Search Results

Search found 14602 results on 585 pages for 'objected oriented design'.

Page 41/585 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • How far can you get in iOS without learning PhotoShop or another graphic design program? [on hold]

    - by Aerovistae
    I'm in the process of learning iOS, and I'm coming from a web dev background where CSS controls 70-90% of the UI, and Python/C++ desktop dev where there are highly customizable UI toolkits for most things. I'm trying to figure out how people make good-looking apps without graphic design skills. You always hear about some 8 year old or 14 year old who made a successful app. So I assume that even if the required code was relatively basic, the app must have looked good if it was a success. But I find it really unlikely that these kids have advanced PhotoShop skills as well as having learned iOS programming at such a young age. Frankly, the same goes for most independent app developers....as they say, unicorns don't exist. So what's the deal? Can you make a good-looking, market quality app without those skills? What are the limitations?

    Read the article

  • Are there any resources for motion-planning puzzle design?

    - by Salano Software
    Some background: I'm poking at a set of puzzles along the lines of Rush Hour/Sokoban/etc; for want of a better description, call them 'motion planning' puzzles - the player has to figure out the correct sequence of moves to achieve a particular configuration. (It's the sort of puzzle that's generically PSPACE-complete if that actually helps anyone's mental image). While I have a few straightforward 'building blocks' that I can use for puzzle crafting and I have a few basic examples put together, I'm trying to figure out how to avoid too much sameness over a large swath of these kinds of puzzles, and I'm also trying to figure out how to make puzzles that have more of a feel of logical solution than trial-and-error. Does anyone know of good resources out there for designing instances of this sort of puzzle once the core puzzle rules are in place? Most of what I've found on puzzle design only covers creating the puzzle rules, not building interesting puzzles out of a set of rules.

    Read the article

  • Design application to send messages by marking circle on the map where you want to send message

    - by jhamb
    This is question asked to me by an interviewer, in which a map of world is given, and for those country you want to send message, just marked circle on that area, and just send to all the people comes in that area. Question visual link is : Design this application The approach that I told him: Firstly build whole person's data (contacts , place information and all) Then where you mark on the map, just build a cluster of that country using Hadoop and fire the message to all the person's contact comes in that cluster. So help me for better understandings of this problem, and if have another good approach (all back-end ad front-end) , then please tell me or discuss here with me. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • "Never do in code what you can get the SQL server to do well for you" - Is this a recipe for a bad design?

    - by PhonicUK
    It's an idea I've heard repeated in a handful of places. Some more or less acknowledging that once trying to solve a problem purely in SQL exceeds a certain level of complexity you should indeed be handling it in code. The logic behind the idea is that for the large majority of cases, the database engine will do a better job at finding the most efficient way of completing your task than you could in code. Especially when it comes to things like making the results conditional on operations performed on the data. Arguably with modern engines effectively JIT'ing + caching the compiled version of your query it'd make sense on the surface. The question is whether or not leveraging your database engine in this way is inherently bad design practice (and why). The lines become blurred further when all the logic exists inside the database and you're just hitting it via an ORM.

    Read the article

  • Software Design and documentation – what do people use that has proved valuable?

    - by eddyparkinson
    When creating software, what do you use to design, document and visualize. Looking for evidence/examples. e.g. Use cases, Pseudo code, Gantt chats, PERT charts, DFD, decision trees, decision tables (Answers maybe used to help teach students) What do you use to help with creating software. Also why; when has it proved valuable? --- Edit -- Proved valuable: The pattern so far suggests that the style of UML tool used is linked to an objective. e.g. "get it straight in MY head", explain to business mangers, quality control.

    Read the article

  • Best design to create dynamic set of questions(controls ) in silverlight web application?

    - by Sukesh
    I have around 15 templates (this will grow) and each template will have around 10-15 questions. Each question can have answers in different format like text box, list box, dropdown, radio button etc. I need to show one template in a page, at a time based on the input I am getting. What would be the best design approach for this? Put questions data in database and Create dynamic control? Putting in xml and display using xslt? Creating static set of templates? Or any other approach? I don't have too much time to do this. I am going to use Silverlight for this.

    Read the article

  • C# Lack of Static Inheritance - What Should I Do?

    - by yellowblood
    Alright, so as you probably know, static inheritance is impossible in C#. I understand that, however I'm stuck with the development of my program. I will try to make it as simple as possible. Lets say our code needs to manage objects that are presenting aircrafts in some airport. The requirements are as follows: There are members and methods that are shared for all aircrafts There are many types of aircrafts, each type may have its own extra methods and members. There can be many instances for each aircraft type. Every aircraft type must have a friendly name for this type, and more details about this type. For example a class named F16 will have a static member FriendlyName with the value of "Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon". Other programmers should be able to add more aircrafts, although they must be enforced to create the same static details about the types of the aircrafts. In some GUI, there should be a way to let the user see the list of available types (with the details such as FriendlyName) and add or remove instances of the aircrafts, saved, lets say, to some XML file. So, basically, if I could enforce inherited classes to implement static members and methods, I would enforce the aircraft types to have static members such as FriendlyName. Sadly I cannot do that. So, what would be the best design for this scenario?

    Read the article

  • AntFarm anti-pattern -- strategies to avoid, antidotes to help heal from

    - by alchemical
    I'm working on a 10 page web site with a database back-end. There are 500+ objects in use, trying to implement the MVP pattern in ASP.Net. I'm tracing the code-execution from a single-page, my finger has been on F-11 in Visual Studio for about 40 minutes, there seems to be no end, possibly 1000+ method calls for one web page! If it was just 50 objects that would be one thing, however, code execution snakes through all these objects just like millions of ants frantically woring in their giant dirt mound house, riddled with object tunnels. Hence, a new anti-pattern is born : AntFarm. AntFarm is also known as "OO-Madnes", "OO-Fever", OO-ADD, or simply design-pattern junkie. This is not the first time I've seen this, nor my associates at other companies. It seems that this style is being actively propogated, or in any case is a misunderstanding of the numerous OO/DP gospels going around... I'd like to introduce an anti-pattern to the anti-pattern: GST or "Get Stuff Done" AKA "Get Sh** done" AKA GRD (GetRDone). This pattern focused on just what it says, getting stuff done, in a simple way. I may try to outline it more in a later post, or please share your ideas on this antidote pattern. Anyway, I'm in the midst of a great example of AntFarm anti-pattern as I write (as a bonus, there is no documentation or comments). Please share you thoughts on how this anti-pattern has become so prevelant, how we can avoid it, and how can one undo or deal with this pattern in a live system one must work with!

    Read the article

  • When is factory method better than simple factory and vice versa?

    - by Bruce
    Hi all Working my way through the Head First Design Patterns book. I believe I understand the simple factory and the factory method, but I'm having trouble seeing what advantages factory method brings over simple factory. If an object A uses a simple factory to create its B objects, then clients can create it like this: A a = new A(new BFactory()); whereas if an object uses a factory method, a client can create it like this: A a = new ConcreteA(); // ConcreteA contains a method for instantiating the same Bs that the BFactory above creates, with the method hardwired into the subclass of A, ConcreteA. So in the case of the simple factory, clients compose A with a B factory, whereas with the factory method, the client chooses the appropriate subclass for the types of B it wants. There really doesn't seem to be much to choose between them. Either you have to choose which BFactory you want to compose A with, or you have to choose the right subclass of A to give you the Bs. Under what circumstances is one better than the other? Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • Why does C# not provide the C++ style 'friend' keyword?

    - by Ash
    The C++ friend keyword allows a class A to designate class B as it's friend. This allows Class B to access the private/protected members of class A. I've never read anything as to why this was left out of C# (and VB.NET). Most answers to this earlier StackOverflow question seem to be saying it is a useful part of C++ and there are good reasons to use it. In my experience I'd have to agree. Another question seems to me to be really asking how to do something similar to friend in a C# application. While the answers generally revolve around nested classes, it doesn't seem quite as elegant as using the friend keyword. The original Design Patterns book uses the friend keyword regularly throughout its examples. So in summary, why is friend missing from C#, and what is the "best practice" way (or ways) of simulating it in C#? (By the way, the "internal" keyword is not the same thing, it allows ALL classes within the entire assembly to access internal members, friend allows you to give access to a class to just one other class.)

    Read the article

  • Tablet design guide, Endeca patterns now available

    - by JuergenKress
    UX Direct, an Oracle program that offers consultants, partners, and customers the same scientifically proven and reusable user experience best practices that Oracle uses to build Oracle Applications, recently added links to a new design guide for creating tablet-based solutions for enterprise applications, and to the recently published Endeca User Interface Design Pattern Library. The tablet design guide is available from the UX Direct Home page. Tap the button under “Latest patterns & tools” for “Oracle Applications UX Tablet Guide.” It provides basic help for designers, developers, and project managers trying to approach tablet design and testing from an enterprise point of view. To hear what developers are saying about it, follow the links from this post on the User Experience Assistance blog. The newly released Endeca User Interface Design Pattern Library is also available from the UX Direct Home page and from a post on the User Experience Assistance blog. It describes principled ways to solve common user interface (UI) design problems related to search, faceted navigation, and discovery. The link between Simplified UI and Oracle UX strategy, plus content you can share on the cloud, ADf, tailoring, and more Simplified User Interface in Oracle Fusion Applications Fronts Oracle Cloud Offerings This new article on Simplified UI has just been posted on Usable Apps. Learn about the three themes - simplicity, mobility, and extensibility – that Simplified UI embodies. These same principles are guiding the development of the next generation of the Oracle user experience. Oracle's Applications User Experience Strategy: One Cloud User Experience, with Optimized UIs Where and How You Want This podcast from Misha Vaughan, Director, User Experience, is now available on the Oracle University Knowledge Center. It is available for partners and Oracle employees at this iLearning Link. Oracle Partner Builds User Experience That Hits Right Note for New Employees This new article on the Usable Apps website explores the experience of consultants at IntraSee as they implement a PeopleSoft onboarding process for Invesco, a global asset management company. The Feng Shui of Fusion This article in Oracle Scene is from Grant Ronald, Director of Product Management, on the Tools of Fusion: Oracle JDeveloper and Oracle ADF. Hands-On Workshop with Fusion Applications and ADF UX Desktop Design Patterns This post on the Voice of User Experience, or VoX, blog from Misha Vaughan describes a new kind of workshop for partners and a handful of internal Oracle sales folks on extending Oracle Fusion Applications and building custom applications with Application Development Framework (ADF) while maintaining the Oracle user experience. To learn more about the content that was delivered during this three-day workshop, visit the Usable Apps blog. Recent posts from a new blog series take a look at several of the topics discussed during the workshop. Applications User Experience Fundamentals Visual Design for any Enterprise User Interface / Art School in a Box Wireframing / Blueprinting Usable Applications Concepts. Tailoring videos This blog post from Richard Bingham, Applications Architect, on the Fusion Applications Developer Relations blog provides links to several videos that show many customization and development tasks using the Oracle Fusion Applications platform. SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Wiki Mix Forum Technorati Tags: UX,Architecture,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • Flow-Design Cheat Sheet &ndash; Part II, Translation

    - by Ralf Westphal
    In my previous post I summarized the notation for Flow-Design (FD) diagrams. Now is the time to show you how to translate those diagrams into code. Hopefully you feel how different this is from UML. UML leaves you alone with your sequence diagram or component diagram or activity diagram. They leave it to you how to translate your elaborate design into code. Or maybe UML thinks it´s so easy no further explanations are needed? I don´t know. I just know that, as soon as people stop designing with UML and start coding, things end up to be very different from the design. And that´s bad. That degrades graphical designs to just time waste on paper (or some designer). I even believe that´s the reason why most programmers view textual source code as the only and single source of truth. Design and code usually do not match. FD is trying to change that. It wants to make true design a first class method in every developers toolchest. For that the first prerequisite is to be able to easily translate any design into code. Mechanically, without thinking. Even a compiler could do it :-) (More of that in some other article.) Translating to Methods The first translation I want to show you is for small designs. When you start using FD you should translate your diagrams like this. Functional units become methods. That´s it. An input-pin becomes a method parameter, an output-pin becomes a return value: The above is a part. But a board can be translated likewise and calls the nested FUs in order: In any case be sure to keep the board method clear of any and all business logic. It should not contain any control structures like if, switch, or a loop. Boards do just one thing: calling nested functional units in proper sequence. What about multiple input-pins? Try to avoid them. Replace them with a join returning a tuple: What about multiple output-pins? Try to avoid them. Or return a tuple. Or use out-parameters: But as I said, this simple translation is for simple designs only. Splits and joins are easily done with method translation: All pretty straightforward, isn´t it. But what about wires, named pins, entry points, explicit dependencies? I suggest you don´t use this kind of translation when your designs need these features. Translating to methods is for small scale designs like you might do once you´re working on the implementation of a part of a larger design. Or maybe for a code kata you´re doing in your local coding dojo. Instead of doing TDD try doing FD and translate your design into methods. You´ll see that way it´s much easier to work collaboratively on designs, remember them more easily, keep them clean, and lessen the need for refactoring. Translating to Events [coming soon]

    Read the article

  • Component based game engine design

    - by a_m0d
    I have been looking at game engine design (specifically focused on 2d game engines, but also applicable to 3d games), and am interested in some information on how to go about it. I have heard that many engines are moving to a component based design nowadays rather than the traditional deep-object hierarchy. Do you know of any good links with information on how these sorts of designs are often implemented? I have seen evolve your hierarchy, but I can't really find many more with detailed information (most of them just seem to say "use components rather than a hierarchy" but I have found that it takes a bit of effort to switch my thinking between the two models). Any good links or information on this would be appreciated, and even books, although links and detailed answers here would be preferred.

    Read the article

  • Opinions on sensor / reading / alert database design

    - by Mark
    I've asked a few questions lately regarding database design, probably too many ;-) However I beleive I'm slowly getting to the heart of the matter with my design and am slowly boiling it down. I'm still wrestling with a couple of decisions regarding how "alerts" are stored in the database. In this system, an alert is an entity that must be acknowledged, acted upon, etc. Initially I related readings to alerts like this (very cut down) : - [Location] LocationId [Sensor] SensorId LocationId UpperLimitValue LowerLimitValue [SensorReading] SensorReadingId Value Status Timestamp [SensorAlert] SensorAlertId [SensorAlertReading] SensorAlertId SensorReadingId The last table is associating readings with the alert, because it is the reading that dictate that the sensor is in alert or not. The problem with this design is that it allows readings from many sensors to be associated with a single alert - whereas each alert is for a single sensor only and should only have readings for that sensor associated with it (should I be bothered that the DB allows this though?). I thought to simplify things, why even bother with the SensorAlertReading table? Instead I could do this: [Location] LocationId [Sensor] SensorId LocationId [SensorReading] SensorReadingId SensorId Value Status Timestamp [SensorAlert] SensorAlertId SensorId Timestamp [SensorAlertEnd] SensorAlertId Timestamp Basically I'm not associating readings with the alert now - instead I just know that an alert was active between a start and end time for a particular sensor, and if I want to look up the readings for that alert I can do. Obviously the downside is I no longer have any constraint stopping me deleting readings that occurred during the alert, but I'm not sure that the constraint is neccessary. Now looking in from the outside as a developer / DBA, would that make you want to be sick or does it seem reasonable? Is there perhaps another way of doing this that I may be missing? Thanks. EDIT: Here's another idea - it works in a different way. It stores each sensor state change, going from normal to alert in a table, and then readings are simply associated with a particular state. This seems to solve all the problems - what d'ya think? (the only thing I'm not sure about is calling the table "SensorState", I can't help think there's a better name (maybe SensorReadingGroup?) : - [Location] LocationId [Sensor] SensorId LocationId [SensorState] SensorStateId SensorId Timestamp Status IsInAlert [SensorReading] SensorReadingId SensorStateId Value Timestamp There must be an elegant solution to this!

    Read the article

  • Using Moq at Blend design time

    - by adrian hara
    This might be a bit out there, but suppose I want to use Moq in a ViewModel to create some design time data, like so: public class SomeViewModel { public SomeViewModel(ISomeDependency dependency) { if (IsInDesignMode) { var mock = new Mock<ISomeDependency>(); dependency = mock.Object; // this throws! } } } The mock could be set up to do some stuff, but you get the idea. My problem is that at design-time in Blend, this code throws an InvalidCastException, with the message along the lines of "Unable to cast object of type 'Castle.Proxies.ISomeDependencyProxy2b3a8f3188284ff0b1129bdf3d50d3fc' to type 'ISomeDependency'." While this doesn't necessarily look to be Moq related but Castle related, I hope the Moq example helps ;) Any idea why that is? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Where did System.Design go?

    - by Nilbert
    I am making a C# project in which I am using ScintillaNet, and it says: The referenced assembly "ScintillaNet" could not be resolved because it has a dependency on "System.Design, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a" which is not in the currently targeted framework ".NETFramework,Version=v4.0,Profile=Client". Please remove references to assemblies not in the targeted framework or consider retargeting your project. I tried adding a reference to System.Design, but it doesn't exist in my list. Do I need to download it somewhere? I have MS Visual Studio 10.

    Read the article

  • A good design pattern for almost similar objects

    - by Sam
    Hello, I have two websites that have an almost identical database schema. the only difference is that some tables in one website have 1 or 2 extra fields that the other and vice versa. I wanted to the same Database Access layer classes to will manipulate both websites. What can be a good design pattern that can be used to handle that little difference. for example, I have a method createAccount(Account account) in my DAO class but the implementation will be slightly different between website A and website B. I know design patterns don't depend on the language but FYI i m working with Perl. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for cost calculator app?

    - by Anders Svensson
    Hi, I have a problem that I’ve tried to get help for before, but I wasn’t able to solve it then, so I’m trying to simplify the problem now to see if I can get some more concrete help with this because it is driving me crazy… Basically, I have a working (more complex) version of this application, which is a project cost calculator. But because I am at the same time trying to learn to design my applications better, I would like some input on how I could improve this design. Basically the main thing I want is input on the conditionals that (here) appear repeated in two places. The suggestions I got before was to use the strategy pattern or factory pattern. I also know about the Martin Fowler book with the suggestion to Refactor conditional with polymorphism. I understand that principle in his simpler example. But how can I do either of these things here (if any would be suitable)? The way I see it, the calculation is dependent on a couple of conditions: 1. What kind of service is it, writing or analysis? 2. Is the project small, medium or large? (Please note that there may be other parameters as well, equally different, such as “are the products new or previously existing?” So such parameters should be possible to add, but I tried to keep the example simple with only two parameters to be able to get concrete help) So refactoring with polymorphism would imply creating a number of subclasses, which I already have for the first condition (type of service), and should I really create more subclasses for the second condition as well (size)? What would that become, AnalysisSmall, AnalysisMedium, AnalysisLarge, WritingSmall, etc…??? No, I know that’s not good, I just don’t see how to work with that pattern anyway else? I see the same problem basically for the suggestions of using the strategy pattern (and the factory pattern as I see it would just be a helper to achieve the polymorphism above). So please, if anyone has concrete suggestions as to how to design these classes the best way I would be really grateful! Please also consider whether I have chosen the objects correctly too, or if they need to be redesigned. (Responses like "you should consider the factory pattern" will obviously not be helpful... I've already been down that road and I'm stumped at precisely how in this case) Regards, Anders The code (very simplified, don’t mind the fact that I’m using strings instead of enums, not using a config file for data etc, that will be done as necessary in the real application once I get the hang of these design problems): public abstract class Service { protected Dictionary<string, int> _hours; protected const int SMALL = 2; protected const int MEDIUM = 8; public int NumberOfProducts { get; set; } public abstract int GetHours(); } public class Writing : Service { public Writing(int numberOfProducts) { NumberOfProducts = numberOfProducts; _hours = new Dictionary<string, int> { { "small", 125 }, { "medium", 100 }, { "large", 60 } }; } public override int GetHours() { if (NumberOfProducts <= SMALL) return _hours["small"] * NumberOfProducts; if (NumberOfProducts <= MEDIUM) return (_hours["small"] * SMALL) + (_hours["medium"] * (NumberOfProducts - SMALL)); return (_hours["small"] * SMALL) + (_hours["medium"] * (MEDIUM - SMALL)) + (_hours["large"] * (NumberOfProducts - MEDIUM)); } } public class Analysis : Service { public Analysis(int numberOfProducts) { NumberOfProducts = numberOfProducts; _hours = new Dictionary<string, int> { { "small", 56 }, { "medium", 104 }, { "large", 200 } }; } public override int GetHours() { if (NumberOfProducts <= SMALL) return _hours["small"]; if (NumberOfProducts <= MEDIUM) return _hours["medium"]; return _hours["large"]; } } public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); List<int> quantities = new List<int>(); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { quantities.Add(i); } comboBoxNumberOfProducts.DataSource = quantities; } private void comboBoxNumberOfProducts_SelectedIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { Service writing = new Writing((int) comboBoxNumberOfProducts.SelectedItem); Service analysis = new Analysis((int) comboBoxNumberOfProducts.SelectedItem); labelWriterHours.Text = writing.GetHours().ToString(); labelAnalysisHours.Text = analysis.GetHours().ToString(); } }

    Read the article

  • C# Language Design: explicit interface implementation of an event

    - by ControlFlow
    Small question about C# language design :)) If I had an interface like this: interface IFoo { int Value { get; set; } } It's possible to explicitly implement such interface using C# 3.0 auto-implemented properties: sealed class Foo : IFoo { int IFoo.Value { get; set; } } But if I had an event in the interface: interface IFoo { event EventHandler Event; } And trying to explicitly implement it using field-like event: sealed class Foo : IFoo { event EventHandler IFoo.Event; } I will get the following compiler error: error CS0071: An explicit interface implementation of an event must use event accessor syntax I think that field-like events is the some kind of dualism for auto-implemented properties. So my question is: what is the design reason for such restriction done?

    Read the article

  • Custom Providers & Design Patterns

    - by Code Sherpa
    Hi. I am using ASP.NET 2.0 and its various providers. I have overridden most of the methods I need and have the following custom providers: ProjectMembershipProvider ProjectProfileProvider ProjectRoleProvider In the design of my project, my intention was to wrap the custom providers in a facade - style design - mixing and matching profiling, membership, and roles in API methods to simplify things for developers. But, I am finding that a lot of the methods in my custom providers don't need to change, really. And, it seems silly to wrap a stand-alone method in another method that does exactly the same thing. So - is my approach wrong? Or, should I allow end - users to instantiate the custom providers when needed and the mix/match api when needed? This seems a bit redundant to me but I can't see another way. Advice appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

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