of making it destroyable? One advantage is it memory can be saved when it is not useful.

    Read the article

  • Best practice to collect information from child objects

    - by Markus
    I'm regularly seeing the following pattern: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) c.AddRequiredStuff(collection); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection) { Stuff stuff; // ... collection.Add(stuff); } } Where I would use something like this, for better information hiding: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) collection.AddRange(c.RequiredStuff()); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract StuffCollection RequiredStuff(); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override StuffCollection RequiredStuff() { StuffCollection stuffCollection; Stuff stuff; // ... stuffCollection.Add(stuff); return stuffCollection; } } What are pros and cons of each solution? For me, giving the implementation access to parent's information is some how disconcerting. On the other hand, initializing a new list, just to collect the items is a useless overhead ... What is the better design? How would it change, if DoSomethingWithStuff wouldn't be part of BaseItem but a third class? PS: there might be missing semicolons, or typos; sorry for that! The above code is not meant to be executed, but just for illustration.

    Read the article

  • Creating Objects

    - by user1424667
    I have a general coding standard question. Is it bad practice to initialize and create an object in multiple methods depending on the outcome of a users choice. So for example if the user quits a poker game, create the poker hand with the cards the user has received, even if < 5, and if the user played till the end create object to show completed hand to show outcome of the game. The key is that the object will only be created once in actuality, there are just different paths and parameters is will receive depending on if the user folded, or played on to the showdown.

    Read the article

  • Advantages to Multiple Methods over Switch

    - by tandu
    I received a code review from a senior developer today asking "By the way, what is your objection to dispatching functions by way of a switch statement?" I have read in many places about how pumping an argument through switch to call methods is bad OOP, not as extensible, etc. However, I can't really come up with a definitive answer for him. I would like to settle this for myself once and for all. Here are our competing code suggestions (php used as an example, but can apply more universally): class Switch { public function go($arg) { switch ($arg) { case "one": echo "one\n"; break; case "two": echo "two\n"; break; case "three": echo "three\n"; break; default: throw new Exception("Unknown call: $arg"); break; } } } class Oop { public function go_one() { echo "one\n"; } public function go_two() { echo "two\n"; } public function go_three() { echo "three\n"; } public function __call($_, $__) { throw new Exception("Unknown call $_ with arguments: " . print_r($__, true)); } } Part of his argument was "It (switch method) has a much cleaner way of handling default cases than what you have in the generic __call() magic method." I disagree about the cleanliness and in fact prefer call, but I would like to hear what others have to say. Arguments I can come up with in support of Oop scheme: A bit cleaner in terms of the code you have to write (less, easier to read, less keywords to consider) Not all actions delegated to a single method. Not much difference in execution here, but at least the text is more compartmentalized. In the same vein, another method can be added anywhere in the class instead of a specific spot. Methods are namespaced, which is nice. Does not apply here, but consider a case where Switch::go() operated on a member rather than a parameter. You would have to change the member first, then call the method. For Oop you can call the methods independently at any time. Arguments I can come up with in support of Switch scheme: For the sake of argument, cleaner method of dealing with a default (unknown) request Seems less magical, which might make unfamiliar developers feel more comfortable Anyone have anything to add for either side? I'd like to have a good answer for him.

    Read the article

  • Figuring out the Call chain

    - by BDotA
    Let's say I have an assemblyA that has a method which creates an instance of assemblyB and calls its MethodFoo(). Now assemblyB also creates an instance of assemblyC and calls MethodFoo(). So no matter if I start with assemblyB in the code flow or with assemlyA, at the end we are calling that MethodFoo of AssemblyC(). My question is when I am in the MethodFoo() how can I know who has called me? Has it been a call originally from assemblyA or was it from assemlyB? Is there any design pattern or a good OO way of solving this?

    Read the article

  • How to implement isValid correctly?

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

    Read the article

  • Too complex/too many objects?

    - by Mike Fairhurst
    I know that this will be a difficult question to answer without context, but hopefully there are at least some good guidelines to share on this. The questions are at the bottom if you want to skip the details. Most are about OOP in general. Begin context. I am a jr dev on a PHP application, and in general the devs I work with consider themselves to use many more OO concepts than most PHP devs. Still, in my research on clean code I have read about so many ways of using OO features to make code flexible, powerful, expressive, testable, etc. that is just plain not in use here. The current strongly OO API that I've proposed is being called too complex, even though it is trivial to implement. The problem I'm solving is that our permission checks are done via a message object (my API, they wanted to use arrays of constants) and the message object does not hold the validation object accountable for checking all provided data. Metaphorically, if your perm containing 'allowable' and 'rare but disallowed' is sent into a validator, the validator may not know to look for 'rare but disallowed', but approve 'allowable', which will actually approve the whole perm check. We have like 11 validators, too many to easily track at such minute detail. So I proposed an AtomicPermission class. To fix the previous example, the perm would instead contain two atomic permissions, one wrapping 'allowable' and the other wrapping 'rare but disallowed'. Where previously the validator would say 'the check is OK because it contains allowable,' now it would instead say '"allowable" is ok', at which point the check ends...and the check fails, because 'rare but disallowed' was not specifically okay-ed. The implementation is just 4 trivial objects, and rewriting a 10 line function into a 15 line function. abstract class PermissionAtom { public function allow(); // maybe deny() as well public function wasAllowed(); } class PermissionField extends PermissionAtom { public function getName(); public function getValue(); } class PermissionIdentifier extends PermissionAtom { public function getIdentifier(); } class PermissionAction extends PermissionAtom { public function getType(); } They say that this is 'not going to get us anything important' and it is 'too complex' and 'will be difficult for new developers to pick up.' I respectfully disagree, and there I end my context to begin the broader questions. So the question is about my OOP, are there any guidelines I should know: is this too complicated/too much OOP? Not that I expect to get more than 'it depends, I'd have to see if...' when is OO abstraction too much? when is OO abstraction too little? how can I determine when I am overthinking a problem vs fixing one? how can I determine when I am adding bad code to a bad project? how can I pitch these APIs? I feel the other devs would just rather say 'its too complicated' than ask 'can you explain it?' whenever I suggest a new class.

    Read the article

  • Where should I put a method that returns a list of active entries of a table?

    - by darga33
    I have a class named GuestbookEntry that maps to the properties that are in the database table named "guestbook". Very simple! Originally, I had a static method named getActiveEntries() that retrieved an array of all GuestbookEntry objects. Each row in the guestbook table was an object that was added to that array. Then while learning how to properly design PHP classes, I learned some things: Static methods are not desirable. Separation of Concerns Single Responsibility Principle If the GuestbookEntry class should only be responsible for managing single guestbook entries then where should this getActiveEntries() method most properly go? Update: I am looking for an answer that complies with the SOLID acronym principles and allows for test-ability. That's why I want to stay away from static calls/standard functions. DAO, repository, ...? Please explain as though your explanation will be part of "Where to Locate FOR DUMMIES"... :-)

    Read the article

  • Proper library for enums

    - by Bobson
    I'm trying to refactor some code such that the display is separate from the implementation, and I'm not sure where to put the existing enums. My project is currently structured as follows: Utilities RemoteData (Depends on: Utilities) LocalData (Depends on: RemoteData, Utilities) RemoteWeb (Depends on: RemoteData, Utilities) LocalWeb (Depends on: RemoteData, LocalData, Utilities) I'm now trying to add "ViewLibrary (Depends on: Utilities)" to this list, and then adding it as a new dependency to both RemoteWeb and LocalWeb. It will contain a set of interfaces which the other two projects will implement, use to populate the view, and then consume the result. There's an enum which is currently used in all the projects except Utilities. It thus lives in the RemoteData project, because everything else depends on it. But this new ViewLibrary won't depend on either data project. So how will it know about this enum? Some options I see: Create a new project just for shared enum values. Add it to Utilities, even though it is related to data. Define it a second time in ViewLibrary, and require both RemoteWeb and LocalWeb to convert the one type into the other when they access the shared views. Add a dependency on RemoteData to the ViewLibrary, even though it's supposed to be independent of data-source. Are there any better options? Is this structure flawed to begin with?

    Read the article

  • Combinatorial explosion of interfaces: How many is too many?

    - by mga
    I'm a relative newcomer to OOP, and I'm having a bit of trouble creating good designs when it comes to interfaces. Consider a class A with N public methods. There are a number of other classes, B, C, ..., each of which interacts with A in a different way, that is, accesses some subset (<= N) of A's methods. The maximum degree of encapsulation is achieved by implementing an interface of A for each other class, i.e. AInterfaceForB, AInterfaceForC, etc. However, if B, C, ... etc. also interact with A and with each other, then there will be a combinatorial explosion of interfaces (a maximum of n(n-1), to be precise), and the benefit of encapsulation becomes outweighed by a code-bloat. What is the best practice in this scenario? Is the whole idea of restricting access to a class's public functions in different ways for other different classes just silly altogether? One could imagine a language that explicitly allows for this sort of encapsulation (e.g. instead of declaring a function public, one could specify exactly which classes it is visible to); Since this is not a feature of C++, maybe it's misguided to try to do it through the back door with interaces?

    Read the article

  • Java desktop programmer starting to learn Android development: how different is it?

    - by Prog
    I'm a Java programmer. All of my experience is on desktop applications, using Swing for the GUI. I spend a lot of time studying OOP, I have decent understanding of OO concepts and I design and program by the OO approach. I'm thinking of starting to learn Android development soon, and I'm wondering how different it is from desktop development. Obviously the GUI libraries will be different (not Swing), but other than that, I want to know if there are significant differences. I will divide this question to two parts: Apart from the GUI libraries, am I still going to use the standard Java libarary I'm used to? Aka same data structues, same utility classes, etc.? If not, what are the main differences between the libraries I'm used to and the libraries I'll be using? How different is Android development in regard to OO design? Are all of the familiar principles, design patterns, techniques and best pratices just as valid and used? Or is OOP and OOD in Android development significantly different than OO in desktop development? To summarize: apart from GUI design, how different is Java Android development than Java desktop development?

    Read the article

  • Is this a pattern? Proxy/delegation of interface to existing concrete implementation

    - by Ian Newson
    I occasionally write code like this when I want to replace small parts of an existing implementation: public interface IFoo { void Bar(); } public class Foo : IFoo { public void Bar() { } } public class ProxyFoo : IFoo { private IFoo _Implementation; public ProxyFoo(IFoo implementation) { this._Implementation = implementation; } #region IFoo Members public void Bar() { this._Implementation.Bar(); } #endregion } This is a much smaller example than the real life cases in which I've used this pattern, but if implementing an existing interface or abstract class would require lots of code, most of which is already written, but I need to change a small part of the behaviour, then I will use this pattern. Is this a pattern or an anti pattern? If so, does it have a name and are there any well known pros and cons to this approach? Is there a better way to achieve the same result? Rewriting the interfaces and/or the concrete implementation is not normally an option as it will be provided by a third party library.

    Read the article

  • Does OO, TDD, and Refactoring to Smaller Functions affect Speed of Code?

    - by Dennis
    In Computer Science field, I have noticed a notable shift in thinking when it comes to programming. The advice as it stands now is write smaller, more testable code refactor existing code into smaller and smaller chunks of code until most of your methods/functions are just a few lines long write functions that only do one thing (which makes them smaller again) This is a change compared to the "old" or "bad" code practices where you have methods spanning 2500 lines, and big classes doing everything. My question is this: when it call comes down to machine code, to 1s and 0s, to assembly instructions, should I be at all concerned that my class-separated code with variety of small-to-tiny functions generates too much extra overhead? While I am not exactly familiar with how OO code and function calls are handled in ASM in the end, I do have some idea. I assume that each extra function call, object call, or include call (in some languages), generate an extra set of instructions, thereby increasing code's volume and adding various overhead, without adding actual "useful" code. I also imagine that good optimizations can be done to ASM before it is actually ran on the hardware, but that optimization can only do so much too. Hence, my question -- how much overhead (in space and speed) does well-separated code (split up across hundreds of files, classes, and methods) actually introduce compared to having "one big method that contains everything", due to this overhead? UPDATE for clarity: I am assuming that adding more and more functions and more and more objects and classes in a code will result in more and more parameter passing between smaller code pieces. It was said somewhere (quote TBD) that up to 70% of all code is made up of ASM's MOV instruction - loading CPU registers with proper variables, not the actual computation being done. In my case, you load up CPU's time with PUSH/POP instructions to provide linkage and parameter passing between various pieces of code. The smaller you make your pieces of code, the more overhead "linkage" is required. I am concerned that this linkage adds to software bloat and slow-down and I am wondering if I should be concerned about this, and how much, if any at all, because current and future generations of programmers who are building software for the next century, will have to live with and consume software built using these practices. UPDATE: Multiple files I am writing new code now that is slowly replacing old code. In particular I've noted that one of the old classes was a ~3000 line file (as mentioned earlier). Now it is becoming a set of 15-20 files located across various directories, including test files and not including PHP framework I am using to bind some things together. More files are coming as well. When it comes to disk I/O, loading multiple files is slower than loading one large file. Of course not all files are loaded, they are loaded as needed, and disk caching and memory caching options exist, and yet still I believe that loading multiple files takes more processing than loading a single file into memory. I am adding that to my concern.

    Read the article

  • Should I always encapsulate an internal data structure entirely?

    - by Prog
    Please consider this class: class ClassA{ private Thing[] things; // stores data // stuff omitted public Thing[] getThings(){ return things; } } This class exposes the array it uses to store data, to any client code interested. I did this in an app I'm working on. I had a ChordProgression class that stores a sequence of Chords (and does some other things). It had a Chord[] getChords() method that returned the array of chords. When the data structure had to change (from an array to an ArrayList), all client code broke. This made me think - maybe the following approach is better: class ClassA{ private Thing[] things; // stores data // stuff omitted public Thing[] getThing(int index){ return things[index]; } public int getDataSize(){ return things.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ things[index] = thing; } } Instead of exposing the data structure itself, all of the operations offered by the data structure are now offered directly by the class enclosing it, using public methods that delegate to the data structure. When the data structure changes, only these methods have to change - but after they do, all client code still works. Note that collections more complex than arrays might require the enclosing class to implement even more than three methods just to access the internal data structure. Is this approach common? What do you think of this? What downsides does it have other? Is it reasonable to have the enclosing class implement at least three public methods just to delegate to the inner data structure?

    Read the article

  • what's a good approach to working with multiple databases?

    - by Riz
    I'm working on a project that has its own database call it InternalDb, but also it queries two other databases, call them ExternalDb1 and ExternalDb2. Both ExternalDb1 and ExternalDb2 are actually required by a few other projects. I'm wondering what the best approach for dealing with this is? Currently, I've just created a project for each of these external databases and then generated Edmx and entities using the entity-framework approach. My thought was that I could then include these projects in any of my solutions that require access to these databases. Also, I don't have any separate business layers. I just have a solution like below: Project.Domain ExternalDb1Project.Domain ExternalDb2Project.Domain Project.Web So my Domain projects contain the data access as well as the POCOs generated by Entity Framework and any business logic. But I'm not sure if this is a good approach. For example if I want to do Validation in my Project.Domain on the entities in the InternalDb, it's fine. But if I want to do Validation for entities from either of the ExternalDbs, then I wonder where it should go? To be more specific, I retrieve Employees from ExternalDb1Project.Domain. However, I want to make sure they are Active. Where should this Validation go? How to architect a project like this at a high level? Also, I want to make sure that I use IoC for my data contexts so I can create Fakes when writing tests. I wonder where the interfaces for these various data contexts would reside?

    Read the article

  • Override methods should call base method?

    - by Trevor Pilley
    I'm just running NDepend against some code that I have written and one of the warnings is Overrides of Method() should call base.Method(). The places this occurs are where I have a base class which has virtual properties and methods with default behaviour but which can be overridden by a class which inherits from the base class and doesn't call the overridden method. For example, in the base class I have a property defined like this: protected virtual char CloseQuote { get { return '"'; } } And then in an inheriting class which uses a different close quote: protected override char CloseQuote { get { return ']'; } } Not all classes which inherit from the base class use different quote characters hence my initial design. The alternatives I thought of were have get/set properties in the base class with the defaults set in the constructor: protected BaseClass() { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; set; } public InheritingClass() { this.CloseQuote = ']'; } Or make the base class require the values as constructor args: protected BaseClass(char closeQuote, ...) { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; private set; } public InheritingClass() base (closeQuote: ']', ...) { } Should I use virtual in a scenario where the base implementation may be replaced instead of extended or should I opt for one of the alternatives I thought of? If so, which would be preferable and why?

    Read the article

  • Object desing problem for simple school application

    - by Aragornx
    I want to create simple school application that provides grades,notes,presence,etc. for students,teachers and parents. I'm trying to design objects for this problem and I'm little bit confused - because I'm not very experienced in class designing. Some of my present objects are : class PersonalData() { private String name; private String surename; private Calendar dateOfBirth; [...] } class Person { private PersonalData personalData; } class User extends Person { private String login; private char[] password; } class Student extends Person { private ArrayList<Counselor> counselors = new ArrayList<>(); } class Counselor extends Person { private ArrayList<Student> children = new ArrayList<>(); } class Teacher extends Person { private ArrayList<ChoolClass> schoolClasses = new ArrayList<>(); private ArrayList<Subject> subjects = new ArrayList<>(); } This is of course a general idea. But I'm sure it's not the best way. For example I want that one person could be a Teacher and also a Parent(Counselor) and present approach makes me to have two Person objects. I want that user after successful logging in get all roles that it has (Student or Teacher or (Teacher & Parent) ). I think I should make and use some interfaces but I'm not sure how to do this right. Maybe like this: interface Role { } interface TeacherRole implements Role { void addGrade( Student student, Grade grade, [...] ); } class Teacher implements TeacherRole { private Person person; [...] } class User extends Person{ ArrayList<Role> roles = new ArrayList<>(); } Please if anyone could help me to make this right or maybe just point me to some literature/article that covers practical objects design.

    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 | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >