Search Results

Search found 5751 results on 231 pages for 'analysis patterns'.

Page 41/231 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

• How can you tell whether to use Composite Pattern or a Tree Structure, or a third implementation?

  - by Aske B.

  I have two client types, an "Observer"-type and a "Subject"-type. They're both associated with a hierarchy of groups. The Observer will receive (calendar) data from the groups it is associated with throughout the different hierarchies. This data is calculated by combining data from 'parent' groups of the group trying to collect data (each group can have only one parent). The Subject will be able to create the data (that the Observers will receive) in the groups they're associated with. When data is created in a group, all 'children' of the group will have the data as well, and they will be able to make their own version of a specific area of the data, but still linked to the original data created (in my specific implementation, the original data will contain time-period(s) and headline, while the subgroups specify the rest of the data for the receivers directly linked to their respective groups). However, when the Subject creates data, it has to check if all affected Observers have any data that conflicts with this, which means a huge recursive function, as far as I can understand. So I think this can be summed up to the fact that I need to be able to have a hierarchy that you can go up and down in, and some places be able to treat them as a whole (recursion, basically). Also, I'm not just aiming at a solution that works. I'm hoping to find a solution that is relatively easy to understand (architecture-wise at least) and also flexible enough to be able to easily receive additional functionality in the future. Is there a design pattern, or a good practice to go by, to solve this problem or similar hierarchy problems? EDIT: Here's the design I have: The "Phoenix"-class is named that way because I didn't think of an appropriate name yet. But besides this I need to be able to hide specific activities for specific observers, even though they are attached to them through the groups. A little Off-topic: Personally, I feel that I should be able to chop this problem down to smaller problems, but it escapes me how. I think it's because it involves multiple recursive functionalities that aren't associated with each other and different client types that needs to get information in different ways. I can't really wrap my head around it. If anyone can guide me in a direction of how to become better at encapsulating hierarchy problems, I'd be very glad to receive that as well.

  Read the article

• Motivation for service layer (instead of just copying dlls)?

  - by BornToCode

  I'm creating an application which has 2 different UIs so I'm making it with a service layer which I understood is appropriate for such case. However I found myself just creating web methods for every single method I have in the BL layer, so the services basically built from methods that looks like this: return customers_bl.Get_Customer_Prices(customer_id); I understood that a main point of the service layer is to prevent duplication of code so I asked myself - well, why not just import the BL.dll (and the DAL.dll) to the other UI, and whenever making a change re-copy the dll files, it might not be so 'neat', but is the all purpose of the service layer to prevent this? {I know something is wrong in my approach, I'm probably missing the importance of service layer, I'd like to get more motivation to create another layer, especially because as it is I found that many of my BL functions ALREADY looks like: return customers_dal.Get_Customer_Prices(cust_id) which led me to ask: was it really necessary to create the BL just because on several functions I actually have LOGIC inside the BL?} so I'm looking for more motivation to creating ONE MORE layer, I'm sure it's not just to make it more convenient that I won't have to re-copy the dlls on changes? Am I grasping it wrong? Any simple guidelines on how to design service layer (corresponding to all the BL layer functions or not? any simple example?) any enlightenment on the subject?

  Read the article

• What Design Pattern is seperating transform converters

  - by RevMoon

  For converting a Java object model into XML I am using the following design: For different types of objects (e.g. primitive types, collections, null, etc.) I define each its own converter, which acts appropriate with respect to the given type. This way it can easily extended without adding code to a huge if-else-then construct. The converters are chosen by a method which tests whether the object is convertable at all and by using a priority ordering. The priority ordering is important so let's say a List is not converted by the POJO converter, even though it is convertable as such it would be more appropriate to use the collection converter. What design pattern is that? I can only think of a similarity to the command pattern.

  Read the article

• I know of three ways in which SRP helps reduce coupling. Are there even more? [closed]

  - by user1483278

  I'd like to figure all the possible ways SRP helps us reduce coupling. Thus far I can think of three: 1) If class A has more than one responsibility, these responsibilities become coupled and as such changes to one of these responsibilities may require changes to other of A's responsibilities. 2) Related functionality usually needs to be changed for the same reason and by grouping it togerther in a single class, the changes can be made in as few places as possible ( at best changes only need be made to the class which groups together these functionalities) 3) Assuming class A performs two tasks ( thus may change for two reasons ), then number of classes utilising A will be greater than if A performed just a single task ( reason being that some classes will need A to perform first task, other will need A for second task, and still others will utilise it for both tasks ).This also means that when A breaks, the number of classes ( utilising A ) being impaired will be greater than if A performed just a single task. Can SRP also help reduce coupling in any other way, not described above? Thank you

  Read the article

• Lazy Processing of Streams

  - by Giorgio

  I have the following problem scenario: I have a text file and I have to read it and split it into lines. Some lines might need to be dropped (according to criteria that are not fixed). The lines that are not dropped must be parsed into some predefined records. Records that are not valid must be dropped. Duplicate records may exist and, in such a case, they are consecutive. If duplicate / multiple records exist, only one item should be kept. The remaining records should be grouped according to the value contained in one field; all records belonging to the same group appear one after another (e.g. AAAABBBBCCDEEEFF and so on). The records of each group should be numbered (1, 2, 3, 4, ...). For each group the numbering starts from 1. The records must then be saved somewhere / consumed in the same order as they were produced. I have to implement this in Java or C++. My first idea was to define functions / methods like: One method to get all the lines from the file. One method to filter out the unwanted lines. One method to parse the filtered lines into valid records. One method to remove duplicate records. One method to group records and number them. The problem is that the data I am going to read can be too big and might not fit into main memory: so I cannot just construct all these lists and apply my functions one after the other. On the other hand, I think I do not need to fit all the data in main memory at once because once a record has been consumed all its underlying data (basically the lines of text between the previous record and the current record, and the record itself) can be disposed of. With the little knowledge I have of Haskell I have immediately thought about some kind of lazy evaluation, in which instead of applying functions to lists that have been completely computed, I have different streams of data that are built on top of each other and, at each moment, only the needed portion of each stream is materialized in main memory. But I have to implement this in Java or C++. So my question is which design pattern or other technique can allow me to implement this lazy processing of streams in one of these languages.

  Read the article

• Interfaces on an abstract class

  - by insta

  My coworker and I have different opinions on the relationship between base classes and interfaces. I'm of the belief that a class should not implement an interface unless that class can be used when an implementation of the interface is required. In other words, I like to see code like this: interface IFooWorker { void Work(); } abstract class BaseWorker { ... base class behaviors ... public abstract void Work() { } protected string CleanData(string data) { ... } } class DbWorker : BaseWorker, IFooWorker { public void Work() { Repository.AddCleanData(base.CleanData(UI.GetDirtyData())); } } The DbWorker is what gets the IFooWorker interface, because it is an instantiatable implementation of the interface. It completely fulfills the contract. My coworker prefers the nearly identical: interface IFooWorker { void Work(); } abstract class BaseWorker : IFooWorker { ... base class behaviors ... public abstract void Work() { } protected string CleanData(string data) { ... } } class DbWorker : BaseWorker { public void Work() { Repository.AddCleanData(base.CleanData(UI.GetDirtyData())); } } Where the base class gets the interface, and by virtue of this all inheritors of the base class are of that interface as well. This bugs me but I can't come up with concrete reasons why, outside of "the base class cannot stand on its own as an implementation of the interface". What are the pros & cons of his method vs. mine, and why should one be used over another?

  Read the article

• Is it dangerous for me to give some of my Model classes Control-like methods?

  - by Pureferret

  In my personal project I have tried to stick to MVC, but I've also been made aware that sticking to MVC too tightly can be a bad thing as it makes writing awkward and forces the flow of the program in odd ways (i.e. some simple functions can be performed by something that normally wouldn't, and avoid MVC related overheads). So I'm beginning to feel justified in this compromise: I have some 'manager programs' that 'own' data and have some way to manipulate it, as such I think they'd count as both part of the model, and part of the control, and to me this feels more natural than keepingthem separate. For instance: One of my Managers is the PlayerCharacterManager that has these methods: void buySkill(PlayerCharacter playerCharacter, Skill skill); void changeName(); void changeRole(); void restatCharacter(); void addCharacterToGame(); void createNewCharacter(); PlayerCharacter getPlayerCharacter(); List<PlayerCharacter> getPlayersCharacter(Player player); List<PlayerCharacter> getAllCharacters(); I hope the mothod names are transparent enough that they don't all need explaining. I've called it a manager because it will help manage all of the PlayerCharacter 'model' objects the code creates, and create and keep a map of these. I may also get it to store other information in the future. I plan to have another two similar classes for this sort of control, but I will orchestrate when and how this happens, and what to do with the returned data via a pure controller class. This splitting up control between informed managers and the controller, as opposed to operating just through a controller seems like it will simplify my code and make it flow more. My question is, is this a dangerous choice, in terms of making the code harder to follow/test/fix? Is this somethign established as good or bad or neutral? I oculdn't find anything similar except the idea of Actors but that's not quite why I'm trying to do. Edit: Perhaps an example is needed; I'm using the Controller to update the view and access the data, so when I click the 'Add new character to a player button' it'll call methods in the controller that then go and tell the PlayerCharacterManager class to create a new character instance, it'll call the PlayerManager class to add that new character to the player-character map, and then it'll add this information to the database, and tell the view to update any GUIs effected. That is the sort of 'control sequence' I'm hoping to create with these manager classes.

  Read the article

• What is the good way of sharing specific data between ViewModels

  - by voroninp

  We have IAppContext which is injected into ViewModel. This service contains shared data: global filters and other application wide properties. But there are cases when data is very specific. For example one VM implements Master and the second one - Details of selected tree item. Thus DetailsVm must know about the selected item and its changes. We can store this information either in IAppContext or inside each concerned VM. In both cases update notifications are sent via Messenger. I see pros and cons for any of the approaches and can not decide which one is better. 1st: + explicitly exposed shared proerties, easy to follow dependencies - IAppContxt becomes cluttered with very specific data. 2nd: the exact opposite of the first and more memory load due to data duplication. May be someone can offer design alternatives or tell that one of the variants is objectively superior to the other cause I miss something important?

  Read the article

• Main class passes dbConn obj to all its services, I need to change the dbConn for one of its services. - suggestion for design pattern

  - by tech_learner

  There is this main class and there are several services ( which uses db connection to retrieve data ) These services are initialized in the main class db properties are obtained from the property file and then dbconnection is opened by calling a method dbOpen() written in the main class and the resultant connection object is set to the service objects by iterating through the list of services and by calling setConnection method on the service note: that the services are instantiated in the main class and the main class is not a superclass for services. I also need to mention that there is this recycle db connection scenario only main class is aware of. /** connects to DB, optionally recycling existing connection), * throws RuntimeException if unable to connect */ private void connectDb(boolean recycle) { try { if (recycle) { log.status( log.getSB().append("Recycling DB Connection") ); closeDb(); } openDb(); for ( int i = 0 ; i < service.length ; i++ ) { service[i].setConnection(db); } } One of the service needs to use a different database, what is the best design pattern to use?

  Read the article

• Many ui panels needs interaction with same object

  - by user877329

  I am developing a tool for simulating systems like the Gray-Scott model (That is systems where spatial distribution depends on time). The actual model is loaded from a DLL or shared object and the simulation is performed by a Simulation object. There are at least two situations when the simulation needs to be destroyed: The user loads a new model The user changes the size of the domain To make sure nothing goes wrong, the current Model, Simulation, and rendering Thread are all managed by an ApplicationState object. But the two cases above are initiated from two different UI objects. Is it then ok to distribute a reference to the ApplicationState object to all panels that need to access at least one method on the ApplicationState object? Another solution would be to use aggregation so that the panel from which the user chooses model knows the simulation parameter panel. Also, the ApplicationState class seems somewhat clumsy, so I would like to have something else

  Read the article

• Help with MVC design pattern?

  - by user3681240

  I am trying to build a java program for user login but I am not sure if my MVC design is accurate. I have the following classes: LoginControl - servlet LoginBean - data holder java class with private variables getters and setters LoginDAO - concrete java class where I am running my SQL queries and doing rest of the logical work. Connection class - java class just to connect to the database view - jsp to display the results html - used for form Is this how you design a java program based on MVC design pattern? Please provide some suggestions?

  Read the article

• Motivation for a service layer (instead of just copying dlls)?

  - by BornToCode

  I'm creating an application which has 2 different UIs so I'm making it with a service layer which I understood is appropriate for such scenario. However I found myself just creating web methods for every single method I have in the BL layer, so the services basically built from methods that looks like this: return customers_bl.Get_Customer_Prices(customer_id); I understood that a main point of the service layer is to prevent duplication of code so I asked myself - why not just import the BL.DLL (and the dal.dll) to the other UI, and whenever making a change re-copy the dlls, it might not be so 'neat', but still less hassle than one more layer? {I know something is wrong in my approach, I'm probably missing the importance of service layer, I'd like to get more motivation to create another layer, especially because as it is I found that many of my BL functions ALREADY looks like: return customers_dal.Get_Customer_Prices(cust_id) which led me to ask: was it really necessary to create the BL just because on several functions I actually have LOGIC inside the BL?} so I'm looking for more motivation to creating ONE MORE layer, I'm sure it's not just to make it more convenient that I won't have to re-copy the dlls on changes? Am I grasping it wrong? Any simple guidelines on how to design service layer (corresponding to all the BL layer functions or not? any simple example?) any enlightenment on the subject?

  Read the article

• Pattern for loading and handling resources

  - by Enoon

  Many times there is the need to load external resources into the program, may they be graphics, audio samples or text strings. Is there a patten for handling the loading and the handling of such resources? For example: should I have a class that loads all the data and then call it everytime I need the data? As in: GraphicsHandler.instance().loadAllData() ...//and then later: draw(x,y, GraphicsHandler.instance().getData(WATER_IMAGE)) //or maybe draw(x,y, GraphicsHandler.instance().WATER_IMAGE) Or should I assign each resource to the class where it belongs? As in (for example, in a game): Graphics g = GraphicsLoader.load(CHAR01); Character c = new Character(..., g); ... c.draw(); Generally speaking which of these two is the more robust solution? GraphicsHandler.instance().getData(WATER_IMAGE) //or GraphicsHandler.instance().WATER_IMAGE //a constant reference

  Read the article

• Structuring Access Control In Hierarchical Object Graph

  - by SB2055

  I have a Folder entity that can be Moderated by users. Folders can contain other folders. So I may have a structure like this: Folder 1 Folder 2 Folder 3 Folder 4 I have to decide how to implement Moderation for this entity. I've come up with two options: Option 1 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a moderator relationship between Folder 1 and User 1. No other relationships are added to the db. To determine if the user can moderate Folder 3, I check and see if User 1 is the moderator of any parent folders. This seems to alleviate some of the complexity of handling updates / moved entities / additions under Folder 1 after the relationship has been defined, and reverting the relationship means I only have to deal with one entity. Option 2 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a new relationship between User 1 and Folder 1, and all child entities down to the grandest of grandchildren when the relationship is created, and if it's ever removed, iterate back down the graph to remove the relationship. If I add something under Folder 2 after this relationship has been made, I just copy all Moderators into the new Entity. But when I need to show only the top-level Folders that a user is Moderating, I need to query all folders that have a parent folder that the user does not moderate, as opposed to option 1, where I just query any items that the user is moderating. Thoughts I think it comes down to determining if users will be querying for all parent items more than they'll be querying child items... if so, then option 1 seems better. But I'm not sure. Is either approach better than the other? Why? Or is there another approach that's better than both? I'm using Entity Framework in case it matters.

  Read the article

• Any recommended books/resources on component-based design?

  - by user1163640

  I come from a background with heavy use of the classical object-oriented paradigm for software development. The company I am a part of switched to Unity not too long ago, and we're all very excited to get started using it However, one aspect that have sparked my interested, and which I think will become a very important part of our future development, is Unity's approach to component-based design with scripting; with less focus on typical hierarchical aspect. Question I was wondering if anyone could recommend any good books on this subject? I have had trouble finding any books or books with reliable reviews, and was wondering if anyone more experienced here had something to say on the issue? Any other kind of resource would be excellent too, I'm just interested in getting to learn everything I can about it. This is not meant as a discussion about best books or resources on the topic, but simply a question regarding any resources that any of you find useful. Thank you all for your time!

  Read the article

• Layering Design Pattern in Java clean code style

  - by zeraDev

  As a Java developer, I am developing trying to use the clean code rules. But in my team we are facing a concrete problem: We have a business layer offering a service called "createObject", this service makes a lot of operation which can result to problem. E.g: parentObjectDontExist, objectAlreadyExist, dontHaveAuthorizationToCreate, operationFailed... and we want the UI using this service to display different information messages depending which error occurred. In old java dev, we should have create all signed exception type and throw it in createObject. As Clean code says, it is forbidden to use Exception for business logic AND signed exceptions are evil... Why not...But i don't know how to solved this problem and i don't want to use return code. How do you do? Thanks for youre experience return.

  Read the article

• Implenting ActiveRecord with inheritance?

  - by King

  I recently converted an old application that was using XML files as the data store to use SQL instead. To avoid a lot of changes I basically created ActiveRecord style classes that inherited from the original business objects. For example SomeClassRecord :SomeClass //ID Property //Save method I then used this new class in place of the other one, because of polymorphism I didn't need to change any methods that took SomeClass as a parameter. Would this be considered 'Bad'? What would be a better alternative?

  Read the article

• Is "convention over configuration" not violating basic programming principles?

  - by Geerten

  I was looking at the WPF MVVM framework Caliburn.Micro and read that a lot of standard things are based on naming conventions. For example, automatic binding of properties in the View to properties in the ViewModel. Although this seems to be convenient (removes some boilerplate code), my first instinct reaction is that it isn't completely obvious to a new programmer that will read this code. In other words, the functionality of the application is not completely explained by its own code, but also by the documentation of the framework. EDIT: So this approach is called convention over configuration. Since I could not find any questions concerning this, I altered my question: My question is: Is convention over configuration a correct way of simplifying things, or is it violating some programming principles (and if so, which ones)?

  Read the article

• Is there a standard for machine-readable descriptions of RESTful services?

  - by ecmendenhall

  I've interacted with a few RESTful APIs that provided excellent documentation for humans and descriptive URIs, but none of them seem to return machine-readable descriptions of themselves. It's not too tough to write methods of my own that assemble the right paths, and many language-specific API libraries are already just wrappers around RESTful requests. But the next level of abstraction seems really useful: a library that could read in an API's own machine readable documentation and generate the wrappers automatically, perhaps with a call to some standard URI like base_url + '/documentation' Are there any standards for machine-readable API documentation? Am I doing REST wrong? I am a relatively new programmer, but this seems like a good idea.

  Read the article

• What are the best practices to use NHiberante sessions in asp.net (mvc/web api) ?

  - by mrt181

  I have the following setup in my project: public class WebApiApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication { public static ISessionFactory SessionFactory { get; private set; } public WebApiApplication() { this.BeginRequest += delegate { var session = SessionFactory.OpenSession(); CurrentSessionContext.Bind(session); }; this.EndRequest += delegate { var session = SessionFactory.GetCurrentSession(); if (session == null) { return; } session = CurrentSessionContext.Unbind(SessionFactory); session.Dispose(); }; } protected void Application_Start() { AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas(); FilterConfig.RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilters.Filters); RouteConfig.RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes); BundleConfig.RegisterBundles(BundleTable.Bundles); var assembly = Assembly.GetCallingAssembly(); SessionFactory = new NHibernateHelper(assembly, Server.MapPath("/")).SessionFactory; } } public class PositionsController : ApiController { private readonly ISession session; public PositionsController() { this.session = WebApiApplication.SessionFactory.GetCurrentSession(); } public IEnumerable<Position> Get() { var result = this.session.Query<Position>().Cacheable().ToList(); if (!result.Any()) { throw new HttpResponseException(new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NotFound)); } return result; } public HttpResponseMessage Post(PositionDataTransfer dto) { //TODO: Map dto to model IEnumerable<Position> positions = null; using (var transaction = this.session.BeginTransaction()) { this.session.SaveOrUpdate(positions); try { transaction.Commit(); } catch (StaleObjectStateException) { if (transaction != null && transaction.IsActive) { transaction.Rollback(); } } } var response = this.Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, dto); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(this.Request.RequestUri.AbsoluteUri + "/" + dto.Name); return response; } public void Put(int id, string value) { //TODO: Implement PUT throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void Delete(int id) { //TODO: Implement DELETE throw new NotImplementedException(); } } I am not sure if this is the recommended way to insert the session into the controller. I was thinking about using DI but i am not sure how to inject the session that is opened and binded in the BeginRequest delegate into the Controllers constructor to get this public PositionsController(ISession session) { this.session = session; } Question: What is the recommended way to use NHiberante sessions in asp.net mvc/web api ?

  Read the article

• Dynamic Components

  - by Alex

  I am attempting to design a component-based architecture that allows Components to be dynamically enabled and disabled, much like the system employed by Unity3D. For example, all Components are implicitly enabled by default; however, if one desires to halt execution of code for a particular Component, one can disable it. Naively, I want to have a boolean flag in Component (which is an abstract class), and somehow serialize all method calls into strings, so that some sort of ComponentManager can check if a given Component is enabled/disabled before processing a method call on it. However, this is a pretty bad solution. I feel like I should employ some variation of the state paradigm, but I have yet to make progress. Any help would be greatly appreciated,

  Read the article

• How should I implement the repository pattern for complex object models?

  - by Eric Falsken

  Our data model has almost 200 classes that can be separated out into about a dozen functional areas. It would have been nice to use domains, but the separation isn't that clean and we can't change it. We're redesigning our DAL to use Entity Framework and most of the recommendations that I've seen suggest using a Repository pattern. However, none of the samples really deal with complex object models. Some implementations that I've found suggest the use of a repository-per-entity. This seems ridiculous and un-maintainable for large, complex models. Is it really necessary to create a UnitOfWork for each operation, and a Repository for each entity? I could end up with thousands of classes. I know this is unreasonable, but I've found very little guidance implementing Repository, Unit Of Work, and Entity Framework over complex models and realistic business applications.

  Read the article

• What OO Design to use ( is there a Design Pattern )?

  - by Blundell

  I have two objects that represent a 'Bar/Club' ( a place where you drink/socialise). In one scenario I need the bar name, address, distance, slogon In another scenario I need the bar name, address, website url, logo So I've got two objects representing the same thing but with different fields. I like to use immutable objects, so all the fields are set from the constructor. One option is to have two constructors and null the other fields i.e: class Bar { private final String name; private final Distance distance; private final Url url; public Bar(String name, Distance distance){ this.name = name; this.distance = distance; this.url = null; } public Bar(String name, Url url){ this.name = name; this.distance = null; this.url = url; } // getters } I don't like this as you would have to null check when you use the getters In my real example the first scenario has 3 fields and the second scenario has about 10, so it would be a real pain having two constructors, the amount of fields I would have to declare null and then when the object are in use you wouldn't know which Bar you where using and so what fields would be null and what wouldn't. What other options do I have? Two classes called BarPreview and Bar? Some type of inheritance / interface? Something else that is awesome?

  Read the article

• Android design advice - services & broadcast receivers

  - by basudz

  I'm in the process of learning the Android SDK and creating some projects to get a grasp on the system. The current project I'm working with works just fine but I'd like to get some advice about other ways I can go about designing it. Here's what it needs to do. When a text message is received from a specific number, it should fire off a toast message that repeats at a certain interval for a specific duration. To make this work, I created an SMS BroadcastReceiver and checked the incoming messages for the number I'm looking for. If found, an IntentService would be started that would pull out the interval and duration from saved shared prefs. The IntentService would then fire off a broadcast. The BroadcastReceiver for this would catch it and use the AlarmManager to handle the toast message repetitions. This all works just fine, but I'm wondering if there's a cleaner or more efficient way of going about doing this? Any suggestions or advice?

  Read the article

• Dynamic Strategy Pattern [migrated]

  - by Karl Barker

  So I'm writing a web service architecture which includes FunctionProvider classes which do the actual processing of requests, and a main Endpoint class which receives and delegates requests to the proper FunctionProvider. I don't know exactly the FunctionProviders available at runtime, so I need to be able to 'register' (if that's the right word) them with my main Endpoint class, and query them to see if they match an incoming request. public class MyFunc implements FunctionProvider{ static { MyEndpoint.register(MyFunc); } public Boolean matchesRequest(Request req){...} public void processRequest(Request req){...} } public class MyEndpoint{ private static ArrayList<FunctionProvider> functions = new ArrayList<FunctionProvider>(); public void register(Class clz){ functions.add(clz); } public void doPost(Request request){ //find the FunctionProvider in functions //matching the request } } I've really not done much reflective Java like this (and the above is likely wrong, but hopefully demonstrates my intentions). What's the nicest way to implement this without getting hacky?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >