Search Results

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

Page 46/585 | < Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >

  • WinForm Design?

    - by Soo
    I'm coming from a web dev background, and do ok, but with WinForms, everything I make looks like crap. Can you guys point me to resources with WinForm design principles that will make my WinForms easier on the eyes? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Method hiding with interfaces

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    interface IFoo { int MyReadOnlyVar { get; } } class Foo : IFoo { int MyReadOnlyVar { get; set; } } public IFoo GetFoo() { return new Foo { MyReadOnlyVar = 1 }; } Is the above an acceptable way of implementing a readonly/immutable object? The immutability of IFoo can be broken with a temporary cast to Foo. In general (non-critical) cases, is hiding functionality through interfaces a common pattern? Or is it considered lazy coding? Or even an anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • Simply doing modelType.ToString() isn't sufficient, How can i use it via Activator.CreateInstance?

    - by programmerist
    public class MyController { public object CreateByEnum(DataModelType modeltype) { string enumText = modeltype.ToString(); // will return for example "Company" Type classType = Type.GetType(enumText); // the Type for Company class object t = Activator.CreateInstance(classType); // create an instance of Company class return t; } } public class CompanyView { public static List<Personel> GetPersonel() { MyController controller = new MyController(); _Company company = controller.CreateByEnum(DataModelType.Company) as _Company; return company.GetPersonel(); } } public enum DataModelType { xyz, klm, tucyz, Company } Yes, I agree Activator.CreateInstance() is very useful. Unfortunately, I need to pass in the correct type. That means building the correct string to pass to Type.GetType(). If I trace through the call to Controller.CreatebyEnum() in the code I posted above, simply doing modelType.ToString() isn't sufficient, even for the case of DataModelType.Company. My solution'll be maintenance bottleneck. What would be better is something that takes the results of modelType.ToString() and then recursively searches through all the types found in all the assemblies loaded in the current AppDomain. According to MSDN, Type.GetType() only searches the current calling assembly, and mscorlib.dll. How can i do that? . i need best performance?

    Read the article

  • Parent child class relationship design pattern

    - by Jeremy
    I have a class which has a list of child items. Is there a design pattern I can copy that I can apply to these classes so that I can access the parent instance from the child, and it enforces rules such as not being able to add the child to multiple parents, etc?

    Read the article

  • Some basic UML questions

    - by devoured elysium
    What does it mean when you have something as the following picture? Each Customer has none, one or more Orders while each Order has only one Customer? And in relationship to the following one: What does the black diamond mean in this context? How is that black diamond called? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Elaboration of A quotation on 'Simple Design'

    - by HanuAthena
    An excerpt from Programming Perls: A Simple Design : Antonie de Saint-Exupery, the Fresh writer and aircraft designer, said that, *"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."* More programmers should judge their work by this criteria. Can any one elaborate this, please? What does the author mean when he say "...TAKE AWAY"

    Read the article

  • Facade controller, is it efficient?

    - by Berlioz
    Using a facade controller pattern in .net. It seems as if though it is not efficient BECAUSE, for every event that happens in a domain object(Sales, Register, Schedule, Car) it has to be subscribed to by the controller(use case controller) and then the controller in turn has to duplicate that same event to make it available for the presentation, so that the presentation can show it to the user. Does this make sense? Please comment!

    Read the article

  • Designing a class in such a way that it doesn't become a "God object"

    - by devoured elysium
    I'm designing an application that will allow me to draw some functions on a graphic. Each function will be drawn from a set of points that I will pass to this graphic class. There are different kinds of points, all inheriting from a MyPoint class. For some kind of points it will be just printing them on the screen as they are, others can be ignored, others added, so there is some kind of logic associated to them that can get complex. How to actually draw the graphic is not the main issue here. What bothers me is how to make the code logic such that this GraphicMaker class doesn't become the so called God-Object. It would be easy to make something like this: class GraphicMaker { ArrayList<Point> points = new ArrayList<Point>(); public void AddPoint(Point point) { points.add(point); } public void DoDrawing() { foreach (Point point in points) { if (point is PointA) { //some logic here else if (point is PointXYZ) { //...etc } } } } How would you do something like this? I have a feeling the correct way would be to put the drawing logic on each Point object (so each child class from Point would know how to draw itself) but two problems arise: There will be kinds of points that need to know all the other points that exist in the GraphicObject class to know how to draw themselves. I can make a lot of the methods/properties from the Graphic class public, so that all the points have a reference to the Graphic class and can make all their logic as they want, but isn't that a big price to pay for not wanting to have a God class?

    Read the article

  • Grasp Controller, Does it really need a UI to exist?

    - by dbones
    I have a Domain model which can be in multiple states, and if these states go out of a given range it the domain should automatically react. For example I have a Car which is made of multiple things which have measurements the Engine - Rev counter and Temperature the Fuel Tank - capacity Is is plaseable to have a CarStateController, which observses the engine and the tank, and if these states go out of range IE the engine temperature goes above range, turn the engine fan on?? There is no UI, (you could argue it would show a light on the dash board, but for this case it does not) is this a valid use of a GRASP controller pattern? if not what is this CarStateController Called? Or have I completely missed the point and this should be the State Pattern?

    Read the article

  • Looking for design help

    - by jess
    I have this scenario in most of the WindowsForms having grids I have a sequence of code which is similar - AddNewRow(in grid),CreateNewEntity,notifyUser,few other steps Now, I want to use a template kind of pattern.But,my issue is with CreateEntity method since sometimes it is passed a parameter which is different depending on the type of object being created.Should I make createentity accept an "object" type,and cast when the parameter is to be used.What other way can I tackle this design issue? Also,CreateEntity returns the object being created.

    Read the article

  • Database design question (Book Trading System)

    - by Paul
    Hello all! I´m developing a Book Trading System... The user will input your Book to trading... I already have a table tblBook with "all" existing books ... So the user will select one book from that list and fill the book´s CONDITIONS and Edition... So, what is a good Database design to tha case? tblBook = All books tblUserBook = All User Books And making tblUserBook to inheritance tblBook? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Designing different Factory classes (and what to use as argument to the factories!)

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say we have the following piece of code: public class Event { } public class SportEvent1 : Event { } public class SportEvent2 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent1 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent2 : Event { } public interface IEventFactory { bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString); Event CreateEvent(string inputString); } public class EventFactory { private List<IEventFactory> factories = new List<IEventFactory>(); public void AddFactory(IEventFactory factory) { factories.Add(factory); } //I don't see a point in defining a RemoveFactory() so I won't. public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { try { //iterate through all factories. If one and only one of them accepts //the string, generate the event. Otherwise, throw an exception. return factories.Single(factory => factory.AcceptsInputString(inputString)).CreateEvent(inputString); } catch (InvalidOperationException e) { throw new InvalidOperationException("No valid factory found to generate this kind of Event!", e); } } } public class SportEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("SportEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new SportEvent1(); } } public class MedicalEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("MedicalEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new MedicalEvent1(); } } And here is the code that runs it: static void Main(string[] args) { EventFactory medicalEventFactory = new EventFactory(); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent1Factory()); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent2Factory()); EventFactory sportsEventFactory = new EventFactory(); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent1Factory()); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent2Factory()); } I have a couple of questions: Instead of having to add factories here in the main method of my application, should I try to redesign my EventFactory class so it is an abstract factory? It'd be better if I had a way of not having to manually add EventFactories every time I want to use them. So I could just instantiate MedicalFactory and SportsFactory. Should I make a Factory of factories? Maybe that'd be over-engineering? As you have probably noticed, I am using a inputString string as argument to feed the factories. I have an application that lets the user create his own events but also to load/save them from text files. Later, I might want to add other kinds of files, XML, sql connections, whatever. The only way I can think of that would allow me to make this work is having an internal format (I choose a string, as it's easy to understand). How would you make this? I assume this is a recurrent situation, probably most of you know of any other more intelligent approach to this. I am then only looping in the EventFactory for all the factories in its list to check if any of them accepts the input string. If one does, then it asks it to generate the Event. If you find there is something wrong or awkward with the method I'm using to make this happen, I'd be happy to hear about different implementations. Thanks! PS: Although I don't show it in here, all the different kind of events have different properties, so I have to generate them with different arguments (SportEvent1 might have SportName and Duration properties, that have to be put in the inputString as argument).

    Read the article

  • Basic Database Design

    - by Thurein
    Hi, This question would be a bit childish, I have three tables, users, usergroups and contacts. In my system, the end user can create a contact and subsequently he\she may define the visibility of the contact by setting only for that user, or for a set of users or a set of usergroups. So I am wondering, how my database design would be, it should be many to many between users and contacts or many to many between usergroups and contacts. Definitely there is a one to many relationship between users and usergroups. Thanks Thurein

    Read the article

  • how to design this relation in a DB schema

    - by raticulin
    I have a table Car in my db, one of the columns is purchaseDate. I want to be able to tag every car with a number of Policies (limited to 10 policies). Each policy has a time to life (ttl, a duration of time, like '5 years', '10 months' etc), that is, for how long since the car's purchaseDate the policy can be applied. I need to perform the following actions: when inserting a Car, it will be set with a number of Policies (at least one is set) sometimes a Car will be updated to add/remove a Policy searches must be done taking into account date/policies, for example: 'select all cars that are not covered by any policy as of today' My current design is (pol0..pol9 are the policies): CREATE TABLE Car ( id int NOT NULL IDENTITY(1,1), purchaseDate datetime NOT NULL, //more stuff... pol0 smallint default NULL, pol1 smallint default NULL, pol2 smallint default NULL, pol3 smallint default NULL, pol4 smallint default NULL, pol5 smallint default NULL, pol6 smallint default NULL, pol7 smallint default NULL, pol8 smallint default NULL, pol9 smallint default NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) CREATE TABLE Policy ( id smallint NOT NULL, name varchar(50) collate Latin1_General_BIN NOT NULL, ttl varchar(100) collate Latin1_General_BIN NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) The problem I am facing is that the sql to perform the query above is a nightmare to write. As I don't know in which column each policy can be, so I have to check all columns for every policy etc etc. So I am wondering wether it is worth changing this. My questions are: The smallint as Policy id was chosen instead of an 'int IDENTITY' in order to save some space as there are going to be millions of Car records. It just adds complexity when creating a Policy as we must handle the id etc. Was it worth doing this? I am thinking that maybe there is a much better design? Obviously we could move the policy/car relation to its own table CarPolicy, benefits would be: no limit on 10 policies per car adding/removing etc much easier when only the default policy is applied (when no others are applied one called Default policy is applied), we could signal that by not having any entry in CarPolicy, now this is just done inserting the Default policy id in one of the columns. The cons are that we would need to change the DB, ORM classes etc. What would you recommend? Maybe there is another smart way to implement this that we are not aware without using the CarPolicy table?

    Read the article

  • Is the a pattern for iterating over lists held by a class (dynamicly typed OO languages)

    - by Roman A. Taycher
    If I have a class that holds one or several lists is it better to allow other classes to fetch those lists(with a getter) or to implement a doXList/eachXList type method for that list that take a function and call that function on each element of the list contained by that object. I wrote a program that did a ton of this and I hated passing around all these lists sometimes with method in class a calling method in class B to return lists contained in class C, B contains a C or multiple C's (note question is about dynamically typed OO languages languages like ruby or smalltalk) ex. (that came up in my program) on a Person class containing scheduling preferences and a scheduler class needing to access them.

    Read the article

  • Can we create a class from a xml file ?

    - by panzerschreck
    Hello, Is it possible to create a class dynamically by reading an xml file ( in java preferably) ? if yes, please provide pointers on how to do it. In the process of development, we have come up with a class that has 5 attributes, all these attributes correspond to an entry in the xml file, now if the user adds/modifies the xml entry the object corresponding to it must change automatically, one approach would be generate the source code, before compile time.Is there any other way ? Is there any common pattern to model such changes in the system ? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to static methods on interfaces for enforcing consistency

    - by jayshao
    In Java, I'd like to be able to define marker interfaces, that forced implementations to provide static methods. For example, for simple text-serialization/deserialization I'd like to be able to define an interface that looked something like this: public interface TextTransformable<T>{ public static T fromText(String text); public String toText(); Since interfaces in Java can't contain static methods though (as noted in a number of other posts/threads: here, here, and here this code doesn't work. What I'm looking for however is some reasonable paradigm to express the same intent, namely symmetric methods, one of which is static, and enforced by the compiler. Right now the best we can come up with is some kind of static factory object or generic factory, neither of which is really satisfactory. Note: in our case our primary use-case is we have many, many "value-object" types - enums, or other objects that have a limited number of values, typically carry no state beyond their value, and which we parse/de-parse thousands of time a second, so actually do care about reusing instances (like Float, Integer, etc.) and its impact on memory consumption/g.c. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >