Search Results

Search found 3283 results on 132 pages for 'aspect oriented'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 44/132 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • Guidelines for solution source code organisation(OO/DDD)

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    I'm starting on my first business project (.NET) and am trying to follow DDD principles. Are there any guidelines or common patterns for orgaining source code and namespaces? For example, do your domain objects go in a namespace MyProject.Domain or whatever? Would you separate the concrete implementations and the interfaces? In different namespaces? Different folders? Different solutions? I know a lot of this is subjective and dependent on project size, but a few pointers or suggestions to get started on a relatively small but extensible n-tier project would be useful.

    Read the article

  • What's wrong with the architecture of a game object drawing and updating itself?

    - by Ricket
    What are the reasons for and against a game object drawing and updating itself? For example, if you have a game where the player has a position on screen, why not have an all-encompassing class: public class Player { private int x, y, xVelocity, yVelocity; private Sprite s; //... public Player() { // load the sprite here, somehow? } public void draw(CustomGraphicsClass g) { g.draw(s, x, y); } public void update(long timeElapsed) { x += (xVelocity * timeElapsed); y += (yVelocity * timeElapsed); } } What is wrong with this design? What are the downfalls or concerns? How would you better write something like this, or better architect this type of thing in a game? Also, somewhat connected, how would you implement loading that Sprite image? And furthermore, how would you then implement collision between two Players? (I should probably separate these extra two questions into new questions, huh?)

    Read the article

  • Why does C++ behave this way?

    - by eSKay
    #include<stdio.h> int b = 0; class A { public: int a;}; class B: public A { int c; int d; public: B(){ b++; a = b; printf("B:%d\n",b); } }; int main() { A* a = new B[10]; B* b = new B[10]; printf("\n%d", a->a); a++; printf("\n%d", a->a); // prints junk value printf("\n\n%d", b->a); b++; printf("\n%d", b->a); return 0; } The second printf prints a junk value. It should figure that it is pointing to an object of type B and increment by the sizof(B). Why does that not happen?

    Read the article

  • What are the differences between struct and class in C++

    - by palm3D
    This question was already asked in the context of C#/.Net. Now I'd like to learn the differences between a struct and a class in (unmanaged) C++. Please discuss the technical differences as well as reasons for choosing one or the other in OO design. I'll start with an obvious difference: If you don't specify public: or private:, members of a struct are public by default; members of a class are private by default. I'm sure there are other differences to be found in the obscure corners of the C++ specification.

    Read the article

  • What is the business case for a dependency injection (DI) framework?

    - by kalkie
    At my company we want to start using a dependency injection (DI) framework for managing our dependencies. I have some difficulty with explaining the business value of such a framework. Currently I have come up with these reasons. Less source code, delete all the builder patterns in the code. Increase in flexibility. Easier to switch dependencies. Better separation of concern. The framework is responsible for creating instances instead of our code. Has anybody else had to persuade management? How did you do that? What reasons did you use?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to create an enum whose instance can't be created but can be used for readonly purpos

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I created an enum where I stored some table names. I want it to be used to get the name of the table like ds.Tables[BGuestInfo.TableName.L_GUEST_TYPE.ToString()]. public class a { public enum TableName : byte { L_GUEST_TYPE = 0 ,L_AGE_GROUP = 1 ,M_COMPANY = 2 ,L_COUNTRY = 3 ,L_EYE_COLOR = 4 ,L_GENDER = 5 ,L_HAIR_COLOR = 6 ,L_STATE_PROVINCE = 7 ,L_STATUS = 8 ,L_TITLE = 9 ,M_TOWER = 10 ,L_CITY = 11 ,L_REGISTER_TYPE = 12 } } class b { a.TableName x; //trying to restrict this ds.Tables[a.TableName.L_GUEST_TYPE] //accessible and can be used like this } This is my enum. Now I have not created any instance of this enum so that no one can use it for other than read only purpose. For this enum to be accessible in outer classes as well I have to make it public which means some outer class can create its object as well. So what can i do so as to restrict its instance creation.

    Read the article

  • How to simplify the code?

    - by Tattat
    I have objectA, and objectB.... also I have objectAs, and objectBs. the objectA is only have the init method, and ObjectAs have somethings like this: #import "ObjectAs.h" @implementation ObjectAs @synthesize objectAs; -(id) init{ if( (self=[super init])) { self.objectAs = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init]; } return self; } -(int)getObjectAsNumber{ return [self.objectAs count]; } -(void)addObjectA:(ObjectA *)newObjectA{ [self.objectAs addObject:newObjectA]; } -(id)getObjectAByIdx:(int)objectAIdx{ return [self.objectAs objectAtIndex:objectAIdx]; } -(void)dealloc{ [super dealloc]; [objectAs release]; } @end The objectBs have similar have, I know that I can copy and paste, and replace it. Is there any way to simplify the objectBs, and objectAs? thz a lot.

    Read the article

  • Patterns and Libraries for working with raw UI values.

    - by ProfK
    By raw values, I mean the application level values provided by UI controls, such as the Text property on a TextBox. Too often I find myself writing code to check and parse such values before they get used as a business level value, e.g. PaymentTermsNumDays. I've mitigated a lot of the spade work with rough and ready extension methods like String.ToNullableInt, but we all know that just isn't right. We can't put the whole world on String's shoulders. Do I look at tasking my UI to provide business values, using a ruleset pushed out from the server app, or open my business objects up a bit to do the required sanitising etc. as they required? Neither of these approaches sits quite right with me; the first seems closer to ideal, but quite a bit of work, while the latter doesn't show much respect to the business objects' single responsibility. The responsibilities of the UI are a closer match. Between these extremes, I could also just implement another DTO layer, an IoC container with sanitising and parsing services, derive enhanced UI controls, or stick to copy and paste inline drudgery.

    Read the article

  • do you call them functions, procedures or methods?

    - by lowlyintern
    consider a standard c# 'function' public void foo() { //some code } In c or c++ this is called a 'function' - even if taking no parameters and returning no value. In another language maybe it would be a 'procedure'. In object orientation speak it would be called a 'method' if a class member. What would be the correct term to use in c#?

    Read the article

  • Class with proprties that haven't been set

    - by koumides
    Hello there, I am creating a class in C# which eventually will be part of a library that other uses can use. A user of this class has to set some properties and then use a public method to retrieve the results. What shall I do when a user calls the method without setting all the properties? Throw exception and expect the user to catch it? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to create PHP method linking?

    - by Kerry
    I've seen other objects that do this: $obj->method1()->method2(); How do I do that? Is each function just modifying the pointer of an object or returning a pointer? I don't know the proper term for this style -- if anyone could help me with that, it would be great.

    Read the article

  • Many-to-many relationship in oop

    - by Manu
    what is best way to model many-to-many relationship? lets say we have a two classes , Team and Player any given Player can be in multiple Team s any Team can have as many Player s as they like I like to call methods like playerX.getTeamList() to get the list of all the Team s he/she is in teamY.getPlayerList() to get the list of all the Player s in the team (or have some other way to do this effectively) I can think of two ways of doing this , but they just don't feels like good oop pattens. can you think of any good ways , perhaps a design patten ?

    Read the article

  • [Perl] Use a Module / Object which is defined in the same file

    - by Robert S. Barnes
    I need to define some modules and use them all in the same file. No, I can't change the requirement. I would like to do something like the following: { package FooObj; sub new { ... } sub add_data { ... } } { package BarObj; use FooObj; sub new { ... # BarObj "has a" FooObj my $self = ( myFoo => FooObj->new() ); ... } sub some_method { ... } } my $bar = BarObj->new(); However, this results in the message: Can't locate FooObj.pm in @INC ... BEGIN failed... How do I get this to work?

    Read the article

  • What should layers in dotnet application ?

    - by haansi
    I am using layered architecture in dotnet (mostly I work on web projects). I am confuse what layers should I use ? I have small idea that there should be the following layers. user interface customer types (custom entities) business logic layer data access layer My purpose is sure quality of work and maximum re-usability of code. some one suggested to add common types layer in it. Please guide me what should be layers ? and in each layer what part should go ?

    Read the article

  • Sharing class member data between sub components

    - by Tim Gradwell
    I have an aggregate 'main' class which contains some data which I wish to share. The main class also has other class members. I want to share the data with these other class members. What is the correct / neatest way to do this? The specific example I have is as follows. The main class is a .net Form. I have some controls (actually controls within controls) on the main form which need access to the shared data. Main Form - DataX - DataY - Control1 -- Subcontrol1 - Control2 -- SubControl2 SubControls 1 and 2 both wish to access DataX and DataY. The trouble is, I feel like better practice (to reduce coupling), would be that either subcontrols should not know about Main Form, or Main Form should not know about subcontrols - probably the former. For subcontrols not to know about Main Form, would probably mean Main Form passing references to both Controls 1 and 2, which in turn would pass the references on to SubControls 1 and 2. Lots of lines of code which just forward the references. If I later added DataZ and DataW, and Controls 3 and 4 and SubControls 3 and 4, I'd have to add lots more reference forwarding code. It seems simpler to me to give SubControls 1 and 2 member references to Main Form. That way, any sub control could just ask for MainForm.DataX or MainForm.DataY and if I ever added new data, I could just access it directly from the sub controls with no hassle. But it still involves setting the 'MainForm' member references every time I add a new Control or Subcontrol. And it gives me a gut feeling of 'wrong'. As you might be able to tell I'm not happy with either of my solutions. Is there a better way? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why Is Java Missing Access Specifiers?

    - by Tom Tresansky
    Does anyone understand why Java is missing: An access specifier which allows access by the class and all subclasses, but NOT by other classes in the same package? (Protected-minus) An access specifier which allows access by the class, all classes in the same package, AND all classes in any sub-package? (Default-plus) An access specifier which adds classes in sub-packages to the entities currently allowed access by protected? (Protected-plus) I wish I had more choices than protected and default. In particular, I'm interested in the Protected-plus option. Say I want to use a Builder/Factory patterned class to produce an object with many links to other objects. The constructors on the objects are all default, because I want to force you to use the factory class to produce instances, in order to make sure the linking is done correctly. I want to group the factories in a sub-package to keep them all together and distinct from the objects they are instantiating---this just seems like a cleaner package structure to me. No can do, currently. I have to put the builders in the same package as the objects they are constructing, in order to gain the access to defaults. But separating project.area.objects from project.area.objects.builders would be so nice. So why is Java lacking these options? And, is there anyway to fake it?

    Read the article

  • Avoiding sub-type selection in view code

    - by John Donoghue
    Hi, I have some code where the model contains some classes like (vb.net pseudocode, but could be any OO language): Enum AttributeType Boolean Date String End Enum MustInherit Class Attibute Must Override Function Type As AttributeType End Class Class BooleanAttribute: Attribute Function Type As AttributeType Return AttributeType.Boolean End Function End Class And the view contains some code like: Select Case AttributeType Case Boolean //Display checkbox control Case Date //Display date picker control Case String //Display textbox control End Select I don't really like the code in the view, for the hopefully obvious reasons (what happens when I get a new attribute type etc). My question is, how should I replace it? I could easily add a method to the concrete classes, but that pollutes the model with UI stuff so that's a horrible idea. I could move the select into a factory, but that seems to be just hiding the problem. Can anybody advise a better approach?

    Read the article

  • How can I call a Perl package I define in the same file?

    - by Robert S. Barnes
    I need to define some modules and use them all in the same file. No, I can't change the requirement. I would like to do something like the following: { package FooObj; sub new { ... } sub add_data { ... } } { package BarObj; use FooObj; sub new { ... # BarObj "has a" FooObj my $self = ( myFoo => FooObj->new() ); ... } sub some_method { ... } } my $bar = BarObj->new(); However, this results in the message: Can't locate FooObj.pm in @INC ... BEGIN failed... How do I get this to work?

    Read the article

  • Creating non-framework calsses in CakePHP

    - by Affian
    I'm making a tournament manager in CakePHP 1.3 and I have a tournament controller which is fine but I want to implement a interface that can be used to define how a tournament runs. the controller needs to load a concrete class that implements the TournamentStyle interface that defines how the tournament works. At the end of a round the TournamentStyle is used to calculate the scores and winners and generate the next round of matches. That gives me a .php file for the interface and other files for the various styles. My question is: where would I put these files and how would I load them into my tournament controller?

    Read the article

  • What is the right way to implement communication between java objects?

    - by imoschak
    I'm working on an academic project which simulates a rather large queuing procedure in java. The core of the simulator rests within one package where there exist 8 classes, each one implementing a single concept. Every class in the project follows SRP. These classes encapsulate the behavior of the simulator and inter-connect every other class in the project. The problem that has arisen is that most of these 8 classes are, as is logical i think, tightly coupled and each one has to have working knowledge of every other class in this package in order to be able to call methods from it when needed. The application needs only one instance of each class so it might be better to create static fields for each class in a new class and use that to make calls -instead of preserving a reference in each class for every other class in the package (which I'm certain that is incorrect)-, but is this considered a correct design solution? or is there a design pattern maybe that better suits my needs?

    Read the article

  • In what package should a "Settings" class be placed?

    - by Tom
    I'm in the middle of building an application but found myself too easily creating new packages without keeping the project's structure in mind. Now, I'm trying to redo the whole project structure on paper first. I am using a Settings class with public properties, accessed as settings for several other classes around the project. Now, since this Settings class applies for the whole project, I am unsure if it should be packaged and if so, in what kind of package should it exist? Or should it be in the root (the default package) with the main application class? I've been thinking about putting it in my utils package, then again I don't think it really is an utlity. Any strategies on how to decide on such package structure for example for a Settings class?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >