Search Results

Search found 40870 results on 1635 pages for 'database design'.

Page 438/1635 | < Previous Page | 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445  | Next Page >

  • Singleton Properties

    - by coffeeaddict
    Ok, if I create a singleton class and expose the singleton object through a public static property...I understand that. But my singleton class has other properties in it. Should those be static? Should those also be private? I just want to be able to access all properties of my singleton class by doing this: MySingletonClass.SingletonProperty.SomeProperty2 Where SingletonProperty returns me the single singleton instance. I guess my question is, how do you expose the other properties in the singleton class..make them private and then access them through your public singleton static property?

    Read the article

  • Optional Member Objects

    - by David Relihan
    Okay, so you have a load of methods sprinkled around your systems main class. So you do the right thing and refactor by creating a new class and perform move method(s) into a new class. The new class has a single responsibility and all is right with the world again: class Feature { public: Feature(){}; void doSomething(); void doSomething1(); void doSomething2(); }; So now your original class has a member variable of type object: Feature _feature; Which you will call in the main class. Now if you do this many times, you will have many member-objects in your main class. Now these features may or not be required based on configuration so in a way it's costly having all these objects that may or not be needed. Can anyone suggest a way of improving this? At the moment I plan to test in the newly created class if the feature is enabled - so the when a call is made to method I will return if it is not enabled. I could have a pointer to the object and then only call new if feature is enabled - but this means I will have to test before I call a method on it which would be potentially dangerous and not very readable. Would having an auto_ptr to the object improve things: auto_ptr<Feature> feature; Or am I still paying the cost of object invokation even though the object may\or may not be required. BTW - I don't think this is premeature optimisation - I just want to consider the possibilites.

    Read the article

  • Inheritance: when implementing an interface which define a base class property why cant the class im

    - by Deepak
    Lets create some interfaces public interface ITimeEventHandler { string Open(); } public interface IJobTimeEventHandler: ITimeEventHandler { string DeleteJob(); } public interface IActivityTimeEventHandler: ITimeEventHandler { string DeleteActivity(); } public interface ITimeEvent { ITimeEventHandler Handler; } Another Interface public interface IJobTimeEvent :ITimeEvent { int JobID; } Create a class public class JobTimeEvent : IJobTimeEvent { public int JobID = 0; public IJobTimeEventHandler Handler = null; } My question is .. when implementing an interface which define a base class property why cant the class implementing interface return a derived class type object ?? For ex in class JobTimeEvent, IJobtimeEvent needs a property of type ITimeEventHandler but why IJobTimeEventHandler type is not allowed which derived from ITimeEventHandler

    Read the article

  • Practical rules for premature optimization

    - by DougW
    It seems that the phrase "Premature Optimization" is the buzz-word of the day. For some reason, iphone programmers in particular seem to think of avoiding premature optimization as a pro-active goal, rather than the natural result of simply avoiding distraction. The problem is, the term is beginning to be applied more and more to cases that are completely inappropriate. For example, I've seen a growing number of people say not to worry about the complexity of an algorithm, because that's premature optimization (eg http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2190275/help-sorting-an-nsarray-across-two-properties-with-nssortdescriptor/2191720#2191720). Frankly, I think this is just laziness, and appalling to disciplined computer science. But it has occurred to me that maybe considering the complexity and performance of algorithms is going the way of assembly loop unrolling, and other optimization techniques that are now considered unnecessary. What do you think? Are we at the point now where deciding between an O(n^n) and O(n!) complexity algorithm is irrelevant? What about O(n) vs O(n*n)? What do you consider "premature optimization"? What practical rules do you use to consciously or unconsciously avoid it? This is a bit vague, but I'm curious to hear other peoples' opinions on the topic.

    Read the article

  • Coding without Grock. Is it wrong?

    - by OldCurmudgeon
    Should a professional programmer allow themselves to write code without completely understanding the requirements? In my 30+ years as a programmer I must have written many thousands of lines of code without completely understanding what is required of me at the time. In most cases the results were rubbish that should have been discarded. Every other industry that employs professionals has systems to root out such behavior. Ours does not. Is this right?

    Read the article

  • C#, weird optimization

    - by Snake
    Hi, I'm trying to read my compiled C# code. this is my code: using(OleDbCommand insertCommand = new OleDbCommand("...", connection)) { // do super stuff } But! We all know that a using gets translated to this: { OleDbCommand insertCommand = new OleDbCommand("...", connection) try { //do super stuff } finally { if(insertCommand != null) ((IDisposable)insertCommand).Dispose(); } } (since OleDbCommand is a reference type). But when I decompile my assembly (compiled with .NET 2.0) I get this in Resharper: try { insertCommand = new OleDbCommand("", connection); Label_0017: try { //do super stuff } finally { Label_0111: if ((insertCommand == null) != null) { goto Label_0122; } insertCommand.Dispose(); Label_0122:; } I'm talking about this line: if ((insertCommand == null) != null). True is not null, it never is, nor is false. So how is my object disposed properly? WTF? Thanks! -Kristof

    Read the article

  • Creating Domain Model

    - by Zai
    Hi, I have created a use case of a small application and now I have to create a Domain Model of that use cases of the application and which functions will be implemented in this application. I have no previous experience in Domain Modeling and UML, please suggest me steps to create the domain model or any suggestions, Do I have to have a very solid understanding of Object oriented concepts for creating domain model? The application is simple and creates online poll/voting system and have functions like Register Account, Confirmation Email of account, Membership, Create Poll, Send Poll etc

    Read the article

  • Android ignoring my setWidth() and setHeight()

    - by popoffka
    So, why does this code: package org.popoffka.apicross; import android.app.Activity; import android.os.Bundle; import android.widget.Button; public class Game extends Activity { @Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); Button testButton = new Button(this); testButton.setBackgroundResource(R.drawable.cell); testButton.setWidth(20); testButton.setHeight(20); setContentView(testButton); } } ...produce this thing: http://i42.tinypic.com/2hgdzme.png even though there's a setWidth(20) and setHeight(20) in the code? (R.drawable.cell is actually a 20x20 PNG image containing a white cell with a silver border)

    Read the article

  • Object Oriented Programming in AS3

    - by Jordan
    I'm building a game in as3 that has balls moving and bouncing off the walls. When the user clicks an explosion appears and any ball that hits that explosion explodes too. Any ball that then hits that explosion explodes and so on. My question is what would be the best class structure for the balls. I have a level system to control levels and such and I've already come up with working ways to code the balls. Here's what I've done. My first attempt was to create a class for Movement, Bounce, Explosion and finally Orb. These all extended each other in the order I just named them. I got it working but having Bounce extend Movement and Explosion extend Bounce, it just doesn't seem very object oriented because what if I wanted to add a box class that didn't move, but did explode? I would need a separate class for that explosion. My second attempt was to create Movement, Bounce and Explosion without extending anything. Instead I passed in a reference to the Orb class to each. Then the class stores that reference and does what it needs to do based on events that are dispatched by the Orb such as update, which was broadcast from Orb every enter frame. This would drive the movement and bounce and also the explosion when the time came. This attempt worked as well but it just doesn't seem right. I've also thought about using Interfaces but because they are more of an outline for classes, I feel like code reuse goes out the window as each class would need its own code for a specific task even if that task is exactly the same. I feel as if I'm searching for some form of multiple inheritance for classes that as3 does not support. Can someone explain to me a better way of doing what I'm attempting to do? Am I being to "Object Oriented" by having classed for Movement, Bounce, Explosion and Orb? Are Interfaces the way to go? Any feedback is appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Returning large collections from WCF Serivce

    - by Nate Bross
    I'm trying to determine the best approach for building a WCF Service, and the area I'm struggling with most is returning lists of objects. The built-in maxMessageSize of 64k seems pretty high, and I really don't want to bump it up (quick googling finds 100s of places bumping the maxMessageSize up to multi-gigabyte range which seems foolish). But, when I'm returning a collection of objects (~150 items) I am exceeding the default 64k. I'm almost to the point of returning my own class which inherits IEnumerable and has properties for hasNext, hasPrevious and PageSize so that I can implement paging on the client side -- this seems like alot of code. The other option is to jackup the maxMessageSize and hope for the best, but that feels wrong. All other aspects of my service are working great, its just returning large collectiosn where I'm having issues. For background, there are two types of consumers of this service, UI applications which will be primarly web and/or wpf applications, and data processing applications, .NET console apps, and maybe some other non-UI apps. For the UI applications, I would like to keep them responsive and keep the messageSize low, on the console apps it doesn't matter as much as they are just pulling data down to do processing and push it back up to the service.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to make a setter return "this"?

    - by Ken Liu
    Is it a good or bad idea to make setters in java return "this"? public Employee setName(String name){ this.name = name; return this; } This pattern can be useful because then you can chain setters like this: list.add(new Employee().setName("Jack Sparrow").setId(1).setFoo("bacon!")); instead of this: Employee e = new Employee(); e.setName("Jack Sparrow"); ...and so on... list.add(e); ...but it sort of goes against standard convention. I suppose it might be worthwhile just because it can make that setter do something else useful. I've seen this pattern used some places (e.g. JMock, JPA), but it seems uncommon, and only generally used for very well defined APIs where this pattern is used everywhere. Update: What I've described is obviously valid, but what I am really looking for is some thoughts on whether this is generally acceptable, and if there are any pitfalls or related best practices. I know about the Builder pattern but it is a little more involved then what I am describing - as Josh Bloch describes it there is an associated static Builder class for object creation.

    Read the article

  • Is a "factory" method the right pattern?

    - by jdt141
    Hey all - So I'm working to improve an existing implementation. I have a number of polymorphic classes that are all composed into a higher level container class. The problem I'm dealing with at the moment is that the higher level container class, well, sucks. It looks something like this, which I really don't have a problem with (as the polymorphic classes in the container should be public). My real issue is the constructor... /* * class1 and class 2 derive from the same superclass */ class Container { public: boost::shared_ptr<ComposedClass1> class1; boost::shared_ptr<ComposedClass2> class2; private: ... } /* * Constructor - builds the objects that we need in this container. */ Container::Container(some params) { class1.reset(new ComposedClass1(...)); class2.reset(new ComposedClass2(...)); } What I really need is to make this container class more re-usable. By hard-coding up the member objects and instantiating them, it basically isn't and can only be used once. A factory is one way to build what I need (potentially by supplying a list of objects and their specific types to be created?) Other ways to get around this problem? Seems like someone should have solved it before... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Many-To-Many dimensional model

    - by Mevdiven
    Folks, I have a dimension table called DIM_FILE which holds information of the files we received from customers. Each file has detail records which constitutes my FACT table, CUST_DETAIL. In the main process, file is gone through several stages and each stage tags a status to it. Long in a short, I have many-to-many relationship. Any ideas around star schema dimensional modeling. A customer record only belong to a single file and a file can have multiple statuses. FACT ---- CustID FileID AmountDue DIM_FILE -------- FileID FileName DateReceived FILE_STATUS ----------- FileID StatusDateTime StatusCode

    Read the article

  • When is it better to use a method versus a property for a class definition?

    - by ccomet
    Partially related to an earlier question of mine, I have a system in which I have to store complex data as a string. Instead of parsing these strings as all kinds of separate objects, I just created one class that contains all of those objects, and it has some parser logic that will encode all properties into strings, or decode a string to get those objects. That's all fine and good. This question is not about the parser itself, but about where I should house the logic for the parser. Is it a better choice to put it as a property, or as a method? In the case of a property, say public string DataAsString, the get accessor would house the logic to encode all of the data into a string, while the set accessor would decode the input value and set all of the data in the class instance. It seems convenient because the input/output is indeed a string. In the case of a method, one method would be Encode(), which returns the encoded string. Then, either the constructor itself would house the logic for the decoding a string and require the string argument, or I write a Decode(string str) method which is called separately. In either case, it would be using a method instead of a property. So, is there a functional difference between these paths, in terms of the actual running of the code? Or are they basically equivalent and it then boils down to a choice of personal preference or which one looks better? And in that kind of question... which would look cleaner anyway?

    Read the article

  • Is MVVM killing silverlight development?

    - by DeanMc
    This is a question I have had rattling around in my head for some time. I had a chat with a guy the other night who told me he would not be using the navigational framework because he could not figure out how it works with MVVM. As much as I tried to explain that patterns should be taken with a pinch of salt he would not listen. My point is this, patterns are great when they solve some problem. Sometimes only part of the pattern solves a particular problem while the other parts of it cause different problems. The goal of any developer is to build a solid application using a combination of patterns know how and foresight. I feel MVVM is becoming the one pattern to rule them all. As it is not directly supported by .Net some fancy business is needed to make it work. I feel that people are missing the point of the pattern, which is loosely coupled, testable code and instead jumping through hoops and missing out on great experiences trying to follow MVVM to the letter. MVVM is great but I wish it came with a warning or disclaimer for newbies as my fear is people will shy away from silverlight development for fear of being smacked with the mvvm stick. EDIT: Can I just add as an edit, I use and agree with MVVM as a pattern I know when it is and isn't feasible in my projects. My issue is with the encompassing nature it is taking, as if it HAS to be used as part of development. It is being used as an integral feature and not a pattern, which it is.

    Read the article

  • In symfony/doctrine's schema.yml, where should I put onDelete: CASCADE for a many-to-many relationsh

    - by nselikoff
    I have a many-to-many relationship defined in my Symfony (using doctrine) project between Orders and Upgrades (an Order can be associated with zero or more Upgrades, and an Upgrade can apply to zero or more Orders). # schema.yml Order: columns: order_id: {...} relations: Upgrades: class: Upgrade local: order_id foreign: upgrade_id refClass: OrderUpgrade Upgrade: columns: upgrade_id: {...} relations: Orders: class: Order local: upgrade_id foreign: order_id refClass: OrderUpgrade OrderUpgrade: columns: order_id: {...} upgrade_id: {...} I want to set up delete cascade behavior so that if I delete an Order or an Upgrade, all of the related OrderUpgrades are deleted. Where do I put onDelete: CASCADE? Usually I would put it at the end of the relations section, but that would seem to imply in this case that deleting Orders would cascade to delete Upgrades. Is Symfony + Doctrine smart enough to know what I'm wanting if I put onDelete: CASCADE in the above relations sections of schema.yml?

    Read the article

  • How extensible should code actually be?

    - by griegs
    I've just started a new job and one of the things my new boss talked to me about was code longevity. I've always coded to make my code infinently extensible and adaptable. I figured that if someone was going to change my code in the future then it should be easy to do. But I never really had a clear idea on how far into the future that should be. So my new boss told me not to bother coding for anything more that 3 years into the future and his reasoning was that technology changes, programs expire etc. At first I was kinda taken aback and thought he was a whack job but the longer I think about it the more I'm warming to the concept. Does anyone else have an opinion on how far into the future you should code to?

    Read the article

  • Class hierarchy problem (with generic's variance!)

    - by devoured elysium
    The problem: class StatesChain : IState, IHasStateList { private TasksChain tasks = new TasksChain(); ... public IList<IState> States { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } } IList<ITask> IHasTasksCollection.Tasks { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } <-- ERROR! You can't do this in C#! I want to return an IList<ITask> from an IList<IStates>. } } Assuming the IList returned will be read-only, I know that what I'm trying to achieve is safe (or is it not?). Is there any way I can accomplish what I'm trying? I wouldn't want to try to implement myself the TasksChain algorithm (again!), as it would be error prone and would lead to code duplication. Maybe I could just define an abstract Chain and then implement both TasksChain and StatesChain from there? Or maybe implementing a Chain<T> class? How would you approach this situation? The Details: I have defined an ITask interface: public interface ITask { bool Run(); ITask FailureTask { get; } } and a IState interface that inherits from ITask: public interface IState : ITask { IState FailureState { get; } } I have also defined an IHasTasksList interface: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> Tasks { get; } } and an IHasStatesList: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> States { get; } } Now, I have defined a TasksChain, that is a class that has some code logic that will manipulate a chain of tasks (beware that TasksChain is itself a kind of ITask!): class TasksChain : ITask, IHasTasksList { IList<ITask> tasks = new List<ITask>(); ... public List<ITask> Tasks { get { return _tasks; } } ... } I am implementing a State the following way: public class State : IState { private readonly TaskChain _taskChain = new TaskChain(); public State(Precondition precondition, Execution execution) { _taskChain.Tasks.Add(precondition); _taskChain.Tasks.Add(execution); } public bool Run() { return _taskChain.Run(); } public IState FailureState { get { return (IState)_taskChain.Tasks[0].FailureTask; } } ITask ITask.FailureTask { get { return FailureState; } } } which, as you can see, makes use of explicit interface implementations to "hide" FailureTask and instead show FailureState property. The problem comes from the fact that I also want to define a StatesChain, that inherits both from IState and IHasStateList (and that also imples ITask and IHasTaskList, implemented as explicit interfaces) and I want it to also hide IHasTaskList's Tasks and only show IHasStateList's States. (What is contained in "The problem" section should really be after this, but I thought puting it first would be way more reader friendly). (pff..long text) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Disposing underlying object from finalizer in an immutable object

    - by Juan Luis Soldi
    I'm trying to wrap around Awesomium and make it look to the rest of my code as close as possible to NET's WebBrowser since this is for an existing application that already uses the WebBrowser. In this library, there is a class called JSObject which represents a javascript object. You can get one of this, for instance, by calling the ExecuteJavascriptWithResult method of the WebView class. If you'd call it like myWebView.ExecuteJavascriptWithResult("document", string.Empty).ToObject(), then you'd get a JSObject that represents the document. I'm writing an immutable class (it's only field is a readonly JSObject object) called JSObjectWrap that wraps around JSObject which I want to use as base class for other classes that would emulate .NET classes such as HtmlElement and HtmlDocument. Now, these classes don't implement Dispose, but JSObject does. What I first thought was to call the underlying JSObject's Dispose method in my JSObjectWrap's finalizer (instead of having JSObjectWrap implement Dispose) so that the rest of my code can stay the way it is (instead of having to add using's everywhere and make sure every JSObjectWrap is being properly disposed). But I just realized if more than two JSObjectWrap's have the same underlying JSObject and one of them gets finalized this will mess up the other JSObjectWrap. So now I'm thinking maybe I should keep a static Dictionary of JSObjects and keep count of how many of each of them are being referenced by a JSObjectWrap but this sounds messy and I think could cause major performance issues. Since this sounds to me like a common pattern I wonder if anyone else has a better idea.

    Read the article

  • Uses of the Apache commons-proxy library?

    - by Adrian
    I'm looking at the Apache commons-proxy library to implement some Proxy patterns in my current project. The Javadocs are all very well, but I'd really like to see some tutorials or just a project that uses the library so I can get more of a feel for it. Alas, searching for such things just tends to net you a lot of pages about setting up HTTP proxies using Apache. So I'm hoping that people here can help me.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445  | Next Page >