Search Results

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

Page 445/1635 | < Previous Page | 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452  | Next Page >

  • Managing inverse relationships without CoreData

    - by Nathaniel Martin
    This is a question for Objective-J/Cappuccino, but I added the cocoa tag since the frameworks are so similar. One of the downsides of Cappuccino is that CoreData hasn't been ported over yet, so you have to make all your model objects manually. In CoreData, your inverse relationships get managed automatically for you... if you add an object to a to-many relationship in another object, you can traverse the graph in both directions. Without CoreData, is there any clean way to setup those inverse relationships automatically? For a more concrete example, let's take the typical Department and Employees example. To use rails terminology, a Department object has-many Employees, and an Employee belongs-to a Department. So our Department model has an NSMutableSet (or CPMutableSet ) "employees" that contains a set of Employees, and our Employee model has a variable "department" that points back to the Department model that owns it. Is there an easy way to make it so that, when I add a new Employee model into the set, the inverse relationship (employee.department) automatically gets set? Or the reverse: If I set the department model of an employee, then it automatically gets added to that department's employee set? Right know I'm making an object, "ValidatedModel" that all my models subclass, which adds a few methods that setup the inverse relationships, using KVO. But I'm afraid that I'm doing a lot of pointless work, and that there's already an easier way to do this. Can someone put my concerns to rest?

    Read the article

  • Is there an ORM that supports composition w/o Joins

    - by Ken Downs
    EDIT: Changed title from "inheritance" to "composition". Left body of question unchanged. I'm curious if there is an ORM tool that supports inheritance w/o creating separate tables that have to be joined. Simple example. Assume a table of customers, with a Bill-to address, and a table of vendors, with a remit-to address. Keep it simple and assume one address each, not a child table of addresses for each. These addresses will have a handful of values in common: address 1, address 2, city, state/province, postal code. So let's say I'd have a class "addressBlock" and I want the customers and vendors to inherit from this class, and possibly from other classes. But I do not want separate tables that have to be joined, I want the columns in the customer and vendor tables respectively. Is there an ORM that supports this? The closest question I have found on StackOverflow that might be the same question is linked below, but I can't quite figure if the OP is asking what I am asking. He seems to be asking about foregoing inheritance precisely because there will be multiple tables. I'm looking for the case where you can use inheritance w/o generating the multiple tables. Model inheritance approach with Django's ORM

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to create a domain model for legacy code without refactoring?

    - by plaureano
    I currently have a client that wants me to 'abstract' out a domain model from the existing code but they specifically said that I shouldn't refactor the existing code itself. My question is 1) whether or not this is advisable and 2) what techniques would you apply in this scenario if you can't refactor the code yet they expect you to come up with a model for it? (EDIT: I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow, not being able to refactor in this case just feels wrong. Has anyone else run into this type of scenario?)

    Read the article

  • Should I use custom exceptions to control the flow of application?

    - by bonefisher
    Is it a good practise to use custom business exceptions (e.g. BusinessRuleViolationException) to control the flow of user-errors/user-incorrect-inputs??? The classic approach: I have a web service, where I have 2 methods, one is the 'checker' (UsernameAlreadyExists()) and the other one is 'creator' (CreateUsername())... So if I want to create a username, I have to do 2 roundtrips to webservice, 1.check, 2.if check is OK, create. What about using UsernameAlreadyExistsException? So I call only the 2. web service method (CrateUsername()), which contains the check and if not successfull, it throws the UsernameAlreadyExistsException. So the end goal is to have only one round trip to web service and the checking can be contained also in other web service methods (so I avoid calling the UsernameAlreadyExists() all the times..). Furthermore I can use this kind of business error handling with other web service calls completely avoiding the checking prior the call.

    Read the article

  • strategy for observer pattern?

    - by fayer
    I want to use observer pattern for a logging system. We have got logObservers and logObservables. The class that will have to log something will implement iLogObservable and include these methods: private $logObservers = array(); public function addLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function removeLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function write($type, $message) { foreach($this->logObservers as $logObserver) { $logObserver->log($level, $message); ; } } Then I noticed, that a lot of classes that will use logging will have these methods and I have to copy paste. So isn't it better to have these methods in a class I call LogObservable or just Log and then use strategy (instantiate this class inside all classes that will have to log). When I change the methods in Log, all logObservables will be affected. However, I have not seen anyone use observer pattern with strategy pattern yet, but it seems to be very efficient and remove the duplications. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Cleanly handling events

    - by nkr1pt
    I have code similar to this in all my observer classes that handle events fired by an event bus class. As you can see there are a lot of instanceof checks to choose the path of action needed to appropriately handle events, and I was wondering if this could be done more cleanly, eliminating the instanceof tests? @Override public void handleEvent(Event event) { if (event instanceof DownloadStartedEvent) { DownloadStartedEvent dsEvent = (DownloadStartedEvent)event; dsEvent.getDownloadCandidateItem().setState(new BusyDownloadingState()); } else if (event instanceof DownloadCompletedEvent) { DownloadCompletedEvent dcEvent = (DownloadCompletedEvent)event; dcEvent.getDownloadCandidateItem().setState(new FinishedDownloadingState()); DownloadCandidate downloadCandidate = dcEvent.getDownloadCandidateItem(). getDownloadCandidate(); if (downloadCandidate.isComplete()) { // start extracting } } else if (event instanceof DownloadFailedEvent) { DownloadFailedEvent dfEvent = (DownloadFailedEvent)event; dfEvent.getDownloadCandidateItem().setState(new FailedDownloadingState()); } }

    Read the article

  • PHP Object References in Frameworks

    - by bigstylee
    Before I dive into the disscusion part a quick question; Is there a method to determine if a variable is a reference to another variable/object? For example $foo = 'Hello World'; $bar = &$foo; echo (is_reference($bar) ? 'Is reference' : 'Is orginal'; I have been using PHP5 for a few years now (personal use only) and I would say I am moderately reversed on the topic of Object Orientated implementation. However the concept of Model View Controller Framework is fairly new to me. I have looked a number of tutorials and looked at some of the open source frameworks (mainly CodeIgnitor) to get a better understanding how everything fits together. I am starting to appreciate the real benefits of using this type of structure. I am used to implementing object referencing in the following technique. class Foo{ public $var = 'Hello World!'; } class Bar{ public function __construct(){ global $Foo; echo $Foo->var; } } $Foo = new Foo; $Bar = new Bar; I was surprised to see that CodeIgnitor and Yii pass referencs of objects and can be accessed via the following method: $this->load->view('argument') The immediate advantage I can see is a lot less code and more user friendly. But I do wonder if it is more efficient as these frameworks are presumably optimised? Or simply to make the code more user friendly? This was an interesting article Do not use PHP references.

    Read the article

  • Building a professional company website

    - by Sphynx
    Hi fellows, I want to create a professional website for my company. I'm not a designer. I know some html/css, but I don't have much experience making up advanced pages and layouts. I'd expect public area, with various articles, and a "customer zone", accessible via username and password, where clients will be able to track their orders and download files. It needs to look very modern. I don't want to use website templates, because they're too simple. I know some Wordpress, but that's mostly for blogs, and anyways you need to find a right theme besides the CMS itself... Is there any alternative solution, some kind of framework for building such portals? Preferably a system that doesn't require designer skills. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • [Delphi] How would you refactor this code?

    - by Al C
    This hypothetical example illustrates several problems I can't seem to get past, even though I keep trying!! ... Suppose the original code is a long event handler, coded in the UI, triggered when a user clicks a cell in a grid. Expressed as pseudocode it's: if Condition1=true then begin //loop through every cell in row, //if aCell/headerCellValue>1 then //color aCell red end else if Condition2=true then begin //do some other calculation adding cell and headerCell values, and //if some other product>2 then //color the whole row green end else show an error message I look at this and say "Ah, refactor to the strategy pattern! The code will be easier to understand, easier to debug, and easier to later extend!" I get that. And I can easily break the code into multiple procedures. The problem is ultimately scope related. Assume the pseudocode makes extensive use of grid properties, values displayed in cells, maybe even built-in grid methods. How do you move all that to another unit, without referencing the grid component in the UI--which would break all the "rules" about loose coupling that make OOP valuable? ... I'm really looking forward to responses. Thanks, as always -- Al C.

    Read the article

  • How can I handle dynamic calculated attributes in a model in Django?

    - by bullfish
    In Django I calculate the breadcrumb (a list of fathers) for an geographical object. Since it is not going to change very often, I am thinking of pre calculating it once the object is saved or initialized. 1.) What would be better? Which solution would have a better performance? To calculate it at _init_ or to calculate it when the object is saved (the object takes about 500-2000 characters in the DB)? 2.) I tried to overwrite the _init_ or save() methods but I don't know how to use attributes of the just saved object. Accessing *args, **kwargs did not work. How can I access them? Do I have to save, access the father and then save again? 3.) If I decide to save the breadcrumb. Whats the best way to do it? I used http://www.djangosnippets.org/snippets/1694/ and have crumb = PickledObjectField(). Thats the method to calculate the attribute crumb() def _breadcrumb(self): breadcrumb = [ ] x = self while True: x = x.father try: if hasattr(x, 'country'): breadcrumb.append(x.country) elif hasattr(x, 'region'): breadcrumb.append(x.region) elif hasattr(x, 'city'): breadcrumb.append(x.city) else: break except: break breadcrumb.reverse() return breadcrumb Thats my save-Method: def save(self,*args, **kwargs): # how can I access the father ob the object? father = self.father # does obviously not work father = kwargs['father'] # does not work either # the breadcrumb gets calculated here self.crumb = self._breadcrumb(father) super(GeoObject, self).save(*args,**kwargs) Please help me out. I am working on this for days now. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Immutable classes in C++

    - by ereOn
    Hi, In one of my projects, I have some classes that represent entities that cannot change once created, aka. immutable classes. Example : A class RSAKey that represent a RSA key which only has const methods. There is no point changing the existing instance: if you need another one, you just create one. My objects sometimes are heavy and I enforced the use of smart pointers to avoid copy. So far, I have the following pattern for my classes: class RSAKey : public boost::noncopyable, public boost::enable_shared_from_this<RSAKey> { public: /** * \brief Some factory. * \param member A member value. * \return An instance. */ static boost::shared_ptr<const RSAKey> createFromMember(int member); /** * \brief Get a member. * \return The member. */ int getMember() const; private: /** * \brief Constructor. * \param member A member. */ RSAKey(int member); /** * \brief Member. */ const int m_member; }; So you can only get a pointer (well, a smart pointer) to a const RSAKey. To me, it makes sense, because having a non-const reference to the instance is useless (it only has const methods). Do you guys see any issue regarding this pattern ? Are immutable classes something common in C++ or did I just created a monster ? Thank you for your advices !

    Read the article

  • How to make some functions of a class as private for third level of inheritance.

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I have created a class say A which has some functions defined as protected. Now Class B inherits A and class C inherits B. Class A has private default constructor and protected parameterized constructor. I want Class B to be able to access all the protected functions defined in Class A but class C can have access on some of the functions only not all the functions and class C is inheriting class B. How can I restrict access to some of the functions of Class A from Class C ? Class A { private A(){} protected A(int ){} protected calc(){} protected allow(){} } Class B : A {} // calc() and allow() should be accessible here CLass C:B { // calc() should not be accessible here but allow() should be accessible here. }

    Read the article

  • Events and references pattern

    - by serhio
    In a project I have the following relation between BO and GUI By e.g. G could represent a graphic with time lines, C a TimeLine curve, P - points of that curve and T the time that represents each point. Each GUI object is associated with the BO corresponding object. When T changes GUI P captures the Changed event and changes its location. So, when G should be modified, it modifies internally its objects and as result T changes, P moves and the GuiG visually changes, everything is OK. But there is an inconvenient of this architecture... BO should not be recreated, because this will breack the link between BO and GUIO. In particular, GUI P should always have the same reference of T. If in a business logic I do by e.g. P1.T = new T(this.T + 10) GUI_P1 will not move anymore, because it wait an event from the reference of former P1.T object, that does not belongs to P1 anymore. So the solution was to always modify the existing objects, not to recreate it. But here is an other inconvenient: performance. Say I have a ready newC object that should replace the older one. Instead of doing G1.C = newC I should do foreach T in foreach P in C replace with T from P from newC. Is there an other more optimal way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Need some clarification with Patterns (DAO x Gateway)

    - by Marcos Placona
    Me and my colleagues got into this discussion early this morning, and our opinions started to clash a bit, so I decided to get some impartial advice here. One of my colleagues reckons that the DAO should return an object (populated bean). I think it's completely fine when you're returning a recordset with only one line, but think it's overkill if you have to return 10 lines, and create 10 separate objects. I on the other see that the difference between DAO and Gateway pattern is that the gateway pattern will allow you to return a recordset to your business class, which will therefore deal with the recordset data and do whatever it needs to do. My questions here are: Which assumptions are correct? What should the return type be for a DAO (i.e. getContact() - for one record) Should getContacts() (for multiple records) even be on the DAO, if so, what's it's returntype? We seem to be having some sort of confusion about DAO and Gateway Patterns. Should they be used together? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Why should GoTos be bad?

    - by lisn
    I'm using gotos and a lot of them. C++, PHP or COBOL - I use them on nearly all occasions where everybody else would use functions or even classes. Yet my code is Clear Maintainable Bug-free Fast So why does everybody I meet tell me about how bad gotos are? Are there any facts that show that they are "bad"?

    Read the article

  • Automated Java to Scala source code conversion?

    - by Alex R
    (Yes I know I can call Java code from Scala; but that is pointless; I want to DELETE the Java code, not keep it around and have to look at it and maintain it forever!) Are there any utilities out there to convert Java source to Scala source? I believe theoretically it should be possible to accomplish with minimal lossage. I have found this but it seems inactive, probably buggy/incomplete... http://sourceforge.net/projects/java2scala/ Any alternatives?

    Read the article

  • Why Does Private Access Remain Non-Private in .NET Within a Class?

    - by AMissico
    While cleaning some code today written by someone else, I changed the access modifier from Public to Private on a class variable/member/field. I expected a long list of compiler errors that I use to "refactor/rework/review" the code that used this variable. Imagine my surprise when I didn't get any errors. After reviewing, it turns out that another instance of the Class can access the private members of another instance declared within the Class. Totally unexcepted. Is this normal? I been coding in .NET since the beginning and never ran into this issue, nor read about it. I may have stumbled onto it before, but only "vaguely noticed" and move on. Can anyone explain this behavoir to me? Am I doing something wrong? I found this behavior in both C# and VB.NET. The code seems to take advantage of the ability to access private variables. Sincerely, Totally Confused Class Foo Private _int As Integer Private _foo As Foo Private _jack As Jack Private _fred As Fred Public Sub SetPrivate() _foo = New Foo _foo._int = 3 'TOTALLY UNEXPECTED _jack = New Jack '_jack._int = 3 'expected compile error because Foo doesn't know Jack _fred = New Fred '_fred._int = 3 'expected compile error because Fred hides from Foo End Sub Private Class Fred Private _int As Integer End Class End Class Class Jack Private _int As Integer End Class

    Read the article

  • Initialization of components with interdependencies - possible antipattern?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm writing a game that has many components. Many of these are dependent upon one another. When creating them, I often get into catch-22 situations like "WorldState's constructor requires a PathPlanner, but PathPlanner's constructor requires WorldState." Originally, this was less of a problem, because references to everything needed were kept around in GameEngine, and GameEngine was passed around to everything. But I didn't like the feel of that, because it felt like we were giving too much access to different components, making it harder to enforce boundaries. Here is the problematic code: /// <summary> /// Constructor to create a new instance of our game. /// </summary> public GameEngine() { graphics = new GraphicsDeviceManager(this); Components.Add(new GamerServicesComponent(this)); //Sets dimensions of the game window graphics.PreferredBackBufferWidth = 800; graphics.PreferredBackBufferHeight = 600; graphics.ApplyChanges(); IsMouseVisible = true; screenManager = new ScreenManager(this); //Adds ScreenManager as a component, making all of its calls done automatically Components.Add(screenManager); // Tell the program to load all files relative to the "Content" directory. Assets = new CachedContentLoader(this, "Content"); inputReader = new UserInputReader(Constants.DEFAULT_KEY_MAPPING); collisionRecorder = new CollisionRecorder(); WorldState = new WorldState(new ReadWriteXML(), Constants.CONFIG_URI, this, contactReporter); worldQueryUtils = new WorldQueryUtils(worldQuery, WorldState.PhysicsWorld); ContactReporter contactReporter = new ContactReporter(collisionRecorder, worldQuery, worldQueryUtils); gameObjectManager = new GameObjectManager(WorldState, assets, inputReader, pathPlanner); worldQuery = new DefaultWorldQueryEngine(collisionRecorder, gameObjectManager.Controllers); gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine = worldQuery; pathPlanner = new PathPlanner(this, worldQueryUtils, WorldQuery); gameObjectManager.PathPlanner = pathPlanner; combatEngine = new CombatEngine(worldQuery, new Random()); } Here is an excerpt of the above that's problematic: gameObjectManager = new GameObjectManager(WorldState, assets, inputReader, pathPlanner); worldQuery = new DefaultWorldQueryEngine(collisionRecorder, gameObjectManager.Controllers); gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine = worldQuery; I hope that no one ever forgets that setting of gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine, or else it will fail. Here is the problem: gameObjectManager needs a WorldQuery, and WorldQuery needs a property of gameObjectManager. What can I do about this? Have I found an anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • Java interface and abstract class issue

    - by George2
    Hello everyone, I am reading the book -- Hadoop: The Definitive Guide, http://www.amazon.com/Hadoop-Definitive-Guide-Tom-White/dp/0596521979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273932107&sr=8-1 In chapter 2 (Page 25), it is mentioned "The new API favors abstract class over interfaces, since these are easier to evolve. For example, you can add a method (with a default implementation) to an abstract class without breaking old implementations of the class". What does it mean (especially what means "breaking old implementations of the class")? Appreciate if anyone could show me a sample why from this perspective abstract class is better than interface? thanks in advance, George

    Read the article

  • Spring 2.0.0/2.0.6 to 3.0.5 migration stories

    - by Pangea
    We are in the process of migrating to 3.0.5 of spring from 2.0.x. We mainly use spring in below scenarios custom scope: thread local scope persistence: jdbc+hibernate 3.6 (but moving to mix of ejb 3.0+jpa 2.0+hibernate, not sure if all 3 can co-exist in 1 app) transactions: local (but planning to use jta due to the necessity of using multiple persistence inits, and has to use ejb+jpa+hibernate in 1 single trans), declarative trans mgmt parent-child contexts cxf annotations+xml OracleLobHandler Resource/ResourceBundleMessageResource JSF/Facelets with FacesSpringVariableResolver ActiveMQ integration Quartz integration TaskExecutor JMX exporter HttpExporter/Invoker Appreciate if someone can share their experiences like what to watch out for head aches/pain points which ones to drop for better alternate choices in new 3.0.5 release Is it better to switch from commons/iscreen validator to Hibernate Validator (Spec impl) or Spring Validator Is there a bean mapping framework in spring that i can use instead of Dozer XSLT transformation helper: currently we have small homegrown framework to cache xslts during load. if spring can do that for me then I would like to drop this Encryption/Decryption support. Password generation support. Authentication with SALT any SAML (or claims based secur New ideas Suggestions Switch to latest version of aspectj Upgrade guide from 2.5 to 3.0.5

    Read the article

  • how to get access to private members of nested class?

    - by macias
    Background: I have enclosed (parent) class E with nested class N with several instances of N in E. In the enclosed (parent) class I am doing some calculations and I am setting the values for each instance of nested class. Something like this: n1.field1 = ...; n1.field2 = ...; n1.field3 = ...; n2.field1 = ...; ... It is one big eval method (in parent class). My intention is -- since all calculations are in parent class (they cannot be done per nested instance because it would make code more complicated) -- make the setters only available to parent class and getters public. And now there is a problem: when I make the setters private, parent class cannot acces them when I make them public, everybody can change the values and C# does not have friend concept I cannot pass values in constructor because lazy evaluation mechanism is used (so the instances have to be created when referencing them -- I create all objects and the calculation is triggered on demand) I am stuck -- how to do this (limit access up to parent class, no more, no less)? I suspect I'll get answer-question first -- "but why you don't split the evaluation per each field" -- so I answer this by example: how do you calculate min and max value of a collection? In a fast way? The answer is -- in one pass. This is why I have one eval function which does calculations and sets all fields at once.

    Read the article

  • what happens to running/blocked runnables when executorservice is shutdown()

    - by prmatta
    I posted a question about a thread pattern today, and almost everyone suggested that I look into the ExecutorService. While I was looking into the ExecutorService, I think I am missing something. What happens if the service has a running or blocked threads, and someone calls ExecutorService.shutdown(). What happens to threads that are running or blocked? Does the ExecutorService wait for those threads to complete before it terminates? The reason I ask this is because a long time ago when I used to dabble in Java, they deprecated Thread.stop(), and I remember the right way of stopping a thread was to use sempahores and extend Thread when necessary: public void run () { while (!this.exit) { try { block(); //do something } catch (InterruptedException ie) { } } } public void stop () { this.exit = true; if (this.thread != null) { this.thread.interrupt(); this.thread = null; } } How does ExecutorService handle running threads?

    Read the article

  • What is there so useful in the Decorator Pattern? My example doesn't work

    - by Green
    The book says: The decorator pattern can be used to extend (decorate) the functionality of a certain object I have a rabbit animal. And I want my rabbit to have, for example, reptile skin. Just want to decorate a common rabbit with reptile skin. I have the code. First I have abstract class Animal with everythig that is common to any animal: abstract class Animal { abstract public function setSleep($hours); abstract public function setEat($food); abstract public function getSkinType(); /* and more methods which for sure will be implemented in any concrete animal */ } I create class for my rabbit: class Rabbit extends Animal { private $rest; private $stomach; private $skinType = "hair"; public function setSleep($hours) { $this->rest = $hours; } public function setFood($food) { $this->stomach = $food; } public function getSkinType() { return $this->$skinType; } } Up to now everything is OK. Then I create abstract AnimalDecorator class which extends Animal: abstract class AnimalDecorator extends Animal { protected $animal; public function __construct(Animal $animal) { $this->animal = $animal; } } And here the problem comes. Pay attention that AnimalDecorator also gets all the abstract methods from the Animal class (in this example just two but in real can have many more). Then I create concrete ReptileSkinDecorator class which extends AnimalDecorator. It also has those the same two abstract methods from Animal: class ReptileSkinDecorator extends AnimalDecorator { public function getSkinColor() { $skin = $this->animal->getSkinType(); $skin = "reptile"; return $skin; } } And finaly I want to decorate my rabbit with reptile skin: $reptileSkinRabbit = ReptileSkinDecorator(new Rabbit()); But I can't do this because I have two abstract methods in ReptileSkinDecorator class. They are: abstract public function setSleep($hours); abstract public function setEat($food); So, instead of just re-decorating only skin I also have to re-decorate setSleep() and setEat(); methods. But I don't need to. In all the book examples there is always ONLY ONE abstract method in Animal class. And of course it works then. But here I just made very simple real life example and tried to use the Decorator pattern and it doesn't work without implementing those abstract methods in ReptileSkinDecorator class. It means that if I want to use my example I have to create a brand new rabbit and implement for it its own setSleep() and setEat() methods. OK, let it be. But then this brand new rabbit has the instance of commont Rabbit I passed to ReptileSkinDecorator: $reptileSkinRabbit = ReptileSkinDecorator(new Rabbit()); I have one common rabbit instance with its own methods in the reptileSkinRabbit instance which in its turn has its own reptileSkinRabbit methods. I have rabbit in rabbit. But I think I don't have to have such possibility. I don't understand the Decarator pattern right way. Kindly ask you to point on any mistakes in my example, in my understanding of this pattern. Thank you.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452  | Next Page >