Search Results

Search found 30780 results on 1232 pages for 'object oriented modeling'.

Page 43/1232 | < Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

• How do we keep dependent data structures up to date?

  - by Geo

  Suppose you have a parse tree, an abstract syntax tree, and a control flow graph, each one logically derived from the one before. In principle it is easy to construct each graph given the parse tree, but how can we manage the complexity of updating the graphs when the parse tree is modified? We know exactly how the tree has been modified, but how can the change be propagated to the other trees in a way that doesn't become difficult to manage? Naturally the dependent graph can be updated by simply reconstructing it from scratch every time the first graph changes, but then there would be no way of knowing the details of the changes in the dependent graph. I currently have four ways to attempt to solve this problem, but each one has difficulties. Nodes of the dependent tree each observe the relevant nodes of the original tree, updating themselves and the observer lists of original tree nodes as necessary. The conceptual complexity of this can become daunting. Each node of the original tree has a list of the dependent tree nodes that specifically depend upon it, and when the node changes it sets a flag on the dependent nodes to mark them as dirty, including the parents of the dependent nodes all the way down to the root. After each change we run an algorithm that is much like the algorithm for constructing the dependent graph from scratch, but it skips over any clean node and reconstructs each dirty node, keeping track of whether the reconstructed node is actually different from the dirty node. This can also get tricky. We can represent the logical connection between the original graph and the dependent graph as a data structure, like a list of constraints, perhaps designed using a declarative language. When the original graph changes we need only scan the list to discover which constraints are violated and how the dependent tree needs to change to correct the violation, all encoded as data. We can reconstruct the dependent graph from scratch as though there were no existing dependent graph, and then compare the existing graph and the new graph to discover how it has changed. I'm sure this is the easiest way because I know there are algorithms available for detecting differences, but they are all quite computationally expensive and in principle it seems unnecessary so I'm deliberately avoiding this option. What is the right way to deal with these sorts of problems? Surely there must be a design pattern that makes this whole thing almost easy. It would be nice to have a good solution for every problem of this general description. Does this class of problem have a name?

  Read the article

• Turning your code inside out (functional style) compared to a OO paradigm

  - by Acaz Souza

  I have find this article Turning Your Code Inside Out and I want to know how this approach described in article is for OO programmers/languages. Is this style of design used in OO programmers/languages? What's downsides and goodsides of this approach in a OO language? Update: OO objects have state and behavior, the design explained in article is stateless. Is not only Single Responsability Principle. (If I'm talking shit, please explain to me instead of only downside/close votes)

  Read the article

• How do I start correctly in building database classes in c#?

  - by e4rthdog

  I am new in C# programming and in OOP. I need to dive into web applications for my company, and I need to do it fast and correct. So even that I know ASP.NET MVC is the way to go, I want to start with some simple applications with ASP.NET Webforms and then advance to MVC logic. Also regarding my db classes: I plan to create common database classes in order to be able to use them either from WinForms or ASP.NET applications. I also know that the way to go is to learn about ORM and EF. BUT I also want to start from where I am feeling comfortable and that is the traditional ADO.NET way. So about my Data Access Layer classes: Should I return my results in datasets or arraylists/lists? Should my methods do their own connect/disconnect from the db, or have separate methods and let the application maintain the connection?

  Read the article

• Very simple OOP question

  - by Mosty Mostacho

  I was creating and discussing a class diagram with a partner of mine. To simplify things, I've modify the real domain we're working on and made up the following diagram: Basically, a company works on constructions that are quite different one from each other but are still constructions. Note I've added one field for each class but there should be many more. Now, I thought this was the way to go but my partner told me that if in the future new construction classes appear we would have to modify the Company class, which is correct. So the new proposed class diagram would be this: Now I've been wondering: Should the fact that in no place of the application will there be mixed lists of planes and bridges affect the design in any way? When we have to list only planes for a company, how are we supposed to distinguish them from the other elements in the list without checking for their class names? Related to the previous question, is it correct to assume that this type of diagram should be high-level and this is something it shouldn't matter at this stage but rather be thought and decided at implementation time? Any comment will be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Liskov principle: violation by type-hinting

  - by Elias Van Ootegem

  According to the Liskov principle, a construction like the one below is invalid, as it strengthens a pre-condition. I know the example is pointless/nonsense, but when I last asked a question like this, and used a more elaborate code sample, it seemed to distract people too much from the actual question. //Data models abstract class Argument { protected $value = null; public function getValue() { return $this->value; } abstract public function setValue($val); } class Numeric extends Argument { public function setValue($val) { $this->value = $val + 0;//coerce to number return $this; } } //used here: abstract class Output { public function printValue(Argument $arg) { echo $this->format($arg); return $this; } abstract public function format(Argument $arg); } class OutputNumeric extends Output { public function format(Numeric $arg)//<-- VIOLATION! { $format = is_float($arg->getValue()) ? '%.3f' : '%d'; return sprintf($format, $arg->getValue()); } } My question is this: Why would this kind of "violation" be considered harmful? So much so that some languages, like the one I used in this example (PHP), don't even allow this? I'm not allowed to strengthen the type-hint of an abstract method but, by overriding the printValue method, I am allowed to write: class OutputNumeric extends Output { final public function printValue(Numeric $arg) { echo $this->format($arg); } public function format(Argument $arg) { $format = is_float($arg->getValue()) ? '%.3f' : '%d'; return sprintf($format, $arg->getValue()); } } But this would imply repeating myself for each and every child of Output, and makes my objects harder to reuse. I understand why the Liskov principle exists, don't get me wrong, but I find it somewhat difficult to fathom why the signature of an abstract method in an abstract class has to be adhered to so much stricter than a non-abstract method. Could someone explain to me why I'm not allowed to hind at a child class, in a child class? The way I see it, the child class OutputNumeric is a specific use-case of Output, and thus might need a specific instance of Argument, namely Numeric. Is it really so wrong of me to write code like this?

  Read the article

• Pattern for a class that does only one thing

  - by Heinzi

  Let's say I have a procedure that does stuff: void doStuff(initalParams) { ... } Now I discover that "doing stuff" is quite a compex operation. The procedure becomes large, I split it up into multiple smaller procedures and soon I realize that having some kind of state would be useful while doing stuff, so that I need to pass less parameters between the small procedures. So, I factor it out into its own class: class StuffDoer { private someInternalState; public Start(initalParams) { ... } // some private helper procedures here ... } And then I call it like this: new StuffDoer().Start(initialParams); or like this: new StuffDoer(initialParams).Start(); And this is what feels wrong. When using the .NET or Java API, I always never call new SomeApiClass().Start(...);, which makes me suspect that I'm doing it wrong. Sure, I could make StuffDoer's constructor private and add a static helper method: public static DoStuff(initalParams) { new StuffDoer().Start(initialParams); } But then I'd have a class whose external interface consists of only one static method, which also feels weird. Hence my question: Is there a well-established pattern for this type of classes that have only one entry point and have no "externally recognizable" state, i.e., instance state is only required during execution of that one entry point?

  Read the article

• A programming language that does not allow IO. Haskell is not a pure language

  - by TheIronKnuckle

  (I asked this on Stack Overflow and it got closed as off-topic, I was a bit confused until I read the FAQ, which discouraged subjective theoratical debate style questions. The FAQ here doesn't seem to have a problem with it and it sounds like this is a more appropriate place to post. If this gets closed again, forgive me, I'm not trying to troll) Are there any 100% pure languages (as I describe in the Stack Overflow post) out there already and if so, could they feasibly be used to actually do stuff? i.e. do they have an implementation? I'm not looking for raw maths on paper/Pure lambda calculus. However Pure lambda calculus with a compiler or a runtime system attached is something I'd be interested in hearing about.

  Read the article

• Configuration Data in a Custom Timer job in Sharepoint 2010 : The Hierarchical Object Store

  - by Gino Abraham

  I was planning for a custom timer job for which i wanted to store some configuration data. Was looking for some best practices, found a useful links on The Hierarchical Object store Store http://www.chaholl.com/archive/2011/01/30/the-skinny-on-sppersistedobject-and-the-hierarchical-object-store-in.aspxInitially was planning for a custom list, but this would make us run a cross site query and the list name and the url should again be kept in some configuration which is an headache to maintain. Hierarchical object store was zeroed in and thanks to google for the same :)

  Read the article

• Can you point me to a nontrivial strategy pattern implementation?

  - by Eugen Martynov

  We are faced implementing a registration workflow with many branches. There are three main flows which in some conditions lead to one another. Each flow has at least four different steps; some steps interact with the server, and every step adds more information to the state. Also the requirement is to have it persistent between sessions, so if the user closes the app (this is a mobile app), it will restore the process from the last completed step with the state from the previous session. I think this could benefit from the use of the strategy pattern, but I've never had to implement it for such a complex case. Does anyone know of any examples in open source or articles from which I could find inspiration? Preferably the examples would be from a live/working/stable application. I'm interested in Java implementation mostly; we are developing for Java mobile phones: android, blackberry and J2ME. We have an SDK which is quite well separated from platform specific implementations, but examples in C++, C#, Objective-C or Python would be acceptable.

  Read the article

• Better solution then simple factory method when concrete implementations have different attributes

  - by danip

  abstract class Animal { function eat() {..} function sleep() {..} function isSmart() } class Dog extends Animal { public $blnCanBark; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanBark; } } class Cat extends Animal { public $blnCanJumpHigh; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanJumpHigh; } } .. and so on up to 10-20 animals. Now I created a factory using simple factory method and try to create instances like this: class AnimalFactory { public static function create($strName) { switch($strName) { case 'Dog': return new Dog(); case 'Cat': return new Cat(); default: break; } } } The problem is I can't set the specific attributes like blnCanBark, blnCanJumpHigh in an efficient way. I can send all of them as extra params to create but this will not scale to more then a few classes. Also I can't break the inheritance because a lot of the basic functionality is the same. Is there a better pattern to solve this?

  Read the article

• Is ORM an Anti-Pattern?

  - by derphil

  I had a very stimulating and interessting discussion with a colleague about ORM and it's Pros and Cons. In my opinion, an ORM is useful only in the rarest cases. At least in my experience. But I don't want to list my own arguments at this time. So I ask you, what do you think about ORM? What are the Pros and the Cons? P.S. I've posted this "question" yesterday on Stackoverflow, but some of the user think, that this should better posted here.

  Read the article

• Make methods that do not depend on instance fields, static?

  - by m3th0dman

  Recently I started programming in Groovy for a integration testing framework, for a Java project. I use Intellij IDEA with Groovy plug-in and I am surprised to see as a warning for all the methods that are non-static and do not depend on any instance fields. In Java, however, this is not an issue (at least from IDE's point of view). Should all methods that do not depend onto any instance fields be transformed into static functions? If true, is this specific to Groovy or it is available for OOP in general? And why?

  Read the article

• Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion

  - by user2158382

  I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection: Only for single-instance objects?

  - by HappyDeveloper

  What if I want to also decouple my application, from classes like Product or User? (which usually have more than one instance) Take a look at this example: class Controller { public function someAction() { $product_1 = new Product(); $product_2 = new Product(); // do something with the products } } Is it right to say that Controller now depends on Product? I was thinking that we could decouple them too (as we would with single-instance objects like Database) In this example, however ugly, they are decoupled: class Controller { public function someAction(ProductInterface $new_product) { $product_1 = clone $new_product; $product_2 = clone $new_product; // do something with the products } } Has anyone done something like this before? Is it excessive?

  Read the article

• Metaobject protocol:Why is it known as an important concept

  - by sushant

  Metaobject protocol is protocol for metaobjects in a programming languages. Although I understand it on simple terms, I want to know the reason and a summary of real world usage patterns of this protocol. So, why exactly is metaobject and more importantly metaobject protocol is such a good idea. I want to know the problem which led to its evolution and also, its high power usage. Opinions as well as general overview/description/alternate explanations are also welcome.

  Read the article

• What is considered third party code?

  - by Songo

  Inspired by this question Using third-party libraries - always use a wrapper? I wanted to know what people actually consider as third-party libraries. Example from PHP: If I'm building an application using Zend framework, should I treat Zend framework libraries as third party code? Example from C#: If I'm building a desktop application, should I treat all .Net classes as third party code? Example from Java: Should I treat all libraries in the JDK as third party libraries? Some people say that if a library is stable and won't change often then one doesn't need to wrap it. However I fail to see how one would test a class that depends on a third party code without wrapping it.

  Read the article

• When to decide to introduce interfaces (pure abstract base classes) in C++?

  - by Honza Brabec

  Assume that you are developing a functionality and are 90% sure that the implementation class will stay alone. If I was in this position in Java I would probably not use the interface right now to keep the things simple. In Java it is easy to refactor the code and extract the interface later. In C++ the refactoring is not always so easy. It may require replacing values with smart pointers (because of the introduction of polymorphism) and other non-trivial tasks. On the other hand I don't much like the idea of introducing virtual calls when I am 90% sure they won't be needed. After all speed is one of the reasons to prefer C++ over simpler languages.

  Read the article

• Modelling work-flow plus interaction with a database - quick and accessible options

  - by cjmUK

  I'm wanting to model a (proposed) manufacturing line, with specific emphasis on interaction with a traceability database. That is, various process engineers have already mapped the manufacturing process - I'm only interested in the various stations along the line that have to talk to the DB. The intended audience is a mixture of project managers, engineers and IT people - the purpose is to identify: points at which the line interacts with the DB (perhaps going so far as indicating the Store Procs called at each point, perhaps even which parameters are passed.) the communication source (PC/Handheld device/PLC) the communication medium (wireless/fibre/copper) control flow (if leak test fails, unit is diverted to repair station) Basically, the model will be used as a focus different groups on outstanding tasks; for example, I'm interested in the DB and any front-end app needed, process engineers need to be thinking about the workflow and liaising with the PLC suppliers, the other IT guys need to make sure we have the hardware and comms in place. Obviously I could just improvise in Visio, but I was wondering if there was a particular modelling technique that might particularly suit my needs or my audience. I'm thinking of a visual model with supporting documentation (as little as possible, as much as is necessary). Clearly, I don't want something that will take me ages to (effectively) learn, nor one that will alienate non-technical members of the project team. So far I've had brief looks at BPMN, EPC Diagrams, standard Flow Diagrams... and I've forgotten most of what I used to know about UML... And I'm not against picking and mixing... as long as it is quick, clear and effective. Conclusion: In the end, I opted for a quasi-workflow/dataflow diagram. I mapped out the parts of the manufacturing process that interact with the traceability DB, and indicated in a significantly-simplified form, the data flows and DB activity. Alongside which, I have a supporting document which outlines each process, the data being transacted for each process (a 'data dictionary' of sorts) and details of hardware and connectivity required. I can't decide whether is a product of genius or a crime against established software development practices, but I do think that is will hit the mark for this particular audience.

  Read the article

• How to show or direct a business analyst to do data modelling?

  - by AaronLS

  Our business analysts pushed hard to collect data through a spreadsheet. I am the programmer responsible for importing that data. Usually when they push hard for something like this, I never know how well it will work out until a few weeks later when I have time assigned to work on the task of programming the import of the data. I have tried to do as much as possible along the way, named ranges, data validations, etc. But I usually don't have time to take a detailed look at all the data and compare to the destination in the database to determine how well it matches up. A lot of times there will be maybe a little table of items that somehow I have to relate to something else in the database, but there are not natural or business keys present that would allow me to do so. Make the best of this, trying to write something that can compare strings and make a best guess at it and then go through the effort of creating interfaces for a user to match the imported data to the destination. I feel like if the business analyst was actually creating a data model, they would be forced to think about these relationships, and have an appreciation for the need of natural or business keys to be part of the spreadsheet for the purposes of smoothly importing the data. The closest they come to business analysis is a big flat list of fields, and that would be fine if it were like any other data dictionary and include data types+relationships, but it isn't. They are just a bunch of names. No indication of what type of data they might hold, and it is up to me to guess. When I have pushed for more detail, they say that it is just busy work. How can I explain the importance of data modelling? How can I tell them what it is and how to do it? It feels impossible, because they don't have an appreciation for its importance. They do however, usually have an interest in helping out in whatever way they can, it's just this in particular has never gotten a motivated response.

  Read the article

• Is loose coupling w/o use cases an anti-pattern?

  - by dsimcha

  Loose coupling is, to some developers, the holy grail of well-engineered software. It's certainly a good thing when it makes code more flexible in the face of changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future, or avoids code duplication. On the other hand, efforts to loosely couple components increase the amount of indirection in a program, thus increasing its complexity, often making it more difficult to understand and often making it less efficient. Do you consider a focus on loose coupling without any use cases for the loose coupling (such as avoiding code duplication or planning for changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future) to be an anti-pattern? Can loose coupling fall under the umbrella of YAGNI?

  Read the article

• Why to say, my function is of IFly type rather than saying it's Airplane type

  - by Vishwas Gagrani

  Say, I have two classes: Airplane and Bird, both of them fly. Both implement the interface IFly. IFly declares a function StartFlying(). Thus both Airplane and Bird have to define the function, and use it as per their requirement. Now when I make a manual for class reference, what should I write for the function StartFlying? 1) StartFlying is a function of type IFly . 2) StartFlying is a function of type Airplane 3) StartFlying is a function of type Bird. My opinion is 2 and 3 are more informative. But what i see is that class references use the 1st one. They say what interface the function is declared in. Problem is, I really don't get any usable information from knowing StartFlying is IFly type. However, knowing that StartFlying is a function inside Airplane and Bird, is more informative, as I can decide which instance (Airplane or Bird ) to use. Any lights on this: how saying StartFlying is a function of type IFly, can help a programmer understanding how to use the function?

  Read the article

• Learning PHP OOP

  - by Ryan Murphy

  I have been coding PHP for about 2 years now and I THINK that I have a very good grasps of the fundamental parts of PHP, i.e. Functions foreach/IF statements sessions/cookies POST/GET Amongst a few others. I want to move on to learning OOP PHP now, so learning how to use classes and making it a really valuable skill. I have 1 requirement, the source must be a respected source that doesn't teach developers bad habits. I have the book: PHP and MySQL Web Development However, as useful as that is I would like an online source. I would like to know from people with experience in OOP PHP, how and where did they learn OOP PHP. Obviously by doing, but I would really appreciate some great resources which help me along the way.

  Read the article

• Recommened design pattern to handle multiple compression algorithms for a class hierarchy

  - by sgorozco

  For all you OOD experts. What would be the recommended way to model the following scenario? I have a certain class hierarchy similar to the following one: class Base { ... } class Derived1 : Base { ... } class Derived2 : Base { ... } ... Next, I would like to implement different compression/decompression engines for this hierarchy. (I already have code for several strategies that best handle different cases, like file compression, network stream compression, legacy system compression, etc.) I would like the compression strategy to be pluggable and chosen at runtime, however I'm not sure how to handle the class hierarchy. Currently I have a tighly-coupled design that looks like this: interface ICompressor { byte[] Compress(Base instance); } class Strategy1Compressor : ICompressor { byte[] Compress(Base instance) { // Common compression guts for Base class ... // if( instance is Derived1 ) { // Compression guts for Derived1 class } if( instance is Derived2 ) { // Compression guts for Derived2 class } // Additional compression logic to handle other class derivations ... } } As it is, whenever I add a new derived class inheriting from Base, I would have to modify all compression strategies to take into account this new class. Is there a design pattern that allows me to decouple this, and allow me to easily introduce more classes to the Base hierarchy and/or additional compression strategies?

  Read the article

• best way to "introduce" OOP/OOD to team of experienced C++ engineers

  - by DXM

  I am looking for an efficient way, that also doesn't come off as an insult, to introduce OOP concepts to existing team members? My teammates are not new to OO languages. We've been doing C++/C# for a long time so technology itself is familiar. However, I look around and without major infusion of effort (mostly in the form of code reviews), it seems what we are producing is C code that happens to be inside classes. There's almost no use of single responsibility principle, abstractions or attempts to minimize coupling, just to name a few. I've seen classes that don't have a constructor but get memset to 0 every time they are instantiated. But every time I bring up OOP, everyone always nods and makes it seem like they know exactly what I'm talking about. Knowing the concepts is good, but we (some more than others) seem to have very hard time applying them when it comes to delivering actual work. Code reviews have been very helpful but the problem with code reviews is that they only occur after the fact so to some it seems we end up rewriting (it's mostly refactoring, but still takes lots of time) code that was just written. Also code reviews only give feedback to an individual engineer, not the entire team. I am toying with the idea of doing a presentation (or a series) and try to bring up OOP again along with some examples of existing code that could've been written better and could be refactored. I could use some really old projects that no one owns anymore so at least that part shouldn't be a sensitive issue. However, will this work? As I said most people have done C++ for a long time so my guess is that a) they'll sit there thinking why I'm telling them stuff they already know or b) they might actually take it as an insult because I'm telling them they don't know how to do the job they've been doing for years if not decades. Is there another approach which would reach broader audience than a code review would, but at the same time wouldn't feel like a punishment lecture? I'm not a fresh kid out of college who has utopian ideals of perfectly designed code and I don't expect that from anyone. The reason I'm writing this is because I just did a review of a person who actually had decent high-level design on paper. However if you picture classes: A - B - C - D, in the code B, C and D all implement almost the same public interface and B/C have one liner functions so that top-most class A is doing absolutely all the work (down to memory management, string parsing, setup negotiations...) primarily in 4 mongo methods and, for all intents and purposes, calls almost directly into D. Update: I'm a tech lead(6 months in this role) and do have full support of the group manager. We are working on a very mature product and maintenance costs are definitely letting themselves be known.

  Read the article

• As a tooling/automation developer, can I be making better use of OOP?

  - by Tom Pickles

  My time as a developer (~8 yrs) has been spent creating tooling/automation of one sort or another. The tools I develop usually interface with one or more API's. These API's could be win32, WMI, VMWare, a help-desk application, LDAP, you get the picture. The apps I develop could be just to pull back data and store/report. It could be to provision groups of VM's to create live like mock environments, update a trouble ticket etc. I've been developing in .Net and I'm currently reading into design patterns and trying to think about how I can improve my skills to make better use of and increase my understanding of OOP. For example, I've never used an interface of my own making in anger (which is probably not a good thing), because I honestly cannot identify where using one would benefit later on when modifying my code. My classes are usually very specific and I don't create similar classes with similar properties/methods which could use a common interface (like perhaps a car dealership or shop application might). I generally use an n-tier approach to my apps, having a presentation layer, a business logic/manager layer which interfaces with layer(s) that make calls to the API's I'm working with. My business entities are always just method-less container objects, which I populate with data and pass back and forth between my API interfacing layer using static methods to proxy/validate between the front and the back end. My code by nature of my work, has few common components, at least from what I can see. So I'm struggling to see how I can better make use of OOP design and perhaps reusable patterns. Am I right to be concerned that I could be being smarter about how I work, or is what I'm doing now right for my line of work? Or, am I missing something fundamental in OOP? EDIT: Here is some basic code to show how my mgr and api facing layers work. I use static classes as they do not persist any data, only facilitate moving it between layers. public static class MgrClass { public static bool PowerOnVM(string VMName) { // Perform logic to validate or apply biz logic // call APIClass to do the work return APIClass.PowerOnVM(VMName); } } public static class APIClass { public static bool PowerOnVM(string VMName) { // Calls to 3rd party API to power on a virtual machine // returns true or false if was successful for example } }

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >